Telephone 01559 395 468
'Blaencwmiar'
Email= ted.razzell@gmail.com
Llanllwni
Llanybydder
Carms. SA40 9SJ
Dear Sir or Madam,
Ref.
APPM6825/A/12/2189697 Appeal Ref. APP 1053/E/23947
I wish to comment on the appeal by RES on the
Bryn Llywelyn application in the following areas:
1)The Tan8 process
consultation. 2) Research by the WAG on
the economic and social impact of TAN8.
3) National policy on wind farm development. 4) The need for back-up power stations. 5) Subsidies for wind farms. 6 )Criticisms of
the ETSU process. 7) Peer reviewed research on the impact of turbine sound. 8)
The role of acoustics 'experts. 9) RES calculation of
sound levels. 10) Cost benefit analysis of this proposal 11)Safety issues. 12) Tourism. There are three appendices
following.
1)There was very
little consultation on the establishment of the TAN8 guidelines which reduces
their legitimacy . I believe there was one public meeting in Carmarthen and, if
you were on holiday that particular week in 2005, you could be unaware of TAN8.
In fact the first time most local people knew about it was when RES held their
first public exhibition in autumn 2010. Equally lacking was any consultation by
the Crown Estates, the owners of this common land, not even to graziers.
2)The Welsh Assembly
Government only commissioned one piece of research on the TAN8 area to
establish the amount of wind experienced in the area. Quite disgracefully,
there was no study on the economic and social impact of this industrial
development in a tranquil unspoiled countryside. (I will return to this subject
in section 10).
3) It emerged during
the public enquiry into the recent Brechfa Forest West development that the
underlying government policy was to presume that all such developments should go ahead unless there were compelling
reasons for turning them down. Such policy raises doubts as to whether such
public enquiries are worth all the expense for what is little more than a PR
exercise. It also raises doubts about the Prime Minister's statement that local
opinion should play a major role. I can assure the Inspector that local opinion
in this part of Wales is very strongly opposed indeed to the Bryn Llywelyn
development!!
4) Due to the
unreliability of wind farms in producing power because wind varies so much,
there is a need to have conventional power stations on standby, using between
75% and 80% of their full production costs. Often during the winter months there
are periods of high pressure when there is very little or no wind when due to
the cold weather, demand for electricity is at its peak and wind farms can
produce little or no output e.g. the first 2 months here in December 2012.
There is an element of irrationality here since it makes no sense to create
more wind farms when a number of coal fired power stations are due to close - a
classic case of a lack of joined up thinking. Wind farms and conventional power
stations are irrevocably linked! It is
also worth mentioning that because of the distance between Bryn Llywelyn and
the National Grid at Swansea, that there is a significant loss of the power
created by transmission loss.
5) Because of the
inefficiency of wind farms (they rarely exceed 25% of their theoretical
capacity) they require huge subsidies. Owners are allowed to charge electricity
retailers a rate higher than market prices and this is passed on to consumers
as part of the renewables charge i.e. the number of people in fuel poverty is
increased. So it is bad news for consumers to hear of yet another wind farm.
Such subsidies would be much better spent on reliable renewables such as tidal
and wave powered developments.
6) The group which made up the process called
ETSU consisted mainly of wind farm developers, acoustic engineers and other
interested parties i.e. nobody from the medical world. They deliberately
excluded the impact of low frequency
sound from guidelines since including it would make it impossible to produce
acceptable levels of turbine noise for nearby residents. I do not intend to
list all the other faults with these guidelines despite the suffering of local
residents from the Alltwalis wind farm which met ETSU standards. Instead I
would point out the recent peer reviewed report from Richard Cox and David
Unwin, March 2013, which is entitled Bad Science and produces a
devastating critique of ETSU.
7) There is now an
overwhelming amount of evidence from all over the world that turbine noise can
cause sleeplessness and other resulting neurological problems. I am listing
some of these research reports as an appendix but I want to mention a few peer reviewed
reports at this stage. As it happens, as I write, a review has just been
published in the Journal of Laryngology by three clinicians viz. A. Farboud, R
Crunkhorn and A.Trinidade. They examine
the proposition as to whether the claims made about so called what Dr.
Pierpoint calls Wind Turbine Syndrome, should be taken seriously. They conclude
that, "There is some evidence of symptoms in patients exposed to wind
turbine noise. The effects of infrasound require further investigation".
