[ posts only (not attachments) ]


View titles only
(by date)
List all documents, ordered…

By Title

By Author

View PDF, DOC, PPT, and XLS files on line

Add NWW documents to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

News Watch

Selected Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups


Resource Documents: Tourism (10 items)


Unless indicated otherwise, documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are shared here to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate. • The copyrights reside with the sources indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations.

Date added:  February 4, 2014
Aesthetics, Tourism, WalesPrint storyE-mail story

Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl | Appeal Decision: Pentre Tump

Author:  Wales Planning Inspectorate | Arolygiaeth Gynllunio

Site address: Land at Pentre Tump, South-East of Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan, New Radnor, Powys


The appeal is dismissed.

Main Issues

The main issues in this appeal concern the effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the landscape and its consequences in these terms for amenity, and the balance to be struck between the effects of the proposal in these terms and the benefits of the scheme in delivering energy from a low-carbon renewable source, having regard to the thrust of relevant local and national policies concerning onshore wind energy developments.

Landscape and visual effects

The 3 turbines would be positioned linearly along a 1km section of a ridge to the south of the A44 passing through the valley of the Summergil Brook between New Radnor and Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan before it climbs westwards past Forest Inn and proceeds towards Llandegley. The ridge varies in elevation from about 480m at its western end (Bryn-y-maen) to about 425m above New Radnor, generally keeping above the 400m contour along its length. The turbines would be located within enclosed upland pasture on top of the ridge at an elevation of about 420m, with the valley floor at about 280m. To the south of this part of the ridge, across slightly lower ground, hills rise to about 530m (Caety Traylow and Llanfihangel Hill).

Access to the site of the turbines would be from the A44 via Lower House Farm. The existing farm access at this point would be upgraded to accommodate large vehicle turning movements. Two small rudimentary agricultural buildings would be removed to facilitate access. A 5m wide stone track would be formed, substantially following the line of an existing bridleway up the hillside but in its middle section taking a new course across and up the slope. The development would also include individual turbine service tracks and hardstandings, temporary construction compound, and electrical switchgear building and compound, all within the confines of the enclosed upland pasture close to the turbine positions.

The landscape and visual effects of the proposed development have been the subject of detailed analysis and assessment via the ES, including the supplementary environmental information (SEI) prepared in August 2013. The local landscape character appraisal and wind energy capacity / sensitivity analysis in the SEI builds on the earlier LANDMAP aspect area analysis in Chapter 7 of the ES and seeks to provide a more detailed assessment of the sensitivity of the local landscape and its capacity to accept a wind turbine development, based on a 5km radius study area and focussing on the Powys County Council Landscape Character Assessment which is informed by and derived from the LANDMAP study.

However, whilst I accept that the methodology followed in this assessment reflects currently accepted professional guidelines, I consider that analysis of local landscape character and wind energy capacity / sensitivity on the basis of the principal overall characteristics of landscape character area LCA R3 Aberedw Uplands only partly reflects the particular landscape characteristics of the appeal site and its environs. LCA R3 is predominantly characterised as of large scale with broad hilltops, often merging to create an upland plateau landform, with simple landcover. Whilst the proposed turbines would undoubtedly be perceived primarily within this context from surrounding upland vantage points, the turbines and the proposed access track from the A44 would equally significantly be experienced in the context of the strongly- defined Summergil Brook valley and the enclosing Pentre Tump ridgeline, which has very different characteristics to the simpler, broader-scale, unenclosed upland landscape.

Although the landscape on the south side of the A44 carries no national or local landscape protection designation, it is nonetheless evaluated as of high scenic quality. Seen from Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan and the A44 for a kilometre or so to the east of the hamlet, the turbines would be perceived as very large structures, frequently with blades in rotation, occupying a considerable extent of the skyline little more than a kilometre away. Whilst the actual turbine positions would be set back somewhat from the crest of the skyline, and the extent of visibility of each turbine would vary from place to place according to intervening vegetation, structures and landform, I consider that overall the turbines would constitute a highly prominent, almost dominant, element in the landscape. In addition, for eastbound users of the A44 for a further 1.5km or so west of Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan, including those halting at lay-bys at The Van and Forest Inn, the turbines would feature as prominent features attracting the eye on the Pentre Tump skyline ahead.

I recognise that road travellers are generally classified as visual receptors of low sensitivity. However, the A44 is a principal leisure route into Wales, recognised as having scenic value. Given this, and the volume of use as a principal route, I regard the effects of the development as perceived by users of the A44 as significant. This stretch of the A44 west of New Radnor through the Summergil Brook valley and past Forest Inn conveys a sense of drama, whether travelling west or east, with the steep valley sides enclosing the valley floor and extending the upland agrarian landform towards an untrammelled skyline and the upland heights beyond. The valley also contains the hamlet of Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan, which nestles on its floor close under the Pentre Tump ridgeline. The proposed turbines would constitute a highly prominent feature on the immediate skyline for users of the A44 and for residents of and those visiting Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan. I consider that they would be an unduly dominant and distracting addition to the landscape setting of the Summergil Brook valley and the hamlet, due to their scale, prominent skyline position and moving blades. They would significantly harm the present landscape attributes of the locality.

In addition, the proposed access track from the A44 onto the Pentre Tump ridge would be a significant new feature in the landscape. Whilst a number of existing tracks climb the valley slopes, including the access track from Lower House Farm to small masts part way up the hillside, the scale and engineered profile of the turbines access track, with its wider running surface to accommodate the large vehicles involved and elements of cutting and building-out from the hillside, would result in a correspondingly greater physical and visual impact upon the landscape. Although the constructional details and landscaping mitigation proposed would assist in reducing the impacts, I nevertheless conclude that the access track element of the development scheme would comprise a somewhat discordant new element across the largely unspoilt valley side, parts of which would be obvious from the A44 and which would be very evident to recreational users of the bridleways in this location.

The second main area of landscape and visual impact relates to the effect of the turbines on the character and the use and enjoyment of the upland areas in the locality. The site of the turbines is on an upland ridge fringing the elevated block of LCA R3 Aberedw Uplands. This is a large-scale landscape, characterised by hills merging to form an extensive plateau, broad sweeps of sky and a generally unenclosed and undefined landcover pattern. However, notwithstanding that the area has no national or local landscape designation, its scenic quality is evaluated as high. Although the elevation of the Pentre Tump Ridge, on which the turbines would stand, is exceeded by hills to the south and north, the site is prominently located in a range of views and vistas from different directions, with many upland recreational routes leading in the direction of, or having views of, the site. These routes include a number of publicised routes and routes used for pony trekking tours, including overnight stays at Llanfihangel-Nant-Melan.

Indeed, the evidence indicates a concentrated network of recreational routes onto and along the ridge on which the turbines would be located, and over the higher ground of Llanfihangel Hill / Caety Traylow to the south and Bryn y Maen to the west. For users of these routes the proposed turbines would be a persistent presence in the landscape for distances of up to 2.5km from the site, giving rise to a spectrum of effect in the landscape ranging from prominent, through dominant, to overpowering in the immediate vicinity of the turbines. To the north are upland recreational routes descending from the high ground of Radnor Forest, from where the turbines would appear as noticeable elements distracting from the extensive and otherwise unencumbered vista to the far horizon of Hay Bluff and the Black Mountains. Overall, I consider that the extent to which the proposed turbines would impose themselves upon the landscape experienced and perceived by users of the upland recreational routes, particularly the network of bridleways used by horse riders, represents a significant adverse effect.

The turbines would also be a noticeable skyline feature, at a range of about 5km, in the fine vista of the Radnorshire uplands obtained looking westwards from the Offas Dyke Path National Trail over Hergest Ridge. Although Natural England has not objected on grounds of impact on the Offa’s Dyke Path National Trail, and I accept that various man-made structures including other turbines may be visible from various parts of the trail, in this particular landscape context I consider that the turbines would detract from the current fine and untrammelled view of Welsh uplands afforded from the route over Hergest Ridge.

