PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 69:

23-Sep-2015
(PS-69: A Further Response to Mrs. Mayo & Supporting Examples) 

REPLY

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)

At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

23-Sep-2015

Hi,

Indeed you are correct – a meeting is provisionally booked for 07-Oct-2015 in Woolaston

I was advised of it early this month by Laurie Pennington, who I believe is party to organise it, members of those with views on opposition are invited and I was awaiting confirmation before circulating it amongst our own group.

Laurie and several others from Woolaston, Alvington, Aylburton etc. have given us a great deal of support in opposing the hugely suspect Severndale application, a process which I for one consider to have been corrupted and regarding which I believe FoDDC have acted ultra vires, grounds on which I believe it is the duty of the Se.State to call in the plans.

I believe that the manner in which we have been supported calls for us to aid others facing the development by stealth of a full blown wind farm developing along the Severn Estuary, anyone wishing/willing to attend this meeting is more than welcome to let me know and I will ensure they receive the relevant details at the end of this month giving at least 7 days notice.

ON A DIFFERENT NOTE:
I was reading Paul Staine’s blog this morning and noted this article:

You will I am sure be well aware that Al Gore and the other rascal Pachauri who were paid with a Nobel Prize as the individuals behind the IPCC Report which was so readily dismissed as with The Real Global Warming Disaster.

I understand that Pchauri has since lost his seat on the IPCC and has been exposed as deeply partisan being a senior executive of Tatta Industries! Also you may be aware of The Oregon Principle wherein almost 30,000 individuals directly involved in climate issues including mostly scientists signed a repudiation of the much vaunted IPCC Report and also the fact that many of those quoted as contributors to the IPCC Report were scientists who had written articles that were contra the claims of the report and also many who had asked to have their names removed from the report due to its inaccuracy and dishonesty!

IF you wish to learn more of the facts do see:

http://eureferendum.com/results.aspx?keyword=al%20gore

&

Watts Up With That? | The world’s most viewed site on …

wattsupwiththat.com/

Former meteorologist and weather expert Anthony Watts maintains this site, skeptical of the man-made global warming topic.

&

Read Professor Ian Plimer’s book

Heaven And Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science

Do also note the some 26,000 eMails that we conveniently leaked from The University of East Anglia which showed conclusively that anthropogenic effects on global warming and climate change were minimal and the data had been deliberately distorted!

The reasons for this massive global scam are a further matter but suffice to say they led to the passing of a Bill through Parliament founded on a near total lack of fact that was known as ‘The Climate Change Bill’ which is believed to be THE most expensive Bill in the history of the British Government, a Bill which only now is being realised to be both nonsense and undeliverable – hence the work of the present Government with such as Amber Rudd and Greg Clark working to bring about rational change.

Anyone wanting to garner more facts on this issue is welcome to contact me, suffice to say:

In the year 220: A great frost in England was reported to have lasted 5 months

In 353: a great flood in Cheshire was claimed to have killed 5,000 people and many livestock

In 508: all the rivers in Britain were reported to have been frozen for 2 months

In 738: there was a great flood in Glasgow

In 797: there was extensive drought and thus famine in England

In 800: a great gale on Christmas Eve from SW tore down many trees & destroying many homes and within a year there was extensive sea inundation & epidemics amongst cattle

In 944: a great storm destroyed about 1,500 homes in London alone

In 954: there were 4 years of famine

In 974: a great earthquake struck Britain

In 975 > 976: a great famine in England

In 993: a very hot & dry summer

In 994: again a summer of drought & heat destroying fruit & crops

My point being that we live on a planet of great volatility and ever changing weather and when one considers the prevalence of famine and prolongued appauling weather we have experienced in the past, most probably caused by the erruption of the Northern end of the Mid Atlantic plate join particularly Mount Hekla, we should perhaps count our good fortune in living in a period of global warming.

The historic record shows of course that AFTER global warming there is a general increase in CO2, most probably brought about by the output of plant life which flourishes in periods of warmer damper weather!

It is interesting to note that periods of warfare seem closely linked with periods of cold and thus famine and one need only think of 1066 which was the culmination of some 50 years of famine, most probably due to volcanic dust from Hekla and its region in Iceland! As was the famine in the mid 1500s, the French Revolution, the period when the King of Scotland begged to join with England leading to the Act of Union, the little ice age of the 1800s etc. etc.

To destroy our Country by littering it with inefficient, immensly costly eyesores like Wind Turbines is an obscene folly!

Though I concede it is a marvellous system for self enrichment of the relatively wealthy at the expense of the largely overtaxed poorer population – hence the present Government’s efforts to redress the folly!

Let us hope that the Secretary of State carries out his duty and Calls In the application for a wind turbine in Stroat and then gives due consideration to that in Alvington on which no consequential construction has taken place on site and dismisses out of hand the plans for Woolaston and others up and down the Severn Estuary in the FoD & across Britain before this folly further damages our country and the public purse to no comensurate gain.

