[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Application to build wind turbines in Podington refused by Bedford Borough Council  

Plans to erect nine 125-metre high turbines in the fields of rural Bedfordshire were thrown out by the Town Hall on Monday night.

Bedford Borough Council’s planning committee rejected the planning application for a wind farm at Airfield Farm, Podington.

And the decision was loudly applauded by the audience in a packed Harpur Suite, many of whom held banners opposing the application.

Steve Chambers, of the Campaign to Limit Onshore Windfarm Development (CLOWD), spoke on behalf of objectors.

He said: “There is a lot at stake, for the applicant and for the residents of north Bedfordshire, a huge number of whom have objected.

“The number of turbines would be harmful to the local area, and living conditions of residents would be significantly harmed.”

Mr Chambers added: “We believe that the benefits of the proposal would be significantly outweighed by the downsides. We ask the members of the committee to see this for what it is.

“The damage to the culture and heritage and the countryside far outweighs the benefits outlined by the applicant.”

The £20million project was first proposed more than two years ago, and would have produced 52.8million kWH of renewable zero-emission electricity per year according to developer Nuon Renewables. That is enough to fuel 11,000 homes, the equivalent of 20 per cent of homes in Bedford Borough.

Piers Guy, project manager for Nuon at Airfield Farm, said: “The biggest challenge facing us today is climate change, and how it affects the world that our children and grandchildren will inherit.

“The message is loud and clear. Emissions must peak and then fall within ten years if we are to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate change. Early action is critical.”

The council had received 905 letters objecting to the planning application, and 1,114 supporting it.

But councillors followed the advice of planning officers, who recommended they reject the proposal on the grounds that the turbines would impact on the landscape, would harm living conditions of local residents, and would be too close to public footpaths and bridleways.

The officers added that the turbines would have a harmful affect upon several nearby listed buildings, and ancient monument the Wold Moated Enclosure.

Coun Nicky Attenborough (Con, Kempston East) got a round of applause after proposing the councillors reject the application.

She said: “I am convinced that this would cause the destruction of an area that is naturally beautiful for very little recompense.

“I am concerned that we are being swept along on a fashionable urge to save the environment, and I do not believe that this scheme would add a jot or a kilowatt to our power.”

Bedford Today

13 June 2007

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 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
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.