I consider that, notwithstanding the broad landscape characteristics pointed to by the Appellant in support of the case that the host landscape has the capacity to accommodate the proposed scheme, the qualities of simple, unencumbered upland landform, space and relative tranquillity would be significantly interrupted by the proposed turbines. Given the extensive network of recreational routes, both close to and further away, from which the turbines would be perceived as prominent, dominant or even overwhelming, and the level of sensitivity which users of these routes will have to the character of their surroundings, I conclude that the proposed development would have a seriously adverse effect on the character and appearance of this upland landscape and the amenity of its users.

A further matter arising from the relationship of the proposed development to rights of way is the development’s effect on the use and enjoyment of the public rights of way network. In addition to the effect of the turbines on the appreciation of the upland landscape from the various recreational routes referred to above, the proposed development would have impacts on usage of bridleways in the immediate vicinity of the development. Existing bridleways pass 145m from the indicated location of turbine T3 (route 1264) and 150m from the indicated location of turbine T1 (route 1262). Annex C of TAN 8 refers to a British Horse Society (BHS) suggestion of a 200m exclusion zone either side of bridleways in order to avoid turbines frightening horses. TAN 8 notes that this is not a statutory requirement and the circumstances pertaining at any particular site should be taken into account. At the hearing I was informed that the current BHS guidance recommendation is for an exclusion distance of three times the turbine height (in this case, 310m), although TAN 8 remains as before.

Given the evidence suggesting regular usage of bridleway routes 1262 and 1264 past the proposed turbine locations I consider that this is a significant issue. The submitted unilateral undertaking makes provision for new lengths of permissive bridleway to be created, allowing riders to divert from the existing bridleways so that it would not be necessary to ride closer than 252m from turbine T3 and 275m from turbine T1. Whilst I consider that the resulting separation distances if using these routes as an alternative would be likely to be broadly acceptable, it would nonetheless entail an artificial and somewhat convoluted diversion away from the historically used route past Llanwentre Pool and then along the natural line east of Foice Farm around Pentre Tump. Such disruption would dilute the connection between receptor and the historical line of the bridleway route, which is integral to the experience and enjoyment of the landscape. Even though the proposed permissive bridleway measures would create a feasible alternative, I consider that the enforced diversion, for those riders who feel that the turbines would render the existing bridleway route unfeasible or inadvisable, weighs against the proposed development. Moreover, whether using the proposed permissive bridleway sections or not, riders using the rights of way hereabouts would find their experience and enjoyment of the landscape heavily altered, and in my view compromised, by the presence of the turbines.

For bridleway users passing between Lower House and Pentre Tump ridge there would be inconvenience and disruption to normal usage of the right of way during the development construction phase. This would manifest itself first in the enforced use of the proposed temporary diversion; in addition, the initial bridleway length from the A44 would evidently be shared with construction traffic during this period. Second, even though bridleway users would be segregated from the line of the new access road during the construction phase, there would plainly be disturbance and loss of amenity for bridleway users, from the nearby physical construction of the new track up the hillside and then from the track’s use by turbine construction traffic. I accept that these effects would be short-term. However, and longer-term, the physical changes to landform and surface arising from the construction of the new site access road would alter radically the bridleway experience for users of routes 1249/1248 following the construction phase. These adverse effects, whilst not determinative by themselves, weigh in the balance against the proposal.

Whilst I accept that the provisions of the unilateral obligation provide a technically workable solution to bridleway access issues, I nonetheless consider that the new arrangements put forward would represent a poorer state of affairs for users of this significant part of the bridleway network. The financial provisions for signage and other rights of way improvements and the undertaking to provide if required a permissive path people to pass closer to the turbines if they wish are not matters, in my view, which adequately offset the harmful effects I have identified. Overall, I consider that the provisions of the unilateral undertaking do not overcome the harm to amenity which would result from the proposed development. Moreover, the fact that such extensive measures are put forward in an attempt to provide mitigation only emphasises the significant discord between the scheme’s characteristics and the pattern and nature of recreational activity and enjoyment of the landscape which takes place. …

Having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Alwyn B Nixon

Download original document: “Pentre Tump Appeal Dismissed

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  October 20, 2013
Environment, General, Health, Noise, Pennsylvania, Tourism, WildlifePrint storyE-mail story

Big changes for Big Valley?

Author:  Jackson, Laura

Big changes are literally looming on the horizon for Big Valley. Not just Big Valley, but many other areas of Mifflin County will see some big changes on the top of Jacks and Stone Mountains if industrial wind projects are built. Jacks Mountain is targeted for two industrial wind projects. Volkswind and E.ON, two German companies, plan to construct industrial power plants on top of Jacks Mountain.

E.ON is also testing wind speeds on Stone Mountain. The test tower on Stone Mountain is easy to see from the northeastern end of Airydale along Rt. 655 – look toward Stone Mountain and you will see the tower. Volkswind has a test tower on Jacks Mountain above Belleville, readily seen from Apple House Road and Dry House Road. The test towers are meteorological towers that collect data on wind speed and direction.

Jacks Mountain is narrow and steep on top in many places, so there will have to be a huge cut-and-fill construction project to create a ledge wide enough to place roads, underground connecting cables and industrial turbines. Each turbine will have a cleared area beside it large enough for a huge crane. The cranes and turbines must be sited on a compacted, level area devoid of trees.

The impact to the top of Jacks Mountain will be significant. The trees on top will be cut; stumps will be buried and possibly burned. The rocks will be blasted. The rubble will be bulldozed. A wide flat ledge will be fashioned out of rock so heavy equipment can travel along the top. The turbines will be built on that ledge. A wide road without any tree cover will connect the turbines. A clearing along the road will contain buried cables that connect the turbines.

Forward Wind Project, owned by Mission Edison – Somerset Co., Pa.

Forward Wind Project, owned by Mission Edison – Somerset Co., Pa.

Volkswind’s Proposed Project

We know that Volkswind plans to construct 20 industrial turbines that will be 436 feet tall, measured to he tip of the upright blade. Volkswind has submitted the 20 location points to the Federal Aviation Administration for approval. The turbines will be on top of Jacks Mountain and will dominate the skyline for over 4 miles, impacting Granville, Union, and Menno Townships.

Any type of construction project on steep slopes will have to comply with DEP’s water pollution regulations and that will require a lot of sediment traps and retention basins built downslope from the turbines and the road – adding even more changes to the forested slopes on Jacks.

Fortunately, DEP has strict regulations for construction, to reduce the erosion and sedimentation problems that occur when building on steep slopes. That might be why there are no other wind projects in Pennsylvania, which I know of, that have been constructed on a mountain as steep and narrow as Jacks. There was one project proposed for Dunning Mountain in Bedford County, which is a lot like Jacks Mountain, but the company eventually abandoned the project.

E.ON’s Proposed Project

We know even less about E.ON’s plans for its wind project, but we suspect that this project will be much larger than Volkswind’s, and will be built on both Stone and Jacks Mountains. Based on the limited information available on the PJM grid, upwards of 75 turbines might be built, possibly impacting 8-9 miles of Stone and Jacks Mountains.

The PJM grid is part of the Eastern Interconnection grid that operates the electric transmission system in all or parts of 13 states, plus the District of Columbia. PJM (which stands for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland), headquartered in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, is the world’s largest competitive wholesale electricity market. Watch for a later article that explains more about how the grid operates
and why large amounts of wind energy added to the grid increase the likelihood of having power outages.

Impact on Water Supplies

Clearing and excavating huge amounts of rock and dirt on steep slopes will significantly change how the mountains supply water to the farms, homes, and businesses in the valleys below Stone and Jacks Mountains. Forested mountains act like a giant sponge when it rains. The trees soften and slow the impact of stormwater, allowing the rain and melting snow to seep into the ground. Down slope, this water flows to the surface as a spring, or forms a stream. When the trees are cut on the upper slopes of mountains, and replaced by wide roads, concrete pads, and clearings, there is a lot of runoff during storms and snowmelt. Stormwater channels will be needed, as well as many retention basins. What might look good on paper doesn’t always work. Maintenance is always an issue, too. There is often little oversight on maintaining stormwater controls and road grading after the wind project is constructed.