Let us hope he takes note of the Effected Communities as the Government policy has been enacted to do viz:

As with the ‘Effected Community’ in Stroat, being those contacted by the Council originally who are directly effected including:

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
which includes 33 members of the immediate ‘effected community’ who are on the record as objectors:

AVERY-BROWN, Elizabeth-Avery & William – Wibdon Cottage, Stroat – approximately 700m from proposed turbine

BOLLEN, David – High Hall Farm – within 750m from proposed turbine

BOLT, Lisa – Everene Philpots Court within 700 m from proposed turbine

BROOKES, Tracey & Andy – Underwood Farm – within 800m of turbine

BROWN, Louella & David – The Waldins – within 650m of the turbine

CROSS, Nigel and Samantha 3 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine

DAVIDSON, Pam – The Garstons – within 750m from proposed turbine

ELSBY, Nigel & Linda, Stroat House, within 1.5km from proposed turbine

FORD, Claire & Roger – The steps – approximately 500m from proposed turbine

GOATMAN, Fiona & Robert – Beverstone Farm – approximately 1km from proposed turbine

HILLMAN, Robert & Alison Philpots Court Farm – within 700m from proposed turbine

HOLLIES, Lindsay & Mark – Chapel House, Hanley Lane – within 1km from proposed turbine

LANCE-WATKINS, Lee & Greg – Home Cottage Stroat – within 1.5km from proposed turbine

MAYO, Molly & Keith – Wibdon Farm – within 650 to 700m from from proposed turbine

NAIRNE, Andrew and Sue 4 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine

REES, James & Clare  – Greystones within 775m from proposed turbine

SMITH, Pam & David – Old Post Office within 900m from proposed turbine

WRIGHT, Sue and Peter – Little Wibdon, Stroat, approx. 500 – 550meters from proposed turbine

Minded that it is a relatively sparsely populated rural area, where numerous properties will be level with the blades on the overlooking slopes and clear visibility will be from Aust, Littlehampton, Thornbury, Rockhampton, Hill, Oldbury, Berkeley, Sharpness and beyond as it stands 50% taller than Gloucester Cathedral, undisguised by trees or other obstacles.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins

eMail:  Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Phone: 01594 – 528 337 – Calls from withheld numbers are blocked & calls are recorded

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 68:

22-Sep-2015
(PS-68: GL-W > Molly Mayo re Inappropriate Action
by Sec. State Greg Clark MP) 

From: Greg Lance-Watkins [mailto:greg_l-w@btconnect.com]
Sent: 23 September 2015 01:52
To: ‘Molly Mayo’
Cc: ‘MARK HARPER MP’; ‘Mark Harper MP for The Forest of Dean’; ‘National Planning Casework Unit’; ‘Secretary of State Greg Clark MP’; ‘stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk’
Subject: RE: Wind Turbines and Greg Clark

REPLY

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)

At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Hi,

In response to Molly Mayo’s eMail re The inappropriate Severndale Farm Wind Turbine application.

Personally I believe face to face meetings are best value.

I also believe that a letter on behalf of the ‘Effected Community’ should be sent to The Sec. State with relevant courtesy copies to our own MP Mark Harper, who is notably the Government’s Chief Whip charged with steering Government policy through Parliament and as a Treasury Officer and an Accountant is all too well aware of the inefficacy of these giant Wind Turbines and our public purse’s inability to continue enriching self serving wealthy land owners and corporations at the expense of the wellbeing of the State and beleaguered tax payers facing the inescapable responsibility for austerity.

The ‘Effected Community’ being those contacted by the Council originally, who are directly effected, including:

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
which includes some 33 members of the immediate ‘effected community’ who are on the record as objectors:

AVERY-BROWN, Elizabeth-Avery & William – Wibdon Cottage, Stroat – approximately 700m from proposed turbine

BOLLEN, David – High Hall Farm – within 750m from proposed turbine

BOLT, Lisa – Everene Philpots Court within 700 m from proposed turbine

BROOKES, Tracey & Andy – Underwood Farm – within 800m of turbine

BROWN, Louella & David – The Waldins – within 650m of the turbine

CROSS, Nigel and Samantha 3 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine

DAVIDSON, Pam – The Garstons – within 750m from proposed turbine

ELSBY, Nigel & Linda, Stroat House, within 1.5km from proposed turbine

FORD, Claire & Roger – The steps – approximately 500m from proposed turbine

GOATMAN, Fiona & Robert – Beverstone Farm – approximately 1km from proposed turbine

HILLMAN, Robert & Alison Philpots Court Farm – within 700m from proposed turbine

HOLLIES, Lindsay & Mark – Chapel House, Hanley Lane – within 1km from proposed turbine

LANCE-WATKINS, Lee & Greg – Home Cottage Stroat – within 1.5km from proposed turbine

MAYO, Molly & Keith – Wibdon Farm – within 650 to 700m from from proposed turbine

NAIRNE, Andrew and Sue 4 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine

REES, James & Clare  – Greystones within 775m from proposed turbine

SMITH, Pam & David – Old Post Office within 900m from proposed turbine

WRIGHT, Sue and Peter – Little Wibdon, Stroat, approx. 500 – 550meters from proposed turbine

Minded that it is a relatively sparsely populated rural area, where numerous properties will be level with the blades on the overlooking slopes and clear visibility will be from Aust, Littlehampton, Thornbury, Rockhampton, Hill, Oldbury, Berkeley, Sharpness and beyond as it stands 50% taller than Gloucester Cathedral, undisguised by trees or other obstacles.

There would seem to be few if any supporters of the imposition of this turbine from within the community – other than those who have signed standard letters provided and vigorously solicited, by the applicants, either as potential direct beneficiaries in the scheme, tenants or employees of the applicant!

I also am minded that it is the right of each member of the effected community to act in their own interest and that of the community in registering their objection to the application as did their elected representatives on the Parish Council, who were clearly not influenced by the applicant being a part of that Council nor its planning committee, unlike the more distant FoDCC, who could not by the wildest stretch of the imagination be termed as members of the effected local community any more than the applicants cosy agreement with the FoDDC to include totally uneffected individuals in a 5Km radius was perversely claimed!

I have pasted below the URL regarding the application which Sec.State Greg Clark MP turned down, as featured in the publication >PlanningResource< for anyone who wishes to read it:

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1365124/secretary-state-overrules-inspector-wind-farm-rejection

Secretary of state overrules inspector in wind farm rejection

22 September 2015 , Be the First to Comment

Four wind turbines up to 100 metres tall to blade tip were rejected in east Anglia despite an inspector recommending that permission should be granted.

The secretary of state had called in the application and he noted that the council did not oppose the proposal. Indeed, the council had resolved to grant permission. Nonetheless, the scheme was opposed by a landscape protection group who had been granted Rule 6(6) status. The inspector had acknowledged that the applicant had a fallback position available involving a consent for two turbines which would be built in order to provide a financial return on investment. Thus, the scheme involved a net addition of two turbines, the secretary of state concluded.

Despite the inspector concluding that the landscape had a low sensitivity to change the secretary of state held that the impact would be significantly adverse and this would be coupled to an overbearing impact on the outlook of some local residents. Some of the turbines would be sited between 835 and 1,100 metres from the rear elevation which would introduce intrusive elements from the private garden and conservatory. Although it would not render the dwelling an unattractive or unpleasant place to live it would not comply with a development plan document which sought to prevent overbearing development. Having applied the transitional provisions of the written ministerial statement of June 2015 the secretary of state was not satisfied that the planning impacts on identified communities had been addressed. The benefits of generating up to 8MW of electricity and mitigating climate change did not outweigh this harm.

Inspector: John Braithwaite; Inquiry

Another version in the same publication reads:

Clark cites ‘non-compliance’ with new community backing test in fresh wind farm refusal

22 September 2015 by Jamie Carpenter ,

Communities secretary Greg Clark has overruled an inspector to reject plans for four turbines in the east of England, citing ‘non-compliance’ with new rules requiring wind applications to have community backing among his reasons for blocking the proposal.

Greg Clark: refused wind application

The refusal is the second time this month that the secretary of state has cited the strict new rules requiring onshore wind applications to address the planning impacts identified by affected local communities in a decision letter.

Energy firm REG Windpower’s application to build four wind turbines to the north-east of Peterborough had been called in for determination by the secretary of state in June 2014.

Following an inquiry, inspector John Braithwaite recommended that planning permission be granted. But in his decision letter, Clark said that he disagreed with the inspector’s conclusions and recommendations.

Clark’s decision letter said that the secretary of state “attaches considerable weight to the significant adverse effect that the proposal would have on the character and visual amenity of the landscape as well as to residential amenity of some neighbouring properties in respect of outlook”.

The decision letter added that Clark had given “significant weight” to “non-compliance” with new tests for local authorities to apply when determining applications for wind energy development, set out in a written ministerial statement issued in June.

Under transitional arrangements set out in the written statement, permission may be granted if local planning authorities are satisfied that the proposal has “addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing”.

Clark’s decision letter said that he “is not satisfied that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been addressed”.

He said that, in response to a letter sent in June 2015, “several members of the affected communities have related the concerns which they expressed previously about the planning impacts of the scheme”, including harm to the residential amenity of some neighbouring properties and the character and visual amity of the landscape”.

Earlier this month, Clark refused permission for a scheme comprising ten wind turbines in Lincolnshire. His decision letter said that he “is not satisfied that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been addressed”.

Does look fairly positive from our persperctive as ‘The Effected Community’ so let us hope that Justice will be seen to be done in an equal handed manner, which would clearly mean the Sec.State would overturn the application as the FoDDC entered a cosy relationship with the applicant and went so far as to set irrational terms for ‘The Effected Community’, to suit the applicant rather than the rational facts!

Clearly FoDDC’s behaviour appears to have been ultra vires in a number of ways, all of which I would incline to believe should ensure the Sec. State should ‘call in’ the application thereby ensuring the industrialisation of Hanley Hill at Severndale Farm with this inappropriate installation never goes ahead as it is clearly contra Government policy as stated in their manifesto and their various statements since being elected. Not least being the consideration of the planning impacts identified by the affected local community!

Let us hope our elected Government has the integrity to stand by their word.

I would also be minded, were I Sec.State, to Call In the application made in Alvington where no consequential signs of construction have taken place also any plans for the installation at Woolaston or any other installation of these hugely damaging and costly constructions that are so inefficient and demanding of tax payer subsidy, in these times of inevitable enforced austerity, in the Forest of Dean and these United Kingdoms in general as they are unaffordable and impractical as a drain on the public purse as the Government policy has shown.

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins

eMail:  Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Phone: 01594 – 528 337 – Calls from withheld numbers are blocked & calls are recorded

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 67:

19-Sep-2015
(PS-67: Delay/Hold on Planning from Secretary of State)

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 66:

18-Sep-2015
(PS-66: GL-W > An Effected Community Member)

To: MARK HARPER MP <fod@gloucestershireconservatives.com>; Mark Harper MP for The Forest of Dean <HarperM@Parliament.UK>; ‘National Planning Casework Unit’ <npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk>; Secretary of State Greg Clark MP <GregClarkMP@parliament.UK>; stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk; PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESSES REDACTED; Cllr Helen Molyneux <helen@molnet.co.uk>; Helen MOLYNEUX <Helen.Molyneux@fdean.gov.uk>

REPLY

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)

At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

18-Sep-2015

Hi,

Stroat Community Comment On Wind Turbine FoDDC #P0365/15/FUL

Thanks for your support, though I stress the primary article in my letter to Mark Harper MP was brought to my attention by Molly Mayo.

Regarding how to get the message to Greg Clark MP you will note that I mailed relevant copies of my letter to Mark Harper direct to Greg Clark MP as the Minister considering the rationalle of ‘Calling In’ this application, in the light of our factually based and reasoned requests, based upon planning issues and considerations, to ensure ‘Justice is seen to be done’.

Perhaps you and others could be encouraged to write letters in support, utilising the facts which you have noted and consider both important and relevant, all be it in a different format.

You may also wish to highlight the sector wherein part of the planning application guidance from the Government states that applications, inorder to be approved, should comply with the Council’s pre identified suitable sites, in their structure plan.

I have searched as best I can (as has D.W.O.), on the FoDDC site and can not identify any such deffinition of any such sites, which would seem to preclude the granting of such an application.

I must stress that Mark Harper did stress, in his own words, the point that ‘Councillors can not be prevented from making crap decisions’, though I would contend that in the case of this clearly ‘crap decision’ was in fact not only ultra viries but failed to consider basic planning issues, considerations, details, guidelines and law with the decision totally contra the Government manifesto and public announcements and undertakings to reduce this area of irresponsible profligacy with respect to the public purse and the recommendation of the professional Officer appointed and salaried by the Council to give legal and planning guidance to the amateurs on the planning committee, amateurs despite their duties and income as Councillors.

It is clear that our own MP is dissatisfied as he has accepted our contention that the Government guidelines have failed to define the ‘effected community’, thus leaving the door open for Councils to reach cosy deals with applicants that can greatly missrepresent the issues to the advantage of the applicant.

Mark Harper also clearly has doubts that the thinly veiled bribes as presented in  an aesopian manner taking unethical advantage of NLP as ‘Community Benefits’ should be considered as a planning issue, which is more than obvious when there is no understanding or ethical deffinition of ‘The Community’, hence he has questioned the Minister on our behalf.

We would contend that ‘the effected community’ is clearly displayed by the Council themselves; being those whom the Council themselves contacted in the first place to advise them that the development was to take place in their community – ie those within the 1.5km. radius contacted by letter – clearly not including individuals in the unaffected 5km. radius area chosen by the applicants, nor the applicant, their family, tennants and employees as they are subject to potentially undue influence, as evidenced by an application where the realistically effected communuity was outnumbered by an employer able to bring pressure on their staff & tennants to support them as ‘the boss’, even where they were 5kms. away!

Let us not forget that the fundamental tennet of British law and our society is that ‘Justice must be seen to be done’ patently this has not been the case in this instance, to date.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins

eMail:  Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Phone: 01594 – 528 337 – Calls from withheld numbers are blocked & calls are recorded

Opposing A Wind Turbine:

http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-applic

ation-for-stroat

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Skype: gregl-w

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 65:

17-Sep-2015
(PS-65: GL-W > Mark Harper MP Thanks + Some Precedent examples)

To: MARK HARPER MP <fod@gloucestershireconservatives.com>; Mark Harper MP for The Forest of Dean <HarperM@Parliament.UK>; ‘National Planning Casework Unit’ <npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk>; Secretary of State Greg Clark MP <GregClarkMP@parliament.UK>; stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk; PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESSES REDACTED; Cllr Helen Molyneux <helen@molnet.co.uk>; Helen MOLYNEUX <Helen.Molyneux@fdean.gov.uk>

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)

At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

17-Sep-2015

Hi,

Stroat Community Comment On Wind Turbine FoDDC #P0365/15/FUL

further to the meeting you were willing to have with myself and four other members of the effected community, relative to the dubious planning application for a giant wind turbine at Severndale Farm, Stroat on the open flats ajoining the River Severn, some 100 feet plus taller than Gloucester Cathedral, which I clearly denounced as ultra viries and a corruption of due process and deeply suspect, as I was able to factually show.

I thank you for your time and note your reticence to become involved and thank you for breaking with your normal policy of remaining on the fence and actually having written bringing certain of our concerns, with which you had sympathy, to the attention of the Minister concerned Greg Clarke MP of whom we have made detailed application to have the plans ‘Called In’, based upon what we consider to be sound planning grounds.

Please note the article below, which I have sourced, followed by its links one and two. I trust this will assist you in any further assistance you can provide as the MP for the directly effected community, who by a notable majority reject this application on sound planning grounds:

Clark rules that wind appeal fails to satisfy new community backing test

15 September 2015 by Jamie Carpenter , Be the First to Comment

Communities secretary Greg Clark has refused permission for a scheme comprising ten wind turbines in Lincolnshire, ruling that the project had failed to comply with strict new rules requiring such proposals to address the planning impacts identified by affected local communities.

Onshore wind: new written statement rules applied in recovered appeal decision (picture by Vieve Forward, Geograph)

Energy firm RWE Innogy had appealed against the decision of West Lindsey District Council to in November 2013 refuse to grant permission for the application to build ten wind turbines on land north of Hemswell Cliff, Lincolnshire.

In a decision letter issued this week, Clark agreed with the conclusions and recommendation of inspector Paul Jackson, who recommended that the appeal be dismissed. An alternative scheme comprising eight turbines was also rejected.

In his decision letter, Clark said that he had attached “substantial weight” to a written ministerial statement issued in June, which set out new tests for local authorities to apply when determining applications for wind energy development involving one or more turbines.

The written statement said that local planning authorities should only grant permission if the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a local or neighbourhood plan, and following consultation, “it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing”.

In his decision on the Lincolnshire appeal, Clark applied transitional arrangements for where a wind application had already been submitted to a local planning authority at the date on which the statement was made and the development plan does not identify suitable sites.

In such instances, the letter said, local authorities can find proposals acceptable if they are satisfied that planning impacts identified by local communities have been addressed, and that therefore the proposal has their backing.

Clark’s letter said that. having applied the transitional arrangements to the Lincolnshire scheme, he “is not satisfied that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been addressed”.

The letter said that there had been “extensive involvement” of the local population throughout the process. Affected communities had expressed concerns about harm to the landscape, visual amenity and the setting of heritage assets, “and it is clear from the inspector’s report that those planning impacts have not been addressed”, Clark’s letter added.

It said: “As those planning impacts as identified by the affected communities have not been addressed, the proposed scheme would not meet the transitional arrangements set out in the written ministerial statement, and the secretary of state gives significant weight to this.”

Clark’s letter concluded that the “combined adverse impacts” of the scheme would “significantly and demonstrably outweigh” its benefits.

LINK ONE:

House of Commons: Written Statement (HCWS42)

Department for Communities and Local Government

Written Statement made by:

Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government (Greg Clark)

on 18 Jun 2015.

Local planning

I am today setting out new considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development so

that local people have the final say on wind farm applications, fulfilling the commitment made in

the Conservative election manifesto.

Subject to the transitional provision set out below, these considerations will take effect from 18

June and should be taken into account in planning decisions. I am also making a limited number

of consequential changes to planning guidance.

When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind

turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if:

• the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local

or Neighbourhood Plan; and

• following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected

local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing.

In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind energy development will need to

have been allocated clearly in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan. Maps showing the wind resource

as favourable to wind turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient. Whether a proposal has the

backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local planning authority.

Where a valid planning application for a wind energy development has already been submitted to

a local planning authority and the development plan does not identify suitable sites, the following

transitional provision applies. In such instances, local planning authorities can find the proposal

acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts

identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing.

LINK TWO:

new tests for local authorities to apply when determining applications for wind energy development :

What tough new planning tests for onshore wind farms mean for applicants and authorities

26 June 2015 by Susie Sell , 2 comments

New planning guidance on deciding onshore wind farm applications sets tougher tests for developers and could lead to a decline in applications, according to experts.

Wind farms: onshore developments face uncertain future after government announced early end to subsidy

The new Conservative government appears to have wasted no time fulfilling its manifesto pledge to “halt the spread of onshore wind farms”. Last week, planning guidance introduced two local authority tests to determine whether to permit wind projects.

Figures from trade body RenewableUK show approval rates for wind farms dropped markedly between 2012/13 and 2013/14 (see infographic), but experts said the changes create an even tougher climate for developers and could lead to a decline in applications.

The guidance says if a council wants to grant permission for a wind project involving one or more turbines, it must be sited in an area “identified as suitable for wind energy in a local or neighbourhood plan”. It also says councils may only give permission if the “planning impacts identified by affected communities have been fully addressed”.

In a written statement, communities secretary Greg Clark said whether a proposal had the backing of a community will be a matter of planning judgement for councils. He added that a “transitional provision” would cover outstanding applications in areas where a development plan has not identified suitable sites. In such cases, proposals can be found acceptable if the second test – that planning impacts are fully addressed – is met.

The guidance came alongside a government announcement that a key subsidy for onshore wind developers would end a year early. The changes reflect a commitment made in the Conservative election manifesto to “end any new public subsidy for onshore wind farms and change the law so that local people have the final say on applications.”

Yana Bosseva, planning adviser at RenewableUK, said it is not aware of any councils that have identified suitable areas for wind development. “That creates a policy vacuum for wind farm applicants who have potentially been working for months on consultation and are now ready to submit their planning application,” she said.

Bosseva also pointed to possible confusion over the interpretation of whether planning impacts have been “fully addressed”. She added: “It’s important to note is that this is guidance and that the National Planning Policy Framework still has positive provisions for renewable energy. So it’s about the relationship between policy and guidance.”

Duncan Field, partner and head of planning at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, said the guidance creates a “tougher climate” for wind projects, adding that it will likely require more forward planning of sites. “More groundwork will need to be done before you even get to the application stage now,” he said. “We are probably looking at a significantly increased delay in delivering new sites.”

However, Field said there is still “plenty of scope” for future onshore wind farms. “If wind farm developers want more certainty about their development pipeline, they will have to work hard with councils to find appropriate sites to be allocated in the plan before making an application,” he added.

Paul Maile, partner at law firm Eversheds, said applicants would be “incredibly nervous” after the updates. “This is not just because of the uncertainty from the proposed subsidy changes, but also because a degree of objectivity and predictability is removed from decision-making process.”

Maile added that the guidance and subsidy change would “reduce the number of applications coming forward”. He said: “It’s a combination of two uncertainties: first, in the planning system as to whether a consent might be achievable, and second, whether a project will be economically viable. That’s a great deal of risk for any applicant.”

Michael Wilks, who leads on nationally significant infrastructure projects for the Planning Officers Society (POS), said he does not believe that many local plans contain spatially specific strategies allocating sites for wind energy, “in part because it would be so politically contentious that a local authority would avoid that debate and rather assess individual applications as they arrive”.

Philip Ridley, head of planning at both Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils and POS’s natural resources specialist, said the tests set out in Clark’s statement would make it “almost impossible” for consent to be granted. The government has “put so many costly hurdles in place no developer is going to risk the investment to begin to take a scheme forward”, he added.

Earlier this week, energy secretary Amber Rudd told MPs that the Planning Inspectorate would not be able to overturn local decisions on onshore wind projects. However, a Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman confirmed that developers will retain the right to appeal decisions although they will have to take into account the “clear requirement” for local backing.

John Rhodes, director at consultancy Quod, said the statements made by the government would be important material considerations in any onshore wind proposals and “will no doubt weigh heavily with local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate”. He added: “It will be a brave, determined or reckless promoter who now brings forward wind farm proposals onshore in the light of the government’s strongly stated policy.”

END OF ARTICLES.

I trust this will give some insight into the present planning muddle and offer  some hope to those in the effected community as opposed to the perceived misrepresentation of the law made by FoDDC Planning Committee, who would seem to have struck a cosy deal to suit Resillience, who are acting for Councillor Maria Edwards’ application, in a manner that would seem to be ultra viries and as such a corruption of the due process, which should not reach cosy deals with applicants with or without public consultation.

The Government manifesto, on which Mrs. Maria Edwards was elected, clearly states that it was essential that the effected community MUST approve the application and by no stretch of the imagine can the 5km. radius be considered to be the local effected community being an area which includes the whole of Chepstow, St. Arvans and part of Tintern in the devolved area of Monmouthshire, lumped in as a part of the National Area of Wales! Nor was the claim that was made to and by the FoDDC planning committee that support of 2 to 1 in favour of the commercialisation a true reflection of the facts pertaining to the effected community within a 1.5km. radius. Nor in fact does it reflect the cosy arrangement reached for Councillor Maria Edwards by the Planning Committee on which she sits, of 5kms., nor even for the equally misleading 3km. radius and as was shown it does not reflect the community of Tidenham even though it is, I believe, the largest Parish in Britain, where the Parish Council of Tidenham representing the Tidenham community unequivocally voted to reject the application.

I trust the Minister will take note of your letter and the many other facts which show this to be an application which provides a clear case to ‘Call In’ the plans and stand by the Government’s manifesto and its various official and well documented statements of policy. Policies for which you are the Government Chief Whip and as a Treasury Officer and a qualified accountant are well aware of the inefficiency and unreliable nature of wind turbines as an alternative source of power – a source we, as a country deeply in debt and facing inevitable cuts and austerity, can no longer afford to subsidise and thereby enrich wealthy land owners and corporate interests!

