News RSS Feed


Controversial wind farm gets go-ahead on appeal


A CONTROVERSIAL plan to build a wind farm near Bicester got the go-ahead yesterday, shocking villagers who campaigned against the project.

A planning inspector approved plans for four giant wind turbines on the outskirts of Bicester.

He upheld an appeal against Cherwell district councillors’ decision to refuse planning consent for the £10m wind farm at Willowbank Farm, between Fritwell and Fewcott.

John Watson ruled that Derbyshire firm Bolsterstone could build the 125-metre-tall (410ft) turbines, a control building and access at the farm, near the M40.

The wind farm is expected to generate enough electricity to power about 5,400 homes.

Campaigners said they were devastated by the ruling, which said the environmental benefits outweighed any impact on the surrounding area.

The decision came the same day as a public inquiry opened into plans to build a £100m waste incinerator at nearby Ardley Fields.

Michael Hall, of Ardley with Fewcott Parish Council, said: “We’re horrified with the timing. We’re a very beleaguered community, having to fight two applications for major facilities at the same time.

“We’re very disappointed by the decision and will be reading the inspector’s notice with interest.”

District councillors James Macnamara and Catherine Fulljames said they would now support a motion calling for the authority to develop a planning policy limiting how close turbines could be built to homes.

Mr Macnamara said: “This will open the floodgates to industrial development across swathes of our countryside.”

Mrs Fulljames added: “The inspector said the need was greater than the inconvenience to people who are going to live in the vicinity of these monsters.”

In his report, Mr Watson said that there were long-term benefits in reducing carbon dioxide emissions from thermal power plants and that the wind farm was not detrimental to local conservation areas, historical monuments or buildings in the surrounding countryside.

He said: “The reduced amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be a continuing benefit for years after the turbines were removed.

“I attribute significant weight to this benefit.

“The harm associated with the proposal is all of a type that would cease at the end of the development’s life.

“None of the harmful effects identified would continue in the long term and there would be no enduring harm to the significance of heritage assets.

“I conclude that the benefit would outweigh the harm.”

No-one from Bolsterstone was available to comment yesterday.


Comments(10)

Andrew:Oxford says...
11:23am Wed 7 Jul 10

Common sense decision.

Bill Bryson says...
2:45pm Wed 7 Jul 10

The world is going greenie nutter mad. This will be less than 30% efficient due to the wind patterns in the area, and it is passed. So locals have to put up with something like this that is of as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike, to appease the vocal minority, madness.

EBTWO says...
5:09pm Wed 7 Jul 10

Well I'll swap them a few wind turbines for the view outside my window - Didcot Power Station?

Deal or No Deal?

As I've said countless times, these kind of people will be the first to complain when the lights go out. It's clean energy or more nuclear. At least with a wind turbine you can just remove it without having to bury irradiated material for 1 million years.

the wizard says...
6:00pm Wed 7 Jul 10

The many Power Stations that were sanctioned by the Wilson government in the 60's such as "Didcot A" are now nearing the end of their life. This will leave a massive shortfall in capacity. Cameron has already identified this as a forthcoming problem and is looking at up to ten nuclear stations to take up the challenge of meeting the nations needs. The idea of many smaller facilities such as wind farms and Incenerators will help, and as writen above, wind turbines can be easily removed. "Not in my back yard" seems to spring to mind and it seems the residents of Ardley and around just don't want anything in their area, let alone clean power, non green power or employment. Its ok for others, but not for them, perhaps if they saw the size of the gas pipes which feed the Didcot A and Didcot B sites they would change their minds. North Sea gas being swallowed at unbelievable rates, if you thought Didcot A ran just on coal then you are massively wrong. They use in a few minutes more than the whole of Ardley in a decade.

Bill Bryson says...
6:07pm Wed 7 Jul 10

EBTWO wrote:
Well I'll swap them a few wind turbines for the view outside my window - Didcot Power Station? Deal or No Deal? As I've said countless times, these kind of people will be the first to complain when the lights go out. It's clean energy or more nuclear. At least with a wind turbine you can just remove it without having to bury irradiated material for 1 million years.
Wake up, you would need about 100,000 of them to create the energy from didcot, do you want that veiw and noise from your window?

Lord Palmerstone says...
6:33pm Wed 7 Jul 10

Interestingly enough there is a small wind turbine above Dave's house in Dean. The blades rarely moved during the very cold weather last winter.If the erectors could make a return out of leccy produced rather than subsidies, then I'd say good luck to them.But, of course, they can't.

the wizard says...
7:57pm Wed 7 Jul 10

Ah, Palmerstone, perhaps they are still quicker at making money than you offering apologies.

EBTWO says...
9:38am Thu 8 Jul 10

Bill Bryson wrote:
EBTWO wrote:
Well I'll swap them a few wind turbines for the view outside my window - Didcot Power Station? Deal or No Deal? As I've said countless times, these kind of people will be the first to complain when the lights go out. It's clean energy or more nuclear. At least with a wind turbine you can just remove it without having to bury irradiated material for 1 million years.
Wake up, you would need about 100,000 of them to create the energy from didcot, do you want that veiw and noise from your window?
Yes.

I'd gladly have a windfarm in the field next to my house. They don't make as much noise as people think. It's such an outdated and frankly wrong assertion. Go and stand under the turbines at Westmill - you can have a normal conversation with someone right next to you. Or be on a phone. They're very quiet.

Offshore is the best place for windfarms, but onshore wind has massive potential. I don't want more nuclear as it's horrifically expensive to build, run and decommission, not to mention potentially dangerous if the worst were to happen.

Oh, one more thing to the NIMBYs: "You Don't Own The View"

the wizard says...
3:39pm Thu 8 Jul 10

Legislation on the build of new homes makes solar panels compulsary in most instances, so I believe. Perhaps the government should be encouraging companies to make "retro fitting" an affordable option and in so doing reducing the demand for domestic power consumption. Good systems are available for hot water via solar panels yet they get minimal exposure via advertising etc. All of these measures are relevant as they reduce the demand for commercially generated power. New solar panels can have an appearance simular to surround roof tiles and in so doing minimalise their presence. If more was done at this level it would in the long term eliminate problems that we are seeing here. I wonder how many of the protesting residents know of what options are available, and how many have solar panels for electricity or hot water, and some systems that do both.

Bicester retired says...
12:32pm Fri 9 Jul 10

I understand that Bolsterstone has claimed that the wind farm can generate enough energy to power about 5400 homes. This is a very vague and misleading statement but is very important for evaluation of the benefits of the wind farm. This is quite similar to say to an employee that he can earn up to £1m but in reality he can only earn less than 10k most of the time. Actually, how much is the electricity in real terms the wind farm will generate, such as megawatts hour ?

Only after we know for sure the amount of electricity generated can we determine whether it is a good idea to go ahead, even causing a lot of damage to our countryside. After the wind farm is built, we are then able to monitor whether Bolsterstone has made a correct claim or has deliberately misled us in order to have the wind farm built to their own benefits. Any approval given to Bolsterstone should include a clause saying if the amount of electricity generated is not as claimed, Bolsterstone will have to pay a heavy penalty to compensate for the damage done to the countryside. Does this sound fair ?


Councillor Catherine Fulljames Councillor Catherine Fulljames

Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses