[ 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

Shipdham wind turbine ban remains – High Court rules  

Credit:  Tuesday, March 3, 2015 | www.edp24.co.uk ~~

An energy company denied planning permission for two 100m high wind turbines at a farm in Shipdham, near Dereham, because of danger to low flying aircraft has failed in a High Court challenge to the decision.

Ecotricity (Next Generation) Ltd had branded the refusal of consent as “irrational”.

It claimed in its High Court challenge that the country’s planning supremo, communities secretary Eric Pickles, and one of his inspectors were wrong in their view that the planned turbines would cause a material risk to aviation safety.

They argued among other things that the issue was not even raised at a public inquiry into the proposal for Wood Farm, Church Lane, Shipdham.

However, dismissing the challenge at London’s High Court, today, deputy judge Charles George QC said that, while Ecotricity may have been surprised to learn of the inspector’s concerns over aviation safety, it had been aware of an objection from the Shipdham Flying Club.

He said that it should have been obvious that the inspector would have to deal with the flying club’s objection, and Ecotricity should have been alerted of the need to address the issue.

The judge found that the inspector was not bound to raise the issue, or seek additional evidence on it, and had to make a decision based on the evidence before him.

On this issue, he said, the only evidence was from the flying club.

As a result, he said there was no “procedural unfairness” and no irrationality.

Ecotricity had argued that aviation safety never formed any part of Breckland District Council’s initial decision to refuse planning permission.

Council members rejected the proposal solely on the basis of impact on the landscape, despite their planning officers recommending approval.

Ecotricity branded the decision to reject its planning appeal on the basis of aviation safety “manifestly unfair and irrational”, with the inspector having accepted at the inquiry that the agreed position between the company and Norwich International Airport being that an aviation safeguarding condition should be imposed.

The Secretary of State took the view that the scheme would lead to an intensification of risk to aircraft, including those heading to and from Shipdham airfield.

Source:  Tuesday, March 3, 2015 | www.edp24.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.