This is a view shared by an editorial in the British Medical Journal in
February 2012 based on their review of peer reviewed research. Another piece of
field research this time by Dr. Amanda Harry who explores the pathology of how
turbine noise creates neurological problems in residents living near wind farms.
Lastly I would like to mention the example of sound problems experienced by
some Buddhist monks at a meditation centre in Tharpland, Scotland. They
suffered from all kinds of neurological problems when a wind farm was built 5
miles away and had to sell up to developers when threatened by yet another
closer wind farm. There was clear evidence from an independent study the monks
commissioned that low frequency turbine sound doesn't decay over long
distances.
8)Acoustic experts
have divided opinions on the subject of low frequency sound impacts. When ETSU
was set up, it was decided to leave out the impact of low frequency and infra
sound since it was believed that many human beings cannot detect it. The
committee adjusted the sound levels by applying a so called A weighting, thus
allowing higher sound levels from turbines to be permitted than would be
allowed using raw data. It seems that if the latter happened then it would be
very difficult to permit any onshore wind farms in this overcrowded island.
This would be against the interests of many acoustic experts who are employed
by developers. Locally, this situation does explain why people living at
Gwyddgrug suffer from sleep problems despite the nearby Alltwalis wind farm
meeting the sound criteria laid down by ETSU.
9) Permitted sound
levels are also determined by the measurement of localised ambient noise. ETSU
permits 5 decibels of noise over and above the average ambient noise and the
higher the level measured of this background noise the more it benefits
developers who can place more turbines nearer to human habitation. To ensure
the latter occurs, sites in Llanllwni for placing measuring equipment in this application were deliberately
put in noisy farm yards or near busy roads. Initially there were 2 sites used which
were not very noisy so out of an original 9 sites, these were removed from the original EIS
document and only seven appeared in the RES revised document. To give you an
example of how this manipulation occurred, preliminary measurements were made
at both Cwmiar Farm and the nearby Blaencwmiar cottage. The former had a very
noisy yard being part of a child based holiday centre with many nearby animals and a stream
passing through. On the other hand at Blaencwmiar you could hardly hear the
proverbial pin drop and it is difficult to get any reading at all on sound
equipment. Guess which site was chosen? Another example is the choice of
Mountain Gate which has a very noisy cattle grid passed frequently passed over
by road traffic.
The general point here
is that a responsible developer, wishing to cause minimum noise impact, would
have chosen quiet sites when measuring ambient noise to ensure that some of the
public would not suffer unduly. Also of course these unrepresentative readings
from noisy sites were used to produce forecast noise levels at another 33 sites in the community. There were also
other flaws in the process, including readings being acquired over only 6 weeks
(due to faulty equipment, Cwmiar only
had 4 weeks) and so were not representative of sound in the whole year; also the
instruments were not properly shielded from wind noise. It should be noted here
that the acoustics expert hired by Carmarthen Council has stated that the
Llanllwni Mountain is remarkably quiet even by countryside standards. So we can
be sure that residents of Llanllwni will
suffer the same health problems as those residents of Gwyddgrug suffer from the
nearby Alltwalis wind farm.
10 )Cost Benefit
Analysis is a process used by economists to judge whether a project should go
ahead and to identify winners and losers.
In this case the winner's benefits are fairly obvious. RES shareholders
are the biggest winners since such companies receive a guaranteed income - they
are rewarded regardless whether or not the wind is blowing or whether their
product is needed. Not far behind are land owners such as those of Bryn
Llywelyn Farm who would be bought out by RES, although they could have received
a big annual rent payment. The local authority obviously would receive payment
for rates and there would be a few temporary jobs for labourers who might
possibly live locally. Other winners would be counties in England such as
Gloucestershire who are spared the problem of having their countryside
despoiled and big users of electricity such as City of London offices who can
keep their premises flooded with light all night long. Funds put aside for
local facilities are minimal and under control by developers.
Losers would be
residents who are unlucky enough to live near this wind farm. They could expect
the value of their property to decline and in some cases may be unsalable (e.g.
