Windfarm wars hit Woodborough

A wind turbine in Germany, similar to that proposed for Woodborough (pic: Vytautas Palubeckas / Fotopedia)

A CONTROVERSIAL plan to erect a 67m wind turbine near Woodborough has passed a planning hurdle, with the approval of the proposal this evening by Woodborough Parish Council. After empassioned statements from both councillors and members of the public, the councillors voted 4:3 in favour of the development, with one two abstentions.

The meeting, at Woodborough Village Hall, attracted over 40 members of the public. Parish council chairman Richard Whincup opened the meeting at 7pm, and immediately adjourned it so members of the public could make statements – these not being allowed in council meetings. Eight did so, divided evenly between those for and against the proposal.

Among the objections raised to the turbine were its visual impact in an area of designated Green Belt, doubts over whether onshore wind turbines like this are an effective source of ‘green’ power, noise, and the distracting effect of the turbine on drivers.

Those speaking in favour cited the need for low-carbon sources of energy and claimed that protestors were wrong about noise levels and were indulging in nimbyism (not-in-my-backyard).

The applicant, John Charles-Jones of Woodborough Park Farm, addressed the meeting to explain what he saw as the benefits of the development. He said the turbine was “the most important project of my career, personally and professionally”, and confirmed that the permission being sought was to replace a previously-granted planning approval for two smaller 18m turbines on the site. The larger turbine would generate 865,000kW [correction: 330kW] of power, equivalent to 28% of the consumption of the village of Woodborough, he said.

In an unusual twist to proceedings, as Cllr Whincup attempted to reconvene the parish council meeting he was interupted by a police officer who had been in attendance. The officer reported that complaints had been received about signs put up around the village, reminded those present that fly-posting was illegal, and instructed that they must come down “tonight”. He also singled out  a Land Rover carrying anti-wind turbine signs and said that this must be moved from its position near the Nag’s Head.

Having finally restarted the meeting, the parish council ran through its normal agenda. A small number of planning issues were resolved before the wind turbine was discussed, at which point the applicant John Charles-Jones, who is a member of the parish council, declared his interest and left the hall. Councillors with a view on the issue repeated some of the issues raised by the public, although the chairman reminded the body that the council was not obliged to take public opinion into account.

In the vote, four voted in favour of the development, three against, and one two abstained. The next stage of the process is for the planning application to go forward to Gedling Borough Council.

35 comments for “Windfarm wars hit Woodborough

  1. Joyce Andrews
    Tuesday 7 June 2011 at 7:21 am

    I strongly object to proposed wind turbine to be sighted at Park Farm Woodborough , destroying one of the most perfect views in the

  2. Jenny Crowther
    Tuesday 7 June 2011 at 2:36 pm

    I too strongly oppose the proposed wind turbine. Green belt is there to protect and enhance the countryside & historic environment. It cannot be built on unless there are exceptional circumstances, one of which is for agricultural use. A 68m turbine which powers 185 homes CANNOT be predominantly agricultural & therefore should NOT be allowed to be built on green belt. It is industrialising a green belt area and sets a precedent for others to follow suit & erect more wind turbines, eventually ruining the whole of the English countryside. I am not against wind turbines, but there are far more suitable places than a conservation village for one to be located.

  3. Simon Crowther
    Tuesday 7 June 2011 at 2:48 pm

    As the UK representative on Water and Environmental management, i am all for Renewable energy. Despite this i am totally against destroying Green Belt land, and a conservation area. It will also damage wildlife so not environmentally friendly!

    The wind turbine is also not for agriculutral use as it will generate at least 200k a year and power 28% of Woodborough. It is therefore not for agricultural use and against the plannning rules for Green Belt. The turbine should not be allowed!

  4. Cian Desmond
    Wednesday 8 June 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Fantastic! Green energy is the perfect addition to any green belt and it will leave all the locals in no doubt that they are doing their bit for the environment. However, I would question why such a small turbine is being proposed. An E70 would provide substantially more energy and its sight would still be dwarfed by the spectacular landscape.

  5. mark warrener
    Wednesday 8 June 2011 at 5:12 pm

    One of the 5 turbines at the Lindhurst windfarm (mansfield)was built on designated greenbelt land. There is no rule against any kind of development on greenbelt land, it’s just harder to convince planners to allow it. The foundations for this small turbine would not exceed 50sq meters and most of that would be back filled with 1m of soil depth. 50sq m is 2 hundredths of a hectare, not a great proportion of Mr Charles-Jones farm. All planning applications are considered on their own merit, allowing one turbine to be built would not set any kind of precedent and certainly would not allow industrialisation of the green belt.
    As to damaging wildlife, I can only report that I regularly see buzzards, kestrels and woodpigeons flying in very close proximity to the turbines at Lindhurst. Birds do not take the slightest bit of notice and I have yet to discover a casualty. My sheep are similarly disinterested and they and horses graze right underneath them.
    This turbine is more like the Hockerton one rather than the larger Lindhurst machines and would rotate faster but birds have keen eyesight and are not stupid.

  6. barrie hyde
    Thursday 9 June 2011 at 1:39 pm

    I am strongly opposed to the proposal to the installation of a wind turbine at park farm .This will dominate the skyline and be a visible eyesore from both Woodborough and Calverton . Wind turbines have been shown to be both inefficient and uneconmic producers of electricy and are only sustained by government subsidy which is recoverd from everyones electricity bills . Generally the installation of these turbines is not motivated from environmental concerns but from greed

  7. Jill Horton
    Friday 10 June 2011 at 7:48 pm

    I do hope the wind turbine is nothing like the ones in Mansfield! They are visible from everywhere. At least they are in an industrial area and not a conservation village! There is no way that the turbines should be allowed on greenbelt land!

    They are so inefficient and only of benefit to the land owner as they make hundreds of thousands whilst everybody else suffers!

  8. James Benson
    Saturday 11 June 2011 at 2:10 pm

    The land owner’s wallet will bulge whilst everybody else suffers, anyone who has the audacity to apply/ install these on their land is very selfish!

  9. Jane Coleman
    Sunday 12 June 2011 at 8:04 pm

    I am opposed to the wind turbine in this green belt site, adjacent to the conservation areas of Woodborough and Calverton.

    I recognise the need for sustainable energy, to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels. However I feel that the planning system needs to balance the need for sustainable energy with the need to preserve and protect the countryside, particularly in the green belt.

    In other words I feel that if wind turbines are a way forward (and this is debatable in itself, although not relevant to the planning debate), then first they should be sited in industrial or off shore sites where the above concerns are less of an issue. Planning law relating to green belt areas and conservation areas is intended to prevent industrial structures in these important sites, I hope the Gedling borough council and National Government policies highlighted on are not disregarded when planning decisions are made.

  10. Michael Ford
    Thursday 16 June 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Firstly, I am in favour of the turbine and as for talk of it dominating the skyline – has no one taken a look at the Dorket Head telecommunications mast recently!? This towers above the valley and will continue to do so above any turbine, its aethetic merit leaves little to be desired too!

    Also, suggestions off suffering and greed are frankly pathetic! It is vitriolic comments like this that worringly seem to be leading the debate on this application away from actual facts and the proposal itself!

  11. Alison Bowden
    Thursday 16 June 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Whilst the telecommunications mast might be unsightly it does not create flicker, noise from rotating blades or a distraction for drivers. Wind turbines might have a part to play in renewable energy(I am far from convinced of this) but not in Green Belt.

  12. Sara Covington
    Thursday 16 June 2011 at 7:42 pm

    I spent a holiday in Denmark. There are literally hundreds of wind turbines there. I did not notice any great noise from our holiday hut, and I don’t understand what is meant by ‘flicker’, as I never experienced it. I don’t find turbines offensive personally.