I would like to once again thank you for your time and such support you have felt able to offer the effected local community to date and look forward to your continued, and hopefully increased support, for the effected community as your constituents both in the matter of ‘Calling In’ and should it be required to ensure justice is seen to be done any subsequent ‘Judicial Review’.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins

eMail:  Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Phone: 01594 – 528 337 – Calls from withheld numbers are blocked & calls are recorded

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 64:

07-Sep-2015
(PS-64: Mark Harper MP > GL-W + SecState Greg Clark MP)

Mark Harper MP letter 07-Sep-2015n re: Meeting with representatives of ‘The Effected Community’ who oppose the imposition of a giant Wind Turbine in Stroat.

Mark Harper MP letter of 07-Sep-2015 to Sec.State Greg Clark mentioning a very few of the concers of ‘The Effected Community’ who oppose the imposition of a giant Wind Turbine in Stroat.

SEE:

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 63:

05-Sep-2015
(PS-63: Report of meeting with Mark Harper MP)

Molly Mayo’s letter is an excellent reflection of the meeting and with Keith’s leap of faith that raised over £600 for Velindre Cancer care, on the high wire slide at the National Diving Center >http://www.ndac.co.uk/thewire.htm&lt;, I am astonished her hands were steady enough to mail out the report, but there is one quick clarification for you to note:
Originally our next planning meeting was to be next Thursday, as in the last paragraph, but as a couple of people could not attend it was changed to Friday as in the penultimate paragraph!

I have accordingly altered the text of the original report sent out.

I hope members of the effected community can attend next Friday.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins
eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com
Phone: 01594 – 528 337 – Calls from withheld numbers are blocked & calls are recorded

Opposing A Wind Turbine:
http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat

TWITTER: @Greg_LW
Skype: gregl-w
FleXcit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfEo_TNllk4
FleXcit full text: http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf
For detailed analysis of selected items in the news:
http://www.eureferendum.com
PLEASE NOTE:
I never post anonymously on the internet.
For details & declaration of accuracy please see:
ACCURACY & THE TRUTH …
From: molly mayo [mailto:molly.mayo@REDACTED]
Sent: 05 September 2015 15:17
To: REDACTED
Subject: WT Mark Harper meeting

Dear All,

Following Greg’s and everyone’s emails, five of us secured a meeting with Mark Harper MP today. Our objective going in was to try and get him to write to Greg Clark, Minister of State at DCLG to support our request for the Planning Application to be “called in”.

We had a good meeting of an hour and a half with him and his Agent/Office Manager, which is considerably longer than his normal surgery allocation of 15 mins per constituent. He had clearly read and reviewed all the papers and was well informed on the matter. His opening comments were that his normal position on planning matters, was not to get involved directly and he would only consider taking the matter up with the Minister if there had been some failure in the process itself.

Despite listening carefully to our well rehearsed arguments about the shortcomings as we saw them, namely an overwhelming majority of the “local community” being opposed, lack of discussion on pure planning matters and focusing on dubious community benefits, overriding the views of the Parish Council and the Planning Officer etc, etc; he concluded that he was “not persuaded to write to the Minister” on our behalf to support the calling-in.

Clearly very disappointing, but not wholly unexpected, as planning matters and decisions are devolved to the local councillors and he has to assume that they have read and digested all the information and come to a consensus view.

However, he did agree with our arguments on the lack of clarity on the definition of what the “local community ” should actually comprise and agreed that he would write to the Minister to suggest that further guidance was provided to Councillors. He also agreed to write to the FODD Council to clarify what weighting they had placed on non-planning matters such as the alleged community benefits.

So whilst we have not succeeded in our primary goal, we have made some progress on clarifying future policy guidelines.

The matter now rests with the Secretary of State to receive the advice on next steps from the Planning Inspectorate to call in or not, and then to make a final decision. Mark Harper has promised to send us copies of his letters, which we assume will be sent out on Monday.

As soon as these are received we will circulate these to you all. We must then await the Minister’s formal decision – timing of which remains uncertain.

In view of this we are proposing a Next Steps Meeting for next Friday 11th September at 19.30 at Wibdon Farm. This will allow us to debate next steps including the pros and cons of a Judicial Review. We did mention this specifically to Mark Harper after he had given us his decision, i.e. we will not be easily deflected from pursuing the matter to the highest level if that is the consensus view of our Group.

So can you all make every effort to attend NEXT FRIDAY. This will be a key meeting and we want to map out a clear strategy, so that we can move urgently if the Minster does not decide in our favour and refuses a calling-in.

Regards
Greg, Peter, James, Lisa and Molly

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines (WT) to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD) as administered by The Forest of Dean District Council (FoDDC), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB), sites of special scientific interest (SSI) & wildlife habitats.

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies of the ‘Warmists’ & self proclaimed ‘Greens’, which are presented as ‘fact’, regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins (site owner)

If you would like more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

If you would like more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

E&OE

PLEASE NOTE: We do not accept responsibility for material on links and other sources

IF you note ANY errors of fact in this or any other web site or blog I own or manage please bring it to my attention for correction @ Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com – Thank you.

