Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 18th March 2010

High Court go-ahead for Carsington wind farm in landmark ruling

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
17 July 2009
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build four 102m wind turbines at Carsington Pastures have been given the go-ahead.
A High Court Judge has today determined that proposals for the wind farm should proceed.

Pundits said the ruling could be a landmark case for the future of wind farms across Britain.

Do you support the development? Let us know your thoughts below.

Derbyshire Dales District Council originally rejected the proposals, however, following a Public Inquiry, they were given the go ahead in September last year by a Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.

The district council joined forces with the Peak District National Park Authority to lodge an appeal to the High Court challenging the Secretary of State's decision.

The authoritys believed the developers, West Coast Wind Energy failed to look at alternative sites.

The appeal was considered in the High Court by Lord Justice Carnwath who has ruled that there was not a positive obligation to consider alternative sites which may not have the same effects as the proposed development.

Leader of the district council, Lewis Rose, said: "I am very disappointed with the decision. The district council has never questioned the desirability or need to promote renewable energy sources, however, there is a clear need to undertake a balanced assessment of such proposals. Unless developers are required to consider alternative sites which may have less impact, such a balanced judgement cannot be reached".

Councillor Hilda Gaddum, chair of the Peak District National Park Authority's Planning Committee, added: "We made this joint appeal because it is our duty to fight threats to the national park landscape.

"We are disappointed with the judgement as we feel it is important that alternative sites are always considered first before making a decision to locate a wind farm 1.5 miles from a national park boundary.

"The authority has approved a micro hydro power site at Alport Mill, solar panels and individual wind turbines in appropriate locations within the national park and will continue to support measures to provide more renewable energy. However, applications must also continue to be judged against the need to protect the natural beauty of the Peak District National Park landscape.

"We need to spend time reading the judgement in detail to fully understand the implications for the future."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 July 2009 4:53 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Matlock
 
Prev
1
Next
1

Mumble,

Matlock 17/07/2009 12:16:00
What a waste of time and money this whole debacle this has been! I'd love to know how much has been spent on it...

I don't think wind energy is the panacea and don't believe everything the companies are telling us, but we've got to do something and it's a start and I look forward to seeing the windmills in place. Now for Matlock Moor...
2

Whauped,

17/07/2009 13:02:44
The biggest waste of time and money is building thousands of hugely subsidised wind turbines that will have virtually no effect on CO2 emissions but which will necessitate more gas-fuelled power stations.

Yes, we do have to do something. But the hands-off, subsidy-fuelled onshore wind rush is not the answer.

As Simon Jenkins wrote in the Guardian (16 July): "Meanwhile not a kilowatt is derived from the massive energy surging back and forth across estuarial Britain, because the start-up costs are high and there is no lobby for the rental subsidies that have made British onshore wind the most expensive energy source on earth. Water cascades unharnessed down mountains. Buildings leak energy. Vehicles sit burning fuel at badly phased traffic lights. Nobody cares because such energy conservation does not sit on an annual report like a photograph of a turbine."
3

Lone Starr,

Matlock Bath 17/07/2009 13:48:44
I'm glad that this has been given the go-ahead. Until we get some more viable (and less conspicuous) alternatives, we need to be doing something to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

I'm worried about the cost to the council for taking this to to the high court because it will ultimately be passed on to the council tax payer.
4

Voter,

Derbyshire 19/07/2009 12:55:10
With the increasing numbers of wind farms, it is becoming apparent that there are more forms of pollution than greenhouse gases. Visual and sound pollution can be detrimental to quality of life, especially around greenfield sites, which are also being targeted for the planned eco-towns.

Wind farms can be an eyesore, and produce an irritating noise. The companies building wind farms are obviously interested in profits, just like other energy companies. It is a boost for them that they are now backed by Government (as long as they do not build near a minister's home)

It is more about politics and fashion - windfarms show "real" Government action, allowing Government to ignore other carbon-emission problems. Considering the Government's timidity in other aspects of its "green" agenda, and Britain’s negligible contribution to global warming in comparison with China, USA, India, Russia, etc., it is to be hoped the imposition of these devices is worthwhile.

The blight on our countryside and the grievances of communities might prove otherwise.
5

lot2say,

Matlock 21/07/2009 14:05:31
Whatever happened to the other places that windfarms were meant to be built? Someone said there were going to be loads of sites on Matlock Moor but I've heard nothing else about it.
6

Minnie Mouse,

22/07/2009 18:48:11
Typical MM reporting yet again. Sensationalist reporting is the MM agenda. Until the Mercury changes its editorial policy, Matlock will continue to suffer. Quite simply, the Mercury will always look to generate a negative out of a positive. When was the last time the Mercury ever covered anything positive about Matlock?
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.