Revised plans for Tolpuddle wind farm go on show

There was strong opposition to the original plans for Tolpuddle wind farm

There was strong opposition to the original plans for Tolpuddle wind farm

First published in News Dorset Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

HUNDREDS turned out to see revised plans for a controversial wind farm in West Dorset.

Proposals to build a wind farm to the north of Tolpuddle have been scaled back after concerns were raised by councillors, campaigners and residents.

West Coast Energy now plans to build five turbines, instead of nine, and the height has been reduced from 126 metres to 115 metres.

A fresh application for planning permission is expected to be submitted to West Dorset District Council in the next few weeks.

Matthew Hayes, head of planning and project management, said the company is listening to what residents have to say.

He said: “We will reflect on today and if anything comes out that leads us to revise the scheme again, then that is something we will consider.”

Questionnaires were handed out to residents who attended the event at Tolpuddle Village Hall on Thursday to find out people’s thoughts on the revised scheme.

Mr Hayes said he was aware some people have concerns about the turbines, but a number of people have also spoken out in support of them.

West Coast Energy has already pledged to share ten per cent of any operational profits with the community and has now also committed to a guaranteed payment of £5,000 for each megawatt of capacity installed on the site.

This means that if the five turbine facility goes ahead the community will be guaranteed £50,000 a year and a total of £1.6million over the operational life of the wind farm.

Mr Hayes added: “We believe we are offering the most generous community benefits of any wind farm development.

“The specifics have not been confirmed, but the money would go to a local administrative body, perhaps the parish council, in order to benefit the community and for the first five years we would like to focus on fuel poverty initiatives.

“We feel strongly that this is a very good thing.”

West Coast Energy is working with charity National Energy Action to combat fuel poverty, which affects 4,000 homes in West Dorset.

South West representative for the charity Bethany Redley said: “It is a big problem, especially for young families and older people.”

But Richard Slocock, of campaign group Tolpuddle Against Industrial Turbines (TAINT), said the group remains opposed to the plans.

He and other group members stood outside the village hall during the event, handing out their own leaflets to residents.

Mr Slocock said: “We are still adamantly against these proposals.

“They are still giant turbines.

“They would make a mockery of our landscape.”

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:08pm Sat 15 Feb 14

Mcilrae says...

Mr Slocock said: “We are still adamantly against these proposals. They are still giant turbines. They would make a mockery of our landscape.”

That's right Mr Slocock (great name BTW), they are still wind turbines, they haven't been changed into giant cheese graters or statues of Owen Paterson. However, what makes a mockery of the landscape are people who consume energy but refuse to be responsible for its production. Without a doubt, wind and solar energy are the most benign options available to us at the moment. The Met office have linked the violent storms and floods we are currently experiencing to climate change. Whether you like it or not, we are going to have to drastically reduce our carbon emissions. That will involve reducing the overall amount of energy we consume and switching away from dependence on fossil fuels to clean, local, energy sources instead.

Oh, and have you ever googled "taint"? If you do it might cause you to rethink your acronym, but I think it's pretty apt, given to how close to a *rude word* you appear to be.
Mr Slocock said: “We are still adamantly against these proposals. They are still giant turbines. They would make a mockery of our landscape.” That's right Mr Slocock (great name BTW), they are still wind turbines, they haven't been changed into giant cheese graters or statues of Owen Paterson. However, what makes a mockery of the landscape are people who consume energy but refuse to be responsible for its production. Without a doubt, wind and solar energy are the most benign options available to us at the moment. The Met office have linked the violent storms and floods we are currently experiencing to climate change. Whether you like it or not, we are going to have to drastically reduce our carbon emissions. That will involve reducing the overall amount of energy we consume and switching away from dependence on fossil fuels to clean, local, energy sources instead. Oh, and have you ever googled "taint"? If you do it might cause you to rethink your acronym, but I think it's pretty apt, given to how close to a *rude word* you appear to be. Mcilrae
  • Score: 0

9:23pm Sat 15 Feb 14

Grey Fox says...

The above contributer makes some valid points which are then completely undermined by the puerile invective used. One of the main problems is that there is no national strategy for the siting of wind farms and they are placed wherever a landowner gives consent to the developer rather than how suitable the site is. Since the first Tolpuddle application went in there have been two further wind farms mooted close by at Winterbourne Whitechurch and Slyer's Lane. In addition there is the proposed Alaska site and the existing Rogers Hill turbine. There is a danger of creating a wind farm corridor. These proposals although close fall into the areas of three separate District Councils.
I wonder if the above contributor actually attended Thursday's WCE consultation ? If they had and attended the previous exhibition they would have seen that some of the summer visualisations criticised by WDDC's own consultants are still being used. Summer foliage conceals a great deal.
By all means make comments about carbon emisssions which we all agree should be reduced but surely you can't believe that this should be with total disregard to the landscape and that wind farms can be placed anywhere?
The above contributer makes some valid points which are then completely undermined by the puerile invective used. One of the main problems is that there is no national strategy for the siting of wind farms and they are placed wherever a landowner gives consent to the developer rather than how suitable the site is. Since the first Tolpuddle application went in there have been two further wind farms mooted close by at Winterbourne Whitechurch and Slyer's Lane. In addition there is the proposed Alaska site and the existing Rogers Hill turbine. There is a danger of creating a wind farm corridor. These proposals although close fall into the areas of three separate District Councils. I wonder if the above contributor actually attended Thursday's WCE consultation ? If they had and attended the previous exhibition they would have seen that some of the summer visualisations criticised by WDDC's own consultants are still being used. Summer foliage conceals a great deal. By all means make comments about carbon emisssions which we all agree should be reduced but surely you can't believe that this should be with total disregard to the landscape and that wind farms can be placed anywhere? Grey Fox
  • Score: 2

7:21pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Caption Sensible says...

Mcilrae wrote:
Mr Slocock said: “We are still adamantly against these proposals. They are still giant turbines. They would make a mockery of our landscape.”

That's right Mr Slocock (great name BTW), they are still wind turbines, they haven't been changed into giant cheese graters or statues of Owen Paterson. However, what makes a mockery of the landscape are people who consume energy but refuse to be responsible for its production. Without a doubt, wind and solar energy are the most benign options available to us at the moment. The Met office have linked the violent storms and floods we are currently experiencing to climate change. Whether you like it or not, we are going to have to drastically reduce our carbon emissions. That will involve reducing the overall amount of energy we consume and switching away from dependence on fossil fuels to clean, local, energy sources instead.

Oh, and have you ever googled "taint"? If you do it might cause you to rethink your acronym, but I think it's pretty apt, given to how close to a *rude word* you appear to be.
"The Met office have linked the violent storms and floods we are currently experiencing to climate change."

Let's not beat about the bush; this claim is an out and out lie! The Met Office actually says this: http://wattsupwithth
at.com/2014/02/15/fl
ood-fight-at-the-met
-office/

Quite the opposite of what you claim. Why do the Greens and their supporters lie so much? Is it because they know deep down that their so-called science is deeply flawed?

And still the Echo reports this kind of stuff without checking the basic facts... Got an agenda have we boys and girls?
[quote][p][bold]Mcilrae[/bold] wrote: Mr Slocock said: “We are still adamantly against these proposals. They are still giant turbines. They would make a mockery of our landscape.” That's right Mr Slocock (great name BTW), they are still wind turbines, they haven't been changed into giant cheese graters or statues of Owen Paterson. However, what makes a mockery of the landscape are people who consume energy but refuse to be responsible for its production. Without a doubt, wind and solar energy are the most benign options available to us at the moment. The Met office have linked the violent storms and floods we are currently experiencing to climate change. Whether you like it or not, we are going to have to drastically reduce our carbon emissions. That will involve reducing the overall amount of energy we consume and switching away from dependence on fossil fuels to clean, local, energy sources instead. Oh, and have you ever googled "taint"? If you do it might cause you to rethink your acronym, but I think it's pretty apt, given to how close to a *rude word* you appear to be.[/p][/quote]"The Met office have linked the violent storms and floods we are currently experiencing to climate change." Let's not beat about the bush; this claim is an out and out lie! The Met Office actually says this: http://wattsupwithth at.com/2014/02/15/fl ood-fight-at-the-met -office/ Quite the opposite of what you claim. Why do the Greens and their supporters lie so much? Is it because they know deep down that their so-called science is deeply flawed? And still the Echo reports this kind of stuff without checking the basic facts... Got an agenda have we boys and girls? Caption Sensible
  • Score: 1

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