Bradford Council planners block bid for two Queensbury wind tubines

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Councillor Shabir Hussain Councillor Shabir Hussain

Planners have refused permission for two wind turbines in the green belt and accused the company behind them of creating a wind farm by stealth.

Two separate applications for 34-metre turbines on countryside near Queensbury were turned down at a meeting of the Bradford Area Planning Panel yesterday.

Both applications were made through the company Home Energy Efficiency.

One of the applications was to install a turbine on land off Brighouse and Denholme Road, Queensbury.

The other application was for a turbine at Shay Farm, off the same road, where the company already had planning permission for a shorter, 27-metre turbine, which is yet to be built. The taller turbine would have replaced it.

The meeting heard that turbines had been springing up across the area, including over the border into Calderdale, with still more having been given permission and awaiting construction.

Objector Stephen Houlden, of nearby Keelham Barn Farm, said the turbines were creating nuisance noise.

He also complained they were causing shadow flicker, an effect caused by the moving blades in bright sunlight.

He said: “The noise I liken to somebody leaving an electric cement mixer running on their drive all night long.

“Normally speaking, when you are out and about, you don’t notice it, but on a summer’s evening when you have got your windows open it is something that’s annoying.”

Agent for the applicants, Paul Bailey, said the 34-metre high turbines were quieter than the 27-metre model they already had permission to build.

He said they could also harness 330 per cent more energy and comfortably met the relevant noise requirements.

Panel members said they were concerned of the cumulative effect the turbines were having on the landscape and residents.

Committee member Councillor Malcolm Sykes said: “It’s a piecemeal approach that has been going on a while now and we have got to put a stake in the ground.

“Could we get one this month, next month, until we have a flood of them – 50 or 60?”

Committee chairman Councillor Shabir Hussain said: “I think enough is enough. You say it’s going to be quieter, it’s going to be more efficient. We haven’t got any facts. We have got nothing here. You haven’t presented anything here.

“You have got what you have. Build what you have.”

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:51am Fri 28 Mar 14

Mike Strutter says...

Mmmmm but it's ok for Keelham farm shop to be in the process of erecting a second massive turbine ?
Mmmmm but it's ok for Keelham farm shop to be in the process of erecting a second massive turbine ? Mike Strutter
  • Score: -1

8:37am Fri 28 Mar 14

Apollo says...

The area is already festooned with wind turbines. Wind farm by stealth - how does that work?

The Thornton valley all the way up up Soil Hill and beyond is visually ruined by these damned things.
The area is already festooned with wind turbines. Wind farm by stealth - how does that work? The Thornton valley all the way up up Soil Hill and beyond is visually ruined by these damned things. Apollo
  • Score: 3

10:31am Fri 28 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

I like turbines, and I'd prefer the look of them to something like Drax!

Forget what the anti-turbine people say, the Energy return on investment is excellent for turbines. they generally break even in under a year and have an EROI of 22, which means they generate 22 times more than they cost over their life style. That's compared to coal (8%) and nuclear (9%).

the anti-turbine mob are lying to you, I bet you'll find every one of them lives in a rural location and has a vested interest in not having turbines.

A misguided vested interest mind, as the welfare of the planet is in everyone's interest!
I like turbines, and I'd prefer the look of them to something like Drax! Forget what the anti-turbine people say, the Energy return on investment is excellent for turbines. they generally break even in under a year and have an EROI of 22, which means they generate 22 times more than they cost over their life style. That's compared to coal (8%) and nuclear (9%). the anti-turbine mob are lying to you, I bet you'll find every one of them lives in a rural location and has a vested interest in not having turbines. A misguided vested interest mind, as the welfare of the planet is in everyone's interest! Bone_idle18
  • Score: 4

10:33am Fri 28 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

Should say, yet again the council's stance on sustainable energy is extremely short sighted.

sometimes get the impression planning permission is granted or not granted depending on what party the local councillor is in. I suspect queensbury is Labour (can't be bothered checking) so they don't want to upset their votes, but if this had been Thackley (lib dem) they'd have passed it without a second though.
Should say, yet again the council's stance on sustainable energy is extremely short sighted. sometimes get the impression planning permission is granted or not granted depending on what party the local councillor is in. I suspect queensbury is Labour (can't be bothered checking) so they don't want to upset their votes, but if this had been Thackley (lib dem) they'd have passed it without a second though. Bone_idle18
  • Score: -1

11:49am Fri 28 Mar 14

Mike Strutter says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
Should say, yet again the council's stance on sustainable energy is extremely short sighted.

sometimes get the impression planning permission is granted or not granted depending on what party the local councillor is in. I suspect queensbury is Labour (can't be bothered checking) so they don't want to upset their votes, but if this had been Thackley (lib dem) they'd have passed it without a second though.
The fact that you can't be bothered checking by your own admission makes your comment irrelevant .
If you had bothered to check you would have found out Queensbury has 2 independent and one Tory councillor, I can't ever recall it being a labour area.

It is unusual for things to get knocked back in Queensbury , as the council know they have no support up there so tend to do what they want , including threatening to close the pool down, flooding it with hundreds of new homes and usually passing turbines !!
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: Should say, yet again the council's stance on sustainable energy is extremely short sighted. sometimes get the impression planning permission is granted or not granted depending on what party the local councillor is in. I suspect queensbury is Labour (can't be bothered checking) so they don't want to upset their votes, but if this had been Thackley (lib dem) they'd have passed it without a second though.[/p][/quote]The fact that you can't be bothered checking by your own admission makes your comment irrelevant . If you had bothered to check you would have found out Queensbury has 2 independent and one Tory councillor, I can't ever recall it being a labour area. It is unusual for things to get knocked back in Queensbury , as the council know they have no support up there so tend to do what they want , including threatening to close the pool down, flooding it with hundreds of new homes and usually passing turbines !! Mike Strutter
  • Score: 5

12:04pm Fri 28 Mar 14

bd7 helper says...

Sum one is lying
Sum one is lying bd7 helper
  • Score: -4

12:13pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

Mike Strutter wrote:
Bone_idle18 wrote:
Should say, yet again the council's stance on sustainable energy is extremely short sighted.

sometimes get the impression planning permission is granted or not granted depending on what party the local councillor is in. I suspect queensbury is Labour (can't be bothered checking) so they don't want to upset their votes, but if this had been Thackley (lib dem) they'd have passed it without a second though.
The fact that you can't be bothered checking by your own admission makes your comment irrelevant .
If you had bothered to check you would have found out Queensbury has 2 independent and one Tory councillor, I can't ever recall it being a labour area.

It is unusual for things to get knocked back in Queensbury , as the council know they have no support up there so tend to do what they want , including threatening to close the pool down, flooding it with hundreds of new homes and usually passing turbines !!
Interesting! so my theory is right, but this rejection of planning seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Still stand by the fact we need more wind turbines, and, unfortunately, high ground is where they work best.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Strutter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: Should say, yet again the council's stance on sustainable energy is extremely short sighted. sometimes get the impression planning permission is granted or not granted depending on what party the local councillor is in. I suspect queensbury is Labour (can't be bothered checking) so they don't want to upset their votes, but if this had been Thackley (lib dem) they'd have passed it without a second though.[/p][/quote]The fact that you can't be bothered checking by your own admission makes your comment irrelevant . If you had bothered to check you would have found out Queensbury has 2 independent and one Tory councillor, I can't ever recall it being a labour area. It is unusual for things to get knocked back in Queensbury , as the council know they have no support up there so tend to do what they want , including threatening to close the pool down, flooding it with hundreds of new homes and usually passing turbines !![/p][/quote]Interesting! so my theory is right, but this rejection of planning seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Still stand by the fact we need more wind turbines, and, unfortunately, high ground is where they work best. Bone_idle18
  • Score: 3

12:59pm Fri 28 Mar 14

mad matt says...

They'd work a lot better under the sea as tidal turbines, at least they would be much more reliable because of the two tides a day and out of sight.
They'd work a lot better under the sea as tidal turbines, at least they would be much more reliable because of the two tides a day and out of sight. mad matt
  • Score: 3

1:06pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Albion. says...

mad matt wrote:
They'd work a lot better under the sea as tidal turbines, at least they would be much more reliable because of the two tides a day and out of sight.
True! But the sea hasn't quite reached Queensbury..... .. ..Yet!
[quote][p][bold]mad matt[/bold] wrote: They'd work a lot better under the sea as tidal turbines, at least they would be much more reliable because of the two tides a day and out of sight.[/p][/quote]True! But the sea hasn't quite reached Queensbury..... .. ..Yet! Albion.
  • Score: 5

4:46pm Fri 28 Mar 14

somewhereinbradford says...

At last, someone taking the right approach. Whether you like or hate turbines, you can't just take a short minded approach to their location and their impact on any level, like BMDC have done in the past.

Had one company planned so many turbines in one planning application, the process would have been more scrutinised, and a better consultation carried out. As it stands, we have each applicant arguing how each turbine is quiet, but there isn't just one turbine now, there's a windfarm of turbines!

Mr Houlden is just one of many residents who is now suffering due to the noise. The owners of the turbines only have money on their mind, just like the one owned by Alex Whyte. Her turbine was constructed, but it wasn't the make and model of the one she got permission for. The final result being that the new turbine is 10dB louder than the one she had permission for. Bradford Council are aware of this now, but the turbine (and the 2 others now clustered with it) is still turning and causing a nuisance to the poor family opposite.

Like I said, whether you like turbines or not, you still have to pick your locations sensibly. Our argument is that there should be a minimum seperation distance between turbines and residential property according to their size.

Our other argument is that Bradford Council should have a wind energy strategy. Currently there is no consistency or attention to detail across the planning department with regards to wind turbines. last month was amazing, when a planning application was granted for another turbine next door to Keelham Farm Shop, but the data in the Design and Access Statement by local company PN Bakes of Thornton was a copy and paste the planning application for the turbine they applied for behind the Raggalds... even down to the road names quoted, i.e. Old Guy Road!!! How can it be right??? How can we trust their judgement????

I hope the comments of the planning panel now form some kind of strategy for furture wind turbines in this area.

Oh and by the way, Simmy Sekhon didn't withdraw his planning application out of respect for the people of Denholme. He was informed by BMDC that it was being recommended for refusal, so he chose to withdraw so he can resubmit at a later date at no extra cost.
At last, someone taking the right approach. Whether you like or hate turbines, you can't just take a short minded approach to their location and their impact on any level, like BMDC have done in the past. Had one company planned so many turbines in one planning application, the process would have been more scrutinised, and a better consultation carried out. As it stands, we have each applicant arguing how each turbine is quiet, but there isn't just one turbine now, there's a windfarm of turbines! Mr Houlden is just one of many residents who is now suffering due to the noise. The owners of the turbines only have money on their mind, just like the one owned by Alex Whyte. Her turbine was constructed, but it wasn't the make and model of the one she got permission for. The final result being that the new turbine is 10dB louder than the one she had permission for. Bradford Council are aware of this now, but the turbine (and the 2 others now clustered with it) is still turning and causing a nuisance to the poor family opposite. Like I said, whether you like turbines or not, you still have to pick your locations sensibly. Our argument is that there should be a minimum seperation distance between turbines and residential property according to their size. Our other argument is that Bradford Council should have a wind energy strategy. Currently there is no consistency or attention to detail across the planning department with regards to wind turbines. last month was amazing, when a planning application was granted for another turbine next door to Keelham Farm Shop, but the data in the Design and Access Statement by local company PN Bakes of Thornton was a copy and paste the planning application for the turbine they applied for behind the Raggalds... even down to the road names quoted, i.e. Old Guy Road!!! How can it be right??? How can we trust their judgement???? I hope the comments of the planning panel now form some kind of strategy for furture wind turbines in this area. Oh and by the way, Simmy Sekhon didn't withdraw his planning application out of respect for the people of Denholme. He was informed by BMDC that it was being recommended for refusal, so he chose to withdraw so he can resubmit at a later date at no extra cost. somewhereinbradford
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Fri 28 Mar 14

keelhambar says...

Mike Strutter wrote:
Mmmmm but it's ok for Keelham farm shop to be in the process of erecting a second massive turbine ?
These applications get passed unless somebody is willing to attend Planning meeting & speak against them.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Strutter[/bold] wrote: Mmmmm but it's ok for Keelham farm shop to be in the process of erecting a second massive turbine ?[/p][/quote]These applications get passed unless somebody is willing to attend Planning meeting & speak against them. keelhambar
  • Score: -5

5:49pm Fri 28 Mar 14

keelhambar says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
Should say, yet again the council's stance on sustainable energy is extremely short sighted.

sometimes get the impression planning permission is granted or not granted depending on what party the local councillor is in. I suspect queensbury is Labour (can't be bothered checking) so they don't want to upset their votes, but if this had been Thackley (lib dem) they'd have passed it without a second though.
These turbines were to be in the Thornton ward, represented by 3 Conservative councillors.
The Planning panel consisted of predominantly Labour councillors.
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: Should say, yet again the council's stance on sustainable energy is extremely short sighted. sometimes get the impression planning permission is granted or not granted depending on what party the local councillor is in. I suspect queensbury is Labour (can't be bothered checking) so they don't want to upset their votes, but if this had been Thackley (lib dem) they'd have passed it without a second though.[/p][/quote]These turbines were to be in the Thornton ward, represented by 3 Conservative councillors. The Planning panel consisted of predominantly Labour councillors. keelhambar
  • Score: 3

6:27pm Fri 28 Mar 14

somewhereinbradford says...

keelhambar wrote:
Mike Strutter wrote:
Mmmmm but it's ok for Keelham farm shop to be in the process of erecting a second massive turbine ?
These applications get passed unless somebody is willing to attend Planning meeting & speak against them.
My apologies for not attending keelhambar. I was otherwise engaged and had no way to get there.

Am gathering you went?

www.sayno2windfarm.o
rg.uk
[quote][p][bold]keelhambar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Strutter[/bold] wrote: Mmmmm but it's ok for Keelham farm shop to be in the process of erecting a second massive turbine ?[/p][/quote]These applications get passed unless somebody is willing to attend Planning meeting & speak against them.[/p][/quote]My apologies for not attending keelhambar. I was otherwise engaged and had no way to get there. Am gathering you went? www.sayno2windfarm.o rg.uk somewhereinbradford
  • Score: -2

9:33pm Fri 28 Mar 14

micela22 says...

Queensbury should be one of the remaining jewels in Bradfords crown, however Bradford council appear to be happy for it to deteriorate to the levels of other areas: over populating, blighting the landscape, under investment etc etc etc
Queensbury should be one of the remaining jewels in Bradfords crown, however Bradford council appear to be happy for it to deteriorate to the levels of other areas: over populating, blighting the landscape, under investment etc etc etc micela22
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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