[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Planners divided over village proposal  

The debate over wind turbines divided councillors as they discussed plans for three wind farms in the East Riding.

Members of East Riding Council’s planning committee yesterday voted unanimously to throw out plans for a seven-turbine wind farm near Tunstall and for 11 turbines at Sunderland Farm near Roos.

However, the committee was split over proposals for the three-turbine Tedder Hill facility at Pilmar Lane, Roos.

After hearing speeches from representatives of energy company E.on, who submitted the application, and from local objectors, including South Holderness Opposes Wind Turbines the debate began.

Phillip Parker, the council’s head of planning and development control, started by reminding members about the Government’s target for energy companies to obtain 10 per cent of their supply from renewable sources by 2010.

“The East Riding has already made a good contribution to renewable energy, not least with wind farms elsewhere within the area,” he said.

“But the reality is these targets are going to be ratcheted up.

“The Government is changing the legislation to make it much easier for wind farm companies to obtain planning permission for sites.”

Mr Parker warned members that taking a blanket stance against wind farm applications could lead to the council facing a public inquiry.

Following his comments, Councillor Chuck Hunter, in the chair, asked members to defer the application, subject to an in-depth report on the impact the wind-farm would have.

But Councillor John Bird contested the motion, speaking in support of the development.

He said: “I’m a supporter of renewable sources of energy and for that I make no apology.

“I voted against the other schemes because they would have been in totally the wrong location.

“However, I think this particular development is acceptable.”

Cllr Bird proposed the committee should vote in favour of the plan, but members voted nine-four against this proposal.

The committee finally voted 10-three in favour of bringing the application back to the committee following the report on the impact of the wind farm.


19 October 2007

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.