Archive for the ‘Essex wind farm’ Category

Video of Dr. Copes Speaking in Owen Sound-Wind Turbines

October 3, 2009

Editor:

As you read the article that follows, pay attention to what Bill Murdoch MPP has to say. First – the Ont. Conservative Party planned to install more wind turbines than the Liberals – stated in their 2007 election platform.

Murdoch says he opposed the GEA but he never bothered to vote against it.  When his office was asked why Murdoch was not in the House for the vote his rep said he had a prior engagement.  What could be more important than voting on the removal of Municipal rights.

Murdoch is as guilty as anyone for not standing up for the people of his riding. Why was he not holding information meetings in his riding to inform and advise his constituents about the coming folly.

Why didn’t Murdoch attend the meeting held on the 1st?  It was held just down the street form his office

Gutless, or part of the Treason taking place in this province. You decide!

Posted By Denis Langlois   Owen Sound Times

It’s too late to stop the surge of wind-farm development in Ontario, even by arguing the turbines cause illness, says Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound MPP Bill Murdoch.

“As far as what they can do about it, there really isn’t a heck of a lot,” he said yesterday.

Murdoch’s comments come a day after about 120 people attended a public meeting at the Grey Bruce Health Unit in Owen Sound about health effects of wind turbines.

The Progressive Conservative MPP said residents’ concerns will likely fall on deaf ears of policy makers and Liberal cabinet ministers at Queen’s Park, since the Green Energy Act is now law.

Asked what people can do, Murdoch initially said “not a thing. It’s over. It’s a law.”

Later, he said concerned residents can write to Premier Dalton McGuinty or the Ontario Ministry of Health. Letters to Murdoch’s office will be forwarded, he said.

“They’re pretty much euchred. I don’t know where they can go. Some will say (I) can do something about it. There’s not a thing I can do about it. It’s a law,” he said.

People who believe the giant wind turbines cause illness can seek medical attention from a doctor, retain a lawyer and sue, Murdoch said, but that will likely be a “waste of money.”

Emotions ran high at Thursday’s public meeting, which the health unit organized to provide wind turbine information to residents.

Keynote speaker Dr. Ray Copes, a director at the Ontario Agency of Health Protection and Promotion, was heckled by the crowd several times after his one-hour slide presentation revealed little new information.

People took exception to Copes’ characterization of health impacts caused by turbines as an “annoyance” and his claim no proof exists linking illness to wind turbines.

People opposed to wind farms say turbines cause health problems such as chronic sleep disturbance, dizziness, exhaustion, anxiety, depression, irritability, nausea and ringing in ears.

Medical officer of health Dr. Hazel Lynn said she is aware “suffering” is being attributed to turbines, but has no power to make or influence changes to the Green Energy Act. The health unit cannot perform in-depth studies on health claims either, she said.

Lynn criticized the act at the public meeting, saying “we need more choices” since it strips local municipalities of the authority to make decisions about turbine setbacks. The act requires a 550-metre setback from a turbine to residential properties.

Murdoch said he opposed the act at Queen’s Park for that reason.

Progressive Conservatives MPPs voted against it and Murdoch said perhaps a change in government would lead to some changes. The next provincial election is in 2011.

“There’s going to be a lot of wind turbines put up in the next two years, I would assume, within the context of that law,” he said.

The province has promised to eliminate coal-fired power by 2014 and add 975 wind turbines by 2012.

A second public meeting, organized by the health unit, is scheduled for Tuesday from 7 to 9 p.m. at Walkerton’s Jubilee Hall.

Turbine leaseholder complains of noise

March 4, 2009

Turbine leaseholder complains of noise in Cohocton, New York

Description:

Wind power: Another look

December 17, 2008

Editor:

The letter below, Wind power: Another Look by Dr Ruth Pugh DC reiterates what people have been saying for years.

