LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates
RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

News Watch Home

Expert witness clash 

A council has clashed with a landscape expert over the suitability of an area of Northumberland countryside for a wind farm.

The inquiry being held into a proposed 18-turbine development at South Charlton, near Alnwick, had previously heard how the farm would give the area a “sculptural quality”.

But yesterday that view was challenged by Alnwick District Council, which opposes the Middlemoor development.

Paul Tucker, acting on behalf of the council, clashed with nPower witness, landscape consultant Jeffrey Stevenson, over both the size and location of the development.

He said: “In terms of what is proposed, there is no doubt that they are at the top end of the scale.

“The type of wind turbine being investigated falls into the large category, do you agree?”

Mr Stevenson responded: “They are half-way between the medium figure and the large figure. If you wish to call them large, you may as well say medium to large.”

The dispute arose as the two sides discussed how the 125-metre turbines had been categorised and whether a large-scale development would be appropriate for the area.

The definition of a small wind turbine is one up to 80 metres in height, a medium turbine is between 80 and 110 metres and a large turbine between 110 metres and 140 metres.

The pair also crossed swords over the visual impact of the site, with Mr Tucker challenging the witness on why no graphical evidence had been produced showing what the turbines would look like from two kilometres from the site when images from further away had been provided.

Mr Stevenson had previously said that the site would have no visual impact from landmarks such as Bamburgh Castle and the Cheviots.

Mr Tucker said: “Is there a reason why you don’t present a montage from a view of less than two kilometres? Please don’t feel that you need to be defensive.”

Mr Stevenson replied that he had not been defensive and had simply attempted to be clear.

He added that the montages had not been provided because he didn’t consider it necessary.

Earlier in the day Mr Stevenson told the inquiry that the visual impact of the wind farm had been “overestimated”.

By Ben Guy

The Journal

16 November 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 educational 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 via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

Get the Facts
CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky