Wistow wind farm plan refused after 1,000 objections

First published in News

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build seven wind turbines near Selby have been refused, following more than 1,000 objections.

The application, to build a new wind farm on land near Scalm Park, Wistow, was submitted by developers Prowind in 2009, and would have seen seven 125-foot high turbines built on land north of Thorpe Willoughby and Hambleton.

But more than 1,0000 residents objected due to concerns over noise, vibrations and extra traffic, saying the turbines were too near the villages.

Selby District Council’s planning committee has now rejected the application following advice from planning officers.

A report to the committee said the amended plans were inadequate. It said: “The applicant was requested to do further work. Unfortunately, despite repeated requests, the council has not received amended information.”

Nigel Adams, MP for Selby and Ainsty, wrote to the committee chairman to back the local residents.

He said: “Turbines of this size would simply dominate the landscape with its open long distance views to the west of Selby. For people living in Thorpe Willoughby, Wistow and Hambleton the overwhelming impression would be one of living close to a wind farm. The turbines would have an inescapable presence.”

Mr Adams said he had visited a local resident and “felt that from her home the presence of the turbines would be overwhelming and inescapable”, and that creating a new wind farm in the area would “substantially alter the character of Selby and the setting for its historic buildings including the Abbey”.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:25am Mon 14 Jan 13

baldiebiker says...

I wonder what our great-great-great grandchildren will think of us when the oil,gas and coal has run out? well.
A bit of noise, spoilt the view, end of the world???????
I wonder what our great-great-great grandchildren will think of us when the oil,gas and coal has run out? well. A bit of noise, spoilt the view, end of the world??????? baldiebiker
  • Score: 0

10:38am Mon 14 Jan 13

BL2 says...

Anyone objecting to these sort of developments should be the first to be put on limited power when the shortages start...
Anyone objecting to these sort of developments should be the first to be put on limited power when the shortages start... BL2
  • Score: 0

10:40am Mon 14 Jan 13

goodfellow says...

There will of course be an appeal and SDC planners tend to lose them- usually at great expense to the council tax payer.
There will of course be an appeal and SDC planners tend to lose them- usually at great expense to the council tax payer. goodfellow
  • Score: 0

10:57am Mon 14 Jan 13

lezyork1966 says...

the companies wanting to build these do so as its cheaper to put them on land so its all about cost cutting, get them offshore where theres more wind to start with.
the companies wanting to build these do so as its cheaper to put them on land so its all about cost cutting, get them offshore where theres more wind to start with. lezyork1966
  • Score: 0

11:02am Mon 14 Jan 13

Bigwood says...

I'd rather have wind turbines to view instead of the largest single emitter of CO2 in the UK - Drax Power Station.
I'd rather have wind turbines to view instead of the largest single emitter of CO2 in the UK - Drax Power Station. Bigwood
  • Score: 0

11:11am Mon 14 Jan 13

BioLogic says...

What the story doesn't actually tell you is that the project is basically on hold - hence why no more information was submitted when it was requested. Expect to see it re-submitted at some point in the future.....
What the story doesn't actually tell you is that the project is basically on hold - hence why no more information was submitted when it was requested. Expect to see it re-submitted at some point in the future..... BioLogic
  • Score: 0

11:35am Mon 14 Jan 13

greenmonkey says...

Perhaps would prefer a nuclear power plant instead? That is the government's solution, together with turning the lake district national park into a nuclear waste dump. Where would we be if they had said in 1939 'we dont want the unsightly Elvington Airport or those ugly pill boxes, never mind about the national imperative to defend our country against Hitler'
Perhaps would prefer a nuclear power plant instead? That is the government's solution, together with turning the lake district national park into a nuclear waste dump. Where would we be if they had said in 1939 'we dont want the unsightly Elvington Airport or those ugly pill boxes, never mind about the national imperative to defend our country against Hitler' greenmonkey
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Mon 14 Jan 13

myselby says...

There may have been a 1000 objection but most of them, after looking at SDC planning website, were not material planning reason, just worried about a view they don’t own or how much less the house will be worth. As relevant to them as the objections are , they are not a valid reasons for the council planners to refuse the application. The refusal was because additional information was not provided. This could be overcome at appeal. Also it appears that many of the objector now like Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations.
There may have been a 1000 objection but most of them, after looking at SDC planning website, were not material planning reason, just worried about a view they don’t own or how much less the house will be worth. As relevant to them as the objections are , they are not a valid reasons for the council planners to refuse the application. The refusal was because additional information was not provided. This could be overcome at appeal. Also it appears that many of the objector now like Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations. myselby
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Mon 14 Jan 13

myselby says...

There may have been a 1000 objection but most of them, after looking at SDC planning website, were not material planning reason, just worried about a view they don’t own or how much less the house will be worth. As relevant to them as the objections are , they are not a valid reasons for the council planners to refuse the application. The refusal was because additional information was not provided. This could be overcome at appeal. Also it appears that many of the objector now like Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations.
There may have been a 1000 objection but most of them, after looking at SDC planning website, were not material planning reason, just worried about a view they don’t own or how much less the house will be worth. As relevant to them as the objections are , they are not a valid reasons for the council planners to refuse the application. The refusal was because additional information was not provided. This could be overcome at appeal. Also it appears that many of the objector now like Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations. myselby
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Mon 14 Jan 13

timcore says...

Yes, let's all object to something we know nothing about. Wind won't run out like oil and gas and produces no waste. Extra traffic? What, are tourists going to flock to see them? The residents need to pull their heads out of their backsides and realise there is something called progress.
Yes, let's all object to something we know nothing about. Wind won't run out like oil and gas and produces no waste. Extra traffic? What, are tourists going to flock to see them? The residents need to pull their heads out of their backsides and realise there is something called progress. timcore
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Mon 14 Jan 13

anonyork says...

Wind also cannot be relied upon and if the existing power stations stopped producing power and handed over to wind, we would all be facing power cuts every time there was a lull in the wind! Wind generators are often paid to turn their turnbines off because they are so expensive! It is a misconception that we could exist completely on non-fossil fuel generated power!

And I quite like the look of them as well!
Wind also cannot be relied upon and if the existing power stations stopped producing power and handed over to wind, we would all be facing power cuts every time there was a lull in the wind! Wind generators are often paid to turn their turnbines off because they are so expensive! It is a misconception that we could exist completely on non-fossil fuel generated power! And I quite like the look of them as well! anonyork
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Perhaps would prefer a nuclear power plant instead? That is the government's solution, together with turning the lake district national park into a nuclear waste dump. Where would we be if they had said in 1939 'we dont want the unsightly Elvington Airport or those ugly pill boxes, never mind about the national imperative to defend our country against Hitler'
Godwin's.
Fail.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: Perhaps would prefer a nuclear power plant instead? That is the government's solution, together with turning the lake district national park into a nuclear waste dump. Where would we be if they had said in 1939 'we dont want the unsightly Elvington Airport or those ugly pill boxes, never mind about the national imperative to defend our country against Hitler'[/p][/quote]Godwin's. Fail. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Sp4ng0 says...

Blinkered NIMBYS
Blinkered NIMBYS Sp4ng0
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Mon 14 Jan 13

akuma says...

Everyone wants Green, clean and cheap energy, just so long as its generated no where near them.

Extreme NIMBYism....
Everyone wants Green, clean and cheap energy, just so long as its generated no where near them. Extreme NIMBYism.... akuma
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Mon 14 Jan 13

corfu1985 says...

timcore wrote:
Yes, let's all object to something we know nothing about. Wind won't run out like oil and gas and produces no waste. Extra traffic? What, are tourists going to flock to see them? The residents need to pull their heads out of their backsides and realise there is something called progress.
I was one of the objectors to the planned wind turbines,I live in one of the villages mentioned,bet you & all those others on here who think we should have wind farms dont,I have no objections to them but the position they were putting them is on totally flat land,we get no decent amount of wind here.
Also I think all the power stations are an eyesore but seen as they are already here what can we do but accept them.However we can stop the wind turbines & looks like we have
[quote][p][bold]timcore[/bold] wrote: Yes, let's all object to something we know nothing about. Wind won't run out like oil and gas and produces no waste. Extra traffic? What, are tourists going to flock to see them? The residents need to pull their heads out of their backsides and realise there is something called progress.[/p][/quote]I was one of the objectors to the planned wind turbines,I live in one of the villages mentioned,bet you & all those others on here who think we should have wind farms dont,I have no objections to them but the position they were putting them is on totally flat land,we get no decent amount of wind here. Also I think all the power stations are an eyesore but seen as they are already here what can we do but accept them.However we can stop the wind turbines & looks like we have corfu1985
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Mon 14 Jan 13

corfu1985 says...

Bigwood wrote:
I'd rather have wind turbines to view instead of the largest single emitter of CO2 in the UK - Drax Power Station.
Yes Bigwood so would I but as they are already there why add more eyesores to the landscape ?
[quote][p][bold]Bigwood[/bold] wrote: I'd rather have wind turbines to view instead of the largest single emitter of CO2 in the UK - Drax Power Station.[/p][/quote]Yes Bigwood so would I but as they are already there why add more eyesores to the landscape ? corfu1985
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Mon 14 Jan 13

corfu1985 says...

Sp4ng0 wrote:
Blinkered NIMBYS
Apply for some wind farms then if you think we are NIMBYS,then see how you react
[quote][p][bold]Sp4ng0[/bold] wrote: Blinkered NIMBYS[/p][/quote]Apply for some wind farms then if you think we are NIMBYS,then see how you react corfu1985
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Mon 14 Jan 13

DeeJaiEss says...

With any luck, the increase in CO2 emissions>increase in global temperature>increase in sea levels will mean that today's NIMBYS will be tomorrow 'ONTASIMBY!'

'Oh no, there a sea in my back yard!'

What is it?

Sod the planet, I just don't want my house to devalue?

Do you know how retarded that is as a viewpoint is?

Wake up human race, Mother Nature is getting tired of your tinkering...
With any luck, the increase in CO2 emissions>increase in global temperature>increase in sea levels will mean that today's NIMBYS will be tomorrow 'ONTASIMBY!' 'Oh no, there a sea in my back yard!' What is it? Sod the planet, I just don't want my house to devalue? Do you know how retarded that is as a viewpoint is? Wake up human race, Mother Nature is getting tired of your tinkering... DeeJaiEss
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Mon 14 Jan 13

timcore says...

corfu1985 wrote:
timcore wrote:
Yes, let's all object to something we know nothing about. Wind won't run out like oil and gas and produces no waste. Extra traffic? What, are tourists going to flock to see them? The residents need to pull their heads out of their backsides and realise there is something called progress.
I was one of the objectors to the planned wind turbines,I live in one of the villages mentioned,bet you & all those others on here who think we should have wind farms dont,I have no objections to them but the position they were putting them is on totally flat land,we get no decent amount of wind here.
Also I think all the power stations are an eyesore but seen as they are already here what can we do but accept them.However we can stop the wind turbines & looks like we have
There doesn't need to be gale-force wind for a turbine to work. Denmark basically power the whole country this way and it's a success. We need an alternative to the resources we've overused for years.
[quote][p][bold]corfu1985[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timcore[/bold] wrote: Yes, let's all object to something we know nothing about. Wind won't run out like oil and gas and produces no waste. Extra traffic? What, are tourists going to flock to see them? The residents need to pull their heads out of their backsides and realise there is something called progress.[/p][/quote]I was one of the objectors to the planned wind turbines,I live in one of the villages mentioned,bet you & all those others on here who think we should have wind farms dont,I have no objections to them but the position they were putting them is on totally flat land,we get no decent amount of wind here. Also I think all the power stations are an eyesore but seen as they are already here what can we do but accept them.However we can stop the wind turbines & looks like we have[/p][/quote]There doesn't need to be gale-force wind for a turbine to work. Denmark basically power the whole country this way and it's a success. We need an alternative to the resources we've overused for years. timcore
  • Score: 0

7:29pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Paul Meoff says...

DeeJaiEss wrote:
With any luck, the increase in CO2 emissions>increas
e in global temperature>incre
ase in sea levels will mean that today's NIMBYS will be tomorrow 'ONTASIMBY!'

'Oh no, there a sea in my back yard!'

What is it?

Sod the planet, I just don't want my house to devalue?

Do you know how retarded that is as a viewpoint is?

Wake up human race, Mother Nature is getting tired of your tinkering...
In planetary term, does it matter? Renewable energy is the only way forward, that's a no brainer. However, it only becomes viable when there are no fossil fuels left to burn.

May be a hundred years or more but it would be great to read equivalent comments in the future.

