CGnetpage2

The first Wind Farm Action Group Conference was held on June 19th 2004. The Agenda was as follows

Firstly we wanted to help new groups ,as when S.M.A.G. was formed in 2003 to combat the threat of an inappropriately sited Wind Power Station [W.P.S.] we found the myriad problems that new protesters can face.

Secondly we wanted a forum where individuals and groups could exchange ideas and experiences.

Thirdly we wanted to counteract the deceitful nonsense being peddled by the Govt. and profit-driven developers sitting on their gravy-powered train.

The political expediency, the short-termism, the lies and half-truths presented as facts was, and is, breathtaking and is as flawed as the technology being foisted on the U.K. with an abuse of the planning system.

The B.W.E.A. and the D.T.I. are now launching all-out publicity campaigns, featuring fourth-rate celebrities, who will tell us how green, clean and efficient wind power is; how Third World poverty, rising sea levels and Global Warming can be cured at a stroke, and those who don’t support it are Devils Incarnate. When one looks at their line-up one is reminded of Sir Bernard Inghams phrase, “Wind power is for the brain-dead and the brain-washed.”

A brief resume of the presentations is given below – and gives a good over-view of the “Mess of wattage”.

PROFESSOR DAVID BELLAMY. Gave a stirring view of the faults and weaknesses in the rush for wind…the lies re. Output, the lack of operating figures, the costs of Back-up, and the ludicrously small contribution they make. There is a rush to get them up and running before the tax-paying public realise the falsity.

The huge costs of activating KYOTO…probably 140 Trillion dollars, and as The Darmstadt Manifesto 1998 said,” fighting climate change is a waste of time” Global warming has strong scientific evidence of Cyclical patterns and the “Hockey Stick” hypothesis is flawed. The final hypocrisy is our Govt, financing old-style coal-fired power stations in China and building more Airports and Motorways. If wind-farms are the answer, then someone is asking the wrong bloody question.

SIR BERNARD INGHAM Presented a vivid summary of the essential constituents of a viable National Energy Policy, and how our Govt, fall well short of any effective stewardship, A dismal prognosis. We lack an energy policy which will achieve security of supply at affordable cost; all we have is a declaration of environmental policy which means little, is not necessary, and is unachievable. He put some striking figures and images before the delegates.

Over 1100 turbines produce 0.3% of our electricity on an intermittent, unreliable basis. As demand is rising we would need 400,000 carpeting our land, as well as back up to satisfy this.

To replace one conventional 1000MW station with turbines would mean filling Dartmoor AND the Country needs 55000MW. At peak demand!

To replace ONE 1000MW station with solar panels needs 1.5 “Dartmoors” Biomass – a forest the size of Wales, and Bio-gas would need 800 MILLION CHICKENS defecating in a shed one third the size of Dartmoor.

He also made the contentious but factual point that one new-type nuclear power plant can be put on an existing site the size of 10 soccer pitches.

OTHER POINTS; The National Grid is a “balance” from minute to minute which wind cannot deal with. The Institute of Civil Engineers say that large power cuts - socially and economically damaging.. are definite by 2020 as we wont have the capacity to power the Nation.

Our Policy should be developed to be a judicious mix of new clean coal-fired, gas, oil, nuclear, and some renewables with a strict energy conservation programme.

At the moment we have local democracy being undermined by PPS22 in order to pursue Green Tokenism and Green Vandalism, leaving the Country in a crucially vulnerable position re, power supplies.

GEOFFREY SINCLAIR. A valuable Consultant to many groups, outlined the problems and pitfalls of negotiating the protest pathway through the minefield of Planning Officers, Councils, Public Enquiries, and of course Public Opinion. Protest MUST start a.s.a.p., from the first intimation of a scheme…finding out plans, objecting to anemometers, building relationships with Councils and Planners [some of whom are “Green” but not necessarily well-informed], countering the often pernicious and superficial opinion surveys done by developers on an unprepared Public, and countering “Readers Letters” in the Press from creatures of the B.W.E.A.

Generally, Councils, PLANNERS, and Public Enquiry Inspectors don’t want to go against Govt. Policy, but there have been successes based on planning issues Viz. Amenity, Landscape, ecological and nuisance effects outweighing the “benefits” of W.P.S. Also Planning Depts. May be resentful at being overly pressured by the Diktat of PPS.22.

Dr. RICHARD COURTNEY. In his inimitable evangelical, humorous way pointed up the lack of any USEFUL electricity from W.P.S. plus the fact that they can increase the need for conventional power plants and therefore emissions. The TRUE purpose of W.P.S. is to put on an empty Govt. display of “Greenness”. There is no commitment to technological change in conventional power generation e.g. air-blown gasification combined cycle [A.B.G.C.], which produces electricity with few emissions. We are selling old-fashioned coal-fired technology to China, who are building one every two weeks, yet we could supply A.B.G.C. systems but don’t. Staggering hypocrisy by our Government.

Power surges are catastrophic to National Grid supply and cause power cuts, yet W.P.S. supply causes surges - which is why Denmark has to give power away!! The certainty of the failure of wind power means EXTRA conventional stations are needed - total illogicality.

DR. KAYE LITTLE Gave a chilling account of the lost battle for CEFN CROES. The fight had started in 1998, and over the last 5 years had been a tale of cynicism, greed, and untruths by home-based and foreign Multi-nationals. The result was the ruination and desecration of 17.5 sq. kilometres of Forestry Commission land.. Her conclusion - don’t trust ANYONE associated with development and there are wider implications beyond the immediate environmental impacts, Her photos were truly shocking, and her book of the struggle “The Battle for Cefn Croes” is on the Internet.

DR. VIC MASON showed that there is still something rotten in the State of Denmark; Whether it be the huge subsidies paid by the Taxpayer- -A cost of 8_10 billion Danish Kronero r the fact that it has cost more in Capital and operational costs than if they had stayed with the original conventional system, or the fact that the populace pay about twice the U.K. price for their electricity.

In 2003 the output of renewable energy [almost totally wind] in Denmark in numerical terms was about 21% of local power demand, BUT much of it had to be exported to Norway, Germany etc. at giveaway prices to maintain the stability of the Danish Grid. This probably cost Danish consumers 1 BILLION D.K.K Per year AND also displaced “Green” electricity production in those Countries. This inter-connectivity also allows Denmark to import coal, oil, or nuclear-based electricity when the Country is becalmed BUT they pay premium prices!

In 2000—2002 the total production of W.P.S. in Denmark corresponded to about 50% of the power exported. CO2 emissions in Denmark have continued to rise.

In West Denmark where 75% of W.P.S. are there are almost no areas where one is out of sight despite prohibition of hill-top sites, yet, ludicrously, Denmark is held up as an example of the benefits of Wind Power.

DR. MIKE HALL gave more statistics to discredit the claims of Govt./developers and show the desecration of the Country to be a cynical confidence trick.

On D.T.I. figures, in 2020 we will need about 26% more electricity than now, yet our closure of our nuclear stations will remove 20% of our current supply…leaving a shortfall of 46%, and as most coal-fired stations are to close, the real short-fall will be 65%.

Mike talked of the proposed W.P.S. for Whinash - the largest on-shore proposal for England, with an immense environmental effect on the edge of the Lake District - which would produce an actual output of c.25M.W. from 27 turbines. THUS to generate the same power as ONE medium-sized coal or nuclear station one would need 64 or 38 “Whinashs” respectively i.e. about 1728 and1026 turbines submerging thousands of acres of land.

He also pointed out what we have all seen. viz. The way that developers give extremely misleading information re. Noise, output, visual impact, etc. etc.e.g. The applicants for Askam W.P.S. CLAIMED ; Save 18100 tons CO2.

The unanswerable conclusion is that wind is an intermittent, additional source of a small amount of electricity and is not a serious alternative for an industrial Nation. The Govt. has NO mandate from the British people to destroy our upland heritage for no gain.

ELIZABETH MANN Gave her presentation on Force 10: political will v. Landscape Protection. She showed that the power of self-starting opposition groups from ordinary citizens has seriously disturbed the wind developers, the Govt. and the B.W.E.A., all of whom, with characteristic arrogance, had assumed they could “spin” their way over any opposing views. Thus steps had to be taken at National and local Government level to squash this opposition.

The B.W.E.A. had stated in a Leader in “Windpower Monthly” that the Industry “..must play politics..” and it would seem from the recent ratification ofPPS22 that they have Govt. on their side.

