Vehemently-opposed plans to build a wind farm near Fakenham have been refused.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Objections to the proposed Jack’s Lane Wind Farm at Barwick Hall Farm, Stanhoe had been made by parish councils, the RSPB, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, English Heritage, Norfolk Archaeology Trust, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Open Spaces Society.

A report prepared for Monday’s meeting of the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council’s development control board showed that 667 letters of objection had registered along with a petition containing 123 signatures but 732 letters of support had been received.

RES UK and Ireland Ltd was seeking permission to build six turbines, each with up to 126.5m maximum height to blade tip.

The company claimed these could generate enough clean energy for approximately 8,000 homes.

But councillors voted in line with the planning officer’s recommendation to refuse the proposal.

The officer’s report states: “This landscape is characterised by an open skyline, a strong sense of tranquillity as well as of rural isolation.

“The introduction of turbines, as dominant man made features, and in particular the movement associated with the blades will disrupt this character to the detriment of those living in the locality.”

Opponents also highlighted noise disturbance, the potential cumulative impact with two other wind farms proposed at nearby at Docking and Chiplow and fears that pink-footed geese could fly into the turbines.

24 comments

  • By the way Johnny Norfolk, did you know that in 20082009, globally fossil fuel industries received TEN TIMES the subsidies given to renewables, or that the UK tax payer will pick up the bill of £90Bn to decommission our aging and soon to be shut down nuclear reactors ? It is true that wind power is variable, but it will be blowing long after we have run out of fossil fuels and uranium !

    Report this comment

    silverleaf

    Wednesday, July 27, 2011

  • I have to ask to those who oppose the wind farm on the questionable claim of avian conflict, what do you eat for Christmas dinner, I take it that would not be turkey or chicken ?? If it is, why is their life of less value than a pink footed goose ?

    Report this comment

    silverleaf

    Wednesday, July 27, 2011

  • What do you want to see used for electricity Johnny Norfolk?

    Report this comment

    anglia_squared

    Tuesday, July 26, 2011

  • #Carole Barnes. The only problem with your argument is that wind fuels gas consumption. National Grid tell us that, even with the planned lunatic wind build, we will have to build 36GW of new gas-fuelled and 30.5GW of new nuclear capacity. Gas plant will have to be expensively 'cycled' to cover the planned wind build, increasing CO2 emissions and wear and tear on plant. Unsurprisingly, Centrica recently fired a warning shot across the government's bows - they have no intention of building new gas plant under the current wind policy without massive subsidies. So, we will have the worst of all worlds: the massive wind build will be managed by 'curtailment' - i.e. it will be shut down when, as usually happens, wind arrays produce lots of power at times of low load (this is already happening in Scotland). And we will have lots of new gas capacity being compensated for standing idle or following wind load. Power engineers regard this as complete lunacy which must be blamed on the technical illiteracy of politicians.

    Report this comment

    NLys

    Wednesday, July 27, 2011

  • Carol, you are making some incorrect assertions and comments as indeed is Douglas. Firstly, when the nuclear reactors were sold off, they were not sold at a loss, quite the opposite. The nuclear industry had already put aside money for the decommissioning of the reactors but the government requisitioned this money as part of privatisation. The reactors being closed down at the moment have never had a failure throughout their existence. Supposition that they may be flawed is simply wrong and without foundation. Without regard to low level waste, take away the hype of the antinuclear brigade and you will find that a cup of coffee brought into a recator building and undrunk has to be disposed of as nuclear waste! Its inherent radiation is 4 times over the safety level set in UK. Personally I don't feel threatened by coffee. The Chernobyl and Fukuyama reactors were already known to be of poor design well before the problems occurred and this well documented. UK reactors are designed and maintained so that a simple human error will not cause a disaster as they have many fail safe systems built in. I agree that we need to improve levels of insulation as many have done already. It is sensible and essential. However, expecting to reduce our energy needs is unrealistic. We already have 60m people in this country and unless we can persuade the government otherwise, it is going to go up to 70m in the not too distant future - an increase of nearly 17%. In addition, there is a push for electric cars which will increase demand even more if this comes to fruition. With regard to CHP, this will only be practical and economic if power stations are near to centres of high population. Can anyone imagine that this will happen? The future need is for reliable and consistent power generation, something that 'green' technology has yet to deliver and no one has yet stated that it will even with the so called mix.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Sunday, July 31, 2011

  • Wave or tidal power is the only sensible green energy source. Wind turbines are an expensive con and don't work when it's cold and there's no wind so we have to have alternatives to generate as much as the wind turbines. There is limitless and constant power in the waves and tides and a whole new UK industry could be built up around this type of generation if only the government would switch the subsidy.

    Report this comment

    Norfolk Lad

    Friday, July 29, 2011

  • So the Nimbys win again, when will the planners ignore these people and start approving wind farms.

    Report this comment

    Mr T

    Tuesday, July 26, 2011

  • Yes Johnny Norfolk. just as when theres no oil there'll be no electricity, when theres no gas there'll be no heating etc etc. Theres a place for a mix of all types of power generation. We simply can't go on burying our heads in the sand in the hope that the oil will never run out because it will.

    Report this comment

    Carol Barnes

    Tuesday, July 26, 2011

  • Carol, in the 60's it was predicted that we would run out of oil in late 90's and we are still finding more and better ways to extract it. That is not to say that we should be complacent. However, wind is simply not the answer to meet our needs and never will be. That IS the REAL world. And making up figures in the way that silverleaf is doing just discredits his cause. If you want to rely on wind power you must accept that lights will go out, there will ne minimal - if any - transport and production of so many things on which we genuinely rely on will stop. Nuclear will be the answer, however much the misinformed protest, and altough fusion may still be some way off, it is the only real answer to meet our needs. In the meantime fission is the sensible way forward and we already rely on French reactors to meet our needs. And yes, I am happy to live next to Sizewell or indeed any others that are built.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Wednesday, July 27, 2011

  • Andy, with respect I have not made false assertions. The history of nuclear accidents both civil and military is on record for anyone who wants to research it. Windscale and Dounreay are good examples of human error and design faults in UK civilian reactors which caused human and environmental contamination. No doubt the scientists and designers of the time thought that they had thought of all eventualities and had sufficient safeguards in place to prevent the accidents which subsequently occurred. Unfortunately, once Pandora's box is opened it is impossible to close it again. You, like others are prepared to gamble that regulations and good design will prevent any incident occurring. Unfortunately, history shows us that accidents do happen and mankind is not infallible. Simply because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't? Unfortunately, nuclear power carries a price, which in my and many other people's opinion is too high a price to pay. As to cutting non essential energy consumption there are numerous ways this could be done but as a society we probably wouldn't like it. However, with an estimated number of 1 million people already in fuel poverty (and growing) there will come a time when society and politicians will have to face the uncomfortable choice to curtail our energy demands!

    Report this comment

    Douglas McCoy

    Sunday, July 31, 2011

  • Carol, there is one little flaw in your argument. When the wind turbines are not operating, which is over 70% of the time, we have to rely on gas powered generators to make up the shortfall so we shall lose out all ways according to you. And in the meantime, why should anyone want to pay 50% for their electricity which is what Chris Huhne says we shall have to pay? Cut the subsidies now.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Tuesday, July 26, 2011

  • Andy, I don't think you and I are actually too far apart. I haven't said anything against nuclear and agree 100% with you that properly managed and controlled the nuclear option is clearly the way forward. Fusion, well its always been 25 years away and while I accept that one day we will crack it I think that we cannot rely on that being in the near future. I don't consider wind as a sole means of supplying power as you seem to suggest I do....I keep saying that it must be part of a mix of technologies. Likewise I also think that the Severn barage must go ahead. Sure it will cause short term problems for wildlife but lets be honest that could be argued for all technologies. Yes I am in favour of wind power but I am also in favour of wave power, solar, nuclear, gas, etc etc. Yes oil has been predicted as running out for years but eventually it will and we owe it to those who follow us not to squander finite resources and we can do that by investing in a mix of technologies and one of those is wind.

    Report this comment

    Carol Barnes

    Wednesday, July 27, 2011

  • Nlys, sorry but you haven't answered or allayed my concerns about nuclear power. You will also note that I have never advocated that wind power is the answer to the UK's energy needs. What I have suggested is that wind power can and should contribute to our energy requirements. With technological advances even coal can be utilised as a environmentally safe way of powering power stations. Unfortunately at the present time the cost of doing so is still higher than nuclear.Whilst the attractiveness of cheap energy is obvious are the inherent risks of nuclear power enough to justify it's use? I suspect, although I may be wrong, that you are happy with nuclear power production. I am most certainly not!

    Report this comment

    Douglas McCoy

    Friday, July 29, 2011

  • I've always been interested in the debate about energy production and it's effect on the environment. However, those people and politicians who advocate nuclear power worry me the most. Nuclear power production and the waste it generates can never be regarded as safe. By definition accidents can and do happen and the consequences for mankind and the environment when things do go wrong are irreversible. No other form of energy production has the potential to affect the UK so adversely as a potential disaster at a nuclear power plant. Whilst it can be argued that all other forms of energy production produce waste either in their construction or use none has the potential to cause harm in the way that nuclear power does. Unfortunately, we bury our heads in the sand and ignore the lessons of history that Chernobyl and Fukushima provide and still claim that this situation could never occur here. 'If' the unthinkable were to happen at a nuclear plant and a disaster occurred the financial and environmental consequences to a densely populated island like ours would be to put it mildly catastrophic. Whilst wind farms and other green forms of energy are certainly not going to answer our ever expanding and insatiable appetite for energy we should consider them as a part of a more preferable route to take than nuclear.

