Whatever views you have on renewable energy or green issues generally, the case against the wind turbine being proposed by Marden farmer Peter Hall and Wind Direct is absolutely indisputable.

• First and foremost, the planning application submitted by Peter Hall and Wind Direct is the most appalling combination of blatant misrepresentation and incompetence you are ever likely to come across.
• It states that the turbine is going to be integrated into Peter Halls’ site, the electricity used by him and the surplus exported to the grid. Peter Hall’s farm buildings are 3.5kms from the site, the other side of Marden and the other side of the main London to Dover railway line! The electricity cannot possibly be used in the way described and the statement in the application is nothing less than a scandalous falsehood.
• The application overstates the estimated amount of electricity that would be generated but at least 50%! They assume that the turbine would be generating electricity for 30% of the hours available. Given that the average for the whole of Britain, including off-shore and the windiest places was no more than 27% in 2006 and no more than 24% for the whole of England in the same year it is inconceivable that a turbine in one of the least windy parts of Britain is going to operate at much more than 20% capacity.
• The application significantly overstates the distances from the nearest dwellings.This is nothing less than a deliberate attempt to mislead the planners and the public.
• The application states that “the turbine would not dominate the skyline, nor be out of context in which it is proposed.” An unbelievable assertion for a structure 127m high with three blades each the size of an electricity pylon!

Anyone who might be inclined to support the project should read the application in detail; there are many more ludicrous assertions. They should then ask themselves if our beautiful rural countryside should be changed for ever and peoples’ lives blighted on the basis of such a shoddy document and by the people who were prepared to submit it.

 The facts are as follows:-

• A turbine towering into the sky from the Teise Valley is totally out of scale with the surrounding countryside and would destroy a beautiful landscape that has been mercifully preserved from over-development. This area of the Low Weald, gradually rising into the High Weald is very special and needs to be protected from opportunistic, self-interested and subsidy-driven industrialisation such as this.
• The Teise Valley is also a haven for wildlife. It has one of the strongest populations of breeding barn owls as well as otters, kingfishers, scarce bats etc. The applicants have merely done a desk review, dismissed as insignificant any potential impact on wildlife and dispute that an Environmental Assessment is required! Many local farmers have worked extremely hard over many, many years to put the Teise Valley back into the strong environmental position it is in today and this arrogant attitude from the applicant and Wind Direct is unacceptable.  
• The site is far too close to dwellings. Serious bodies such as the Scottish Executive, French Medical Academy etc recommend a buffer zone of 1.5-2 kilometres. Responsible wind development companies such as E.ON will not look at sites with dwellings within 750 metres. Even consultants advising farmers will not go below 600 metres. This site has dwellings within slightly more than 500 metres. This is unacceptable and totally irresponsible. The applicants, together with their financial backer, HgCapital, are cynically exploiting the weakness in the English planning system that sets no minimum limit. We should all support those, whose homes and lives are being seriously blighted by this scheme.
• The centre of Marden is less than 2.5 kilometres from the site and the turbine will be a dominant feature when seen from Marden’s streets. It is unquestionable that it will impact property values and house sales. If you have arguments presented to you to the contrary just consider this. If you have the choice of buying a house in close proximity to a 127m high turbine with the real prospect that others will follow, or buying a house in another village in this beautiful part of rural Kent where there is no threat, where would you buy. The same arguments apply to all those within at least a 3 kilometre range of the proposed site. You should also bear in mind that, if approved, this turbine will be the first of many.
• Apart from the farmer concerned no one in the community will benefit from this project. In fact, the annual income he receives from the wind development company will actually be paid for by us. Electricity charges have to rise to cover the subsidies and the inefficiency of the turbines http://www.abwd.co.uk/bwf/docs/Wind_Power_Subsidy_in_the_UK.pdf 
• Finally, everyone who lives in the area knows how much wind we get and how variable it is. The government website that gives average wind speeds for all areas of Britain http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/explained/wind/windspeed-database/page27326.html  shows that the average for Marden is less than 6 m/s.  When considering wind speed the areas of Britain are generally classified into four categories.

Lowland Britain – 5-6m/s

Coastal and upland areas – 6-7m/s

Exposed uplands – 7-8m/s

More extreme uplands – 8-10m/s

 A single inefficient turbine, in one of the least windy areas of Britain , is going to do contribute virtually nothing to renewable energy and the huge subsidies such a turbine would attract would be totally wasted. They should be directed towards a more responsible project. You don’t need to be a brain surgeon to conclude that any farmer and wind development company considering this site is more focussed on tapping into subsidies than saving the planet.

 The more general case against on-shore wind turbines, as the solution to meeting the very necessary renewable energy targets, has been well made.

 The BBC recently exposed how, despite massive subsidies, wind power is actually only delivering a miniscule amount of power. Half a billion pounds spent, less than half of one percent delivered. You can listen to the programme again by going to the following site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/costingtheearth_20070830.shtml

 A related article is at the following site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6969865.stm

 Country Guardian is a UK conservation group which campaigns to stop turbines being built in environmentally sensitive areas. They object because wind turbines convert rural landscape into industrial landscape, and because they are a poor source of renewable energy.  Their site has a huge amount of useful information.

http://www.countryguardian.net:80/

and, if you read nothing else you should, as a minimum read their case against.

http://www.countryguardian.net/The%20Case%20Against%20Wind%20%27Farms%27.pdf

Anyone who doubts the health issues for those living in the vicinity of these massive wind turbines should read the very detailed Frey and Hadden report (Noise radiation from wind turbines installed near homes). We believe this report is very relevant to our case and we will be actively exploring the redress we have under the Human Rights Act.

http://www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/

The Ramblers believe that government policy encourages companies to only focus on large-scale wind turbine construction and that this is having a damaging effect on the countryside.

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/countryside/energy/windfarmsfaq.html

There is a huge amount of additional information on the web and you might be interested to know that there are currently nearly 150 action groups fighting these projects. If you want to browse through their sites they are listed at

 http://www.countryguardian.net/Campaign%20Windfarm%20Action%20Groups.htm