Chapel Lawn – Notes from meeting about Renewable Energy - 20^th January 2008

Present: Dave Alker, Ann Arnold, Claudia Brown, Patrick Cosgrove, Ian Campbell, Liz Campbell, Sarah Harding,  Bob Jones, James Middleton, Becky Whitton

The aim of the meeting was to see if there is sufficient interest and scope to submit a proposal to the FIRE project in order to attract funding for a feasibility study on renewable energy (RE) production in and around Chapel Lawn.

1.      What we know about the FIRE Project.

Patrick explained that the FIRE project is a potential joint venture between Adam Kennerley, a Knighton based environmentalist, and Energy4All, a national organisation with a track record of setting up community based RE projects.  A proposal has been submitted to the Regional Development Agency, Advantage West Midlands (AWM), for funding from 2008/9 financial year onwards. A decision from AWM is expected in March. If successful, money would be for feasibility studies on possible RE projects. Four projects would be initially funded, with an expectation of at least two proving successful. Part of the income from successful projects would be channelled back into a revolving fund that would then support further feasibilities. The maximum funding per project would be £150K although a Chapel Lawn project would not attract that much. 

Projects would need to have substantial support and involvement from a local community.  Key criteria for submissions, in what will inevitably be a fierce competition, will be technical and financial viability and sustainability.  Income could repay initial capital outlay, and provide a return for investors if money were raised on a community share basis. It would also have to feed the revolving project fund. 

Significant interest has already been generated within the Rural Regeneration Zone (RRZ), which is the target area for the funding. The RRZ consists of most of most of rural Herefordshire and Shropshire and a small part of western Worcestershire. Success for Chapel Lawn may be difficult as it would probably be a smallish scheme but this need not preclude trying, nor a joint project with a neighbouring community.

2.      What ideas are there for a possible RE project?

Liz led a discussion on the various forms of RE energy – solar, wind, hydro, bio-digestion, energy crops and geothermal. 

Wind and hydro were the favoured options and were discussed at length.

(i)    Wind:  Two possible local sites were discussed: Initial enquiries would have to be made of the owners to find out their views.

(ii)    Hydro: although attractive, because of the Redlake River and its tributaries passing through residents’ land, concern was expressed that there may not be enough ‘head’ (i.e. drop), volume, nor regularity. Various locations and options were discussed including creating a head by using the river flow to pump water uphill to a reservoir.

This prompted the discussion that a pre-feasibility study would be preferred in order to avoid embarking on an unsuccessful but lengthy proposal process.

For wind or hydro, AONB status might present barriers, although it was assumed that the climate of opinion was changing and sensitivities easing because of increased awareness of the need to produce RE as well as growing governmental support. It was agreed that it need not be ‘either or’, but a mix of sources could be considered.

3.      Would these ideas meet the key criteria? 

No-one could confidently voice an opinion and it was again agreed that some form of pre-feasibility would be helpful. There would also be other considerations such as access for construction, environmental impact, and proximity to the National Grid.

4.      How would the community –

(i)      Initially be consulted? Initially through 1:1 discussions to create a favourable climate of opinion and pave the way for questionnaires, newsletter article and public meeting(s). Inevitably there would be objections to any scheme – emotive or reactionary as well as well-argued and maybe sensible, and if we get to that stage we must be prepared for that.

(ii)    Be involved in the longer term? Possibly by raising shares; possibly by maintenance of waterways if hydro were adopted.

(iii)   Benefit? By regular income resulting from individual investment; by contributing to the combating of climate change; through the process of community action.

5.      What if ideas are potentially feasible but not acceptable to FIRE? Other sources of income might be available e.g. Low Carbon Programme grants for individuals and communities.

6.      Agreed Actions:

(1)   All present would talk to neighbours and other residents to raise general awareness that discussions are talking place and there is already a groundswell of support for the concept.

(2)   Ian and Becky will contact the owners of the two sites that were considered potentially suitable for wind energy.

(3)   Patrick will make enquires about free or low-cost initial consultancy, to include making contact with the Centre for Alternative Technology at Machynlleth.

(4)   Liz and Patrick will co-write a short article for the Redlake newsletter.

(5)   Liz will talk to Kim Smith  in order to shape the environmental questions that will shortly be sent out with the Parish Plan questionnaire

(6)   Becky will place these notes on the Chapel Lawn website.

7.      Further Meeting: This will be convened once actions 1, 2 and 4 above can be reported on.