CAMPAIGNERS have vowed to continue to fight to stop three 215 feet high wind turbines being built on farmland near The Reebok Stadium.
Bolton Council has thrown out the plans — but James Thornbarrow, of Chadwicks Farm, in Lostock, who wants to put the turbines on his land, has appealed against the decision.
The Independent Planning Inspectorate will now have the final say.
Council planning bosses rejected the application in June following objections over the size of the turbines and the impact they would have on living conditions of neighbours, including those at Barton Fold Farm, just 250 metres away.
Cllr Martyn Cox said: “The arguments for wind turbines grow ever thinner — notwithstanding the fact they are very inefficient producers of energy, forgetting they degrade the environment of those people who live near them and turning a blind eye from the negative effects on bird life — add to the list the appalling economics involved in the construction and running of the turbines.
“It is an outrageous use of taxpayers’ money that is infuriating residents who, having successfully opposed the erection of wind turbines on Chadwick’s Farm, now find the developers are appealing the democratic will of residents.”
Neighbours have voiced their concerns to the planning inspector — and the council and Mr Thornbarrow have to make final comments by Tuesday. Chairman of the Lostock Residents’ Association, Mike Greenhalgh, said: “I know we have to tackle carbon emissions, but there must be other ways. It seems it doesn’t matter whether land is green belt or not any more.”
Andrea Hobrook, who lives in Chorley Road, added: “This will have a colossal impact on the area, on the quality of life and also the wildlife. We thought this was protected green belt land.”
No one from Chadwicks Farm, in Lostock Lane, was available for comment. But a statement to the inspectorate says Mr Thornbarrow appealed on the grounds that “very special circumstances exist and these are sufficient to outweigh any harm caused by the proposed development within the green belt”.
The statement added: “The proposed development would not, by virtue of its siting, size and design, be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. ”