Author: simon
Span Farm Wind Turbine Planning Application: Comments Closing 3 July
Wednesday, 1st July, 2009 at 5:06 pm, Isle of Wight
Environment, Green Issues, Planning, Ventnor
Missed this one somehow.
Looks like there’s another wind turbine planning application at the IWC.
This one (ref: TCP/29699, P/00176/09) is on “land at Span Farm, Rew Lane, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight PO38″ and was published on 12 June 2009.
The planning application details that we can access say that the rotor would have a 30m diameter and the hub (ie middle) would be at the height of 3151m (looks like a decimal place being misplaced here, as that would make it close to two miles high!).
All comments need to be in by 3 July 2009 – so you’ve got two days left.
There were 13 comments when we looked yesterday.
Details currently unavailable
You could have a look at the details yourself, but the Isle of Wight Council Web site is unavailable and so it the IWC planning site.
UPDATE: More details are now available, now the IWC planning site is available again.
Wind turbine
The wind turbine is made by Wind Energy Solutions and is a WES30 Mk1 which is rated at 250kW.
The details on the planning application are pretty illegible, but the WES Web site has clear details on it.
Planning Application – TCP/29699, P/00176/09
Related posts:
- Ventnor Golf Club: Wind Turbine Planning Application Lodged
News reaches us that following the initial proposals presented to... - Cornwall Light & Power Wind Farm: Extension Granted For Comments
Andrew Turner’s office have advised today that an extension to... - Cheverton Down Wind Turbine Planning App Now Registered
The planning application to place three wind turbines on Cheverton... - Mill Bay Planning Application Comments Missing
Alerted by farmersboy on the forum, I just went over... - Cheverton Down Turbine Application Rejected
The application was rejected six votes against three....
Email This Story To A Friend
Iwight.com seems to be working fine – are you sure it’s not something do with your computer?
(Report comment)
Indeed it is working now.
My computer? No, all functioning at this end.
The “Server Application Unavailable” message I was getting is an ASP server error, not a client one.
Glad to see they got the site up and working again.
(Report comment)
I think the 3151m hub-height (3km?!) is a mistake (on the planning site also). Just had a look at the technical specs on the planning app online and it should be 31-51m.
(Report comment)
News just in 27 ThWART members exploded earlier today on reading that an application had been made for a 3km high wind turbine on the Isle of Wight.
(Report comment)
I have made a back-of-an-envelope calculation and it seems this devilish 3km high contraption will be able to provide enough energy for the entirety of the south-east including London. As long as it’s windy. On the down side, there will be a horrible vortex that will suck in much of the air traffic through Gatwick and Southampton with dire consequences. get ready for the shower of shreaded plane parts. Duck you nimby’s! Duck!
(Report comment)
He heh!
Another newsworthy item I spotted on the council website today is that there is apparently a “school’s reorganisation” going on. Just the one, then?
(Report comment)
;-) !Only a pedant like yourself would truly appreciate that one, Wendy.
(Report comment)
Pedant? Just demonstrates an education that the author is keen to promote for the good of all maybe ;-)
(Report comment)
I’ll take that as a compliment, Steve! Maybe they’ll spot it soon, but for now it is on the council’s homepage (twice):
http://www.iow.gov.uk/homepage/
(Report comment)
Oh, absolutely, Wendy. Hence the ;-). I loved it!
(Report comment)
Its all the more funny since it’s in relation to the reorganisation of education. Or should that be school’s? ;-)
(Report comment)
Perhaps I should have used ‘purist’. I appreciate that pedant could be seen to be unkindly intended. Apologies for any misunderstanding.
(Report comment)
That’s okay! Knowing where to stick an apostrophe has its uses. Never did Lynne Truss any harm.
(Report comment)
The English language is under attack, written and spoken. Y’no,like, ermm. Still, I think Harriet “Erm” Harmen shows that you do not need to be able to talk in coherent sentences to be successful! Though she is a success in a government that in actions resembles more of a 6th form project group than leaders of a nation. y’no, like.
(Report comment)
Did Ventnor Town Council get to comment on this one?
(Report comment)
Thankfully nothing to do with them, but you could support it, Jack, or one of the others who are always chuntering on about wind on here.
(Report comment)
Probably a Wroxall matter.
(Report comment)
But they could be using our wind !
(Report comment)
Thanks for letting us know. Have commented and made lots of people aware of it. Good timing too as just the usual NIMBY rubbish so far. Pathetic.
(Report comment)
Great submission Andrew. Pity it didn’t contain anything other than the usual “nimby” insults. Nice touch with the “correction” too, giving the impression of another comment of support.
Good to see your pals, none of whom live, like you, anywhere near the site, supporting wind turbines, especially the further away they are, like the ones in France.
Mind you, the same could be said for some people who live in Ventnor, even some Town Councillors.
On the one hand, they are indignant that an approval exists for the redevelopment of the La Veness site on the Esplanade. “Inappropriate to Victorian Ventnor”, “offensive to the eye” and “spoiling the view of the terraces” being some of the descriptions used against the redevelopment. An argument which has a lot of merit.
Yet the same people are actively looking into the possibilty of erecting a WIND TURBINE in the car park of the Winter Gardens and also give their support to the erection of 3 turbines within 300 to 400 metres of their fellow residents properties in Upper Ventnor.
Then again, they do not live in Upper Ventnor.
I suppose you would call that a classic case of Nimbyism, eh?
(Report comment)
Colin,
It would probably be helpful if you clarified your statement about the Town Councillors. We wouldn’t want to mislead the electorate, would we?
(Report comment)
In what context are you using “We”?
Is it the Royal “We”, i.e., you & the wife?
Or is the the collective “We”, i.e., you are speaking for the T.C.?
No matter, I digress.
In what way do you interpret “mislead the electorate”?
The way you accuse David Pugh and the Council on an almost hourly basis on here of misleading?
The way they said on the Education issue, “Back us or sack us” and got backed?
The way they said on the Eco Island manifesto in 2005 “No wind turbines would be allowed in AONBs and got voted in again in 2009?
That sort of misleading?
Or do you mean the scurrilous attempt at muckraking against Ed and Stacey Goodman posted on here on Tuesday?
“They haven’t got their licence down there”, which came from that most reliable source, a friend of a friend of a friend, who met someone in the park who told them they had heard in in the chemists.
And “They were selling drinks down there on Saturday”.
NO they weren’t! It was their wedding reception!
But it’s okay to say it on here without checking the veracity?
That sort of misleading, Steve?
I note that no retraction has been published.
Good job Ed and Stacey are a lot more easy going than me.
(Report comment)
In response to your comment about muckracking against Ed and Stacey, I would like to point out that I was simply reporting what had been said at the VTC meeting.
The purpose of highlighting what Cllr Perks had brought to the meeting was in order for it to be quickly and publicly nipped in the bud (thank you to Matthew Chatfield for doing this).
If you take the time to read the article thoroughly Colin, you’ll also see that I state that we understood that there was a private party at the venue on Saturday and didn’t believe that drinks were being sold.
We have been very supportive of Ed and Stacey and what they are doing in Ventnor so I take strong exception to your claim that VB are guilty of any ‘muckracking’ against them.
(Report comment)
Furthermore, there is no mention of a ‘reliable source’ in the article. Perhaps you need to stay out of the sun a bit more Colin.
(Report comment)
I actually meant you and me. We!
I certainly can’t write for the TC on here. It would get me in all sorts of trouble.
(Report comment)
This is just a sophisticated version of name calling that you accuse the pro-turbine supporters of on a daily basis.
(Report comment)
Funny! Most of the support for the turbines seem to show the opinion that the commenter has seen them abroad and think they are beautiful. The objection is that they do not work as power generators. The construction and installation costs (in energy, emissions, and connection to the grid) are ignored. The fact that they damage vast tracks of natural landscape and vista is a very valid objection. This is doubly valid as they do not work for the purpose they are promoted as fulfilling. So let’s get behind something that will not achieve the aim and destroy large areas of outstanding natural beauty, no thank you.
(Report comment)
Note that a revised planning application is being advertised Friday 3 July with the same planning numbers. Hard to say what the revisions are, because the documents are not available as I write, but it does mean that you’ve got another 3 weeks to comment (until 24 July) and another 3 weeks to slag off people who object to them.
(Report comment)
“another 3 weeks to slag off people who object to them.”
Denis, Denis, I am truly surprised at you. Such a quiet peaceful man, your feelings have been truly aroused. And not without good reason.
I have just returned from a meeting with a Senior Officer of the LPA over matters very close to everyones (well, maybe not EVERYone) hearts, so I have only just read what has happened over the last few hours. What a hornets nest!
Let my endeavour to deal with the points in chronological order..
Firstly, Sal “I was simply reporting what had been said at the VTC meeting.” Indeed you were, but there was no indication, as I read it, that there was any foundation for such an accusation from Councillor Perks.
It was more of a case of “some told me that someone had told them” .
If you recall, we have been there before and very dangerous it nearly was too.
“I take strong exception to your claim that VB are guilty of any ‘muckracking’ against them.” Please show me where I claim that VB are muckraking? You were just reporting the muckraking. It wasn’t your fault! Don’t be so thin skinned, you’re supposed to be journalists.
Steve “You and me”?
I see no way that “you and me” could ever be double act!
So are you accusing me of misleading the electorate?
Or is it you?
I would never do that as the so called politicians do a far better job than I could ever do. Just look at our Leader (no, not DP), G.B., all fingers and thumbs trying to win over electors by telling them he is going to give away billions of pounds in subsidies to ensure that G.B. Ltd. becomes the worlds first bankrupt Wind Farm and we haven’t even got a pot to piss in any more. We are worse off than some sporting venues with little round balls!
No 5, great that you could call me sophisticated. Thanks for that!
t@4 Why waste your time they just don’t want to know facts. Its all down to guesswork and theories! Can you imagine running say, a pub or a hotel on guesswork?
Finally, Denis, I am truly proud of you. What say we ask the residents up by you, who seem to have little or no TC representation, if they fancy doing a swap?
Let the La Veness development go ahead somewhere around the top of Foxhills and let the 3 wind turbines be built on the La Veness site on the Esplanade. That’d be a crack, eh?
(Report comment)
“No 5, great that you could call me sophisticated. Thanks for that!”
Thats all right…but it was just sophisticated name calling.
Yet another post ignoring the real facts and talking over people who are actually trying to suggest and do something about an urgent problem
(Report comment)
the needs of the island many outweigh the few, and any decision must reflect this.
Whether the wind farms actually work efficeiently is immaterial given the infncy of the technology involved, the real issues-
green jobs on the iow and climate change,
eventually-these things will become more eficeint and given the 10m grants already given this about more than the ‘view’ of a few and their personal wealth and objections even if self-justified.
(Report comment)