You will be aware that there is a possibility of a formal proposal to develop a windfarm on land that forms part of the Kelmarsh farm estate.
The arguments for and against energy generation from renewables such as wind are complex and to a large
extent irrelevant to the detail of this proposal.
Significant opinion (including that of the appropriate regulator) exists to suggest that the current subsidy structure is grossly and incorrectly skewed towards onshore development and in the fullness of time we may well find that changes to the subsidies render such developments utterly uneconomic.
What matters in the case of the Kelmarsh proposal is its sheer inappropriateness and its potential effects on the area. It would be hard to find a more inappropriate site for a large windfarm.
First, Northamptonshire has already met its 2010 renewables target, such that there is no real reason to grant further permissions.
Second, and I suspect for reasons of access and existing noise nuisance, a site close to the A14 has been selected.
This may have a willing landowner but it also brings several negative consequences.
The generally low winds speeds across the Midlands mean that there is a premium on having towers as high as the developer can get away with, in this case some 120 metres, which is considerably higher than those we are getting used to seeing and that anyhow will be totally out of scale with the generally intimate patchwork landscape of fields and narrow lanes that we enjoy.
A moment's work with an Ordnance Survey map will show that the towers – roughly the height of Northampton's famous 'lighthouse' – will be visible over a very wide area.
We are already and regrettably accustomed to road traffic accidents on the hill going westwards on A14 from its junction with A508 and I cannot help but think that the visual distraction, including possible 'shadow flicker', will add to this nuisance.
Third, at a time when monies are being spent on developing heritage aspects of the Naseby battlefield site, allowing such a development almost immediately alongside seems perverse in the extreme.
Fourth, although we may have to wait for the detail, the designated area in the vicinity of Tallyho Covert is crossed by at least two public rights of way, which must be at hazard.
Fifth, I am no expert on the ecological effects of wind turbines, but I have seen enough of the scientific evidence relating to the propagation of low frequency noise/vibration to ignore any developer claims and to suspect that the nuisance will extend much further than might be suggested.
Finally, it seems clear that if granted, this development will prove to be very much the thin edge of a very thick wedge of unwelcome and inappropriate quasi-industrial development that will further diminish the quality of life in the area.
David J Unwin,
Draughton Road,
Maidwell.
