A plan for wind turbines on the headland overlooking Port Erin bay has been refused by planners because of its impact visually and also potentially on aircraft safety. The proposal (14/00632/B) by Cheeseden Investments Ltd is for the turbines to go on property owned by billionaire property magnate John Whittaker at his home at Ballaman in Rushen parish.
Amendments were made to mitigate their impact on the local red chough population (they were aligned to be in a straight line rather than triangular formation and further away from the hedge) after a site visit held in January.
But the visual impact was the principle concern of objectors, 40 of whom signed a petition saying 18.5m high wind turbines will have ’a significant visual impact on this sensitive coastal location’.
The parish commissioners reiterated points they raised in 2014. Their concerns are still on aesthetic grounds. ’The site is already substantially developed with the main house and outbuildings â?¦ three wind turbines would exacerbate the situation.’
They also raised concerns approval would set a precedent for turbines to go in other parts of the island.
In 2014 the airport instructed NATS (National Air Traffic Services, part of the Civil Aviation Authority) to undertake an assessment of the impact of the proposed wind turbines on the new radar and a report stated that ’the turbines would be visible to the radar which could lead to unwanted radar returns being displayed to the controller’.
A report from Rushen Eco Energy which is part of the application argued: ’Multiple turbines may also be considered possible after a single one has proven the principle. Multiple small turbines are likely to be more acceptable than a single large one at this location above the town.’
But planners had concerns with the proposal. In their refusal, planners said: ’It has not been demonstrated that the installation will not adversely affect the operation of the Isle of Man Airport with a resultant potential significant harm to aircraft safety, contrary to Transport Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan.’
Also, ’the visual impact would be so harmful on the surrounding environment, from Port Erin and its surrounding hinterland and particularly as viewed from the coastal footpath and the higher perspective from the Mull Circle as not to be outweighed by the environmental benefits of the scheme and would therefore be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 and General Policy 3 all of the Strategic Plan and Landscape Proposal 10 of the Area Plan for the South.’