I NOTE Resilience's editorial in the Review dated January 18. Sue Clarke appears to intimate that objectors to the current proposal of "our four single turbine applications" are being deliberately misrepresentative. This smacks of splitting hairs in my opinion.

The exact definition in her mind of a 'wind farm' may be accurate, in renewable-energy-speak, but to local inhabitants, four wind turbines along the river seem very much more than a one-off.

What is the collective noun for turbines, if not a 'farm' of turbines? A 'gust' of turbines? How many turbines make up a 'farm' then? I do object to being classed as a "small but vociferous group"..... with an "underhand approach to try to raise objections to projects which actually have a lot of local benefits and local support".

We live in a democracy and we have a right to object to four 87m high turbines being installed within our midst for a variety of valid reasons. She seems to think that the fact they are not 120m high makes it all right.

Just because there will be a donation to the local community and that there will be a 'mechanism for local people to invest' does not automatically make it OK either. In many regions/countries there is a minimum distance of 2km between homes and turbines. Sadly, this is not the case in this part of the country.

Renewable energy comes in different forms with varying impacts. Let the individuals of a community do their own research and be allowed to express their opinions.

– Susie Webster, Aylburton.