Scheme to build five 99-metre wind turbines near Ulverston splits planning committee, but scheme is thrown out

A CONTROVERSIAL scheme to double the height of five wind turbines has been turned down despite overwhelming support from members of the public.

The plan, which would see the removal of five existing 53-metre-high turbines to be replaced by ones 99.5 metres tall on Harlock Hill, near Ulverston, split South Lakeland District Council’s planning committee. Five were in support while six members were against it.

Two of the new turbines would be operated by Baywind Energy Co-operative Ltd and three by Infinergy - though one application has been submitted for the whole site, and the applicant said the wind farm could provide electricity for around 6,000 households each year.

More than 300 letters of support were received for the project, including from members of the co-operative who benefit from a financial return. Around 50 letters of objection were lodged.

Speaker Tammy Calvert spoke in support of the plan.

“My little girl understands electricity is generated by the turbines and that she shouldn’t waste it,” she said. “Why should being able to see the turbines be a negative? I grew up in the 1970s with power cuts and I can’t believe we could experience that again.

“I don’t want my children to grow up in the dark."

Marna McMillin from Energy4All, which supports the Baywind co-operative, said that the site was ‘internationally recognised as a flagship project’.

“It is a beacon organisation of which this county should be proud,” she said. “Why not take pride in this unique Cumbrian achievement and continue to inspire others?”

Chris Dodwell, of Ulverston’s GlaxoSmithKline plant, also spoke in favour of the application and described how buying from the electricity supply would help the pharmaceutical firm achieve its ambition of a zero carbon footprint by 2050.

“We selected the project with the least local impact possible and with most local benefit,” he said.

Committee member Coun David Ryder backed the scheme saying the alternative of power stations would have a worse visual impact on neighbouring residents.

“We are going to destroy our environment if we don’t pass applications like this, that make a lot of sense, on the grounds that a couple of cyclists might not like it.”

But David Bowen, who lives at Harlock Farm, said he already lived with the turbines and with their visual impact and background noise ‘ever-present’. And he said with the turbines on higher ground, every living space in the house and garden is ‘highly exposed’ to views of them.

“They are over-powering and over-bearing and have a massive adverse effect on our lifestyle,” he said. “Furness is effectively ringed like a prison with wind turbines. This will no doubt lead to applications to replace other aging turbines on other sites. I support renewable energy, but it must respect the environment and those who live within it. Furness has already suffered enough.”

Coun Janette Jenkinson said: “It was a brave step when the committee at the time passed the Harlock Hill development but we have moved on since then and have to look at the cumulative effect in the area.

“The local community are saying enough is enough; the turbines are a huge stain on the Furness peninsula and it is time we said no.”

Barrow Borough Council planners will also consider the application this month.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:18pm Mon 1 Apr 13

lakesailor says...

As long ago as 2011 the Adam Smith Institute & the Scientific Alliance said that wind farms cannot supply the energy we need, which will lead to an energy crisis by the middle of the decade.
Wind is not reliable.
As long ago as 2011 the Adam Smith Institute & the Scientific Alliance said that wind farms cannot supply the energy we need, which will lead to an energy crisis by the middle of the decade. Wind is not reliable. lakesailor
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Tue 2 Apr 13

life cycle too says...

I agree that wind energy is insignificant in terms of our overall needs - they say this scheme will service the equivalent of 6,000 homes - but how many FACTORIES and SHIPYARDS would it run??

They (the turbines) are useful on a small local scale - and as a tool to educate the public into being less wasteful - but ultimately we WILL see the return of power "outages" unless the energy business gets the green light to invest in REAL sources of power - such as HYDRO, or NUCLEAR.


There... I've said that ugly word that nobody is keen on... NUCLEAR.
Makes sense to me though!
Priority will always go to industry when power is short, as they have NO alternative, and keep the economy going - and it will be INDUSTRY that pays for new power sources, not households.
I agree that wind energy is insignificant in terms of our overall needs - they say this scheme will service the equivalent of 6,000 homes - but how many FACTORIES and SHIPYARDS would it run?? They (the turbines) are useful on a small local scale - and as a tool to educate the public into being less wasteful - but ultimately we WILL see the return of power "outages" unless the energy business gets the green light to invest in REAL sources of power - such as HYDRO, or NUCLEAR. There... I've said that ugly word that nobody is keen on... NUCLEAR. Makes sense to me though! Priority will always go to industry when power is short, as they have NO alternative, and keep the economy going - and it will be INDUSTRY that pays for new power sources, not households. life cycle too
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Tue 2 Apr 13

Yarbles says...

