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

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

News Watch Home

‘Confusing’ Lichfield council document made campaigners think wind farm plan was lower 

Credit:  by Justine Halifax | Birmingham Mail | www.birminghammail.net 27 July 2012 ~~

Confusing council documents wrongly led villagers to believe controversial wind farm plans had been down-sized, a campaigner has claimed.

Consultation letters to residents, the front page of planning documentation and Lichfield District Council’s website showed an application from German firm Prowind for two wind turbines at Hoggs Hill, Haunton, standing at 75 metres in height.

But after taking a closer look at the application, Lichfield Rural East county councillor Matthew Ellis revealed the turbines are actually 102 metres.

It’s the second application from Prowind, which withdrew plans for four larger turbines at the site ahead of a meeting.

Coun Ellis said: “The new Prowind application has been portrayed in a somewhat confusing way in planning information widely provided.

“On closer examination of the papers, it is clear they are not 75 metres but 102 metres in height – only 23 metres shorter than the original application they withdrew.

“The district council advised this time they changed the designation used from the full height – including the blades – to only the height of the tower – minus the blades.

“The appearance of 125 metres going down this time to 75 metres is wrong.”

Richard King, the council’s strategic director of democratic, development and legal services, said he has moved to correct any confusion.

He said: “We realised the description of the wind turbines in the original letters could lead to confusion.

“To make the full height of the wind turbines clear, we re-advertised in the local press, sent out letters to residents and put up new site notices.”

Source:  by Justine Halifax | Birmingham Mail | www.birminghammail.net 27 July 2012

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