PEOPLE ONLY WANTING ENERGY RESPONSIBILITY !

Snow Creek, Calif., Oct. 29, 2008 — This summer, environmental justice organizations, environmental organizations, grassroots groups, residents, businesses, and individuals from around the state met at Snow Creek to form an alliance to support renewable energy and to influence the misguided policies that are being presented to the public regarding renewable energy. Its mission statement — “POWER! is an alliance of organizations and individuals that supports sustainable, local energy that contributes to social, economic, and ecological health — embodies the environmental justice considerations lacking in the policy-making decisions of government and some large environmental groups, such as Sierra Club and NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council].

POWER! has released its position paper stating alternate ways to achieve energy efficiency and move away from fossil fuels without sacrificing rural neighborhoods and communities of color. The paper states, “Some large environmental groups have endorsed ‘big solar’ and ‘big wind’ as the only means to combat global warming. These groups do not represent the needs and well-being of desert (or other affected) communities. They have failed to consider the environmental injustice and inefficiency of building and maintaining remote industrial-scale power plants and long-distance power transmission corridors.” For a copy of the position paper, go to: www.generatelocally.org.

Jim Harvey, co-founder of the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy, said, “All the Big Energy companies make their profit from keeping the American people dependent on utility-scale energy sources. Big Solar corporations like Bright Source and Solar Millennium, for example, have the exact same disregard for the environment that T. Boone Pickens and other industrial energy giants have. They are all the same bullies with the same mission — to keep locally distributed energy generation appearing unattractive and to lobby our lawmakers so that legislation does not encourage it.”

Big Solar, wind farms, hydroelectric plants, along with the necessary transmission lines, are nothing less than Domestic Terrorism being perpetrated on our rural communities, communities of low income and color, and to our Desert Southwest’s premier wildlands, backcountry, and precious parks. It has been reported that up to 3,500 private property owners will have their property taken for “the better good”.

Austin Puglisi, a resident of Morongo Valley, rejects the false choice of global versus local environmentalism. “The city of Los Angeles plans to build giant transmission lines through my community, which would also cross at least two established nature preserves. They call this ‘Green Path’ to sell it, but it is anything but green. Local renewable power generation would reduce greenhouse gases while eliminating the need for destructive transmission lines.”

Propositions 7 and 10 are a boondoggle to ratepayers and a bonanza for Big Energy, says Donna Charpied, from the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. “It makes no sense to fast track proposals that are unproven and unrealistically costly to rate payers and taxpayers, with Prop 7, and pave the way for dependence on fossil fuels in the form of natural gas that will serve only to feather the nest of T. Boone Pickens, with Prop 10.”

Donna Tisdale, from Boulevard, Calif., co-founder of Backcountry Against Dumps, explains her disappointment, “It is incredibly disheartening to find Sierra Club’s upper management working at odds against the best interest of our community, and willingly lending credence to such an aggressive and ,in my opinion, less than honest or honorable, wind energy company, Iberdrola. Especially in light of new information that there are much better, less invasive ways to generate renewable energy.”

The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] cowers to developers and goes as far as changing protective designations on lands it administers and is changing the Final EIS for Eastern San Diego County to increase acreage available for industrial wind turbines from 6,900 acres to over 30,000, along the western edge of Anza Borrego State Park almost up to Julian. Now they are amending the plan to allow a new utility corridor for the SDG&E’s controversial 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink.

The Coachella Valley, where poor policies have left residents living with the impacts from industrial turbines, faces even more proposals in the towns of Garnett, Desert Hot Springs, Whitewater, and the beautiful and rustic village of Snow Creek. Les Starks explains, “Snow Creek is a very special place where one can conveniently exit Interstate 10 and soon find a place that is quiet, safe, and stunningly breathtaking in its beauty. The north face of Mount San Jacinto has been noted historically, and still acknowledged today, as one of the country’s most beautiful views. This visual treasure would be negatively affected by the sight and sounds of moving structures, and by the associated elements such as maintenance roads, fences, and lighting.”

A common misconception about industrial-scale renewable development, especially solar power, is that it is benign to the immediate surroundings. For instance, some believe that a solar farm’s main impact is that it shades the plants and animals living underneath the solar collectors. In truth, solar farms usually scrape the entire project site to provide level terrain. Renewable development in the desert will destroy all of the natural, cultural, and visual resources within the project area. In some cases, these impacts extend well beyond the project’s “footprint”, particularly if it would require building hundreds of miles of transmission lines to transport the energy produced.

Larry Charpied, co-founder of Citizens for the Chuckwalla Valley, explains that there are nearly 40,000 acres of solar proposed in his rural community. “We are not only facing the proposed Eagle Mountain dump, we’re also potentially saddled with a hydro-electric pumped storage proposal, as well as the solar projects. One company, OptiSolar, has thousands of acres proposed next to Joshua Tree National Park. When we sent an FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request to learn more about the project, the BLM denied our request except for some innocuous documents. This makes me wonder how much ’sex, drugs, and rock and roll’ is happening within the Department of the Interior and developers of so called ‘green energy proposals’. I hope the GAO is looking closely at what is happening out west!”

“At this time, the BLM has received up to 200 applications to build solar plants on federal land. In California alone, there are 80 proposals involving 700,000 acres. In Nevada there are 23 applications. So far, the BLM has accepted about 130 applications to build solar plants on one million acres of public land in six states. And, as of August 7, 2008, there were 63 wind energy applications for 412,547 acres secured with BLM Right of Ways just in the California Desert District, plus a number of wind energy applications in Nevada,” says Kevin Emmerich, a Nevada activist.

The bottom line is, there are better ways to meet our energy goals without the negative environmental justice, conservation, and environmental issues if policies are set to meet the needs of the people as opposed to the corporations who will reap a windfall at taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ expense. But then again, policies may be influenced when respected people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are named senior advisers at VantagePoint Venture Partners last year while VantagePoint has a multimillion-dollar stake in BrightSource Energy, according to the L.A. Times. BrightSource plans to build solar projects on nearly six square miles along the Nevada border. Kennedy stands to profit should the projects come to fruition. Yet at the same time, the Kennedys oppose wind projects near their home. They recognize the impacts from these so called “green projects”, but they seem okay as long as they stay out of their back yard.

_______________________________________________________

POWER !

D’Anne Albers: Morongo Basin Conservation Association; dgalbers@live.com (760) 361-7416
Donna Charpied: Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; donna.c@ccaej.org (760) 574-1887
Larry Charpied: Citizens for the Chuckwalla Valley; laronna@earthlink.net (760) 987-1363
Kevin Emmerich: Nevada Activist; atomictoadranch@netzero.net (775) 553-2806
Terry Frewin: Sierra Club CA/NV Desert Committee; terrylf@cox.net (805) 966-3754
Edie Harmon: Sierra Club CA/NV Desert Committee; desertharmon@gmail.com
Jim Harvey: Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy; jimh@protectourlands.com
Stan Haye: Sierra Club CA/NV Desert Committee; adit@ridgenet.net (760) 375-8973
Joyce Manley: Community of Whitewater; mothermanley@cs.com (760) 251-9907
John and Maura Moody: Desert Survivors; squirehouse@comcast.net (707) 829-1689
Austin Puglisi: Morongo Valley, CA
Ruth Rieman: California Desert Coalition; rrieman@riemansculpture.com (760) 364-3455
Les Starks: Community of Snow Creek; snowcreekpres@aol.com (760) 323-4089
Donna Tisdale: Backcountry Against Dumps; donnatisdale@hughes.net (619) 766-4170
Alexandra Weit: Community of Snow Creek; bobweit@msn.com (760) 325-0547

For Immediate Release
Press Advisory
October 29, 2008

Contact:
Donna Charpied, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice: (760) 574-1887
Kevin Emmerich, Nevada: (775) 553-2806
Jim Harvey, Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy: (760) 401-1015
Les Starks, Snow Creek Village community of Whitewater, Ca.: (760) 323-4089
Donna Tisdale, Backcountry Against Dumps: (619) 766-4170

Wind Concerns Ontario provides a strong, unified voice of opposition to the unchecked rush to locate over six hundred forty massive industrial wind turbines across the province in the last 5 years without the benefit of full environmental assessment. Plans to locate thousands more at an accelerated schedule, with even less oversight are tearing apart the very fabric of rural Ontario. Along with their transformers, transmission lines, overhead distribution wires and substations these industrial wind turbines threaten people and the environment in serene, historic, rural communities, on prime agricultural land, migratory bird paths, close to sensitive wetlands, designated wildlife areas and pristine shorelines.

Wind Concerns Ontario is in favour of environmentally sound solutions to our energy demands and environmental challenges. However hundreds of published reports from scientists, engineers, physicians and environmentalists refute misleading claims by wind power developers that industrial wind technology will be either effective or harmless.

Wind Concerns Ontario is committed to informing the people of Ontario as to the whole truth about industrial wind power.

MEMBERS TO DATE:
Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County
Amaranth Group
Bruce Highlands Concerned Citizens
Bruce Area Wind Action Group
Chatham-Kent Wind Action Group
Coalition to Protect Amherst Island
Coalition of Residents –Tiny
Dawn-Euphemia Action Group
Dufferin Wind Action
Essex County Wind Action Group
Friends of Arran Lake
Grey Highlands Wind Action Group
Innisfil Windwatchers
Melancthon Group
Middlesex Wind Action group
MVWF
Oxford Wind Action Group
Preserve Grey Highlands
SOS Renfrew County
Skydive Toronto Inc.
Vestige Group
Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment

For more information contact:
Beth Harrington
Media Relations
Wind Concerns Ontario
beth.harrington@sympatico.ca
w. 416 481-6424
c. 647 588-8647

The basis of this emergency motion was the gross abuse of discovery procedures in producing an enormous overload of documents on the last day before the hearings were to begin, many of which are more than two months old.

At the end of the day on Friday, September 19, attorneys for Deerfield Wind, LLC, e-mailed to all of the intervening parties sixty-one separate electronic files containing numerous documents and totaling fifteen megabytes. Much of this newly disclosed information was crucial to hearings scheduled to start on Monday. The parties argued that most of the documents were two to three months old and all of the documents should have been provided weeks earlier.

The Board appeared to accept the argument, which was largely supported by attorneys for the Agency of Natural Resources and the Department of Public Service, that the late filing of this massive number of important documents placed the public at a distinct disadvantage and undermined the ability of the Board to have a full record presented to it. The Board also seemed to be troubled by the fact that the recently released draft of the Federal Environmental Impact Statement being prepared by the US Forest Service (the Project is proposed for the Green Mountain National Forest) made it difficult for the parties to fully respond to that draft document and prepare for and participate in the Vermont hearings.

The board entertained parties arguments that approval of this emergency motion would also allow parties to review the draft EIS study.

The new date for hearings to begin, agreed to by Deerfield Wind and all other parties, is December 1, 2008.

About SVR: Save Vermont Ridgelines is a non-profit citizens group formed to protect Vermont Ridgelines from damaging environmental impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information about the organization is available through its website, www.clearskyvt.org.

“Our role is to determine the environmental impacts of the project and decide if this is the best place for this project at this time,” said Forest Supervisor Meg Mitchell who explains that public comment is an important part of the National Environmental Policy Act process. Comments from the Draft EIS will help the Forest make their final decision. The Final EIS will be released after the Forest reviews comments and further evaluates the project.