One inch of rainfall on 4 acres totals about 110,000 gallons of water. Where does water go when trees and underbrush have been removed on top of a mountain? Downhill, and in a hurry! The culverts and ditches will actually concentrate the force of water, which will require many infiltration areas with very deep soils.

The entire water recharge system on top of the mountain will change. Who knows how that will affect wells, springs, and streams so vital to farms and communities in the valleys?

Impact on Scenic Viewsheds and Tourism

Pick up any real estate listing in central Pennsylvania and one of the selling points often listed is “beautiful mountain views.” Many people live in Mifflin County and surrounding areas because they value the rural lifestyle and beautiful surroundings. Whether you like the looks of wind turbines or not, turbines create a visual clutter on the landscape that can’t be denied. Many people oppose wind turbines built on mountains because they transform an undeveloped, wild area into mile after mile of industrial power plants. The turning blades during the day and the red blinking lights at night are a distraction which many people find to be objectionable. We’ve developed our valleys, but the steep topography of our mountains has protected them until now. Uncluttered, open space on forested mountains provides important safeguards for communities, such as clean water and air.

Beautiful mountains also draw tourists to the area, especially to enjoy the dramatic color as the leaves change color in the fall. Busloads of tourists stop at the top of Jacks Mountain to visit the hawk watch and to enjoy the rural views and colorful scenery. Will tourists want to visit an area when the mountains are degraded by industrial turbine projects?

Impact on Health

Turbines produce various types of noise: one type is a screeching and thumping when the blades rotate or turn. This noise has been described as jets circling in the sky, or giant washing machines spinning overhead for hours at a time. The noise is most bothersome at night, and may prevent people from getting enough sleep. A high-pitched whistle also occurs when the tape on the leading edge of a blade becomes loose. Blades have shattered and pieces have been flung many feet away from the tower. Ice builds up on the blades in the winter, making it unsafe to be near turbines. These huge icicles are flung with tremendous force and have actually smashed through truck windshields. Eventually the blades stop turning when icing occurs, but accidents may occur before the turbines are stopped.

Another type of noise produced by turbines is a low-frequency vibration that may cause severe health problems in people susceptible to this type of vibration. While much research remains to be done, doctors all over the world are dealing with patients who live near wind turbines. Some people experience migraines, dizziness, palpitations, vertigo, and other illnesses only when they are near wind turbines. A growing number of doctors recognize that the low-frequency vibrations can affect the delicate sensors in the ear, as well as cause other body organs to resonate. The wind industry in general denies any health-related problems – much like the tobacco industry denied that smoking causes cancer in some people.

Some wind experts advise that turbines should be set back at least a mile from residences, as this will avoid most of the noise problem caused by turbines.

In the case of Volkswind’s proposed project, some of the turbines will be quite close to homes on both sides of Jacks Mountain, so it is likely that there will be health problems caused by the noise.

More details on health issues will be addressed in a future article.

Wind Turbines Kill Wildlife

Both Jack’s Mountain and Stone Mountain have hawk watches where volunteer counters have recorded many years worth of data showing that these mountains serve as important migratory pathways for thousands of birds. Bats also migrate along the top of the mountains, as do monarch butterflies and various species of dragonflies. In some areas, the wind turbine blades have to be cleaned, because the crust of dead insects creates a drag on the leading edge of the blade.

Industrial wind turbines kill birds through direct hits and indirectly by degrading their habitats. Bats are killed when they fly near a turbine – their delicate lungs explode from the sudden drop in air pressure. Future articles will explain in more detail why biologists are greatly concerned about industrial wind’s threats to wildlife. Even though wind turbines do not produce toxic pollution, they still kill many species of wildlife.

It’s Really All About Federal Subsidies

Industrial wind companies need four main resources to operate: proximity to transmission lines, good prices for electricity, adequate wind, and government subsidies. Jacks and Stone Mountains offer the first three and tax payers kick in the subsidies.

Electricity produced by the proposed wind projects will have to be routed to substations and then fed to transmission lines in Big Valley and on Jacks Mountain. The power market has good prices in the eastern United States.

The other necessary resource is wind. Pennsylvania’s windiest areas are on our mountains – that’s why wind companies want to build on top of Jacks and Stone Mountains. But the wind resources in Pennsylvania are limited. The average production from wind projects in Pennsylvania is only 25%. We just don’t have the steady, reliable winds that are needed to produce much electricity.

The fourth resource, federal subsidies, is really why wind companies are targeting Pennsylvania’s mountains. Even though we do not have good wind resources, the federal payments make the projects feasible. Right now companies are receiving a production tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is substantial.

The Wind Production Tax Credit expired at the end of 2012, but was extended as part of a deal cut by politicians to avoid the spending cuts and steep tax increases on the middle class – the so-called “fiscal cliff.”

According to the Institute for Energy Research, as long as the wind project is operating by 2015, the developers will receive the credit for the next 10 years. Even projects that come online after the 2015 deadline could possibly qualify.

Supporters of the Wind Production Tax Credit point out that all energy production is subsidized, and this is true. Wind and other renewables, however, are the only ones that get tax credits based on production, which makes this subsidy highly lucrative for companies. That’s why so many fossil fuel-based companies are developing wind projects. They want the easy money available from government handouts.

How can you help?

Volkswind and E.ON have not received any permits to build these industrial power plants on Jacks or Stone Mountain, so it isn’t too late to contact the township supervisors in Granville, Menno, Union, and Wayne Townships in Mifflin County. Brady Township is impacted in Huntingdon County. If you live in the Belleville area, call and thank the Union Township supervisors for passing a wind ordinance to help protect the residents and the wildlife. While it is illegal to ban a project, or to impose a moratorium, it is legal to regulate setbacks and noise limits. Union Township supervisors developed an ordinance that will help to protect residents from noise and safety concerns.

Call the township office where you live and ask the supervisors to pass an ordinance that regulates setbacks and noise limits. Supervisors have the duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the township residents. Tell the supervisors you are concerned about industrial projects planned for the top of the mountains and ask them to protect your way of life by providing some safeguards.

Then join Friends of Jacks Mountain – it’s free!!! Please cut out, fill out, and mail the membership form:


Laura Jackson is a retired biology and environmental science teacher, amateur naturalist, and nature photographer who used to support industrial wind energy development in Pennsylvania until she learned about all the negative impacts to wildlife, habitats, watersheds, and communities. She helped to start Save Our Allegheny Ridges (SOAR) in 2006 after wind projects were proposed for Dunning Mountain and Shaffer Mountain in Bedford and Somerset Counties. Owing to SOAR’s efforts, both projects were terminated in 2012. Laura serves as the President of SOAR and volunteers her time and expertise to help other communities regulate industrial wind development. SOAR is a 501(c)(3) organization, so any donations are tax-deductible. SOAR is partnering with Friends of Jacks Mountain to educate residents and municipal officials about the impacts of wind projects on Jacks and Stone Mountains. SOAR membership dues are $25 and can be sent to SOAR, P0 Box 178, Everett, PA 15537. Any donations over $25 will be used 100% for regulating wind development on Jacks and Stone Mountains.

The Valley, October 2013 – issuu.com

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  June 11, 2011
Aesthetics, England, Noise, Property values, Regulations, Siting, Tourism, VideosPrint storyE-mail story

Windfarm Wars – episode 2

Author:  BBC2

[ Episode 1 | Episode 3 | Episode 4 ]

Transcript of Windfarm Wars, episode 2 (of 4), BBC2:

This is our best bedroom here. We have people who just literally sit here in the day and look at the view. From that tree there, all the way across the top of those trees, well above the skyline, is where the turbines will be.

Hotel owner Muriel Goodman first learnt six years ago that developers were planning to build a windfarm in the shallow Devon valley below her hotel.

If they go up, there’s no way we’ll stay.

That is a hell of a sign. Yeah, it is, isn’t it?

