I note the comments of Amy Woodgate of Bolsterstone plc, the developer wishing to build an industrial wind farm at Dunsland Cross, quoted in the 'Post' on March 5 in the article entitled, 'Brandis Corner business may have to move if wind farm is constructed'.

Miss Woodgate makes several comments. Most of them are wrong or incomplete. Her first comment relates to the British School of Yoga (BSY), the business at the centre of the story. Bolsterstone was taken by surprise when this story broke in the daily newspapers because, like many other people, even locals, it did not even know BSY existed.

This reflects the poor public consultation by the developer, which sought to avoid contact with the wind farm site neighbours at every opportunity in the early days of the application.

Miss Woodgate has quickly turned to the internet from her office in Chesterfield to try to find out about the business and has made some inaccurate assumptions. She fails to recognise that many of the correspondence courses involve residential or day-visit attendance by students.

The expansion plans for the business included whole family holidays, with registered students attending the school whilst other family members enjoyed the other attractions of Ruby Country, in much the same way that several archery and angling establishments now operate. This would bring much needed trade to local holiday cottages and B&Bs, trade which will be lost if the school relocates this branch out of Devon.

Arrangements for yoga festivals in the school's field, just over 300 metres from the turbines, have now had to be put on hold, another blow for the tourist industry in the area.

Miss Woodgate also points out that BSY is a neighbour to the main objector to the scheme. This is wrong on two counts. The owner of the BSY group lives in London and is a successful businessman who has doubled the number of jobs available to local Devon people at the school in the last few years. He is not a neighbour and does not need a local objector to tell him what will, and what will not, be successful for his business.

Miss Woodgate has assumed that because the Dunsland Turbines Opposition Group (DTOG) is using a correspondence address near BSY that it is a neighbour. DTOG has approximately 100 active supporters in properties all around the site and in the parishes beyond.

Miss Woodgate claims that 'there is considerable shielding from a belt of forestry between the turbines and the (BSY) premises.' Had she visited the site itself or looked more closely at the Google Earth aerial photos on her computer screen in Derbyshire she would have seen clearly that this area of coniferous forestry has been felled.

There is no visual or noise screening by forestry between the turbines and any of the properties in the BSY area.

She assumes that because BSY is situated next to an A road that the traffic noise will be incessant. There is little traffic on the A3079 at this point during the day and next to none at night. She then quotes from planning document PPS22, from the list of noise levels associated with different scenarios, but stops just short of the entry which states, 'Quiet Bedroom, 20 dB.'

The developer has now admitted in an Erratum letter to Torridge District Council that its noise assessment was wrong and that there will, indeed, be 43 dB (the legal limit for turbines in lower wind speeds at night) in the BSY area. Since the dB scale is logarithmic, this represents more than a four-fold increase in the noise level at night. Every night, all night, if the turbines are turning.

Two of the top acousticians in the country have now filed reports stating that this wind farm will exceed statutory noise limits at nearby properties. That, together with the adverse impact on the thriving wildlife of the area and the massive visual intrusion of these turbines on such a small site, is one of the main reasons why the Torridge Planning Officers are recommending refusal of this application.

Holsworthy.