Campaigners win court victory in fight to preserve view from Dylan Thomas Boathouse

entry picture

A campaign backed by the granddaughter of Dylan Thomas, Hannah Ellis, has won a high court victory to preserve the view from the poet’s famous Boathouse home in Laugharne – the seaside town where Thomas based his radio play Under Milk Wood.

A report in the Guardian says that Carmarthenshire county council had approved plans for a 147ft wind turbine opposite the early 19th century boathouse, where Thomas worked in the Writing Shed looking across the Taf estuary. ‘Poem on his Birthday’ is said to have been inspired by the wildlife of the area: “In his house on stilts high among beaks / And palavers of birds / … Under and round him go / Flounders, gulls, on their cold, dying trails”.

A judicial review in Cardiff heard that councillors had not visited the Boathouse before giving the project the green light. The council claimed that the turbine, which was to be sited just over a mile away from the Writing Shed, would be painted “off-white” to blend in with the sky.

But the judge, Andrew Gilbart QC, said it was impossible to suggest it would not cause a significant impact on the landscape, and found in favour of the campaigners. The council can appeal and is considering whether it will.

National Trust Wales had said the plans “would destroy an iconic view that had survived untouched for generations”. Thomas’s granddaughter had said of the plans: “To imagine a wind turbine there is very upsetting. From a personal point of view I scattered mum’s ashes at the Boathouse. We put a bench there, we sit there and it’s my peaceful time.” The house is now a tearoom and art gallery attracting thousands of visitors every year. More details 

 

◄ Deadline nears for Poets and Players £400 competition

Hollie McNish: 'My mum worked night shift as a nurse and had two kids. This is nothing!' ►

Comments

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Sun 22nd Feb 2015 11:24

The fact that the site of this proposed turbine
had not been visited by those councillors who
gave approval suggests a knee-jerk response to
wider political support for these huge environmentally intrusive edifices. What are
they paid for, if not to investigate properly
before making such potentially damaging decisions
and to be able to justify that inaction when
rightly challenged?

If you wish to post a comment you must login.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Find out more Hide this message