Farmer Martin Tucker wants the windfarm.

He’ll get five turbines on his land.

Morning, Mr Tucker.

He’s keen to help the environment and he’ll get a chance to retire on the proceeds.

So if we get it, it’s a result.

But there’s been fierce opposition.

Look. Can you believe it?

A few turbines around is not going to affect it that much.

Who’d like one of these in their garden?

The windfarm is the dream of project manager Rachel Ruffle.

I want everyone to love windfarms. And there not to be protesters.

But Rachel’s plans fell apart as the local council voted on the proposal.

That is carried. The application is refused.

But it’s not over yet.

If we decide we’re going to go to appeal then I’ll revisit it.

It’s a story of the biggest dilemma facing the modern world.

We’ve got a serious global warming issue at the moment. And if we don’t do something about it, we are going to leave a dreadful legacy for the next generation. It’s about the sacrifices we’re asked to make.

There’s 3,000 years of continuous human settlement in that valley. And after which, it’s as beautiful as it is today.

And it’s about how the battle for our future played out in one Devon valley.

Is it the same as usual? It is, yeah.


Oh, dear.

Muriel Goodman bought her hotel for its outstanding position and views.

They won’t even admit that it will affect our business because the company’s saying it’s a tourist attraction.

If the developers do appeal and win, she’s worried her business will go under.

The view is going to be completely ruined for absolutely nothing.

Here we go. Thank you. It’s very hot.

That landscape… It would be like a blot, wouldn’t it? Terrible.

There is a possibility they might not appeal. We’ve heard nothing from them. They still, as far as we’re aware, have made no decision.

The first thing we did when we came here was to plough all the ground up. Cos we were going to be self-sufficient, weren’t we?

Mike and Bashum’s cottage on the other side of the valley will be just over a kilometre from the nearest turbine.

They moved to Devon 30 years ago to live a low-impact lifestyle.

Their retirement plan before the windfarm was suggested was to sell the cottage, pay off the mortgage and move into the adjacent barn. The barn that now overlooks the windfarm site.

The view is more important to Bash than it is to me. My main concern is the noise.


I enclose this press release announcing our decision to appeal West Devon Borough Council’s refusal for planning permission for the Den Brook Windfarm proposal.

OK, gone.

From her office nearby, the developer’s project manager, Rachel Ruffle, is at last breaking the news that her company, RES, Renewable Energy Systems, is challenging the council’s decision.

I sent that email out this morning.

I’ve got lots of messages back saying, “Well done,” “Glad you’re appealing”.

If it goes through, I’m moving. I have no choice. Business has gone. You know, to be forced out of my home, my business, the lot, it’s just awful.

One from Mike Hulme, who lives near the project. He’s very worried that it’s going to a cause noise nuisance. As much as you can explain, until it’s there and happening, he’s not going to believe it.

I really do wonder if they’ve actually experienced a windfarm for more than a close-up visit.

Rachel also sends out the press release to the Den Brook Valley Action Group, who vigorously oppose the windfarm.

The only thing this is going to do is generate profit for a large company at very, very little benefit to anybody who’s actually paying for all this lot.

Everything’s been quiet in the area at the moment but obviously when they realise the appeal’s gone in, I’m sure things will kick off again.

Now there will be a public inquiry.

Go on, shoo! Shoo! Come here, you wicked girls.

The date for the public inquiry has not been set yet but the council have written to see who’ll wish to be what’s called a Rule Six party and be represented by a barrister.

For individuals like Muriel and Mike, it’s a difficult issue.

RES, big company, got plenty of money, you think, “What hope have I got?” They are one of the biggest developers in the country. They are going to have the best barrister. They’re not going to have someone who’s just come in off the street. They’ll have someone who really knows their stuff. It is a bit like a court. It’s going to be obviously quite nerve-racking. Big money against no money, it’s that sort of thing. We haven’t got a hope.

Developing the Den Brook windfarm has been expensive for RES. But the government promotes the growth of renewable energy by making it a lucrative business. And each county has ambitious government targets to meet. Devon has had to plan for 151 megawatts of renewable energy by 2010.

They don’t look like they’re generating to me.

So far, they’ve only reached 20 percent of their target.

Three megawatts of it are from this small windfarm run by another company 30 miles from Den Brook.

When he first came here more than a year ago, Mike was very worried by what he heard.


Anybody who says they can’t hear that is hard of hearing.

We trade…

Mike had started with a good relationship with Rachel. No, no.

It’s just… I use…

And he gave RES permission to record background noise levels at his home, as long as they let him have the data. But when the time came for him to hand in his submissions to the council, they hadn’t let him have the data.

I was waiting for some information from RES and I get the feeling they’ve fobbed me off.

There’s another three being proposed on the other side of the village.

He’d like to tackle RES about his noise concerns at the inquiry. But he’s nervous about performing in public.

If I try and put myself up as an expert witness, their high-powered barristers and experts will just tear me to shreds.

I’ll undermine my own credibility and that’s what their intention will be.

RES say the windfarm will supply electricity for up to 13,000 homes and bring jobs and investment to the area. But before everything can be examined at the inquiry, Rachel has work to do. She’s bringing in contractors to test-excavate the top layers of soil at the windfarm site. The area’s rich in archaeological history and she has to show the turbine bases won’t disturb any remains. Each turbine will stand on 270 cubic metres of concrete.

Nice bit of wind today. Yeah. A lot cooler today, isn’t it? Yeah. There’s a lot of opposition. It’s not masses of people but it’s a group of people who are quite vociferous and quite rich. Yeah. We’ll build them far enough that they’re not going to create a noise nuisance. You’ll be able to see them.

Do you do them all over the country? Yeah.

Rachel’s excavation work finds no evidence of remains on site.

Hi, Maureen. All right?

Matters arising. Most of them are on the agenda.

The action group are meeting to prepare for the inquiry.

We agreed that we would appoint a junior barrister rather than a QC and a particular barrister was proposed.

They’re fundraising, but some are acting as guarantors to legal costs.

So if they lose, they could be individually liable for thousands of pounds.

We’ll pass on to the next item which is registration as a charity.

They’re wondering if becoming a charity could protect them.

And I don’t mind if it then takes another year but I would get my money back.

Remember, if we defeat RES, the next power company will be right on their heels making the same sort of application. I don’t think this is the end of the day.

I think we may find our charitable status…

The inquiry date’s been set for just six weeks’ time.

I know I would be apprehensive in that situation.

I’m sure you would. I’m sure most people are. Yeah.

Mike’s still trying to decide whether to open himself up to cross-examination.

The legal profession that does these planning inquiries would generally say an appearance is going to make more impact than simply a written document.

Could you ask the parties…

His friend Adam has a lot of experience of planning procedures.

I mean, you’ve written a letter which sets out things that you think the inspectors should explore?

I’ve basically written a letter pointing to what I see as being flaws in the assessment that’s been done.

Mike’s been doing his own research.

One type of turbine noise, something like this blade swish…


…is called amplitude modulation, or AM. And some experts say it’s not fully taken into account in the industry guidelines.

It isn’t mentioned in RES’s noise assessment, either.

Mike’s concerned that while it may be windy on the windfarm site, he’s often noticed still air conditions around his property, so he’s worried AM noise could easily travel that far.

So Mike asked the inspector to make certain that suitable planning conditions would be put in place to protect living conditions at neighbouring properties.

I’ve made suggestions as to what I think I would like to see done if the development is going to be approved.

So the other side are going to say these are not flaws.

I would think so, yeah. Almost certainly.

So the cross-examination is going to, among other things, include, “Mr Hulme, this is not a flaw, is it?

“Because our expert, who unlike you has actually used a noise meter…”

And is qualified and has got 15 years’ experience.

I think that’s the point where you just say, “Mr Inspector, I’m not an expert.

“I’ve got these doubts. They seem to me doubts.

“I can’t answer this question but I would like you to make sure that I’m not…”

None if this is significant. Significance level, not significant.

