Vectis wind farm appeal now lodged

Following the council’s planning committee refusal in July, Infinergy have now lodged their appeal, which will be decided off-Island.

This in from Infinergy, in their own words. Brief background: The original planning application in July 2011 was refused in July 2012, followed quickly by Infinergy’s announcement that they intended to appeal – Ed


Wind developer Infinergy’s appeal against Isle of Wight Council’s decision to refuse Vectis Wind Farm near Wellow has now been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate.

In July last year, Planning Committee members of Isle of Wight Council refused planning permission for Vectis Wind Farm, a five-turbine wind energy development located on arable land south of Wellow and Thorley on the West Wight.

Esbjorn Wilmar, Managing Director of Infinergy said: “We have studied the proposed site in detail over the past number of years and have demonstrated that it is one of the best locations for a wind farm on the Isle of Wight and one which deserves to be approved. Our site sits outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other environmental designations. Although less vocal, there are a lot of Island residents who support the project and would be happy to see it go ahead.”

Mr Wilmar continued: “The Isle of Wight has set ambitious targets in their newly adopted Island Plan, it has a viable but unharnessed wind resource and the resolve to become an energy self-sufficient Eco Island. Unfortunately the reality is far from this, and if Eco Island is to be realised, wind farms such as Vectis are urgently needed. But whether or not Vectis Wind Farm is to make a significant contribution to these goals is of course up to the Planning Inspector.”

Mr Wilmar concluded: “We are confident that an examination of the facts about this project, at public inquiry, will conclude that it is a well-designed scheme that will help the island meet its renewable energy targets and should, on balance, be allowed to proceed.”

Location map
View the location of this story.

Monday, 21st January, 2013 10:08am

By

ShortURL: http://wig.ht/2ar4

Filed under: Green Issues, Isle of Wight News, Planning, Top story, Wellow

Any views or opinions presented in the comments below are solely those of the author and do not represent those of OnTheWight.

Leave a Reply

50 Comments on "Vectis wind farm appeal now lodged"

Email updates?
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Dalek

I just have a suspicion that this is more about how much money Infinergy will make from the renewable energy subsidy rather than any thought of impact on the environment locally or globally. Any decision will be based on that rather than what anyone here wants or doesn’t want to happen.

Superman

Surely, Dalek, all development proposals are to do with making money at the end of the day. I would rather see clean renewable energy development than yet another housing development to be honest.

Dalek
Oh I am not against them specifically, but I just don’t think that they are anywhere near the answer and won’t produce that much power. They are a visible totem of renewable energy, but little more than that. My point is that these companies paint themselves as being green when they really are not interested in whether it’s green or not as long as it makes money.… Read more »
peaceful_life

Hi Dalek.

In view of balance, have you considered the ammount of subsidies given to existing hydrocarbon and nuclear industries, and the environmental impact that’s already been incurred globally…which affects us all locally?

Dalek

I know there are subsidies all over the place, but at least the hydrocarbon and nuclear industries don’t even try to suggest they are an any way green.

Cynic

How can they have a “public enquiry” for an Island project take place OFF the Island?

Stewart Blackmore

I am sure that the inquiry will be on the Island, Cynic, although the Inspector is based in Bristol.

thetruthbeliever
I have to say this is wind turbine business and indeed most re-newables is the most ridiculous nonsense ever. As someone who has invested a not inconsiderable amount of my own money into re-newables, I can say with confidence that the returns on these systems in energy output is negligible compared to the cost, and the only thing that makes it work is the government grants and… Read more »
peaceful_life

There are ‘costs’ in renewables yes.

There are even higher ‘costs’ in non renewables.

In terms of the environment ‘costs’….what source do you suggest?

Thanks.

thetruthbeliever
Hello, I think the first thing here is to properly understand the real problem for the environment. The problem is the exponential growth in population in the developing world. And the massive energy and food demands this places on the worlds resources. A very useful facility to look at this is provided by Google. I have given the link below. For the last 20 years or so… Read more »
thetruthbeliever

A small correction to my post above. I meant to say..