The wind industry and govt. got the public to accept the idea of wind farms by using the brainwashing techniques of repetition and perception and they have been relentless in their efforts.

You can’t turn on a TV pick, up a paper or listen to the radio without being exposed to the propaganda machine selling ‘wind energy’.

My nephew dropped by and downloaded a racing game and sure enough, as he was racing around, there they were – wind turbines along the side of the road.

I called the office of CanWEA in Ottawa just over two years ago and told Britt (communications director) that the wind industry would be over in two years.  I couldn’t see how the perception could last any longer.

By the way Mr. Hornung (president of CanWEA) – Britt said you would call me back to discuss my concerns – I’m still waiting.

Once I discovered the depth of the deception and the political connections, I realized it would take some very dedicated people to bring the truth to the average person.

Those people are now in place and more are joining everyday, in the effort to expose the wind industry for what it is, and they are committed to their goal.

Perception is a tool used to sell product and ideas.  Perception and reality are seldom the same.

In the movie about Enron, there is a statement ” As long as the perception holds – it is the truth.” Truth finally caught up with Enron. (Enron and the Environmental Movement)

Paul Watson co-founder of Greenpeace said “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true”.

Enron collapsed and so will the wind industry, because truth will eventually win out over perception.

Enjoy the Holidays and begin the new year with a rested and renewed spirit.

Ron Stephens

http://www.windfarms.wordpress.com

Wind power: Another look

Concerning wind energy and the proposed wind farms in Oxford county, certainly health hazards to those who live near wind farms is a consideration. However, let’s look at the legitimacy and desirability of wind power as a source of energy.

At first glance wind power seems like a clean, renewable source of energy, part of the solution for global warming.

However, wind power is unpredictable. Energy from industrial wind power can not be stored. Thus, when the wind is not blowing consistently the wind turbines must be backed up by conventional power sources. The most effective backup is natural gas generators. How often does the wind not reach Base Load electricity demands? The existing wind turbines in Ontario in 2006 and 2007 reached less than 10 per cent of what the system demanded over 50 per cent of the time.

Ms. Schofield suggested looking at the successful use of wind energy in Europe. In Germany and Spain, natural gas generators are installed to offset the unpredictable output from the wind. The generators output nearly matches the wind turbines output. Protests in France, Denmark and Holland have caused stiff restrictions to be placed on further wind turbine construction. In June 2008, an independent study of the success of wind turbines in the U.K. determined that wind power was “expensive, unreliable, and not saving any natural gas.” In the U.S., Senator Alexander looked at independent studies and determined that wind power provided “puny amounts of high-cost unreliable power.” No fossil fuel facilities have been shut down or not built due to the roughly 50,000 world-wide wind turbines.

So on top of health hazards, devaluing real estate, and the cost to consumers and taxpayers to pay for government subsidies and tax breaks for these wind farms, we find out that they don’t even provide the “green” power we’d like to believe they did. Not that’s a con.

The risks of allowing these wind farms in Oxford County far outweigh any benefits.

Dr Ruth Pugh DC

Woodstock

Woodstock Sentinel-Review

17 December 2008

Essex considers wind farms ban

December 16, 2008

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine

Essex considers wind farms ban

ESSEX — The Town of Essex became the first area municipality to propose a ban Monday on wind turbine projects until all health questions raised by residents are clearly answered by provincial experts.

“We are gambling with the health, safety and quality of life of the people around us,” said Coun. Ron Rogers, who proposed the ban. “We need answers and guidance from our provincial ministries.”

The council debate on the ban is set for Feb. 23 to allow wind industry, provincial government and health experts to respond to issues such as noise, vibration, risk of structural failure, ice throw from blades, and electrical surges.

Input will also be sought from other Ontario municipalities that have banned or are about to ban the giant turbines even though provincial planning policy has encouraged wind energy development.

Rogers said he was frustrated with the divergent opinions on wind turbines, and the lack of help from the province and Essex County in sorting them out.

