I am making this submission today on behalf of the Friends of Batsworthy. These are North Devon Residents who support the proposed Development at Batsworthy Cross.

I have a petition here signed by over 450 people who are members of that group. Additionally support has been pledged by numerous others who have not been present when the petition was raised.

My own interest is threefold:

First as a local resident, I live within 5 miles of the site. Second, I farm and manage a conservation project on an area of Culm grassland similar to those at Meshaw and Knowstone Moors. My third interest is as a parent – my children all attend local schools.

Locally, unrestrained climate change will threaten our wild moorland, oak Woodland, Culm grassland, our patchwork landscape of fields & hedgerows. The very landscape that those opposed to this scheme seek to preserve will change beyond recognition. Thousands of years of evolution, of humans and wildlife combining to create a landscape is at risk. The rare and endangered species that cling on in this area will be lost.

In North Devon climate change will bring the likely intensification of farming required by global shortages of food. Combined with mass migration from newly uninhabitable areas, this will put severe pressure on any remaining wild land we have and certainly on our towns and villages.

On our coastline, perhaps one of the most beautiful in the country and certainly one which attracts numerous tourists to the area; our World Biosphere reserve at the Burrows will be inundated and our estuaries, together with the commercial heart of Barnstaple and Bideford will be threatened by flooding.

A further threat to our coastline comes from the possible increase in Nuclear generating capacity in the Bristol Channel. This will inevitably bring the prospect of pollution and certainly a dangerous legacy of toxic waste which we have no means of disposing of- this poses a threat both to our tourist industry and to the health and safety of residents. I do not want my children, or any of their generation, exposed to that risk.

The visibility of the turbines is the primary local issue and I understand the anxiety, BUT this site is not on the moor, nor in a protected area, yet it is in an area with a low population density. We have to site the turbines somewhere and no site is going to be any easier or create any less anxiety for local residents.

For those who are concerned about their view being spoiled there is unquestionably an element of NIMBYism in their motivation. But sometimes we have to make some sacrifices: in the national interest the mining communities of Yorkshire, Durham and Wales lived with slag heaps and pit heads. Now it is the turn of this generation, in this area to contribute to the wider interest.

As someone who will see a lot of these turbines I say we can look at them not as a sacrifice, but instead be proud of them. They are giant sculptures, in many ways quite beautiful. They are our contribution to our children and our grandchildren’s future: we cannot take our view with us to the grave but by trying to get something done about climate change we can know we did our best for those who will follow us.

The judgement by Lavender 18-23 (esp. 20) and 23-27 deals clearly with the issue of “rights” in this respect.

.

I submit that the turbines will announce to travellers that they are arriving in a beautiful area which is also green and clean. They could well become as much a landmark, which people recognise and enjoy, as one which deters or disappoints them. I have holiday cottages as a part of my farm business and I will be pointing to the turbines as evidence of our green credentials. I expect more, not less business as a result.

There is a body of evidence to support this expectation (Lavender sect 50-52)

My experience is that the local noise of wind in the trees and other background noise will drown out any disturbance caused by turbines, and that opinion is supported by much of the evidence now available. I have a report here covering the issue of Low frequency noise which was recently raised in the local press, and which shows this concern is not backed up by the science. Lavender (46-49).

The science now demonstrates a clear need for Land Based Wind Turbines in North Devon

The recent reports by Stern and the IPCC scientists give us two clear messages: first that human influenced climate change exists. Second, that we have perhaps a decade to do something about getting it under control.

Having relied for so long on imported electricity produced by power stations outside the county, Devon now needs to contribute. We now need to accept our responsibility in using the renewable resources we have to keep the country supplied with energy.. We should be as proud of our emerging wind industry as those miners of Wales and Durham once were of their pits.

It is certainly true that Tidal power offers us great hope for the future,. BUT the currently available technology is not ready to deal with the rigours of the harsh environment of the North Devon coast. . We simply do not have the technology or infrastructure available and will not for many years to come.

Local argument has described Wind turbines as inefficient when they are in fact very efficient: that is on a given site, a wind turbine produces 100% efficiently when compared with zero electricity produced by no wind generator on the same site. Comparing the wind turbines with other forms of non- existent or unavailable generators is disingenuous.

Lavender (11-esp 15)

I come finally to the argument that there is already sufficient renewable energy capacity to meet the 151MW Target for the region, either in the form of existing schemes or proposals.

Nick Harvey has also argued that nationally there is a 10GW limit to wind developments and that existing proposals cover this. Given the uncertainty over numerous of these proposals and the pressing need to act immediately to mitigate our carbon emissions this is clearly a fudge- a typical political tactic to avoid making potentially unpopular public statements.

In fact we are nowhere near our regional target with current schemes producing an installed capacity of 33MW (lavender 16). There are serious doubts over the 23MW Winkleigh biomass station.

There is further doubt as to whether Winkleigh and the proposed Waste plant at Exeter should be included in the list of schemes at all given that waste and bio fuel incineration is not necessarily or entirely renewable.

Lavender clearly argues that the Target of 151MW from renewables is one that should be revised UPWARDS if the environmental constraints allow and that any contribution towards meeting the target should be welcomed at the moment given the pressing need to install renewable capacity.

In any case, in twenty five years time we could well have available technology in the form of tidal, offshore wind, or solar systems which mean that the turbines may be removed as they become obsolete.

After the IPCC report on 2nd Feb Oliver Burkeman said the following. “It is no longer possible to be a climate change denier, to present yourself as some kind of feisty maverick. From today onwards that position will be the exclusive preserve of the deluded and the breathtakingly cynical”.

We need this issue addressed responsibly, and urgently. It is your responsibility to drive this project through, and I urge you to do so as soon as possible.

Matthew Knight Friends of Batsworthy Wind Farm February 2007