Wind turbine battle goes on
Diss Express|Luke Page|April 26, 2008
Campaigners scored a victory against the developers of wind turbines on Tuesday. Plans to build a 60-metre monitoring mast near Tivetshall St Mary by Enertrag UK Ltd were rejected by a South Norfolk Council planning committee. Members of the public packed the council chamber to see six of seven councillors reject the application, with one abstention. They cited visual and environmental impacts among their reasons.
Campaigners scored a victory against the developers of wind turbines on Tuesday. Plans to build a 60-metre monitoring mast near Tivetshall St Mary by Enertrag UK Ltd were rejected by a South Norfolk Council planning committee. Members of the public packed the council chamber to see six of seven councillors reject the application, with one abstention. They cited visual and environmental impacts among their reasons.
Campaigners scored a victory against the developers of wind turbines on Tuesday.
Plans to build a 60-metre monitoring mast near Tivetshall St Mary by Enertrag UK Ltd were rejected by a South Norfolk Council planning committee.
Members of the public packed the council chamber to see six of seven councillors reject the application, with one abstention. They cited visual and environmental impacts among their reasons.
Developer Enertrag wanted the mast to monitor meteorological conditions for two years before submitting plans to build six wind turbines on land south of Tivetshall St Mary, near Dickleburgh and Shimpling.
Eric Kirby, a committee member for the Tivetshall Action Group, said: "I'm very pleased. It is the right thing, in …
... more [truncated due to possible copyright]Campaigners scored a victory against the developers of wind turbines on Tuesday.
Plans to build a 60-metre monitoring mast near Tivetshall St Mary by Enertrag UK Ltd were rejected by a South Norfolk Council planning committee.
Members of the public packed the council chamber to see six of seven councillors reject the application, with one abstention. They cited visual and environmental impacts among their reasons.
Developer Enertrag wanted the mast to monitor meteorological conditions for two years before submitting plans to build six wind turbines on land south of Tivetshall St Mary, near Dickleburgh and Shimpling.
Eric Kirby, a committee member for the Tivetshall Action Group, said: "I'm very pleased. It is the right thing, in the wrong place."
Tivetshall St Mary parish council chairman Graham Mills said he thought the majority of villagers would be pleased with the outcome, based on the level of opposition at meetings.
Parish councils at Gissing, Dickleburgh, Burston and Shimpling and Brockdish all recommended refusal.
But David Linley, manager for projects at Enertrag, was unhappy with the planning committee going against the recommendation of South Norfolk Council officers.
He said: "It (the meeting) was a shambles - there was no decision made on planning law."
But he added that Enertrag would not be abandoning its plans and that a wind farm could still be built without the monitoring mast.
"I have meetings with the council next week to discuss the best way forward but the application is not dead."
Factfile
Hempnall: Seven turbines - Application submitted to South Norfolk Council by Enertrag UK Ltd last week.
Hethel: Three turbines - Application resubmitted by Ecotricity in March. The Ministry of Defence had opposed plans as they claimed the turbines would be a threat to national security.
Mickfield: Four turbines - Scoping report submitted by SLP Energy to Mid Suffolk District Council, October 2007.
Parham: Six turbines - Approved in 2006 but not yet being built. Your Energy submitted application in May 2007 to extend the turbine blades from 31 to 35.5 metres. It is on hold for legal reasons raised by a campaign group.
Pulham Airfield: Seven turbines - SLP Energy plans for monitoring mast rejected last September but plans still in progress.
Tivetshall: See main story.