Among local municipalities, for example, the minimum proposed setback from turbines to homes ranges from the high of 600 metres in Amherstburg to the low of 300 metres in Lakeshore and Kingsville, Rogers noted. Essex decided to go down the middle with a minimum setback of 450 metres, he added.

Provincial experts ought to advise municipalities on safe setbacks for wind turbines so the numbers don’t vary all over Ontario, Rogers said.

The $100,000 study done by Essex County on wind energy ducked the minimum setback issue completely, Rogers said.

Council chamber was packed with residents who mostly applauded Roger’s idea. Mayor Ron McDermott had to ask some not to interrupt councilors or risk ejection.

None of the companies that have proposed wind turbine projects in the town were present.

Closest to starting construction in 2009 is a 24 turbine, $100 million project by AIM PowerGen over 1,400 acres of farmland southwest of Harrow. That project is supposed to annually generate about $300,000 in lease payments to farmers and about $81,000 in property taxes.

“I won’t support the motion before us tonight,” said Coun. Randy Voakes. “Don’t think I haven’t wrestled with it.”

In tough economic times, the town has to accept development that will bring some new jobs and revenue into the community, Voakes. “Every little bit will help families in need,” he said.

Voakes thought the health questions raised by Rogers had been answered in the last two years. “We’re the only municipality dragging our feet on this issue.”

But Rogers downplayed the job creation benefits of wind turbines as limited to construction crews and a handful of full-time maintenance workers.

McDermott objected to the government telling municipalities to accept wind energy without answering all the questions that residents are asking. “They’re making us spend our money to investigate this,” said the mayor.

“I want the province to tell me what a safe setback is,” said Deputy Mayor Richard Meloche.

Meloche added: “I probably get 20 emails a day on the horror stories people have gone through.” On the other hand, he added, wind turbine companies say complaints are rare and the risks minimal.

“I have concerns,” said Meloche – but not the expertise to make decisions.

Full story at the Windsor Star

Leave a comment here or at the Star.

More growers turn to coal – Use of Coal is Expanding in the Province of Ontario

November 12, 2008

Editor: Can it get any more ridiculous?

Ontario is hell bent to close our coal plants and replace them with intermittent wind farms and solar parks – backed up by expensive gas plants.

If you asked someone to design the worst electrical system they could, it would likely be the one described above. The very things you would want to avoid if possible. Expensive and unreliable.

How do you promote an expensive, unreliable electrical system?

Are you stupid? Own a business?

Ontario is the place for you!

Shouldn’t the growers be using renewables like wind and solar? Not if you want your tomatoes.(wind and solar create carbon credits. We need reliable cost effective energy)

Dump the green lobbyists today – Call in the engineers and lets get a system that is cost effective and reliable. I have said this too many times but I will say it once more.

I had a long talk with the senior policy adviser for the Ministry of Energy and he agreed that the best system for Ontario was to put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build a nuke. 10 billion. Cost effective and as clean as we will get.

The green lobbyists plan-60+ billion (that’s a lot of your taxes wasted) for a system that is more expensive, unreliable and in the end not likely any cleaner than the one the policy adviser would build.

“This is about politics” I was told by the adviser. Well folks – heat your home or greenhouse with politics.

Read the story and if you are not outraged by this govt. – you probably work for them or one of the lobbyists.

.

More growers turn to coal

TORONTO STAR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

TORONTO STAR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

Tyler Hamilton

Energy Reporter

“Coal is expanding in the province, despite a policy to phase out coal,” says Roger Samson, executive director of REAP-Canada, an independent group that encourages sustainable farming practices. “The Ontario government has no plan on how to mitigate this.”

How much coal, potentially, are we talking about? The energy demands of a typical greenhouse are enormous. Shalin Khosla, a greenhouse specialist with the agriculture ministry, says anywhere between 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the costs of operating a modern vegetable greenhouse goes toward energy consumption. The figure is closer to 20 per cent for flower growers.

It’s estimated that greenhouses in Ontario cover 2,823 acres, and that the average greenhouse requires 9,500 gigajoules of energy per acre every year. This works out to 26.8 million gigajoules annually.

Convert that energy into electricity potential and it works out to 7.44 terawatt-hours a year – more than three times the 2004 electricity output of the Lakeview coal-fired generating station in Mississauga (which has since been closed down and demolished).

That’s equivalent to more than one million tonnes of coal being burned annually.

It’s a mathematical exercise that raises a serious public policy question: What’s preventing the entire greenhouse industry from moving to coal, and in doing so, undermining the spirit of the McGuinty government’s coal phase-out strategy?

Not much, it appears. Unlike power plants and other major industrial facilities, greenhouses can burn whatever fuel they want without much scrutiny.

Keith Stewart, an energy expert with WWF-Canada and author of a book on Ontario’s electricity system, calls the situation “perverse” and a reflection of inconsistent government policy.

“Outdated energy policy is giving us coal-fired tomatoes,” he says.

full story at the Toronto Star

Tyler Hamilton can’t seem to write a story without including Keith Stewart in it. Tyler, go find some engineers. Stewart has a Phd in political science and environment. He is not a energy expert nor is the WWF.

I haven’t read his book but I have read enough “green” policy papers to pretty much know what it says. Green politics does not make an energy expert.

Stewart is a lobbyist for the green movement. Gerald Butts the ex-principal Secretary for McGuinty is now with the WWF. Robert Hornung of CanWEA and the Pembina Institute along with his friend David Suzuki are all involved in pressuring the govt. to adopt their policies and in the process are doing great harm to this Province and Canada.

None of these people are employed by the govt. nor are they elected and I don’t believe any of them are engineers.

They are promoters of a massive fraud that goes by the name of “Man Made Global Warming”.

So butt the fuck out of our electrical system.

If you don’t like Canada – go join your mentor Maurice Strong in China. They use lots of coal there. Go bother the Chinese

If any of you mentioned above would like to enter into an open debate, or have a comment-I’m available.

Germany Plans Boom in Coal-Fired Power Plants

Premier, Dalton McGuinty powers a press conference with wind energy



WCO (Wind Concerns Ontario)

October 30, 2008

Wind Concerns Ontario Is  a coalition of 22 small rural groups opposing projects in their own municipalities.

Suncor wind farm Ripley

Suncor wind farm Ripley

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Wind Concerns Ontario

South Algonquin declares moratorium on wind farms; No turbines to be built for 10 years, council says

October 22, 2008

Editor: Ever since I got involved in the STOP THE WINDMILLS fight, 2 years ago, I’ve continually said that it would be the folks in the eastern part of Ontario that would be the ones to show the way for the rest of the province. The people of the Ottawa Valley still know what’s important!

I salute the council!

To the councils in SW Ontario – it’s time you stood up for your constituents. The time has come to stop rolling over to the whims of the wind industry and the govt. Take a trip to Eastern Ontario, borrow some backbone and stand up for your constituents.

You don’t do this to your friends and neighbors!
Not for any amount of money

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

South Algonquin declares moratorium on wind farms; No turbines to be built for 10 years, council says

No wind-powered energy projects will be approved in South Algonquin for the next 10 years, the township’s council has declared.

The declaration, which was supported unanimously by councillors, came last Thursday night following a council meeting considering a proposal to construct a series of wind-power turbines in the hills along the Highway 60 corridor.

RES (Renewable Energy Systems) Canada wants to build 40 to 60 of the massive wind-power turbines in the area east of Algonquin Park. The plans, particularly for the construction of several of the turbines around pristine McCauley Lake, are unpopular with many seasonal and year-round residents. Several opponents of the project were present at the meeting, and gave a short presentation.

