Peel Energy planning application "errors"
Turbine Height in Visual Impact Assessment
Wrong Lens used for photos, result distortion!!
The height of the turbines is 125m in the planning application.
The height used in the Visual Impact Assessments is 110m, that is 15m too short, ie over 49 feet shorter than that in the planning application!
see below: p117 Environmental Impact Statement Vol 1
Wide angle lens used for photographs
Professional photographer said:
A 31mm lens would be a very wide-angle lens on a 35mm camera and would seriously understate the scale of turbines in a landscape. I have never heard of a developer using anything other than a standard 50mm lens.
Peel Energy used a 31mm lens for the visualisations, the guidelines used by Peel say;
‘Visual Assessment of Wind farms: Best Practice’ (University of Newcastle 2002)
SNH commissioned report F01AA303A
Page 22
If a
wide-angle lens is used, for example for panoramic effect, the size
of the subject in the foreground will increase in relation to the
background; in the case of windfarms in a landscape scene,
the effect will be to under-represent the relative
size of the towers and under-estimate their
visual magnitude.
7.5
Visualisations
General
The
focal length of the lens and camera format used for photographs (and
derived visualisations) should always be stated
Use of a 50 mm lens in
a 35 mm format is recommended, or equivalent
combinations in other formats
Panoramas should be produced by splicing standard photographs and
not by the use of specialist cameras, in order to minimise
distortion
Field of view
Human Eye: The active field of vision is usually 120°-160° Peel use 90°
Peel Energy EIS vol1 p119
Combined or simultaneous visibility which occurs where the
observer is able to see two or more developments from one viewpoint,
without moving his or her head. The analysis considers a 90 degree
arc of view centred on the Broughton Lodge Wind Cluster proposal
which has be used to assess alternative 50° fields of view, roughly
what the human eye sees in any detail in a single view.
Humans have an almost 180-degree forward-facing field of view and
the ability to perceive shape and motion vary across the field of
view; in humans the shape perception is concentrated in the centre
of the visual field, while the motion perception tends to be much
stronger in the periphery. This is due to the much higher
concentration of colour-sensitive cone cells in the fovea, the
central region of the retina.
Therefore when Peel Energy considers a 90° arc of view, they are
failing to take into account the motion perception of the human eye
caused by turbine movement.
N.B the minimum field requirement for driving is 60 degrees either
side of the vertical meridian, Peel energy are using 50° and say
that is roughly what the human eye sees in any detail in a single
view. Peel Energy are reducing the usual field of view. The active
field of vision is usually 120°-160°
With this in mind the visual effects assessment part of the Environmental Impact Statement is again flawed.
Wrong Windfarm in the heading!
Either all the Visual Effects are irrelevant or a bit of copy and pasting was done, whatever it is very shoddy work.
see below Peel Energy Appendix H Environmental Impact Statement
Top line!
