| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Wind farm fight is on as energy firm vows to appeal
Credit: By Jim Durkin, Daily Echo, www.bournemouthecho.co.uk 3 April 2011 ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Infinergy, the green energy firm behind the failed Master’s Quarry wind farm bid, has confirmed it will appeal against Purbeck District Council’s decision to reject it.
The company says local supporters were dismayed at the planning board’s refusal, which they feel was a u-turn considering the same board agreed, last year, they were “minded to grant consent”.
Scores of wind farm supporters contacted the Daily Echo after Thursday’s decision to voice their anger and level accusations of nimbyism.
However, many local residents did hail the ruling as a victory for the Purbeck landscape.
Infinergy chief executive Charles Sandham, the man who is heading up the £14m bid to erect four 125-metre turbines at the East Stoke site, said: “Purbeck councillors missed a huge opportunity to show leadership in Dorset and make a considerable contribution to local renewable energy production.
“Dorset is lagging woefully behind on renewables compared to other counties, having developed only a sixth of what should have been realised by the end of last year.”
Mr Sandham says he remains convinced the proposal is a good one and is well supported locally.
“We will appeal this decision and we are confident that a different outcome will do us justice,” he confirmed.
The application will now be dealt with by the government’s Planning Inspectorate, that has the power to hold a public inquiry and overturn the district council’s refusal to give the wind farm the green light.
However, this process is likely to take several months.
Firing a broadside at the district planning board, Mr Sandham said: “Councillors dismissed the professional conditions their planning officers put together.
“We were totally confused that so many people support what we are trying to do and when it comes to the crunch, the planning board errs, responds to emotive and unsubstained claims and adopts a cautionary approach.”
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 educational 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 |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=47664 ]