Mountain Gate which has been on the market for 2 years due to the threat of
Bryn Llywelyn). In Denmark a new law
allows residents who suffer in this way to claim compensation for loss of
property value, and here in the U.K. some properties have been allowed to
change such values for community charge assessment. Other losers would be
residents who have moved into the Llanllwni area due to its tranquillity and
unspoiled countryside - many of them have spent large sums on restoring or
building new houses and at present we have a thriving community with many
facilities. You only have to look at the number of objection letters and a
petition to see how strongly people feel about having yet another wind farm
thrust upon them! Another cost would be serious loss of income for the many
people who have set up small or large tourist facilities. The selling point for
such businesses is the unspoiled nature of the area and there is evidence of
customers being deterred from future visits should this wind farm go ahead.
Local people in general would have to pay a price during the 2 year
construction since traffic congestion can be guaranteed which means motorists
and bus passengers would be held up and for many people time is money. In
general terms, there would be a loss of amenity for people who enjoy riding or
walking in an unspoiled countryside and research has shown by an LSE study that
people are willing to put a monetary value on such activities.
11) Another factor
which can put people off from enjoying countryside activities is the threat of
turbine damage which could cause serious injuries or death. Safety is an issue
to be explored in this appeal application. If granted, there would be 2
turbines 220 metres high close to the busy mountain road on its windward side,
one 250 metres away and the other 300 metres away from the road. Thus any
passing traffic or parked tourist cars could be put at extreme risk; wind farm
developers point out there have been no casualties so far but do we want to
take the risk associated with turbine failure? Even more worrying and worse
still, there is no proposal to fence off the turbines from the public or
grazing animals; this is despite the fact that guidelines from a well known
wind turbine supplier organisation in its Mechanical Operating and Maintenance
Manual state "Do not stay within a radius of 400 metres from the turbines
unless it is necessary"! There are
many examples of wind turbines disintegrating and causing enormous damage
either through strong winds or catching fire either through lightning strikes
or gearbox failure, I have listed some of these events in Appendix 1, in which it often appears that fires are
impossible to extinguish and toxic materials are spread far and wide.
12. Tourism is a very
important business in Carmarthenshire and there are many small enterprises
reliant on the tranquil and unspoiled beauty of Mynydd Llanllwni. Some of us
locals have developed a plan which will enhance the attractiveness of this
mountain area. We have put together an outline
business plan and already appointed a number of rangers and guides who
have volunteered their services should this enterprise go ahead. Of course
everything depends upon the Bryn Llywellyn wind farm NOT going ahead. Should this
4th wind farm be built, creating to all intents and purposes an industrial
zone, then our plan would be redundant and something that is in our local
interests would be lost. A reasonable person would accept that the creation of
50 wind turbines already agreed in this once hitherto unspoiled area is enough.
If localism means anything other than a lot of hot air then due weight should
be given to the fact that there is very strong local objection to this
development which is so clearly against our interests. To quote a cliche' ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Appendix 1. Safety
Issues.
There have been a
number of incidents involving wind turbine destruction over the last few years
and listed below are examples of why this subject should be taken seriously.
(i) 28/10/10 Wind
Turbine burst into flames in Nantglyn, Denbyshire. A rural road had to be
closed on account of the amount of debris. Firemen could do nothing!
(ii) 04/11/10 Victor Harbour, Australia. - a
wind turbine caught fire. Little could be done by fire fighters and they had to
move back 500 metres. They were then told by safety experts to move back further
to 1 kilometre to avoid injury. This was the third fire in the area since 2006.
(iii)/03/11 Whitlee
near Glasgow - 150 feet blade snapped off on a windy night.
(iv) /08/11 Ardrossan,
Ayrshire - wind turbine blown to pieces by high winds even though locked.
Caught fire.
(v) 01/06/12
Huddersfield - 3 wind turbines blown to pieces in gales - blades flung across a
road.
(vi) 16/07/12. Quest
Channel programme "Destroyed in Seconds". showed a wind turbine
destroyed in seconds in heavy winds due to brake failure. Debris passed over
roof of building 400 metres away.
(vii) 30/01/13
Bradworth, Devon. Wind turbine collapsed in 50 mph winds. Then caught fire.
Winds not thought exceptional.
The above list is not
thought to be comprehensive and no incidents in the USA or Canada have been
included. It should be borne in mind that debris could include toxic chemicals
contained within turbine blades and could contaminate surrounding areas.
