By Ross Findon
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
PLANS for a 74 metre high wind turbine will go before Isle of Wight councillors on Monday.
The plans for a single turbine to be built at a site off Betty Haunt Lane has been recommended for conditional approval by officers, however hundreds of people have written to the Isle of Wight Council to object.
Officers have recommended if the plans are given conditional approval, it should be subject to further noise assessments.
According to a report to councillors, their main considerations should be the effect of noise, impact on the landscape, ecology and natural habitats, cultural heritage and highways.
The meeting will be held at County Hall and starts at 6pm.
Log-in or register to comment on this story. See our House Rules here.
By ticking "Remember me" you agree to a cookie being stored on your computer - no personal data is shared.
Log-in to Report
by Darryl Fry
4th January 2013, at 23:29:04
I'm confused. Do these 'poles' actually lean to the left or do they just have wings on the left side? Either design would be an inefficient way to generate clean energy.
by geoffrey clynch
4th January 2013, at 13:22:30
In an article in todays papers, at first glance you would think that the PLANNING Minister "Nick Boles" was talking sense and finally a minister on residents side, BUT then this is the same person who advocates building on a million acres of GREEN land for homes for millions more immigrants, two faced,forked tongued liars abound,lets see if he does help residents fight against these disgusting unwanted leftwing totem poles
4th January 2013, at 04:41:44
A couple of interesting articles to read. https://lockthegate.org.au/health/ and https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?act=display&pubid=1032&q=node%2F19
4th January 2013, at 04:11:12
Strange. People objecting to clean renewable energy and supporting grimy polluting fossil energy? I love the island for its antiquity, but lets not extend that to preserving old industrial revolution technology. Nurture your culture and embrace the future.
4th January 2013, at 04:04:06
In response to Neil Jacks' question: the answer is that is Mr. Prescott's style. Many people without a good argument use insults and vitriol as a substitute for knowledge and facts. I did a philosophy minor as part of my environmental science degree and we learnt that personal insult is a common device to disguise a fallacy. It seems that anyone who goes near a pub or supports infinite renewable energy over finite fossil fuels is either an 'idiot' or a 'half wit.' I think that on that basis we can safely ignore and dismiss anything the angry Mr. Prescott has to say and move on.Moving on: I have visited the farms, creeks and billabongs where the land and aquifers have been fractured for money and gas - and it is truly heart breaking. I have met with families who have locked their gates when the SUV's turn up, and seen the black-clad security guards use bolt cutters to force their way onto their homes. I have seen the bubbles coming up in the water and the sick animals. And the tears
by neil jacks
3rd January 2013, at 23:19:11
Mr prescott, why do you in turn belittle mr fry who has more knowledge and experience on the subject than you?
3rd January 2013, at 22:47:07
what the hell has wightlink got to do with this link.
by TIM HARMER
3rd January 2013, at 21:17:29
Pathetic anyone who objects to wind enery untill tidal becomes more affordable, Wightlink ferry fares do more harm to tourism than any wind turbine! Put one in my garden im not bothered if it affects my property price we cant afford to move anyway!
by Mark Hitchman
3rd January 2013, at 17:15:49
To reply to Neil Jacks, it's not near me, I live near Culver Down and have a lovely view of it which I wouldn't mind seeing turbnes on. I work very close to where this turbine will go in, and that still won't bother me at all. I think for the short term, 20 - 25 years, put them up, and that gives us breathing space to make sure tidal, solar etc can improve, then take the wind turbines down. A small sacrifice for a short term solution to our energy crisis giving us breathing space whilst new technologies are improved.
by T Rollingsworth
3rd January 2013, at 17:02:05
Geoffrey, would you be interested in purchasing a tin-foil hat? Also, the BANANA acronym is brilliant- I can't believe I've not heard it! On a serious note, offshore wind isn't really worth it due to the power you would have to use getting it back into the grid. (and building it)
3rd January 2013, at 15:29:54
I personally have never mentioned the word "CANCER" but would say that this scheme, Fracking and the "CORE STRATEGY" of this council of building 10,400 new homes and 27 Gypsy pitches are part of a cancer that is going to destroy this Island
by James McAdder
3rd January 2013, at 14:24:01
Why not put them offshore, Mr Clynch?Well, that'd be because all of the Bananas start whining about their sea view being spoiled.Bananas := Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.All of this talk of democracy is complete cobblers, anyway. These people are just a loud and shouty minority. Shouting loudly does not indicate, nor encourage, wide support.And using emotive terms like "cancer" just makes you seem ignorant.
