Content © Stopwoodlanewindfarm 2008 - 2013
Planning Inspector turns down Riccall turbine after planning appeal.
£237,000 / year subsidy per turbine
The proposed turbines at Lumby, Riccall, Wistow Lordship and others at Balne, Cliffe, Womersley, Stapleton and Great Heck are all 500 KW machines. They vary in height up to 87 metres ( 285 feet).
The owner is paid for all electricity generated, even if he uses it all himself - plus extra for any fed into the grid.
A 500 KW turbine will expect a subsidy of about £237K per year, plus inflation increases.
YOU pay the subsidy via a surcharge on your electricity bill. If the cost was shared between everybody in Selby District it would cost each one of us about £3 per year per turbine - or about £10 per household.
Many of the turbines now proposed for farms are industrial scale machines with output limited to 500kw so they get a higher rate for electricity generated. These turbines are the same size as many used on wind farms.
Selby District and wind turbines - wider perspective
Selby District has received 39 applications for single turbines up to 87 metres high over the last 4 years and every time the planning officers have recommended they be approved.
People living close by have objected every time and Selby Planning Committee is refusing an increasing number. The wind farm and wind turbine developers inevitably appeal.
We are now seeing these appeals fail - first Wistow Lordship appeal failed - with the Inspector finding the degree of harm to residential amenity and local landscape being unacceptable.
We now know that the appeal at Riccall has also failed - with landscape impact and the level of local opposition cited as deciding factors.
The decision on Lumby is still awaited.
There are other appeals at Great Heck and Bishopwood / Scalm Park ongoing.
Further planning applications are pending for turbines at Balne, and Oak Tree Farm. We await with interest the report and recommendation from the Planning officers.
28 Sept 2015 2014
Lumby turbine - Appeal ref -N2739/A/14/2221816
500KW - 87 m high - nearest properties in Lumby village at 450 metres.
The appeal was by written submissions and the decision is currently awaited.
Further information including the evidence submitted to the Planning Inspector - here.
Decision now expected by 21 December 2015.
Application ref 2013/0722/FUL
Riccall turbine - Application ref 2013/0610/FUL - 500KW - 77 metres high - nearest properties are new holiday homes at 512 metres.
Refused at appeal - 29 September 2015 - Concluding paragraphs of the report as follows
The Balancing Exercise
26. The development would make a contribution towards renewable energy provision, which would help meet national and local targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I bear in mind that the Framework identifies the reduction in greenhouse emissions and the delivery of renewable energy infrastructure as being central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development3. It also recognises that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. These are considerations to which I must have regard and to which I attribute significant weight.
27. Against this I weigh the harmful impact upon visual amenity in local views, and the moderately harmful impact on the wider landscape. This harm, would be both temporary and reversible, and its more significant effects would be localised. However, this planning impact was one which was identified by the local community and has not been addressed. Therefore, whilst I have found the proposal to be in accordance with policy SP17 of the CS, It would fail to meet the transitional arrangements set out in the WMS, which represents the most recent expression of government planning policy for onshore wind development, and is a matter to which I must attribute significant and greater weight.
28. Accordingly, although the benefits of the scheme carry considerable importance and weight, in this case they would not outweigh the harm identified. I consider that the balance weighs against the development. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Commenting on the appeal decision Nigel Adams MP said
“I am very pleased that the Planning Inspector has given full consideration to all the relevant information and concluded that the small amount of energy that would be produced does not justify the harm to the local landscape and residential amenity.”