Aerial view of Weybourne, the proposed start for the cables that will serve the Dudgeon windfarm Picture by: Mike Page

Rejection of wind farm cabling plans from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh is a ‘blow’ to Norfolk economy

Lucy Clapham Friday, January 13, 2012
6:30 AM

A major green energy scheme planned for the north Norfolk coast has been dealt a second hefty blow after councillors rejected plans to bury miles of power cables through the countryside.

An application to lay 28km of cabling to power the 168-turbine Dudgeon wind farm off the coast at Cromer was unexpectedly thrown out by North Norfolk District Council (NNDC), meaning the project could now suffer delays.

Applicants Warwick Energy are already facing a high court battle to push through proposals to build a sub-station further inland at Little Dunham, which would provide the farm’s link to the National Grid, after plans to build the structure were turned down in 2010.

And the green energy firm is now preparing for another appeal after planning committee councillors rejected its plans to bury cables from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh at a meeting yesterday – despite NNDC officers recommending they be passed.

In the initial vote, three councillors voted for the scheme to be approved and nine against. A second poll then saw seven votes in favour of refusing the plans and five against.

The plans were turned down on landscape and agricultural economy grounds, amid claims the work to lay the cables – and the damage they would leave once installed – would damage the rural north Norfolk countryside.

In response, Nick Medic, director at energy trade association Renewable UK, said: “This unexpected decision will have a negative impact on Norfolk’s ability to attract investment. A project of this type creates thousands of local jobs and pumps millions of pounds into the local economy, while leaving virtually no impact on the countryside.

“Refusing a buried cable proposal on landscape grounds simply isn’t logical, particularly as Norfolk has so much to offer in terms of natural renewable energy resources.”

Objectors said the cable proposal was an “Alice In Wonderland” application as permission has not been given for the construction of the turbines or the sub-station.

But those in favour of the scheme, which has been given permission to lay 17km of cables in the Breckland district, said it should not be held up “indefinitely”.

Benji Cabbell-Manners, who proposed the cable works be approved, said: “Can you imagine if we were faced with a planning permission to have overhead wires everywhere? It would be simply awful.”

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb said he was “concerned” by Dudgeon’s setback as he thought the project –which has been on the cards since 2010 – was important for generating much-needed renewable energy and creating jobs.

“For a planning application to take so long to get to a decision causes a very real concern to a project of this sort so we need to get to a solution quickly,” he added.

Mark Petterson, project director at Warwick Energy, said the firm would appeal against NNDC’s decision while fighting its Little Dunham plans and at the same time put in a new application for the sub-station to be built in the neighbouring village of Necton.

He added: “I think most people will be surprised that a buried cable is refused on landscape grounds. It’s obviously a disappointment and may delay the project.”

● A similar scheme to install high voltage power lines along the Norfolk-Suffolk border, that would distribute energy generated by the proposed East Anglia Offshore Wind Farm off the Lowestoft coast, has sparked concern among residents in Diss.

The plans, which are still in the early stages, propose installing overground wires to link up to existing power lines between Norwich and Bramford, near Ipswich, but the option of burying them is also being considered.

8 comments

Shortsightedness combined with a pinch of NFN, surely not ! Cast your minds back to c.1999 when the new 45km gas pipeline from Bacton to the new Gt.Yarmouth power station was announced. The same objections being aired then echo those of today. The pipeline cut a swathe through the east & south east sections NNDC countryside. However, the land quickly recovered and is now back to how it was. Look carefully & you'll only find discreetly placed markers & inspection points. Past events often give us answers in the future, time for someone at NNDC to have a trawl through it's own archives..

Report this comment

double-dutch

Saturday, January 14, 2012
Maybe the company should have got all the permissions in place before starting construction of yet more uneconomical and un-environmentally friendly turbines. Total waste of time and money as we still need to have nuclear or coalgas power stations to keep the lights on when they are not working.

Report this comment

DaveG

Friday, January 13, 2012
I agree with the sentiments here especially canary boy and Mr Read. More money down the drain. This seems very much closing the gate after the horse has bolted. The turbines are being erected and yet there's no way to get the electricity to the network. How on earth do these councillors expect it to do what it's suppose to do, magic? Someone asked me recently on ideas to save costs at the council and I commented on exactly this kind of thing. If businesses made decisions like this they wouldn't be in business very long. We need new younger councillors and some new thinking.

Report this comment

Gary Dickenson

Friday, January 13, 2012
This is clearly a stupid decision, here's why;- 1 All of this has already been done and very recently. Weybourne to Reepham. I lived right next to it, yes it was an inconvenience, but now its invisible. I flew over the whole route the other day and couldn't see any evidence of the route. So much for "Rape of the countryside" then. 2 This is for an OFFSHORE wind farm, some 168 turbines, each much larger than will ever be possible on land, therefore possibly capable of generating useable power, rather than the miniscule efforts of the land based ones. 3 No-one is talking Pylons here, if they were, I'd be first through the council doors 4 This disruption will be temporary, the farmers are well compensated, the road disruption is minimal, once the cables are buried, there is no need to dig them up again, there are regular access points in the hedges to check and diagnose faults. Perhaps it might be better for Mr Baker et al to concentrate on removing us from the EEC rather than removing us from electricity!

Report this comment

Ian

Friday, January 13, 2012
I know for the people involved it would have been disruptive for this cable to be lain but it would have been a temporary disruption. In out area people are having to put up with massive new pylons being errected, I am sure the people around West Winch would welcome some trenches being dug and backfilled if it was possible. The village had months of pipe laying last year but that has now all dissapeared without trace. Like it or not this is a clean way of producing some energy unlike the incinerator which is a totally different problem. It is not temporary, it is not safe and it will do lasting damage to this area. Why are NCC turning down clean technologies and forcing the dirties available. A wind farm refused, a biomass plant refused but an incinerator pushed as hard as possible. Can anyone explain this?

Report this comment

Canary Boy

Friday, January 13, 2012
The real problem here is the lack of strategic planning for the landfall in the first place. In their haste to get offshore wind projects up and running insufficient consideration was given by Central Government to how to bring the power ashore. What should have happened is some strategic investment in the National Grid to ensure that there were sufficient opportunities for the offshore windfarms to plug into the grid. This would have avoided the 'every man for themselves' approach now being taken. For example, the majority of the Greater Wash windfarms will have to lay their cables through The Wash, an incredibly environmentally sensitive site, to connect in at the Sutton Bridge Power Station whereas some initial investment in the grid could have allowed them to connect in at Skegness.

Report this comment

xxxx

Friday, January 13, 2012
*spend

Report this comment

Jono Read

Friday, January 13, 2012
I notice this version doesn't name those that objected to the scheme - it would be good to know who is responsible. The original plan suggested Mike Baker led the rejection. I hear today they are already appealing - Mike Baker spoke out last year about the amount of costs associated with the Sheringham supermarket saga yet effectively has allowed the council to more money resolving this crazy decision.

Report this comment

Jono Read

Friday, January 13, 2012