Wind Turbines

I know that expert opinion is divided, but what my hon. Friend told us is also the opinion in my constituency, where similar developments are proposed. Indeed, in the case of the proposed development at Guestwick, the leaders of the local community told me that if the amount of power to be produced provided electricity for the neighbouring towns of Dereham, Fakenham and Aylsham, they would find it rather difficult to oppose it. However, research shows that it would produce only a limited amount. I represent today a specific group of constituents who have been opposing the siting of six large wind turbines since 2004. They are convinced that an unintended consequence of what is effectively a Government subsidy is that, despite the development having been turned down by local planners, the developers have twice gone to appeal. They lost both times but now, four years later, they are seeking a judicial review—and if that is successful yet another planning inquiry. What is the cost to local democracy? I shall briefly explain what has happened with that application. I suspect that similar examples can be found elsewhere in Norfolk and in other parts of the United Kingdom. Government subsidies are effectively being used by developers to achieve what is known locally as the Tesco factor: if one has enough money and one keeps coming back, one will eventually overwhelm the planning inspectorate—and even persuade local people, who have to use their own money to appeal, that is it not worth the fight. In 2004, the developers Enertrag sought to gain planning permission to erect six wind turbines 120 m high in the open countryside at Guestwick in my constituency, about four miles north of where I live in the market town of Reepham. I do not have a vested interest, as I would not be able to see or hear the turbines, but I know the area only too well. It is within sight of the large village of Foulsham. The plan was opposed by an overwhelming majority of residents, and the application was turned down in 2005 on the recommendation of local planning officers and Norfolk county council, supported by Broadland district council's planning committee. The Minister will be aware that local planning authorities think very hard indeed before rejecting planning applications because they risk not only having the decision overturned on appeal but having costs awarded against them if their decision is considered to be unreasonable. In my experience, they tend to go over such applications in great detail. They are only too well aware that there may be strong local opinion, but if they feel that their decision is likely to be challenged legally, they will normally allow the development to go ahead. That was not so at Guestwick. The decision was appealed by the developers, and a public inquiry was held in 2006. Having heard detailed evidence from the developers and the district and parish councils, the planning inspectorate inspector ruled that the appeal should be dismissed because of the impact that the turbines would have on the landscape and the listed buildings in the area. The inspector's ruling was rejected by the developers, who appealed to the High Court to have the decision overturned. To the surprise of the local community, the Treasury solicitor decided not to contest the application. The decision of the inspector was set aside, and a second public inquiry was scheduled. That inquiry was held in June 2007, under the auspices of yet another senior inspector. The developer's arguments were again rejected, and the appeal was dismissed for a second time. The grounds for that decision were virtually the same as those cited in 2006. The developers are now seeking a judicial review. If they win, they will seek a third planning inquiry. If it is unsuccessful, they are prepared to resubmit their scheme. In today's Eastern Daily Press, Mr. David Linley, the project manager for Enertrag, said:"““We are going to go ahead. At the end of the day, logic has to rule. We think it is a good site””" So logic has to rule, but not the spirit of the law or the views of the local community. That logic is based on the Government's renewable energy targets, the proposed changes to planning and the fact that, under a subsidy system, developers can keep returning until they have worn down the inspectors and the local community. I do not suggest that the Minister or his predecessors had that in mind when drawing up the present system, but that is the consequence and it is affecting my constituents and those of my parliamentary neighbours in Norfolk and elsewhere. My constituents are disillusioned, angry and out of pocket. Local residents have had to fund their own legal representation.