Good decision.100m is far too big, look at the impact Armistead has had, horrendous.

I think Tammy Calvert needs to educate her little girl on the economics and engineering behind wind power and electricity generation, then she can come to her own conclusions on the usefulness and importance of wind power without being brainwashed.
Good decision.100m is far too big, look at the impact Armistead has had, horrendous. I think Tammy Calvert needs to educate her little girl on the economics and engineering behind wind power and electricity generation, then she can come to her own conclusions on the usefulness and importance of wind power without being brainwashed. Yarbles
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Tue 2 Apr 13

life cycle too says...

Hmm. It is subjective, as I think the Armistead turbines look great - the scale matches the surrounding scenery!

I can see turbines at Lambrigg AND Kirkby-in-Furness from Windermere on a good day - most people don't see them at all!
Hmm. It is subjective, as I think the Armistead turbines look great - the scale matches the surrounding scenery! I can see turbines at Lambrigg AND Kirkby-in-Furness from Windermere on a good day - most people don't see them at all! life cycle too
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Tue 2 Apr 13

Hoad Hill says...

The power cuts in the seventies were a result of the miners strike. We haven't yet had cuts because of lack of capacity but we are certainly heading that way and wind generation will exacerbate rather than solve that issue.
The arguments almost always revolve around the effect on the landscape but the real issue is that wind generation simply doesn't work.
Wind generators are inherently unstable and are only able to generate when connected to a stable system, ie the National Grid.
However,the defining argument is the fact that wind generators are uneconomic and totally dependant on subsidies. Remove the subsidies and there won't be any wind generation!
The power cuts in the seventies were a result of the miners strike. We haven't yet had cuts because of lack of capacity but we are certainly heading that way and wind generation will exacerbate rather than solve that issue. The arguments almost always revolve around the effect on the landscape but the real issue is that wind generation simply doesn't work. Wind generators are inherently unstable and are only able to generate when connected to a stable system, ie the National Grid. However,the defining argument is the fact that wind generators are uneconomic and totally dependant on subsidies. Remove the subsidies and there won't be any wind generation! Hoad Hill
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Tue 2 Apr 13

life cycle too says...

We had cuts before the miners strikes in the 70s - and not always at peak times.

The effect on businesses and industry is far greater than the impact on householders... and wind turbines cannot match the output of large gas, nuclear and hydro generators.

Household bills are tiny by comparison, and it will be the needs of industry that eventually force a change.
We had cuts before the miners strikes in the 70s - and not always at peak times. The effect on businesses and industry is far greater than the impact on householders... and wind turbines cannot match the output of large gas, nuclear and hydro generators. Household bills are tiny by comparison, and it will be the needs of industry that eventually force a change. life cycle too
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Tue 2 Apr 13

Kendal Jock says...

Hoad Hill wrote:
The power cuts in the seventies were a result of the miners strike. We haven't yet had cuts because of lack of capacity but we are certainly heading that way and wind generation will exacerbate rather than solve that issue.
The arguments almost always revolve around the effect on the landscape but the real issue is that wind generation simply doesn't work.
Wind generators are inherently unstable and are only able to generate when connected to a stable system, ie the National Grid.
However,the defining argument is the fact that wind generators are uneconomic and totally dependant on subsidies. Remove the subsidies and there won't be any wind generation!
Couldn't agree more. You've hit it on the head.
[quote][p][bold]Hoad Hill[/bold] wrote: The power cuts in the seventies were a result of the miners strike. We haven't yet had cuts because of lack of capacity but we are certainly heading that way and wind generation will exacerbate rather than solve that issue. The arguments almost always revolve around the effect on the landscape but the real issue is that wind generation simply doesn't work. Wind generators are inherently unstable and are only able to generate when connected to a stable system, ie the National Grid. However,the defining argument is the fact that wind generators are uneconomic and totally dependant on subsidies. Remove the subsidies and there won't be any wind generation![/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. You've hit it on the head. Kendal Jock
  • Score: 0

10:16am Wed 3 Apr 13

Geoff103 says...

Hoad Hill wrote:
The power cuts in the seventies were a result of the miners strike. We haven't yet had cuts because of lack of capacity but we are certainly heading that way and wind generation will exacerbate rather than solve that issue.
The arguments almost always revolve around the effect on the landscape but the real issue is that wind generation simply doesn't work.
Wind generators are inherently unstable and are only able to generate when connected to a stable system, ie the National Grid.
However,the defining argument is the fact that wind generators are uneconomic and totally dependant on subsidies. Remove the subsidies and there won't be any wind generation!
Absolutely right but as the attachment to the *idea* of wind turbines is wholly emotional and completely devoid of engineering or economic substance there's no or little chance of these follies being avoided.

