If an Environmental Impact assessment shows that agreed noise levels will be breached (noise levels are checked against background and then compared with locally agreed or not agreed limitations) then your local planners should recommend refusal. Flicker can be stopped automatically with in built sensors that can turn off the turbine if all the factors which can create flicker exist. Your friendly local planning department/ environmental health dept are the ones to make contact with!

Ian I really am asking from a purely safety point of view! It seems to me that "remove the danger at source" gets thrown out of the window when it comes to wind turbines. There is ice throw, fires, lightening strikes etc and Vestas own safety manual states: "Do not stay within a radius of 400m (1300ft) from the turbine unless it is necessary. If you have to inspect an operating turbine from the ground, do not stay under the rotor plane but observe the rotor from the front. Make sure that children do not stay by or play nearby the turbine." I was/am puzzled that no one appears to check on the planners. FYI The wind farm has been refused, despite the planners recommending approval, so having a go at me being a resident is not really the point. Also the footpath is about 3m wide and we all enjoy the surroundings here, riders, cyclists and walkers. It is a technical point that I am asking about, your personal opinion of me being a "resident affected" etc.is not fair. You may enjoy walking under cranes and turbines, I was simply asking a safety question.

I have never known HSE involve themselves with a planning application and local decision, thought they may be consulted by the local inspectors and will always be consulted if the application goes to PI The technical issues are important, obviously, but too often these are magnified greatly by those who want to make a case against an application. At the same time, the other camp will draw attention to the positives to support their application. Sadly, few major applications are so uncontentious that the escape passionate claims from each side. But while they are passionate they may not be objective. Is it a safety issue? I've ready of bits flying off wind turbines, so presumably it is. But then again, planes do crash and cranes do topple. I assume that the latter topple more often that do wind turbines. If wind turbines did topple or bits fly off etc, at hopefully very low frequency, the number of people affected will be few. It will certainly not be 2000 so the case already is overstated - though obviously not for those who might be hurt! TV reception - apparently it can be fixed. Visual amenity and impact on property prices will also be considered, and the impact of traffic, noise, pollution etc during construction though these are transient and are not rated highly. But these are issues that residents will be concerned about, understandably, and that muddies the waters. I have dealt with many applications - all very different to this one, but most very unpopular with local residents who have always been keen to perceive safety issues where none exist, or to foresee death and disease when simple standard precautions of proven efficacy will suffice with the widest margin of safety. These 'scare stories' are often picked up by the local press and the vociferous minority who might work very hard to whip up support. If there was a case to answer, by then that case will probably now be vastly overstated. The psychology of that public perception to - in my case biological - risk is something I have been researching for some time. Planning inspectors are rarely swayed by it, as they will not be swayed by any other arguments that are not properly substantiated including, as I'm sure you understand, the claims made by the applicant. I'm entirely happy that public perception should form part of the planning process, but it should never by placed above a sound case supported by good science and a robust technical assessment.

Yes, that's true But behind every Planning Committee made up of elected representatives - the butcher, baker and candlestick maker - are a team of professional planners to sift and assess the relevant information, and to make recommendations to that Committee. I have no information about the number of times that a Planning Ctte votes to accept the planning officer's recommendation. But I'm sure it happens in the vast majority of cases, perhaps with a few tweaks in response to an individual member's concerns that may be driven from his/her own concerns or experiences, or following representation from those that they represent. Of course, the butcher, baker and candlestick maker are elected representatives drawn democratically from the local residents (well, sort of!). Democracy sometimes means accepting decisions with which you aren't happy, but I would hope always that those decisions are well-founded.

Caithness Windfarm Information Forum is a website for which its entire reason for being is to oppose windfarm development at any cost. The stats it uses do not stand up to any proper scrutiny and seeks to mislead the public into believing that Windfarms are a major risk to the public health and safety. If you read the accident/ incident reports with sources most have very tenuous links to windfarms eg A farmer who committed suicide following local opposition to his planned development is counted as a fatality!

I have to say that I believe that Ian does seem to have a pretty good handle on the planning process. For many 'simple' applications the employed professional Planning Officers have delegated powers to make decisions i.e. the application does not have to go to a full planning committee for decision. For the more complex and potentially contentious applications, such as a wind turbine, the planning officers will do all of the 'groundwork', consult widely with the community, parish council, highways, emergency services, HSE, EA, MOD, etc etc etc. All of that information, the vast majority if not all of which is in the public domain will then be considered by the planning offices who will complete a report for consideration by the committee who are made up of elected members. They will consider the report and hear any representations form the public and other interested parties, before making their decision; this may differ from the planning officers recomenation. The decision can be appealed and this will then usually go to an inquiry with a professional planning inspector. Having sat in a couple of such appeals, I can say that the inspectors are extremely thorough and the process appears to me to be very robust.