    As for the green belt, the plans for 104 houses on Dark Lane from our friends Langridge Homes have been approved on OUR green belt. It means nothing.

    John and Cathy Charles-Jones have made great improvements to the farm for wildlife since they moved here. I don’t believe wildlife will be adversely affected by the turbine. It would be out of the flying range of almost all the bats we have in our area – they prefer to fly along wildlife corridors such as hedgerows.

    I am glad the police officer corrected the poster-placing car-park clogging member of the public at the council meeting. Thank you officer!

  13. Friday 17 June 2011 at 9:16 am

    Amongst all the emotion, let’s get some hard facts.

    On the best sites in the UK, large turbines average 24% efficiency. Yes, that’s correct. Less than a quarter of the rated output. On more typical good, windy sites, the best achieved is 20%.
    The proposed turbine will produce an average of 173kW, perhaps less. It most categorically will not produce its rated maximum of 865kW.

    173kW is sufficient to power between 17 and 34 homes, depending upon how one chooses to budget for power use. That is just one avenue of Woodborough, not one third of it.

    The applicant would be well advised to calculate the income generated from feed-in tariff on the basis of the realistic (perhaps optimistic) 20% figure, not the rated maximum. Manufacturers and wind proponents pretend that the turbines will operate at the rated power. They will not, and to claim this is exaggerating by at least 500% (five times).

    Our government is reducing tariff rates progressively. The rate paid for photovoltaic (solar panel) installations over 50kW has just been reduced by 1/3, and installations over 250kW by 3/4. The nascent solar industry is now in deep trouble as a consequence. Will the same cuts happen for wind turbines? That remains to be seen, but such cuts would probably make the proposed turbine into a financial disaster.

    Jonathan Berber.
    BSc Hons (1st Class) Electrical and Electronic Engineering.

  14. Ruth Howard
    Friday 17 June 2011 at 1:09 pm

    I can’t see what the problem is. Personally I don’t find wind turbines ugly, I think they look quite futuristic and not industrial at all. As a power source they win hands-down over big ugly chimneys belching noxious chemicals into the atmosphere – and surely such facilities are considerably more damaging to the environment than a wind turbine. I agree that the Woodborough landscape is beautiful but one turbine isn’t going to wreck it. And as for distracting drivers – the more common turbine become, the less distracting they will be because we’ll all be used to seeing them, like we are with pylons. If everyone everywhere opposes renewable energy when it become available then what will that leave us with when the coal runs out? Nuclear??

  15. robert smith
    Friday 17 June 2011 at 2:16 pm

    The applicant admits that the threat to the rare noctule bats is medium.They roost in trees and feed from mosquitos over water.The nearest available water source is the lake on the farm and guess what is in between the roosting site and the feeding ground,yes you guessed correctly, the bat killing machine. Wind turbines kill only 10% of the bats by hitting them , the other 90% are killed by the negative pressure of the blades blowing up their lungs. Nice eh? Oh yes , there are only 45,000 breeding pairs of these bats left in England due to farming methods killing them !!

  16. Henry Wicker
    Friday 17 June 2011 at 9:49 pm

    ^ Sara Covington…

    Denmark have stopped installing the turbines because they are inefficient.

    The application however does not matter whether anybody likes turbines or not. It is planning policy. The application is no different from applying for a 30 storey building on greenbelt land!!!

  17. Friday 17 June 2011 at 10:03 pm

    An ill wind blows for Denmark’s green energy revolution – Daily Telegraph Sept 2010

    Denmark has long been a role model for green activists, but now it has become one of the first countries to turn against the turbines.

    To green campaigners, it is windfarm heaven, generating a claimed fifth of its power from wind and praised by British ministers as the model to follow. But amid a growing public backlash, Denmark, the world’s most windfarm-intensive country, is turning against the turbines.

  18. mark warrener
    Saturday 18 June 2011 at 7:22 pm

    J.Barber. Congratulations on your first class honours degree,I guess the honours bit didn’t include maths ?
    This application is for a 330kw turbine… that’s output per hour. So given your 24% load factor, some like to call it efficiency, that’s averaging 79kw per hour, times 24 equals 1900kw per day and 694000kw per year. The average electricity comsupmtion per UK household is 4700kw per year. Divide the former by the later and this turbine could meet the electrical needs of 148 average properties.
    I accept that electricity is not the only form of energy comsumed by a household but still cant understand how you arrive at your figures of 173 kw or 17-34 homes. Please explain in simple terms as I don’t have the benefit of a university education.
    This argument is, of course , totally irrelevant to the planning committee.
    Denmark has led the world in wind energy and reached the 20 odd percent threshold that the UK government aspires to for the maximum contribution from wind generated electricity. The grid network cannot cope with fluctuations in output that could arise when the wind stopped blowing

  19. Sunday 19 June 2011 at 10:09 am

    The news report says “The larger turbine would generate 865,000kW of power, equivalent to 28% of the consumption of the village of Woodborough.” That was the source of my power estimate. Of course Mark is right, the proposal is for a 330kW max rated turbine. The news report is incorrect. There is widespread confusion between power and energy. Power is kilowatts kW, Energy is kilowatt-hours kWh (or the equivalent in joules). So one kW of power for one hour is 1 kilowatt-hour of energy. My original calculation (which incorrectly used a max power capacity of 856kW) was as follows:
    865 x 20% = 173kW
    That would be 173kW average power available. If one house is using 5kW then that’s 34 houses to take the entire turbine’s average output. The maximum power budget per house is usually quoted as 10kW, hence just 17 homes if they are all using their estimated maximum (an unlikely scenario).

    Let’s take a fresh look at the calculations using the correct 330kW figure for max rated capacity and use Mark’s method for average annual household power consumption. A 330kW rated turbine on a good windy site will average 66kW. (There’s no point estimating at 24%, Woodborough is not located in the North Sea!).
    330 x 20% = 66kW.
    66 kW power over a year (8760 hours) is 578160kWh of annual energy.
    66 x 8760 = 578160kWh
    Annual UK household electricity consumption is 4800kWh for a typical 3 bedroom house. So the proposed turbine could power the equivalent of 120 houses, pretty close to Mark’s estimate. The difference arises from using a more realistic 20% for the proposed site, and higher average house consumption of 4800kWh.
    578160 / 4800 = 120.45.

    Note that the news item reports that the turbine would produce annual energy of 865,000kWh, this being a 50% exaggeration on a more realistic annual energy calculation of 578,000kWh.

    So my initial estimate of 34 houses was wrong. It’s probably more like 120 houses. So that’s a handy-sized little corner of Woodborough rather than one avenue. (It’s still not 28% as reported though!)
    There’s a wonderful thing about science. In the light of new information, a good scientist is always ready to take a fresh look at things and admit that they got it wrong. Climate change proponents keep on insisting that “the science is settled.” This violates a fundamental principle of science – it is never settled. Of course some science is so well-supported by empirical (observational) data that it is pretty close to being settled but Earth’s climate is so incredibly complex that climate science is a long, long way from being ‘settled’.

    Anyway, let’s not allow this to become a climate debate. As others have pointed out, we’re discussing a planning application here.

  20. Daryl Smiley
    Monday 27 June 2011 at 8:34 am


    I simply cannot understand what all the fuss is about!!! all you guys and gals need to grow a pair and see the bigger picture.
    As the ozone layer weakens, we need to do all we can to try and preserve our world, i see these wind turbines as the way forward along with solar energy.
    BOO HOO HOO if it ruins what i consider at average view at best.
    All of you need to get off that high rose tinted horse of yours and see the bigger picture.

