If you go to REPP's website and look at the report (.pdf file), which allegedly found that "property values... actually performed better than in the comparable community", you'll see that "the comparable community" was a simulated model, and the report made just one reference to noise from wind turbines in 81 pages, which was this one referring to a previous study; "However, the study concluded that while properties with wind turbines on them may increase in value, other properties may be adversely affected if within sight or audible distance of the wind turbines."

It's no wonder they put that big disclaimer at the top, absolving the government of any responsibilty for accuracy or usefullness of the report.

•   Review of REPP report: Glenn Schleede, Reston VA..."You should be aware that REPP is an unabashed 'renewable energy' advocacy group that receives money from various liberal foundations and, unfortunately again, too many of our tax dollars via the US EPA, US Dept. of Energy, and the DOE National 'Laboratories,' including NREL... As you have probably detected already, the basic methodology is fundamentally flawed in that it:
  
  a. Seeks to focus on properties within a 5 mile radius of a wind farm.
  
  b. Relies heavily on data collected from Assessors. I won't comment further on this flaw since most anyone who owns property recognizes assessors are probably the LAST place one would go for reliable data on MARKET values of property.
  
  c. There is one VALID and RELIABLE source of market values of property: The selling price. If the property is not sold, no one knows the market value."
  

   Critical Review of REPP Report: Tom Hewson, Energy Consultant..."The report was written under a "small" DOE grant that significantly limited REPP on what they could do. The author mentioned that they collected sufficient data in only 9-10 locations (each >10 MW) of the 26-30 sites in the survey. They focused their efforts on properties within 5 mile area...My concern with the REPP study is that it doesn't try to examine the nuisance effect by selecting a large 5 mile area."

• Landowners’ Rights Stop Where Neighbors’ Rights Start: Highland County Recorder Letters to the Editor, May 12, 2005: "...In real estate law and terminology, there are certain things that are guaranteed to a fee simple property owner. The term for this is the 'Bundle of Rights.' One of these rights is that you have right 'of quiet enjoyment.' Others are, the right to possess, control, encumber, and dispose... An encroachment can best be described as an unauthorized physical intrusion or an unauthorized trespass. Loud noises, bright lights, violation of the owner’s air space, are some examples. These encumbrances and encroachments are illegal if the owner does not authorize it.

  The land owner can take legal action to prevent these things from happening. My discussions with a few local people frequently provoke the statement 'a person should have the right to do whatever they want with their own land.' Most everybody would agree with that opinion. However, that right stops when a person, while exercising that right, encumbers or encroaches another’s 'bundle of rights'."

•  An ill wind blowing?: Daily Telegraph UK, 14/02/2004: " "The first thing we knew about it was when we saw a notice saying that the road running past the site would be closed for the construction of a wind farm," says Barry (Moon). When the turbines were switched on, the couple realised immediately that they would be unable to live with the noise, even though it has been found to exist within the guidelines for wind farms laid down by the Department of Trade & Industry – that it should not emit more than five decibels above background noise.

  "One of the myths put out by the industry is that a wind farm sounds like a stream from 50 yards. We've got a stream running through our garden and if you stand by it, you can hear the whooshing of the turbines above the water. I've lived the same distance from the M3 and that didn't bother me anything like as much as the wind farm."

  The couple complained to Barrow Borough Council and were asked to keep detailed records of the noise, which they did for two years. After some persuasion, Powergen fitted the turbines with a system that shuts down the offending four turbines – three more are concealed behind the hill – whenever the wind blows from a certain direction and when Barry and Gillian are likely to be at home. But the system doesn't deal with the visual impact, nor with the strange flickering that the couple experience some evenings as the blades reflect the rays of the sun.

  Had they known about the wind farm, say Barry and Gillian, they would not have bought Poaka Beck House. Yet the plans did not show up in the local searches – which, contrary to what many homebuyers believe, deal only with planning applications and decisions affecting the property you are buying or adjacent properties. Neither were Barry and Gillian warned about the wind farm by the vendors, David and Diane Holding.

  For the Holdings, this turned out to be an expensive omission. In their Sellers' Property Information Form – part of the sales contract – the couple answered "No" to the question "Have you had any negotiations or discussions with any neighbour or any other authority which affect the property in any way?" In fact, as Barry and Gillian discovered when sifting through correspondence kept by Barrow Borough Council, the Holdings had written letters of objection about the wind farm, complaining that it would reduce the value of their property by between 50 and 75 per cent. Last month, Barry and Gillian were awarded £15,000 in damages against the Holdings.

  The district judge explained that he arrived at that figure by listening to the arguments of chartered surveyors employed by both sides and concluding that the wind farm reduced the value of Poaka Beck House by 20 per cent. In 1997, the property would have been worth £150,000, had there been no plans for a wind farm, he ruled. Had the farm been in place at that time, on the other hand, the property would have been worth only £120,000. As Barry and Gillian had paid £132,500, they were entitled to £12,500 in damages plus interest, bringing the total to £15,000.

  The case has important repercussions because the wind-farm industry has argued for some time that turbines do not devalue homes. Indeed, until recently the website of the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) stated, under the heading "Top 10 myths about wind farms", that "the proximity of a wind energy development does not adversely affect property prices".

  The website quotes a MORI poll conducted in Scotland into the attitudes of local residents towards wind farms. The poll found that only 7 per cent of people living within 15km of a wind farm considered that it had a negative impact upon an area. Closer inspection, however, revealed that only 12 per cent of respondents could see the farm from their property. Moreover, the experience of somebody living 15km away can hardly be compared with somebody living 500 metres away.

  "Barry Moon's house is one property near one wind farm," says BWEA spokeswoman Alison Hill. "There is no evidence that property values anywhere else have been affected. In fact, values of many properties near wind farms have risen. However, in the light of Mr Moon's case, we have amended our website. It is likely that we will commission a study from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or FPDSavills, which will clear up the matter for good."

•  Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors: "For those surveyors who believe that residential property values are lower as a result of wind farm developments, a majority (67%) believe that there is an impact on values as early as the planning application stage. A further 22% report that the impact is first evident at the construction phase of development."

•  Property Values and House Prices: Country Guardian (UK) - Photo copied letters from estate agents and solicitors relating to property transaction impacted by the proximity of wind farms.

•  Blot on the landscape Danny Buttler, Victoria (Australia) Herald Sun, 21feb04: "Bruce Richards, managing director of PBE Real Estate in South Gippsland, said Victoria's property boom was going backwards in the shadow of the giant turbines. He said selling homes within 2km of Toora's 12 wind turbines was becoming increasingly hard. 'Anywhere close to the towers is very, very difficult to sell,' he said...

  South Gippsland Shire mayor David Lewis said rate valuations had decreased on some properties near turbines, but could not confirm if it was just due to wind farms. But there was no doubt they had had depressed the immediate property market. 'My personal belief is that it does destroy property values,' he said."

•  Turbines Cast Shadow Over Land Values: Paul Sellars, Weekly Times, 16 APR 2003... "Three prominent agents have told The Weekly Times that existing wind turbines -- and the prospect of more to come -- have turned potential buyers off properties. PBE Real Estate co-founding director John Evans said in 35 years working in South Gippsland, he had never seen a bigger threat to property values than wind farms... Wesfarmers Landmark Leongatha agent Glen Wright said wind farms were 'definitely'' having an impact on values. 'If they are near the property, buyers are staying away,'' Mr Wright said. 'If I had to put a figure on it, I would say (a reduction of) 25 to 30 per cent on the going value.''

  Pat Rice Hawkins Pty Ltd sales manager Bruce Falk said potential buyers were turned off by the prospect of wind turbines... 'I would have shown 50 or 60 people through that property and I would say half of those wouldn't even look at the place once they realise it's in the vicinity of wind turbines,' Mr Falk said...The agents' claims were rejected by the Australian Wind Energy Association."

• Tourists blow ill wind on renewable energy: The Scottsman, Nov. 17, 2002... "four out of five (80%) of the 180 visitors who completed detailed questionnaires, said they came to Scotland for the beautiful scenery and almost all (95%) said they valued the chance to see unspoiled nature. More than half (58%) agreed that wind farms spoiled the look of the countryside and more than a quarter (28%) said they would avoid an area where they knew a wind farm was sited... The survey directly contradicts an earlier report which claimed nine out of 10 tourists said the presence of wind farms would have no bearing on whether they returned to an area for a holiday."

•  Social Assessment of Wind Power: Visual Effect and Noise from Windmills—. Quantifying and Evaluation: Jørgensen,Jørden, Jordal, Institute of Local Government Studies, Denmark, April 1996: "The main idea of wind power is to produce electricity without air pollution and without using exhaustible natural resources. However, wind power involves certain costs. These costs are among other things due to the fact that windmills stand as a foreign element in the open landscape. Some people are of the opinion that windmills in an open landscape impinge on the recreative element of the landscape. In addition to this, windmills give off noise that, depending on the wind direction and distance from the windmill, can be a nuisance for those living in the vicinity. The purpose of this study is to evaluate how great the costs are from the visual effect and noise of the windmills. In order to make it possible to compare these costs with other costs and gains in relation to windmills, these costs are reckoned in cash terms. This has been done partly on the basis of the willingness to pay for getting rid of the windmills of people living in the vicinity (the interview method or contingent valuation), and partly using a survey of house prices in the vicinity of the windmills (the house price method or hedonic pricing) as a starting point."

   

  
  
  
  Return to top | Back