We live in age when ignorance and a belief in the fairy tales of "green' energy sources prevail.
[quote][p][bold]Hoad Hill[/bold] wrote: The power cuts in the seventies were a result of the miners strike. We haven't yet had cuts because of lack of capacity but we are certainly heading that way and wind generation will exacerbate rather than solve that issue. The arguments almost always revolve around the effect on the landscape but the real issue is that wind generation simply doesn't work. Wind generators are inherently unstable and are only able to generate when connected to a stable system, ie the National Grid. However,the defining argument is the fact that wind generators are uneconomic and totally dependant on subsidies. Remove the subsidies and there won't be any wind generation![/p][/quote]Absolutely right but as the attachment to the *idea* of wind turbines is wholly emotional and completely devoid of engineering or economic substance there's no or little chance of these follies being avoided. We live in age when ignorance and a belief in the fairy tales of "green' energy sources prevail. Geoff103
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Hoad Hill says...

life cycle too wrote:
We had cuts before the miners strikes in the 70s - and not always at peak times.

The effect on businesses and industry is far greater than the impact on householders... and wind turbines cannot match the output of large gas, nuclear and hydro generators.

Household bills are tiny by comparison, and it will be the needs of industry that eventually force a change.
I worked in the industry for 30 years from the mid sixties and I repeat, during that time there were no power cuts due to lack of capacity. In fact Walter Marshall was ennobled by Margaret Thatcher for "keeping the lights on".
There were rota disconnections during the miners strike for the purposes of preserving the coal stocks and of course most people will have experienced cuts at some time, due to weather and straight forward equipment failures.
What we should now be concerned about is the ever decreasing surplus generating capacity caused by successive governments failing to tackle the issue.
Wind generation is a distraction with no technical merit and supporters are either ignorant of the technicalities or simply in it for the subsidies.
The public have paid a very heavy price for the privatisation of the energy industry.
[quote][p][bold]life cycle too[/bold] wrote: We had cuts before the miners strikes in the 70s - and not always at peak times. The effect on businesses and industry is far greater than the impact on householders... and wind turbines cannot match the output of large gas, nuclear and hydro generators. Household bills are tiny by comparison, and it will be the needs of industry that eventually force a change.[/p][/quote]I worked in the industry for 30 years from the mid sixties and I repeat, during that time there were no power cuts due to lack of capacity. In fact Walter Marshall was ennobled by Margaret Thatcher for "keeping the lights on". There were rota disconnections during the miners strike for the purposes of preserving the coal stocks and of course most people will have experienced cuts at some time, due to weather and straight forward equipment failures. What we should now be concerned about is the ever decreasing surplus generating capacity caused by successive governments failing to tackle the issue. Wind generation is a distraction with no technical merit and supporters are either ignorant of the technicalities or simply in it for the subsidies. The public have paid a very heavy price for the privatisation of the energy industry. Hoad Hill
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Geoff103 says...

Hoad Hill: "I worked in the industry for 30 years from the mid sixties and I repeat, during that time there were no power cuts due to lack of capacity. In fact Walter Marshall was ennobled by Margaret Thatcher for "keeping the lights on".


Where, Hoad Hill?

I was at GDCD, Barnwood from '73 to '81.
Hoad Hill: "I worked in the industry for 30 years from the mid sixties and I repeat, during that time there were no power cuts due to lack of capacity. In fact Walter Marshall was ennobled by Margaret Thatcher for "keeping the lights on". Where, Hoad Hill? I was at GDCD, Barnwood from '73 to '81. Geoff103
  • Score: 0

11:43am Thu 4 Apr 13

life cycle too says...

Yes the power cuts of the 70s were due to weather and poorer infrastructure in this area - which has been rectified some time ago.

My point should have been that we now have a grid capable of supplying electricity from further afield than was possible in the 70s - part of that "stable" network you referred to.

Hydro power is the only possible renewable of any worth - but does not get the same subsidies as wind, and requires a suitable topography and bigger investment in building to get established.

Tidal flow generation has been mooted for Morecambe Bay, which idiotic observers keep misinterpreting as a barrage project, and launch objections on that basis!
At least it can be relied upon and predicted - unlike wind!

I have seen the Rance in Brittany - and have no worries about a barrage - in the right location. All it does is shift the natural tides to a different time of day - and generates power as it does so!

Can I recommend a look at this...
http://www.beck-mick
le-hydro.co.uk/index
.php?id=bmh_news

STARVED of any investment for years now! Are they waiting for the patent to run out?
Yes the power cuts of the 70s were due to weather and poorer infrastructure in this area - which has been rectified some time ago. My point should have been that we now have a grid capable of supplying electricity from further afield than was possible in the 70s - part of that "stable" network you referred to. Hydro power is the only possible renewable of any worth - but does not get the same subsidies as wind, and requires a suitable topography and bigger investment in building to get established. Tidal flow generation has been mooted for Morecambe Bay, which idiotic observers keep misinterpreting as a barrage project, and launch objections on that basis! At least it can be relied upon and predicted - unlike wind! I have seen the Rance in Brittany - and have no worries about a barrage - in the right location. All it does is shift the natural tides to a different time of day - and generates power as it does so! Can I recommend a look at this... http://www.beck-mick le-hydro.co.uk/index .php?id=bmh_news STARVED of any investment for years now! Are they waiting for the patent to run out? life cycle too
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Thu 4 Apr 13

Hoad Hill says...

Geoff103 wrote:
Hoad Hill: "I worked in the industry for 30 years from the mid sixties and I repeat, during that time there were no power cuts due to lack of capacity. In fact Walter Marshall was ennobled by Margaret Thatcher for "keeping the lights on".


Where, Hoad Hill?

I was at GDCD, Barnwood from '73 to '81.
This is now seriously off topic but as a courtesy to Geoff103:-

Several of my former colleagues at UKAEA Risley, went to Barnwood but I moved to a then CEGB Transmission District and stayed there for the rest of my career, albeit that we eventually became National Grid.
I have experience of operations, maintenance and commissioning of the high voltage equipment on the national grid and despair at the incessant utterances of those with absolutely no engineering knowledge who try to convince the public at large that wind generation is effective. It isn't and never will be.

Sorry to take space with this but as I say it's a courtesy to a regullar poster on here.
[quote][p][bold]Geoff103[/bold] wrote: Hoad Hill: "I worked in the industry for 30 years from the mid sixties and I repeat, during that time there were no power cuts due to lack of capacity. In fact Walter Marshall was ennobled by Margaret Thatcher for "keeping the lights on". Where, Hoad Hill? I was at GDCD, Barnwood from '73 to '81.[/p][/quote]This is now seriously off topic but as a courtesy to Geoff103:- Several of my former colleagues at UKAEA Risley, went to Barnwood but I moved to a then CEGB Transmission District and stayed there for the rest of my career, albeit that we eventually became National Grid. I have experience of operations, maintenance and commissioning of the high voltage equipment on the national grid and despair at the incessant utterances of those with absolutely no engineering knowledge who try to convince the public at large that wind generation is effective. It isn't and never will be. Sorry to take space with this but as I say it's a courtesy to a regullar poster on here. Hoad Hill
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Thu 4 Apr 13

Hoad Hill says...

life cycle too wrote:
I agree that wind energy is insignificant in terms of our overall needs - they say this scheme will service the equivalent of 6,000 homes - but how many FACTORIES and SHIPYARDS would it run??

They (the turbines) are useful on a small local scale - and as a tool to educate the public into being less wasteful - but ultimately we WILL see the return of power "outages" unless the energy business gets the green light to invest in REAL sources of power - such as HYDRO, or NUCLEAR.


There... I've said that ugly word that nobody is keen on... NUCLEAR.
Makes sense to me though!
Priority will always go to industry when power is short, as they have NO alternative, and keep the economy going - and it will be INDUSTRY that pays for new power sources, not households.
Not sure your belief that "Priority will always go to industry......." is supported by fact. Don't you remember the three day week?
It's relatively easy to disconnect supply to industrial premises and that's exactly what happened.
[quote][p][bold]life cycle too[/bold] wrote: I agree that wind energy is insignificant in terms of our overall needs - they say this scheme will service the equivalent of 6,000 homes - but how many FACTORIES and SHIPYARDS would it run?? They (the turbines) are useful on a small local scale - and as a tool to educate the public into being less wasteful - but ultimately we WILL see the return of power "outages" unless the energy business gets the green light to invest in REAL sources of power - such as HYDRO, or NUCLEAR. There... I've said that ugly word that nobody is keen on... NUCLEAR. Makes sense to me though! Priority will always go to industry when power is short, as they have NO alternative, and keep the economy going - and it will be INDUSTRY that pays for new power sources, not households.[/p][/quote]Not sure your belief that "Priority will always go to industry......." is supported by fact. Don't you remember the three day week? It's relatively easy to disconnect supply to industrial premises and that's exactly what happened. Hoad Hill
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Thu 4 Apr 13

Geoff103 says...

Thank you for that Hoad Hill.

