I HAVE been reading comments about the proposal to extend the life of the Kirkby Moor Wind Farm, because I often visit the Kendal area. I am a member of the National Trust and I am also concerned about air pollution and global warming.

I understand that many people object to seeing wind farms, like people once objected to electricity pylons, and unfortunately in some areas this has become a political issue.

However, the Kirkby Moor Windfarm has been there for 25 years and I understand that there will be no change in the number and size of the turbines so this means that the current layout and size of turbines would remain unchanged and the wind farm would look the same.

I hope South Lakeland District Council will consider the non-political (if that is possible!) realities of cost and safety and therefore recommend the ten-year extension. (Planning application number SL/2017/0687).

The two main arguments in favour of extension are simple and powerful.

1) Wind farm-generated electricity is cheaper than the alternative carbon releasing methods of burning coal or gas, and generation costs are likely to fall as the design of the rotor blades which can be fitted to existing towers improves over time.

2) Wind farm-generated electricity is safer because it causes no damage to the atmosphere. If you look at a wind farm you see moving blades powered by wind, but gas burning and coal-burning power stations emit greenhouse gases and harmful particulates. I recommend the reading of a short article in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_energy_industry

Now that the Lake District is a World Heritage site and Natural England and the Lake District National Park Authority have both concluded 'no objection' to the appearance of the site, it would be most appropriate for the South Lakeland District Council to make decisions which contribute to a cleaner atmosphere as well as maintaining a local source of employment (this also reduces travel times and air pollution from cars).

In short, the reasons for granting the initial planning permission 25 years ago remain even more valid.

Geoff Herbert

Northampton