August 11, 2012

Campaigners’ relief after turbine plan is withdrawn

Rutland & Stamford Mercury | 11 August 2012

A proposal to build two 300ft wind turbines near a village has been dropped.

REG Windpower says it withdrew its application to build the turbines on land off Steadfold Lane, near Ketton, because there were planning issues “it could not resolve”.

The plans for had drawn a storm of protest from nearby residents and a protest group, the Ketton and Tinwell Action Group against Wind Turbines, was formed to oppose the application.

The group set up a website,, to outline its objections and collected a petition with about 500 signatures.

Scores of objections had also been submitted on Rutland County Council’s online planning portal.

Residents and parish councils had opposed the plans on various grounds, including potential noise disturbance and impact on wildlife.

A statement from the action group said the news had come as a “relief” to those who had campaigned against the turbines.

The statement said: “We wish to thank all who helped with the campaign, proving once again that reasoned argument, complemented by diligent research by an enthusiastic group of people whilst at the same time keeping the general public informed, can win the day.

“The action group website is still operative, stressing that it was possibly the right technology, but in the wrong location.”

An REG Windpower spokesman said: “We have decided to withdraw our application for two wind turbines adjacent to the cement works outside Ketton, due to planning issues we are unable to resolve.

“We would like to thank the local residents who took the time and trouble to attend the various events we held to explain our proposal, as well as the project’s many supporters in and around Ketton.”

Plans to build a second 88ft wind turbine at Springfield Lodge farm in North Luffenham Road, Morcott, were approved by Rutland County Council’s development control and licensing committee last month.

But the plans will be looked at for a second time after four councillors asked for them to go before full council.

URL to article: