KWAG - Campaign News

A curious and hypocritical group indeed. The Group Managing Director, Euan Cameron, refuses to step in and tell Wind Direct that the Sheephurst Lane site should be deselected because it breaches their guidelines that dwellings should not be within 750m (see 3/12 update below); no doubt encouraged by the HgCapital Chairman, Ian Armitage, who appears to regard social responsibility as a somewhat alien concept and is happy for his renewable energy fund to exploit the inadequate English planning laws in respect of separation distances between turbines and dwellings.

Euan Cameron’s group has a subsidiary in Australia . That subsidiary, for which Euan Cameron is responsible, has a landowner information guide appearing on the internet in which the following is written:

“Noise regulations affect the positioning of wind turbines relative to residences. Minimum spacing between turbines and existing residences vary, but as a general guide typical set-back distances from associated dwellings are in the order of 750 to 1,000m. A distance of 1,000 to 1,500m is maintained from dwellings not associated with the development.”

Wind Prospect (http://www.windprospect.com) is Wind Direct’s parent company and is now incorporating details of Wind Direct’s activities on its website, presumably in an attempt to get to grips with the difficulties that Wind Direct has been experiencing and take tighter control. Rosanna Scurr, the Wind Direct project manager responsible for our application, has now left following in the footsteps of other senior managers who left earlier. Wind Direct has also had to withdraw another planning application, although, this time, temporarily they say!

We have suggested to Euan Cameron, the Wind Prospect Group Managing Director, that, given the monumental shambles that surrounded our planning application, it is incumbent on them to revisit the basic assessment of our site. We believe that a proper assessment at the beginning, would have concluded that the site is totally unsuitable for the turbine being proposed. As it is, resubmission of an application remains a possibility and the dwellings the most affected (all those within less than 600m ) remain severely blighted.

Wind Prospect congratulates itself on “selecting new sites sensitively and scaling each development to fit within its local environment.” It also states that any site should be “ 750m clear of residential housing.” We invite Mr Cameron to get on a train to Marden and see how his own policies are being totally ignored!

Just as the deadline was about to expire MBC received an email from Wind Direct confirming that the planning application has been withdrawn. This is excellent news and further confirms the monumental muddle that Peter Hall and Wind Direct have created for themselves in trying to place a turbine on a site that is completely unworkable.

We sincerely hope that Peter Hall will now recognise that the project was not only ill-conceived from the outset but that the blight he has inflicted on the homes of those closest to the site is grossly unreasonable and extremely selfish. As long as we have no definite confirmation that the project has been abandoned and while the anemometer mast remains in place this blight remains. It really is time for a responsible attitude to be adopted and for Peter Hall and his agents, Wind Direct, to confirm that there is no intention to resubmit a planning application.

Pending any further news in this respect our action group will remain in place, as will this website.

MBC have now sent a letter to Wind Direct informing them that, unless they submit the additional information that was requested in April, the planning application will be deemed to have been withdrawn. The deadline given for this is 10 October.

This is somewhat academic since Wind Direct would have to submit a new planning application in any event, if they wish to continue, as the wind turbine is not in the correct position. That being said, it is an opportunity for Peter Hall and Wind Direct to finally recognise that wind turbines of this size are simply not appropriate on the proposed site, in particular, and in the Low Weald, in general.

Wyre Borough Council have refused planning permission for a similar wind turbine that Wind Direct want to install at a cheese factory in Garstang, next to the busy A6 ( planning ref. 08/00676/FULMAJ ). The grounds for the refusal are that it would be “visually intrusive and out of character with the countryside area”. The case for refusal in our case is immeasurably stronger on visual impact grounds so this is excellent news and a precedent we will make sure MBC fully take into account.

The application documents Wind Direct submitted at Garstang make interesting reading.

A version of the article referred to below has been put up on the Tory blog website:

Very helpful in getting the overall message across and, with a link to our site, good publicity for KWAG.

