The Nuon planning application was dismissed in February 2010 by the Planning Inspectorate following the Public Inquiry at Bedford.

Subsequent to that decision, on 31st March 2010 Nuon mounted a legal challenge to the Inspector's decision by submitting a Claim against the Secretary of State.

The supporting documents are too large to email and consist mainly of the evidence given at the Public Inquiry. The Claim rests on the legality of the Inspectors decision on 3 grounds:

• Noise;
• Amenity of nearby residents ;
• Definition of financial involvement.

If the Secretary of State considered the Claim to be valid then the decision of the Inspector would be quashed and the process would go back to another Inquiry with a new Inspector.

The Secretary of State however has decided that the claim should be defended. That is the Secretary of State does not agree with the Nuon Claim and is prepared to argue the same in the Administrative Court (in the Strand).

As a result we now await notice of when the Court hearing will be, which could be some months away.

At the hearing the judge will take evidence from Nuon and the Secretary of State, as represented by the Treasury Solicitor. Bedford Borough Council is named as a co-defendant but it is unclear at this stage whether they will take any part in the proceedings.

The decision of the Court will result in either the Inspector's decision being quashed or it being upheld. If it is quashed then the Planning Application Appeal will have to be re-heard before a new Inspector. It is unclear at this stage what the form and content of any such new Inquiry will be. It may for instance be limited to elements of the objection issues rather than considering the whole matter again.

We are taking legal advice at present to determine the most appropriate way forward in pursuing our case against the windfarm and whether in practice we involve ourselves in the forthcoming Court hearing. Given it is an entirely legal matter, this is not an opportunity to revisit the merits of the planning case which were presented at the Inquiry and it may be that we do not take part.

If eventually it comes back to be re-determined under a new Inspector at another Planning Inquiry, we will be there.

Local residents have now been fighting against the proposals for a wind factory inappropriately sited at Podington for 5 years.

NUON originally proposed a scheme with 15 turbines, later reduced to 9 turbines.

The subsequent 9-turbine scheme was recommended for refusal by the officers and turned down by Bedford Borough Council at a Planning meeting attended by large numbers of objectors. CLOWD submitted substantial and detailed objections and represented 3rd party objectors at the meeting.

NUON appealed, and then withdrew their appeal.

A 3-turbine scheme was submitted, but before Bedford Borough Council had made a final decision NUON appealed for “Non Determination”.

At a separate Planning meeting renewal of consent for the 70m anemometer mast (which had been up for 4 years) was refused after direct objection by CLOWD.

Subsequently the Bedford Planning Officers recommended refusal of the 3-turbine scheme and the Planning Committee rejected the application resoundingly. Nonetheless the appeal went ahead.

The Public Inquiry, arising because of the Appeal by Nuon , took place over 4 days from the 12th January 2010 and closed on the 21st January 2010. Representations were made by Nuon, Bedford Borough Council, CLOWD, Podington Parish Council, Sharnbrook Parish Council, and other interested parties including some who will benefit financially if the scheme proceeds. CLOWD were pleased to be able to comment on the huge opposition to the plans on BBC Look East. At the close of the Inquiry the only members of the public present were opposed to the application.

At the Inquiry CLOWD were represented by Counsel, Tina Douglass, and a planning expert witness Ian Kelly. In addition to the body of objections submitted by CLOWD in the pre-appeal process, evidence was given at the Inquiry covering the:

• negative impact on the character of the landscape;
• amenity of those using the extensive rights of way network;
• assessment of noise and its implications;
• potential impact on health, heritage, and safety;
• predicted environmental contribution.

Bedford Borough Council were represented by Counsel and called expert witnesses on negative Landscape and Visual impacts and on Noise and its assessment.

The dismissal is very welcome but a word of caution. The Applicants are able to appeal the decision, to the High Court. They have 6 weeks from the 23rd February 2010 to do this.

CLOWD would like to thank its many, many supporters for their unstinting help, technical input, considered opposition and generous donations.

Over a matter of only 4 months tens of thousands of pounds were given by hundreds of people to help fight the insensitive and intrusive proposals from this multi-million pound corporate. Without these donations we would have been unable to pay for the legal representation that is necessary to counter and question the expert witnesses and legal arguments put up by Nuon in its case for increasing profits for its Dutch shareholders in someone else’s green and pleasant land. Democracy for the people who have to suffer the consequences of those wanting to profit from your discomfort does not come cheap.

The voice of the thousands who will be affected by these 125m turbines though has been heard. The elected representatives of over 100,000 local residents have listened, weighed the pros and cons and opposed the scheme. These include: members of ten Parish Councils, the Bedford Borough Councillors, Bedford Borough Planning Officers, and the Member of Parliament. All opposed the development.

At open meetings called by Parish Councils in north Beds and Northants to gauge the opinion of the residents and attended by 100’s the results were astoundingly consistent and overwhelmingly vocally opposed. Would you want over 4.5 acres of waving industrial limbs noisily towering over the footpaths and fields that you enjoy? There is a whole industry out there whose profits, fees and livelihoods depend upon imposing their business plans upon a public who suffer the consequences.

And on the matter of consequences, one young man from Oxford (some distance from the proposed turbines) spoke in favour of the application although ignored the planning issues. He chose instead to make an emotional appeal including a statement that he was not sure he could be so selfish as to bring children into this (selfish) world. Many in the audience agreed this would be a quicker way of reducing global warming than building a wind turbines at Airfield Farm.

In July 2009 Nuon Renewables, part of global energy giant NV Nuon, have lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate in relation to failure of the Bedford Borough Council to determine the application on the Airfield Farm wind farm.

Had the decision been made within the statutory time, Bedford Borough Council would have refused planning permission. At a meeting on Monday 24th August 2009 the recommendation to refuse the application made in the Planning Officer's Report was endorsed by the Planning Committee. The vote was 7 against, one in support and one abstention.

In response to Nuon's appeal, the Planning Inspectorate, on November 16th 2009, appointed Inspector Trevor Cookson to hold a public inquiry, for four days from 12th January to 15th January 2010 at The Harpur Suite in Bedford.