[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


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

News Watch Home

Devon glamping camp owner fails in bid to stop wind turbine development  

Credit:  Exeter Express and Echo | February 09, 2017 | www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk ~~

A West Devon glamping camp owner today failed in a final attempt to stop a wind turbine development in countryside near her home.

Julia Martin has long objected to the plans for a single turbine at Beckwell Farm, near Lifton, between Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor.

The case has been looked at by planners, councillors, a planning inspector and, in 2015, a High Court judge.

And today, it reached as far as the Court of Appeal, where her barrister, top QC Richard Hayward, tried again to reopen the case.

But her hopes of blocking the plans were dashed when Lord Justice Briggs branded her appeal “unarguable”.

The court heard Mrs Martin runs a successful camping business – Devon Yurt – on her land at Borough Farm.

She claimed the proposed wind turbine would damage the settings of monuments and buildings nearby.

They included the Castle Park Camp bronze or iron age enclosure, and the Grade II-listed Round House and Downhouse.

West Devon Borough Council initially refused permission for the development.

But a planning inspector overturned the refusal and, in November 2015, High Court judge Mr Justice Lindblom agreed.

Today, Mrs Martin’s QC argued that the inspector’s decision should be overturned and looked at again.

The inspector had not given adequate reasons why he thought he had enough information to consider the impact on “heritage assets”, he said.

English Heritage had expressed concerns about the information put forward and the council was also against the development, he said.

“It is the whole thrust of our case,” he told the judge.

“We say the expert opinion was that the material was inadequate to judge whether there was harm.

“The inspector doesn’t address it at all in his decision.

“What he does do is express a view whether there was a harmful impact.

“The inspector doesn’t explain why he thinks he has sufficient information to go on and make the decision which he did.”

After considering Mr Hayward’s arguments, Lord Justice Briggs decided the grounds were “unarguable”.

He rejected Mrs Martin’s appeal bid.

Source:  Exeter Express and Echo | February 09, 2017 | www.exeterexpressandecho.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.


Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

National Wind Watch