In parallel with our local campaign we are also trying to do all we can to get the national press to highlight and expose the misinformation that is disseminated by the wind industry. The Daily Telegraph article referred to on 23/07 has been a great success in this respect and has attracted much comment.

We have now crunched a few numbers in respect of the subsidies that the Government proposes consumers pay for all the turbines anticipated in their Renewable Energy Strategy. The results were so shocking that we passed them on to Jonathan Leake of the Times/Sunday Times and he headlined them in his article of 8 August.

We have prepared an article of our own that takes this further and contrasts the total cost of the wind strategy with a nuclear alternative. Copies have been distributed and it can be seen at the tab on this website.

On 12 May, Ian Armitage, Chairman of HgCapital wrote to the Chairman of KWAG and said. “.. the allegations you have made are that Wind Direct has submitted false and misleading information to support its application and The evidence shows that your assertions are false and would have been revealed as such were you to exercise more care in your enquiry.” He went on to make some rather impolite remarks.

One of our main allegations, of course, is that all the measurements given in the application as being the distance between the proposed turbine and the nearest dwellings are totally inaccurate and misleading statements are made to further misrepresent the facts. As noted below ( 15/07), Ian Armitage, contended that the application “ is in fact correct and accurate.”

The sheer incompetence of Wind Direct has never ceased to amaze us. Their willingness to misrepresent has never ceased to shock. That they have been able to lead HgCapital up the garden is one of life’s mysteries as is Ian Armitage’s unremitting support for them as opposed to listening to us.

You could hardly make up the facts. After months of denying our claims that all the distances were wrong (including in statements to the press – see Kent Messenger of 8 February on Media Coverage page ) Wind Direct received notification ( 12 February) from Maidstone Borough Council that an EIA was required. Their only way out is to appeal to the Secretary of State’s office but detailed scrutiny of the planning application clearly worried them, so what do they do? They fire off a new site plan to arrive at Maidstone on 27 February and send off their appeal to the Sec of State the day after, including a package purporting to be a copy of the planning application but which, in fact, included the new site plan. The new site plan, by the way, more closely matches the noise test measurements but pushes the turbine right next to a copse with the blades sailing over the trees. Natural England had already told them that the turbine had to be sited as far away from the trees as possible. But, what the hell? Might chop up a few barn-owls and bats but, hey, we’re saving the planet.

Two fundamental flaws in the master plan. Firstly, as they surely knew, Maidstone would not accept the new site plan. To change it, Wind Direct have to withdraw the application and resubmit so they in fact submitted a false planning application to the Sec of State. Secondly, they had not banked on us finding out what had been submitted to the Sec of State using the Freedom of Information Act.

Only Wind (very in-) Direct could shoot themselves so monumentally in the foot. They now have an EIA decision based on a planning application that does not exist and a planning application that does exist and is being considered by Maidstone but that has had all its deficiencies laid bare. The noise calculations clearly don’t work if they put the turbine where they want it and they can surely not believe that they will be able to site a turbine over trees. Without even throwing in the TV interference the site should never have been considered. Must be time for them to have an away-day to discuss strategy!

Our “When the Wind Stops” article has now been put up on the Daily Telegraph website by Paul Eccleston, the Environment Editor

Excellent publicity for KWAG and given the link to our website this will result in much more attention being drawn to our cause and the curious behaviour of Wind Direct and HgCapital.

A large international company that owns a significant property in the area is opposing the wind turbine application. They have appointed a major City law firm to act for them and instructed one of the UK ’s leading multidisciplinary and environmental consultancies to produce an independent detailed critique of the planning application documents submitted by Wind Direct. This report, which highlights a number of major flaws in the application, has just been completed and lodged with the Maidstone Planning Department.

Their involvement clearly dramatically increases the chances of putting a stop to Peter Hall’s ill-conceived and selfish project. We have a copy of the report and suffice it to say that it highlights a number of very significant errors, omissions and incorrect assumptions. Not quite the conclusion Ian Armitage reached after his own due diligence (see below)!

The Government Office for the North West have now completed their review of the The Government Office for the South East’s (GOSE) decision not to release any documents regarding the EIA other than a couple of scrappy bits of paper. Although they stick by the decision to protect the civil servants they have released more papers, including Wind Direct’s submission to GOSE. And what do we find?

We find that the site plan that Wind Direct submitted to GOSE is not the same that they submitted with the application; the turbine has been pushed out to the far corner of the field to match more closely the distances used for all the noise calculations.

Wind Direct are apparently claiming that they did send a revised plan into Maidstone . Curious that, since in a letter dated 12 May, Ian Armitage told us, after promising to undertake his own due diligence “It is clear from my discussions with Wind Direct that their application is in fact correct and accurate(sic). The exact turbine location is specified in the noise studies and analysis appended to the application, which would be clear to the planning authorities and indeed to anyone who takes time to fully review the application.” Careful avoidance of any mention of a site plan! One has to wonder why.

MBC have decided not to accept any change to the application which opens many possibilities. To be continued.

Another full day’s flight of the blimp yesterday backed up by a large number of flyers distributed in Staplehurst, from where the blimp is clearly visible.

Friday’s article in the Courier is worth looking at ( see Media Coverage page ). Wind Direct has clearly now decided or been advised to come up with statements as long as possible and full of guff in the hope that this will reduce the column inches available for exposing the misrepresentations included in their application; we are now thanked for bringing these issues to the fore! Must be time to send them a bill for our expenses!

All a bit rich, of course, coming from a company that totally ignored the BWEA best practice guidelines and made no effort to talk to anyone in the local community. Secretly sending one or two dubious photomontages, taken from behind trees and hedges, to a select few is not quite what the BWEA means by “Consultation and Dialogue”. That being said, we, ourselves, would have hesitated to talk to anyone about such an absurd and ill-conceived project.

Talking of issues, the latest one we have brought to the fore in the Courier article is the pretty obvious one. Where on earth would any electricity go from Peter Hall’s “folly”? The application says that the electricity will be for the “direct use of Peter Hall & Sons with any excess being exported to the grid”. It goes on to say that the switchgear house should be adjacent to the point of export of electricity into the distribution system and this should be achievable. Pretty remarkable statements given that the packing houses and cold stores are over 3kms away, the other side of Marden and the other side of the main London to Dover railway line.

Peter Hall contradicted his own planning application and told the Kent Messenger (8 February, see Media Coverage) that the electricity would go to the Wheelbarrow Park industrial estate! Wind Direct in this latest article however now tell us that Peter Hall and Sons have packing and other facilities closer to the turbine location. That’s news to the locals. Are they hidden underground somewhere?

Is it really possible that Wind Direct did not understand where the packing houses and cold stores are (one asks rhetorically)?

The blimp had a full days’ flight yesterday. Apart from good coverage of this event in Friday’s Kent Messenger ( See Media Coverage ) Radio Kent also covered it in three of their morning news slots; we attracted even more interest by distributing a large number of leaflets in the surrounding area. Flying at 415 feet, the blimp clearly shows up Wind Direct’s dodgy dossier (oops, planning application!) for what it is. We plan to fly again next Saturday.

The blimp demonstrates clearly enough the impact on the Low Weald landscape but one has to go to the houses concerned to see the horrific impact the turbine would have on those living closest to the site. Wind developers and their backers, having no coherent argument for ruining the lives of those close to their sites, crassly describe any of them who object as NIMBYs. Peter Hall, who has chosen a site over 3kms from his home, labelled the objectors who would live under 600m from his turbine, whose homes and lives will be blighted and who are currently traumatised by the project, as such! The Chairman of HgCapital, Ian Armitage, in a recent interview, extols the virtues of Scandanavia given “the low density of population and associated scarcity of nimbies.” This is the Chairman of the institution that runs Europe’s largest renewable energy fund and with whom we at least expected to be able to establish that all reputable institutions should set themselves high standards of social awareness by not taking advantage of weaknesses in the planning laws. We should remember that these individuals (by their own admission) are promoting wind turbines for the financial return and seem quite happy to blight the lives of others in order to achieve that.

In doing so, they keep company with the likes of Nuon Renewables. In response to a family concerned about turbines within 760m of their home, because they have four family members with a history of epilepsy, Nuon’s response was “ We all have to make a sacrifice for green energy and that may well be yours.” (Market Drayton Advertiser 13/6/08 ).

Nuon, HgCapital, Peter Hall, all making sacrifices? Not exactly, but certainly all making money.

Excellent coverage from ITV Meridian yesterday, greatly helped by getting the blimp 415 feet into the air. The reporter, Holly Lewis looked at the blimp and simply stared in disbelief at Wind Direct’s statement to them that the turbine “would be fully acceptable in this landscape.” How can they possible say that she said? The blimp also shows up very clearly how misleading the photomontages are that have been submitted, the view from Tanner Farm Caravan Park being a notable example. The blimp can be seen from all over the caravan park at a relatively high level. Not quite the rosy picture Wind Direct tried to portray to the owners on the QT before submitting the application! We will be flying the blimp again so as many people as possible can see the appalling impact this turbine would have on the landscape.

Those who live in Marden might be interested to know that the blimp reveals that the turbine would be seen next to the church tower as you enter Marden on the Maidstone Road; a dreadful prospect.

In their statement to ITV Meridian, Wind Direct said that no houses would be within 650m! Although, by now, we are used to the misrepresentations made by Wind Direct this continues to be one of the most extraordinary and it really is time that Martin Alder, the Managing Director of Wind Direct, sorted out his staff since they are making fools of him, his company and HgCapital. Anyone can go to the planning application documents on the Maidstone planning website (ref 07/2470). Appendix 2 in Volume 2 has the Site Plan showing the turbine position. Using this position and Google Earth it is quite apparent that the turbine will be just over 550m from the nearest house! It has to be said though, that since Wind Direct couldn’t even get the grid reference for the site correct in the planning application ( 500m out), they might still be confused as to which field the turbine is supposed to go in. We base our comments on the documents submitted, we’re not entirely sure what Wind Direct base their comments on.

We have discovered yet another shocking example of misrepresentation by our friends at Wind ( decidedly less than ) Direct. On page 68 of the planning application they state, in relation to potential interference caused by the turbine to TV reception, that results from “ the BBC on-line tool …show that potentially significant interference to local residences will be limited.” We have entered the correct grid reference into the on-line tool and find that over 2,400 homes will not only be affected but that over 200 of these may not even have an alternative off-air service. In theory, a wind development company has to remedy any problems caused by a turbine but the scale of this would be a major problem for a company we could take seriously let alone Wind Direct. One can just imagine how long householders would have to wait for problems to be resolved if, indeed, they could be. Good coverage of this by the Kent Messenger (see Media Coverage page ).

Following last week’s Courier article, see below, an apology to Wind Direct has appeared. It turns out that they did actually mean to say that they “already know that the wind resource on the site is good enough to make a wind turbine viable.” Funny that, since, in the application for the anemometer mast, they stated “We intend to use this data for assessing the feasibility of a wind energy development. A slight overestimate of the wind speed could put the entire project refinancing at risk.” What a monumental muddle they live in. The Courier was a bit hasty in granting them an apology.

Yet more utter nonsense from Wind (actually not so very) Direct. As shown on the Media page, Adrian Maddocks of Wind Direct told the press on 1 February that “we already know the wind speed will be adequate for the turbine and the mast is not to justify that.” Rosanna Scurr tells the Courier this week “ The mast will help the company evaluate whether there is enough wind in the area to make a wind turbine viable.” There may be very little wind in the valley but there’s certainly more than enough hot air!