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 62:

04-Sep-2015
(PS-62: Media Coverage of 26-Aug-2015 & Comment Thereon)

You can enlarge these pictures by double Clicking on them

It is arguably true that communications in favour of this wind turbine being added to the Wind Farm associated with ‘Rersilliance’ was 2 to one in favour – however that included correspondence in the form of standard letters garnered by professional means and over the internet – including numbers accrued from Survey Monkey which garners responses around the world being an internet campaign.

As the planning report drawn up under the expertise of the designated planning officer Stephen Colegate stated the important factor was the ‘community effected’ and as the Government has made most clear such plans MUST address the concerns of the effected community and meet with their approval.

This wind turbine utterly failed to meet with the approval of the effected community, whether that is the community considered as those contacted by FoDDC Planning Department, those within a 1.5Km radius, those within a 3Km radius or even the ridiculous claim that those within a 5Km radius which includes the whole of Chepstow, St. Arvans and Tintern (none of whom are a part of the community which is remotely effected.

Even the FoDDC Planning Committee member from the parish clearly stated that ‘ … he lived in Tutshill and was no effected he wouldn’t even be able to see it’! The local representatives of the ‘effected community’ are Tidenham Parish Council and they overwhellmingly rejected the application on sound planning grounds.

It is noteworthy that as made clear by the planning officer Mr. Williams a deal was struck between the applicants and the Council to pretend that the effected community was that within a 5Km radius! Whether this was influenced by undue lobbying is a matter of speculation but it is clear thwet Resilliance and the applicant FoDDC Councillor Maria Edwards, who is newly appointed on the planning committee, have been all too willing to use techniques of persuasion that can be interpreted as bribery and blackmail, all be it they may be considered legal they are clearly unethical!

It is also worthy of note that the designated Planning Officer for this application strongly recommended against the granting of this application on various sound planning grounds, yet he was totally ignored by members of the planning committee. One should also be minded that as you will note from the recording of the Planning Meeting scant regard was given to facts and even less to planning considerations by the committee in reaching their decision.

I would contend that the entire proceedings of the meeting and much of the detail in its gathering and presentation of facts has been Ulta Vires and the decision of the FoDDC was most clearly suspect, I and others in attendance at the meeting were left with the clear impression that the meeting was corrupted and was most clearly not a professional, just and reasonable consideration of the facts – a fundamental tennet of British Law and thus democracy is that ‘Justice must be seen to be done’ – as an example of that the granting of this application is most clearly a disgrace, in my opinion.

That the applicant, Councillor Maria Edwards, recused herself from the committee meeting as having an interest in this application and two other applications is not in dispute, however her position as a member of the committee has put her in a position of embarrassment to her Party and her duty of care for those she claims to represent as a District Councillor for the very parish she opposes and the Conservative Party manifesto on which she was elected!

It was clearly considered an embarrassment by her as her spokesman at the meeting making the presentation in favour of the application was her husband who presented himself as ‘The Applicant’ which he was not!

It was also worthy of note that the some 100 individuals who were initially contacvted by the Council – all within 1.5Kms. of the site and considered to be the ‘effected community’ as defined in the Ministerial Statement of 18-Jun-2015 some 20 are tennants or employees of the applicant, District Councillor Maria Edwardsm and/or her husband.

It is also worthy of note that on a very clear column graph, whether one takes 1.5Kms, 3Kms or 5Kms the overwhellming majority of letters, including prewritten stereotype letters, the majority is very clearly and by a large percentage opposed to the application.

I will endeavour to obtain electronic versions of these graphs to place on this web site for your judgement – the details have been lodged with FoDDC and with Mark Harper MP.

One might also be minded to not, as shown in the recordings, that in the 11 other applications becore the committee on the 11-Aug-2015 the members of the committee, by and large, confined themselves to planning considerations giving mind to none of the flowery flights of fantasy and opinion prevelent in this application, and further, without exception, they took the advice of their own appointed professional officer as to whether it was appropriate to pass the application or not.

Personally I consider the handling of the application for a Wind Turbine on Hanley Hill in Stroat to have been corrupted and the decision made to have been unsound and possibly even corrupt and most clearly not in the spirit of democracy and nor has justice been seen to be done, therefore I would hope that the Minister has the wisdom to Call In The Application and set aside the granting of the suspect permission.

Clearly ‘Calling In’ would be in the best interests of all concerned as it would bring a halt to the matter and would avoid the inevitable embarrassment both on a political level and on a personal level that is likely when the truth is exposed by a Judicial Review, which is probable should the Minister fail to Call In The Application and overturn the granting of permission.

SEE:

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines (WT) to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD) as administered by The Forest of Dean District Council (FoDDC), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB), sites of special scientific interest (SSI) & wildlife habitats.

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies of the ‘Warmists’ & self proclaimed ‘Greens’, which are presented as ‘fact’, regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins (site owner)

If you would like more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

If you would like more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

E&OE

PLEASE NOTE: We do not accept responsibility for material on links and other sources

IF you note ANY errors of fact in this or any other web site or blog I own or manage please bring it to my attention for correction @ Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com – Thank you.

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/