Cottager Brent Peterson, representing “the McCauley Lake Families,” said the 45 families on the lake just east of Algonquin are “the only community directly within the Whitney Wind farm study area.”

“We are united as a community, and we are asking for your protection,” he told council. The cottagers are asking that RES be required to locate its turbines, currently planned for the hills in full view of the quiet lake, out of sight and hearing distance from the lake. The PowerPoint presentation showed photographs of the lake’s vista, along with enhanced pictures showing what that vista would look like with wind turbines erected on the surrounding hills.

“These things are massive and they will completely change the experience of living on the lake,” Peterson said. “Your constituents are extremely anxious and very upset.” Peterson added that the McCauley Lake residents “know this is a big decision and that there are a lot of dollars involved.” But he said many of the people are considering leaving the area, or putting off plans to retire to their cottages if the turbines are built.

Harvey Leeman, a longtime Ontario Hydro employee and a McCauley Lake resident since 1949, and a hunter and fisherman as well as a forest manager, questioned both the assessed impact of the wind turbines on wildlife and the need for the electricity they will produce.

The RES proposal wants to take over “the heart of the last block of public land” in the Algonquin Park area, Leeman said. He pointed out that, while the company says each turbine has a one-acre footprint, “they want 6,000 acres of Crown land” for the project.

He pointed out that there are few local benefits from the turbines, either in jobs or in significant tax income and said RES estimates of job creation and local benefits come with heavy qualifications and are “greatly exaggerated.” The estimated $150,000 in tax income for South Algonquin would be lost in the decreased property values that the turbines would cause, he charged.

After the presentation, Councillor Richard Shalla presented a motion, seconded by Councillor Joe Florent, that would impose a moratorium on wind turbine approvals. After some discussion, the motion was amended to set the 10-year period, and a provision was added for a township-wide referendum on wind turbines, if council deems it necessary.

The motion was approved unanimously, and sparked loud and prolonged applause from the small group of people in the audience.

“I’ve been at council a long time and I’ve never had people clap for me,” Mayor Percy Bresnahan said, sparking laughter throughout the room.

Stephen Cookson, development manager for the RES Canada project, said he understands the reasoning behind the township’s move. He said RES remains committed to its plans.

“This is a very, very long process and we’re at the very beginning of the environmental assessment process.” He added that RES is confident that once the benefits of the project are understood by the community and council, “they will see it in a better light.” The company will hold more open house meetings, probably in the spring or summer of next year, to keep the public fully informed, Cookson said in a telephone interview from Vancouver. He stressed that RES wants to maintain “an open dialogue with the community of South Algonquin.”

“I think South Algonquin is being very prudent in waiting until all the information is in concerning the project. We hope that council will take as good a sounding as is possible” on the proposal.

Barry’s Bay This Week

22 October 2008

Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?

August 23, 2008

Let’s start with what one manufacturer considers to be safe for its workers. The safety regulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300-ft rotor span and a total height of 410 feet, tell operators and technicians to stay 1,300 feet from an operating turbine — over 3 times its total height — unless absolutely necessary.

That already is a much greater distance than many regulations currently require as a minimum distance between wind turbines and homes, and it is concerned only with safety, not with noise or visual intrusion.

In February 2008, a 10-year-old Vestas turbine with a total height of less than 200 feet broke apart in a storm. Large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 meters (1,640 feet).

The Fuhrländer turbine planned for Barrington, R.I., is 328 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 77 meters, or just over 250 feet (sweeping more than an acre of vertical air space). According to one news report, the manufacturer recommends a setback of 1,500 feet, over 4.5 times the total height. In Wisconsin, where towns can regulate utility zoning for health and safety concerns, ordinances generally specify a setback of one-half mile (2,640 ft) to residences and workplaces.

But that may just be enough to protect the turbines from each other, not to adequately protect the peace and health of neighbors.

When part of an array, turbines should be at least 10 rotor diameters apart to avoid turbulence from each other. In the case of the proposed 77-meter rotor span in Barrington, that would be 770 meters, or 2,525 feet. For the Gamesa G87, that’s 2,850 feet; for the Vestas V90, 2,950 feet — well over half a mile.

Jane and Julian Davis, whose home is 930 m (3,050 ft) from the Deeping St. Nicholas wind energy facility in England, have been forced by the noise to rent another place in which to sleep. In July 2008 they were granted a 14% council tax reduction in recognition of their loss. It appears in this case that the combination of several turbines creates a manifold greater disturbance.

Since the human ear (not to mention the sensory systems of other animals or the internal organs of bats, which, it is now emerging, are crushed by the air pressure) is more sensitive than a giant industrial machine, doubling that would be a reasonable precaution (at least for the human neighbors — it still doesn’t help wildlife).

Sound experts Rick James and George Kamperman recommend a 1 km (3,280 ft) distance in rural areas.

Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km) between giant wind turbines and homes. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin implemented such a setback. National Wind Watch likewise advocates a minimum one-mile setback.

More at Kirby Mountain

Wind turbines 'are ruining our quality of life'

July 25, 2008

Editor:

The problems with wind turbines being placed near homes has been known for years.

The Govt of Ontario is well aware of the problems, because they have volumes of information on the subject, but have chosen to ignore it. They
are guilty of putting the health of residents of Ontario at risk.

A fact that can no longer be disputed.

Dr. Ian Gemmill, Kingston’s medical officer of health, said – “that though there are concerns about low-level noise, appearance and stress caused by the turbines, research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms”.(People forced from their homes or stay and suffer ill health)

Board member Vicki Schmolka told the board that she wasn’t sure that
she agreed with Gemmill’s conclusion. She indicated that she felt there
are health concerns associated with the turbines that the board should
investigate further.

The abuse of the residents of Ontario Must stop NOW!

A moratorium on any further construction of wind turbines must be put in place, until it can be proven by Heath Canada that they are safe for the public to live near.
For safety reasons, there are no smoking laws, seat belt laws, life jacket laws etc.etc.etc.
Until the studies have been done. No more Turbines.

By Martin Beckford

The majority of people living near wind turbines believe that the noise they make is ruining their health and quality of life, a report has revealed.

Neighbours also claim that the constant hum and the loud “whooshing” sound made by the blades in high winds is destroying the value of their homes.

A survey of people whose homes are situated within 1.2 miles of turbines has shown that three-quarters of them feel that the noise has damaged their quality of life while four out of five say it has affected their health.

Those who said they were made ill by the sound of the wind farms, which are designed to benefit the environment, described conditions ranging from migraines and palpitations to depression.

Three quarters said their sleep was disturbed by the noise and some claimed that they had been forced to stay in bed and breakfasts to get a proper night’s rest or to sell their homes at reduced prices to get away from the area.

One of the respondents to the survey, carried out by a family doctor, claimed that the noise was “like Chinese water torture”, while others said they could “see no future” and “dare not sleep at home”.

Dr Amanda Harry, a Plymouth GP who compiled the report after studying

the effects of wind turbine noise for several years, wrote: “What this shows is that there are a number of people suffering from the consequences of noise from the wind turbines.

“I’m sure that the cases mentioned here are the tip of the iceberg and further independent investigation is warranted.

There is much concern within communities that if one is seen to complain about the noise and if they decide to move away, their properties will be difficult to sell and possibly devalued as a result. They feel they are in a ‘Catch-22’ situation.”

Some wind farms are situated just a few hundred yards from homes but Dr Harry believes that until independent research is carried out, no turbines should be built closer than 1.5 miles from the nearest dwelling.

Dr Harry wrote: “There are many people living near wind turbines who are suffering from problems with their health. The noise produced from the wind turbines is an extremely complex one and I feel that it is the complexity of the noise and vibration which causes the disturbance.