Appendix 2. Research
reports on turbine noise health impacts
1. Sept. 1998 DEFRA
commissioned study by Casella Stanger - low frequency noise between 100 and 150
HZ and infra sound about 20HZ experienced inside buildings even with windows
closed. Room resonances can cause elevated levels of LF noise at points within
rooms.
2. May 2003 DEFRA
commissioned study by Dr. Leventhal and WHO. When LF components are present,
noise measures based on A weighting are inappropriate - better to use C
weighting. Noise which has travelled over long distance is normally biased
towards low frequencies.(See appendix 3 later)
3. 2009 Book by Dr.
Nina Pierpoint. Field research showed uniformity of complaints re wind turbine
noise became apparent. Vibration or pulsation felt in the chest. Effect on
humans of LF vibration not well understood. Developers rubbish these findings -
blame attitudes of those suffering BUT nothing psychosomatic involved. Research
clearly shows definable neurological connections that explain how distorted
sensory signals can derail normal psychological and cognitive functions. When
people move away from turbines, symptoms are abated.
4. 02/2007 Field
research by Dr. Amanda Harry - found evidence that at 37 dBA annoyance in residents near wind farms; at 42
dBA (allowed by ETSU) found severe annoyance. Character of noise was important
. Especially LF noise caused by air turbulence from WT blades. Describes in
detail the pathology of neurological problems caused by WTs.
5. 2003 / 2004
Tharpland study - "Serious implications for the health of Scottish
population as a whole". Environmental Impact Study should assess probable
impact of a proposed wind farm on human experience. Relief found by people
leaving turbine field. Impossible to mitigate infrasound.
Appendix 3
Excerpts from letter
written by Doctor Sarah Laurie to outspoken Professor in Sociology Simon
Chapman, who is a champion of wind energy.
Your recent wind
turbine opinion piece in the New Scientist(1), together with your media
commentary in other articles, interviews and comments on blogs(2), purport to be "the truth" about
this subject. However my knowledge of the problems, obtained directly from sick residents including turbine hosts(3) and some of their treating doctors, rather
than indirect sources, is in stark contrast.
I would be obliged if
you will direct me to the population studies or even small case control
studies, which have been performed in the vicinity of large operating wind
turbines, confirming that there are no adverse effects for any of the residents
from these wind turbines, including sleep deprivation, stress related
illnesses, and symptoms of vestibular dysfunction.
I believe there are no
such studies.
Are you prepared to
explain why you do not reference the peer reviewed published work of Dr. David Shepherd
and his colleagues(4), when you discuss the evidence for damage to
health caused by industrial wind turbines in your public statements? Shepherd's
work was published a year ago, in October, 2011. As you will see when you read
it, there is incontrovertible evidence of sleep disturbance and adverse impacts
on health- related quality of life in wind turbine neighbours, when compared
with these indicators in rural residents who do not live in the environs of an
industrial wind development. This is entirely consistent with my knowledge, and
the knowledge of a growing number of medical practitioners around the world.
Perhaps it is your
view that chronic sleep disturbance, such is commonly reported by residents
living near industrial wind farms, and confirmed by Dr. Shepherd, does not
result directly in serious adverse health problems? If so, then you are in
conflict with the current peer reviewed clinical evidence(5), and WHO guidelines.
Will you also explain
why you and your co-reviewer of the Australian National Health and Medical
Research Council's "Rapid Review 2010"(6),
which purported to be a "review of the peer reviewed evidence" of the
time, managed to cite a blog of yours, but failed to include the most important
literature review detailing the peer reviewed published research of the then
known adverse impacts of low frequency noise on health, written in 2003 for the
UK Department of Food and Rural Affairs?(7) Your
co-reviewer, Professor Leventhall was the lead author of this important work, so he certainly knew
about it in 2010.
Did you know about
this work and chose to exclude it from the Rapid Review, or were you unaware of
its existence?
I draw your attention
to page 49 of the 2003 Leventhall
Literature Review, where is a table listing the symptoms reported by
residents in a case control study looking at the effect of exposure to low
frequency noise from other sources. There is other relevant research performed
by Leventhall and others in an
occupational setting, which confirms these findings.
Professor Leventhall,
your co-reviewer, has publicly stated in expert testimony given in court in
Ontario(8) and also in the NHMRC workshop(9) which you and I both attended in June 2011,
that he has known about the symptoms of low frequency noise exposure or
"wind turbine syndrome" for some time , and it is clear from his
literature review from 2003 that this statement is correct.
On what grounds, as a
sociologist, rather than an acoustician or a medical practitioner , do you
disagree with Leventhall's expert testimony in the Suncor case in Ontario,
confirming the existence of this pattern of symptoms, which he clearly attributes
to being caused by exposure to low frequency noise?
"...Pierpoint defined the symptoms of the Wind
Turbine Syndrome as:"...sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear
pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia,
irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal
pulsation or quivering when awake or asleep". I am happy to accept these symptoms of extreme psychological stress
from environmental noise, particularly low frequency noise"(10).
On numerous occasions(11) you have publicly accused me of "scaremongering"
and have implied that my efforts to educate
the public about what is already known about the damaging effects of
infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines and other sources, is itself causing all the reported symptoms. This
is a very grave accusation to make. What is your evidence to support this
allegation?
Will you please acknowledge
that I was first aware of reported health problems in May/ June 2010, first
spoke publicly of my concerns on 18th July, 2010, and acknowledge that there
are many media reports about sick people at Waubra and other locations
internationally prior to this date(12).
Perhaps you also blame
the reported symptoms on the first whistle blower Medical Practitioners Dr.
Amanda Harry (UK) and Dr. David Iser, (Australia) as you appear to imply in
your recent opinion piece in the New Scientist(13).
Will you please explain to Dr.Harry, Dr.Iser, and myself, how the limited media
reports at the time, which appeared well after
their studies had been conducted, could have caused the symptoms in their
patients months earlier?
With regard to your
repeated comments about the existence or otherwise of confidentiality clauses,
which might prevent people affected by the wind turbines from speaking out
about their health problems , I draw your attention to the following letter
from the general manager of Slater and Gordon, published in The Australian Newspaper
on 4th May, 2012(14).
James Delingpole asserts that Slater
and Gordon have been responsible for "rigorous gagging orders" in
favour of wind farm operators. This is wrong. We have acted for landowners who have been affected by the operation of
nearby wind farms.
Any confidentiality clauses associated with
some compensation claims have not been made at our direction. Such clauses are required by the
wind farm operators and are typically required in these type of settlements. It is a decision for our clients as to
whether they accept such clauses".
I would also draw your
attention to the comments Professor Leventhall made in his 2003 DEFRA
Literature review concerning the damaging effects on the mental health on those
whose symptoms are denied:
"There is no doubt that some humans
exposed to infrasound experience abnormal ear, CNS, and resonance induced
symptoms that are real and stressful. If this is not recognised by
investigators or their treating physicians, and properly addressed with understanding and sympathy, a psychological
reaction will follow and the patient's problems will be compounded"(15).
I assure you that your
frequent denigrating comments(16), widely broadcast in
the media, towards and about sick people are indeed directly and significantly
compounding their health problems. This is an unnecessary addition to the
symptoms of physical and mental illness these people are already experiencing
directly from the effects of the infrasound and low frequency acoustic
pollution.
I know this occurs,
because some of them contact me, in a very distressed state. Some of these
people are unable to live in their homes, and unable to do their usual work
because of the severity of their symptoms correlating directly with exposure to
the noise pollution. Some of them are elderly and frail, and are suffering
terribly.
There have been a
number of occasions where people have rung in desperation, expressing acutely
suicidal thoughts, as they are trapped in homes where their physical and mental
health relentlessly deteriorates with continued exposure, and they have nowhere
else to go, and cannot afford to just walk away. These people consistently feel
better when the turbines are turned off, or when they are well away from the
turbines. This is entirely consistent with repeated clinical observations, and
with Professor Leventhall's comments in his 2003 literature review.
This growing public
health problem, caused by industrial noise in frequencies below 200 Hz from a
range of sources including wind turbines, mining, gas compressors and gas-fired
power stations, warrants a compassionate response.
Please immediately
stop denigrating seriously ill people. It is harmful to their health. Please
use your position as "Director of Research" constructively, to
advocate for the necessary multidisciplinary research so urgently needed.
References
1.
