West Midlands: Your comments...

Return to Politics Show West Midlands index page here...

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Do rural schools get a poor funding deal from the government?

It's not fair that my children are worth less, just because they live in Redditch. Juliet, Redditch.

The Government are playing party politics. They know that the Shire Counties vote Conservative and Inner City areas vote Labour. Mr Walter.

There is a funding crisis in Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Phillip, West Midlands.

There is a major funding crisis in many schools and this really does need looking at. Nicole, Worcestershire.

We are getting a rough deal off this Government in the West Midlands. It is disgraceful. Graham Potter.

This is an old issue that we have been promised will be attended to for years. Here in Redditch Jacqui Smith promised to deal with this inequality and we are still waiting!

Schools are running on a shoe string and it is only the goodwill and ingenuity of teaching and non teaching staff that have enabled us to maintain a good level of education. But for how long can we continue to do this - we are tired! All schools should be funded with equality and topped up to meet any special needs. Sheila Handy.

In Shropshire the cost of transporting pupils eligible for free transport, under statute, is £10.5m. This amounts to £56.5K per school day because commercial bus routes do not cover all of the sparse areas of Shropshire that have children living in them.

Shropshire has the highest transport cost per pupil in the Midlands. This is a clear example of why sparse and rural areas, and their children, require a fairer proportion of education funding from the government. Tim Smith.

The central Government don't see how rural Herefordshire is, the countryside is lovely, the town isn't. There is a massive debate over whether they should merge the schools in Herefordshire - putting massive pressure on committees and their funds.

Can f40 and Roger Phillips lobby to the central Government to try to get the message across? Herefordshire is poor, why don't people realise this?! Hugo Sugg, Herefordshire Council's Children's Trust Shadow Board Member.

It is not a case of the 'haves and have not', it is important that every child/student receiving education has equal chance. Better funded- be it pupils or schools have more opportunity to progress. Fair educational funding is needed. Jonathan Pearsall. Chair of Governors, Worcestershire.

I am a teacher (using my precious 'rest' time) currently planning lessons for my SEN pupils at a special school. What appals me is how we are literally failing many students who suffer from a range of severe learning or mental health problems.

This is purely due to lack of funding. Many students are simply unable to access learning due to lack of a specialised adult who has the time to work closely with them and give them the support they so desperately need. Billie Wilcox, Staffordshire.

Most of the extra money pumped into inner cities, especially Tower Hamlets is for advocacy because even second generation Bangladeshi children do not speak English as their first language.

This is a deliberate policy of Labour to support ethnic minority cultures. It is also prevalent in the NHS: the Royal London Hospital offers every caller the option of English or Urdu; it has four telephone lines to facilitate non-English speakers.

Every public notice that comes through my door asks me for my ethnicity and 'white' and English are the bottom of the list. Either people are British or not British, and everything else has to be sorted out including making sure that it is more difficult to get benefits etc unless you speak and write in English. Advocacy should be phased out.

Make immigrants speak English, don't deprive English children to balance the books. Sheila Jones, England.

Now some of your comments we didn't have time for during the show.

Do you support Peter Luff's plan for wind farm buffer zones?

Calls and emails

I live in Pershore I know I am not on the doorstep of the wind farm but I am going to support Scottish Power because we will benefit from them in time.

Some people cannot find anything better to do with their time but moan about the wind farm. Shane Mason, Pershore.

Mr Luff's unhappy constituents are currently facing a planning application from Scottish Power which involves the construction of 125 metre tall industrial wind turbines around 500-600 metres from residential properties. Ironically Scottish Power would never have been made this application in Scotland. Scottish Ministers already support 2km as a separation distance between turbines and the edge of cities, towns and villages under SPP6 and Planning Advice Note(PAN)45.

Surely what is good enough for the Scots is good enough for the English?

Why are Midlands tax-payers treated as second-class British Citizens in planning terms? Adrian Snook, Daventry.

I've watched the show with interest and accept there is an environmental question but please don't forget the economics issue. Many thousands of people work in the industry, myself included in a company manufacturing drives for wind turbines. Politicians should remember this when the next election comes around. Tony Dry.

As a community currently fighting an application for wind turbines (in David Kidney's constituency) its clear just how much conflicting information there is. Clear rules including size/distance from dwellings can only be a good thing. In most European countries the size/distance to dwellings of the proposed scheme here would not be allowed on health grounds - yet we seem to ignore this in the UK. There is to much vested interest in all those involved to get a clear and rational view. Jon Gibbs, Staffordshire.

The noise of wind farms also travels as the wind changes! I have trouble at times with the motorway that is over 1 mile away.

There is also the fact that the noise made is not a constant one, but an alternating and intrusive by it's nature. Also because of it's low frequency range it can penetrate where as many other sounds would be lost. Terry, West Midlands.

The ones I have been close to in windy conditions ARE noisy, whoosh whoosh of the blades being the main problem, and I wouldn't want to live as close to them as some do in Cornwall.

If they solve the noise I am OK with them, I don't care about the view. If the wind doesn't blow though, they don' t produce the electicity we need regardless of where you put them. Alan, Warkwickshire.

We support Mr Luff's proposal. There should be a buffer zone of at least a mile and a half from houses. The visual and environmental impact far outweighs the benefit of onshore wind. There are many other methods of renewable energy such as tidal or solar which have a lesser impact. Also wind is unreliable and cannot be stored for future use. Lynne & Adrian Morris, Wales.

Better a wind farm than a nuclear power station ANY DAY!!

We carve up our landscape with our cars and the roads they run on... this is acceptable?

The human animal is selfish and on a path to [well deserved] self destruction. Sylvia, Worcs.

Peter Luff just wants the wind energy technology centred on coastal regions well away from his constituency. However he wants his constituents to be supplied with electricity - generated anywhere else. He should be ignored as his constituents should have to play their part in the renewable energy provision whether they like it or not. Keith Thomas.

Having just heard Peter Luff's argument, I think his proposal is a great way to initiate discussion about the nationwide planning requirements for wind farms. I am a big supporter of wind farms, and would like to see a more structured approach to aid planning permission approvals for such schemes.

Although the distance guidelines would stop many developments, the alternative proposal of height of the turbine=distance from local homes looks a sensible idea.

One alternative idea, not yet touched upon is to give the local community some economi stake in the wind farm - e.g reduced electricity cost as they are so near a generating (and a renewal source) device, such as that at Davidstow in Cornwall. Rebecca Pridham, Pebworth nr Evesham.

The issue of wind farms always attracts a good deal comment.

Week in week out local district councils are trying to make all sorts of planning decisions. All sorts of reasons are postulated by objectors for refusal but behind it all what is never said because it is not a material planning matter is how much will it devalue my property. What is needed is a recognition that most planning decisions including wind farms will de-value properties and there should be a clear scale of compensation. In my view much opposition would disappear overnight. Mike.

I strongly support the implementation of a buffer zone. In addition to the social, health and environmental effects, recent court findings state that wind farms de-value residential properties and therefore, reduce revenue for the local authorities.Fred Parkes.

Mr Luff has a valid case, and there should be more considerations regarding noise from wind turbines. Many of us will relate to the claim there 'won't be any noise' when motorways were first proposed as 'the road will go through a cutting'. We all know how wrong those claims were, through experience, and I believe those who want to build turbines should listen to Mr. Luff.

There are also many other ways to reduce the need for conventional sources of power - why not every home have solar panels to produce hot water, and photovoltaic panels to produce electricity? Also, why not off shore wind farms. Jo.

Having watched your program on the 1st Nov, in regard to wind farming. There are other options available, if this government are so concerned why are there not better discounts for solar panels, surely this would be more effective on every house within the UK than wind farms built by major companies. Richard Claxton.

With regard to the wind turbine proposal for a buffer zone. What was being ignored was that he was proposing staggered size to distance. His proposal for the large turbines being no closer than 1.5 miles to the village is valid. He said that smaller turbines dependent on size could be either a mile or half a mile. Angela Alker.

Peter Luff is attacking the wrong target. The issue which NEEDS to be debated in a sensible, adult, fashion is not how close turbines ought to be to houses - it's whether or not they ought to be built - with huge government subsidies - at all.

The technical facts are that (due to their inherent inefficiency and the unreliability of the weather) they cannot deliver what the politicians and the wind farm lobbyists say they can. The government ought to be putting our money to better use by accelerating the programme for renewal of nuclear power stations and investing in the development of "clean coal" technology. John Waine, Nuneaton.

There clearly should be a national agreed buffer zone between wind turbines and peoples homes and perhaps linking this to the height of the turbines is a sensible idea. Where large turbines are located as close as 600m to peoples homes the impact is not just visual but they become a dominant feature and impact on the amenity enjoyed by those households. An agreed buffer zone could indeed help in the planning process and set out sensible criteria that could be adopted and used by developers, planners and local authorities to identify suitable locations for this renewable technology. Stuart Green.

Fully endorse a buffer zone - current wind turbine development at The Lenches in the Vale Of Evesham are only 500m from peoples homes and only 1,000m from the local Primary School - the new onshore turbines are 125m Tall - 'separation zones' will help local planners and remove roadblocks to developments - hign percentage of developments are rejected due to proximity to people. We need clarity, rather than a lottery. Mark McNally.

I strongly support Peter Luff's bill and discussed this subject with Peter's assistant this week.

We must have safeguards against the exploitation of the the government initiative for renewable energy by the wind farm developers.

The government has created a market for onshore wind power but with absolutely no strategy for where it will be built. This is resulting in a 'free for all' for wind developers who are attempting to put wind turbines anywhere they believe they can get away with it. Richard Cox.

The first windy day we have had in 2 months in the Lenches, our part of Worcestershire would not have produced much power from wind in that time! The buffer zone law Proposed by Peter Luff would protect all UK residents from the hugely powerful commercial interests placing vast turbines as close to homes as they please even against the wishes of households and communities.

I ask every UK resident to consider wether they would like a 150metre high turbine to be put in their back gardens whether they liked it or not, with no course of redress? Andy Thompson.

Wind energy is no good - it is unreliable and cannot be planned for. Mr Hankey, Staffordshire.

I agree with Peter Luff's suggestion of buffer zones around wind farms. Mrs Horton, The Lenches

I would rather have a wind farm near me than a nuclear power station. Anne, Tewkesbury.

What about the profiteering of energy companies when they get their carbon-offset certificates for making use of green power? Fred, Matlock.

Many of you think Mr Luff's proposals are worth consideration.

I entirely agree with the idea of buffer zones - and what happens when the wind doesn't blow?! Mrs Anderson, Worcestershire.

Wind farms are complete eyesores and don't generate enough sufficient power. David, Solihull.

I would support Peter Luff's idea because they are an eyesore and make too much noise. David, Kenilworth.

A buffer zone seems like a sensible idea, but are the wind turbines being built in Britain and generating money and jobs for our economy?Chris, Staffordshire

I am hugely in favour of Peter Luff's bill about wind farm buffer zones. Ian, Staffordshire.

I very much support Peter Luff's wind farm bill. Mr Jones, Worcestershire.

Wind turbines are a total waste of money and are totally inefficient. The future of renewable energy is nuclear power. Mrs Clarke, The Lenches.

I can't believe noise from these wind farms is not an issue. I will be directly downwind of these turbines and there will be dreadful problems with them. Terry, Church Lench.

Buffer zones are crucial. The noise and flicker effect from them is dreadful. A buffer zone of at least 1.5 miles is necessary. Sue, Warwickshire.

Why are wind turbines stark white? During the war we employed boffins to devise camouflage schemes to hide equipment from prying eyes.

The biggest moan is that the turbines are an eyesore so why don't we disguise them.Paint the masts brown and the sails green so that they look like trees etc. Peter Mason.

I'm all for wind turbines but what about the impact of habitats for the English animals! from what i have saw there was no talk of that! Rebecca Collins.

I have listened to both sides of this debate for years, yet I have never heard of any scientific, or structured evidence presented by either side. This is a political debate plain and simple. Both sides have valid concerns, but ultimately, scientific evidence (made public) will enable these to be answered once and for all. To help the climate, policy should largely be made on sound balanced evidence and not political agenda. Address the causes for concern for both parties, and the policy will emerge by itself. Rob Capolongo, Worcestershire.

I personally think wind turbines are the way forward, but the problem is that people don't like the look of them, wouldn't it be better to disguise them so they look like trees. Antony Smith.

I live in the least windy county of England, Northamptonshire, and currently there are proposals for 58 wind turbines, mostly 400 feet tall, within 5 miles of Crick Church.

Daventry District Council wrote to the government asking for advice on how to deal with these multiple applications but got a shrug of the shoulders type of reply.

The only reason the companies proposing these wind farms ar doing so is because of the massive subsidies they receive that will make the cost of the electricity generasted by the wind turbines twice as expensive as current costs. The environmental reasons they promote are a smokescreen. I fully support Peter Luff's bill. Stephen O'Neill.

Another point is that different people are more sensitive to different ranges of sounds.

I suffer terribly because I can hear sounds over 24 Khz, so I can hear so many of all these electronic devices with noisy power supplies, where as most people can not. I suffer form tinitus because of these power supplies ! and it took a long time before people accepted it was possible. So I now live with a life long condition where there is no cure ! all because the people who say they know, say "it does not / will not effect people".

There are people who are also sensitive to low frequency noises, who will suffer to a greater degree than other people form the low frequencies produced by wind farms. Terry, West Midlands.

Well done Peter Luff. We English have been discriminated against for long enough. The Scots have buffer zones of 1.5km so why not us? Probably because we have a Scottish Prime Minister who doesn't care two hoots about the English.

Wind turbines only generate electricity when the wind is blowing between 12-54mph which equates to less than 30% of installed capacity at great cost to the taxpayer so it's quite probable that had the turbines been installed there they would have had to be turned off.

But a more serious point is the fact that wind turbines DO NOT save CO2 taking into account their production, installation and backup power from conventional power stations. Sadly most of this data is suppressed by the government, the media and the BWE!

The obsession with 'climate change' is turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history. N.P. Watson.

I agree with Mr Luff's buffer zone idea. It is only fair,windfarm's should not be too near main roads either,such as the M1,as they may distract some motorists, more nuclear power is needed. Duncan Wilson.

The village of Strensham in Worcestershire is also under threat of at least 3 x 126m wind turbines being built less than half mile from the village. I and a large majority of residents agree with Mr Luff concerning the distances between turbines and residential properties.

Most of the residents in the area have petitioned the Prime Minister with a similar restriction. His answer was a 'garbled' NO. The effect of this threat is that most of the villagers are concerned for the immediate and short term future for their health, their property values and the effect this has already had on the mood of the village.

A disproportionate number of properties have either been sold or up for sale since this wind farm news broke eighteen months ago. Geoffrey Russell.

Finally, an MP who is opening the debate up regarding the proximity of these large industrial sized turbines. Thanks to Peter, this is a debate that is long overdue and much needed. It will help to bring some clarity to local councils on what local communities should be made to live with. One thing not covered in the time allotted to interviewees was the damage to the wildlife - which will be irreparable. It is a haven for wildlife around here and an environmental disaster in itself if this was ever allowed to go ahead. Erica Page.

I fully support Peter Luff in this. Here in Cornwall we are finding wind farms popping up in the most unsuitable locations. The most shocking being plans for 20 126m turbines at the foot of Roughtor in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a Conservation Area. The fact that these turbines will be built on peat, the best CO2 sink on the planet, means that more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere by their construction than they can ever hope to save through generation of renewable energy. This is a case of big business making money out of spurious government targets and grants rather than an environmental project. Even Friends of the Earth have vociferously opposed these plans. Local planners must be given the tools to ensure that wind farm developments in their areas are appropriate environmentally. Araminta Greaves.

I live in Peter Luff's constituency and in the area immediately affected by the proposed wind farm.

Having had to put up with 12 months of abject nonsense from the anti-wind farm protesters, who collectively form a minority in the relevant villages, I am dismayed that Mr Luff is backing their cause.

As BBC Midlands Today brilliantly demonstrated in an item broadcast on Friday 30 October, modern wind farms are effectively silent and they bring many benefits.

For our local MP to espouse a nimby cause, irrespective of the true feelings of the majority of locals, is a truly retrograde step.

We desperately need a national renewable energy strategy based on facts, and not on the rubbish spouted by self-interested nimbies.

Mr Luff's intervention will do nothing to help the UK's looming energy crisis. He has played into the hands of a noisy and aggressive minority. Lynn Davies.