In the same article mentioned above Maddocks went on to confirm that it is a single turbine project and “We have no intention of adding to it.” So why is Peter Hall now telling people in Marden that if this turbine application is successful two more will go up?

Excellent news from the Ramblers who are giving us their full support and will be objecting. To quote them” The development seems to us to be of totally inappropriate proportions and will dominate the skyline for many miles around”. We also have support from the well-know ITV presenter and ornithologist, Jim Flegg (see Media page). Further support is in the pipeline.

The recent excellent coverage in The Times (see Media Coverage) has made more people aware of what is being proposed and has resulted in increased support for our campaign.

Wind Direct has finally put up the anemometer mast, undoubtedly provoked into doing so by the article in Private Eye. Simply a gesture on their part since no meaningful data will be obtained before the conclusion of the planning process.

Nice piece in the current edition of Private Eye (see Media Coverage page) and hopefully more to follow. Private Eye is taking an interest in the behaviour of wind development companies and their backers so Wind Direct and HgCapital should be somewhat nervous.

It is rumoured that Lord Gnome would have a very good view of the turbine from the train, if it ever went up, so a passing interest indeed.

Here we go. Wind Direct adopts the tactics of the less reputable wind development companies.

Ms Scurr, quoted in the Courier (see Media Coverage – article of 25 April) now claims that the 415 pre-printed forms collected from the stall set up Maidstone (see below) and dropped off in one bundle on the last day of consultation, represent “strong local support”! One has to say that the more Wind Direct does to further undermine its credibility the easier our task becomes. We have sent letters to the Courier and Wind Direct ( copy HgCapital) pointing out that gathering letters from passers-by who neither know the site nor the local issues constitutes nothing more than a waste of time and money.

It turns out that MBC did in fact send a letter to Wind Direct on 7 April asking for more information but we were not notified as were promised that we would be. MBC appears to be adopting a minimalist approach since the additional information asked for, other than a more detailed assessment of the risk to bats and birds, is hardly onerous. Once the documents are received, the application will open up to public consultation again.

Hazel Blears’ department has now responded to the request for the supporting papers behind their decision that no EIA is required. Disclosure consists of a one page file note of no consequence and an internal check-list with no overall conclusion. All the other documentation has been withheld on the grounds that “Public interest favours withholding in this case the information which constitutes internal considerations and advice.”

Unbelievable! Ms Blears clearly believes that that the two borough councils she overruled and the residents of the six parish councils who have all objected do not merit a detailed explanation of the factors considered when reaching such a strange decision. We did at least manage to ascertain that no one thought it worthwhile to leave their offices in Guildford and visit the site before reaching a conclusion. We shall take the next step in the process to obtain disclosure.

The planning department of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, in its comments to Maidstone , has Objected to the application. An excellent and correct decision for which they are to be congratulated. In their words, the proposed wind turbine “ ..by virtue of its height, size, and location would represent a large incongruous feature in the landscape that would be detrimental to the character of the countryside and surrounding landscape.” They also object on the grounds that minimal work has been done to assess the impact on the protected wildlife species.

TWBC now joins the six parish councils that object to this application in addition to the CPRE, Kent Wildlife Trust, Kent Ornithologists, Weald of Kent Protection Society and Headcorn Aerodrome.

If Wind Direct and Peter Hall had any sense of responsibility they would stop wasting the time and money being spent on dealing with this application and withdraw it.

It has been confirmed that the Secretary of State (Hazel Blears) has decided that, in her view, no EIA is required. This is not only an astonishingly inept and, undoubtedly, political decision but no justification or explanation is provided as to why the planning departments of two borough councils were wrong to conclude that one should be asked for. The complete lack of transparency in the process is unacceptable and we have asked for copies of all notes and reports relating to this decision to be provided to us under the Freedom of Information Act. They have three weeks to respond.

We have also asked Greg Clark to question Hazel Blears about this decision. To date, he has declined to offer any support to his constituents over this application, despite the fact that two parish councils in his constituency have voted unanimously against it. Ann Widdecombe has been very supportive and she will also be asked to look into this.

We are now considering our options but, if the normal planning process does resume, MBC will be asking Wind Direct to provide additional information which will then go to public consultation. We need to wait and see how thorough the Maidstone planners are before deciding our next steps in the campaign.

Hunton parish council has also voted unanimously for refusal. Six parish councils have now voted against and made it clear that this is the wrong site.

Wind Direct is appealing to the Secretary of State to have the decision that an EIA is required overturned. We have sent in our own very detailed representation making the case that the decision was the right one. Marden parish council has done the same and TW planning department, who also recommended an EIA, will make representation if they feel it is necessary. The decision by the Secretary of State has to be made in 3 weeks which means we will know the outcome by 24 March at the latest.

We understand from the Maidstone planners that, on the last day of the consultation period, the applicant dropped off a considerable number of signed pre-printed standard letters gathered from the stall they set-up in Maidstone. What a waste of time! They will be reported separately by the planners and completely discounted. It has been confirmed to us that there were virtually no genuine letters expressing local support submitted but a very considerable amount of letters opposed.

Both Collier Street and Linton parish councils have now voted for refusal of the application which is excellent news. With Marden, Goudhurst and Horsmonden this means that five key parishes are totally opposed.

In addition the Weald of Kent Protection Society and the Kent Wildlife Trust have joined the ranks of those organisations who are objecting.

A unanimous vote from Horsmonden Parish Council recommending refusal. We now have the three most affected parish councils behind us, all votes were unanimous and all recommendations for refusal were robustly stated.

A detailed letter on behalf of KWAG has been submitted to MBC ahead of the 26 February deadline highlighting the blatant misrepresentations that are included in the planning application and the degree to which the harm caused by such a turbine significantly outweighs any conceivable benefits.

Desperate measures by desperate men! The dirty tricks have now started, a sign that our campaign is hitting home. A stand was set up in Maidstone trying to get people to support the wind turbine. The normal routine is to ask questions along the following lines. Are you worried about global warming? Are you supportive of renewable energy? Of course we all are so when they have yes answers to both those they say, So would you support a wind turbine in Marden? The innocent passer-by then happily signs up without having any idea of the issues or, in most cases, even knowing the locality. We’ve passed this information on to the planners.

More very good news. MBC have agreed with our view that an Environmental Impact Assessment is required and informed Wind Direct. If Wind Direct proceed with this it will require a considerable amount of additional time and expense being incurred. The whole application process could now take some months. Given the total unsuitability of the site it clearly makes sense for Wind Direct to accept that a mistake has been made and to withdraw the application.

We also understand that Wind Direct has finally accepted that their measurements from the site to the nearest dwellings are wrong and are submitting revised details. We have been telling them this for months. As recently as last week Adrian Maddocks of Wind Direct told the Courier “We clearly stand by our distances and can’t vouch for the measurements of others” (see Media Coverage page for the article). This totally undermines their credibility. If they can’t get something as simple as this right what about the rest?

Strong support now from Ann Widdecombe which is excellent news. She has confirmed that she is writing to MBC opposing the proposals. Still radio silence from Greg Clark! We have also now got support from The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the Kent Ornithologists. The Kent Wildlife Trust is taking a keen interest and we hope to get support from the Ramblers. Other organisations have been approached and we are waiting to hear.

Marden Parish Council voted unanimously to recommend refusal of the application. There were at least 80 local people present, all opposed and not one person in favour. Neither Peter Hall nor the applicant put in an appearance. There was universal disgust at the way the applicant has tried to fool the planners by using misleading and inaccurate information, particularly in respect of the distance from houses. There were some eloquent and moving speeches from local residents who are both angry and upset by what is being proposed.

If the strength of local feeling can be transmitted to any future Maidstone Planning Committee it is difficult to see how they could do anything other than throw this application out.

Documents now on the MBC website and they have kindly provided us with a hard copy. As expected, many inconsistencies and inaccuracies; we would expect little less from Wind Direct. Plenty to get our teeth into and the case for requiring a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is, in our view, very strong. The key dates now are 11 February, which is the end of the 3 weeks MBC have to decide whether to ask for the EIA or not, and 26 February, which is the end of the 28 day consultation period. Although we sincerely hope the full EIA will be required we have to work on the worst case and make sure we have all our objections in. Encourage everyone you know to object, focus on landscape, noise and blight to those homes close to the site, total lack of benefit for local people, potential impact on protected species (barn owls, otters, kingfishers), complete lack of planning policies for such development in the Maidstone Borough and importantly that single, inefficient turbines in low wind areas are not the solution for climate change and are only of benefit to the investors receiving the excessive subsidies which we all pay for through higher electricity prices. Copy your letters to local councillors and MP’s. The latter (Ann Widdecombe and Greg Clark) are firmly sitting on the fence at present and need to be persuaded to help their constituents.

Letter sent to MBC, copy to the Ombudsman, confirming that we were not going to continue the formal complaint regarding their handling of anemometer mast application. Clearly futile now given the application for the turbine itself but we reiterated why their responses to date had not been adequate and that, in normal circumstances we would definitely have pursued it to a conclusion.

Excellent article in the Sunday Times following our suggestion to Jonathan Leake that he investigates the excessive profits being made by wind development companies and those who invest in on-shore turbines.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3257728.ece

WIND TURBINE APPLICATION LODGED. HgCapital has decided to proceed with this despite the blight it will cause to peoples’ lives. A regrettable example of the unacceptable face of capitalism! The application was actually submitted on 26 November but only validated by MBC today.

Application reference is MA/07/2470. Go on line to the MBC website and fire off your objection:

Make sure that all adults in your household object and encourage as many others as you can to do the same. A wind turbine 127m high in this part of the Low Weald is totally ridiculous!

We need as many donations as possible to cover the cost of professional support. Please go to the donations page and send what you can to the address. We need to raise at least £6,000 to stop this.

Letter sent to Dipesh Shah, Advisory Chairman of the HgCapital fund behind this proposed turbine, requesting that he intervene to have the site de-selected given the failure of Ian Armitage and Tom Murley of HgCapital to recognise the unacceptability of a site so close to houses. Dipesh Shah was previously head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority.

The extended flyer campaign has been very successful despite the holiday period distractions. In addition to the significant number of Marden residents who have registered, support is also coming in from Horsmonden, Goudhurst, Linton, Staplehurst and Collier Street. Distribution will shortly recommence to build on this. Those who have registered already should do everything possible to alert others and encourage them to register as well.

This has resulted in tremendous amount of feedback from a large number of the 150 other action groups fighting similar applications and will give us a huge amount of support going forward. The themes are very consistent with our experience with Wind Direct and Peter Hall. Namely no consultation with neighbours, arrogant approach, flagrant breaches of individuals' human rights by siting turbines too close to homes and then dismissing those who object as NIMBY's, confidential discussions with planners and selective people locally. Comforting that we are not alone but depressing in the extreme.

This clearly means that, even by Wind Direct's own criteria, the site should be de-selected and we will maintain the pressure until this happens. It is clearly a nonsense for Wind Direct to proceed with this application since they have now lost any possible argument with the planners that distance from dwellings is not an issue.

Flyer distribution to all households within 3km of the site virtually complete. Extremely encouraging response showing the very strong level of opposition from those most affected. More flyers will be distributed to the towns/villages in the 3-10km zone. The overall objective being to raise awareness and build up a strong body of objectors who can be mobilised at short notice as soon as the application is lodged.

