Wiltshire Council told to review new wind farm policy

8:00am Friday 24th August 2012 in News

Rowena Quantrill and Sophy Fearnley-Whittingstall Rowena Quantrill and Sophy Fearnley-Whittingstall

A planning inspector has told Wiltshire Council to re-examine its policy on wind farms.

Wind farm development in Wiltshire was effectively ended by a last-minute amendment to the council’s Core Strategy on June 26, specifying the need for a minimum separation distance between homes and turbines due to public safety concerns.

The strategy, put forward by the ruling Conservative group, specified a minimun distance of 1.5km for turbines greater than 50m, 2km for those over 100m, and 3km for 150m turbines. It was opposed by Lib Dem councillors.

Now the planning inspector has told the council to re-open consultation on the issue following pressure from local campaign groups including the Wiltshire Clean Energy Alliance, which is made up of residents, businesses and community groups. The group, formed after the amendment, wrote to the inspector questioning the scientific basis of the policy and lack of public consultation.

Sophy Fearnley-Whitting-stall is a member of the group and is head of campaign partnerships at Chippenham-based renewable electricity supplier Good Energy.

She said: “Planning policy should be open-minded and unbiased, yet this amendment, rushed through at the 11th hour, seeks to place prejudice against one form of development at the heart of our planning system.

“It is wrong to scrap an evidence-based planning system and replace it with unscientific bias. Wind farms, as other developments, should be subject to fair planning scrutiny.”

The Alliance has a petition at www.wiltshirecea.org.uk Chippenham MP Duncan Hames said he is delighted the planning inspector has stepped in.

He said: “I am very keen to see us generate more renewable energy, including through on-shore wind turbines. Decisions about renewable energy ought to be made on the merit of each individual case, and this policy amounted to an effective blanket-ban.”

A spokesman for the council said it expected the inspector would ask it to consult on the change.

The spokesman added: “The council is in discussion with the inspector as to how it will carry out this consultation. This action was suggested to the inspector by the council and will provide the opportunity for further comments to be submitted.

“Once the feedback has been gathered, the Wiltshire Core Strategy will be examined in public at a date and venue to be confirmed by the Inspectorate in due course.”

Comments(34)

KarenSTEMM says...
1:57pm Fri 24 Aug 12

Is this group completely insane? Many thousands of people around the UK were thrilled by Wiltshire Council's decision hoping it would spread to their areas, too. Why on earth (other than for money, of course) would anyone actually WANT turbines near them, despoiling the countryside? They don't work, they're expensive and unreliable. Total lunacy.

Report this post »

SteveLW says...
2:26pm Fri 24 Aug 12

Not insane at all but blessed with the ability to look beyond their own back yards. It's not about money, although ironically Conservative councillors may be denying their constituents much needed community funds if they persist with their plans, but more about the future of the planet and our environment. Wind turbines are a temporary solution that works until we can find better ways of delivering clean energy that doesn't overheat our planet. They are not expensive in comparison to conventional fuels, especially if the effects of global warming are costed into the equation. What would be utter lunacy would be for every community across the UK to follow the misguided lead of the Wiltshire councillors and impose undemocratic bans on clean energy whilst continuing to consume energy at one of the highest rates in the world. I, for one, do not want to be part of such a folly.

Report this post »

SteveLW says...
2:35pm Fri 24 Aug 12

Oh, and just in case anyone doesn't believe that global warming is man made take a look at this latest study from a former sceptic - http://www.guardian.
co.uk/science/2012/j
ul/29/climate-change
-sceptics-change-min
d
Wiltshire can't sit back and think that life as normal can go on. Our behaviour is affecting our environment and we have to do something positive about it. This should involve saying 'yes' to clean energy initiatives that are well planned - not installing a blanket ban.

Report this post »

KarenSTEMM says...
5:38pm Fri 24 Aug 12

Your 'temporary' solution would involve erecting 25, 475 feet turbines close to where I live in the Upper Dee Valley in North Wales. (Yes, I'm a NIMBY and proud to be trying to protect stunning countryside.) To achieve this feat of desecration the mountain would have to be blasted away and goodness knows how many tons of concrete would be poured into the massive holes for the turbine bases. In addition, there would be access roads and hard standing. Will they remove this once the 'temporary' solution is no longer needed? No, of course not. Meanwhile what would happen to all the businesses in this area which are heavily reliant upon tourists? The campsites and caravan parks, self catering properties etc are very close to the proposed scheme and visitors would be more likely to drive on to protected Snowdonia rather than holiday in this beautiful valley. How is this even remotely 'green and clean'? Small point, but at 11.45 this morning the total output of the UK wind factory fleet was 0.125 gigawatts. This is 0.32% of total demand and 1.9% of installed capacity. What a scam the wind industry is.

Report this post »

habitat21 says...
6:01pm Fri 24 Aug 12

WHY WE DON'T NEED MORE WIND POWER ON THE GRID


Regarding wind turbines: the bottom line in all these debates, blogs, etc., is that the general public is waking up to is the understanding that we have gone past the point where further deployment of wind-turbines in the UK can offer any carbon emission savings.