Opinion piece 8 October, 2012, New
Scientist Magazine issue 2885, pp 26-7 "Sickened by the Spin".
Online version "The sickening truth about wind farm syndrome". Also
broadcast on ABC Radio National Science show, 20 October, 2012.
2.
Some examples in addition to the New
Scientist piece including the following: (i)"Wind turbine sickness
prevented by money drug" 29 March , 2011. (ii)Wind Turbines Power Mass
Hysteria 23 May, 2011. (iii)"Is wind turbine syndrome Mass Hysteria?"
(iv)2 September, 2011. Interview with Waleed Ali, on RN Drive, June 2012.
3.
David and Alida Mortimer, turbine hosts from Infigen 's Lake Bonney Development
in South Australia spoke about their health problems resulting from exposure to
operating wind turbines on TV.
Professor
Chapman has repeatedly claimed that the symptoms result from jealousy of
neighbours, and implied that no wind turbine hosts develop illnesses. This is
untrue. Other hosts have contacted the Waubra Foundation for help, and have
said that they are unable to speak publicly about their health problems because of the terms of their agreements with
the wind farm developer. At their request, and for obvious reasons, their
information remains confidential.
4. Shepherd, Daniel et al "Evaluating
the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life", Noise and Health,
September-October 2011, 13:54,333-9.
5. Capuccio F et al "Sleep Duration
predicts cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of
prospective studies "European Heart Journal, (2011) 32,
1484-1492.
6.
NHMRC "Wind Turbines and Health, A Rapid Review of the Evidence" July
2010.
7. Leventhall, Benton & Pelmear May
2003, A report for DEFRA "A review of published research on Low Frequency
Noise and its Effects.
8. Dr. Leventhall, (2009) op cit.
9.
Presentation accessible via
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/your-health/wind-farms-and-human-health.
10.
Dr. Leventhall, (Op cit)
11.
Opinion piece 8 October, 2012, New
Scientist Magazine issue 2885, pp 26-7 "Sickened by the Spin"
Online version "The sickening truth about wind turbine syndrome".
Also broadcast on ABC Radio National Science show, 20 October, 2010.
(i)"Wind
turbine sickness prevented by money drug". (ii)"Wind Turbine Power
Mass Hysteria" 2 September, 2001. Interview with Waleed Ali, on RN Drive,
12 June, 2012.
12.
Some examples include:
15th
July, 2009, report of the Dean family's illness and abandonment of their home,
due to health problems they experienced, coinciding with the start up of the Waubra Wind
Development.
19th
February, 2010, exposure of Trisha Godfrey's gag agreement by Cheryl Hall, ABC
Vic 7.30.
An
extensive list of international media items makes the global nature of this
problem clear, and the reports of ill health prior to May/June 2010 abound in
Victoria and internationally.
13.
Opinion piece 8 October, 2012, New
Scientist Magazine issue 2885, pp 26-7 "Sickened by Spin" Online
version "The sickening truth about wind turbine syndrome".
14.
3rd letter at http://www.the
australian.com.au/opinion/wind-power-a-blessing/or/a/scam/story-fn558imw-1226346246835.
15. Leventhall, Benton & Pelmear May
2003, a report for DEFRA "A review of published research on Low frequency
Noise and its Effects.
16.
Opinion piece 8 October, 2012, New
Scientist Magazine issue 2885, pp 26-7 "Sickened by the Spin"
Online version "The sickening truth about wind turbine syndrome".
Also broadcast on ABC Radio National Science show, 20 October, 2012.
"Wind
turbine sickness prevented by money drug" 29 March, 2011. "Wind
Turbine Power Mass Hysteria" May 23, 2011.
Interview with Waleed Aly, on RN Drive,12
June, 2012.
NOTE. I have not
included all the online details of Dr. Laurie's many textual references but
these can be found on her full letter at the Waubra Foundation web site at
www.waubrafoundation.com.au. While it is understandable why wind farm
developers should be in denial for commercial reasons about these problems,
surely governments have a duty of care to look after the health of their human
population, whatever their reasons for promoting wind energy. It is interesting
to note that Michael Fallon, Minister for Energy and Business has just stated
that he "would not tolerate some areas being swamped by applications for
wind farms".!!
E. J.
Razzell, B.Sc. Econ., M.Sc. Public Admin. (LSE)
