In the first of three investigative reports, Bay Life goes in search of the truth about claims that support for the proposed Shepham Wind Farm, north of Polegate have been ‘manufactured’ by parties interested in seeing the ‘Yes Campaign’ succeed.
The current situation puts on hold any plans for the development, but quite possibly, not for long.
Proposals for the wind farm have been withdrawn by Galliford Try Renewables (GTR), now Regeneco. On its website GTR states (17 July) that it will be ‘reviewing the Shepham Wind Farm application with a view to re-submitting the scheme’.
Elsewhere in the local press (Argus 19 July), the plans for the wind farm, the submission to Wealden District Council and a decision by the Council to refuse to delay making a decision have all been described in detail and are now common knowledge.
It has been reported that GTR asked the council to defer the application after learning planning officers were advising councillors to reject the scheme.
A report from council planners has now said that the development would have a negative impact on properties in the Polegate area and the national park.
GTR states;
“Having considered the Planning Officer’s report to Wealden Council’s Planning Committee South – which was published last week – GTR has withdrawn the application. This decision has been made as GTR has been unable to respond to the inclusion of last-minute comments and feedback.
“The publication of the Committee Report last week was the first time we have had a clear view of Wealden Council’s position on the proposal, and we feel we need time to respond to the matters raised. From the outset, we have sought to work with the Council and consultees in the development of the project, and we wish to continue working with them to find a mutually acceptable scheme.
“GTR’s request for the application to be deferred (to a later committee) was declined by the Council; therefore a decision has been made to withdraw, with a view to re-submitting an application in the near future. GTR will look to update the community regarding a potential resubmission once they have had the opportunity to review and respond to the matters raised.
The long battle between rival campaigners has led up to the current stalemate.
In a series of articles, Bay Life is going behind the scenes in search of the truth about the campaigning factions, in particular whether or not there is any evidence to show that the ‘Yes Campaign’ is not quite all that it seems.
The debate to date, has generated much heat, little light and certainly no electricity.
It looks set to loom over the community as continued efforts by each side to persuade people of the virtues of their arguments are played out in the press and online.
After a long and detailed submission to Bay Life by passionate and articulate ‘no’ campaigner against the proposal, Joyce Richards, also it should be said a Bay Life contributing editor, which included information about people behind the ‘Yes campaign’, we invited the PR Company, Consense, to respond to some of the arguments put forward by local people, Joyce amongst them, opposing the scheme.
Is there any truth in the claims that some of the ‘yes to the wind farm’ campaigning does look a little less than a spontaneous reaction to the proposals?
Joyce, whose main target appears to be the local campaigning group Friends of the Earth suggests that people take a careful look at the ‘Yes to Polegate Windfarm (YPW) campaign’, and to use her words ‘follow the trail’.
She argues that the campaign ‘has the footprints of some people who run campaigns to earn their salaries’, which appears to be a reference to the PR Company, Consense, supporting the client Regeneco together with ‘paid staff’ as she also puts it, within the Friends of the Earth network.
Joyce says that the YPW group was started at a meeting called by Friends of the Earth (FOE) on 15 February 2012 at Polegate Village Hall and that the nature of meeting raises questions about who has built the foundations of the ‘Yes Campaign’.
A copy of ‘the agenda’ has been seen by Bay Life. It does indeed look very much like the work of a company rather than a campaign and bears all the hallmarks of detailed work behind the scenes to develop support.
But to be fair, there isn’t a law that says a grassroots campaign can’t be professional, and it also seems perfectly possible that the people running the ‘Support the Wind Farm’ meeting, were indeed simply a group of likeminded local people, choosing to come together to campaign in favour of the wind farm.
It appears to us that there is nothing wrong in principle with a campaign, that starts at such a meeting in this way. It has to start somewhere.
What is important of course is that there is transparency at all stages with any consultancy, campaign or movement. People, before they join any campaign, want to know who is behind the venture, what their views represent and who is backing them.
There are some age old principles at stake here beyond whether or not the Shepham Wind Farm gets developed.
We could leaf through the history of village hall ‘moots’, which date back to the 10th century in this country, and formed the basis of our Parliament, but it is perhaps sufficient to say that since we enjoy living in the world’s oldest continuous democracy, standing up for free speech and transparency of purpose in open forums is something worth shouting about from the rafters, whether those rafters are in the Houses of Parliament or Polegate Village Hall.
The jury appears to be still out on whether this meeting was organised as a PR exercise, or whether it grew out of a local uprising of support in the ‘Yes Campaign’ to see the Shepham Wind Farm developed.
In her submission to us, Joyce goes on to point out that nine people were at the meeting including Brenda Pollack, FOE Local and Regional Campaigner for the South East and one ‘dissenter’ who was apparently asked to leave.
Dissent is also a noble English tradition, having made his points, it seems reasonable, in the circumstances that the person concerned was asked to leave.
At the meeting Joyce takes issue with a project update given by Cyra Parkes, who she describes as ‘an experienced PR practitioner working to support applications through the planning process for a company called ‘Consense’.