The Forest is evaluating several alternatives in their DEIS, including the original proposal from Iberdrola, the project proponent, of 17 new generation 2.0 to 2.1 megawatts turbines about 385 feet tall, ground to blade tip. The total energy production capacity of the project would be 34 to 35.7 megawatts. Depending upon the technology available at implementation, it is estimated that this site will be capable of producing enough electricity to meet the annual needs of about 16,000 average homes.

Two other action alternatives are being considered; development of the east ridge only; and an alternative with reduction of 3 turbines on the west ridge. The Forest Service has not identified a preferred alternative at this point; they are waiting for more information from the public comment period and results from the on-going review by the Vermont Public Service Board.

The Vermont Public Service Board and the Forest Service are using separate processes to evaluate the proposal. These processes are running concurrently so the PSB and the Forest can share data and information. To be constructed, the project has to be approved by both.

“Alternative energy is very important when looking at the future of Vermont’s energy portfolio,” said Mitchell, “It is our responsibility to take a hard look at every alternative energy proposal we receive and carefully weigh the costs and benefits within a public process.”

The DEIS is currently available on the Green Mountain National Forest website. [It is also available here at National Wind Watch (36 MB).]

The Forest Service will be receiving comments through the end of November. The Forest will hold an open house during the comment period to share and gather information and comments.

Comments can be sent to:
Deerfield Wind Project – Robert Bayer
2538 Depot St
Manchester Center VT, 05255

Ante esta situación de exagerado retraso en el cumplimiento de los cauces legales y la abierta confabulación entre las autoridades judiciales locales y las empresas transnacionales, Los integrantes de la Asamblea en Defensa de la Tierra y el Territorio Istmeño, decidimos hacerle una “visita colectiva” el día 19 de agosto de 2008 a este funcionario gubernamental, quien no ha dado trasladado a las mas de 120 demandas de nulidad de contratos para usufructo de tierras, que las empresas transnacionales extranjeras y principalmente españolas (Union Fenosa, Preneal, Gamesa, Endesa) a base de engaños, lograron que comuneros y comuneras de Juchitan, Union Hidalgo y Xadani firmaran estos contratos de renta de sus tierras para la instalación de los parques de generación de energía eolica, pero que al darse cuenta del engaño y del descarado despojo que significaban, decidieron, dentro de los cauces legales existentes luchar por la anulación de estos contratos.

Este 19 de agosto, después de esperar mas de 7 meses la respuesta de la autoridad, nos presentamos ante el juez de lo civil quien EMPEÑÓ SU PALABRA Y SE COMPROMETIÓ a que este viernes 22 de agosto nos presentará la documentación, donde comprobemos que las empresas están siendo notificadas de las demandas de nulidad que presentamos desde el mes de diciembre del 2006.

Asi mismo, hicimos un mitin en la explanada del palacio municipal donde denunciamos la complicidad de los tres niveles de gobierno con las empresas extranjeras eolicas Calderón a nivel nacional del PAN, Ulises Ruiz gobernador priista y Mariano Santana López de la COCEI-PT autoridad municipal. Este último, que de manera discursiva esta junto con los otros partidos políticos de supuesta izquierda en la defensa de PEMEX a nivel nacional, en la región del Istmo y en Juchitan en particular a manifestado su beneplácito con la implementación del mega proyecto eolico, y está apoyando a las empresas transnacionales eolicas, por lo que es un traidor a los comuneros y comuneras y a el pueblo mas necesitado de Juchitan y del Istmo.

Reiteramos nuestra disposición a defender nuestros derechos indígenas, nuestras tierras y territorio ante esta neocolonización que hacen empresas extranjeras con la complicidad de los vende patrias de el gobierno de todos los partidos políticos.

¡NO AL MEGAPROYECTO DE ENERGIA EOLICA EN EL ISTMO QUE NOS DESPOJA DE NUESTRAS TIERRAS Y PATRIMONIO CULTURAL!

¡POR LA UNIDAD EN LA LUCHA DE RESISTENCIA DE NUESTROS PUEBLOS INDIGENAS Y OPRIMIDOS!