“From my discussions with people suffering from ill-health who live near wind farms, it seems that the symptoms suffered can occur up to a mile from the wind farm.”

From the Telegraph

Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet

July 25, 2008

Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario

Sir: The reason you said we need to erect wind turbines in Ontario ,was because of the need to reduce CO2, in order to fight global warming.

According to Anthony Cary- High Commissioner for the United Kingdom you are incorrect in your assessment of the situation.

Apr. 25th 2007- Anthony Cary- High Commissioner for the United Kingdom stated at a Club of Rome (Canada ) meeting. “There is no direct link between CO2 emission and climate change”.

Are you telling the citizens of Ontario the truth, or are you pushing the Green Agenda. After all,it was the Club of Rome that said “We came up with the idea of global warming”

One thing for sure, your office continues to show absolute disrespect for the health and property values of the people of Ontario.

Do the right thing – and in the process gain some respect for yourself and your office.

Put a moratorium on wind turbine construction until a proper health study has been done and reviewed by an independent panel.

Otherwise, people might think you’re putting the desires of both, the Club of Rome and the UN ahead of the citizens of Ontario.

That might be looked upon as a dereliction of your duties Mr. Premier.

By Nigel Bunyan and Martin Beckford

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 26/07/2008

Thousands of homeowners may see the value of their properties plummet after a court ruled that living near a wind farm decreases house prices.

In a landmark case, Jane Davis was told she will get a discount on her council tax because her £170,000 home had been rendered worthless by a turbine 1,000 yards away.

Estate agents have said  no one is likely to buy the Jones's house, which was worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built - Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet
Estate agents have said no one is likely to buy the Jones’s house, which was worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built

The ruling is effectively an official admission that wind farms, which are accused of spoiling countryside views and producing a deafening roar, have a negative effect on house prices.

It means many other families living in the shadow of the giant turbines could see thousands wiped off the value of their homes, as the Government pushes ahead with plans to build 7,000 more wind farms over the next decade to meet ambitious green targets.

Campaigners also fear ministers want to remove the legal right to complain about noise nuisance, condemning those who live near wind farms to years of blight and reducing the opportunity for them to resist expansion plans.

Mrs Davis, who launched a nationwide campaign after her own home was rendered worthless by the deafening roar of a wind farm, claims ministers are tabling an amended to the Planning Act which will remove eight crucial words that previously offered at least some protection to householders

“For people living near wind farms, both now and in the future, it will be a disaster,” she said.

“There are many, many people living in Middle England who have worked hard all their lives and yet will see the values of their homes suddenly diminish.

“This isn’t about Nimbyism, but the rights of ordinary people to live a normal life.”

Mrs Davis, 52, a retired nurse, lives 1,017 (930m) from a wind farm at Deeping St Nicholas, Lincolnshire. Her husband, Julian, 43, originally bought the property from the county council and the couple had planned to extend it.

But the noise generated by the turbines is so severe, particularly when certain winds make all the blades rotate in unison, that it left the Davises unable to sleep. They currently live in a rented house a few miles away.

“It’s just like the effect you get in a car when the sun roof is open or a window at the back is open. In a car you can do something about it. But if it’s in your house and is coming from a giant turbine a few yards away, you can do nothing,” said Mrs Davis.

Local estate agents have acknowledged that the house, worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built in 2006, is now so severely blighted that no one is likely buy it.

Earlier this week the Davises won a landmark victory that reduced their council tax banding.

Although financially the difference is minimal, the reduction was granted on the basis that their home had been blighted by noise “on the balance of probability”.

Furthermore, the couple secured the ruling in the absence of a statutory noise nuisance – a fact that brought dismay to wind farm operators.

But Mrs Davis now fears the imminent change in legislation will turn the advantage back to the wind farm lobby, which is planning to build 4,000 turbines across the countryside – double the current number – and increase the number of those offshore from 150 to 3,000 by 2020.

From the Telegraph