64m turbine plan for Darwen is withdrawn again

PLANS to install a 64.2-metre wind turbine on land near Bull Hill in Darwen have been withdrawn by the applicant.

But campaigners against the proposal for Pleasant View Farm said they were not convinced the saga was over.

And agent Dominic Cooney, from CMS UK, confirmed that a new appli- cation would be submitted in the near future.

The application, by farm owner Elizabeth Gott, was the third attempt at putting a large turbine on her land.

Originally, Mrs Gott applied for an 88.5-metre turbine – taller than India Mill chimney – in late 2011, sparking a furious reaction. That application was withdrawn in March last year, only for a revised second application for a 65-metre turbine to be resubmitted and thrown out by planners in October.

Campaigners were stunned when a third turbine application went in last month, but were cautiously celebrating after it was withdrawn once again.

Martin Vizzard, of Cranberry Fold Court and leader of the Against Cranberry Turbine (ACT) protest group said: “We are pleased the application has been withdrawn. However, we will wait to see if another application will be submitted.”

Mr Cooney, who has represented Mrs Gott since the first application went in more than a year ago, said: “The application has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. She wants to check the supply of the wind turbine type, which looks to be changing.

“A new application for the new wind turbine type will be submitted.”

Mr Vizzard said ACT would continue to fight against any future wind turbine proposals within 500 metres of homes.

He said: “We will go on lobbying the council for a minimum separation distance of 500 metres from residential properties, not just in Darwen but across the borough.

“If this wind turbine ever gets the go-ahead it will no doubt lead to further applications in the future.

“We will be holding a public meeting in the coming weeks to get everyone’s opinions on the matter.”

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:09pm Fri 8 Feb 13

pwitch says...

So why does she not use solar panels instead?
So why does she not use solar panels instead? pwitch
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Fri 8 Feb 13

phil kernot says...

She's just a greedy pig who isn't satisfied living off taxpayers subsidised for not producing food , simple do what your meant to do farm your land rather sitting on your lard fat ****
She's just a greedy pig who isn't satisfied living off taxpayers subsidised for not producing food , simple do what your meant to do farm your land rather sitting on your lard fat **** phil kernot
  • Score: 1

10:21pm Fri 8 Feb 13

2 for 5p says...

If these nimbys don't want wind farms fair enough , just build coal fired power plants on the same land. Simples
If these nimbys don't want wind farms fair enough , just build coal fired power plants on the same land. Simples 2 for 5p
  • Score: 0

12:18am Sat 9 Feb 13

Mart8 says...

2p 5p

We have had this exchange on this forum on more than one occasion and quite frankly you are embarrassing yourself now. Every time you just shout "nimby" and then suggest an unrealistic and quite absurd alternative to wind turbines. 

Have you read the article? It is VERY clear what we are asking for. I am going to write in capitals to ensure you cannot misunderstand me. 

WE WANT MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM WIND TURBINES AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR THE ENTIRE BOROUGH. PREFERABLY BASED ON SIZE

Now 2p 5p, if you don't understand the reasons why i fear there is no helping you. Like i have said before, nothing more than name calling to add to this debate, then best you apply your limited thinking skills elsewhere. 

I have also said before 2p 5p, that people like you are all to happy to shout Nimby because you have neither the backbone nor the intellectual capacity to question people who propose schemes which may have an impact on local residents. Hiding behind the "i don't want to be a Nimby" is a convenient way to try and appear clever but in actual fact is the very reason turbine developers are targeting this area.

Martin Vizzard
ACT
www.againstcranberry
turbine.com
2p 5p We have had this exchange on this forum on more than one occasion and quite frankly you are embarrassing yourself now. Every time you just shout "nimby" and then suggest an unrealistic and quite absurd alternative to wind turbines.  Have you read the article? It is VERY clear what we are asking for. I am going to write in capitals to ensure you cannot misunderstand me.  WE WANT MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM WIND TURBINES AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR THE ENTIRE BOROUGH. PREFERABLY BASED ON SIZE Now 2p 5p, if you don't understand the reasons why i fear there is no helping you. Like i have said before, nothing more than name calling to add to this debate, then best you apply your limited thinking skills elsewhere.  I have also said before 2p 5p, that people like you are all to happy to shout Nimby because you have neither the backbone nor the intellectual capacity to question people who propose schemes which may have an impact on local residents. Hiding behind the "i don't want to be a Nimby" is a convenient way to try and appear clever but in actual fact is the very reason turbine developers are targeting this area. Martin Vizzard ACT www.againstcranberry turbine.com Mart8
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Sat 9 Feb 13

darwen boy ben says...

i cant see why pepole dont like them
i cant see why pepole dont like them darwen boy ben
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree