Helen Pick’s letter (March 12) is naive, unreasoned and simplistic. Please allow me to deconstruct the argument.
The people are not NIMBYs as they are exercising the right of free speech and their democratic rights which are enshrined in various legislation from the Magna Carta to the European Convention of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Their right to enjoy their property and possessions and the value of them is protected by protocol number 1 article 1 and government legislation cannot deprive them of that right.
The mythological rural idyll, starving peasants under feudal landowners has changed since mechanisation in the 1880s forced them into industrialised towns.
People now do not work in large quantity on the land so modern day outsiders have moved in, preventing these villages from dying.
The group is not anti wind turbine per se, just that the health issues are not addressed properly. They do not object to off shore sites.
As Mr Grosvenor, chairman of Baumber Windfarm Action Group, works from home, which the government encourages, his carbon footprint is probably relatively small.
I did not see a Chelsea tractor parked at his property, just a not very new small engine capacity car.
A financial advisor may well be required in Baumber when property values fall by up to 60 per cent in some cases and people find themselves in negative equity unable to move.
The planned nuclear power stations will be there regardless of wind power and they will probably be French and have a 100 per cent safety record.
I want to know, will the landowner donate this £64,000 annual rent to the affected community, will the company supply free electricity afterr costs are covered? NO.
So why should the community as a whole suffer for others’ gains?
Another fine exaample of social injustice perpetuated by poor government and inadequate planning legislation which needs to be changed.
26 March 2008
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding