logo
Article

Cottam wind farm application rejected although developers warn they may appeal

Retford Times |July 15, 2010
United Kingdom (UK)General

Speaking to the Retford Times within minutes of the outcome, developers ProWind announced they may appeal. In a statement, project manager Oliver Scheidegger hit out at the decision. "We are very disappointed with the decision and we feel the reasons for the refusal are insubstantial," he said. "We will definitely be considering an appeal."


Wind farm plans for a site near Cottam have been rejected by Bassetlaw Council over fears the turbines would be "far too big" - though developers warn they may appeal.

One year after plans for 12 wind turbines 145m in height were submitted to Bassetlaw Council, members of the planning committee voted against officers' recommendations for approval, voicing fears over the visual impact the turbines would have on the landscape.

Dave Langmead, clerk to the Association of Trentside Parish Councils - which had opposed the plans on numerous grounds - said the group was pleased with the outcome, but would continue to push for clearer planning policy on wind farms.

"Obviously we're delighted with the decision," he said.

"We will continue …

... more [truncated due to possible copyright]

Wind farm plans for a site near Cottam have been rejected by Bassetlaw Council over fears the turbines would be "far too big" - though developers warn they may appeal.

One year after plans for 12 wind turbines 145m in height were submitted to Bassetlaw Council, members of the planning committee voted against officers' recommendations for approval, voicing fears over the visual impact the turbines would have on the landscape.

Dave Langmead, clerk to the Association of Trentside Parish Councils - which had opposed the plans on numerous grounds - said the group was pleased with the outcome, but would continue to push for clearer planning policy on wind farms.

"Obviously we're delighted with the decision," he said.

"We will continue to press for clearer planning policy. The council seems to be reactive rather than proactive.

"The size was a particular problem on this application. If they were only going to be 10 feet tall and three of them, that would have been fine, but of course that wouldn't be a productive group of turbines."

Responding to similar policy concerns in July, Bassetlaw Council's head of community prosperity David Armiger had said there was no specific policy on wind farm applications, which were instead dealt with according to national guidelines.

Speaking to the Retford Times within minutes of the outcome, developers ProWind announced they may appeal.

In a statement, project manager Oliver Scheidegger hit out at the decision.

"We are very disappointed with the decision and we feel the reasons for the refusal are insubstantial," he said.

"We will definitely be considering an appeal."

In a speech to the committee, Rampton councillor Jeff Rickells had urged members to think of the implications for people living near the site.

He said: "There's nothing much more for me to say except for the main thing I would ask the members of the committee here this evening is to put yourself in the shoes of the people here because this is a very serious application.

"These wind turbines are going to be 145m high and there's 12 of them. It would provide no local employment. Although large upon the landscape, Cottam and West Burton provide much employment.

"The residents do not want it and another bit of our countryside would be spoiled."

Several of the members discussing the application shared the concern - with the main point of contention being the size.

Cllr Graham Oxby expressed worries not only at the size of the turbines, but at the idea of locating them in an area populated with another power station.

He said: "The contradiction in terms for me on this one - and I am in support of windfarms and always will be - is that they're going to place a windfarm in the back yard of a massive power station.

"Do I want to go home to my house and you see this staring back at me? I don't - they are far too big.

"It is my view that it would be incongruous and it would be wrong. They would be far too big."

Similar concerns were voiced by Cllr David Pressley, who said the size of the turbines would be excessive for the surrounding area, but added it was a "difficult decision".

"I think the problem with them is they're too big. The issue is are they too big for that area," he said.

"Having read the report, having considered it, it is a very flat area."

Cllr Frank Hart added: "I went on a site visit and I couldn't envisage it brought over here. I can see what size this thing would be.

"I personally think they are far too big for this area."

The decision to reject the plan was made by seven votes to four.

Reasons behind the decision in the recorded vote included the number of turbines and the impact on residents, the visual impact on the landscape and the application's conflict with local plan guidelines governing development outside built-up areas.


Source:http://www.thisisretford.co.u…

Share this post
Follow Us
RSS:XMLAtomJSON
Donate
Donate
Stay Updated

We respect your privacy and never share your contact information. | LEGAL NOTICES

Contact Us

WindAction.org
Lisa Linowes, Executive Director
phone: 603.838.6588

Email contact

General Copyright Statement: Most of the sourced material posted to WindAction.org is posted according to the Fair Use doctrine of copyright law for non-commercial news reporting, education and discussion purposes. Some articles we only show excerpts, and provide links to the original published material. Any article will be removed by request from copyright owner, please send takedown requests to: info@windaction.org

© 2024 INDUSTRIAL WIND ACTION GROUP CORP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
WEBSITE GENEROUSLY DONATED BY PARKERHILL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION