So what’s the one objection that is not dishonest? It is: “I don’t like the look of them.” As I have reported before, I accept that argument is a valid one in some locations, though I’d note the planning system already turns down plenty of wind farm applications and that more community ownership could resolve the stand-off. But accepting the argument that an “ugly” wind farm should not be built also requires accepting the fact that it will raise energy bills.
Here here. Days, sometimes weeks of evidence is spend on reargusing issues of national energy policy which are irrelevant and out of the scope of the inspector’s powers. The arguments are confusing becaus the political discourse on this is confusing. But published policy has not changed and is clear.
If these were national infrastructure projects inspectors would be tough, outside of the scope of the inquiry. So why not be similarly tough at T&CP Section 68 appeals? Why not simply rule out of order all and every piece of evidence relating to energy policy, subsidies and energy prices. All that is relevant in planning terms terms relating to output is carbon savings.
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions 
It’s a fair point but I find them elegant and serene constructions – don’t really get the ugly argument. Also if they’re ugly what are power line pylons?
Yep. Some people try to preserve old windmills, even if they don’t work (there’s one near Ivinghoe just below the Chiltern escarpment). A neighbour of mine in Canada once erected an old windmill in his front yard, even though it didn’t work, just because it looked neat. I think it’s new windmills that people don’t like the look of. And I think it’s because they are new.