Nothing is better than pylons........
I WAS puzzled by the contradictions contained in the letter defending wind farms (Observer Mailbag, September 26, Mrs Margaret Merifield).
She claims to love them and would like one in her garden, but then refers to 'hideous pylons' which, apparently, 'no-one ever mentions'.
Perhaps not you, Mrs M, but they've been a scandal for decades, although now the Romney Marsh examples have been thoroughly up-staged by the forest of wind turbines.
Pylons do not, I assure you, 'go unnoticed...and ignored', and the suggestion that windmills will also cease to be the focus of so-called rubber-neckers is laughable.
No-one can ignore such a blot on the landscape that ruins the prospect of the coastline for generations to come.
Given that we are now 'going nuclear' and the power station at Dungeness may well be revived by its new French owners, the electricity generated by these monstrosities is a mere pinprick and a sop to the greens; of which I'm one, incidentally Mrs M, but not in this case.
The final comment, in which 'twitching' at wind farms is likened to drivers on motorways who gawp at accidents is not only offensive but baffling.
Is Mrs Merifield agreeing, finally, that these monuments to half-baked science resemble the results of an accident? If so, in that, at least, I would agree with her.
The only thing better than pylons, I would suggest, is nothing at all. Well, nothing that isn't decently concealed (underground) or located in a benighted landscape that nobody cares about.
And that, Mrs Merifield, is not Romney Marsh. And if you get your wish to erect one in your garden I am only glad that I am not your neighbour.
Frank Barnard
Tillingham Lane, Peasmarsh

Sore thumb on the Marsh landscape
I WRITE in response to Mrs Margaret Merifield's letter (Mailbag, September 26) regarding the new wind farm on Romney Marsh.
Firstly, might I say that, as someone who lives on the Marsh, I find it interesting that someone in Battle can advocate their placing here, still, better than Senlac I suppose.
With regard to the 'hideous pylons', they are painted grey and are latticed and, as such they blend into the environment and become almost unnoticable. I know, as they stride across not far from where I live.
The turbines on the other hand, are solid and painted white, thus gleaming in the sunlight.
They stand out like a sore thumb on a landscape described as a wild and desolate place, well worth visiting (I can only assume prior to these things). They are visible from all viewpoints as far afield as Hastings.
While I accept they are graceful in their own way, and are required to address our energy problems, I and many others here, feel they are in the wrong place and destroy the nature of the Marsh.
I do not, however, advocate the 'perfect storm' solution, as suggested recently. I, and many others, live here and don't want to get washed away!
Phill Moon
Lydd, Romney Marsh

Time to see light on energy needs
WHAT will be the wind speed across Romney Marsh on Thursday, October 23? Quite - no-one knows.
Ask the same question about any other date or location, and the answer is the same.
It is simply impossible for anyone to make a reliable prediction and the question as put is, therefore, purely rhetorical.
But, it does point up the delusions entertained by those who believe wind farms can make a worthwhile and reliable contribution towards meeting this country's serious and rapidly worsening energy problems.
Electricity cannot be stored. It has to be generated as and when it is required.
Wind farms cannot meet this basic criterion. Unless the wind strength is at the optimum required for them to produce their modest maximum output, they will generate either something far below that maximum or nothing whatsoever. No wind equals no power.
Wind farms are inherently unreliable and, therefore, no substitute for alternative means of power generation.
They are costly to build , particularly those off-shore, and brutalize the environment wherever they are sited. So, why are they being built?
Three factors are driving this. With a number of nuclear power stations nearing the end of their productive lives, and, with its catastrophic failure to produce and implement any kind of programme to deal adequately with the inevitable shortfall in energy supplies, the Government is now seeking desperately for some way of plugging the gap before the lights go out.
Secondly, it is backing wind farms in the hope of benefiting politically by adopting a 'green' solution.
Thirdly, and importantly, those who are building wind farms are enjoying massive hand outs from the taxpayer in the form of Government subsidies which, not surprisingly, they uncritically accept.
Our plight is such that the Government is now proposing to authorise the building of new coal-fired power stations - so much for its commitment to reducing carbon emissions!
It has, however, recently decided, belatedly, on a programme for new nuclear power stations but the delay in doing so has allowed our own expertise for this work to be dissipated, leaving us dependent on the French for the necessary skills.
The availability of fossil fuels is finite. Accessible supplies will run out and we cannot commit our long term energy requirements to dependency on coal gas and oil.
Of more immediate concern is the renaissance of communist Russia's political ambitions and its deliberate policy of acquiring a stranglehold over the supply of these commodities to the whole of western Europe.
The outlook is bleak. Those who rule us are guilty of doing too little too late and are themselves now fearful of the consequences of their crass incompetence.
But one thing is now absolutely clear - Britain has no practical alternative but to go the nuclear route if its future energy requirements are to be assured.
For those who think otherwise, it is to be hoped that they see the light before the big switch-off becomes inevitable because, after that, there won't be any light to see.
P R BELCHAMBER
Whatlington Road, Battle

