DCSIMG

Appeal for two 100m high wind turbines fails

Lamberton Moor

Lamberton Moor

A 100m tall wind turbine near the England/Scotland border at Lamberton and a similar sized turbine at Chirnside have both been turned down.

AAH Planning put in planning applications for both turbines in February this year, and after being advised by Scottish Borders Council planning officers in April that they would be recommended for refusal, the applicants offered to reduce the heights to 77m.

This was still considered inappropriate for the landscape at the border (turbines up to 35m may be supported) and at Harelaw, Chirnside, (turbines up to 50m may be supported) and on being told this in May AAH’s response was to submit an appeal to the council’s Local Review Body for both applications in June, citing failure to reach a decision as the basis for the appeal.

However, when the review body met this week, they supported the view of planning officers and rejected the appeal.

One objector said: “This is not a case of non-determination. The planning officer had advised on numerous occasions that the original planning application would be recommended for refusal, based upon the substantial weight of evidence and planning guidance.”

East Berwickshire councillor, Michael Cook, said of the Harelaw Farm application: “The applicant’s conclusions could not support any determination of this matter other than refusal.”

Of the Lamberton turbine he added: “Given the trivial contribution that this scheme represents in electricity terms against its grossly adverse impacts on neighbours, then the balance is decisively pitched on the side of refusal.”

AAH Planning’s appeal stated: “The case officer’s report has not taken a balanced approach and the benefits have not been assessed against the perceived impacts.”

Their reasons for supporting the applications included: they “would not have significant impacts on the landscape”; each would generate enough electricity to supply 407 households every year; local community funds would be set up.

 

Comments

 
 

Back to the top of the page