NIMBYs dragging things down as usual
They would probably object to battery installation next to the generators as well
They would probably object to battery installation next to the generators as well
I think a big problem with the UK is how many "layers" there are for such a small country and how each layer has its own processes of appeal. So you have to get past the local residents, past the planners, past the local council, past the county council, and past the government (not to mention the local MP, if they decide to get involved!) before anything happens when, historically, a more top down approach would be taken to get things going quickly.
The NHS, police, fire service, etc. usually raise objections to everything because, obviously, any development makes their jobs more difficult. It serves little purpose besides fodder for the NIMBYs.
I've never seen any of those organisations raising objections - I don't think they are even consulted on the planning applications I have seen? Planning applications for housing developments usually have a huge number of objections from nearby residents but the few organisations consulted seem to usually say that they've reviewed the plans and they look sensible.
Edit: I was looking at a local residential planning application hoping it would pass as it would replace some disused farm buildings that are currently a bit of an eyesore.
I forget which of the various huge documents contains the local organisational consultations, but one of them does. The planning application itself (DC/24/137871) contains 340 documents. News quotes, for example, Greenwich council:
> While the scheme would appear as part of a tall building cluster, it risks harming the open character of Blackheath and the setting of heritage assets. The report requests additional winter views to fully assess visibility and potential harm.
(bit of an odd objection considering you can see Canary Wharf from there and there's a heavy traffic road running through the middle of it...)
I'm not suggesting that, for example, things like NHS concerns that there aren't enough local hospital beds or whatever aren't important, but I guess my view is that they shouldn't really be part of an individual planning decision.
Environment Agency, Natural England, Forestry Commission, Canal and River Trust, Historic England, The Gardens Trust, Health and Safety Executive, Office for Nuclear Regulation, Highways Authority, Parish Councils, Rail Infrastructure Managers, Coal Authority, Sport England, Theatres Trust, Water and sewerage undertakers, Local Planning Authorities, National Parks Authorities, Greater London Authority
Not heard of NHS objections and the police can get stuffed as they have very weird ideas about public order and whose responsibility it is.
Mind you - the responses I did see seemed pretty sensible - water & sewers, drainage, roads etc.
> A solar farm that could have powered “all the households in Witney” has been refused permission by West Oxfordshire District Council. The application, by Ampyr Solar Europe, was for a site at Curbridge, south of Witney. The planning committee focused on the risk of a fire from the proposed battery storage, which they said could contaminate the water supply at a nearby wedding venue.
> Cllr Nick Leverton (Con, Carterton South) said: “Most of you will have seen on the motorway the sight of an electric car burning away… there are too many incidents where it was just a small chance and it becomes a big chance. I’ll remind you of Aberfan in 1966; 144 people died, 116 of them children.” The chair of the meeting, Cllr Michael Brooker (Lab, Witney South), is himself a firefighter and replied “I’ve never been to an EV fire. I’ve been to plenty of ICE vehicle fires.”
> Cllr Andrew Lyon (Lab, Witney Central) said “Water is the stuff of life… what do they do if they wake up in the morning and can’t turn the tap on?” Meanwhile, Cllr Adrian Walsh (Con, Ducklington) said “Month after month as a committee we get bombarded with these solar farm applications, and we don’t appear to have any strategy as to where they should be located.”
> The council’s officers had recommended that the application be approved, but 9 councillors voted against, 1 for, and 3 abstained.
These people are absolute buffoons.
Are these the same people who refused to let Clarkson open a pub because - and I quote - "it would be too popular"?
> A spokesperson for Cotswold District Council said: "We absolutely refute that any of the officers or councillors involved in working with Jeremy to realise his vision for the Coach and Horses had 'absolutely nothing positive to say' or were awkward."
> They added: "There were in fact several positive meetings between Jeremy and his team, and willing officers and councillors at Cotswold District Council.
> "These discussions explored how challenges to renovating this pub could be overcome, as part of the pre-application stage of this project. A planning application was never submitted.
> "Upon deciding not to pursue purchase of the pub, Jeremy sent an email via his planning agent thanking the council for being 'so open and supportive', and for trying to find solutions to some of the hurdles needed to overcome renovation of the pub. He stated that 'the march of time and the feasibility of getting this done within a window that works for television' had been the project's undoing."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3ql38yk11o
Clarkeson is an entertainer whose goal is to tell a compelling story; often one that bears little resemblance to the truth.