WIND POWER: Councillors were spineless

Have your say

It was made clear by Coun Roger Gambba Jones at the recent South Holland District Council meeting when the subject of the planning application for a wind measurement mast at the proposed wind farm in West Pinchbeck was discussed, that if the application was refused and an appeal was raised that there would be the risk of heavy costs involved for the council.

Because of this Coun Gambba Jones “advised” the councillors present that they should allow the application, ie not vote against it.

The application was passed, as we know, by five votes to four with two Pinchbeck parish councillors abstaining.

These local councillors, elected to represent the wishes of their parishioners, showed a spineless action by abdicating their responsibilities.

It was made quite clear by a large majority of local people before this meeting, both in the press and online, that there is great opposition to these proposals for a number of valid reasons.

However, the following week it became clear why they abstained.

Pinchbeck councillor Andrew Bowser announced the healthy financial position of the parish council and among the items listed was the comment that if the proposed wind farm at West Pinchbeck went ahead then the parish council would receive an annual income of £40,000 from the development company!

Once again money comes before the wishes of local people.

It is well documented that wind turbines are grossly inefficient and that if it wasn’t for the massive subsidies they receive, paid for by all energy users (you and me) in the form of a substantial levy on our energy bills, not one would be built.

Also well documented, although usually conveniently not voiced at various meetings, are the side effects of these turbines when they are operating, including their impact on the immediate local flora, fauna and wildlife as well as the visual landscape.

However, help may be at hand as it appears that the application has apparently been found to be seriously flawed due to various impact assessments etc having not been carried out in accordance with agreed national guidelines.

Yet again the local district councillors appear to have allowed a planning proposal to be heard without fully investigating the content and facts of that application.

Do I sense another Red Lion Quarter financial disaster with local taxpayers yet again being landed with heavy legal costs in the form of an appeal hearing if this application is eventually rejected?

Ed Grant