    P.S If i get anyone posting fliers through my door, i will be informing the relevant authorites.



  21. Bertie Buge
    Monday 27 June 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Bertie here,

    One must say that one feels that these ‘turbines’ are a brilliant idea!
    Who cares about an spooky landscape here? A dead animal there when we can have a renewable energy source,

    Peace and love


  22. John Macdonald
    Tuesday 28 June 2011 at 9:40 am

    Joyce began by saying “destroying one of the most perfect views in the county.” Well… I totally understand why you feel that, it sure is a beautiful valley, but it’s changing anyway… As I understand it there will be 25 acres of woodland planted in the bottom of this valley over the next few years.. much of it agroforestry, producing primarily an edible yield. So depending where you see this view from… it may well be replaced by beautiful views of very mixed species woodland with some very large evergreen mixed species productive shelterbelts. This is probably the case for much of the west of Woodborough.
    Also… I think that an understanding of ecology might train your eyes to see ‘fields’ like these.. Virtually devoid of biodiversity where the natural inclination of the land to return to woodland has been suppressed and dominated by chemical and fully industrialised processes, as perhaps not the best of sights to look upon. Ploughman Wood, or Fox wood (Carefully and sensitively managed by the applicants) is a useful contrast.
    Jenny… “Green belt is there to protect and enhance the countryside & historic environment. It cannot be built on unless there are exceptional circumstances, one of which is for agricultural use.”
    Are you seriously saying that Agricultural use is an exceptional use for greenbelt… Perhaps you are referring to the plague like growth of supermarkets and clone developments with whit and irony? No… Alas I think you are partially sighted. Have you seen big agricultural barns? There mostly a complete eyesore, and yet they get passed through planning with out any issues… It is the right of the land owner to be able to build them. Permitted development rights. The footprint of such things is huge. Mountains of concrete, and metal. Totally incongruous to the landscape.
    Lets contrast this with a turbine… The Turbine involves putting a tiny amount of metal and concrete on to green belt compared to the permitted development of ‘barns’. It has a far far smaller ecological or physical footprint. It is certainly a lot taller, and it does move… Is it this that you find disconcerting about the idea? The movement? Perhaps in order to preserve the wonder of greenbelt we should prevent manufactured technology from moving in such places where it can be prominently seen. Ban tractors in fields, and vehicles on country lanes… You’d sure have my vote there, but I’d still be in favour of this turbine for all of the same reasons.

    Simon?! You should apparently know better, and as such You have my contempt.

    “As the UK representative on Water and Environmental management”
    You should be sacked you complete NIMBY!
    Shameful stuff!
    “I am all for Renewable energy” Hardly???
    “Despite this i am totally against destroying Green Belt land” How is it destroyed even a fraction as much as a barn as explained above… do you campaign against these with the same vigour? No. Probably not, because you don’t really care about those issues, it’s about money, and jealousy and ignorance. You should not be “the UK representative” for anything with that narrow minded short-sightedness. Tell me… What do you know of bio-regionalism and how do you promote awareness of this essential response strategy to peak oil and peak water???? etc.
    “It will also damage wildlife” compared to the alternative models currently in use??? Really??? Explain? “so not environmentally friendly!” = base level ignorance. Obviously using current and renewable sources is more environmentally friendly than liberating fossil ones. That is just a blatant lye.
    “The wind turbine is also not for agriculutral use as it will generate at least 200k a year and power 28% of Woodborough” Well.. After the full consequences of the oil peak have set in, I suspect that the farm won’t be running its machinery on diesel, so this is an excellent way to future proof the farms energy needs, whilst helping to secure regional food security long past the possible food crisis which may result from ever depleting oil reserves. If it is true that it will power 28% of Woodborough that’s great.. But it’s also clear that there will need to be then at least 2 more up there just to provide for our local resilience and then doubtless several more for Calverton and Arnold on this high ridge.
    “It is therefore not for agricultural use and against the planning rules for Green Belt. The turbine should not be allowed!” that was just like a child in the school playing field saying “neer neer ne neer na!” after having some sort of tantrum! Please tell me… Do you represent the UK as a tragic result of some departmental cutbacks?
    Jill… They are so inefficient and only of benefit to the land owner as they make hundreds of thousands whilst everybody else suffers!” This just smacks of ignorance and jealousy… Everyone suffers at the moment through our power production… especially billions of people in the parts of the world most threatened by climate chance… And I’ll refrain from going on about the environmental consequences for other species… the possible extinction of coral reefs and amphibians??… you are either jealous, ignorant or selfish or several of the above.
    Dear folk… In 50 years… folk against this will be viewed with distain and repulsion by future generations living with the most tragic consequences of our collective inaction. I view you this way already.