Action group member John Welsby and his wife Jill have their set of RES’s environmental statement documents for just 24 hours.

The group have only one copy, so it’s circulating around committee members.

What they’ve actually said in the documentation is that they’ve enumerated the properties that are within a three-kilometre radius of the site. I see.

The windmills are not in the centre of the site, they’re spread out all over, and therefore, as a consequence, all these things get left out.

So if you take the three kilometres from where the windmills are, surprise, surprise, it encompasses all Bow, it encompasses all North Tawton and it encompasses Spreyton, which on their diagram here are all shown as being outside that three-kilometre area. It’s carefully designed to put the best possible slant on what they’re proposing. Mm. It’s a good job we didn’t have to rely on these people to put somebody on the moon is all I can say.

A month before the full inquiry, the inspector calls a pre-meeting.

My name is David Lavender and I’m the inspector that’s been appointed to determine the appeal.

But I do need to know who else is present today and the nature of their interest.

RES’s case will be advocated by Marcus Trinick, a veteran of some 350 public inquiries.

He’s a windfarm specialist and a board member of industry body The British Wind Energy Association.

It seems to me that the principle issues in this appeal would be the need for sustainable energy generation, secondly…

Inspector Lavender reminds everyone that he has to conduct the inquiry within the boundaries of government guidance.

I guess that you don’t mean that we’re going to be debating the merits of government policy. Presumably that means that the interpretation of what existing policy does say is a relevant matter.

It is relevant, what is says at the moment, yes. The interpretation of what it says. The interpretation of what it says is a de facto matter.

Thank you.

The question of government policy and its interpretation is not going to go away.

All sides now have just over a month to finalise their key witnesses and circulate their arguments, their proofs of evidence.

Before the meeting, Mike had been apprehensive.

I spoke to the inspector yesterday briefly and he knew who I was, although he didn’t really know what I’d written in my letter, but at least he knew who I was, so I’m certainly more inclined now to speak at the inquiry.

I’d feel a little bit more confident about it and so it’s given me a boost in confidence to be able to get up there and tell them what for at the inquiry. But we’ll see.

Ten days later, Rachel has a local PR problem to deal with.


Hello, Rachel Ruffle. ‘A critical article has appeared in a local paper by journalist Zoe Kenyon.

Yeah, Chris was almost thinking about a letter to ask for a right of reply or just a letter of complaint, really. This is the article. It’s shockingly extreme. It’s saying that we’re not keen to tell them how dangerous the turbines are to birds, bats, or worse, to children. That’s just ridiculous.

On the Den Brook site, farmer Martin Tucker has seen it, too.

“There’ll be many thousands of tonnes of concrete poured into rich and fertile Devon soil.”

Well, it’s not on rich and fertile Devon soil, it’s on marginal land. She’s really just trying to make us out to be some kind of evil, devil companies. It’s ridiculous. “It’s a view unrivalled by anything I’ve seen.” You want to get a life and travel, missus. I’d like to know where she lived, I really would. I hope they come and knock on her door and give her an open invitation.

Myrtle, here! Myrtle!

I just really can’t imagine it.

When Zoe Kenyon moved with her family from London two years ago, she knew the turbines were a possibility.

This one likes being outside, too.

But that was before they became 120 metres high.

As far as I’m concerned, they’ll become the focus of the landscape. It won’t be Dartmoor and Bow and Spreyton and fields and hills and trees and birds, it’ll be turbines, it’ll just be enormous blades. All I’ve had is people saying, “What a great article.” People have written in saying, “Brilliant, give me a ring, I’ll fill you in on more stuff.”

She’s not happy to hear about Martin Tucker’s invitation to visit his farm.

Oh, he wants me to go down, does he?

He’d love you to.

I’m a bit scared of him. He’s not everybody’s favourite person at the moment. I’m a bit scared about waiting for them to come knocking on my door at night.

They’re running away from us. Well, just stand your ground if they come at us.

I’ll get the camera ready.

He’s seen me doing that.

It’d be good to have a stick or two, wouldn’t it?

It’s just days before the inquiry. RES have given Mike a copy of their noise expert’s evidence. In its highly detailed 42 pages, Dr Andrew Bullmore also responds specifically to Mike’s concerns. He reviews in detail the previous findings and noise modelling that RES have undertaken and concludes that close properties are not likely to suffer from enhanced AM.

That’s really nice, that little bridge.

He also appears to classify the terrain as undulating with moderate tree cover.

Our house is somewhere beyond those trees. You certainly can’t call that undulating. It’s not undulating. There’s no way that’s undulating. Not even insignificantly… I would say this is definitely flat. Yeah. Our field is more or less flat. The only… And that is just a slight slope up to where the turbine would be.

Oh, look out, the bulls are coming.

They’re curious. They’ve sussed us. Will we make it to the gate?

Mike has put these new concerns in a final letter submitted to the planning inspectorate. Rachel is reading her copy of it.

Maybe we haven’t explained properly what roughness classification means.

It’s not really applying to the nature of the undulating land, whether it’s flat or undulating, it’s applying to the ground cover. Whether it’s trees or a smooth surface.

Do you model right down towards his house or do you just model around the site?

The whole area’s included in the noise model. Maybe that’s not made clear enough in our evidence.

You see? They’d make mincemeat out of me if they wanted.

Now it’s starting to become undulating. Exactly. You can see. There’s a big drop beyond that hedgerow. Sure. But the nearest turbine, I think, is just going to be the other side of this hedge here.

Mike’s just not convinced by RES’s evidence.

In his final letter, he says that as RES have withheld access to both their recorded noise and wind data, he’s unable in independently verify the true situation.

Originally, I was told they wouldn’t give us the data because it was commercially confidential.

But recently I’ve been told that the reason they won’t release it is because the opposition, or the objectors, will distort the figures and so they’re not going to release it for that reason alone. Who do you believe? What do you believe? I’m not going to be able to live with the constant whoosh, whoosh, whoomp, whoomp in the background for the rest of my life.

I found out where Zoe Kenyon lived, visited her yesterday afternoon. We had a bit of discussion on the doorstep. I was putting my point of view and most of the things she wouldn’t agree with.

I was holding a screaming baby and the door was that far open to stop these guys running out. I was going, “Stay back, vicious dogs”.

So I was sort of peering round the thing and I just felt myself start to cry so I came in here and said, “I’ll take your number.”

As she was holding her baby, I said to her, “How does it affect children?” And she said, “It was only what I read.” I said, “What have you read?” and she couldn’t quantify that.

He was just angry with me, obviously, and then his main argument was, “I’ve been here for generations, “what right have you got to say that after you’ve only been here for a couple of years?”

At which point I burst into tears. Cos you can’t really say anything to that. What can you say?

I was angry at one stage, I admit. She was determined to have her way and wouldn’t sort of listen to facts.

Maybe if someone approached me and asked if they could put up a windfarm in my garden for thousands of pounds, I might go, “Yeah, OK, sod the neighbours, just stick it up as quickly as you can.”

If you look at the perimeter there…

It’s the eve of the inquiry.

Every time I think about it, I feel wobbly in the knees. I feel a sense of concern that I might not be able to do what I would like to do. If my adrenaline or whatever takes over at the time, there’s not a lot I can do about it. Cos I used to have quite a few up at that top end and they’re not there now, there’s nothing there. I guess this is D Day. Very much so. I think this is going to go on for about seven or eight days. I didn’t realise I was on camera.

What’s it about? It’s about a windfarm in North Tawton. Are we going to get it? We don’t know. There’s an inquiry. We do. Do you? OK. It is right, we should have it!

The inquiry is scheduled for seven days. The Rule Six parties will call witnesses and are represented by lawyers who will cross-examine the other side’s experts. Barrister Saira Kabir Sheikh is a planning specialist and will represent the coalition of opposers, the Den Brook Valley Action Group, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Dartmoor Preservation Association. West Devon Borough Council are represented by barrister Philip Drinkwater.

I’ll now begin by formally opening the inquiry.

