The appellant explained that the turbine would be sited 40 degs off the runway alignment and planes approaching the airport flew at high altitudes over his property. A doctorate in physics and electronics enabled him to conclude that air traffic control radar would not be affected by the turbine.
The inspector preferred the technical information submitted by NATS. This suggested that air traffic controllers would see an X on their screens which would be indistinguishable from an aircraft. This unexpected target could lead to planes receiving instructions to take avoiding action at a busy and critical location, he found. The scheme was totally unacceptable, he held.
He decided that the appellant had pursued the appeal in an unreasonable manner. The evidence failed to demonstrate that the scheme would not affect safe operation of the airport's radar system, he concluded. The appellant had also refused to reduce or reposition the turbine to overcome the problem and the council had notified him that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
DCS Number 100-069-362
Inspector Ken Barton; Hearing.