3rd January 2013, at 12:41:12
Agree Mr.Prescott, global warming...etc is just a massive moneymaking SCAM and part of the marxist thought control properganda, most of the flooding of homes is the fault of consecutive governments allowing Builders to build on flood-plains to make a quick-buck, If you want one of these useless money-making scam turbines, why not put it off-shore, or would that cost too much of the profits
by Don Prescott
3rd January 2013, at 12:15:25
I never cease to be amazed at the idiocy of some comments on here.“I recall there being some crackpot idea that oil had been found beneath Porchfield”That was NEVER the case. No oil HAD been found. Northern came looking to see if there was any.“short sighted lunacy which tries to convince us that the wind on the IW is somehow different from wind everywhere else in the UK”Well yes it is actually. If you bothered to do a bit of research to back up your your lunatic posts, you would find that 60% of usable wind is found in....SCOTLAND and that is why most wind farms are in unpopulated areas of ...SCOTLAND! Not 450 metres from residential property on the IOW.“how many of these idiots fell for the "solar power" con trick”Does not really matter as wind and solar are BOTH part of the same green energy scam.
3rd January 2013, at 12:15:04
But the biggest brickbat for the most idiotic comment goes to Mr. Fry on the “Fracking” story, who said:“Found Dr Denness. He is well qualified to comment. Though I worry that he supports teaching creationism in schools”Bruce Denness, MSc, DIC, PhD, MICE, FGS., has said that shale gas fracking would NOT cause any problems here and Mr. Fry acknowledges Denness’ expertise, but STILL has to try to belittle him because he “supports teaching creationism in schools”.He (Denness) is also 72, so well within range of the idiotic comments of the man down the pub.I am a bit surprised that these half-wits have not started to blame “global warming/climate change” for the landslides and flooding which have wrecked some peoples homes.While normal, decent people have sympathy for those affected by these extreme weather conditions, the green terrorists usually blame them for bringing it upon themselves.
by Mike Crowe
3rd January 2013, at 11:55:06
Sorry ...Say NO to the monstroceties ANYWHERE on the Island
3rd January 2013, at 11:53:47
The trouble is that once the first one is up, the erection of others would creep across the Island like a cancer and then when people realize just what an eyesore and how useless they are, like cancer they would be hard to get rid of.Stop them now before they start.No they are Not In My Back Yard. Say NO the monstroceties ANYWHERE on the Island
3rd January 2013, at 10:03:55
Mark, will you have to live near such an instalation?
3rd January 2013, at 10:02:58
why do they always want to put these things up in such daft places?
3rd January 2013, at 10:01:55
Hope it goes through, I have no problem with this or any other wind installation on the Island.
3rd January 2013, at 09:27:29
Samuel, how many jobs will one of these windmills provide in putting the eyesore up, and once up, how many jobs will it sustain?Island jobs that is.
3rd January 2013, at 08:51:07
its not an industry that will provide jobs or long term stability so why do we need it?
by Samuel Wilcock
3rd January 2013, at 01:05:36
This island NEEDS an industry other than care-homes!! It NEEDS jobs!! For this island to have any decent future we NEED plans like this to go ahead!!
2nd January 2013, at 22:13:59
Hmm, more right whinger than right winger.Where do you write to support the approval.
2nd January 2013, at 21:42:08
you have some funny ideas yourself if you think these things look good.
by John Kneeshaw
2nd January 2013, at 17:29:45
Its a lot more sinister than NIMBYism. When I lived on the IW a few years ago, I recall there being some crackpot idea that oil had been found beneath Porchfield. The prospect of a few huge ugly derricks being erected in an AONB did not attract too many NIMBYs. They were queing up to buy the land to put the things on! (You really couldnt make it up). Yet as soon as the subject of inoffensive (even aesthetically pleasing) wind farms comes up; we are bombarded with the brain dead, short sighted lunacy which tries to convince us that the wind on the IW is somehow different from wind everywhere else in the UK. I wonder how many of these idiots fell for the "solar power" con trick; vandalising perfectly good roof tops in the vain hope that they will live for the requisite 267.5 years which it will take for the panels to return the investment.
by Kevin Barclay-Jay
2nd January 2013, at 14:55:47
oh dear..there goes our resident far right winger....telling people what a referendum would say without an ounce of evidence. Very many people are in favour of renewable energy sources including onshore wind turbines...I'm sure a fair number of old people would be opposed, but then what do they care about the future energy requirements and or responsibility to add to energy production. Shame there aren't more young people, who generally are in favour of energy production for the future staying on the Island to counter the blue rinse brigade, but the result of a referendum is far from obvious.
2nd January 2013, at 14:37:19
Yet another scheme that will be a blight on the Island, and the usual suspects who are first to voice IN FAVOUR of it, say NO to this, if the council deems fit to actually let you have a say on the matter, there is no need for debate, if given a referendum the MAJORITY would say"NO"
2nd January 2013, at 13:25:03
I have taken the liberty of translating the objection paragraph for you all:"According to a report to councillors, their main considerations should be the effect of house prices, impact on the views of of peoples windows, house prices cultural heritage and house prices."They may as well just summarise the report with the acronym : N.I.M.B.Y.
Any views or opinions presented in the comments above are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Isle of Wight County Press.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
IWCP v4.0 © Isle of Wight County Press 2011. All Rights Reserved. Web Design By Matrix Create.
Contact Us | Disclaimer
| Cookies | Links | Sitemap
Isle of Wight County Press Ltd. Registered office: Brannon House, 123 Pyle Street,
Newport, Isle of Wight PO30 1ST. Registered in England. Registered number: 1342243.