Objection to section HIM04 - The Windmill

While it might be desirable to have the windmill restored to full working order, I cannot accept that this project should take priority over all other considerations.

The idea of having a self-supporting windmill is essentially a fantasy. It is admitted in the plan that 75% of usable days of wind have already been lost to existing development. Yet the threshold for self-sufficiency is said to be 25%. The windmill is therefore right on the margin of being self-supporting and is economically precarious.

Why is there an assumption that the windmill should be expected to pay its way? It would be more realistic to recognise that it is not likely to and it should not be expected to. It can be run as a part-time activity instead. The threshold of 25% of usable days of wind then ceases to be the overriding criterion.

The policy is fundamentally inequitable. It takes away the rights of people living to the west of the windmill largely because other people to the east have in the past exercised their normal rights to develop their property.

Why should a modest, two-storey development outside the PVAA have to report on its effects on the windmill's operation? People are building such infill developments now without such a restrictive requirement. Why impose it on the relatively few plots of land remaining to be developed - and which would contribute to the provision of much-needed housing?

The development of the policy has been fundamentally undemocratic. There was a well-attended "consultation" meeting held in November, 2018 at which vigorous objections were raised. Despite our supplying e-mail addresses there has been no communication with residents since and no discussion.

It is time that this fantasy was excised from the local plan.