DR. DAVID MANLEY has done intensive scientific studies of noise transmission from turbines which make the childish statements of the developers “no noise - quiet as a library” etc. look distinctly shady and facile.

David showed there is no connection of felt and heard noise with wind direction, and that low frequency noise is particularly troublesome, offensive and harmful, with its maximum propagation along “Hot Lines”.

The checks made by developers are superficial and give false [and often reassuring] information as the detecting microphones are not adequate for very low frequencies. David found this very unsatisfactory and considered it an urgent priority that a standard is accepted for Srecordings to be made at low frequencies; at the moment only seismic detectors can handle this and when used they show signals can be picked up at great distances. All cause for unease.

Two groups of people who support W.P.S. are those with vested interests and those who know little about them.

About 200 sites are identified in Scotland and Planners cant cope. Thus many flawed Environmental Impact Assessments are accepted without question.

The Scottish Executive are Rubber-stamping 50MW applications…the B.W.E.A. have moved their Road-show to Scotland as its so easy to get permission! This also obviates the need for Public Enquiry.

An example of the lunacy; A gas/oil station at Peterhead covers 50 acres, has capacity of 1500MW and has 300 full time jobs A W.P.S. proposed for Drummer would cover 2000 acres, produce 14MW and have 2 full time jobs.

Have good relations with planners and Councillors to educate them: don’t get involved with Developers; they are ruthless.

DAVID BRIERLEY gave an emotional yet factual account of what it can be like to fight one of these applications, lose, and have to live with the horror and fragmentation of the Community; the destruction of the Habitat, visual disturbance and extreme noise nuisance. Compare this with the soft-focus green rural idyll of the developers proposals.

All guidelines for installation mean nothing, are not enforceable and are ignored. Minimum cost and maximum profit are achieved by deceit. Details in the application are changed in construction and nothing is done.

Their campaign had failed against the Establishments of the Govt., the Law, and the Developers - but they would fight on.

David reminded everyone; Take the “N” from Green and replace it with a “D”

Take the “F” from justice - but one cant do that, because as we all learn: There is NO “F” in Justice !!

Over 200 anti-windfarm activists from 47 organisations at the Saddleworth conference in June heard the following speakers and topics. Of these, one is reproduced below in the form of an edited transcript, the other is a verbatim transcript. Several of the others are similar to contributions by the same authors available on the Country Guardian website www.countryguardian.net. Each article is annotated as appropriate

6.1 Full transcript of David Brierley’s presentation, drawing on his and his neighbours’ experience of living with a windfarm

It is my belief, following the experiences of the last 5 years, that the realities of living alongside a wind power station bear little (or no) resemblance to those cosy images, so falsely, so blatantly, so criminally, portrayed by the wind industry, the “greens” and assorted Governmental departments and agencies. The image they would have you the public believe, is one of a soft focus, pastel coloured scene, possibly showing children running through a flower-strewn meadow.

This picture is intended to portray an image of an undisturbed, utopian, rural, idyll, (with possibly, - but far from mandatory,) - a barely discernible wind turbine in the far distance. There is always, apparently, a complete symphony orchestra playing soothing, relaxing music, camouflaged and discretely concealed somewhere in every field adjacent to every wind power station, but – elusively - always just out of camera.

I have struggled to find any of them. The noise of the turbines is quite sufficient, thank you. Being forced to endure Beethoven’s “Pastoral”, Vivaldi’s “Four Seasons” or Pachelbel’s “Canon” every time I see a rotating turbine is just too horrendous to contemplate! (as much as I might appreciate those particular pieces, in other circumstances!).

One is inevitably, - and I believe deliberately, - led subliminally to the belief that this industry champions wind power stations existing unobtrusively in dreamy, peaceful, tranquil locations reminiscent of an impressionist painting. One, possibly signed by, or ascribed to, Claude Monet.

The European and British Wind Energy Associations both proudly and very publicly, proclaim, (in their Best Practice Guidelines,) the following:-

“WIND TURBINES SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED SO CLOSE TO DOMESTIC DWELLINGS THAT THEY UNREASONABLY AFFECT THE AMENITY OF SUCH PROPERTIES THROUGH NOISE, SHADOW FLICKER, VISUAL DOMINANCE OR REFLECTED LIGHT”

We, the residents of Marton Askam and Ireleth in South West Cumbria, have all of these phenomena at one location. We reported this to the BWEA, but basically they weren’t interested. Neither (apparently) do they ever criticise, investigate or punish any developer affiliated to this industry body, who fails to comply with these grand sounding sentiments.

