9 House Prices - Dunsland Cross Wind Turbines

Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9.!
House Prices
!
!
!
!
!
This section comprises 3 sub-sections:
!
!
!
9.1!
9.2!
9.3 !
Evidence which Refutes the Developer's Claims
Council Tax Revenue
Proposal for House Price Guarantees
Planning Policy examined in this section:
NATIONAL: PPS22: Renewable Energy.
9.1!
Evidence which Refutes the Developer's Claims
9.1.1 Bolsterstone makes no reference to House Prices in its documentation supplied to
Torridge District Council in support of this application. In the frequently asked questions section
of its website for this project, however, it makes the following claim, the first part of which is
repeated in the community newsletter sent to residents in the area:
'3. Do wind turbines affect house prices?
There is currently no evidence in the UK that quantifies any link between falling
rates in house prices and turbine proximity. Windfarms are generally more
accepted once they have been running for a few years, for many people it
seems to be the threat of the windfarm rather than the presence of turbines.
The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors concluded "The negative impact of
windfarms on property values appears to decline over time. This may suggest
that the impact lessens as windfarms become a more established part of the
rural landscape...", whilst the Scottish Executive found that those living nearest
to windfarms are their closest advocates.'
9.1.2 Clever use of words is avoiding the issue in this claim. The issue is not whether turbine
proximity affects the rate at which house prices may be falling; it probably does not. House
prices will rise and fall in line with national trends. The effect of turbine proximity is to
immediately reduce the absolute value of nearby properties.
9.1.3 With regard to the final part of the statement, 'those living nearest to windfarms are their
closest advocates…', of course they are. If they were to say anything derogatory about the
turbines they would never be able to sell their properties.
9.1.4 The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors' conclusion refers to a survey of its members
undertaken in November 2004. 1,942 questionnaires were issued and there were 405
respondents, 20% of whom (81 surveyors) had dealt with transactions affected by wind farms.
Before making the statement quoted in paragraph 9.1.1 above the Report had stated:
'… there are negative influences on the value of residential properties, though a
sizeable minority report no impact on prices … nowhere is it considered that
wind farms positively affect residential property values … The regional
results vary from 44% of surveyors in Wales reporting that residential property
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
157
January 2009
Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
values are lower as a result of wind farm developments to a high of 77% in the
South West.'
And the part of the conclusion preceding that quoted above, conveniently omitted by
Bolsterstone, stated:
'The three main reasons for this negative impact on property values are the
visual impact after completion, the fear of blight and the proximity of
residential property to a wind farm development.'
Both emboldened sections in the last statement are particularly relevant to Dunsland Cross.
9.1.5 There is a great deal of evidence available to show that wind turbine proximity negatively
affects house prices. A selection of this evidence is presented in the paragraphs following.
9.1.6 Mention has been made elsewhere in this document (Section 5: Noise and Health
Concerns, paragraph 5.1.15) of the report 'Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed near
Homes: Effects on Health', by Barbara Frey, BA, MA and Peter Hadden, B Sc, FRICS, February
2007, v. 1, (www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com). The final section of this report is dedicated to
the subject of property values. There are no fewer than 21 pages (pp 117-137) giving 11
examples or case studies of house price reductions in the UK, and 12 further examples abroad,
as a result of wind farm development.
9.1.7 A snapshot of the UK cases alone reveals:
Case A: Devon, 2004: House price reduction of £165,000 on a £500,000
home.
Case B: Worked example based on RICS report: House price reduction of
£265,000 on a £615,580 home.
Case C: Cumbria 1997: Judge awards 20% refund of house purchase price
to buyers not told of imminent arrival of wind farm in the area.
Case D: Norfolk 1998: 30% reduction in value of property close to wind farm
according to FPD Savills Estate Agent.
Case E: Wales, 2005: £45,000 drop in value of bungalow.
Case F: Wales 1995: 50% drop in value within sight of wind farm.
Case G: Devon, 2004: 30% devaluation (or property may be un-saleable) for
turbines 600-800 metres away, 20% devaluation with turbines 1 mile away, 10%
devaluation with turbines 2 miles away. Bradleys Surveyors.
Case H: (see below) Devon, 2003: Up to 50% devaluation or property unsaleable. Kivells Estate Agents, Holsworthy.
Case I: Wales, 2005: £68,000 reduction on a £318,000 home.
Case J: Wales, 2005: Total devaluation of £1,528,000 on 8 properties.
Case K: Cumbria, 2004: £80,000 reduction on £280,000 home.
Case L: Wales, 2000: Estate Agent refuses to continue to market property.
All cases are fully referenced in the Frey & Hadden report.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
158
January 2009
Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9.1.8 Case H, referred to above, is relevant to Dunsland Cross as it involves an estate agent
who regularly markets property in this area. On 22nd October, 2003, Mr. J Carslake, then
working for Kivells Estate Agents in Fore Street, Holsworthy, wrote to a client advising:
'“It is the case that a wind turbine within sight or sound of a residential property
will affect the value of the property detrimentally. The affect on value would,
in my opinion, be up to 50% of ordinary open market value, but it is difficult to
provide proof of this.”