This is an appeal by Renewable Energy Systems UK Limited against the decision of the West Devon Borough Council. My purpose in being here as a planning inspector is to apply government policy to this case.

The government states its policy is to cut carbon dioxide emissions while maintaining reliable and competitive energy supplies, two objectives that the coalition are hoping to argue a windfarm just can’t deliver.

As the inquiry starts, RES aren’t yet certain whether they’ll choose to call their noise expert.

I may, I don’t know yet, call Dr Andrew Bullmore, whose proof you already heard. Thank you.

In their opening statement, they seek to remind the inquiry of the severe need for the Den Brook windfarm.

The whole international and more local response to climate change is predicated on the accumulation of many individual steps, each of which is essential to the effectiveness of the whole.

Next on my list, Miss Kabir Sheikh.

The group questioned the accuracy of the figures for the level of energy generation, the development’s impact on tourism…

The coalition of objectors intend to question just how much actual energy will be produced and immediately draw attention to RES’s reluctance to provide data.

The refusal to disclose this evidence is surprising, as the only apparent benefit of the proposal is the physical amount of electricity generated.

But for the coalition, there’s a problem.

The government targets are, of course, expressed in terms of installed capacity. This means RES only have to establish how much energy could come from the turbines if the wind blew all the time, the installed capacity.

The reasons for a refusal are that there would be a severely adverse impact on the local landscape, be detrimental to the residents…

For the rest of the day, the council begins evidence on archaeological and landscape issues.

With that, I’m finished for this evening and we’ll resume tomorrow at ten o’clock.

But as the inquiry breaks up, Mike Hulme has a surprise. RES’s advocate, Marcus Trinick, has approached Mike and given him the phone number for RES’s noise expert, Dr Andrew Bullmore.

Have you got any idea why Andrew Bullmore wants to speak to me?

To… He’s supposed to be sending you a response to your letters that you wrote to the inspector. I think there’s certain misunderstandings that you’ve got about… I’m sure there are. So he was just going to talk to you about them because we knew you’d probably have further questions. And you’ve got his mobile number.

I’ll phone him.

I think it’s the best thing to do.

Right. OK.

When Mike goes home that night, he doesn’t phone Dr Bullmore.

Good morning, everybody. It’s ten o’clock and this inquiry is now resumed.

It’s an inquiry into a planning appeal by Renewable Energy Systems…

On the second day, an anxious Rachel once again has to ask Mike if he’s made contact yet.

I just didn’t phone him last night because I didn’t feel I’d understood what he’d said.


I needed to… I’m not an expert in this stuff, as you well know.


I’m in a weird position now, I really am.

I came home and there’s an email from Andrew Bullmore and a message on the phone.

With the email was Andrew Bullmore’s six-page rebuttal argument.

Part of it explains how, in his view, Mike has confused much of the science.

This is definitely flat.

And that if Mike had been an independent experienced acoustic professional, RES would have made the data available to him as, indeed, they had to himself.

You can’t call that undulating.

I mean, he’s reasonably polite, but he’s telling me I’m confused. The fact that he’d rebutted my letter has now enlightened me as to where I effectively asked the wrong question. But I now think I know what the right question is.

I briefly spoke to the coalition and they are trying to persuade me that, if he comes to the inquiry, his evidence carries more weight, because he will be questioned, than if he doesn’t come to the inquiry. And they see that as being an advantage to them. But then, thinking it through, it seemed to me, well, if that works that way, it equally well works for RES. So if RES bring Bullmore in for questioning, it adds a little bit of extra weight to his evidence, so why don’t RES want to bring him in? The way I see it is, they’re trying to suss out if I have got anything else of any possible strength to present to the inquiry.

This inquiry is resumed. It’s the next day.

The inspector’s keen to see where RES and Mike are at.

I did actually try phoning Mr Bullmore last night and he was out.


So I feel perhaps, if it’s acceptable, I would like to maybe put a brief written response to Mr Bullmore’s rebuttal hopefully before the end of the weekend.

May I suggest you try him during the day. That’s when you’re going to get hold of him.

I agree, but I wish to be here during the day.

You’ve got a choice. Thank you, Mr Hulme. As soon as possible, please.

On the third day, the coalition move on to examine RES’s claims for Den Brook’s energy output.

Mr Constable, can I introduce you, please? You are John Constable.

John Constable is from the Renewable Energy Foundation, who argue the government is over-reliant on on-shore wind. He says RES’s claims for the capacity factor are overstated and cannot be verified as they are withholding site-specific wind data.

RES say they wouldn’t be building it if it was uneconomic and they have released data to an independent expert for verification.

I have read that, yes. It doesn’t provide data. It asserts the capacity factor rather than providing data.

But, of course, it’s academic. The inspector is not required to provide a capacity factor, how much electricity the Den Brook turbines will really generate just the installed capacity.

It would be possible in theory, would it not, to be able to meet that capacity as an installed capacity with turbines which didn’t actually generate any electricity at all.

That would be the reduction ad absurdum argument.


Yes, it is conceivable, you could meet the target. Obviously, the point is to generate energy.


The Den Brook Valley Action Group are next to put their case.

I think the problem with a lot of politicians is that they actually mean well.

Leading for them is John Welsby, CBE, a former chief executive of British Rail and at one time a member of the government’s Economic Service. He knows the captains of industry.

Look at the aeroplane.


That’s about the height that those turbines will be.

I happened to ask a nameless person who’s fairly big in all this lot, what did he think about these windfarms? His reaction was, “Well, we all know the future is nuclear. But there’s some real good money to be made on these windfarms.” And that’s what’s actually happening.

John believes policies should deliver results and that the Den Brook proposal won’t deliver the government’s objectives of secure and competitive energy supplies.

And because of that, it’s not worth impacting on the landscape.

To put it there is just sacrilege, I think.

DBVAC contend that the impact on landscape character is clearly adverse and to a very major degree.

After 3,000 years… I’m sorry. It gets to me that badly, this. There’s 3,000 years of continuous human settlement in that valley. And after which, it’s as beautiful as it is today. The current proposal, involving as it does the construction of huge industrial structures, will destroy that character entirely. I always get emotional about it. Landscape is very dear. They ain’t creating any more of it, And what we’ve got is all we’re ever going to have. Certain things get me, you know? Cruelty to animals, desecration of landscapes, all of which are things that need not happen. And it did get me just momentarily.

But our analysis shows that not only will the performance of the turbines be poor… What on earth are we sacrificing this beautiful environment for? You won’t tell us! And if you spend all of your 151 megawatts in building power stations that are not going to deliver any electricity, you’re in, as the Americans would say, pretty deep doo-doo.

The inquiry adjourns for the weekend.

Mike Hulme goes to write his submission and he finally speaks, several times, to RES’s noise expert Dr Bullmore.

What irritates me a little bit about all this is that I’ve been batting on to Rachel about this for over a year and suddenly, at the last minute, someone’s actually talking to me about it.

And I’m grateful to you for talking to me about it but it’s pushing me very hard.

Whoa. He is totally satisfied that that noise assessment is good.

In fact, he’s more that way today than he was last night.

Because I was much more challenging today than I was last night.

I’ve got a long night ahead of me.

Mike now knows the three questions he wants to ask RES.

Would they give residents more protection through increased monitoring and stronger penalties if noise levels were breached?

Could he have access to their wind data?

And would they undertake further background noise recordings to properly reflect seasonal changes?

Day four and Mike Hulme hasn’t completed his final submission yet as he’s waiting for RES’s answers to his questions.

I was expecting to be contacted yesterday by Dr Bullmore.


And he said he was going to speak with RES. And he hasn’t got back to me.


Please do continue making the efforts if you can and Mr Trinick, if you could ask Dr Bullmore…

I will ask.

Yes. Thank you. So we’ve put down the marker…

Later in the morning, Rachel speaks with Mike in the lobby outside and gives him answers to his questions. He claims Rachel replied no to all three.

Inspector Lavender is also going to have to make a ruling on a matter that could potentially result in a costly adjournment of the inquiry.

What they’ve actually done is enumerated properties that are within three kilometres of the centre of the site.

The coalition’s landscape witness, Fiona Fife, has been able to put her evidence in late and has criticised RES’s approach. She claims 1,000 properties that could be affected have not been assessed. So over the weekend, Rebecca Rylet for RES has done extra field work and examined a number of the additional properties.

It strictly a rebuttal. It’s not a supplementary.

If her work is classified as supplementary evidence rather than evidence re-evaluation, there will need to be an adjournment while a process of consultation and publicity allows all those affected to respond.

What it looks like is that, having received Fiona Fife’s evidence, recognised that there are errors which would lead to a greater impact on a larger number of properties, they’ve now gone behind the ES at this late stage and sought to downgrade, through some justification or other, the findings of that ES. That’s simply unfair and wrong. I object to this even going in, frankly.

Inspector Lavender delivers his verdict. He’s taken into account that he’s going to be hearing from many affected residents very shortly.

It’s my conclusion that I will treat the submission as evidence, not further environmental information, evidence that it is useful to have placed before me. And as such, it would not be my intention to adjourn the inquiry while statutory consultation processes were invoked.

The inspector’s decision may mean that some homeowners that could be affected may not be at the inquiry to give their views.

Nevertheless, Rebecca Rylet for RES is now free to start her detailed evidence.

The windfarm proposal is of an appropriate scale and number of turbines for this location and will offer the opportunity of an exciting sculptural and architectural landmark to this landscape where there is none existing, whilst providing a striking counterpoint…

But Mike and Bash have to go home.

If I don’t have it there by tomorrow lunchtime, I’m going to get my backside smacked. Yeah, I’ve got a long night ahead of me, I fear.

Beechtree. I considered that this property was under-assessed and would have a view of the windfarm with limited screening.

Elmridge. This property was missed out of the previous assessment, one explanation being the minibuses parked in front of the property.

Hi! Mike didn’t make it, then? No, he’s busy.

Oh, he’s busy. You all right? Yeah. Lovely for you to come over, anyway. Thank you.

At least you can update me on everything.

She’s obviously put the cat among the pigeons in RES’s camp, which is good. Yes.

You couldn’t really get much higher than Trinick, I don’t think, secretary to the BWEA. He set it all up, really. Him and a few other people. Recommended to the government how to go about all the recommendations and stuff. So he’s been doing it for ten-plus years. Yeah. He’s part of the policy-making team, I would think. Yeah. I think what they’re wanting to do is to pump Mike to see if he’s got anything. Mike does everything to his limit. Am I worried about him? Oh, yes. He stresses himself out and he’s been known to pass out. Really? When he gets stressed, yes. Oh, dear. We’ll be glad at the end of the week. Yeah. It’s not finishing on Friday, though, is it? There’s still Monday and Tuesday. Is there? I don’t know.

How long did it take? Well, I was up till about half past three this morning and I’ve just been doing it for three hours. It’s pathetic. It’s only three pages.

As Mike arrives back, the inquiry is turning again to the vexed issue of interpretation of government guidance. Appearing for RES is their planning expert David Stewart.

The question is whether, as the deadline draws closer without meeting renewable energy targets, shouldn’t less weight be given to environmental concerns? I think the simplest answer is to say, if you have a look at the Knabs Ridge decision…

If you have a look at what?

The Knabs Ridge decision.

Is that a planning appeal decision?

It is in my proof. It is one of the core documents.

That’s not government guidance. Hang on a minute.

I’ll answer questions the way I like. If you don’t like the answer… Mr Stewart, I must insist… I… Mr Stewart, the question is quite specific.

If you later want to go into that document, you may, but I’m asking the question, where is government guidance, does it have that requirement?

The requirement in government guidance is to deliver the targets.

Paragraph two of the energy white paper indicates the government will be looking to work with regions to deliver the government’s objectives.

Yes, all right.

No planning authority, no interest group, can say that doesn’t matter. The whole essence of this is to make it clear there has to be a step change in the delivery of schemes.

Mr Stewart…

I can’t read it any other way than that.

Tonight, local residents will have the opportunity to address the inquiry.

The majority present are against the turbines.

There may be a case for windfarms, there may be a place for windfarms. That place is not Den Brook.

We knew that we had found… Sorry. There’s some water on the table. It’s not that, it’s just this means a lot to me. I can understand. We knew that we had found a place that our guests would be able to relax in. Indeed, I rarely see my visitors’ faces on arrival. They ring the doorbell and then turn around and face the beauty of the landscape.

Thank you.

Mr Emmanuel, my understanding is that you’re a supporter of the windfarm.

When you’re ready, thank you.

I practise as a chartered architect. I’m not qualified to comment on the technical aspects of the proposal but I can speak about its visual impact. As a piece of engineering, I think many people would find them to be objects of beauty. They have an inspiring directness of purpose on a par with other great icons of civil or mechanical engineering. In this extensive landscape, in my opinion, there could not be a more appropriate place to site it. This is a small but significant, vital and urgent contribution to the national requirement for sustainable energy. Without it, those cherished views which we are talking about could terribly soon dry up or be covered with ice as a result of climate change. I would ask, if not here at Den Brook, where? If not now, when? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Emmanuel.

I will keep this part very brief, as there isn’t enough paper in the world…

…to say what I want to say.

Would you like to stop for a moment?

Or call someone else forward if you want to gather yourself?

The first ten years living here were a delight. We have a summer house is our garden and we often partake of meals there. And yes, you have guessed it, it also faces the valley. This is an industrial site that doesn’t belong in our valley.

Thank you.

Mike Hulme’s moment has come.

You’ve produced a short proof. Can you begin by reading it?

I object to the proposed development on the following grounds. The background noise measurements were carried out without due consideration and are unrepresentative for the area. Data from the noise measurements has not been made available for third parties to test the claims.

Rather than sway with emotion, Mike Hulme just wants to get his detailed concerns on record.

This begs the question as to whether information has been purposefully withheld. But not being allowed access to the data, I have been unable to seek the opinion of an expert of my choice. Surely this is not an unreasonable request.

Inspector Lavender hasn’t had access to the noise data, either, and he doesn’t ask RES for it.

I don’t think, in all honesty, I can give anybody any cast-iron guarantee that they will not be affected by noise to the extent that a condition is not necessary.

A condition would be necessary…

He urges Mike to attend the forthcoming conditions session.

But Mike still hasn’t finished all he wants to say.

Along with many others, I have already suffered significant impact from this scheme. If you, sir, are to rely on data only available to the appellant, it appears to me contrary to the principles of natural justice for a decision to be made on the basis of assertions made by one party that cannot be tested by the other.

Did you wish to ask any questions?

Maybe just a couple for clarification.

This is the moment Mike has been dreading.

Marcus Trinick takes him through the noise data that has been published.

The mean curve or the derived curve?

Rather than alleviate Mike’s concerns, it seems to accentuate the gulf between them.

If you look at the bottom of the night-time plot, you’ve got basically a straight line.

It’s straight compared with the daytime one.

Sure. I’m anxious to avoid getting into evidence…

Mike doesn’t know it now, but everything he has just said will severely hinder RES’s advancement with the Den Brook proposal.

Is there anybody else who wishes to address the inquiry? We’ve reached the time of 20 to 11. So thank you very much, everybody. We’re not finished. Good evening.

After an emotionally-charged evening, Marcus Trinick offers round sweets. Tomorrow is the final day of the inquiry. The last session before the site meeting is to discuss the planning conditions that would be imposed were the windfarm to be built. It’s what Mike Hulme sees as his last chance to have a say on protecting his future peace and quiet.

The intention is that the guidance in terms of decibel levels…

The regulations allow noise up to set levels above the disputed background noise measurements RES had taken 12 months previously at his property.

There’s higher levels here.

What, of ambient?

Yep. Background noise. So it’s not the quietest place in the world.

Yes, Mr Hulme? As you well know, sir, I believe background noise measurements were not as good as they may have been and as it seems to depend on those, I can’t see how this is a satisfactory solution.