Formal letter of complaint sent to the Leader of Maidstone Borough Council as a first step to taking the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. The complaint specified is that the planning department presented a report to the Planning Committee which contained fundamental errors in application of appropriate planning policy and that the Planning Committee did not choose to investigate these further when the facts were presented to them.

Large meeting of opponents and action group formed, KWAG, Kentish Weald Action Group against wind turbines in rural Kent . Decided to get website up and running as soon as possible and, once done, start a campaign of flyers over the whole area affected by the zone of visibility ( see map on Proposal details). We will also follow up possible redress under the Human Rights Act for a wind turbine site significantly nearer to dwellings than generally accepted by responsible wind turbine companies.

Meeting of the Maidstone Borough Council’s Planning Committee with discussion of the application for the anemometer mast on the agenda (MA/07/1279). Despite considerable opposition (78 letters against, 0 for and opposition from the Ramblers, Kent Ornithologists, Weald of Kent Protection Society, Goudhurst, Collier Street and Marden Parish Councils as well as concern expressed by the CPRE and Kent Wildlife Trust), the committee voted 8 to 4 to approve with 1 abstention. This was also despite strong arguments against from Councillors Paulina Stockell, Annabelle Blackmore, Paddy Germain and Rodd Nelson-Gracie. Specific planning issues were raised in the case presented for the objectors but these were not followed up by the committee before making their decision.

Letters sent to Wind Direct and HgCapital, their financial backers, questioning why they are happy to consider a site which has houses far closer than is considered generally acceptable. Companies such as E.ON make it clear on their website that they will not even consider sites which have houses within 750m. Farmer Peter Hall, Wind Direct and HgCapital seem to have no qualms about looking at a site which has houses within 450m.

Second letter received from Paul Carter, Leader of KCC. This followed email exchanges and two letters submitted highlighting the fact that we are now facing application for massive on-shore wind turbines in Kent but the KCC has issued no clear criteria based guidelines for local planners. We pointed out the extensive guidelines that had been issued by other regions and that, without such rigour,

Kent

was clearly a soft-target for these subsidy-driven wind turbine companies. Paul Carter confirmed that this is an area that will be looked at and that his planners will get involved in any turbine application that is filed.

Letter written to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council planners who had been consulted by Maidstone as a neighbouring borough. TWBC had issued a “no objection” response without consulting the parishes that might be affected, before the due date and without explicitly taking into account their planning guidelines for the Teise Valley . Our complaint to the planners was that the “no objection” seemed to be mainly based on an assertion that the collection of data would be “useful” whereas this clearly has no relevance for consideration of a planning application. It was also, in our view, incumbent on them to consult with the affected parishes. They point out that they have no obligation to do this but they clearly also can do this at their discretion and, in such a controversial application, it was irresponsible not to do this. We started a formal complaint process but decided to stop it as it was unlikely to go anywhere and the main fight has to be with the turbine itself.

Meeting of the Marden Parish Council planning committee which, at their meeting of 3 July 2007, had considered the application and raised no objection. Following further representations from councillors and members of the public present the committee changed their decision to a recommendation for refusal. It had not been made clear at the first meeting that there were good planning reasons for recommending refusal.

Excellent front page press coverage from the Weald and Paddock Wood editions of the Kent and Sussex Courier.

Goudhurst Parish Council discussed the application and made a clear recommendation for refusal.

Application lodged by Wind Direct on behalf of Marden farmer Peter Hall for the anemometer mast, as a pre-cursor to an application for a 127m high third generation wind turbine. Very poor notification by Maidstone planners to those household affected. Absolutely no consultation of local residents by Wind Direct which is contrary to the guidelines of the British Wind Energy Association. It turned out that there had, however, been selective and confidential approaches to one or two people in the surrounding area to try to get them on-side.