IT is with some incredulity that Den Brook Judicial Review Group (DBJRG) notes Renewable Energy Systems' (RES) response to service of a pre-action protocol Notice of Intent as outlined and published in last week's incisive front page, lead article, (Crediton Courier, May 29) "Den Brook Wind Farm noise to be broadcast worldwide". This yet further attempt at muddying the waters by the Den Brook developer can only further tarnish the cause for which RES claims to be a "power for good" that is renewable energy. Indeed, for RES to say: "We totally refute any implications that RES and all members of staff involved in this wind farm have been anything other than transparent in our dealings with the local community," could not, deplorably, be further from the truth. Those familiar with the tortuous saga that is now Den Brook will recall only too well RES's forcefully stated declarations during the 2006 public inquiry claiming amongst other things their in-house, noise impact assessment to be "professionally made, robust and reliable." Indeed, this later discovered, erroneous and misleading statement from RES was recorded and broadcast within the BBC2 documentary, Windfarm Wars, and, as such, remains on the public record. What's more, it was as a result of RES's substantively flawed assessment in relation to the predicted noise data that the Court of Appeal quashed RES's earlier Den Brook planning permission. What's worse perhaps was RES' senior technical manager's later admission that throughout the planning application process RES had misled not only the Den Brook neighbourhood but decision makers at the local planning authority and the government's Planning Inspectorate. Once again it is a matter of public record: during a relatively recent meeting in November 2013, Dr Bass conceded that the industry wind turbine line (as adopted by RES for many years) that specific EAM acoustic impact from wind turbines is rare and an EAM noise condition is not necessary to protect amenity was no longer tenable: "...that idea has been completely exploded." Dr Bass went on to say that he suspected in the future, developers at public inquiries will no longer try the argument that EAM is rare and shouldn't have a noise condition. Lamentably, the list of both disingenuous assertions and malfeasant submissions continued from the Den Brook developer even after planning permission was granted for a second time in 2009. Strict conditions were imposed to control any excessive amplitude modulation (EAM) likely to interrupt sleep patterns and destroy the ambient tranquility currently enjoyed in the Den Brook neighbourhood. And true to form, RES engineered a number of less than transparent attempts aimed to kick those noise conditions and controls into the long grass. It is, of course, clear to most just where the Den Brook developer's true interests lie given that the amount of noise impact from the proposed wind turbines inextricably conflicts with the amount of subsidy and therefore profit there is to be gained for distant shareholders in the project. The time is surely overdue for this corporate giant to take a long hard look at itself; the damage it is doing for the renewables' cause, and the true meaning of transparency, what's more. Further detail and information can be found in the pre-action protocol Notice of Intent served on RES, May 26, 2015. The Notice can easily be found and downloaded from DBJRG's website: http://www.denbrookvalley.co.uk">www.denbrookvalley.co.uk . Mike Hulme Spreyton By email • Editor's note: Mr Hulme, for your information I do remember being at a public meeting with about 200 other people in North Tawton Town Hall when a now former RES press officer purported to be a member of the public and asked a question to a RES officer on a panel when the plan was first mooted.