Consense, Joyce describes, as the ‘community arm’ PR organisation employed by Galliford Try to work on the public consultations on the planning application for a wind farm at Shepham Lane.
It seems reasonable, given the role of Consense as the company supporting the application on behalf of their client, that they should be at the meeting. Assuming, in introduction, that they declared their interest’, it would seem a natural place for them to be. This after all is their job.
Joyce goes on to take issue with the quality of the information provide by the local Friends of the Earth group and a recent letter to local councillors, explaining that the information is ‘out of date and out of touch’.
On this point, as with many of the other points, there appears to be more than a kernal of truth in some of the things that she is saying, but like any argument it is necessary to hear what the other side has to say before a balanced viewed can be reached.
She ends her submission to us with a plea;
“In the face of all this, local people, who have to earn their living in other ways, have been trying hard to ensure that the truth – at least as known at present – is made available.
“Local people are not funded or backed by anybody, but relying on their elected representatives to make appropriate and well informed decisions.
Her submission is both passionate and articulate, particularly where it touches on the nature of the meeting set up as part of the ‘Yes campaign’.
One further point in her submission, which we have not detailed, is the coincidence in the fact that the local Friends of the Earth branch, which up until recently apparently was almost dormant, suddenly seemed to spring to life at the same point as the ‘Yes Campaign’ to support the Wind Farm.
But of course it depends in which way you look at the telescope. It is very often issues that bring life back into organisations. If Shepham Farm is bringing a wind of change to Eastbourne FOE, heralding a new area for the organisation, who is to say that this is not a good thing?
In the interests of reaching a balanced view of all these matters, and to contribute something ourselves to the local debate which has excercised so much passion and argument we decided to put some of these points to Consense, one of the largest and most successful independent PR companies in the country, with a string of household names as clients.
What came as something of a refreshing surprise was the clarity and openness with which all of our questions were answered.
Cyra Parkes, who described herself as the ‘account manager’ for the Shepham Wind Farm project was upfront. She said ‘essentially we are a consultation company’ and that ‘our job is to ensure that clients provide open and factual information’.
She described in some detail the ways in which Consense had attempted to ‘genuinely engage’ with local people in the debate about the proposed developement and some of the meetings and discussions that had been arranged and taken place.
What came across was the receptiveness of Consense to the concerns of all sections of the community.
The point at which she explained that she ‘genuinely wanted to understand some of their concerns’ there was a sense conveyed that, on behalf of the client, Consense was doing everything that it could possibly do to see that not just all sections of the community, but that all shades of opinion, were represented in this process of engagement.
When most PR companies use the word ‘engage’, you generally know that it is time to grab your hat and take your leave, claiming some prior appointment. The conversation with Consense could not be characterised in that way.
On their web platform, Consense talk about ‘accessible, auditable engagement’, if the discussion that took place with them is any measure of this statement, it would be fair to offer the judgement that they clearly mean what they say.
This leaves the first stage of our investigation of the issue surrounding the planning application for Shepham Wind Farm, its withdrawl, the campaigns of both sides, at something of an impasse.
What evidence is there that the original meeting to create the ‘Yes campaign’ was ‘manufactured’ in some way and not truly representative of local feeling? This turns out to be quite a complex question to answer.
In the second of these articles we hope to be able to interview Brenda Pollack of Friends of the Earth, in an attempt to gain more insight into the orgins of the ‘Yes campaign’.
Meanwhile, local reports on the ‘Yes Campaign’ suggest that the plans for development haven’t necessarily taken hold within the local community in ways in which they were planned.
Some more facts might be useful, not just about how the developers plan to tackle the concerns of the community head on, but also things like legacy.
Much more information about the role of the wind farm in relation to the local community long term, for example, might be useful. We haven’t had much information in this area at all yet.
There is some token mention of a ‘community fund’ being established by the company in their original submissions. The problem with tokens is that they are difficult to spend.
Amanda Gerham one of the people approached at a local ‘Yes Campaign’ stall recently, is reported to have offered the view, ‘Wind farms are like modern art but produce power. What’s not to love about useful art?’
In a situation where there is a significant amount of heat being generated, what we must hope for is that a little more light emerges. The question ultimately about whether or not this light will lead to a new local source of electricity is still the big unanswered question.
In the meantime, the jury is still out on questions about who founded the ‘Yes Campaign’.
It has to be said in conclusion, that there are clearly some questions to be answered about how exactly the original meeting for the ‘Yes Campaign’ was configured.
Sometimes the lines between consultancy and campaigns can become blurred. What is ultimately important to local people though, is transparency, specifically transparency of purpose.
But, as we have also pointed out, who is to say that such a start, even if a little sharp on the bullet points, but blurred on the background, is not also a legitimate basis for a platform to give local people a voice that otherwise would not find expression?
It’s a moot point.
Simon Montgomery
editor, Bay Life
image source credit: Galliford Try Renewables
latest comments