Therefore, ANY “cowboy developers” (of which I believe there may be many) can choose to comply with those that suit them and those that don’t are then conveniently ignored, apparently with the backing of the BWEA, to the detriment of the “quality of life” of residents. I believe “minimal cost” is the Industry driving criteria.

Further, there is no legislation in this country that specifically covers wind power stations. This, I feel, is one of the main problems which leads to the situations we, (and many others), are now experiencing. This lunatic “dash for wind” guarantees that more and more residents of our once peaceful countryside are more and more likely to be adversely affected, when they too, inevitably, become “the neighbours of wind turbines.”

The “industry speak”, and propaganda, which amounts to nothing more than misinformation, lies, and deceit, begins long before any planning application is entered to the local authority. It is usual for some (but not necessarily all!) residents to receive a “Dear Householder” letter, laying out the developers reasons for having selected your area, and how he proposes to deal with any of the problems that he assesses may arise.

We ended up with 63.5 metres - because the developer had failed, for some inexplicable reason known only to himself, to inform the residents that he had omitted to included the size of the blades! (these, incidentally, are similar dimensions to a jumbo jet – hardly forgettable!)

How on earth, can anyone, (in all honesty), declare that seven, 200 ft structures, each painted brilliant white and with a blue “go faster” stripe on the turbine housing, – located at the summit of the highest hill overlooking three villages, (rising from sea level to 180 metres in just over 2 kilometres,) with blades the size of a jumbo jet’s wing span, revolving at 26 rpm, flashing in the sunshine and making a noise like a broken down washing machine in its death throes, have been “carefully designed to minimise any visual impact?”

Furthermore, this particular project was so “carefully designed” that they managed to miss-locate these turbines up to 900-ft (in total) away from where they were given planning permission. Consequently the wind farm does not benefit from any planning permission. (What, also, is the validity of any safety cases, soil samples, ground integrity and noise surveys carried out on these spurious locations – NO ONE BUT US SEEMS IN THE LEAST CONCERNED!). Can I suggest that if any of you were to try building a house extension, a conservatory, a garage etc., 9ins. away from where you were given permission, you would then see exactly who would be concerned!

Everybody and his Uncle would pursue you unmercifully, with threats of sanctions and legal action unless you pulled down your project and build it exactly as permitted.

(Could this be why PPS 22 is so important to the wind industry, the Government and Mr. Prescott personally?)

We have noise reported AND in innumerable instances logged (by local authority environmental health officers) up to 2 kilometres away from the site. We have a verbal report, made in front of witnesses, by an independent acoustics engineer, of his identifying noise from “our” turbines 5 kilometres away, and across a wide river estuary. (He eventually declined to give a witness statement or to appear on our behalf at court, as he had just been offered employment at a nearby wind farm and would therefore have a “conflict of interests”. Funnily enough, this “conflict” excuse cropped up several times whilst we were attempting to compile our witness list!)

We have a location that cannot see any of the 7 turbines. Where these residents have to leave their premises, sometimes for days on end, in a desperate attempt to gain some respite from the incessant noise that keeps them awake, makes them ill, and continually stops them enjoying their house and gardens. We have houses where residents are obliged to attempt sleep by means of playing a radio all night long, in an effort to drown out the noise of the turbines.

We have another location where a young student is forced to attempt sleep (and studying for crucial examinations which would dictate her future), with a “walkman” and earphones, continually playing her type of music, to obliterate/break up the noise from the turbines.

We have a location where the occupants regularly have to play “musical bedrooms”, changing from one room to another, sometimes several times, during the night, in a vain attempt to gain some relief from the noise from the turbines. A noise which has been variously described as “a clog in a tumble drier”, “a train continually passing though the room”, “a c130 Hercules flying outside your window”, “distant pile driving”, and “someone mixing concrete in the sky”

This one beats cock fighting. The major construction contracts amounted to £700,000 the amount placed with “local contractors” - a mere £60,000. Once “our” wind power station began operation we very quickly discovered that promises made in pursuit of securing planning permission (and to a public inquiry), disappeared totally, in a somewhat “Brigadoon” type scenario. Safety margins of “no turbines being placed less than their own fall over distance from any public access” were compromised. Developers rationalised these unauthorised changes by stating –

Noise levels breached the planning condition and caused (and continue to cause - almost five years later) severe disruption and annoyance to residents. Several residents believe the noise is making them ill. Lack of sleep, anxiety, headaches, earaches, upset stomachs and a general feeling of malaise are reported by residents of all ages, all around the site. Unfortunately, none of these symptoms have (as yet) been corroborated (by a medical practitioner) as ill - effects originating from the presence of wind turbines.

