A West Cumbrian factory’s bid to be powered by a wind turbine has been rejected.
New Balance, based at Flimby, near Maryport, wanted to erect a 150ft turbine on its land, which would provide power for the factory and a second plant.
But members of Cumberland Council’s planning committee turned it down, despite it being recommended for approval by the authority’s officers.
Neighbours of the factory had concerns about the new turbine.
A spokesman for local residents said local residents had raised objections and he felt they had not been investigated by planners, letters of support received by the council were not from the local community and there were safety concerns for employees at the factory.
But a spokesman for the applicant’s agent said the factory had a long association with the local area with more than 300 employees on site.
He said there were already solar panels at the site, but installing more was not feasible, and the proposed development would have a limited impact on the surrounding area.
In a five kilometre area around the factory, there are 28 existing wind turbines – 10 of which are within a kilometre of New Balance.
Councillor Jimmy Grisdale (Seaton, Labour) said there were residential properties closer to the site than the 800m limit outlined in the Allerdale Local Plan 2014.
He said that, just because there were already turbines in the area, it did not automatically justify another one and he questioned why there could not be more solar panels.
Councillor Roger Dobson (Corby and Hayton, Lib Dems) asked what the likely noise impact would be on nearby residential properties and he was informed it would be below the current background noise level.
Councillor Robert Betton (Botcherby, Independent Group) said there had been no assessment on the effect the development would have on local wildlife, especially bats, and the area was overdeveloped with turbines.
The council planning officer said she was not aware of any recorded bat fatalities in the area. She added: “A working factory is going to be an unusual place for bats to roost.”
Cllr Grisdale said there was a danger of the turbine toppling over and he moved that they reject the application quoting various planning policies to support going against the officer’s recommendation to approve the plan. He said: “This will affect the local community.”
Councillor Andrew Semple (Cockermouth South, Labour) said: “I completely agree with what Cllr Grisdale has said. Our job is to protect residents.”
He said controversial applications, such as the one they were considering, caused a great deal of anxiety for local residents.
Councillor Linda Jones-Bulman (Cleator Moor East and Frizington, Labour) said, as well as the danger of toppling, it had been known for turbine blades to become detached.
Councillors added that the turbine would have the potential to have an impact on seven nearby properties on St Helen’s Lane – but not enough to be deemed oppressive, so the proposal was considered acceptable.
It added that shadow flicker could be an issue for nine homes near the turbine and while there was no accepted guidance in the UK as to what was considered acceptable levels, in Germany, Belgium and Northern Ireland it is 30 hours a year at a maximum of 30 minutes a day.
The company’s assessment showed that eight homes were predicted to experience more than 30 hours a year of shadow flicker if the turbine went ahead and it has put forward a shutdown scheme to eliminate that.
The turbine’s blades would stop rotating for defined period specified within the shutdown scheme.
Seaton Parish Council has objected to the plan because it fears the turbine, at the south west of the New Balance site, would be obtrusive and questioned the impact of noise and flicker.
A report to councillors added: “It also questions the need for a turbine when the organisation already benefits from energy generated by the adjoining solar farm.”
The application received 20 letters of support and 21 letters of objection.
When the matter was put to a vote, seven committee members rejected the application with just one in favour of granting planning permission.
