Transport Canada has ordered the removal of eight wind turbines

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
in close proximity to the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport because of height restrictions.


In an unprecedented move in Ontario, Transport Canada has ordered the removal of eight wind turbines in close proximity to the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport because of height restrictions.

However, the company that owns the turbines Transport Canada wants dismantled - GDF Suez Canada - claims it hasn't been contacted by the federal agency.

David Timm, vice-president of GDF Suez Canada, told The Chatham Daily News late Friday afternoon: "We can't comment or provide any information, because . . . we haven't spoken with Transport Canada at all this week."

When asked if the company has turbines near the airport, Timm reiterated: "I don't know whose turbines are involved, because we have not been contacted."

Chatham-Kent Essex MP Dave Van Kesteren confirmed the action Friday morning.

A Transport Canada spokesperson told The Daily News eight wind turbines violate height limits at the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport, which are subject to airport zoning regulations.

"Transport Canada is enforcing safety rules and requires the removal of the turbines,'' said Tina Morris.

She emphasized the turbine company was advised of height restrictions on two occasions prior to turbine construction.


more cost to the tax payers:


Turbines ordered to come down | Local | News | Chatham Daily News
 

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
In an unprecedented move in Ontario, Transport Canada has ordered the removal of eight wind turbines in close proximity to the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport because of height restrictions.

Isn't this something that should have been looked at, when the Building Permit was issued?? Just sayin.

Maybe the land owner can come back on the county to sue??
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Layer upon layer of government involved in the permits, planning, etc....and it still got all effed up. Anyone surprised? Because I'm not.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
typical, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,582
2,318
113
Toronto, ON
Isn't this something that should have been looked at, when the Building Permit was issued?? Just sayin.

Maybe the land owner can come back on the county to sue??

The claim was they were notified twice before they were built. If that is true, it is on the turbine owner to move.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
The claim was they were notified twice before they were built. If that is true, it is on the turbine owner to move.

Seems to me that being simply notified for something, whether it's once, twice or three times, that's this much of a potential safety hazard is simply insufficient. If a permit is required to build one of these things, then why not require an inspection to sign off on the final build or mid-construction? If someone does a home renovation with a permit, an inspector needs to sign off on it, don't they?
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,843
92
48
typical, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing
In this case it's the lefty not knowing what the lefty is doing.

What does David Skuzuki have to say about it?