East Asia and Pacific having doubled to 2Billion, and south asia more than doubled to 1.5BN OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS.

Apologies for any misunderstanding.

peaceful_life
Ahh…. hence Ad homenim. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS As in any large heavy industry there are substantial environmental impacts of operating the nuclear fuel cycle….. Mining Open pit uranium mining has similar environmental impacts to other forms of open-pit mining, such as ecosystem removal or physical disruption, dust. leachates entering into water supplies and so on….. Plant Operation Accidents causing small to large releases of radiation can occur…..… Read more »
thetruthbeliever
Sorry,still not clear on the ad-homenim attack bit. I noticed that Cynic can also find no independentally peer reviewed works by this chap. Which bit did you think is not true? Nuclear technology has advanced considerably since the first designs of the 1950’s, (most of which incidentally have continued to produce electricity with an excellent safety record), and some are still being used in the UK today… Read more »
peaceful_life
I’m afraid they do exactly that Dalek. ‘Beyond Petroleum’ after a token gesture solar acquisition and a logo change? Clean coal?…doesn’t exist, and never will, neither can it be scrubbed to be so. Nuclear has long touted itself as ‘clean’, it isn’t, I think we both/all know the dangers with it. http://world.edu/greenwashing-nuclear-power-and-you/ Green gas? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/29/gas-rebranded-green-energy-eu We must discuss these things honestly, the truth is…there is no ‘green… Read more »
thetruthbeliever
Hi Peacful_life.. Just a one liner to question the validity and impartiality of your world.edu source. A quick check of the domain name shows it to be registered to be operating from an office suite in Denver and administrated by someone using a PO box address in Austraila. A little background reading suggest this a quack organisation set up with an agenda to run chargeable correspondence courses… Read more »
peaceful_life

Ahhh, that’s a tad Ad homenim, why don’t we just review the content of the peice?

Or…Maybe we could consult the Finnish government for their impartial view?

thetruthbeliever
Not intended to be Ad homenin attack on anyone. Just that as far as I can see this organisation has no publicly recognised credentials or authority. Further is is linked to conservation groups such as Earth Policy Institute, Conservation volunteers of Australia, Living Routes, and a number of rather dubious looking “Universities”. So I read the article with the appopriate levels of scepticism given the dubious nature… Read more »
Cynic
@truthbeliever “So I read the article with the appopriate levels of scepticism given the dubious nature of the origin. I particularly giggled at the blatent plug for his book at the end of the piece.” A little rsearch shows thatShel Horowitz is a highly successful American marketeer and not AFAIK, a scientist with published peer-reviewed works. His biography claims he completed university at the age of 19.… Read more »
thetruthbeliever
@cynic. Thank you for your comment. It is clear Shel Horowitz is an outspoken green campaigner, amongst other things. So clearly he has strong personal opinions on the subject. His website states he finished college at 19, but does not state what, if any qualification he finished with. His focus seems to have been on marketing not science. He has written several books, published many articles and… Read more »
peaceful_life
The process is the process. Substances need mined. Plants need built. Plants need maintained. Plants need decommissioned. All of which is not a ‘clean’ process. They do ‘go wrong’ involving quite a ‘clean’ up. Now, the link I provided was merely a stating of the obvious, wether or not the guy is a peer reviewed scientist or not… all of the above are just facts. As for… Read more »
Cynic

@Peaceful life “The process is the process.

Substances need mined.

Plants need built.

Plants need maintained.

Plants need decommissioned.

All of which is not a ‘clean’ process.

They do ‘go wrong’ involving quite a ‘clean’ up”
……………………..

That also applies to all forms of energy conversion- there is no free lunch.

Nuclear is probably worse than most since the noxious half-life of its detritus can last more than 1000 years.

Cynic

@the truthbeliever “I would be delighted if you are able to provide some links to the same so I could review them?”

I am having difficulty locating any! :-))

Colin
The only thing Infinergy and the like is interested in is money. It’s not about green, or renewables or anything else. It’s money. How much can they get in subsidies and grants and sell the product for. Pure and simple, nothing else. Why have people blighted their houses with solar panels? Money. Nothing else. It was the prospect of a big cheque every year at four times… Read more »
Dalek

That was really the point I was trying to make. It’s all about money, not saving the planet, which we probably can’t do anyway.

peaceful_life

Indeed.

An entire planet has been blighted for money.

It’s not ‘the economy stupid’….the economy IS stupid.

ThomasC
Those cheering for the ostentatious on-shore wind turbines could do worse for a reality check than looking at this article, which suggests (using data rather than opinion) that the long term output of turbines falls off significantly after 10 years: http://www.ref.org.uk/press-releases/281-wearnandntearnhitsnwindnfarmnoutputnandneconomicnlifetime That wouldn’t look good for investors, would it? Hello, Mr Investor, remember all that money you put into those wind turbines ten years ago? Bit of… Read more »
peaceful_life

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-matrix/

Blog data, but not as we know it Jim.

How would the island absorb 40 megawatts into it’s network via solar?. Exporting doens’t look likely either then.

peaceful_life

@cynic

Agreed, there are no free lunches, i was just adding that those lunches are also dirty, no matter what the garnish.

YJC

ECO-ISLAND DOES NOT SUPPORT BIG WIND!

Vanessa Churchman
All the comments above have truth in them – however as we all know a panel of experts very rarely agree. How can you have expert witnesses in court, one defending an application and one opposing it? In whose eyes are people ‘experts’ when they can pronounce different opinions on the same subject. Surely the maxim should be: prevention is better than cure. So why aren’t we… Read more »
peaceful_life
@Believer. The Ad homenim (I never said attack. Hyperbole) tact was pitched at the straw man of Horowitz being offered as a source of peer reviewed evidence. In truth, it was just a quick link (without accademic jargon) to a walk through of basic known facts about the footprint of the process, a process that is NOT clean. In your rebuttal, you omit any form of aknowledgment(still… Read more »
thetruthbeliever
@ peaceful_life… The point about citing the Shel Horowitz article is that as far as I can establish he his not impartial nor is an authoritative commentator on nuclear power. He clearly does not like nuclear power. That’s fine and he is entitled to his views. On the nuclear reactor design front, like all technologies, our understanding has improved over the decades. And the generation IV reactors… Read more »
Colin
Green Electric cars; there’s another winning idea and to power the cars we have to generate more electricity to charge the batteries. Why do people not buy them in their thousands? Because they would need a normal car as well for longer journeys and if everyone had one the national grid couldn’t cope. So, unless you have pots of money to show your green credentials, they don’t… Read more »
peaceful_life

Hi Colin.

Good old reliable does recieve subsidies, always has, and Ofgem have already stated publicly that rolling black-outs will be with us by 2015. Price spikes…and increases are already here.

chas

Let’s forget the Island being green and leave that to the grass ….its time to build a nuclear power plant on the Medina and start exporting output to the mainland …..income for the Island now that’s a novelty

peaceful_life

Hi Chas.

Building a business plan around one of the most dangerous and toxic substances known to man probably isn’t the best we can come up with, it’s not something I want to leave for future generations.

I think the ‘green’ has long since washed away and brambled over with the thorns of business as usual.

thetruthbeliever
440 nuclear power plants are in use every day, month in, month out, year in year out with excellent safety records, maintaining supply. . As I’ve mentioned before, the alarmists conveniently forget this fact without offering any viable alternative. Wind, tidal, solar are all great fun, but they are not really green when you consider their overall carbon cost, and they cannot generate anywhere enough power to… Read more »
peaceful_life

It’s nothing persoanl,you’re simply wrong, on all counts.

Cynic
The LA Times (3/17/2011) reported “The reactor at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo (California) operated for a year and a half with some emergency systems disabled, according to a 2010 safety review by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”? Furher, it is located a couple of miles from Parkfield on the San Andreas Fault Parkfield in central California, where a moderate-size earthquake has occurred… Read more »
thetruthbeliever
Nuclear plant plus likley earthquake- an accident waiting to happen? One has question the wisdom of building a Nuclear Power Plant on a fault line. It does not seem too clever to me. That said, the Diablo Canyon reactor has been built to withstand a 7.5 quake. It has prompt automatic shutdown systems which do so in the event of any significant ground movement. This along with… Read more »
Cynic
@the truthbeliever “That said, the Diablo Canyon reactor has been built to withstand a 7.5 quake. It has prompt automatic shutdown systems which do so in the event of any significant ground movement.” Did you miss he LA Times report that said “The reactor at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo (California) operated for a year and a half with some emergency systems disabled,… Read more »
thetruthbeliever
@Cynic. Yes I did read this. But like all these things it is important to establsh facts, like for example which saftey systems are we talking about? Was it the car park lighting for example? Or maybe a shortage of hi- viz jackets! The article is very vague in this regard stating “with some emergency systems disabled”. The sceptic in me say’s that if the reporter had… Read more »
peaceful_life
Planning. Time, Cost, energy input, carbon cost, who pays for it? Plant construction. Time, Cost, energy input, carbon cost, who pays for it? Running and maintaining. Safe working life expectancy, risk, energy input, carbon cost, who pays for it? Decommissioning plant. Time, cost, risk, energy input, carbon cost, who pays for it? Long term safe containment. Method, time of build(according to method),foreseeable infrastructure and available energy for… Read more »
thetruthbeliever

Is it worth the risk? Of course. Risk in any system can be reduced to near zero with proper management.

Unlimited? – E=mc2 once you grasp this superficially simple little forula, it becomes clear.

Cynic
@the truthbeliever “The article is very vague in this regard stating “with some emergency systems disabled”. The sceptic in me say’s that if the reporter had anything really meaty to report the details would be splattered all over the article. So I’d love to see which systems they are referring to.” Here they are…. The article is very vague in this regard stating “with some emergency systems… Read more »
chas

Ever checked out the number of Nuclear plants that are on the French coast ? and which direction does the wind blow from …..gas smell this week ! , so if there was a disaster there we would know about it , still think we ought to have one Island though

peaceful_life
Risk to near zero?…..you see, it’s this kind of hubris that’s landed us in a bit of a pickle. If you haven’t noticed…..the climate is gathering entropy, and well… ‘doing’ THINGS. So that’s a no no on that calculation of ‘near zero’ then. Far from being superficial, uncle Albert came up with something quite profound at the time, it’s gone all string n stuff now, bit of… Read more »
thetruthbeliever
Last time I checked 440 is NEAR 450 exactly as I said. 450 just seemed like a nice round number in the context. In any case it’s a trivial point. Entropy of any closed system will always increase. The climate has always “done things”. There is just an arrogance about humanity that makes us think the climate was put here for our convenience to suit us and… Read more »
peaceful_life
This planet is not a closed system though. I never said that climate change was bad, just that it should be taken into account when calculating risk. Look at Onkalo, you can’t just ignore all the embodied energy and expense of the entire process.That’s akin to getting 10p back for your initial £1 playing a bandit, them exclaiming you’ve won. I’d like to see some numbers on… Read more »
peaceful_life

BBC: Sellafield clean-up cost reaches £67.5bn

‘The cost of cleaning up the Sellafield nuclear waste site has reached £67.5bn with no sign of when the cost will stop rising, according to a report’

Who pays for it?

Did you get those EROEI numbers?

Thanks.

wpDiscuz