So you would suggest, presumably, there would be some mechanism to revisit the background noise levels? Mr Trinick, any comments on that?

There’s absolutely no persuasive evidence before this inquiry that the measurements are anything other than professionally made, robust and reliable and representative of all relevant conditions. That would be very strongly resisted by us.

Mr Hulme, you’ve heard the robust response from the appellant.

I don’t think we’re going to gain anything by debating it further.

I have your position, I have Mr Trinick’s position, I’ll need to make a judgement on it. I’ll accept that.

As appellants, RES have the final summing up at the inquiry.

A small price to pay for assisting in combating the worst effects of climate change and if you feel that I am gilding the point, please look no further than the July 2006 government publication The Energy Challenge. Annex D includes this text.

“New renewables projects may not always appear to convey any particular local benefit, but they provide crucial national benefits. These wider benefits are not always immediately visible to the specific locality in which the project is sited. However, benefits to the society and the wider economy as a whole are significant and this must be reflected in the weight given to these considerations by decision-makers in reaching decisions.”

And I ask you to grant planning permission for this development. Thank you.

Only tomorrow’s site visit remains before a decision.

I don’t know whether I’m allowed to say anything. If I’m not, I won’t.

Only if you want to point something out to me to look at, not to express any opinions.

The site visit begins on Martin Tucker’s farm.

The objectors are flying a balloon at blade-tip height. But visibility is poor.

The balloon is at the right height. It’s also flying at an angle so one can’t be precisely sure.

That property there is Redlands. Yep. Right on the hill.

So effectively I can’t see Nichols Nymet House or Hotel from here.

It’s behind that group of trees.

They’re due at Muriel’s hotel about 11.

It’s my business, my livelihood, my children’s home.

It could all hang on the next half hour.

There are several sites to be visited before Muriel’s.

If you want to join me, please do. Otherwise I’ll pop over there and back by myself.

OK, I think I’ve seen what I need to from here.

So, the balloon position is approximately here.

You can see the traffic moving on the A road over there that goes past the site.


They were probably late so they thought, “We can leave her out, she’s only a business that’s going to go bust.”

So I can see the anemometer mast over there. So there’d be a spread of turbines across on that side.

That’s right.

Can you remind me of the lady’s name here?

Here they come.

Muriel hopes the driver won’t park the minibus where it’ll obscure the view.

Go on, keep going, keep going, keep going, keep going, keep going.

Hi, Mrs Goodman. Welcome to Nichols Nymet House.

Thank you.

Hi, Rebecca. Hello. Are you coming in, John?

I’d like to see a representative view from a bedroom and if you have a main sitting area where your guests sit, I’d like to see that, as well. I’ll take you upstairs.

I can see the balloon over there. The first turbine will be… On the map, it’s directly in front of us.

That tree… There’s that tree on the horizon.

It would mean that the turbine is in view to the right of that tree.

And then the rest of the turbines are spread around the horizon in that direction.

If I can just stand a little bit back and take a general view.

Most of my guests pick that chair first.

Right, well, let’s sit in the chair.


Thank you very much indeed for that.

OK, thank you.

We’re going up to…

Most of the turbines will lie off to the right, between the hotel and its view of the moor.

OK, I think I’ve seen and heard what I need to. Thank you very much.

Very kind of you to let us see.

Well, he didn’t want to look at me directly is all I can say.


The inspector.

Didn’t he? No. As we said goodbye, he didn’t want to look at me directly.

Oh, he was very pleasant. But he didn’t… It was that sort of look and go away. It’s… It’s guilt.


It’s guilt.

And all Rebecca Rylet could do was say, “That’s Bow over there and that’s the lake” taking his eyes completely off up this way.

He’s not stupid. He’s not stupid at all.

No, he’s very astute, I think. You’d have to be in that job.

Something to hold onto!

Try and open your viewpoint nine. I’ll take a bit of shelter.

So that’s the cheese factory there. Yes.

OK, I think I’ve seen as best we can.

Thank you very much. Very helpful.

The site visit closes the inquiry.

Inspector Lavender will be announcing his verdict in the new year.

I couldn’t have believed it was so much windier up there than it was down in the valley today.

There’s plenty of worse jobs to do. You do get to see places in the countryside.

It’s decision day.

Muriel’s not at home, but her husband Paul is, waiting for word.

I don’t really want to live here if those turbines are built because the reasons we bought the house are for its position and its view and its proximity to Dartmoor.

Inspector Lavender’s decision will first be communicated by email.

Right. Shall we check?

Rachel Ruffle’s ready and waiting, too, in her office nearby.

At RES’s HQ beside London’s M25 motorway, no-one’s predicting the result.

This is not the first of their windfarm applications to go to public inquiry.

I’ve just got the decision notice here.

I can’t read it. My God. I’m not sure what it means, cos I’m too sort of… I don’t want to go off the deep end. I’ve had… I’ve been having… I’m not looking because I just want to explain it. Because I keep having this dream where I see it but I can’t actually make out what it’s saying. You know, I don’t know which bit to look at first.

Shall I read it to you, what it says, and you can tell me what it means?

“Summary of decision: The appeal” … “is allowed and planning permission granted subject to the conditions set out below.” So that’s it.

Oh, dear.

Well, I… did expect that.

Permission granted subject to the conditions set out. Yes! Fantastic. I can’t believe it! Oh, thank you, Marcus.

Yeah. Right, I suppose I’d better phone Muriel.

I can’t believe it. I don’t know who to phone first!

Hello. “Hi.” The appeal is allowed.

I thought it would be. “…subject to conditions set out below.”

Hiya. Yeah, hi!

Congratulations! Well done! Yeah, good!

I can’t believe it! We’ve got it! Fantastic, isn’t it?

Well done. Fantastic achievement.

He thinks only one turbine will be visible from room one.

What? “And if you take two steps back from the window, you won’t see any.”

Very well constructed conclusions, just from a very quick skim. Yeah.

Indeed, within Devon, he has little doubt that this location would, “because of rather than in spite of its inherent topographical characteristics, rank highly amongst the landscapes most able to accommodate development of this type, scale and extent proposed.” Well, I disagree with him totally.

There you are, he’s made his decision, he’s ruined our lives and the lives of other people and I’d like to know where he lives and whether he’s got turbines near him.



He’d soon move. I said he’d soon move, I suspect, if he had that threat.

There’s just not enough room to do a cartwheel.

I need to go outside and run. Do you know what I mean?

I do, I just need to…

Perhaps we should put the house on the market.

There’s no chance, is there, now?

I’m disappointed, but I kind of expected the worst.

What’s going to happen to us now?

There’s been this thing in the back of our minds all the way along, this is the end of our pension. Cos our pension is in our property and is our property going to be saleable? We have to go to the next stage now, I suppose, and work out… We’ve got to keep on the game as far as the noise is concerned because I believe there is going to be a noise issue. The developers have not been fully open with their assessment as far as I’m concerned, they’ve withheld information. Morally, we have a right to have that information, I believe. And for them to not let me have the information on the basis that I won’t understand it … it’s insulting.

I’d never imagine… This is just surreal, the situation.

What am I doing stood here in a suit outside the main court of the country?

My rightful place is in a field down in Devon.

The judge said he couldn’t believe our attitude in our approach to Mike.

Are you going to let me have the data?

Cos I really would like to see what is going on.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media subtitling@bbc.co.uk

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  May 1, 2011
Aesthetics, Environment, Maine, Photos, TourismPrint storyE-mail story

Rollins Mountain, Apr. 29, 2011

Author:  Steinberg, Gary

GE 1.5 MW turbines, 389 feet high, 40 in total on Rollins Mt. and the ridges of Rocky Dundee in Lincoln Lakes

The low ridges are rated poor for wind potential by NREL; these are here due to millions to be made from government subsidies and selling RECs

A close-up of two turbines – note how they dwarf the backhoe on the ground

Click here for more pictures

Bookmark and Share

Earlier Documents »

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


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



Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

National Wind Watch