Wind turbine plan for Kexby

Wind turbine plan for Kexby

Wind turbine plan for Kexby

First published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Chief reporter

ANOTHER huge wind turbine is being proposed for land to the east of York.

EDP, of Easingwold, is looking to site the turbine on land at Ivy House Farm, just south of the A1079 near Kexby.

The turbine’s hub would be 50 metres high, with the blade tips reaching 77 metres. By comparison, York Minster is 63 metres high.

Another company, Origin Energy, has already submitted a planning application to City of York Council for a turbine higher than the Minster at Murton Moor.

EDP has submitted a request to the council for a “screening opinion” as to whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be required to accompany a planning application for the Kexby turbine.

Director Rufus Salter said in a letter to the council he is of the opinion that a full EIA is unlikely to be required, quoting a Department for Environment Transport and the Regions circular which states: “EIA is more likely to be required for commercial developments of five or more turbines.”

He said if the council agreed an EIA was not required, EDP would be submitting a detailed environmental statement to support a planning application.

He said EDP had already begun informal consultations with bodies such as Natural England, English Heritage and Ofcom.

Holtby resident Clare Hartley, one of a group of residents from Murton, Holtby and Warthill who oppose the turbines, said she was concerned by the plans for a second such structure, which she claimed would again dwarf the skyline and detract from the area for visitors approaching York.

She feared that if one such turbine was allowed in the Green Belt, it would set a dangerous precedent.

She said: “We are arranging an open day at Holtby village hall on Sunday, March 9, from 11am to 4pm. This is an open forum for people to come and talk through their concerns with us and to look at the information that we have collated.”

Osbaldwick Independent councillor Mark Warters said the likely submission of a second turbine application confirmed his worst fears for the area east of York, where numerous such structures had been proposed in the city’s draft Local Plan.

Mr Salter said EDP was a consultancy which sought to help landowners deal with planning matters on issues such as wind turbines.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:03am Wed 26 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

And the reporting cycle continues... lendal, windfarm, coppergate... lendal, windfarm coppergate.....

Sick of putting my comments across about these (positive i might add)so i'll just speak for my opposition on this one..;

They are ugly.. apparently
They are louder then a fog horn held next to you ear. (scientific evidence doesnt suppoer this i might add.)
They have to be turned off in gale force winds. (the world would spin faster if they didnt... joke thats not scientifcially proven either)
Solar panels fitted by double glazing skanks are miles better... (they dont look tacky and ugly at all)
They ruin our countryside. (there wont be much of it left if we keep building plants on them)


Then just general rabble rabble rabble. Why on earth would we want green power that doesnt produce smoke and produces cheaper electricity.

(Shouter i expect your usual comments about living 2 miles away and how its ruined your sleep desipte there being minimal wind at night.)
And the reporting cycle continues... lendal, windfarm, coppergate... lendal, windfarm coppergate..... Sick of putting my comments across about these (positive i might add)so i'll just speak for my opposition on this one..; They are ugly.. apparently They are louder then a fog horn held next to you ear. (scientific evidence doesnt suppoer this i might add.) They have to be turned off in gale force winds. (the world would spin faster if they didnt... joke thats not scientifcially proven either) Solar panels fitted by double glazing skanks are miles better... (they dont look tacky and ugly at all) They ruin our countryside. (there wont be much of it left if we keep building plants on them) Then just general rabble rabble rabble. Why on earth would we want green power that doesnt produce smoke and produces cheaper electricity. (Shouter i expect your usual comments about living 2 miles away and how its ruined your sleep desipte there being minimal wind at night.) Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -12

10:04am Wed 26 Feb 14

Oyy you says...

Not taller than our beloved minster, we can't have that can we.....
Not taller than our beloved minster, we can't have that can we..... Oyy you
  • Score: -10

2:17pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ilikechocolate says...

If the present council get there way York will be surrounded by wind farms, the '1' planning has been submitted for at Murton has 12 shown on council plan.
If the present council get there way York will be surrounded by wind farms, the '1' planning has been submitted for at Murton has 12 shown on council plan. ilikechocolate
  • Score: 6

3:27pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Firedrake says...

There's a painting in the city Art Gallery showing a general view of York from the Mount area in about 1680: it's completely surrounded by windmills, and very nice they look too. Oh ... but they're "old" so that' alright! Except, of course, they probably weren't that old when the paiting was done!

Did the "York Courent" have a Letters Page, I wonder?
There's a painting in the city Art Gallery showing a general view of York from the Mount area in about 1680: it's completely surrounded by windmills, and very nice they look too. Oh ... but they're "old" so that' alright! Except, of course, they probably weren't that old when the paiting was done! Did the "York Courent" have a Letters Page, I wonder? Firedrake
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Wed 26 Feb 14

again says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
And the reporting cycle continues... lendal, windfarm, coppergate... lendal, windfarm coppergate.....

Sick of putting my comments across about these (positive i might add)so i'll just speak for my opposition on this one..;

They are ugly.. apparently
They are louder then a fog horn held next to you ear. (scientific evidence doesnt suppoer this i might add.)
They have to be turned off in gale force winds. (the world would spin faster if they didnt... joke thats not scientifcially proven either)
Solar panels fitted by double glazing skanks are miles better... (they dont look tacky and ugly at all)
They ruin our countryside. (there wont be much of it left if we keep building plants on them)


Then just general rabble rabble rabble. Why on earth would we want green power that doesnt produce smoke and produces cheaper electricity.

