| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Firm asks for review into wind turbine refusal
Credit: Lucy Millard | Newark Advertiser | Aug 26, 2016 | newarkadvertiser.co.uk ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
The company behind plans for four giant wind turbines that would be twice the height of Newark Parish Church has asked for a judicial review into a decision by a Government minister to refuse the application.
Wind Prospect Ltd wants to use a site off Cotham Road, Hawton, to create Fox Covert wind farm, consisting of four 130metre turbines and an 80metre anemometry mast to measure wind speed.
The wind farm would have the potential to generate electricity for up to 5,400 households.
A planning application was refused by Newark and Sherwood District Council planning committee and went to a planning appeal.
A Government independent planning inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed but the communities and local government secretary, Mr Greg Clark, disagreed and refused permission.
He said the turbines would have harmed the landscape, the view from neighbouring properties and the significance of St Michael’s Church, Cotham.
He said he recognised the benefit of constructing turbines to provide clean, renewable energy but said the negative impacts outweighed the benefits.
A spokesman for Wind Prospect Ltd confirmed on Tuesday that the matter was now the subject of a judicial review and said it would be inappropriate to comment further.
Mr Ivor Walker, who represents the area on the district council, said he was disappointed. He said he had always been opposed to the application.
“It would spoil a lovely spot in open countryside,” he said.
“There are already too many (wind turbines) in the area.”
Bolsterstone Innovative Energy (Hawton) already has permission, gained on appeal, for three 126.5metre turbines on the other side of the road.
The chairman of Hawton Parish Council, Mr Ken Sutton, said 11 villages, the district council and the secretary of state had all refused the application so they had hoped that would have been an end to the matter.
“I am disappointed but not surprised,” he said.
“We had hoped that common sense had prevailed.”
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Funding |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=79127 ]
