[ 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

Appeal for two 100m high wind turbines fails  

Credit:  The Berwickshire News | 16 July 2014 | www.berwickshirenews.co.uk ~~

A 100m tall wind turbine near the England/Scotland border at Lamberton and a similar sized turbine at Chirnside have both been turned down.

AAH Planning put in planning applications for both turbines in February this year, and after being advised by Scottish Borders Council planning officers in April that they would be recommended for refusal, the applicants offered to reduce the heights to 77m.

This was still considered inappropriate for the landscape at the border (turbines up to 35m may be supported) and at Harelaw, Chirnside, (turbines up to 50m may be supported) and on being told this in May AAH’s response was to submit an appeal to the council’s Local Review Body for both applications in June, citing failure to reach a decision as the basis for the appeal.

However, when the review body met this week, they supported the view of planning officers and rejected the appeal.

One objector said: “This is not a case of non-determination. The planning officer had advised on numerous occasions that the original planning application would be recommended for refusal, based upon the substantial weight of evidence and planning guidance.”

East Berwickshire councillor, Michael Cook, said of the Harelaw Farm application: “The applicant’s conclusions could not support any determination of this matter other than refusal.”

Of the Lamberton turbine he added: “Given the trivial contribution that this scheme represents in electricity terms against its grossly adverse impacts on neighbours, then the balance is decisively pitched on the side of refusal.”

AAH Planning’s appeal stated: “The case officer’s report has not taken a balanced approach and the benefits have not been assessed against the perceived impacts.”

Their reasons for supporting the applications included: they “would not have significant impacts on the landscape”; each would generate enough electricity to supply 407 households every year; local community funds would be set up.

Source:  The Berwickshire News | 16 July 2014 | www.berwickshirenews.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


Tag: Victories

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.