    Report this comment

    Douglas McCoy

    Friday, July 29, 2011

  • I have to agree with Douglas. Nlys you are doing exactly the same to him as others of done to me and that is ignore what we are saying. You have gone on at length about the negative aspects of wind turbines and Douglas hasn't even mentioned them. I think there is a place for a mix of technologies. I also think there is a place for nuclear but agree completely with Douglas that it's the human aspect of the systems that concern me. The design faults with Chernobyl and Fukuyama only came to light after events overwhelmed them and for all we know there are inherent faults with our designs, they simply haven't shown themselves as yet. The problem always seems to be complacency and someone cutting corners......a human trait I think. Yet I still think there is a place for nuclear if properly designed and managed. With regards to costs, I'm old enough to remember the early reactors and the costs paid for out of the public purse when the industry was in public ownership and which was eventually privatised at sums well below cost. So please lets not pretend that other technologies from which we benefit today haven't had enormous subsidies in the past. However another comment by a contributor has to be applauded and that is our societies reluctance to reduce our energy consumption. Insulation is relatively cheap, yet theres a great reluctance to install it because it has no kudos. I am in the construction industry and theres a great interest in pv panels, but often people who express interest have the most basic levels of insulation. This seems madness and I have come to the conclusion that its all show, you can install panels, have fancy LCD displays in the house to show off to the guests and neighbour. Insulation has none of this but can provide benefits which far outweigh pv panels at less cost, but it has no bling. Drive past any power station and look at the sheer waste of energy when the raw materials are converted to electricity, if it doesn't get dumped into the air, it goes into the sea or the river. Is it beyond the wit of man to make use of this? The answer is combined heat and power or CHP as it's known. Yet another technology which is available and underused. And so I'll repeat my point, we need a mix of technologies, we can't dismiss any one technology because we don't know where it might lead to, but we do need to reduce our energy consumption and waste and to generate more efficiently.

    Report this comment

    Carol Barnes

    Saturday, July 30, 2011

  • What a blinkered view of the planners to refuse this. I'm also willing to bet that the majority of those who objected (the minority, I will add) are second home owners, or people who moved here from elsewhere. Every single renewable energy source should be utilised. (Personally, I also like the look of them.)

    Report this comment

    micklynn

    Wednesday, July 27, 2011

  • Japan has passed a new law to rid the internet of 'bad' Fukushima news. In this video link Japanese officials tell local worried folk they have no rights to live a healthy and radation free Japan.....Ever wonder why not much new news has hit our screens in Britain, from what is now the worlds worst nuke accident. http:www.youtube.comwatch?v=b2rSJoALFIE&feature=player_embedded http:www.enecho.meti.go.jpinfotendertenddata1106110624b110624b.htm

    Report this comment

    nrg

    Friday, July 29, 2011

  • # Douglas McCoy. Please lets get real about power generation and demand. Read National Grid's 'Seven year statements' and DECC advisor Prof. David Mackay's 'sustainable energy without the hot air'. Even if we cover the UK in turbines wind will remain a relatively insignificant parallel generating system. We need baseload power to keep the lights on, not intermittent and unreliable generation that produces least when most required (see wind performance at peak load for the last 4 winters). Last winter at peak all the metered wind capacity in the UK was producing 5.8% of its headline capacity. At the same time wind production was low across the whole of Western Europe. On several occasions last December, when we were seeing UK load figures of near 60,000MW, all the metered wind capacity in the UK (then 2,430MW) was producing what National Grid recorded as a "0%" contribution to load (less than 1%).

    Report this comment

    NLys

    Friday, July 29, 2011

  • Andy you are correct that wind turbines do not generate all the time, just as solar panels do not generate at night in the dark. But, and this is an important but, any wind or solar generation enables less fossil fuels to be used and therefore prolongs the finite resources we have. I suspect that many of the nimbys would be the first to shout when the fossil fuels run out. We have to live in the real world, we cannot continue to burn our limited resources of oil and gas in the way we presently do.

    Report this comment

    Carol Barnes

    Wednesday, July 27, 2011

  • Thank goodness. There things need to be stopped. They would never be built without the huge subsidy. and when there is no wind there is no electric. They are a joke .

    Report this comment

    Johnny Norfolk

    Tuesday, July 26, 2011

  • Andy, your argument seems on the face of it sound. Unfortunately, numerous leaks and escapes of low level radiation from many plants around the UK prove that even with the most rigorous of inspections equipment and materials can and do fail. As you have pointed out Chernobyl was caused by a combination of poor design and human malpractice. Fukushima was considered safe by the Japanese regulatory authorities until a natural disaster proved them wrong. My point is that whilst the UK does have a good track record of only minor problems in it's nuclear industry they have still occurred. The waste 'issue' has never been properly resolved and this means that at a number of plants highly contaminated waste is stored on site pending a decision about how to dispose of it. Should an incident ever occur in the UK no amount of hindsight and debates about what went wrong will be able to decontaminate huge areas of land and infrastructure. Unlike other forms of energy production the nuclear option carries a risk, no matter how small, of catastrophe. Whilst we and the French consider ourselves beyond human error many other countries now regard the risks of nuclear power too high. The Germans being a good example of a nation who acknowledge that they cannot legislate for every eventuality which might promote a nuclear incident. I have not suggested that 'green' energy can supply our needs. However, all forms of green energy , be it hydro electric, geothermal,wind,solar or tide need to be utilised in more imaginative ways. As for the cost of these systems let not pretend nuclear is cheap? There are ways to reduce demand in this country for energy but as a society we are too geared to a modern consumer lifestyle to contemplate. Regrettably, I suspect that the politicians and nuclear industry will still prevail in the UK and we will build new reactors. However, the ultimate cost may be something that they and us will all regret.

    Report this comment

    Douglas McCoy

    Friday, July 29, 2011

  • Douglas, I have to diagree with your summary of the risks of Nuclear power. With regard to Chernobyl it was an unsafe reactor in the first place. This was compounded by the fact that those starting up the reactor disabled all the safety systems and compounded it by using insanely dangerous techniques to get it going. It is impossible to imagine a more dangerous sabotage than was carried out there. The Janese problems have already been well documented and again bad design was the problem. The systems in UK are much more robust, managed and regulated. Nuclear is safe in the UK and is the answer for our needs. Other than fossil fuels there is no practical solution to meet our needs - that is the reality and no amount of so called green energy is capable of meeting our needs on a reliable and consistent basis. No one has ever achieved that or plans to do so.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Friday, July 29, 2011

  • Carole BarnesDouglas McCoy. My point was precisely that wind does not substitute for baseload generators. Even the SDC accept that: "It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity" (‘Wind Power in the UK’, Sustainable Development Commission p35). Your nuclear fears are irrational: 1. More people have been killed by natural background radiation than by nuclear plants during the entire history of nuclear power. 2. Even if we closed all UK nuclear plants tomorrow, we would still be surrounded by radio nucleides in industry, hospitals and educational institutions and by low level radiation from natural and industrial sources. Do you refuse hospital X-rays because of your fear of radiation? You may not remember, but releases from Chernobyl affected Lapland and Wales. Whether you like it or not we live in a nuclear Europe. Even if there were no nuclear plants in the UK, we would still be exposed to any accidental releases from the dozens of nuclear reactors on the other side of the Channel. The French are not going to give up the 76% of their electricity generation from nuclear that has given them plentiful, cheap, low carbon electricity. Quite a number of leading green thinkers now blame the anti-nuclear hysteria from the likes of Greenpeace for the problems we are facing with regard to our crisis of low carbon baseload generating capacity. Read what Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace, Mark Lynas and Chris Goodall have to say on the subject. Even George Monbiot has lately seen the error of his ways. As for Fukushima, please put it in context. Japan is the third largest nuclear power user in the world with 55 nuclear power plants which provide some 35% of its power. Only the Fukushima 1 reactors were affected. They had a combined capacity of 4,700MW. Just to put this in perspective, Japan has a total wind power capacity of 2,304MW (2010 figures). As here, wind power generation works at a very low load factor compared to base-load fossil-fuelled and nuclear power and still needs fossil-fuelled capacity to back it up when the wind does not blow. Wind power is not going to substitute for nuclear or anything else in Japan: "... severe weather conditions are constraining growth of the Japanese wind market. The country has a history of severe weather, including typhoons blowing down turbines, lightning incidents, strong gusts and high turbulence. A number of turbines were severely damaged in 2004 and in 2007." (Global Wind Energy Council, 'Japan'). Simple question to the nuclear-phobes: where is the baseload power coming from if we shut down nuclear? Answer (as is currently being demonstrated in Germany): from coal andor gas, and firm renewables such as biomass. It certainly will not come from wind.

    Report this comment

    NLys

    Saturday, July 30, 2011

  • Good job too - they dont reduce your electricity bills and the only people to make money out of them are the company - take the Dutch Windfarm off of Sheringham as an example ?

    Report this comment

    Farquarson-Smythe

    Tuesday, July 26, 2011

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 16°C

min temp: 11°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT