Turbine plan recommended for approval

By Martin Neville

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

 

PLANS for a 74-metre wind turbine near Carisbrooke took a step forward yesterday (Tuesday).

A revised scheme for a single turbine at Betty Haunt Lane is being recommended for conditional approval, although the proposal could still be thrown out on noise grounds.

Planning officers are recommending the authority’s planning sub committee approve the highly controversial application on all matters, apart from noise, at its meeting on Monday, January 7.

The applicant would then be required to carry out a further noise assessment to be reported back to councillors at a future meeting for a final decision.

The scheme, which has attracted more than 350 representations, proposes a 74m turbine, producing around 500kW of renewable energy. It would operate for around 25 years before being decommissioned and removed from the site.

The council’s own environmental health officer has objected to the plans until additional noise monitoring is carried out to show the turbine would meet current guidelines.

There is also opposition from English Heritage which has concerns about the potential impact on the setting of the Swainston estate and Great Park House.

According to the committee report, planning officers consider the turbine’s visual impact on the landscape, its impact on neighbouring homes and on the setting of heritage sites to be acceptable.

But it adds there remains uncertainty over the potential impact from noise on the closest residential property, a mobile home near Trumor Feeds on Forest Road.

The report states: "Planning officers remain unconvinced there is sufficient information to confirm the proposed wind turbine would not result in unacceptable noise disturbance to the occupiers of this dwelling."

Reporter: martinn@iwcpmail.co.uk

Comments

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.

Forgotten your password?
Displaying the last 10 of 30 comments - Show All Comments

Log-in to Report

by Gunda Cross

17th December 2012, at 17:47:22

Is the applicant who owns Great Park Farm and has been letting it for many years who has never lived in the Isle of Wight but is resident in the Cayman Islands getting away wi;th creating this monstrosity in such a tranquil beautiful area. If the planning officers cannot represent the Islanders and look after our interests then they are the wrong people we voted for
I live less than 500 metres from the proposed turbine and very concerned about the continuous noise level. Who do we turn to, who do we sue when health problems arise. I want to be able to sit in my own garden without this irritating constant noise.

Log-in to Report

by John Yelland

15th December 2012, at 21:04:22

...even if we disagree.

WARNING TO POSTERS: IWCP character counter thinks 997 characters are 1000 and then only post 984 of them anyway.

Log-in to Report

by John Yelland

15th December 2012, at 20:56:40

Stewart, when you are older and have children and grandchildren I'm sure you will, like me, be more concerned about future generations than about your own. The reason young people have such enthusiasm for wind is their exposure to a very effective, rich and powerful wind lobby; to misquote Lord Acton, "Power corrupts and subsidized power corrupts absolutely".

This is compounded by a poor understanding of science, now so badly taught in our schools. Not your fault! Maybe mine in fact, as I am a DPhil physicist who chose industry and not education.

Most of the anti-wind people I meet are against wind turbines because they have had first hand experience of living too close to them; I campaign to try and help them. As a physicist who has worked in power engineering I have well-informed views about why wind, offshore or onshore, is not the right answer, either to our energy needs or to the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions.

Thank you for a civilised response, even i

Log-in to Report

by Stewart Webb

15th December 2012, at 16:09:28

It is completely right for the application to recommended for approval following a noise assessment. Unless peoples attitudes about wind turbines change then things are going to go badly. From my point of view the people opposing the wind turbines are of older generations, who, with all due respect, aren't going to be around when my generation starts feeling the effects of global warming.

I can only speak from my experience, but all the people of my age have no objections to wind turbines in the slightest. I think that our generation can see the threat of global warming more than older generations.

How long will it take before rising sea levels have a more damaging effect on the island than a wind turbine will.
http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/high-tide-hits-quay-47449.aspx

Log-in to Report

by John Yelland

14th December 2012, at 23:23:14

Unfortunately the planning officers are not elected Jane, only the councillors.

As Martin Neville reports above, "The council’s own environmental health officer has objected to the plans until additional noise monitoring is carried out to show the turbine would meet current guidelines." (6.134 in the notorious report). So why recommend acceptance when their own EHO says otherwise? Why have two expensive full Planning Sub-committee meetings instead of one after the FOURTH noise assessment? Perhaps Mr Wiltshire would like to post an answer. I doubt it though.

Log-in to Report

by Don Prescott

14th December 2012, at 16:19:39

Jane, make no mistake, there WILL be casualties if this goes through.........
but it won't!

Log-in to Report

by Jane Dixon

14th December 2012, at 12:58:57

It has been reported in the national press that several members of parliament have realised that these turbines are neither cost-effective nor efficient. In addition it has also been reported that there are enough renewable energy projects already given planning permission to satisfy this country's needs. There is almost no support for wind turbines on this island yet still the County Council continues to support them. Local council elections cannot come soon enough!

Log-in to Report

by Benjamin Houfton

14th December 2012, at 10:36:01

Presumably this is the planning officers idea of democracy when over 300 individuals objected to the plan for this turbine and ony six were in favour. It seems that even turbine enthusiasts don't like this proposal. Have they actually looked at the amazing view from the Blacksmiths Arms across the open countryside to Parkhurst Forest, and then visualised a 350 foot turbine stuck in the middle of it? And for what? A single turbine half the time producing no electricity but a great deal of annoyance and stress for the local population to say nothing of the serious impact on two AONB areas very nearby and the resulting damage to our fagile tourist trade.

Log-in to Report

by Yvonne Carter

14th December 2012, at 10:35:22

Interesting that the AONB people think it's such a good idea because they objected to the Wellow turbines and Parkhurst turbines. The AONB Partnership has the same address as the planning department. The AONB criteria include the economic and social needs of local communities.

English Heritage, another government department whose criteria do not include those needs and who do not share an address with the planners strongly objected to the Betty Haunt Lane turbine.

Puzzling isn't it..............

Log-in to Report

by Yvonne Carter

14th December 2012, at 10:24:59

The Betty Haunt Lane Planning Officer Steve Wiltshire was the Planning Officer for the Wellow Turbines application. That report seemed to balance the applicants case and the numerous objections in a reasonable summary to help the Planning Committee Councillors make a decision. They voted 9 to 1 against. This time the Planning Officer's report seems to bend over backwards (?) to force the application through against vehement opposition and with almost NO support! The most serious problem is the noise, yet the recommendation from Mr Wiltshire is to accept the application and tell the applicant to produce yet another noise report (the fourth) to prove that noise isn't a problem.Quite right too - it wouldn't be a problem, it would be a catastrophe!

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.

Most Read

  1. Dual carriageway crash

    Thursday, July 24, 2014

  2. New speed limit on dual carriageway

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  3. Ancient woodlands revealed

    Thursday, July 24, 2014

  4. Dramatic rescue for group trapped by tide

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

  5. Timetable changes as car deck collapse investigation continues

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

View our Elgin Traffic & Travel Map