Wind Turbine Site Lease

[DrWazzock]

I am concerned that if I were to lease a site to a wind energy business, with (if they are to be believed) no other involvement from me other than allowing access and leasing the site, then if in the future people sue for noise nuisance, despite the operator (tenant) complying with present recommendations, then will I be liable to pay compensation or can only the operator (tenant) be liable or should he indemnify me for such eventuality.

Can the operator pass noise claims onto the landlord? I am assuming that if the operator goes bust, and the turbine stops turning then there would not be a noise issue anyway.

Another cause for concern I have with these leases is the scope of "landlord assistance" with respect to utility connections. While a landlord would expect to provide some basic assistance with utility connections such as water supply to the site, he would not expect to pay for these connections and certainly not the grid connection to the turbine, yet this is very wooly in the lease.

What initially looked like an attractive offer with no strings attached, now looks more complicated and looks like running up a fair old solicitors bill before it even gets started and even then it might come to nothing.

Anybody else had experience of "lease only" arrangements?

 

[DrWazzock]

PS

PMs accepted in confidence if you have any good or bad experiences with option agreements or leases. Not wishing to be negative about any companies, just trying to do my homework.
Thanks.

 

[domsmith]

Your option agreement should include the payment of your legal fees. if you think it will be costly make sure they will cover that cost.

d

 

[DrWazzock]

The agent who visited us said they would pay our legal fees, but when the option agreement arrived it seemed to say that it would only pay costs associated with registering the option/lease with the land registry but not any other fees arising from legal work, land agents negotiations, responses to questions, engrossment or any other ancillary matters pertaining to the agreement. These would be paid by the landlord. And knowing the way solicitors work, these would not be insignificant.
In my opinion the option agreement and draft lease I have received is unsatisfactory. The proposed location of the turbine and the land area taken by it is not specified precisely enough, leaving the developer scope to move it almost anywhere on my property and take any amount of land for the site. The type of wind turbine is also unspecified leaving us open to something noisy. The utilities required, though not part of our supply, are also unspecified, and if water supply or phone line is required this would cause big disruption to our land even if we aren't paying for the installation.

The whole thing strikes as some kind of gold rush at the moment. We don't even have enough wind to contemplate putting up a turbine ourselves with just under 5 m/s so what the heck is going on with these people????

 

[always busy]

Pm sent

 

[hindmaist]

The agent who visited us said they would pay our legal fees, but when the option agreement arrived it seemed to say that it would only pay costs associated with registering the option/lease with the land registry but not any other fees arising from legal work, land agents negotiations, responses to questions, engrossment or any other ancillary matters pertaining to the agreement. These would be paid by the landlord. And knowing the way solicitors work, these would not be insignificant.
In my opinion the option agreement and draft lease I have received is unsatisfactory. The proposed location of the turbine and the land area taken by it is not specified precisely enough, leaving the developer scope to move it almost anywhere on my property and take any amount of land for the site. The type of wind turbine is also unspecified leaving us open to something noisy. The utilities required, though not part of our supply, are also unspecified, and if water supply or phone line is required this would cause big disruption to our land even if we aren't paying for the installation.

The whole thing strikes as some kind of gold rush at the moment. We don't even have enough wind to contemplate putting up a turbine ourselves with just under 5 m/s so what the heck is going on with these people????

They go round the countryside getting as many folk as possible signed up to them,without laying out any cash,and then cherry-pick the best prospects for development.I wouldn't be bothered with them.

 

[Walterp]

They go round the countryside getting as many folk as possible signed up to them,without laying out any cash,and then cherry-pick the best prospects for development.I wouldn't be bothered with them.

We signed up and I'd be bound to day that the agents worked very hard to advance the prospects of a turbine - without their efforts, we wouldn't be getting one. I'm sure they're getting paid somewhere along the line, but I'd say they deserve it.

 

[hindmaist]

We signed up and I'd be bound to day that the agents worked very hard to advance the prospects of a turbine - without their efforts, we wouldn't be getting one. I'm sure they're getting paid somewhere along the line, but I'd say they deserve it.

Does that make you a cherry then?

 

[Walterp]

Does that make you a cherry then?

I doubt the windspeed is anything special, merely reflecting the oddity that it's often easier to get planning permission is areas that don't have high W/S than areas that DO have high W/S.

 

[Exfarmer]

Be very wary of these leases.
The only one I have seen places a huge responsibility on the landowner
Strangely though my advice was that it was not even a legal lease, since a 20 year lease should be registered with the land registry , which this had not
When registering, it will require assent also from any mortgagee, who may have an interest in the property.
If you are concerned about bankruptcy it is imperative you insert a clause reserving all property and machinery on the site to the landlord, if the operator does indeed go bust.
Definitely speak to your solicitor, and insist all the costs involved with the installation fall on the company
Insist that when the lease is up the turbine is passed to you the landlord in working order so you may enjoy the export revenue.

 

[DrWazzock]

Thanks to all for useful pointers. The more I go through the terms of the proposed lease, the less happy I am. At the initial meeting they said they said they would remove access road and hardstanding after construction, yet the lease says they won't. The bloke who visited us said he could backhand the council to get permission. He went down in my estimation. He said they would pay legal fees. The lease says they won't.

I think they take us for a bunch of country bumpkins really.

Another thing that annoys me, is that leases must be in the process of revision up and down the country for this kind of project. Why is there not a standard lease for a wind turbine site which is fair to both parties. Surely this would save a lot solicitors fees and wasted time. is there a solicitor in the house???

 

[Walterp]

Very few solicitors know much about these leases, and those that do are acting for the turbine companies. Usually based in London, naturally. Very expensive, too, if I say so myself - allow £10,000 + VAT. No, I'm not joking...

The roads normally stay put, for access and service; costs normally borne by the company; backhanders to Council officers went out with the Ark.

 

[john432]

My reaction to Dr Wazzock's posts about his developer/tennant would be get rid! I am dealing with a company at the moment.(Resolved) and can only praise their communication and straight talking profesionalism. Yes, the leasing contracts are too open ended, for the land owner's liability etc, and my solicitor wants many changes to the contract. But I think that these leases are quite new for all concerned and I have been told that in time they will be standardised.

 

[DrWazzock]

We are not proceeding.

There are, in our view, too many problems with the proposed lease namely

Not paying for our legal fees
Vetoing our future planning applications
Assigning the lease to others without our consent
Not indemnifying us against claims for noise

We do not think it sensible that we should fork out thousands of our own cash on legal fees to get the lease into shape, only for the whole thing to fall through because the operator backs out or does not get permission.

Also, even though we meet guidelines for distance to nearest residence,(greater than 600m) I am not convinced that this would not cause some disturbance to our neighbour.

Then also, if the turbine ends up contributing a fair proportion of our income, when compared to our agricultural income, we could end up with the whole place no longer qualifying for inheritance tax relief and also devalued as a residential farm.

So it's a big no from us, though such a scheme might be suitable for others.

And thanks very much to all for their helpful and considered input.