[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Wind farm battle brews 

Wind campaigners in Durham are gearing up for another planning battle despite claims that the county has already met its wind targets.

Cornwall Light and Power is planning to submit a application to build four turbines on land at South Sharpley Farm near Seaham, a part of Durham which residents say is already overdeveloped.

The four turbines would join two others at High Sharpley, just a few hundred yards away.

Across Easington a growing group of concerned residents are calling on developers to think again.

Stop Turbines Organised Protest (STOP) say the turbines will be an unneeded addition to the landscape.

Spokeswoman for the group Anne Brough said the county has exceeded its wind targets and is becoming a dumping ground for developers.

“No one in the village wants these turbines going up, but we fear our views will not be listened to.”

The group has been shown documents by Durham County Council which reveal that under regional planning rules, the county is expected to produce 82 megawatts, with each MW responsible for some 8,760 hours worth of energy each year.

And by 2020 Durham has an aspirational target of around 160 MW.

But when all the turbines either built or granted planning permission in Durham are added together, the total energy already available comes to 132.22 MW.

Now STOP have called for recognition that Durham has already played its part.

Rick Long, from the council’s planning policy team, said meeting the targets was an achievement to celebrate.

Bob Morgan of Cornwall Light and Power, said: “We have made a number of alterations to our proposals based on feedback received from the local community in April last year.”

By Adrian Pearson

The Journal

14 March 2008

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)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

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


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