Breckland Council votes for site visit after Shipdham wind turbine debate

PUBLISHED: 17:06 09 July 2012 | UPDATED: 17:48 09 July 2012

Controversy continues over wind turbine plans at Shipdham

Controversy continues over wind turbine plans at Shipdham

Archant 2012

A decade-long wind turbine planning saga will continue after planners unanimously voted to go on a site visit.

The Ecotricity application to build two 100-metre high wind turbines on agricultural land at Wood Farm, Church Lane, between Bradenham and Shipdham near Dereham, was discussed by Breckland Council’s planning committee this afternoon (Monday).

Planning officers made a recommendation for its approval, but a site visit was passed.

Over the past 10 years a number of appeals and inquiries and a High Court judicial review have taken place over the wind turbine plan.

Mike Brennan, Breckland planning officer, said 130 letters of support had been received, compared to 79 letters of objection.

He added there were no significant grounds on noise to refuse the application and the turbines would not have a “significant impact” on the landscape.

Main concerns from objectors included the constant noise, which would affect the “tranquil” area.

David Hill, from Bradenham, said a woodland area 100 metres from the proposed site, dedicated to his son, Alexander, who died aged 19, would be affected.

Dr Hoare, a resident from nearby Daffy Green, said she was concerned about impact of the turbines on children in the area, including her teenage son who was recovering from brain surgery.

Geoff Hinchliffe, speaking for the group Challenge Against Nimbyism in Shipdham, which supports the application, said: “After some 10 years on a treadmill of campaigns and decisions and appeals, that the exaggerations and misleading claims have been dispelled and the legitimate concerns have been met and satisfied.”

Breckland refused permission in 2002 due to the impact on the landscape and traffic concerns.

The application was refused on appeal a year later due to potential noise problems and in 2005 a new plan for two smaller turbines was turned down by Breckland as there were concerns about civil aircraft safety.

But an appeal in 2006 was allowed and the inspector highlighted that it tied in with the government’s energy policies.

However, that appeal decision was quashed at the High Court and it was referred back to the Planning Inspectorate.

Nick Osbourne, spokesman for Ecotricity, said: “We are disappointed that the Planning Committee were not able to come a decision today. However, we fully appreciate that committee members must be aware of all the details of the proposal and we hope a site visit will reassure them of the suitability of the site.”

The Environment Agency and Natural England have not objected to the application but the Campaign to Protect Rural England Norfolk is opposed to the plan.

Bradenham and Shipdham parish councils and Charles Carter, Breckland councillor for the area which would be developed, are also against it.

Mr Carter said: “This is a 10-year issue which is wasting people’s time, money and effort.”

The next planning meeting is due to take place on August 6.


  • As applicants can appeal to the Government to reverse local decisions we need to get it onside, as well as councils and others, if we are going to stop these wind turbines being built. Are you disillusioned by rising electricity prices, over dependence on the “green” dream [especially uneconomical and inefficient wind farms] and the destruction of our countryside then please object to the Government by GOOGLING “E-PETITION 22958″ and following the link. Please pass this message on to Councillors, members of your community and anyone else you know to persuade them to sign up too. If you are really concerned about wind turbines please write a letter promoting this petition to your local Newsletter and to the Editors of your local newspapers.

    Report this comment

    David Ramsbotham

    Tuesday, July 10, 2012

  • Just look at the absurdity of this, you really couldn't make it up!! 10Years, this nearly started in the last millenium! 10 Years to still not yet (and hopefully never will get) planning permission for 2 unwanted wind turbines. Now I could, perhaps, understand 10 years of objections to, say, a new nuclear power station, but 10 YEARS for two clearly unwanted, unnecessary and undesirable wind turbines. Let me explain the output of these. 20% max of their rated capacity, 300 to 400Kw max, it SIMPLY isn't windy enough onshore to properly power these things, NOISE, NOISE, NOISE at a level that cannot be pre -planned and near impossible to have them removed after installation and then people find them NOISY! Consider the poor people near Kessingland who now have two and want them stopped because of the NOISE! It is infintely more difficult to remove them than it was to install them as the owners now have both the costs and the (huge) income to consider, far better to prevent them in the first place. Stupidity is the only word I can use, this is stupidity and I can only hope that the councillors may see this and respond. I'm not, however, holding my breath!

    Report this comment


    Wednesday, July 11, 2012

  • No matter what, this shows the stupidity of onshore wind.. Just consider the cost of, even this, site visit. We are looking here at a 10YEAR application for 2 turbines which no-one wants and will never deliver more than 20% of their rated capacity. The only thing these will generate is a divided society, none of whom will be any better off electricity wise, a society which will have noise, the sort they didn't have before and an eyesore they didn't have before, even if they were deaf ! and couldn't hear it. This is stupidity, and on a scale which will ever increase as long as this is allowed to continue. The owners of this, will,, of course, see £1 COINS appearing from the base of the turbine from YOU, and ME in the subsidies paid for the electricity generated from these things do generate, even if the total generated is ridiculously small, the subsidy is big enough that the output is irrelevant. DO YOU really want these things anywhere near you?

    Report this comment


    Monday, July 9, 2012

  • The noise from these things travels for miles at the quiet of night. They should not be built.

    Report this comment

    Johnny Norfolk

    Monday, July 9, 2012

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

Most Read

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up to receive our regular email newsletter

Latest from the EDP



max temp: 5°C

min temp: 3°C

Listen to the latest weather forecast

Show Job Lists