Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Gainsborough, has written a substantive letter to Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, regarding the Hemswell Cliff wind farm proposal.

In his letter, Sir Edward outlines his precise objections to RWE’s appeal against West Lindsey District Council’s refusal to grant permission for the controversial wind farm which has faced widespread local opposition. The text of Edward Leigh’s letter follows.

14 May 2014

Dear Eric,

I am writing to you to outline our specific objections to RWE’s appeal against West Lindsey District Council’s refusal of planning permission for a wind farm at Hemswell Cliff.

The application to build a wind farm on Hemswell Cliff has been vigorously opposed by every layer of representational Government since the application was first presented over two years ago. It has been opposed by myself as the local Member of Parliament, as well as being opposed by the County Council, the District Council, by all affected Parish Councils, and by all local Councillors. In addition, over 2,400 letters have been received by West Lindsey District Council, each declaring the correspondent’s opposition to the application.

At the Special Planning Committee meeting held on 30 October 2013, the public attendance was estimated to be between 500-600 with the only support for the application coming from the developer’s representatives. The case against the application was put by myself as MP, as well as local Councillors, and representatives of the local opposition group. The Planning Committee’s vote concluded in a unanimous decision against the application. The reasons for the decision was given as:

1.    The effect of the development upon the local environment.

2.    The threat to local heritage assets.

3.    The potential damage to archaeological remains.

I would like to outline why the background to these three reasons.

1. The Lincolnshire Cliff is a limestone ridge which runs in a north-south direction throughout most of the County. It provides the western skyline for the Lincolnshire Wolds, the eastern horizon from the Trent Valley, and has been accorded the designation ‘Area of Great Landscape Value’. The only dominating feature along its entire length is the eleventh-century Lincoln Cathedral, situated at the Witham gap,

sixteen miles to the south of the proposed development site. The Hemswell Cliff area is a particularly important environmental site as it is the first area north of Lincoln where water is available from several natural springs.

2. The Hemswell Cliff area is fortunate in its heritage assets. Just a few of those assets would include - Norton Place (immediately alongside the proposed site) is a Grade I listed building surrounded by several associated Grade II buildings and a listed garden. The Saxon St Chad’s church at Harpswell is also a Grade I listed building, and the nearby ‘Prospect Mound’ is a Scheduled Monument. The village of Willoughton is based upon the – as yet un-researched – Knight’s Preceptory and settlement remains at Temple Garth along with the associated, moated, Monk’s Garth. Both are designated Scheduled Monuments. St Andrew’s Church at Willoughton is contemporary with both garths.

Hemswell village is a Conservation Area with a Grade II*-listed thirteenth-century church, an unexcavated medieval settlement, an ancient maypole, and a sacred pagan site with associated wells. Spital-in-the-Street has an ancient chapel where prayers to Richard III are said ‘in perpetuity’. It has been restored, and continues to provide services, under the leadership of a volunteer trust. The proposed site is overlooked by ‘Aslac’s Hill’ – a slight rise where Saxon musters were held, and which gives its name to the wapentake of ‘Aslaco’ – and is bounded to the east by the Roman ‘Ermine Street’ (A15).

3. The proposed site is drenched in archaeology. This is probably as a result of the sudden emergence of streams close by, and on, the site. Pre-Roman discoveries are commonplace (there is an unexcavated Neolithic barrow actually on the site), and Roman artefacts can be picked up on a daily basis (one researcher described filling ‘banana-boxes’ full of Roman potsherds). The site is fringed with clear evidence of Roman domestic occupation and was probably the premier resting place for the Roman army marching along Ermine Street to the south bank of the Humber. Recent excavations have revealed ‘high status’ Roman household goods.

The site may also have been the location of a substantial settlement, which could have included both of the ‘lost’ towns of Sidnecaster (the capital of the Kingdom of Lindsey), and the Mercian king’s meeting place of Clovesho (famous for its eight and ninth century synods) – ‘Clovesho’ means ‘hill on the cliff’. The Knights Templar built a barrier across Ermine Street, and dressed stones from the site were uncovered during recent (2006) repairs to the road. The site is exactly on the point of the proposed entry to the wind farm.