Wind turbines not cost effective
I AM pleased Mrs. Merified loves the wind farm (Mailbag, September 25). Will she fulfil her dream and move to newly 'picturesque' East Guildeford?
Alas, her wind farms need those ugly pylons, as overhead lines are less costly in inspection and maintenance than cables sunk in wet, unstable shingle beds.
The wind turbines are certainly eye (and wind) catching. It's a pity they weren't all built to the same height.
It's a greater pity they weren't built at sea but that was a political choice to placate the politically driven 'man-made global warming' paranoia and clap-trap, for, without the guaranteed tax-payer funding to foot the bill, no energy company would have built a wind farm on the Marsh to cut CO2 emissions, as the production of hundreds of tons of cement for hundreds of feet of deep concrete foundations has belched out hundreds of tons of CO2 - so where is the saving in CO2 emissions?
Wind turbines are not cost effective. They need regular unimpeded air flow, as found on ridges, the sea and, yes, Romney Marsh but they are unlikely to operate at more than one-third of their designed capacity, due to unpredictable winds and the limited wind speeds at which they can operate.
The unpredictability means we will always have to have nuclear/coal/gas power stations running 24 hours a day, as you can't just switch them on if the wind suddenly stops.
However, 'free', eco-friendly wave, wind and solar power does have a place in pumping water to mountain reservoirs for free hydro-electric power at peak demand.
Yet our hopelessly inept, indecisive, spin-mad, besotted Government lost the initiative when it fell for the great wind-power 'con' and gave away our nuclear power technology to the Japanese!
Now, they are selling our nuclear power stations to the French, who have been feeding their own nuclear energy into our national grid for decades without objections from the eco-warriors! Today, we are forced to buy oil and gas from Russia, at the mercy of politicians' whims and blackmail prices. It is sheer madness.
Garden, or roof-mounted, turbines in towns are a total waste of time and money due to local air turbulence. Besides which, step-up transformers may raise output to 240v but they do not increase current to a usable level.
At best then, domestic turbines are only suited to charging 12v or 24v storage batteries which are ample for most domestic uses, except cooking, fridges and heating.
The most efficient storage batteries leave toxic chemicals in their manufacture and disposal, so they are hardly 'green' and, as they are very expensive to replace, any cost savings on energy bills are negligible.
The realistic solution to, so-called 'man-made global warming' and the rape of Mother Nature's resources to meet insatiable demand for energy for processed food, housing and consumer goods, is population control at a sustainable level.
In 1801, the UK's population was 10 million; in 1901 it was a sustainable 38m. Today, it is at an unsustainable 61m and will rise to 65m by 2025.
But, no politician dare utter this simple truth. So, let's start by culling our hopelessly inept, vote-grabbing, politicians!
BARRY M JONES
Bixley Lane
Beckley

Battle a place for all people
AFTER three weeks away from Battle, what better way of catching up with the local news than to read The Battle Observer. And I was reassured to see that the usual contributors to the letters page were still writing.
In three weeks of correspondence one can see an emerging pattern, and in particular the concern and observations expressed by Peter Belchamber, Simon Alexander, John Hill and Kathryn Field in respect of the future of Battle High Street.
Commercialism, yes or no? Visitors or residents? And the importance, or otherwise, of a visitor information centre. Which direction should Battle take and why?
The one factor common with each correspondent, is a concern for, and a pride in the town in which we all live.
For the most part, the future of Battle High Street will be determined by market forces, but the town should surely be serving the needs of both residents and visitors, with neither being mutually exclusive.
A viable business community must be sustained to hold the residents, and to meet the needs of visitors. We all become visitors as soon as we leave our home surroundings….even maybe when we visit attractions in our own town.
Beautiful Battle has this year proved the community is able to present and promote itself, to the pleasure of both visitors and residents.
This has been very evident to the voluntary groups working in town throughout the year.
So how do we tell everyone about our town? Internet, touch-screen info-points or coin-operated town guide dispensers, are no replacement for the local expert at a well-run visitor information centre.
I sincerely hope this essential requirement is met when Rother District Council decides on Monday who will run the Battle TIC for the next three years.
Battle is a place for all people. 'Origin of a Nation' (a publication title of The Battle of Hastings) and now is as good a time as any to engage with this fact. Battle 2012 is not far away. What better opportunity than to present Battle to the world….in a way that we who live here would like to be seen, and with a pride that matches.
We can all still enjoy church bell-ringing, marbles, Mediaeval Fayre, Christmas lights or Bonfire…and shopping….without spoiling or damaging the intrinsic quality which this special town of Battle possesses.
Margaret Emeleus
Kanehythe Road
Battle

Festival success
RYE Arts Festival was better than ever. The events were varied and there was something for everyone - music to suit all tastes, literature, comedy, and visual arts, workshops for the schoolchildren, exhibitions and walks. Most of the events were sold out which is always a good sign, and just shows that Rye needs a larger purpose-built venue. Congratulations should go to all the Rye Arts Festival committee and all the many helpers.
Wendy Harvey
Martello Bookshop, Rye

Heartening to read that we should be working together
I WRITE with reference to Kerry de Courcy's letter to the Observer, September 26.
Far from Derick Holman being remarkably ill-informed it would appear to be quite the contrary.
Rother District Council did decide earlier in the year that Rye Town Services and 1066 Country should take over the marketing of the town, but then this contract never actually went out to formal tender, so professional companies with the know-how and contacts to carry out the correct PR were never given the opportunity.
When Mr de Courcy states Derick Holman can't have it both ways by commenting Rye Town Services appears to be in melt-down, on the contrary the problems at Rye Town Services and the very recent publication of the first two years accounts, which by Mr de Courcy's admission at the Rye Town Services annual meeting were not totally accurate, make it very clear that when Rother District Council awarded this marketing contract they were not necessarily in full possession of all the facts.
Rye Town Services, by their own director's admission, is surviving because of its overdraft facility and the shares purchased by the members of the Hotel and Caterers Association to fund Rye Town Services are now worthless, as stated by their accountants. That would seem pretty much like a melt-down to most people.
Mr de Courcy then goes on to say Rye Town Services has invested more than £10,000 in advertising the town in the past 12 months.
However, their accounts clearly show that in the year 1st April 2007 to 31st March 2008 they actually spent £7,500, if indeed these figures can be believed. It would be very interesting to investigate this further, and in fact at last week's annual meeting it was requested that an audit trail was made available for this figure.
Mr de Courcy goes on to say Rye Town Services is effectively owned by the Hotel and Caterers Association, as only members of the Hotel and Caterers Association can be shareholders.
Although, in principle, this is correct, in actual fact 6,500 shares in Rye Town Services were issued, and of those 660 are now not eligible for voting rights, leaving a total of 5,840 of which the directors of Rye Town Services and Rye Lodge, of which Mr de Courcy is a director and Alison Simmons one of the other directors of Rye Town Services is general manager, between them all own 2,770 shares.
Thus leaving a total of 2,110 shares, which is quite obviously not a controlling interest.
So, to say Rye Town Services is owned by the Hotel and Caterers shareholders is being somewhat economical with the truth.
In reality it is owned by the directors, who incidentally were not democratically elected by the members of the Hotel and Caterers Association by a stretch of anybody's imagination.
Mr de Courcy further goes on to mention the break up of the Hotel and Caterers Association. He states the association is already planning celebrations for its 50th anniversary.
This is another surprise to the actual membership of the Hotel and Caterers Association, as at the moment there is no committee to make these decisions, but there is a Board of Management with Mr de Courcy as the chairman and only one other accommodation provider or caterer on that Board, none other than Rita Cox, who is not only the vice chairman of the Board of Management, but also a director of Rye Town Services.
Lastly, it is very heartening to at long last read that Mr de Courcy feels that the Hotel and Caterers Association and, one assumes Rye Town Services should be working together with the Chamber of Commerce, because when I have suggested at the Hotel and Caterers Association executive committee meetings this route in the past it has always been soundly scoffed at by Mr de Courcy.
Perhaps times are changing, and I am sure Derick Holman, who coincidentally or not has been away for the past two weeks, will also agree.
JOHN A SMITH
Member
Rye and District
Hotel & Caterers Association

High Street chaos - as usual
I HAVE been observing the current roadworks in Battle High Street with great eagerness and wondrous anticipation, hoping upon hope that order would prevail over utter chaos.
Someone on the council/highways authority had at last woken up and decided that it might not be a bad idea to have a designated bay outside the Co-Op, to facilitate for a long lorry unloading, this precluding the daily gridlock caused by the aforesaid lorries parking in the middle of the High Street.
The letters being so large that even a half-blind motorist wouldn't miss 'LOADING ONLY', providing they went to school, of course.
Imagine my disappointment when on Tuesday morning, I found myself once again ensnared in the usual bumper-to-bumper formation.
The reason, I'm sure you've guessed, was due to a lorry parked in the middle of the road, unloading.
You would be forgiven for enquiring as to why the lorry was not parked in its designated bay.
The answer, due to the aforementioned half-blind motorists ignoring the 'loading only' sign and parking there.
Battle motorists know that the traffic warden is a rare commodity, and the police rarer still.
Parking regulations are only any good if they are rigidly policed and enforced. So I'm, afraid it's once again, business as usual. But it was a nice try.
The road-works, as I write, are far from completed, so perhaps Battle will be in for a few more amusing revelations.
I.C. LLEWELLYN-JONES
Bowlings Corner
Sedlescombe