CAMPAIGNERS trying to stop three wind turbines being built near Tewkesbury have been hit by a setback.
CAMPAIGNERS trying to stop three wind turbines being built near Tewkesbury have been hit dealt a setback
Although Wind Prospect's main proposal to install the 126m turbines at Strensham has yet to be considered, it had plans to continue monitoring wind speed there approved.
The Bristol-based company only had permission to have a 70m monitoring mast at the site until February 2011 and in April last year Tewkesbury Borough Council rejected its application to keep it there until February 2013.
But that decision has now been overturned on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.
Its inspector, Jill Kingaby, decided the structure was acceptable, environmentally, and could remain in place for another 12 months.
She made her decision despite realising that campaigners wanted the mast to be removed.
She said: "The current proposal to extend the time limit is seen as an attempt to gather data which will be more supportive of the appellant's search for a 'windy' site."
But she said that did not alter her view that the extra year's permission should be granted, adding: "As the main villages are more than 1km from the site and as the mast is a slender feature, it does not dominate or intrude on the scene to a great extent."
Hundreds of objections to the turbines plan have been lodged with the council by people from areas such as Strensham and Twyning. They fear the structures will be a blot on the landscape that will be seen from miles around and may cause noise problems for those living closest to them. Dave Wallbank, from Strensham Wind Action Group, said his main concern was that the data being gathered by the mast was not being made available to the public by Wind Prospect.
He said: "They're not releasing the data, in the same way that they won't release the noise information."
He added his group was as determined as ever, four years after the plans were first mooted, to oppose them.
Alistair Smith, for Wind Prospect, said: "We're still pursuing this site. We've got the minimum amount of information from the mast. Everything above that will be useful and beneficial to us."
But he said deciding whether there was enough wind at the site was not an issue that would affect the council's decision on the main application.
Borough bosses said their planning committee is unlikely to consider the matter before April.
19 Comments
View all
by Spud0
Monday, February 13 2012, 7:20PM
“Seems a shame to strangle the fledgling wind turbine business at birth. There's no doubt or any claim anywhere that wind would provide all the UK's energy needs, anything that would help reduce our use of fossil fuels and also limit the growth of nuclear energy should be welcomed. Better still if the UK could build up a wind turbine business, providing much needed jobs and exporting the technology to the developing world. Yes, it subsidised at the moment but so is nuclear energy so are a lot of other industries. I have yet to read of a sound reason to object to these wind turbines.”
by 2ladybugs
Monday, February 13 2012, 3:28PM
“Because SpudO whilst we have now got used to overground pylons I wouldn't say people are that impressed by them. We may put up with them because we have no choice, but putting up even more overground monstrosities can be stopped now, before it all gets out of hand.”
by Spud0
Monday, February 13 2012, 3:19PM
“I am still wondering why people object so much to wind turbines and not much at all about pylons which are much more prolific and uglier?”
by 2ladybugs
Monday, February 13 2012, 2:48PM
“The sooner we get a few more power stations up and running, or the old ones dismantled and rebuilt, the better. We don't want to be reliant on Russia or any other foreign power for our energy supplies.”
by Chris2308
Monday, February 13 2012, 2:47PM
“SG, you are of course correct. The turbine is the critical moving part and the only difference between nuclear and coal/oil fired power stations is the method by which the steam to drive the turbine is generated.
it's just a pity that these wind turbines can't be adapted to run off hot air, I can think of the perfect place for quite a few of them.”
by L_escalier
Monday, February 13 2012, 2:39PM
“There was a power cut in Tuffley yesterday evening. Just for a couple of minutes, but with the maintenance budget falling, and electricty demand going up, the resulting strain on supply will mean more blackouts. Pound to a penny, if (more likely, when) this starts to happen, the authorities will tell us this is just inevitable, and hard decisions have to be made. Practically, people will start to keep a handy supply of candles and a torch on hand, and get used to the idea of missing the odd programme on the telly (good thing for iPlayer and repeats, or is timeshifted programming a pre-emptive response?). Not so much the lobster cooking to death without realising as having the gas turned off halfway through and cooling down. Still not a very healthy lobster, and with not much of a future ahead of it.”
by SG1970
Monday, February 13 2012, 2:36PM
“Spud - Couple of points.
More pylons are required for renewables, as they have to link up the little pockets of green generation.
It's not the nuclear part that breaks down generally, but the turbine generating the power, this isn't uncommon, and is the same system, used for gas and Coal. Most power stations will have a number of these they can switch over to another if one goes offline. Offline problems take a while to sort out as we have not invested in our 'dirty' energy maintenance.”
by Desenchanter
Monday, February 13 2012, 2:14PM
“Spud - wave powered renewables are coming on line which are providing reliable generatio and the means to store the energy until required from generation. Wind power is too expensive, and too unreliable.
I'm not the greatest fan of Nuclear for some of the reasons you have stated but Wind generation is a dead end form of generation with very limited use.
Its energy cannot be stored, is not avaailable on demand when needed and the unit cost for them with associated maintenance is astronomical.”
by 2ladybugs
Monday, February 13 2012, 2:12PM
“@SpudO
"nuclear power stations are breaking down regularly and being taken off-line for month and years"
Well that may well be but we don't seem to be having breaks in energy supply for the same amount of time. So obviously power stations are more reliable than wind turbines!”
by Spud0
Monday, February 13 2012, 1:57PM
“Deschanter "The difference between Nuclear and wind power is that Nuclear provides 24/7 reliable generation which can be used all the time. That will never be the case for Wind or Solar. Desenchanter "
Nuclear does not provide 24/7 reliable power, this is an old dis-credited fact, these nuclear power stations are breaking down regularly and taken offline for months and years at a time at great expense. Currently the high cost of nulcear power is the cost of dealing with the waste it produce. A huge cost future generations will have to pay."”