Killington farming couple challenge wind farm decision

5:18pm Friday 18th June 2010

By Mike Addison

A KILLINGTON farming couple today launched a High Court challenge to plans for a wind farm near their land which they say will blight the landscape, cause a noise nuisance, and put their three children at risk.

Rebecca and Brian Barnes are asking Deputy Judge George Bartlett QC to quash the Government decision last July to grant planning permission for the erection of six wind turbines, each likely to be 100 metres tall at the tip of the blade, on a 208 hectare site to the east of Crosslands Farm, Old Hutton, Kendal.

The couple, whose Gilsmere Farm, is only 105 metres away at its closest boundary, hope the judge will order the new Government's planning supremo, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles, to have the matter reconsidered, after vital information on wind speeds is made available to them.

One of former Secretary of State John Denham's inspectors granted permission to HJ Banks & Co Ltd after South Lakeland District Council initially rejected the proposal.

The inspector ruled that the impact on the amenity of local residents from large moving structures was "close to the margin of acceptability", but concluded that the turbines were unlikely to cause unacceptable noise at nearby houses. He granted permission for the six turbines, as well as a control room, anemometer mast and associated access tracks, subject to conditions he considered would address any concerns about noise.

However, Mr and Mrs Barnes say that the conditions he imposed are incapable of enforcement because they are not sufficiently precise or reasonable.

They complain that the conditions fail to set out most of the standard details required to test whether they are complied with. In particular, they say that there is no requirement to test when the wind is blowing in the direction of their property, at which time the noise will be worse than when it is blowing in the other direction.

They also say that, when assessing the amenity impact on their home, the inspector considered only their farmhouse, which will be 600 metres away from the nearest turbine, rather than the whole of their land, on which they work and their children play every day.

They say that they will not be able to escape the turbines at home or at work, and that this should have been taken into account.

And they claim that the inspector failed adequately to take public safety into account, and such dangers as shedding blades and falling ice. They say that the brochure for the Vestas v90 3MW turbine warns staff not to stay within a 400 metre radius of it, and to make sure that children do not play near it.

However, they say they will be working and their children playing within 105 metres of a turbine.

In a further legal challenge to the decision, Mr and Mrs Barnes - who are part of the Countryside Protection Consortium of South lakes (CPCSL), a collective of local community groups, parish councils and local residents - claim that CPCSL were refused vital wind speed data from HJ Banks on the grounds that it was "commercially sensitive".

This data, they say, concerned the wind speeds at a height of 60 metres - the hub of the turbines - which would often be much higher than the wind speed close to the ground. They claim that CPCSL was denied the opportunity to test evidence on this so-called "wind shear" and the impact it would have on residents.

They say that they were substantially disadvantaged and prejudiced by the lack of this wind speed data, and the inspector's lack of reasoning for finding in HJ Banks' favour on the wind shear issue.

Their counsel, Reuben Taylor, told the judge: "In my submission, the decision in this case has to be quashed because of unfairness. CPCSL should be provided with the information it seeks. It is data which the other parties to the inquiry must have access to."

The hearing continues on Monday. When it finishes the judge is then likely to reserve his decision in the case, in order to give it in writing at a later date.