I share your despair at the witterings of the windbags.

And it seems, the Gazette's letters page is now subject to the inanities of enthusiasts for hydro on the River Kent through Kendal.

As you note OT but FYI, I was GDCD's Press Officer for those years. The Isle of Grain laggers' dispute the 'highlight' of my time.
Thank you for that Hoad Hill. I share your despair at the witterings of the windbags. And it seems, the Gazette's letters page is now subject to the inanities of enthusiasts for hydro on the River Kent through Kendal. As you note OT but FYI, I was GDCD's Press Officer for those years. The Isle of Grain laggers' dispute the 'highlight' of my time. Geoff103
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Thu 4 Apr 13

life cycle too says...

Hoad Hill, that was not what they told us at the time! ☺

Power cuts were supposed to be a way of keeping industry going - even if it was just for three days!

If nothing else, that period should show how much we depend on energy to keep society going, and that we should have been planning ahead years ago!

France has seen the light so to speak... when asked why the French people didn't protest at nuclear expansion like they did in Britain, their energy minister replied "When you are draining the swamp, you don't tell the frogs first!".

Our energy future would be best left to those who at least understand the needs of our society.
Those who object to any expansion of reliable power sources, should in my opinion be the first ones to be cut off!
Hoad Hill, that was not what they told us at the time! ☺ Power cuts were supposed to be a way of keeping industry going - even if it was just for three days! If nothing else, that period should show how much we depend on energy to keep society going, and that we should have been planning ahead years ago! France has seen the light so to speak... when asked why the French people didn't protest at nuclear expansion like they did in Britain, their energy minister replied "When you are draining the swamp, you don't tell the frogs first!". Our energy future would be best left to those who at least understand the needs of our society. Those who object to any expansion of reliable power sources, should in my opinion be the first ones to be cut off! life cycle too
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Thu 4 Apr 13

Hoad Hill says...

life cycle too wrote:
Hoad Hill, that was not what they told us at the time! ☺

Power cuts were supposed to be a way of keeping industry going - even if it was just for three days!

If nothing else, that period should show how much we depend on energy to keep society going, and that we should have been planning ahead years ago!

France has seen the light so to speak... when asked why the French people didn't protest at nuclear expansion like they did in Britain, their energy minister replied "When you are draining the swamp, you don't tell the frogs first!".

Our energy future would be best left to those who at least understand the needs of our society.
Those who object to any expansion of reliable power sources, should in my opinion be the first ones to be cut off!
Did he really say "frogs"?
I think our energy future would be best left to those who understand the technology of energy production but that wouldn't include anyone in government so not much chance of that.
I think that the only hope is to explain to the consumer just how much this ridiculous renewables farce is actually adding to our energy bills but how to do so.
[quote][p][bold]life cycle too[/bold] wrote: Hoad Hill, that was not what they told us at the time! ☺ Power cuts were supposed to be a way of keeping industry going - even if it was just for three days! If nothing else, that period should show how much we depend on energy to keep society going, and that we should have been planning ahead years ago! France has seen the light so to speak... when asked why the French people didn't protest at nuclear expansion like they did in Britain, their energy minister replied "When you are draining the swamp, you don't tell the frogs first!". Our energy future would be best left to those who at least understand the needs of our society. Those who object to any expansion of reliable power sources, should in my opinion be the first ones to be cut off![/p][/quote]Did he really say "frogs"? I think our energy future would be best left to those who understand the technology of energy production but that wouldn't include anyone in government so not much chance of that. I think that the only hope is to explain to the consumer just how much this ridiculous renewables farce is actually adding to our energy bills but how to do so. Hoad Hill
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Thu 4 Apr 13

life cycle too says...

He DID say frogs... not sure if he realised the implication of his swamp/frog example in regard to the popular term for his countrymen!

My brother has PV panels on his roof, and tells anyone who asks, that his neighbours paid for them... well are paying for them!

Everybody in Government of course is just a layperson in any subject other than their own possible speciality, so rely on Civil Servants who have no interest other than perpetuating their jobs.
Their world revolves around keeping the public "on side" no matter what problem befalls the country... and they will follow any course that makes this possible.
He DID say frogs... not sure if he realised the implication of his swamp/frog example in regard to the popular term for his countrymen! My brother has PV panels on his roof, and tells anyone who asks, that his neighbours paid for them... well are paying for them! Everybody in Government of course is just a layperson in any subject other than their own possible speciality, so rely on Civil Servants who have no interest other than perpetuating their jobs. Their world revolves around keeping the public "on side" no matter what problem befalls the country... and they will follow any course that makes this possible. life cycle too
  • 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