Two wind turbines in a north Norfolk village are set to get the go-ahead next week.

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

An even balance of nearly 100 letters apiece in favour and against the proposal, for Old Manor Farm, Long Common, East Ruston, have been received by North Norfolk District Council (NNDC).

The council’s development committee, meeting on Thursday September 20, has been recommended to approve John McLeod’s application which has raised no objections from conservation and landscape, air-safety or highways bodies.

But one opponent said the prospect of two more turbines in the village had left him and his partner distraught.

William Ward, of Back Street, said the turbines, measuring nearly 25m to blade tip, would be clearly visible from their cottage, about 400m away, as was an even taller single turbine on Mill Road, granted permission in March.

“We get flicker from that one,” said Mr Ward. “The first thing you see from the kitchen and the study is that great thing, not just standing there, but waving at you.”

The proposed turbines, which feature a tapering, latticed design, looked like “Something someone’s knocked together from a few bits of old scaffolding - very Heath Robinson,” Mr Ward added.

“This is our ‘forever’ home. The worrying prospect is that once we get these two, we’re going to get even more applications.”

East Ruston Parish Council has expressed “mixed feelings” but has also voiced concern that the application “could open the floodgates for more to pop up everywhere.”

Mr Ward and his partner were among 97 people who wrote opposing the plan. Comments included fears that it could set a precedent and that the turbines would be an eyesore in a landscape of rural character.

NNDC also received 96 letters in support with writers welcoming a scheme whose environmental benefits far outweighed any negligible impact.

Mr McCleod plans to use the power produced by the turbines to make the farm and farmhouse self-sufficient in electricity.

He said he had abandoned a taller, 66m-high, turbine bid after listening to the views of the local community.

In a report to Thursday’s committee, NNDC’s landscape officer said there were currently only a few turbines in the wider landscape and their impact on its intrinsic beauty and historic character was small.

The officer added: “The general scale and height of these structures has been such that they do not ‘dominate’ the landscape.

“They help to interpret and punctuate the landscape. Any turbine higher than those already approved in the vicinity, or currently being considered would, in my view, be inappropriate, as would too many of them.”

12 comments

  • In my view, the landscape of North Norfolk doesn't need anything to "interpret and punctuate" it, and never has done; least of all these ugly monstrosities, which are just a poke in the eye. I shall be reporting the "officer's" comments for inclusion in Pseuds Corner.

    Report this comment

    T Doff

    Sunday, September 16, 2012

  • I can't be the only person who thinks that NNDC's "landscape officer" is nothing but a tax-payer funded NIMBY . . .

    Report this comment

    Callum Ringer

    Monday, September 17, 2012

  • At one time tax gatherers would rob the poor and give this to the landed gentry. It seems the NNDC, with their landowning members, are going to do the same, charging what they see as the peasants the huge subsidies for onshore turbines, handing the money over to those still with land. Well, we know who not to vote for next time around

    Report this comment

    weaversway

    Tuesday, September 18, 2012

  • Something is fishy. These onshore wind turbines are just about the most inefficient form of energy generation. Its just a way of taking money from the many and giving it to landowners. Is that what the NNDC is all about?

    Report this comment

    weaversway

    Sunday, September 16, 2012

  • So, 10 comments on even this minor but still annoying proposal. Ignoring the one which uses the NIMBY word, as we always do, there is only one "for" from the Wandering Crab, therfore from 10 comments we have a ratio of 90% against. Interesting, to say the least, therefore that NNDC have letters with a ratio of 5050, I'd love to have these analysed, they cannot come from 100 people in East Ruston.

    Report this comment

    windup

    Wednesday, September 19, 2012

  • Hurrah! A vote for common sense at last from NNDC.

    Report this comment

    Wandering Crab

    Sunday, September 16, 2012

  • Exactly, and precisely said, Sayitasitis

    Report this comment

    weaversway

    Tuesday, September 18, 2012

  • There is no possible sense to this. It has all been said below, there is no precedent in the entire UK database of statistics re wind turbine applications which ever get even near to 50% for or against. The average is 80% against and 20% for. The only possible explanation is that the applicant has either written the 50% for letters himself or has had friends and family do it on his behalf. Either way this is iffy at best. And after that we all suffer financially in the subsidies for these unwanted things on the added costs to our utility bills. I have called the planners today to express my concerns on this, I hope they heard what I said, we certainly don't want any of these absurdities anywhere in North Norfolk, or, indeed, anywhere else!

    Report this comment

    Windless

    Tuesday, September 18, 2012

  • The usual anti contributors seem to be throwing thier toys out of the pram as they are not winning this one, thats life lads, some you win some you lose ! lol

    Report this comment

    "Bin here all me life"

    Wednesday, September 19, 2012

  • Something VERY odd going on here. N Walsham turbine 87% against, Bodham turbine 80% against. East Ruston turbines 50% for or against. Even worse when you consider that ONE farmer plans to be self sufficient in electricity but 100 people are for? This doesn't make any sense, are 100 people, miraculously living in one small village so green in their views that they are prepared to pay more for THEIR electricity, as they will, as we all will, through the subsidy this farmer will get, from all of us in carbon taxes on our utility bills, so that the ONE farmer can have his for free?? I'd be checking the handwriting on these 100 "for" letters if I was in NNDC!

    Report this comment

    windup

    Sunday, September 16, 2012

  • “They help to interpret and punctuate the landscape. Any turbine higher than those already approved in the vicinity, or currently being considered would, in my view, be inappropriate, as would too many of them.” This is just the sort of nonsense one expects from these people, why we employ them is beyond me. There is simply no place for ANY of these absurdities in our landscape, they generate only money, hence my term "money turbines", they do absolutely nothing towards creating electricity for UKPLC and only reward the landowner at everyone else's cost, rich or poor. They are a scam, nothing less, and I personally will do all I can to prevent any. And anyone daring to use the word NIMBY will be, as always, ignored. Such people usually have little or no understanding of the subject so, SHOULD be ignored.

    Report this comment

    windup

    Monday, September 17, 2012

  • Wandering Crab If you associate any form of common sense from ANY council, then you are clearly missing any point. These things will cost ALL on their utility bills and will ONLY benefit the landowner. WHY, WHY should I pay him to allow him to have free electricity at MY and YOUR expense???????

    Report this comment

    windup

    Sunday, September 16, 2012

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: 10°C

min temp: 13°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT