Weybourne, where proposed cabling work for the Dudgeon windfarm would start. Picture: Mike Page

North Norfolk District Council warned it cannot afford controversial Dudgeon windfarm cable appeal

Lucy Clapham Saturday, February 18, 2012
6:30 AM

Campaigners fear for the future of local democracy after a Norfolk council admitted it could be priced out of fighting an appeal that holds the key to a huge offshore windfarm plan.

North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) could face a £100,000 bill to oppose the appeal that has been lodged by Warwick Energy, after the council rejected its plan for miles of underground cables for its Dudgeon windfarm.

But its members have been told that they do not have the money to fund the battle - nor the potential costs it could be liable for if the appeal was lost.

The cash dilemma could force NNDC to bring the plan back before members after they made their decision to turn down the plans last month.

The situation has sparked concerns among campaigners who are fighting Warwick Energy’s bid to build a sub-station for the windfarm on land at Little Dunham, near Dereham.

Paul Gardner, a member of Little Dunham Action Group, thought it would be “totally, totally” wrong if the cost implications forced NNDC to change its mind.

He said planning was a “democratic process, it can’t be governed by a local authority’s finance or lack of finance”.

“If it’s a democratic process and members reject it then the council is duty bound in my view to support that decision, whatever the cost,” he added.

The council’s planning committee went against officers’ recommendations in January when they threw out Warwick’s proposal to lay 28km of cable to power the 168-turbine windfarm off the coast at Cromer.

The green energy firm lodged an appeal, which is set to be heard during a six-day public enquiry in the spring.

But to fight its corner NNDC will have to stump up the estimated six-figure sum to bring in a team of experts as its officers cannot support the reasons for refusal, as they recommended the plans.

The authority could also be hit with the extra bill for costs, which Warwick could seek to claim if NNDC cannot produce evidence to “substantiate” its reasons for refusal.

The financial implications are set to be discussed at the authority’s full council meeting on Wednesday where 2012/13s budget is due to be passed.

Helen Eales, NNDC leader, said if members decide to set aside the money needed for the appeal the financial effects will be felt for years to come.

“It will affect the next year’s (budget) and the following year,” she added. “And £100,000 is equivalent to about 2.5pc on council tax so we’re very concerned of the effects this could have if the council decides we have to put the money aside.”

Cabinet member Trevor Ivory said the council was now in a “rare” position but it had faced a similar situation during the Sheringham Tesco planning saga.

In July 2008 NNDC went up against the supermarket giant at an inquiry after members went against officers’ recommendations and turned down an application. Independent experts represented the council and won, but the chain went on to submit new plans which were passed in 2010.

Warwick’s plans to lay cables from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh have been on the cards since July 2010, but been deferred several times to allow further discussions about the project including the power lines’ precise route and the impact they could have on tourism and agriculture.

When they were finally discussed last month an initial vote to pass them was turned down by a majority of 9:3. A proposal to turn them down - on landscape and agricultural economy grounds - was passed by 7:5.

Mr Ivory said planning members would not have considered any cost issues when making their decision, as their votes must be based on planning grounds.

He added: “The issue for full council (on Wednesday) is not in any way to question whether they made the right or wrong decision. The issue for council is...that the applicant has now lodged an appeal and that appeal is going to be a very expensive thing for us to defend.

“The estimate being given is £100,000 - that isn’t in our budget for next year.”

If full council decides not to set aside the cash the planning committee will have to decide how it wants to defend its position, which Mr Ivory said was the “fundamental” question.

The cable appeal is the second planning battle Warwick is facing as it is currently pushing through proposals in the high court to build a sub-station at Little Dunham, which would provide the turbines’ link to the National Grid, after plans to build the structure were turned down in 2010.

The firm has been given permission to lay 17km of cables in the Breckland district that would link the north Norfolk lines to the sub-station.

28 comments

Thanks for your clarity Ian, it is slowly beginning to sink in that burried cables HV radiation is virtually non existent, the healthiest option for all involved and that the intrusion by ugly pylons is not necessarry at all. Insurance companies should advocate this method everywhere if possible. I agree with your sentiment of councils. Rob, a referendum will cost almost as much as the appeal, why even bother, nobody will ever see where these cables have been laid in five years time.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Monday, February 20, 2012
Why not have a local referendum, get 96% of people to oppose the scheme and then let another council write to the Secretary of State to say its all a wonderful idea and have the scheme approved? After all thats what NNDC did to the people of West Norfolk. It beggars belief that these idiots can say poisons belching into the air are ok, but burying cables out of site is worse. Just how do these people get elected? I despair.

Report this comment

smithrob

Monday, February 20, 2012
Let's get to basics here. The decision to disallow the underground cabling route for Dudgeon was a council one. All council decisions have a degree of idiocy in them, this one is a prime example. If we are to even consider renewables, and I work on the fringes of both offshore wind and tidal power, then the only place for wind is offshore. It must be glaringly obvious, even to a council person that the electricity has to get to the grid somehow. Pylons have even less desirable qualities than onshore wind turbines, so they are out, so the only answer is buried cabling. Perhaps some input from those in the know at these council meetings rather than an opinion from those already there would bring a level of sense to all of this. Mr Bakers concern for the damage to the countryside (temporary and invisible very soon afterwards) is an example of this. A multi million pound offshore investment which has got to the point of needing its onshore cabling being stopped by a whim from a greengrocer! Please! As I said we expect a level of idiocy in all council decisions, I can't think of a better example than this. Anyone care to disagree?????

Report this comment

Ian

Sunday, February 19, 2012
Everyone is concerned with the council, what really is important seems to make no difference, it seems. Cables should all be dug in, everywhere, because it is the safest and best option. For North Norfolk's coalition supporters to dig it in, whilst their Suffol South Norfolk colegues are advocating cheap ugly pylons littering the beautiful Waveney Valley, shows how split this national planning dirve can be. Dig em' in and stop wasting voters money on expensive lawyers and court rigmarole.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Double Bill, Money for charities and local organisations is important, and the decision is just wrong, I just think the Big Society fund is a joke,it has been cobble together by Trevor Ivory, who we are told by NNDC website, is the driving force behind the fund.

Report this comment

Hugh

Saturday, February 18, 2012
the tories have shot themselves in the foot cutting all of their funding so they do not have money to fight things like this . hugh money for charities and local organisations is more important than supporting political decisions like this one

Report this comment

Double Bill

Saturday, February 18, 2012
I think they better start praying!!!!

Report this comment

Ian

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Its OK folks, NNDC can take the £100,000 out of Big Society Fund, which will leave them £350,000 to spend on community project.

Report this comment

Hugh

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Its OK folks, NNDC can take the £100,000 out of Big Society Fund, which will leave them £350,000 to spend on community project.

Report this comment

Hugh

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Whether the NNDC were right or wrong to turn down this application is almost irrelevant – what is important is the admission that the planning system is loaded in favour of the big boys, and that democratically elected councillors cannot make decisions about what they think is right for their area for fear of having to fight an unaffordable appeal . The whole system is anti-democratic. What's worse, the Tory-led government wants to make it even more undemocratic with their so-called 'reforms'.

Report this comment

Richard Kelham

Saturday, February 18, 2012
The real crux of the problem is not the fact that Warwick opted for an UG cable or that the officers suggested to approve it. It is the fact that subsidising this politicians "winner" of another offshore wind renewables white elephant pushes more people into fuel poverty and further destroys the UK economy because the subsidy monies are not spent on really sustainable employment and industry for the benefit of the WHOLE population. The major portion of this ROC money goes straight to the EU companies involved. Every 1MWh of offshore generation is rewarded with 2xROC. This means the cost of 1MWh of electricity is bumped up from about £38 normally to approximately £120MWh. And that is without the Climate Change Levy of £4.50MWh allowance against so-called "green" electricity. Then, on top of that, WE have to pay for the NEW gas power stations needed to shadow, follow and backup this wind power station on a basis of at least 90% wind Installed Capacity, 24-365. If you are rich and it does not morally bother you, you will push these developments because you are probably getting some of the money. But if you are one of the millions of ordinary men in the street, you need to bother to understand how you are being taken for mugs in this big "green", "low carbon economy", "save-the-world" scam.

Report this comment

Norfolk Dumpling

Saturday, February 18, 2012
I look forward to Michael Baker's response to this - after all he led the rebellion. Claiming he turned it down as he supports nuclear technology instead simply is not good enough.

Report this comment

Jono Read

Saturday, February 18, 2012
I can't for the life of me understand why the council are objecting, these cables are going underground and not on pylons. Stop wasting peoples money.

Report this comment

John L Norton

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Are NNDC saying that they have no capital reserves? A decision was taken by the members - it is they that have the final say - it is then for the Officers of that authority to support their members decision. That is a cornerstone of local democracy.

Report this comment

ianharding

Saturday, February 18, 2012
What gets me is that some 45 years ago, a number of 36 inch diameter pipelines were laid across Norfolk over scores of miles. When I lived in Trunch, one passed across a field within 50 meters of my front gate - and you wouldn't have known it was there but for the small sign at the roadside. So why is the council worrying about agriculture and visual amenity?

Report this comment

Deepee

Saturday, February 18, 2012
It is interesting that several of the posters seem to think that the unelected staff should have a greater say than elected council members. Is this their version of democracy?

Report this comment

andy

Saturday, February 18, 2012
I mean't to say go with the recommendations of the officers,not the planning committee

Report this comment

ncfc

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Isn't it about time the "not in our back garden" brigade started to fund the cost of these legal matters.After all they are the ones making the most noise.Most people would rather go with the recommendations of the planning committee.If every decision they make is going to be opposed whats the point in asking them to make a recommendation.

Report this comment

ncfc

Saturday, February 18, 2012
One must wonder if this is how a professional District Council should operate.... why? ...simply because it has now laid down a marker telling those for large proposals for development that the chances of refusal become less the larger the scheme. Simply holding the threat of a large planning appeal will make this highly amateurish lot of local politicians simply cave in. I have no opinion on the wind farm project but I do worry that the Council has been foolish not to maintain sufficient funds for this (very common in Local Govt.) eventuality....and to go public with it is niave in the extreme.

Report this comment

sj.bewilliams

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Yet again NNDC acting against the people instead of for the people as with the Iceland debacle - they obviously know best how to waste our money on pointless appeals against multi-nationals with more barristers and lawyers?

Report this comment

Farquarson-Smythe

Saturday, February 18, 2012
yet again the committee members are going against the professional advice of its officers and costing every honest tax payer more on our council tax bills, how long is this crummy system going to be allowed to carry on - kick out the members and let the officers do the job they are trained and employed to do !

Report this comment

ratboy7545

Saturday, February 18, 2012
The EDP should be asking how much the developer paid in planning application fees for submission of the scheme and what has happened to that money. Some of it should be kept in hand to deal with appeals. Have to agree with all previous comments on this one - NNDC hoist by its own petard.

Report this comment

JCW

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Well, who didn't see this coming. . . .

Report this comment

Callum Ringer

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Tesco has relevance because it has become fashionable among the chattering classes to oppose them as well as anything associated with wind energy. This is 'Fashion Nimbyism'.

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Why bring Tescos up? It's completely different. It is closer linked to the Iceland.

Report this comment

Newsflash

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Maybe all the people who objected to the cable route in the first place could make a contribution towards the costs of the appeal. That would sort out the NIMBYs from the campaigners. If the appeal failed and the council was awarded costs, they could then get their money back. Agree with Double Bill though. Too often elected members make popularist decisions against the advice of their professional staff which does leave them in a weak position at appeal.

Report this comment

copsychus

Saturday, February 18, 2012
Campaigner, spelt N-I-M-B-Y.

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Saturday, February 18, 2012
this is laughable and a joke ! if this decision is not the wrong one why does trevor ivory want to bring it back to planning ? they are obviously aware they will lose on appeal which means the merits for their decision were weak . this has nothing to do with local democracy it is about a planning committee stuck in the past and leaving our council vulnerable for such appeals !

Report this comment

Double Bill

Saturday, February 18, 2012

More news

Click here to read more of our digital publications