  23. Tuesday 28 June 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Your rudeness and personal atacks are inappropriate. To influence people effectively, stick to the facts.
    By facts, I don’t mean the pathetic warmist drivel served up day after day by our hopelessly compromised BBC.
    I mean the real stuff. There are lots of sources. Try,, or any of the dozens of others.

    Here are some facts to get you started.

    In 50 years, our successors will look back on this as the greatest scam ever perpetrated. Why?
    – No warming for over 10 years now (Yes, it’s true – no global warming since 1998!)
    – No correlation between CO2 levels and temperature
    – The oceans are not warming either. Total oceanic heat content is flat or declining
    – Latest data supressed by mainstream media (though readily available on the internet – see
    – CO2 has negligible warming effect, Water vapour alone completely swamps it
    – Wind power is outrageously costly and hopelessly inefficient
    – Met Office + BBC are mouthpieces of Government desperate for ‘carbon tax’
    – Hockey Stick temperature graph is deliberately misleading
    – Sea level rise data falsified
    – IPCC climate models incomplete, incorrect and deliberately biased to predict unrealistic warming
    – IPCC use of grey literature
    – IPCC headed by Pachauri, a man with major interests in renewable energy businesses
    – UEA deleted raw temperature data to avoid public release
    – UEA Climategate revealed systematic malpractice, obfuscation and misrepresentation
    – Published information not properly scrutinised (peer reviewed)
    – Scientific ‘Consensus’ is a falsehood, achieved by cherry-picking the scientists listed
    – Mainstream media suppress all climate news except warmist items that support their ideology
    – Use of renewables will not affect climate the tiniest bit
    – The climate has always changed, always will, humans cannot stop it
    – The scams of Carbon Trading and Feed-In Tariffs are already laid bare
    – Greed is the motivation for wind and solar power
    – Performance of turbines is wildly exaggerated (this one will power less than 130 houses!)
    – We all pay for this greed through energy bills and taxes
    – The forecast that there would already be 50 million ‘climate refugees’ was wrong, there are zero ‘climate refugees’
    – Endless scare stories about coral reefs and polar bears are no more that ploys for more research grants

    Let me know when you are ready, and you can have the second batch. There’s plenty more where this came from.
    But please, no more ad-hominem attacks (personal attacks on people).

    Remember, folks, “Hide The Decline!”