“It is certainly also the case that the threat of a windfarm close to a property
can make it un-saleable (I have a case in Bradworthy for example) and
would certainly assert that the marketing becomes much more problematic
when a wind turbine is situated within sight or sound.” '
9.1.9 The life-changing case of Jane and Julian Davis has been referred to already in Section
3: Misleading Claims, in the note after paragraph 3.1.35 and Section 5: Noise and Health
Concerns, paragraphs 5.3.18 and 5.3.19. Their report to the Select Committee on Economic
Affairs included a letter from an estate agent regarding their own home. This is shown below:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
159
January 2009
Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9.1.10 The following letters follow in a similar vein. They are sourced from the Country
Guardian website (www.countryguardian.net):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
160
January 2009
Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
161
January 2009
Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
162
January 2009
Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
163
January 2009
Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9.1.11 The following text appeared in the Sunday Telegraph on 22nd June, 2008:
"
Property in stunning locations
CHAGFORD
Dartmoor National Park, Devon
"It is top of the list if you want the West Country but don't want to be on the
coast," says Charlie Lawson of Jackson-Stops & Staff. Chagford scores
because it sits right on the moor, is surrounded by steep valleys and gushing
rivers and also has specialist shops, primary schools, pubs and restaurants.
!
Crucially, too, it is reachable even in a bad winter. "What people desire is a view
which is protected, even though they don't own it," says Charlie. "The national
park is rigid in its planning policy and won't allow development or windfarms."
!
Shilstone Manor, a Dartmoor stone and thatched house with four bedroom
suites, attics, two cottages, barns, gardens, equestrian yard, paddocks and 30
acres of woodland, is on the market for £2.1 million through Jackson-Stops &
Staff (01392 214222). The views are out of this world and it has its own small
henge called Spinster's Rock.
So why did the estate agent feel the need to mention windfarms?
9.1.12 The guidelines to PPS22, page 18, paragraph 2.18 state:
'There is a need to make clear in policy that the planning body or authority will
be supportive of renewable energy proposals in locations where environmental,
economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.'
Bolsterstone has failed to identify all of the social impacts a wind farm at Dunsland Cross will
make. For example, it has made no suggestion for mitigation for reduced house prices. It has
made no suggestion as to how someone who needs to move house in pursuit of an employment
opportunity might be compensated if they are unable to sell their property because of the blight
of the wind farm proposal, or the wind farm actually being built, near their home. PPS22 is
clearly not satisfied in this case.
9.1.13 Recommendation: REFUSAL
The absolute values of properties in the vicinity of this wind farm will be
adversely affected if this application is approved and houses may become
more difficult to sell. This may, in turn, adversely affect employment
opportunities for local people. The requirements of PPS22 are not
satisfied by this proposal. For this reason, the application should be
refused.
9.2!
Council Tax Revenue
9.2.1 As a result of their difficulties caused by the unwelcome intrusion into their lives of the
Deeping St. Nicholas turbines, Jane and Julian Davis appealed to a valuation tribunal for a
reduction in their Council Tax Valuation The following is an extract from a letter written by Jane
Davis:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
164
January 2009
Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
'The results of our appeal against our Council Tax Valuation are as follows:
!
“It was apparent from the evidence submitted that the construction of the wind
farm 930m away from the appeal dwellings had had a significant detrimental
effect on the Appellants' quiet enjoyment of their properties. The Tribunal
therefore found that the nuisance caused by the wind farm was real and not
imagined and it would have had some effect on the potential sale price of
the appeal dwellings.
!
“In view of the forgoing, the appeals were allowed and the tribunal has decided
to reduce the assessment of both appeal dwellings to Band A with effect
from 21st June 2006 (the date we started recording the experience of a
nuisance).”
!
Several others have managed to get discounts “agreed” locally – but it is
acknowledged that this Tribunal were asked to create a precedent and lower the
assessment, permanently, of the appeal buildings to reflect the adverse impact
of the wind farm. This they have done.'
9.2.2 Excerpts from the actual appeal documents are shown below:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
165
January 2009
Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9.2.3 In the Houses of Parliament on 13 May, 2008, John Healey MP gave details of the types
of local tax discount that were being awarded by billing authorities under the Local Government
Act 2003, as at 8 October 2007, the latest date for which figures were available. At this date, 37
authorities reported they were making local council tax discounts to either individuals or a
particular class of taxpayer. In the section entitled, 'Other discretionary discounts based on
individual cases' are the entries:
Property affected by the proximity of an electricity generating wind turbine;
Hard to sell property.
(Hansard Column 1442W)
9.2.4 Torridge District Council may choose to examine what its annual loss in revenue would be
if properties in the parish of Bradford & Cookbury and the neighbouring Ashwater parish were
reduced to Council Tax Band A.
In Bradford & Cookbury, the tax band rates for 2008-9 are:
!
!
!
!
Revenue!
!
Difference on Band A
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Band A!!
Band B !!
Band C !!
Band D!!
Band E!!
Band F!!
Band G !
Band H !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
£954.63!
£1,113.72!
£1,272.83!
£1,431.94!
£1,750.16!
£2,068.36!
£2,386.57!
£2,863.88!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
£0.00
£159.09
£318.20
£477.31
£795.53
£1,113.73
£1,431.94
£1,909.25
Ignoring the 5 places of work, if the 25 dwellings which would find themselves within 600m of a
turbine (paragraph 2.4.12) if this application is approved are all assumed to be Band D for
simplicity, the loss in income to TDC in 2008-9 would have been £11,932.75. Since the wind
farm would not be completed until 2011 at the earliest, by which time there would have been two
5% rises in council tax, this figure would rise to £13,155.86. Over the 25-year life cycle of the
wind farm the loss in council tax revenue to TDC would be approximately £1/3 million. This
would be a direct loss to TDC because any business rates payable by the developer for this
wind farm would go directly to HM Government and not to TDC.
9.2.5 Recommendation: REFUSAL
The potential loss of more than £1/3 million in council tax revenue
outweighs any benefit the approval of this wind farm application would
bring. For this reason, Torridge District Council should refuse this
application.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
166
January 2009
Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9.3 !
Proposal for House Price Guarantees
9.3.1 In October, 2008, Torridge District Councillor Adam Symons tabled the following proposal
which has been referred to the Community Development Committee:
"This Council notes the concern that residents in Torridge have expressed
concerning the development of on-shore wind turbines, and the potential of
these turbines to create low-frequency noise (infrasound) disturbance to
residents.
Key principles (i) and (viii) from PPS 22 on renewables suggests that:
(i) Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated
throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and
environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.
(viii) Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic
and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have
been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and
other measures.
However the current guidance on renewables, PPS22 and ETSU-R-97, do not
take into account new evidence of the health impacts of low-frequency noise
(infrasound) on residents.
Together with the ongoing issues of visual intrusion, this Council proposes that:
(1) a request is made to Government to update the ETSU-R-97 guidelines to
take on board the latest evidence including that of the impact of low-frequency
noise (infrasound) on residents;
(2) in accordance with PPS22. the development of a Supplementary Planning
Document should set out the guidelines and criteria for the development of onshore wind turbines in Torridge;
(3) broad criteria should be used to set out the considerations that developers of
on-shore wind turbine sites should address in relation to local communities.
These should ensure that proposals are not permitted if they would have a
significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living
nearby;
(4) using the example of guidance from Scotland (PAN45), as a general rule a
separation distance of 2km between turbines and the edge of towns and
villages should be adopted in the Supplementary Planning Document, unless
it can be demonstrated that (i) there are no suitable sites complying with this
requirement; and (ii) the proposed turbines do not adversely affect the living
conditions of the residents of those communities.
(5) to assist in speeding up the planning process, pre-planning discussions
with a developer of on-shore wind turbines should include an invitation
for the developer to devise a scheme such that any person who resides
(and owns that property) within a specified distance of a wind turbine is
guaranteed a price for their property by the developer for a period of
years."
9.3.2 Clause (1) is relevant to the points made in Section 3: Noise and Health Concerns, clause
(4) is relevant to the points made in Section 2: Choice of Site and clause (5) is relevant to this
section.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
167
January 2009
Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group
House Prices
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9.3.3 In the North Devon Journal, dated 16th October, 2008, referring to the motion, Cllr.
Symons is reported as saying:
'"These proposals are a response to consultation in my area and an attempt to
protect residents in potentially developable areas.
This issue is of significant concern to many residents, who are worried about
the value of their property and the quality of their life.
These ideas give residents this protection without stifling a growing industry and
this is an important issue.”'
9.3.4 DTOG fully supports Cllr. Symons' motion.
9.3.5 Recommendation: CONDITION
Torridge District Council should require the developer to devise a scheme
to guarantee a price for nearby properties for a period of years after the
wind farm is built.
!
Summary of this section:
!
!
Many examples of house price devaluation are given which refute the developer's
claim that there will be no effect on local property prices.
!
Planning Policy PPS22 is not satisfied by this application.
!
!
TDC stands to lose a great deal of Council Tax revenue if this application is
approved.
!
!
!
!
Pre-planning discussions with a developer should include an invitation for the
developer to devise a scheme such that any person who resides (and owns that
property) within a specified distance of a wind turbine is guaranteed a price for
their property by the developer for a period of years.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Opposition to Dunsland Cross Wind Farm
168
January 2009