Legal Challenge to Mynydd y Gwair and Betws

Legal Challenge to Mynydd y Gwair and Betws

As Civil List Pensioner and the only Armiger in Mawr and surrounding areas I have fought this mindless, destructive exercise for twenty five years and agree with Craig Hughes of Garnswllt on every point. The fight has only just begun. We are both fluent Welsh speakers and I was born in Craig Cefn Parc in Mawr. Wind turbines enrage the Dissenters of Mawr, who do not recognize any type of false authority or electoral dictatorship. I am painfully aware of the fact that the entire community of Mawr has been destroyed in sixty years by remote government. In my blog on www.aias.us, read in up to 182 countries, I have demolished wind turbines with simple scientific fact, cutting through the meaningless, cynically deceptive, verbiage. Emergency measures are needed to save the Welsh language in Mawr, I have suggested setting up Broydd Iaith or Gealtachti or Language Nests all over Wales and the Celtic Nations, with semi autonomous powers. These would buy up every house that comes on the market and resell them or rent them to the poorest, Welsh or Celtic speaking, members of the Community well below market value. That would build up an area in which Welsh or a Celtic language is the natural, uncorrupted language, supported by many more Welsh medium schools, a Welsh medium university and compulsory education in Welsh for all from the age of two. Monoglot outsiders would be excluded from a Bro Iaith unless they are fluent Welsh speakers and completely committed to the language. Impoverished rural Wales is being colonized by rich monoglots. Forced development is being used. It is very easy to demolish the wind industry by monitoring percentage contribution to demand, taking note of wind speed. I have started doing this every day for the countries of Britain, and have found that over the last two months the percentage contribution is negligible. It fluctuates wildly, so coal has to be fired up and down to stabilize the grid. I use www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk and the met office wind map. I questioned the author of this site, and found his answers to be scientific. He is an electrical engineer. If this mindless destruction goes ahead one of the most important ecologies in Europe will be destroyed, innocent birds and animals slaughtered unmercifully, just to provide money for my wealthy and distant cousin the Duke of Beaufort. The more distant the better. I propose Land Acts to nationalize the Somerset Trust along Bevanite socialist principles, and redistribute Mawr along the lines of the 1650 redistribution of land to local farmers in the Republic of 1649. As a Dissenter and U. S. dual citizen I still recognize this Republic but am forced to pay royalist taxes, and have been all my life. The Dissenters of Mawr are Republicans and go back to that era. They were heavily persecuted but evolved a brilliant Welsh speaking culture within Mawr. Many emigrated from Mawr to the United States. That culture has been mindlessly, cynically destroyed. There was no English spoken in Mawr up to about eighty years ago, and there are no churches, only nonconformist chapels. The tidal lagoon in Swansea would generate about 10 gigawatts steadily, enough for all the needs of Wales. Four or five of those would generate the needs of the countries of Britain. China has a multi thousand gigawatt hydro capacity, the States and Canada generate hundreds of gigawatts by hydro. The hydro generation in the countries of Britain is negligible, about one or two gigawatts. There is no need to slavishly conform to obsolete European Union policies when England has dumped wind turbine production and is talking about going back to gas, a fossil fuel. Nuclear is far too dangerous, and coal and oil have to be conserved. Germany has dumped nuclear and has gone back to coal. The EU policy has been shredded and it was very corrupt. In Milton’s words: “…… for now I see peace / To corrupt no less than war to waste.” – Foreign Minister of the Republic.
As a descendant of the Princes of Wales I urge the People to take their destiny into their own hands once again, and build a large tidal lagoon together with many more hydroelectric power stations. This should not be done with subsidies, which opens the way to greed, the rotten pieces of Judas silver. It must be done by bond issues and taxation, so the People of Wales need to have the power to raise taxes.
The Assembly should also consider and support advanced and emerging technologies (www.aias.us, www.upitec.com and www.et3m.net) such as low energy nuclear reactors (LENR) and energy from spacetime (ES). AIAS Fellow and development economist Dr Steve Bannister of the University of Utah has predicted that ES will have the same impact as coal in the first industrial revolution. It will bring in a second industrial revolution whose vast consequences are based on unlimited available of spacetime energy trapped by circuits (UFT311 on www.aias.us and many other papers). Total energy is conserved.
I advocate many class action emergency injunctions of various kinds to stop the Mynydd y Gwair development, and advise the trade union movement to use strike action against wind turbines and work to rule wherever possible. Protest groups may converge on Mawr as the turbines arrive, and block them for as long as possible by lying down in front of the transporters. Action such as this should be continued until all wind turbines are demolished at developer expense all over Wales. Those responsible for turbines should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for extreme environmental damage.
The Minister recently asserted illogically that these wind turbines will produce enough energy for thousands of homes. That is complete nonsense, they will produce a tiny and wildly fluctuating fraction of the energy needs of thousands of homes- English speaking homes developed by the destruction of a brilliant Welsh language culture, overseen by an anglicised assembly as remote as the moon. The present electoral dictatorship should be replaced by referenda, either that or by my ancestral cousin Owain Glyndw^r.

Myron Evans

(Dr. M. W. Evans, Gent. (Armiger appointed 2008), Civil List Pensioner appointed 2005, D. Sc., Ph. D., B. Sc. Wales)

Co President AIAS, Nobel Prize Nominee,

www.aias.us , www.upitec.org, www.et3m.net

In a message dated 01/08/2016 16:56:57 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

Dear Ms Griffiths,

Please accept this email as confirmation of my objection of the Mynydd y Gwair wind farm development. I am deeply shocked and saddened that this development has been given the go ahead considering the damning evidence of negative biodiversity implications and the pure contradictory statements provided by the Welsh Government when declining this proposal in 2015 to the recent approval.

Before I go on, I would like to say a little about myself. I hold a BSc in Environmental Conservation, am a resident of Mawr and I work in the sustainability/biodiversity sector. I am a keen environmentalist who truly believes in renewable technology – if implemented in a way that does not have a lasting effect on communities and the natural environment. So please don’t consider this email as a generic complaint. I have looked in to this matter and have come to my objective conclusion based on what I read in the publicly available documents produced by the Welsh Government and RWE.

Therefore, the reasons I object to this development are because I believe the close proximity of the development and Mynydd y Betws wind farm should be classed as one development; developments should be approved by working groups of adjoining councils; contradictory statements by the Welsh Government offer little confidence in the process; and because biodiversity will be adversely affected. To be specific;

  1. The Welsh Government can currently only make decisions on wind energy projects up to 50MW. With Mynydd y Betws wind farm approximately 500m-600m away from the proposed Mynydd y Gwair wind farm, the combined energy production potential of these wind farms equate to approx 80MW. Considering Mynydd y Gwair’s close proximity to the Betws development, you would think common sense would’ve prevailed and someone would’ve recognised that this development is out of the Welsh Government’s scope. Simply classing the two developments as separate is immoral when considering Usain Bolt could run between the last/first turbine of each development in less than a minute.
  2. In 2015, one of the reasons the Welsh Government objected to this development was due to its commitment ‘…to protect common land as part of its strategic objectives in relation to biodiversity and to the sustainable use of natural resources…’ However, in the 2016 approval letter to RWE, biodiversity is not mentioned once. Why is this?
  3. Regarding point 26 in the 2016 approval letter, why is considerable weight given to TAN8 but not towards the Inspectors view of the development that it will be ‘…detrimental to the appearance of the commons and the majority of people’s enjoyment of them…’? Especially when your Commons Act 2006 states that the Welsh Government has the legislation to safeguard commons for current and future generations. What is more, the Inspector in 2015 stated that this development will have a lifespan longer than the proposed 25 years with no plans to actively return the site to its current condition.
  4. The Swansea Local Development Plan suggests designating the Mawr area as ‘Landscape Protection.’ How on earth would allowing the development of two large scale wind farms in close proximity fit in Swansea’s landscape protection vision? Your Inspector Report in 2016 states that a Landscape and Visual Assessment was undertaken and concluded that there will be no cumulative landscape effects when considering the Mynydd y Betws development. May I ask what is the procedure in deciding what is acceptable and what is not? Surely Swansea Council would not want to classify this area as Landscape Protection in their LDP if there were to be an industrial site in close proximity?
  5. Regarding the development’s effect on biodiversity. RWE openly state in their Environmental Statement (ES) that there will be a loss in the local populations of Red Kite, Kestrel and possibly Buzzard. Additionally, your recent Inspector’s report as well as RWE’s ES states (of which I can confirm) that there are Yellowhammers in the area. Moreover, the Inspector notes that RWE discovered that the development area is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Therefore are you are allowing an important area for nature conservation and the populations of historically prosecuted and amber and red status birds to be destroyed?
  6. In the 2016 Inspector Report, your Inspector states that RWE’s nature conservation witness provided contradictory evidence. Therefore how can we be so sure that every piece of detail in RWE’s Environmental Statement is sound and correct?
  7. With all this damning evidence of the possible, incredible destruction of nature and biodiversity in the area, your most recent Inspector still does not mention anything about these subjects in his conclusion. Is biodiversity a taboo subject? It seems that we like to think about protecting it, but when push comes to shove, it’s the first to face the chop. It’s unacceptable. Your 2015 Inspector clearly states possible biodiversity and nature conservation concerns in her conclusion and mentions that this development will be of no positive benefit to the local community. Why the contradictory reports?

This development will have far reaching implications as you will be able to see the turbines from all view points in the area, thus the whole common will be affected – your Inspector openly states that he has little confidence in RWE in ensuring its restoration, and as such this will go against your own legislation.

With further development of PV farms in the Felindre area, Mawr will simply be an industrial site rather than an area of nature and beauty.

May I add that there are other large scale developments in the pipeline such as the Swansea Tidal Lagoon which will produce energy for longer and more efficiently, increase tourism and create more jobs than a wind farm. Can we not dismiss the approval of this development as well as future obtrusive developments until other efficient options are implemented; until biodiversity is recognised as important as carbon emission reductions and until there is a procedure in place to ensure all developments are considered by all affected councils so that small scale developments don’t turn in to large scale developments?

I’ll look forward to your reply. In the meantime, I hope you reconsider this approval, if not, could you please provide details on how a counter movement can lodge an appeal?

Kind regards

Craig Hughes


%d bloggers like this: