Snowmountain win on appeal their plan for second turbine next near to Whitemoor Prison

PUBLISHED: 11:57 16 March 2010 | UPDATED: 09:33 02 June 2010

beam structural sevices and wind turbine, archaelogical arguement

beam structural sevices and wind turbine, archaelogical arguement

By John Elworthy SNOWMOUNTAIN Enterprises has won consent for a second wind turbine at Whitemoor, overturning on appeal a refusal by Fenland District Council. David Rose, a Government inspector, released the findings of an appeal hearing today paving the

By John Elworthy

SNOWMOUNTAIN Enterprises has won consent for a second wind turbine at Whitemoor, overturning on appeal a refusal by Fenland District Council.

David Rose, a Government inspector, released the findings of an appeal hearing today paving the way for a second turbine at Foundry Way, March, Cambridgeshire.

Mr Rose said he found the existing turbine "neither intrusive nor dominant" and any additional and combined visual impact of a second turbine "would be relatively minor".

He also dismissed fears it would have any adverse impact on Whitemoor Prison and overall views of the turbine "would be neither jarring nor disturbing".

He could find no "material conflict" with the council's development plan or their guidance on wind turbines.

Dismissing fears, too, of possible ecological issues involving bats, Mr Rose said the main habitat nearby had been removed and a second turbine would be unlikely to have any significant impact.

Mr Rose said public safety fears could be allayed by recognising the stringent testing that modern wind turbines undergo.

The possible release of ice shards was also dismissed as Mr Rose said the weather conditions likely to bring this about "occur for less than one day per year. As most wind turbines are fitted with vibration sensors any imbalance which might be caused by the icing of the blades would be likely to inhibit operation".

Mr Rose said the fact Fenland had already exceeded its 2010 target for renewable energy was, effectively, a red herring.

"Renewable Energy advises that even where targets have been reached, this should not in itself be a reason for refusing planning permission." He said the 2020 target for the region "is more demanding".

Mr Rose also called for "appropriate expertise and working procedures" to follow up on possible archaeological assets.

But he dismissed an application by the council for a section 106 financial contribution claiming there was "nothing to explain the basis on which the obligation is being sought".


If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Wisbech Standard. Click the link in the orange box above for details.

Become a supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Latest from the Wisbech Standard