5 comments

• Comment Link Sunday, 18 August 2013 03:17 posted by Brian Bone

  It seems astonishing and quite illogical that the EA should consider that an Environmental Impact Assessment isn't necessary, in part because of the amount of electricity generated will be small. How is the amount of electricity relevant? Irreparable damage will still be done to the trees and wildlife, including protected species.
  
  And this is the Green Belt after all which is designated as such to protect the countryside. It should only be built on in very special circumstances.
• Comment Link Tuesday, 13 August 2013 12:07 posted by John E English

  Hopefully the constant whine of the turbines 24/7 will drown out the tsunami of profanities emanating from the hooligans attending the matches at the revamped sports-hub.
• Comment Link Friday, 09 August 2013 17:25 posted by Muriel Wallsgrove

  Sunbury Lock Ait is in the green belt and it is not a suitable or desirable location for large engineering plant like this hydropower scheme. This construction will destroy 100 metres of natural river frontage and 2000 sq. metres of natural woodland habitat on Sunbury Lock Ait including the construction of the fish pass. The southern end will be completely excavated, removing all 25 trees as well as 14 trees they admit to chopping down.This will include a mature Poplar, a semi-mature Oak and all the weeping willow trees.
  
  Other hydropower schemes have more fitted into the weir structure itself without causing so much damage to trees and wildlife. The concrete channels and steel turbines will look ugly and industrial from the conservation area of the historic village of Sunbury and for visiting boats causing a massive loss of visual amenity.
  
  The view from the Weir Pub will be hideous; the sluice gates will be 3.5 metres above the ground, the generator hut should not be allowed in the green belt as similar huts have been removed by the Planning Inspector.
  
  Sunbury Lock Ait is home to including water voles, bats, butterflies, toads, snakes, swans, geese, ducks and other birds.
  
  This is also in conflict with national and local Green Belt policies, which state there must be very special circumstances to justify building in the green belt.
  
  The turbines could make the river dangerous, particularly in the busy lock cut outside the Weir Pub where boats are mooring, passing to enter the Lock Cut or unpowered craft like rowers and canoeists are turning round at the end of the reach. Elmbridge Policy RTT11 states the council ‘will encourage recreational use of the Thames…’.
  
  Once operational the transformer and gears will emit a high pitched whine, which may be harmful to bats, and interfere with their natural sonar for navigating.
  
  It’s hardly ‘green’, when it uses large amounts of carbon in its construction, and will barely generate any electricity at all. It is only viable because of government subsidies that we fund through our energy bills. The developers are only interested in the money, and there is a serious risk they will abandon this, blighting the area.
  
  This is the wrong scheme in the wrong location.
• Comment Link Tuesday, 06 August 2013 16:49 posted by Richard Stephenson

  I live on the Sunbury riverbank diagonally opposite the proposed development and will see it clearly from my garden. I was initially much concerned by this proposal but after much consideration I am now generally in favour of it.
  
  Since I live so near to it and will see it every day, I have taken the trouble to read all I can about it and listen carefully to all the arguments both for and against it; my conclusions are as follows:
  SAFETY. The more water that is taken to flow through this device then the less water there is to flow through the sluices or over the top of the weir. We have seen recently how easy it is for a small boat to be dragged through the weir sluices as they are not well protected but it looks as if the water intake for the Hydrodynamic Screws will be properly protected with screens to prevent the ingress of debris … or small boats … or people. In any case, apart from the well known local dangers of the weir itself, there are already two major water intakes from the river in the stretch below the weir. They have been there for the best part of a century at least and I know of no occasion of anyone or any boat being sucked into them.
  The energy of water falling freely over the weir creates dangerous cross-currents beneath the weir, but, since this is the very energy that will be taken from the water to generate the electricity, the outflow from the Hydrodynamic Screws will in fact be a gentle flow and so will help to reduce the currents under the weir and hence make the river that much safer for small boats etc.
  FISH. I cannot envisage any damage to fish from these large, slowly moving screws – they will just pass through them. The maker’s literature confirms that extensive tests have been carried out regarding this and their results appear satisfactory. Boat propellers and anglers damage fish, but I don’t think these screws will.
  NOISE. As it is, the water falling freely over the weir generates considerable noise, which is mentioned in our house surveys as “noise nuisance”, but the water flowing under controlled conditions inside these devices will not make so much noise and so, as long as the machinery itself is satisfactorily silenced, this will in fact marginally reduce the overall amount of noise from the weir.
  
  From looking at the pictures and drawings in the plans as submitted it appears that the visual intrusion will not be great compared to the weir itself and there will be only a small rise in the overall height of the present structure of that part of the weir. It has been suggested that the plans which have been submitted are inaccurate, but even if this were the case then it would be of no consequence as once those plans have been passed then that is how it has to be built and if it is built differently then it would have to be taken down again ! The developers of course know this and with so many eyes on them I’m sure they wouldn’t even bother. May I suggest that a roof over it to match that over the main sluices of the weir might help it to fit in better with the local scenery ?
  
  It is regrettable that two trees and some largely self-sown scrub will have to be removed in the course of the construction but this seems a small sacrifice when the environmental benefits of sustainable electricity generation are borne in mind. Perhaps a clause can be inserted to the effect that two more trees have to be planted somewhere to replace them? In any case, this proposed structure will help to protect the island from the erosion which before long may wash away most of that end of the Lock Island – along with those two trees and all the other vegetation there as well !
  
  This proposal is at the forefront of “saving the planet” by sustainable electricity generation rather than by burning fossil fuels with all the harm that causes to the environment. I am well aware that the output of the proposed Hydrodynamic Screws on Sunbury Weir is small, but if sufficient reduction in our CO2 output may be compared to a thousand mile journey then this proposal can be considered as one of the first steps necessary to achieve it.
• Comment Link Friday, 02 August 2013 13:36 posted by David Rogers

  I generally support this scheme as making good use of a natural source of energy but as there will undoubtedly be some impact on the communities surrounding this proposed development, ie Sunbury and Walton, they should both be compensated with a share of the profits derived from the operations, as is now typically the case for similar electricity generation schemes such as windpower.
  I note that in eWaterpower's summary of environmental effects it states that "a percentage of the profit will be donated to renewable projects within the community", but it does not explain what the percentage is (I think 10% is reasonable), whether this is an ongoing commitment (I believe it has to be), what is meant by 'renewable' and whether 'community' means both Sunbury and Walton (which I believe should be the main beneficiaries).