What will the same type of people who whine about wind power while enjoying the view of Drax do then? They will be moaning there is insufficient wind or renewable energy for them to watch Corrie (still with Ken Barlow). Moaners will always be moaners.
[quote][p][bold]DeeJaiEss[/bold] wrote: With any luck, the increase in CO2 emissions>increas e in global temperature>incre ase in sea levels will mean that today's NIMBYS will be tomorrow 'ONTASIMBY!' 'Oh no, there a sea in my back yard!' What is it? Sod the planet, I just don't want my house to devalue? Do you know how retarded that is as a viewpoint is? Wake up human race, Mother Nature is getting tired of your tinkering...[/p][/quote]In planetary term, does it matter? Renewable energy is the only way forward, that's a no brainer. However, it only becomes viable when there are no fossil fuels left to burn. May be a hundred years or more but it would be great to read equivalent comments in the future. What will the same type of people who whine about wind power while enjoying the view of Drax do then? They will be moaning there is insufficient wind or renewable energy for them to watch Corrie (still with Ken Barlow). Moaners will always be moaners. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

10:22pm Mon 14 Jan 13

AveragePerson says...

I am serious about renewable energy forms but we need more research and a more practical approach. At the moment we probably pay more in subsidies for the privilege of seeing wind turbines in their stationary position than the value of what they actually put into the national grid.
I am serious about renewable energy forms but we need more research and a more practical approach. At the moment we probably pay more in subsidies for the privilege of seeing wind turbines in their stationary position than the value of what they actually put into the national grid. AveragePerson
  • Score: 0

2:42am Tue 15 Jan 13

Red Grouse says...

Usual uninformed comment from the Windies posting here.

For info, wind is not an alternative to baseload power generation. You can carpet the UK with turbines and we will still need the same amount of reliable power generating capacity for the frequent occasions when the entire wind fleet is producing the square root of sweet FA.

Even National Grid agree (they run the system in case you didn't know). They tell us that even if we built the nightmare, bankrupt-the-country
, worst case 23GW of onshore and 51GW of offshore wind capacity (DECC's high end figures by 2030) we will still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity just to keep the lights on.

Thanks to Windy idiots in government Ofgem tell us that we now have a 50% chance of power cuts if we get a hard winter in 2015. This is because we have been building wind rather than reliable, baseload generating capacity.
Usual uninformed comment from the Windies posting here. For info, wind is not an alternative to baseload power generation. You can carpet the UK with turbines and we will still need the same amount of reliable power generating capacity for the frequent occasions when the entire wind fleet is producing the square root of sweet FA. Even National Grid agree (they run the system in case you didn't know). They tell us that even if we built the nightmare, bankrupt-the-country , worst case 23GW of onshore and 51GW of offshore wind capacity (DECC's high end figures by 2030) we will still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity just to keep the lights on. Thanks to Windy idiots in government Ofgem tell us that we now have a 50% chance of power cuts if we get a hard winter in 2015. This is because we have been building wind rather than reliable, baseload generating capacity. Red Grouse
  • Score: 0

8:54am Tue 15 Jan 13

myselby says...

Bring back the pits, employ thousands of people, Britain becomes self sufficient in energy – add home rule for Yorkshire and I would be a happy man .
Bring back the pits, employ thousands of people, Britain becomes self sufficient in energy – add home rule for Yorkshire and I would be a happy man . myselby
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Tue 15 Jan 13

yorkshirelad says...

Terrible. While these decisions get taken up and down the UK, we watch as Germany, Denmark and the rest of them forge ahead.

Terribly short-sighted and we will (and certainly our children) all pay the price of these decisions.

The most stupid argument of all is that just because wind power is intermittent, then it's no good. It may be intermittent...but generally speaking every Watt produced stops a Watt of power being required from the power stations.

Of course we need a combination of methods, but what's wrong with that.

The small-minded campaigns against wind turbines simply leave us more dependent on foreign suppliers of our energy while our home grown energy is blowing in our faces but unused.
Terrible. While these decisions get taken up and down the UK, we watch as Germany, Denmark and the rest of them forge ahead. Terribly short-sighted and we will (and certainly our children) all pay the price of these decisions. The most stupid argument of all is that just because wind power is intermittent, then it's no good. It may be intermittent...but generally speaking every Watt produced stops a Watt of power being required from the power stations. Of course we need a combination of methods, but what's wrong with that. The small-minded campaigns against wind turbines simply leave us more dependent on foreign suppliers of our energy while our home grown energy is blowing in our faces but unused. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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