ATTE

ASAMBLEA EN DEFENSA DE LA TIERRA Y EL TERRITORIO

CENTRO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS “TEPEYAC”

COLECTIVO MAGISTERIAL Y POPULAR “14 DE JUNIO”

RADIO COMUNITARIA “TOTOPO”

Martes 26 de agosto de 2008

rojoynegro.info

Guayanilla, PR – El anunciado acuerdo entre la administración del Departamento de Recursos Naturales (DRNA) y la empresa Windmar, para indultar los daños y delitos que ésta cometió en Punta Verraco, Cerro Toro y Punta Ventanas tras adelantar parte del proyecto industrial, a cambio de la titularidad del 83% de estos, confirma la veracidad de las denuncias de ciudadanos de Guayanilla y ambientalistas de todo el país. La parte querellante no fue consultada para esos fines, por lo que sus derechos se ven afectados. Se pierde la confianza en la agencia pues su función operacional cede ante los intereses económicos de algunos poderosos.

Más aún, el acuerdo revela un esquema de fraude por altos funcionarios del DRNA para no referir el caso al Departamento de Justicia y evitar que sea procesado criminalmente. Estos funcionarios ocultaron información a la Junta de Calidad Ambiental (JCA), al United States Fish and Wildlife Service y a la Junta de Planificación para inducirlas a endosar permisos y una Declaración de Impacto Ambiental (DIA) deficiente e incompleta. En el “endoso” emitido el 1ro de febrero de 2007 por parte del subsecretario del DRNA a la JCA como parte del proceso de evaluación de la DIA, éste omite brindar información sobre los daños por acciones de desmonte previos a la aprobación de permisos para construir en el lugar. Esta omisión representa uno de los elementos claves del fraude.

Aunque el secretario del DRNA expresó en el 2006 su intención de referir el caso al Departamento de Justicia ante la gravedad de los delitos, hasta el momento el caso aún no ha sido referido. En aquel momento, tras intervenir y detener las obras, los vigilantes del DRNA describieron los daños como “una de las peores violaciones ambientales que se ha visto” y aseveraron que “este caso, si no es el más violento, está entre ellos”.

Según informes del DRNA, Windmar destruyó yacimientos arqueológicos, hábitat crítico esencial, miles de árboles de bosque seco, causó desmonte y remoción de la corteza terrestre en zona cársica, construyó vías y accesos sin autorización, rellenó un humedal y una quebrada intermitente, impactando especies varias amenazadas o en peligro de extinción. Los artículos 240 y 243 del Código Penal (Ley 149 de 2004), tipifican estos daños como estrago y contaminación ambiental agravada, delitos graves que conllevan reclusión. Al negociar penalidades por intercambios de titularidad, la administración del DRNA pretende otorgar impunidad al inversionista y favorecer sus intereses.

La administración del DRNA no se percata de que si efectúa el acuerdo en contra de las recomendaciones de su propio personal científico, será cómplice de los graves daños ambientales ocasionados y abrirá las puertas para que Windmar continúe destruyendo Punta Ventanas, Cerro Toro y Punta Verraco, por lo que ambos podrían ser procesables criminalmente.

# # #

23 de julio de 2008

Contacto:
José Sáez Cintrón, Portavoz — Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco
787 601-3175, jsaezcintron@yahoo.com
http://www.coalicionventanasverraco.org

Referencias:
http://coalicionventanasverraco.org/node/357
http://coalicionventanasverraco.org/node/420
http://coalicionventanasverraco.org/node/562
http://www.drna.gobierno.pr/oficinas/asesoras/legales/documentos/Presentacion%20Delitos%20Ambientales.ppt

CWW has compiled comprehensive evidence, volumes of empirical data and a paper trail of proof that public officials, developers and their agents and leaseholders have acted collectively to defraud NYS. With this AG announcement of an active investigation, claims and allegations of the industrial wind fraud and wrongdoing will finally be scrutinized by the highest level of law enforcement.

