Letter

TOP marks to the “Courier” for comprehensively covering the recent meeting of the Den Brook Wind Farm Community Liaison Group and drawing the public’s attention to the potential dangers of this project particularly to rail passengers.

First, may I correct you in that the meeting was under the chairmanship of Councillor Mike Bostock (Zeal Monachorum). Mike Hulme was present in his capacity as a councillor representing his own parish.

Secondly, I would like to expand on the risks involved in positioning two of the nine 120 metre high turbines within fall-over distance of what could become the main railway line between London and Plymouth.

I have today received the following from Dr Phillip Bratby of CPRE Devon:

“As a retired energy consultant and safety specialist, I gave evidence on behalf of CPRE at the Den Brook Wind Farm Public Inquiry in 2009.

“In my extensive evidence I stated that the layout of the wind turbines had been chosen to maximise the number of turbines with no regard to the risks to the public. I showed that two of the turbines were about 90m and 100m from the railway line and thus within fall-over distance of it.

“The turbines should have been sited at least 170m away from the railway line. I gave numerous examples of accidents where wind turbines had collapsed or blades had failed and debris had been scattered over a wide area.

“I stated that RES should have performed a risk assessment to show that the risk to the public was acceptably low. RES refused to carry out a risk assessment, stating without producing any evidence that "no effect on public safety is anticipated". I stated that this was an unacceptable and false statement. It was quite obvious to me at the Inquiry that RES had total disregard for public safety.

“All they were concerned about was squeezing in the maximum number of turbines on the site and therefore maximising their profit.

“Needless to say, the Planning Inspector ignored the expert evidence and decided that his ‘view’, as a non-expert, was correct.

“He decided, from a position of complete ignorance, that ‘the technology itself is fairly simple, and this in itself must reduce the risks of accidents’.

“This is the opposite of the truth - complex technologies are the ones that are of low risk. For example, a modern car is much more complex and much safer than a car designed 50 years ago.

The Inspector stated, also from a position of complete ignorance, that, ‘in my view the likelihood of a collapse is extremely remote’.

“We all know that wind turbines in Devon have a habit of falling over!”

It would be in total disregard for public safety if the developers (RES) were allowed to continue with the construction of the two turbines closest to the Crediton to Okehampton railway line.

It is also evident that RES has no regard for the people of Devon. RES is happy to inflict noise on residents; it is happy to ruin the landscape; and it is happy to put people’s lives at risk. It is happy to do all of these things so that it can get hold of big subsidies and make big profits.

The people of Devon have been let down by the decision makers who have allowed this horrendous wind power station to be built in the heart of our beautiful county.

Roland Smith

Nymet Rowland