[ 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

Berwick farmers’ wind turbine bid scuppered yet again  

Credit:  by Brian Daniel, The Journal | Apr 6 2013 | www.journallive.co.uk ~~

A Northumberland farming family’s bid to put a wind turbine on its land has been scuppered by a judicial review for a second time.

Father and son John and George Barber at Brackenside Farm near Berwick last year saw their planning approval for the engine quashed after Northumberland County Council admitted making errors in the handling of their application.

Their proposal was subsequently approved by the authority a second time, but now that second approval has been overturned too after the council again admitted making errors.

The two reviews have in total cost the authority over £17,000, but the Barbers last night spoke of their frustration that their efforts to become carbon neutral had been thwarted again.

The man who sought both judicial reviews voiced his hope that the council would learn from its mistakes and the authority said measures have been put in place to prevent further mishaps.

John, 59, and George, 33, were given approval for a 100kW turbine by the county council last February, in line with an officer’s recommendation.

But Andrew Joicey, who farms at Cornhill and who had objected to the application, sought a judicial review of the council’s handling of the proposal, listing eight points on which he believed it had erred.

The authority accepted either fully or in part five of the areas raised by Mr Joicey. The permission was quashed by a high court judge, with the council agreeing to meet Mr Joicey’s costs of over £10,700.

The Barbers’ application was subsequently redetermined by the council, and approved a second time in line with officer advice. Mr Joicey again sought a judicial review, this time citing five areas in which he believed the council had made mistakes in relation to its handling of the application. The council has this time conceded it was wrong in two of those areas, meaning the permission has been quashed by the high court a second time. Again, the authority has to pick up Mr Joicey’s costs, in the region of £7,000.

The Barbers have voiced their anger at having to spend time and money working on their proposal, including paying an agent and for expert advice.

George accused the council of “complete inefficiency”.

He added: “The application has been approved twice, and each time opponents have put us through the judicial review process, costing the council tax payers of Northumberland over £17,000. We are trying our best to make our farm carbon neutral.”

Mr Joicey welcomed the decision and said he had no wish to put the council to any cost or cause trouble for the Barbers, although he insisted they were “wrong” in seeking to erect the turbine and that it was proposed in the wrong place.

A council spokeswoman said: “The planning permission for the wind turbine has been quashed following a further judicial review challenge. There were some procedural errors in the planning process concerning statutory consultation requirements and also noise monitoring conditions.

“Measures have been put in place to rectify these issues. Officers are working closely with the applicants to progress the application to a timely decision.”

Source:  by Brian Daniel, The Journal | Apr 6 2013 | www.journallive.co.uk

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.