Fears over pro-wind farm bias
I reply to Herbert Eppel's letter "Real backing for windpower" (Mailbox, August 6) denigrating Dr Christopher Hanning's evidence regarding sleep disturbance.
I suggest Mr Eppel read on the internet the full evidence given by Dr Hanning, including the part describing his qualifications and standing as an expert on sleep and sleep disturbance.
The problem with turbine-induced sleep disturbance, as highlighted by Dr Hanning, is the lack of independent research into wind turbine noise and its effects.
Therefore, he was forced into quoting from other studies and countries. The evidence here is largely anecdotal, but there is a mass of it. What is needed is the money to mount proper evaluation, but who will do that?
The power companies certainly won't – and who can blame them? – and the Government has decided that such an effect doesn't exist and therefore they don't need to fund research into it. In any case, they are hooked into the idea that windpower, and after many public inquiries those pesky inspectors keep getting in their way and refusing permissions. They don't want any more reasons for refusal.
It is telling that both Mr Eppel and the barrister for Nuon in his summing up, expended much effort in picking holes in Dr Hanning's evidence.
That evidence took up one afternoon of an inquiry which was spread over 12 days in a three-week period and which contained a huge amount of facts and figures collected by the Stop Swinford Wind Farm Action Group (SSWFAG) and presented by a range of people, including qualified experts and lay witnesses in many fields, to show why the windfarm should not be sighted so close to two villages, Swinford and South Kilworth, and overlooking a grade I-listed building, Stanford Hall, and its park.
Practically no detailed challenges were made to the bulk of that evidence by Mr Eppel or Nuon's barrister. I wonder why?
The most disturbing factor about this inquiry is that the minister is calling in the inspector's report without revealing his (the inspector's) recommendations and reasoning, and is likely to make a decision in secret. We know that the East Midlands is not meeting its targets for windfarms – so what hope for an unbiased outcome?
Wendy Warren, South Kilworth.
Comments
by John Twidell, Horninghold LE16 8DH
Wednesday, August 12 2009, 8:52AM
“Wendy Warren writes that 'practically no detailed challenges were made to the bulk of the evidence' submitted by Stop Swinford Wind Farm Action Group at the recent three-week Enquiry. I attended every minute of the entire Enquiry and can attest to the contrary. Did she not hear SSWAFG's witnesses being questioned and contradicted in great detail by the Appellant's QC? Did she not hear and read the Proof of Evidence given by Dr McKenzie as expert witness on wind turbine sound and its effects? Did she not hear SSWAFG's medical witness on such sound admit that he had not kept to the guidelines for expert witnesses issued by the General Medical Council? Is she unaware that the Advertising Standards Authority has pronounced that statements of SSWAFG are erroneous? Surely it is obvious that such a long Enquiry leaves no stone unturned in the detailed evidence given on all sides.”