  24. John Macdonald
    Tuesday 28 June 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Russ Brittlegill. I apologise if you find my responses rude or personal. This is actually not my intention, but I feel like failure to take action across the board, where ever possible is in fact an attack on the future of my children, and I am entitles to view it as such.
    Your sceptical position intrigues me. “the greatest scam ever perpetrated.”
    Here, in some part I agree with you although this is going a little off topic. I question the true motivation for an application of a carbon taxation, and wonder if it is not an attempt to further the globalist ‘one world government’ on behalf of the current world banking elite… The New World Order if you will. And despite having reams of data with which to trade statistic tennis, I feel we have both established our respective beliefs over the facts about anthropogenic climate change. These are perhaps philosophical or ideological differences, which we are unlikely to agree on. I choose not to drive a car or fly, grow much of my own food, and am currently attempting to remove single use plastics from my life in order to harmonise myself with my own personal morality. I do not ask you or others to do the same, although by objecting to individuals willing to commit their personal resources to implementing renewable energy technology, I feel that you are asking me and my children to carry on breathing polluted air, and to accept the immense list of consequences of what I believe to be the results of our current non-renewable energy base.
    This issue aside… Or perhaps a side portion of it, relates (to me) to the idea of community resilience, the scientifically unquestionable issue of the peak of oil production, followed by gas / coal… The issues relating to a bioregional approach to the provision of key needs including water, food, fuel and power. To the principle that each key function or need should have a diversity of sources, and more the more essential it is. And perhaps to the fact that perfection is the enemy of good… By that I mean that this idea isn’t perfect I’m sure. But I think it’s a very good option compared with current practice. And the reasons why the technology should be used, and be used here, I feel I understand and am in agreement with.
    I am not in favour of my bioregion being dependent upon elsewhere for its key resources. I don’t think it’s ok to say ‘I will buy my food from Africa, or power from France’ My view is that we should be responsible as much as possible for our needs on our doorstep. This is resilience. It is about not living precariously balanced upon a 3 day food supply, and about putting into place infrastructure while ‘the going is good’ as it currently is, to enable us to prepare for the inevitability of energy decent over the next several decades.
    The issue of peak oil is perhaps without precedent in human history and the seriousness of it’s consequences for future generations ranks among my highest concerns. It just seems like a complete nonsense to me to assert that the wind is not a suitable renewable way of extracting current energy from our sun. It obviously is as demonstrated by the former British navy and the existence of much of Holland. If as you say it may power “less than 130 houses” but still power some I assume.. That’s great… I come back to my question of how many more we can fit up there?, and can they be larger? and I feel happy that through doing so we will go some way to becoming more resilient.
    Perhaps also a difference between us is that I find windmills, water pumps and these turbines quite beautiful things. Achievements we can be proud of. Examples of smart thinking that turn something often viewed more as a problem (wind) into a solution (power). This approach to systems thinking underpins the base of my practice, but since we live in an environment largely headed completely in the wrong direction to create balance and harmony with our environment, such thinking usually involves quite radical change. It is the very nature of some people to reject change, and yet the failure to do so is our greatest threat as a species.
    I personally have encountered climate refugees as a result of retreating glaciers that I have seen with my own eyes. I am not going to debate many of your other points over scientific consensus etc as I do not believe the effort will yield any reward.
    Perhaps it is clear you are beyond influence… I do wonder if a ‘survey’ were conducted of local folk, how many people would agree with your views on the issues of climate and resources. And who of us therefore best warrants the term extremist?

  25. Daryl Smiley
    Wednesday 29 June 2011 at 11:11 am

    i think russ [brittlegill] is wrong in saying that johns attack was personal and rude.

    it was passionate.
    we need to leave a healthy world to our future generations.
    we have to do our best to help them.
    Bertie Buge said it best “peace and love”

    without these turbines, i fear that there would be no peace or love



  26. John Macdonald
    Thursday 30 June 2011 at 12:17 am

    Simon… google’d you to discover which government department you were in to write and complain and discovered that in fact you are a pupil at my old school. Lol. Apologies for being a little harsh with you but if indeed you were a UK government representative I’d feel sorry for not being harsher.
    As I remember, debate is a well taught topic at the place, so doubtless you are not at all offended.
    Good luck of your trip, but I would advocate some research into both the peak oil and peak water concepts as they will play a huge role in your future life, regardless of your wider environmental awareness!

  27. Sara Covington
    Monday 4 July 2011 at 10:09 am


    A rose tinted horse is called ‘roan’ to be accurate. They are often not high either, as the genes for roan coat colour are mainly found in ponies – small horses.

    Yours informingly,


  28. Daryl Smiley
    Monday 4 July 2011 at 11:46 am


    I suppose you are probably against these turbines!!

    Thankyou for pulling me up and making me look silly infront of my peers



  29. Daryl Smiley
    Tuesday 5 July 2011 at 12:40 pm

    @ Sara RE our friends at Langridge homes…

    i personally hope that Langridge start building on the greenbelt, would make a welcome change to see someone working and not being effected by this recession.



  30. El Barto
    Saturday 23 July 2011 at 9:15 am

    how would people feel about a solar farm instead?

  31. Guy Broderick
    Tuesday 26 July 2011 at 11:02 pm

    I live in Calverton and I can’t believe how you people live in Woddborough with the biggest bunch of bullying extremists I’ve seen for a long time – WACAT! I hate both bullies & extremists and they are both! You call yourselves WACAT but I’d like to know how many of your members are actually from Woodborough!? If this turbine was due to be built here in Calvo you lot wouldn’t care less. For example, where was the support from Woodborough when we needed to stop the Council Recycling Centre? I’ve lived for years with you lot over the hill blaming people from Calvo for any crimes committed in Woodborough and I believe there was even suggestions of a gate being put up on the road to Woodborough from Calverton! But now suddenly when it might help a bleating minority of Woodborough residents keep their house prices the same they want our help – hypocrites. I’m also sick and tired of you people who open your views with – well actually I like renewable energy…what you mean is not in your village but it would be OK in other places like Calverton! Then you say these arguements shouldn’t be personal! The way you talk and treat anybody who disagrees with your petty viewpoints is appalling. One of your WACAT (or actually should that be WAT!) door to door beggars actually verbally abused some of my neighbours when they said they were either not bothered or were pro the turbine. One of them was a young woman too who has obviously been brought up properly as she’s from Woodborough!

  32. windophile
    Saturday 6 August 2011 at 5:37 am

    daryl smiley – you need to research the difference between the ozone layer (damaged by cfc and similar compounds used in aerosols, refridgerants etc) and the greenhouse effect (increase in the global average temperature and hence climate change from our burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and rapid rise of cattle rearing and rice farms).

    “he who dares, Rodney…”

    Thank you, (Woodborough And Calverton Against George And Sharons Solar Panels)

  33. robert smith
    Tuesday 9 August 2011 at 6:39 am

    Hi Guy
    Sorry you feel like that about people from Woodborough, but I got a bit lost on the logic and the reasons why.
    The wind turbine is going in a field overlooking Calvo, yes thats right over your conservation area and will affect many people in Calvo.
    You may not care about views, noise and nature but lots of people in Calvo do.
    Just for the record, the only person to benefit from this will be a Woodborough farmer who will make millions out of spoiling your view.
    Robert Smith

  34. Guy Broderick
    Tuesday 9 August 2011 at 9:43 pm


    To explain the logic…Woodborough is the middle class bully boy to poor old working class Calvo. Only be our friend when it suits you, but otherwise look down at us or ignore us and hopefully we’ll go away. The best way to illustrate why I’m against people from Woodborough is WACAT. If the wind turbine was the other side of the hill you wouldn’t be seen for dust. WACAT is only WACAT and not WAT so you can say that we in Calverton are right behind you all the way, when in fact we’re not. Most of the people I speak to in Calvo don’t give a monkeys about the wind turbine as we’re not worried about it affecting our house prices! So, stop using Calverton to boost your minority’s numbers…don’t see many WACAT boards up on this side of the hill…so change it to WAT and sort it out yourselves.

    By the way my view of the old pit site is splendid so I don’t think a wind turbine in Woodborough would spoil it!

  35. Lucy
    Monday 30 April 2012 at 11:02 am

    I am for the wind turbine, I think they are amazing and beautiful. It would enhance the landscape and all the biddies getting riled up about it need to think about future generations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *