Wind Turbines & The Law Was Upheld In The High Court

Wind Turbines & The Law Was Upheld In The High Court

Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

The Pendulum Swings Against Wind Turbines
The Law Was Upheld In The High Court


England not windy enough, admits wind industry chief


 Ovenden Moor wind farm, Ovenden Halifax West Yorkshire
There are more than 5,000 turbines onshore in the UK Credit: Alamy

England is not windy enough to justify building any more onshore wind turbines, the chief executive of wind industry trade body has admitted.

Hugh McNeal, who joined RenewableUK two months ago from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, insisted the industry could make the case for more onshore turbines in some parts of the UK, despite the withdrawal of subsidies.

But he said this would “almost certainly” not be in England, as the wind speeds were not high enough to make the projects economically viable without subsidy.

We are almost certainly not talking about the possibility of new plants in England. The project economics wouldn’t work; the wind speeds don’t allow for itHugh McNeal

Although the Government has implemented its manifesto pledge to end subsidies for new onshore wind farms, the industry believes it should be able to deploy more turbines onshore if it can show that this is the cheapest form of new power generation capacity.

Current wholesale electricity prices are too low to spur investment in any new form of power generation, so the Government has already had to make subsidies available to new gas plants.

If financial support required by onshore wind is less than that required by gas, the industry argues it should no longer be regarded as “subsidy”.

Hugh McNeal
Hugh McNeal, the new chief executive of RenewableUK Credit: Eddie Mulholland

“We are now the cheapest form of new generation in Britain,” Mr McNeal said. “If plants can be built in places where people don’t object to them and if, as a result of that, over their whole lifetime the net impact on consumers against the alternatives is beneficial, I need to persuade people we should be doing that.”

But new wind farms in England were “very unlikely”, beyond those that have already secured subsidies and are awaiting construction, as they would not be cost-efficient enough to undercut gas power, he said.

“We are almost certainly not talking about the possibility of new plants in England. The project economics wouldn’t work; the wind speeds don’t allow for it.”

The admission calls into question why developers are still seeking planning consent for hundreds of new turbines onshore in England.

Analysis of Government databases by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a group critical of subsidies, suggests there is till 425 megawatts of capacity in England in the planning system – although this is about a tenth of the amount seeking permission in Scotland.

Wind farm near Swindon
Wind speeds are generally lower in England than other parts of the UK Credit: Getty

Keith Anderson, chief executive of ScottishPower Renewables, said he agreed with Mr McNeal that new onshore wind in England would be “incredibly challenging”.

However, he suggested the economics could potentially be better for projects that involved removing small old turbines and building bigger, more powerful replacements on the same site.

The idea of “subsidy free” financial support for onshore wind has proved highly controversial. Owen Paterson, the former environment secretary, described it as a “con” after ministers confirmed earlier this year that they were considering the idea.

John Constable, REF director, said claims that wind power was the cheapest failed to take into account the wider cost impacts on the system.

“There has to be grid expansion to remove bottlenecks, short term response plant and or demand to cope with errors in the wind forecast, and the cost of operating a conventional fleet of almost unchanged size to guarantee security of supply,” he said.

While ministers have not ruled out “subsidy free” financial support for onshore wind, there are understood to be no current plans to offer it.

Ministers have also said they want ensure technologies have to “face their full costs”. A study on the true costs of different technologies is awaiting publication by the DECC.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Interestingly more or less the same article cropped up in the Business Section on Sunday:

WT SUNDAY TELEGRAPH 05-Jun-2016 - 01

Clearly when we overturned the FoDDC Planning Decision with the Judicial Review, as I had every confidence we would, it would be not just an act of folly for the Council to support an appeal but grossly negligent of public funds.

Further, in the light of the new facts pertaining to Wind Turbines and how grossly inefficient they are, and how damaging they are to both climate and ecology only a selfish self servingindividual would aply for planning for a turbine and surely Lyndon Edwards would not be so desperate for subsidy and so fundamentally dishonest as to make the same application again – unless he really is under the thumb and indebted to the co directors of Ressiliance!

Let us not forget that there was very little genuine support for this costly folly in the first place and we have shown conclusively that not only were the effected community determinedly against the damage but also the reason it was originally passed by FoDDC was that the application was handled by the elected councillors in a manner that was proven to be a corruption of planning law, against the advice of their trained and responsible council officers!

Though it would potentially be libelous to state that the planning committee was corrupt there is no doubt that the High Court decision proved that due process had been corrupted!

There is no doubt in my mind that the applicant Mrs Moira Edwards put herself in a position likely to lead people to believe that her actions were not in the interest of the community she was elected to represent but that she seemed to have stood for election knowing that she was planning to obtain permission to errect a publicly subsidised Wind Turbine, but failed to adequately notify the electorate of this facts and that the company she acted with timed their lengtjh and contentious application su7mmaries to arreve at the very last minute was deeply unpleasant and though I am sure it was within the law to act in sucha manner the ethics of such behaviour was, in my opinion, exceedingly distastefull.

At the end of the day the High Court in its deliberations saw through the pages and pages of unrelated submission and on the point of law Peter Wright’s Coincil led upheld the law, overturning the FoDDC’s flawed planning decision.

When the High Court written judgement is to hand in full it will be published on this web site and let us hope that is the end of this folly and any further efforts to damage this outstandingly beautifull and unique area based upon such devious ignorance, not to mention the failure of the Forest of Dean District Council to accurately represent their constituents and the interests of the area and its people in accord with planning law.

I would like to thank Tidenham Parish Council for their efforts to represent those who elected them and note the failure of Tidenham District Council’s Councillors who did little to uphold the interests of the community going so far, in one instance, to say they would not meet with constituents as he wouldn’t be able to see the Turbine from his home! The position of the MP was also one of largely fence sitting and who did little or nothing to uphold Government policy and the law, regardless of his position as a Government Whip!

My thanks to the serried ranks of those who stood behind us from the immediate area and further afield and those who so generously gave of their time to research, investigate, transcribe and attend the many meetings that were held, also those who contributed financially to assist in the payment of costs along the route to justice – and particularly to Peter and Sue Wright who had the courage of their convictions to take the downside risks of a Judicial Review – am relieved their efforts saw justice done and firmly and accurately done.

Thank You all.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins (site owner)

If you would like more information about Stroat see:

If you would like more information about Greg_L-W see:


IF you note ANY errors of fact in this or any other web site or blog I own please bring it to my attention for correction @ – Thank you.

Judicial Review Shows FoDDC Has A Case To Answer re Corruption Of Due Process

Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves


you will be pleased to note the clear display of the Crowd Justice site where people can read the facts and realise that the planning consent was clearly ultra vires & councillors on the planning committee blatantly ignored the law in a manner which seemed pre arranged and thus would seemt o have corrupted due process.
That the Judicial Review was granted is a clear indication by a High Court Judge that there is a case to answer and there is every possibility that the High Court will uphold our claim and clarify the law, to ensure Justice is seen to be done.
The claims of ‘Community Funding’ & ‘Community Benefit’ are clearly aesopian linguistics designed to dupe the gullible particularly in the efforts to develope this wind farm by stealth based on dishonest claims and misrepresentations by the applicant, Maria Edwards – who is a local councillor on the planning committee, together with her agents and partners!
Wednesday, 23 March 2016 in Local People

One of several banners that have been erected along the A48 in the Stroat area supporting a judicial review.

A LEGAL battle over a proposed wind turbine in the Forest could have major implications for similar projects across England.

The scheme for a 500-kilowatt ‘community energy project’ at Severndale Farm at Stroat, which was given the go-ahead by the Forest Council last summer, is now subject to judicial review.
The action has been brought by Mr Peter Wright who lives close to the proposed site of the turbine which would be 87-metres tall at the tip of the blade.
He says he and many of his neighbours are concerned about a series of single wind turbines being created along the Severn estuary.
A High Court hearing is due to take place next month at which a key argument will be about the ‘community benefits’ that such developments bring to an area.
But supporters of community turbines are concerned that if the court backs Mr Wright it could make it more difficult for the public to get involved in backing renewable energy projects.
Both sides agree the judgement will set a clear legal precedent for determining applications for turbine.
Each has used “crowd-funding” websites to raise money to meet the cost of legal advice.
In a statement on
the website www.crowd, Mr Wright said: “I am one of some 100 local residents living near the Severn Estuary in the Forest of Dean, who are concerned about the proliferation of single wind turbines being installed in the Severn Estuary, damaging the lovely rural landscape.
“Whilst I, and many others, accept the benefits of wind turbines in the right place, a series of single turbines, backed by the same developer, all within the same rural setting, is totally unjustified.
“It is creating a wind farm landscape by stealth.
“If successful, this challenge will ensure that no other council can act with such impunity in the face of the overwhelming views of the local community and in breach of planning guidelines regarding alleged community benefits.”
The Woolaston-based Resilience Centre, which is developing the Severndale turbine has used the website www.crowd to raise support.
In a statement on the site it says: “The judgement that will arise from this case is very likely to be important in establishing case law and clear guidelines on what can be offered in the way of community participation and what can be taken as positive community benefits by councillors when making a decision.
“The threat to the community energy sector is that a ruling could emerge which places additional constraints on the ability of the public to participate in renewable energy generation or renders the sector even more uncertain that promoters, public and decision makers are all deterred from participating in or supporting the sector.
“A succesful outcome would establish a key new legal precedent for the community energy sector in the UK, allowing planning authorities to give clear positive weight to projects with overriding local community benefits.”
The case is due to be heard by a judge on Thursday, April 21.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines (WT) to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD) as administered by The Forest of Dean District Council (FoDDC), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB), sites of special scientific interest (SSI) & wildlife habitats.

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies of the ‘Warmists’ & self proclaimed ‘Greens’, which are presented as ‘fact’, regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins (site owner)

If you would like more information about Stroat see:

If you would like more information about Greg_L-W see:


PLEASE NOTE: We do not accept responsibility for material on links and other sources

IF you note ANY errors of fact in this or any other web site or blog I own or manage please bring it to my attention for correction @ – Thank you.