Shadow flicker and glinting are experienced at properties up to 2.5 k away from the site. – When the developers were informed of these phenomena their reaction, as always, was immediate denial. But these dreadful, adverse, effects are fact. They are very real. They have been witnessed by hundreds of people. They are still being suffered by many of our residents. These ill - effects have also been witnessed by councillors and council officials. (Some of who also declined to give statements or to be witnesses in our court case.)

Eventually the developers admitted everything that we had claimed – BUT STILL NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO RESOLVE THESE PROBLEMS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO MATTER- THOSE WHO ARE SUFFERING. THE RESIDENTS,

The developers (and the industry in general) claim it is difficult to predict shadow flicker, glinting and reflection – we totally disagree. The Egyptians, The Mayans, The Incas and Aztecs were all capable of building whole cities based on the movement of the sun.

In this country Stonehenge is a perfect example of prediction of the movement of the sun. If stone-age man was capable of this technology, why should the wind industry find it so difficult? Could it be another example of those unwelcome costs eating into their obscene, heavily subsidised, profits?

Noise is another issue that this industry finds “difficulty” with. They vociferously complain that it is “impracticable” to measure noise lower than 30 dB. So, they request, at planning, a noise condition based on 5 dB over this spurious imaginary background level of 30 (making a total of 35 dB.) The background noise level at our location – prior to the wind farm - was recorded as low as 16.5 dB. (Somebody therefore found it “practicable” enough to take these readings.). Our night - time average would be about 19 dB.

This (dB) scale is logarithmic. Every increase of 10dB over this original 19 dB means at least a doubling of the perceived previous level of loudness – so now we have an actual noise level of at least between 4 and 8 times that which we experienced prior to the development.

The local authority claims that because of the court case of “Gillingham v Medway Council,” the classification of “our” area changed with the passing of the planning permission for this, “our”, wind power station. Consequently, (in our once peaceful, rural, location,) we now find that we have been transformed, as if by magic, into a mixed rural/industrial area. Therefore our “expectations of noise”, (or should I say our expectations of quiet?) should now be in line with this industrialisation and are consequently “unrealistically” high.

“Unrealistic” for whom? We are the residents. We notice and live with these differences. We have lived here for years. We point it out. Nothing happens. WE SUFFER!

The World Health Organisation states that the minimum required noise level for uninterrupted, restorative, sleep should be 30 dB. So why do we have to suffer a much higher level? Is this another of those “unwelcome costs” for the wind industry?

It’s not necessarily the noise level – as measured in dB - that is the problem. It is the nature of that noise. People report that this is a noise they “feel” rather than “hear”. They report that their heart appears to be trying to keep in sync with the beat from the blades and they experience great discomfort should that beat change. Especially during the night - time hours – as has now been totally exposed in the recent report by Fritz Van den Burg from GrÖningen University .

My wife is an asthmatic and has experienced, on several occasions, whilst suffering an attack, similar symptoms, whereby her breathing wanted to keep “in synch” with the beat from the turbines. We both find this an extremely distressing situation. People report tinnitus-like symptoms, sickness and dizziness. All of which they attribute to “the noise” from the wind farm. Because, when the noise ceases, for whatever reason – so do their symptoms. (Animals, too, reportedly show signs of stress at “the noise” and shadow flicker.) Farmers working in adjacent fields cannot stand the “feelings” for more than two hours at a time because, quote, – “it does my head in”. Unfortunately local doctors have, as yet, failed to link any of these complaints to the presence of the wind turbines. (Although I believe that work is in progress, along exactly these lines, in another area of the country and that a report of the findings will be published shortly.)