(Shouter i expect your usual comments about living 2 miles away and how its ruined your sleep desipte there being minimal wind at night.)
You are quite right. What's more, the power produced will be used 'locally' i.e it cannot be exported like oil. So those living nearby are more likely to benefit.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: And the reporting cycle continues... lendal, windfarm, coppergate... lendal, windfarm coppergate..... Sick of putting my comments across about these (positive i might add)so i'll just speak for my opposition on this one..; They are ugly.. apparently They are louder then a fog horn held next to you ear. (scientific evidence doesnt suppoer this i might add.) They have to be turned off in gale force winds. (the world would spin faster if they didnt... joke thats not scientifcially proven either) Solar panels fitted by double glazing skanks are miles better... (they dont look tacky and ugly at all) They ruin our countryside. (there wont be much of it left if we keep building plants on them) Then just general rabble rabble rabble. Why on earth would we want green power that doesnt produce smoke and produces cheaper electricity. (Shouter i expect your usual comments about living 2 miles away and how its ruined your sleep desipte there being minimal wind at night.)[/p][/quote]You are quite right. What's more, the power produced will be used 'locally' i.e it cannot be exported like oil. So those living nearby are more likely to benefit. again
  • Score: -4

7:56pm Wed 26 Feb 14

gwen4me says...

It has now been proved that these machines will never recoup their carbon cost, and their efficiency has been wildly overstated by a margin of 60 per cent. They are an ecological red herring.
It has now been proved that these machines will never recoup their carbon cost, and their efficiency has been wildly overstated by a margin of 60 per cent. They are an ecological red herring. gwen4me
  • Score: 11

2:08am Thu 27 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

sustainable power is one thing, but for God's sake do it properly. We live in a city that has TWO rivers and feeder streams, yet there has not been a single proposal for any hydro-electric facilities. Water flows all-year round, 24 hours a day, 365 days a week... wind is not as constant or as reliable as that, nor is solar power.
sustainable power is one thing, but for God's sake do it properly. We live in a city that has TWO rivers and feeder streams, yet there has not been a single proposal for any hydro-electric facilities. Water flows all-year round, 24 hours a day, 365 days a week... wind is not as constant or as reliable as that, nor is solar power. Magicman!
  • Score: 5

9:00am Thu 27 Feb 14

DEKKA says...

gwen4me wrote:
It has now been proved that these machines will never recoup their carbon cost, and their efficiency has been wildly overstated by a margin of 60 per cent. They are an ecological red herring.
Source please
[quote][p][bold]gwen4me[/bold] wrote: It has now been proved that these machines will never recoup their carbon cost, and their efficiency has been wildly overstated by a margin of 60 per cent. They are an ecological red herring.[/p][/quote]Source please DEKKA
  • Score: 0

9:05am Thu 27 Feb 14

DEKKA says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
And the reporting cycle continues... lendal, windfarm, coppergate... lendal, windfarm coppergate.....

Sick of putting my comments across about these (positive i might add)so i'll just speak for my opposition on this one..;

They are ugly.. apparently
They are louder then a fog horn held next to you ear. (scientific evidence doesnt suppoer this i might add.)
They have to be turned off in gale force winds. (the world would spin faster if they didnt... joke thats not scientifcially proven either)
Solar panels fitted by double glazing skanks are miles better... (they dont look tacky and ugly at all)
They ruin our countryside. (there wont be much of it left if we keep building plants on them)


Then just general rabble rabble rabble. Why on earth would we want green power that doesnt produce smoke and produces cheaper electricity.

(Shouter i expect your usual comments about living 2 miles away and how its ruined your sleep desipte there being minimal wind at night.)
I agree, solar panels do look nice and produce lots of electricity. Nice little earner.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: And the reporting cycle continues... lendal, windfarm, coppergate... lendal, windfarm coppergate..... Sick of putting my comments across about these (positive i might add)so i'll just speak for my opposition on this one..; They are ugly.. apparently They are louder then a fog horn held next to you ear. (scientific evidence doesnt suppoer this i might add.) They have to be turned off in gale force winds. (the world would spin faster if they didnt... joke thats not scientifcially proven either) Solar panels fitted by double glazing skanks are miles better... (they dont look tacky and ugly at all) They ruin our countryside. (there wont be much of it left if we keep building plants on them) Then just general rabble rabble rabble. Why on earth would we want green power that doesnt produce smoke and produces cheaper electricity. (Shouter i expect your usual comments about living 2 miles away and how its ruined your sleep desipte there being minimal wind at night.)[/p][/quote]I agree, solar panels do look nice and produce lots of electricity. Nice little earner. DEKKA
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Thu 27 Feb 14

tw@ face says...

not against them, just wish there would be restrictions on where they put them instead of any field a farmer wants to earn money from. between york and beverley there seams to be a new one going up daily. coming down from arras hill you can see hundreds of them scattered about and now in my opinion spoil the view more than the power stations. This has happened withing about 2 years.
not against them, just wish there would be restrictions on where they put them instead of any field a farmer wants to earn money from. between york and beverley there seams to be a new one going up daily. coming down from arras hill you can see hundreds of them scattered about and now in my opinion spoil the view more than the power stations. This has happened withing about 2 years. tw@ face
  • 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