A special thanks goes to District Attorney Derek Champagne of Franklin County who profiles the very best traits of public service and enforcement of the rule of law. New York State has heard the outrage of thousands of exploited residents and scores of courageous community organizations. The diligent efforts, research, and documentation of scores of ordinary people finally bears fruit. Now this evidence will hopefully serve as the basis and proof of illegal conduct. All New Yorkers deserve judicial accountability for corruption and predatory developers.

The penalties of anti-trust transgressions are severe. As the legal system works its way through the inquiry, CWW is confident that the evidence will justify grand juries, indictments, trials and convictions.

Cohocton Wind Watch supports the advancement of rational and economically beneficial alternative energy technology. First Wind/UPC Wind and Noble Environmental Power projects are not able to fulfill those standards. Industrial Wind developers want the public to believe their venture generates meaningful “Green Electricity”. The use of NYSERDA public funds by wind developers places an obligation on them to prove that ample prevailing wind patterns exist at their project sites. Wind developers refuse to release the data from test towers. The implication is clear: Much of the New York State has insufficient wind for these industrial turbines to become a reliable electric generating source.

More important, both companies and their dozens of corporate variants engage in a scheme of deception and duplicity. Remember the lesson of Enron’s lies and criminal activity, which led to disastrous consequences for utility ratepayers. The Industrial Wind Swindle will be exposed in court.

Sin embargo, una reciente investigación ha confirmado que dicho proyecto no ha sido radicado ante el Consejo para la Protección del Patrimonio Arqueológico Terrestre de Puerto Rico. Tampoco existe ninguna autorización o endoso por parte de esa agencia. Esta irregularidad es significativa ya que el endoso del Consejo es requisito para que una DIA-F pueda proceder al proceso final de aprobación.

Se encontró además que el proponente de dicho proyecto aún no ha sometido al Consejo los estudios de impactos arqueológicos requeridos por dicha agencia. Esto le fue requerido a Windmar luego de que arqueólogos del Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña encontraron en el 2006 que esa empresa impactó varios yacimientos arqueológicos registrados como recursos culturales, sin los debidos permisos, durante la construcción de caminos nuevos. Al menos dos áreas de concheros precolombinos fueron raspadas por la maquinaria en Punta Verraco. En la colina de Punta Ventanas resultó impactado el sistema de cuevas de las Madamas.

Estas nuevas irregularidades se suman a otras recopiladas por el Departamento de Recursos Naturales (DRNA) y de la propia JCA, según informes redactados a partir del 2004. Los informes confirman que por varios años y sin el conocimiento de las agencias, Windmar ocasionó la destrucción de miles de árboles, así como de hábitat crítico esencial para varias especies en peligro de extinción e impactos a otros recursos únicos e irremplazables. En el 2006, el Cuerpo de Vigilantes intervino otra vez con Windmar, por haber ocasionado destrucción de patrimonio natural y arqueológico al construir nuevos caminos valiéndose de un controvertible permiso del DRNA para limpieza de caminos. Este permiso fue otorgado pese a la oposición de la Secretaria Auxiliar de Permisos del DRNA, tras haber evaluado la solicitud.

El DRNA y el Instituto de Cultura aún no han enviado los resultados de las investigaciones a la JCA y demás agencias a cargo de la evaluación y otorgación de permisos. Esto ha dado paso para que la JCA y agencias como la Junta de Planificación, lleguen a conclusiones erradas, al no poder tomar en consideración la totalidad y magnitud de los impactos.

El permiso otorgado por el Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) en el 2007 para permitirle a Windmar la toma incidental (muerte o daño no intencional) de especies en peligro de extinción se debió a que el FWS desconocía de la existencia de estos informes, por su falta de voluntad para investigar el asunto de manera imparcial y responsable.

###

Lunes, 14 de julio de 2008

Contacto:
José Saéz Cintrón, Portavoz — Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco
787 601-3175, jsaezcintron@yahoo.com
www.coalicionventanasverraco.org

Finally after 3 years of lobbying, and a hearing at the High Court in March 2008, a few weeks ago RES released the background noise data, and professional experts commissioned by Mike Hulme, who is spearheading the Group, have now carried out a preliminary analysis of this data.

This investigation shows that there are indeed serious errors in the data and in RES’ assessment of it. These errors mean that the noise impact of the development is actually greater than RES stated at the Planning Inquiry, and that the protective noise limits contained in the Planning Permission are set too high to offer protection.

Evidence from other wind farms shows that turbine noise CAN cause serious problems for local residents and that turbine noise CAN have impact on properties much further afield than RES has so far acknowledged.

The good news is that largely on the basis of this new evidence permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal has not only been granted but has been granted speedily and in emphatic terms — indicating that there is a strong case to answer.

The Court of Appeal has set a date of 24th and 25th of July 2008 and of course this means funding! Estimates are that a fund of at least £20,000 is required to underwrite costs, and donations and pledges to cover this are URGENTLY needed.

Support for the case to date has been tremendous, both from the local community and much further afield, showing the depth of feeling and concern over the building of an industrial-scale wind turbine power station so close to people’s homes. We have to defend our environment against this defective planning approval. Please help NOW by donating whatever you can.

Donations to the Appeal Fund (made out to ‘Den Brook Judicial Review Fund’) should be sent to: DBJRF c/o Nick Jewell, Lynderies, Heath, Spreyton EX17 5AN

For more information please visit our web site www.denbrookvalley.co.uk, email info@denbrookvalley.co.uk or telephone any of: Mike & Basia Hulme (01363 82220),
Bruce & Karen Everett (01647 231603), Nick Jewell (01647 231553), Claire Hodgson (01363 82628), Richard & Vicki Turner (01363 82876), Muriel Goodman (01837 82626), Ruth Harvey (01837 82838), Anne & Graham Ramsey (01647 24317).

Permission has been given to appeal the recent high court decision and we go to the Court of Appeal in only three weeks time, on 24th July — the second time we’ve been through the court system in only four months The Appeal will crucially re-examine the ‘installed capacity’ balancing procedures along with a recently discovered invalid and flawed noise assessment undertaken by the developer here in Devon.

After persevering for nearly 4 years we at last managed to obtain the developer’s noise monitoring data only a few weeks ago. This was not available at the Planning Inquiry nor at the High Court Hearing. The judge at that Hearing, whilst not upholding our claim, was severely critical of the developer for withholding this data. It was subsequently handed over and we learnt useful lessons in the process — if you are seeking to obtain your background noise and wind-speed data in order to independently evaluate your developer’s noise-assessment, contact us, we would be happy to assist.

An independent professional evaluation of the noise data here has revealed an erroneous analysis and prejudicially flawed noise assessment by a supposedly leading developer with Queen’s and other prestigious awards bestowed upon it. This recently discovered hard and factual evidence leads us to be cautiously optimistic that the Appeal Court will uphold our legal challenge and overturn the planning permission.

Success would set an important precedent to assist all concerned about noise and the vagaries of ‘installed capacity’, and trying to gain some justice in this tortuous wind farm debacle.

It will come as no surprise that we are strapped for funds to underwrite the potential £20k costs exposure for the Appeal Court case. We have raised a massive amount locally and nationally over the past 4 years to get this far but we urgently need your financial support to ensure we are able to take this important legal challenge through to a conclusion.

For more information and for details of where to send your contribution please visit our web site www.denbrookvalley.co.uk.

Many thanks.

2nd July 2008

Mike H
Den Brook Judicial Review Team
info@denbrookvalley.co.uk

Donations made out to “Den Brook Judicial Review Fund” can be sent directly to:

Nick Jewell, Lynderies, Heath, Spreyton, Devon, EX17 5AN, UK