Residents are continually forced out of the enjoyment of their gardens on days when the wind direction is such that “the noise” invades every corner of their properties. Some have been forced out of their houses for longer periods for exactly this reason. Developers deny that this ever occurs – or rather they did deny it. They now reluctantly admit it, but add – “Lets face it, if you live near a wind farm you’ve got to expect noise.” A quote from one of the defendants, at our recent court case, on oath, in the witness box, was,

“The inevitable consequence of living next to a wind farm is………… … … … NOISE!”

This same man, Matt Britton, who currently holds a (relatively) high position of responsibility within Powergen Renewables, had previously categorically declared, at other venues, and under far less “judicial” circumstances, that :- “Wind Turbines are inaudible.” Which of his versions is the truth?

Can I suggest that it is the former. The latter presumably being yet another example of lies and deceit hiding behind the innocuous sounding title of “industry speak.”

This “noise” is not a new phenomenon. It has been widely reported all over the world. About 3 years ago – Defra commissioned a report by Cassella Stanger, into the sources of Low Frequency Noise. Within this report every one of the symptoms affecting our residents are described perfectly. We were totally unaware of its existence, yet this report positively identifies wind farms as a source of nuisance (and states that health can suffer). What is being done about this report? Apparently nothing!. We located this report following a chance remark and we placed it with our MP, the Rt. Hon John Hutton, Minister of State for Health. We believed, from his reactions, that his department had been totally unaware of its existence.

We had (initially) received support from Mr Hutton. He had been made aware of all of our problems. He was apparently at first, extremely sympathetic. He offered assistance, until, for some inexplicable reason, he felt that despite organising a meeting with Lord Rooker, within John Prescott’s Office, which was suddenly, mysteriously, abandoned - he found that he could assist us no longer. I found this most peculiar and somewhat sinister. But not totally unexpected!

Subsequently, our diabolical situation has now dragged on for over five years and, in all honesty, we are no nearer to a resolution than we were when we first began. We have actually achieved nothing! There is no point denying that the result of the court case was a body blow to all of us. We believed that we were right. ( We still believe that we are right). We were shattered.

We firmly believed that by presenting our evidence to the court, comprising of, 6 complainants, 7 other residents as independent witnesses, and 3 council officials, (who all submitted written evidence and were prepared to give verbal confirmation of this evidence and to undergo cross examination, if called,) and producing certified, timed and dated, various local authority Environmental Health Officers records and reports proving:-

26 noise nuisances, 14 border line noise nuisances and - at least, 1 breach of planning conditions, in the 22 months immediately prior to appearing in the court, that we had done sufficient work to convince any district judge that a nuisance situation had existed, still existed or was likely to recur, under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I (personally) persuaded MAIWAG members that if we were patient, if we did our work thoroughly, if we collated all the evidence, if we then presented it correctly and if we worked to the highest burden of proof – the criminal burden of proof, that of beyond reasonable doubt, - WE WOULD WIN. I believed it was so simple. It was so painfully obvious!

This I based on 30 years experience in the police force, where I genuinely believed in the due process of law and justice. Whereby, if something was obviously wrong, against public decency, against commonly held beliefs and standards, common law, or against an act of parliament, and that citizens were able to prove it, they would obtain the correct verdict. Then the prescribed punishment for that particular crime, would inevitably follow. Let’s face it…..THIS WAS THE SYSTEM. THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM. IT WAS SO GOOD THAT OTHER COUNTRIES BASED THEIR OWN LEGAL SYSTEMS ON OURS.

I forcefully (and perhaps sometimes too forcefully) persuaded MAIWAG members to believe in, and adhere to, this maxim. I committed them to 5 years extremely hard and time consuming work, and not least, to a considerably large financial debt. I thought that the system of justice that I believed in would always support “the wronged” against “the wrong doer.” I couldn’t have been more wrong! I couldn’t now be more disillusioned!

In our case the judge decided that the evidence we presented “lacked detail and specificity” and that “audibility and annoyance are not to be equated with nuisance”. PARDON? Immediately following the trial verdict, (and within minutes of returning to my home), I was phoned by a well-known and well-respected television journalist from London . He told me something which, at the time, I had serious doubts about, but which I am now thoroughly convinced of, - that was, we “ could not be allowed” to win this test case. He, like us, was shattered when the decision was made public. He didn’t know how we could have failed. He informed me that right up to the verdict being made public, the whole wind industry believed WE had won. BUT WE FAILED! WHY? HOW? Two days afterwards he and a colleague travelled from London to Cumbria and interviewed both Les and I, and he there repeated his belief that we had been – to use his extremely colourful expression – “SHAFTED.”

I now harbour grave doubts that the “holy grail” of “justice” exists, in any shape or form, particularly in connection with our case against this industry. I now doubt that it has ever existed, or that under the current regime, it will ever be allowed to exist in the future. I was so shattered by this that I resigned from MAIWAG - because I just couldn’t see any way forward. I now believe that issues involving the financial interests of large corporate bodies, their profit margins and their interest rates, or their monetary return to their share holders, or government departments promoting dubious ministerial “sound bites”, have now become far more important than the human rights of “common or garden” residents.

Consequently the individual HAS to be, and always WILL be - sacrificed - in every instance.

AND IN EVERY INSTANCE THESE DUPLICITOUS CHARLATANS SCULK AND COWER BEHIND THE VOTE WINNING MANTLE OF “GREEN ASPIRATIONS”

I’m actually a very simple man, with quite simple aspirations. One of my wishes is (or was) to retain my family’s “quality of life.” Something that I believe, I and doubtless many of you, have aspired towards all our working lives and have already made huge, largely hidden, sacrifices in an attempt to achieve a far better future for ourselves, which we then hope to pass down to our descendants. The arguments from “greens” that they want to save the world for their grand children, are mine too. EXACTLY!

However, attempting to achieve this objective by replacing one form of pollution with several others and then inflicted these on unsuspecting residents by stealth is NOT the way to achieve it. Again, I couldn’t have been more wrong. However, now, I’m (hopefully) wiser. I am /and MAIWAG are, continuing to gather, collate and disperse, information and evidence, to whoever requires it. Because no–one should have to go through what we have had to endure. We are all worn out. We are all totally disillusioned. We are also considerably poorer financially, but, WE WILL NOT GIVE IN! WE CAN’T GIVE IN - BECAUSE THIS SITUATION IS SO OBVIOUSLY, PATENTLY, CRIMINALLY - WRONG! WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT THESE APPALLING INJUSTICES WITH JUST AS MUCH COMMITMENT AS WE HAD BEFORE OUR (VERY PUBLIC) DEFEAT. BECAUSE WE KNOW, NO MATTER WHAT DECEITS ARE EMPLOYED AGAINST US, OR WHATEVER OBSTACLES ARE PLACED IN OUR WAY, WE ARE RIGHT!

We will continue in our attempts to achieve a legal redress to a situation that the Local Planning Authority, the Local Authority Environmental Health Department, The Government Office of the North West, The North West Development Agency, Defra, The Ministry for the Environment, The Health Ministry, and the several secretaries of state of innumerable government departments, are either incapable of resolving, reluctant to address, or deliberately, in the best traditions of one of Britain’s best known heroes, (Nelson) “turn a blind eye to.”

(How I wish that even half of these, more often than not, faceless…………. People……… had a small percentage of HIS backbone, whilst continually availing themselves of his ocular disability!)

Despite letters from Government departments telling us that Barrow Council have “all the powers necessary to deal with this situation speedily, efficiently and effectively” (now dated some 4 years ago), and a planning committee who have on 3 occasions voted to enforce planning breaches, ……………we still await an outcome………………

Consequently, I believe that if MAIWAG’s experiences are any yardstick, anyone facing the prospect of this desperate, diabolical, dash for wind, would be advised to fight any similar applications from the outset wherever possible. Don’t even consider commencing your objections, your resistance, your fight, once the problems associated with actually living close to a wind power station, have become - all to painfully - obvious. By then it will be too late! Apathy and lethargy are your worst enemies. This industry with all its’ hype, with all its’ misleading claims, with all its’ “industry speak”, is nowhere near as “green” as they would have you believe. People must realise this.

6.2 Summary Report of the two presentations by Sir Bernard Ingham, Country Guardian’s Vice President, based on the recordings made at the Conference. Text in quotation marks is direct quote, the rest is the Editor’s paraphrase

Sir Bernard had been asked to become Vice President of Country Guardian by its founder, Joseph Lythgoe, partly because of his background in Government energy policy. He had served as a senior civil servant in the Department of Energy from 1974 to 1979, including a spell under Tony Benn as Energy Minister.

The present Government has an environment policy but not an energy policy. An energy policy would have as its main concern Security of Supply, which must be affordable if Britain is to be competitive. A fundamental factor is that you cannot store electricity, the electricity supply system is a “triumph of balancing”. “Whether you accept Global Warming or concede there is a political imperative to show that you do” there is a case for trying to reduce CO2 emissions.

Unless something is done, present policies will lead to a 50% reduction is our current electricity generation capacity within 10-15 years, to be replaced by renewables and gas. The 22/23% which comes from nuclear will “wither on the vine” to become about 3% by 2020; the 25% from coal and oil will have gone. Gas comes from unstable countries such as Russia , Saudi Arabia and Algeria and we are at the end of the pipeline. It is a “near certainty” that the necessary pipelines can be built.

Renewable Energy is intermittent and unreliable, uneconomic and environmentally damaging.

The highly subsidised contribution from wind is currently less that three quarters of one percent, but the Government says it will rise to 10% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. No expert believes that. Danish records show that windfarms contribute only about 25% of rated capacity and for half the year there is very little input. We know this because the statistics are made public there, in the UK they are “commercially sensitive”. The need for standby generation as a result of intermittency wipes out any greenhouse gas savings. The arguments for wind are “brainwash for the brain-dead”

It is unsafe and impracticable to rely on much input from other renewables. For example, look at the space required to replace the output from an average 1,000MW conventional power station:-

A bio alcohol plantation the size of Devon (sugar), Sussex and Kent (potatoes), Yorkshire (maize) or the whole of the UK (wheat)

Note -this is to replace 1,000 MW of conventional energy – the UK peak energy load is 55,000MW..

What is needed is an energy mix, and the solution is not easy. Unfortunately we have lost faith in the political system to act. Conservation should be pushed much harder; there is much scope for technological advances and more efficient appliances. Demand for electricity must be assumed to be influenced by the following:

For the campaign against windfarms the big problem is a “phenomenal ignorance” on the part of the public about the facts, fed by FoE and Greenpeace and BWEA, much of it appealing to emotion. It is necessary to turn the propaganda round by responding with letters to the press, radio, TV, MPs, councillors, MEPS etc., meetings and conferences. “Fertilise” existing communication channels. It is important to appeal to emotion as well as to logical argument.

The new Renewable Energy Foundation is complementary to Country Guardian. It has far more resources and will supplement CG’s provision of information and dedication. The two organisations must co-operate.

Despite the wind industry’s propaganda there is no cause to be defeatist. According to BWEA two thirds of windfarm applications have failed. One sign of this is the move offshore, another the assault on Scotland (which is unsustainable). Offshore wind is not acceptable; our case is that windpower is ineffective wherever it is – we are not just concerned with the environmental damage, “we are not NIMBYs”. But the Government’s attack on the Planning System is unacceptable

The next Conference is to be held at Saddleworth on 2nd April 2005. This is the Advance Notice

Saddleworth Moors Action Group

c/o Cllr Ken Hulme, 28 Sevenacres, Delph Saddleworth OL3 5HU

Tel 01457 872859

Press Release 6/10/2004

Immediate

Advance Notice

Follow up - National Wind Farm Action Group Conference

Saturday April 2nd - Saddleworth Civic Hall

Following the success of the first National Wind Farm Action Group Conference held in Saddleworth on Saturday June 19th, the Saddleworth Moors Action Group (SMAG) will be hosting a follow-up conference on Saturday April 2nd.

SMAG spokesperson and Saddleworth Parish Councillor Ken Hulme said.

' Some 50 Action Groups from all over the UK came to the conference on June 19th and we are confident that the follow-up conference will be even more successful. We will be inviting representatives from the major political parties to participate and discuss their energy policy with us. If as many predict the General Election will take place on May 5th or May 12th 2005 this would be a very appropriate time for this debate to take place

We will also be following up the discussion we had at the last conference on 'Green Alternatives to Wind', which was led by Professor David Bellamy, with we hope, contributions from member organisations of the British Wind Energy Association who share the view many of us hold, that the big Utilities have hi-jacked the wind energy agenda and are not helping or supporting the cause of smaller scale environmentally sensitive re-newable energy systems.'

SMAG will be working closely with Country Guardian, the long established conservation group concerned with the impact of Giant Turbines on the environment, in the organisation of the conference.

ends

For further information contact Ken Hulme 01457 872859