A track, considered by experts to be of ‘considerable antiquity’ crossed the proposed site from the south-east corner to the north-west. It is possible that the trackway was the main thoroughfare through any settlement that existed on the site. When the developers erected a meteorological mast on the site, one of the huge concrete anchors was plunged through the feature with no attempt at an archaeological investigation.

It is also requested that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government give serious consideration to the following additional two areas of concern:

4. The proposed Hemswell Cliff site is directly below the main east-west commercial flight path to and from Europe. Consequently, the Claxby National Air Traffic Service (NATS) radar site on the Lincolnshire Wolds, which serves the flight path, will be directly in line of sight of the proposed wind farm. The same applies to military radars at RAF Waddington, RAF Cranwell and RAF Coningsby. Equally, the Meteorological Office radar at Ingham is also in line of sight. The developer is claiming that all objections have been removed by the MOD with regard to the Ingham radar (why not the Met Office?). As for the RAF and NATS radars, the appeal states that both objections have been removed ‘subject to the imposition of planning conditions which have been agreed with the Appellant.’ The nature of the ‘planning conditions’ is not explained in the case of the RAF (11.11) but, in the NATS case (11.12), it appears as ‘an agreement to provide (a) technical mitigation solution’. Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield (RHADS), on the other hand, is being subjected to continued negotiations which, ‘When agreed’, will be subjected to the same conditions as the RAF and NATS.

It should, however, be clearly understood that any mitigation will degrade the operation of all radars to a level below that required for the safety of all aircraft, both civil and military. Even worse, the leading (possibly ‘only’) method being proposed is the introduction of Transponder Mitigation Zones (TMZs). This requires that all aircraft flying though a TMZ will have to switch on their transponders which will then allow their flight path to be followed by Secondary Radars. However, when the aircraft used on the 9/11 attack were high-jacked, the first thing the high-jackers did was to switch off the transponders. Aviation experts now believe that the missing Malaysian passenger aircraft also disappeared when its transponder was switched off. Furthermore, recent press reports of light aircraft using rural airstrips to smuggle in illegal immigrants, drugs and weapons strongly suggest that the operators have realised that, by switching off their transponders, they cannot be seen by radar whilst passing though TMZs. It is clear that the pursuit of radar ‘mitigation’ has already seriously depleted our national security. In addition, the proposed sight is immediately below a low-flight path used by the RAF for training.

5. Since the very first application to build a wind farm on Hemswell Cliff, the methods used by the developers – RWE Npower Renewables Limited – have included many underhand aspects including attempted bribery, delays, and misinformation. For example, just before the Planning Committee meeting, they claimed that they had 600 letters of support. When the letters were counted, it turned out that only 23 came from local addresses, the remainder came from addresses as far away as Athens. At the meeting itself, the number took a mysterious leap to 900. Now, along with the appeal, the developers (operating under the new name of RWE Innogy UK limited) have introduced an additional plan which reduces the number of turbines from ten to eight. How is it possible for an appeal to be made concerning a plan which did not exist when the original plan was rejected, and an appeal by a company which, at the same time, did not exist? The surprise amongst the objectors is not that, yet again, the developers have resorted to dishonest methods, but that they continue being allowed to get away with it.

The three reasons for refusal provided by the Planning Committee as well as the further two areas of concern are more than sufficient grounds for this application being denied. At all times, West Lindsey District Council have acted fairly, and the opposition to the proposal from local residents, businesses, and other stakeholders has been significant. I am not exaggerating when I say that in my thirty years representing the people of this constituency it has been rare for an issue to cause such a profound reaction and for the unanimity of feeling to be so widespread.

It is vital, therefore, that West Lindsey District Council’s decision is upheld against RWE’s appeal. I do think this is worthy of your specific consideration and I do hope you will ensure that the overwhelming wishes of local people will be respected, in line with the principles of localism and subsidiarity which I know you have been keen to promote.

Yours ever,

EDWARD