Above this break even threshold, every 1MW generated by a wind turbine now de-loads a conventional power plant or gas turbine by 1MW. Because conventional generators are already de-loaded for a significant proportion of time, through each day and each year, their efficiency is lowered further and causes more CO2 to be generated than saved.


If all factors including the carbon footprint of double capacity requirements are accurately evaluated and transmission losses are added then more carbon dioxide emissions will be generated than saved.


This is staggering in itself, but what is more surprising is that the government is committed to more and more wind-turbines being put onto the system, turning a blind eye to the fact that it is making carbon emissions worse.


What is being perpetuated is absolutely futile.


It is costing the country a fortune in wasted money, taxing the poor, and giving to those who already have enough..


How can this be allowed to continue?

Report this post »

eithinog says...
6:39pm Fri 24 Aug 12

"Large wind turbines generate very low frequency sounds and infrasound (below 20 Hz) when the wind driving them is turbulent. The amount of infrasound depends on many factors, including the turbine manufacturer, wind speed, power output, local topography, and the presence of nearby turbines (increasing when the wake from one turbine enters the blades of another). The infrasound cannot be heard and is unrelated to the loudness of the sound that you hear. Infrasound can only be measured with a sound level meter capable of detecting it (and not using the A-weighted scale). Video cameras and other recording devices are not sensitive to infrasound and do not reproduce it."...."..the low frequency part of the ear is extremely sensitive to infrasound. Infrasound generates larger electrical responses than any other type of sound, including sounds you can hear presented at the loudest levels."
see:
http://oto2.wustl.ed
u/cochlea/wind.html
for full publication

Report this post »

SteveLW says...
6:49pm Fri 24 Aug 12

KarenSTEMM - Your situation in Wales is not something I can comment on other than that the application is best dealt with on a local basis (i.e. not through either a blanket or area ban). The location may well be wrong for all I know but in that case this is not the place to fight your corner but in your local press and through the local planning system. That system will also deal with the local industry concerns that you have. A word of advice though - do stick to facts when presenting to any planning appeal as emotive opinions and language are not generally well received. Wind farms are temporary in the big scheme of things and responsible planning should insist upon landscapes being returned to their original state upon decommissioning.
habitat21 - The Grid is not yet designed to deal with the number of turbines coming on stream and the energy they are producing. This is a bad thing and needs addressing fast - it should not be a reason to say no to clean energy. The German government realises this and are focusing their efforts on developing ways of storing renewable energy as part of a more efficient Grid system. If only our government was far sighted enough to think along the same lines! In Germany and Denmark too there are much more advanced mechanisms where profit can be directed towards communities where turbines are built. Again in the UK we are lagging behind and our system at the moment does primarily reward companies and investors prepared to take financial risks. This needs to be altered so that we can benefit financially and environmentally from clean energy of all types. The cost of continued reliance on coal,oil and gas is spectacularly more in the long run, both environmentally and in terms of fuel bills. The general public are indeed waking up but unfortunately, as is often the case, do not have the whole picture to look at but instead a whole series of politically influenced opinions. For an unbiased look at the sustainable energy picture I would recommend looking at Professor MacKay's excellent website at http://www.withoutho
tair.com/Contents.ht
ml

Report this post »

KarenSTEMM says...
8:20pm Fri 24 Aug 12

SteveLW - your response to me is patronising in the extreme. Do you not think it had already occured to me to take the actions you so kindly suggest to oppose the wind factory in my area? I am opposed to wind turbines anywhere, not just 'in my back yard'. Having recently travelled the length of the country it was interesting to see the turbine pollution blighting Cornwall and Scotland, parts of the country also heavily reliant upon tourism. Very few of these things were turning, either. There are hundreds of groups around the country fighting to stop turbines being put up in countryside they love. Only a machine could remain unemotional and detached when faced with this onslaught of industrialisation going under the guise of being green and environmentally sound. As I said before the wind industry is a massive con, a fact which, thankfully, is now beginning to be recognised

Report this post »

SteveLW says...
9:47pm Fri 24 Aug 12

KarenSTEMM - I am not unemotional or patronising. On the contrary I care deeply about what we are blindly doing to our planet. For me the hardship caused by temporary wind turbines are insignificant compared to the projections for death, disease and injury amongst people and wildlife from extreme weather events such as heatwaves, floods, storms, fires and droughts. I fully understand that some people do not like wind turbines but would argue that as a society we have to look at the wider picture. I don't think wind turbines are suitable everywhere but rationally we, as a society, have to start looking after our planet in a different way. I don't mean to be patronising but I would ask you to read around the subject more objectively - 'Sustainability Without the Hot Air' is an excellent place to start.

Report this post »

notscot says...
7:19am Sat 25 Aug 12

How many times does that happen?People or groups representing a difference of opinion or "unfashionable" belief are treated with condescension and the assumption that they are unobjective, and that their education or knowledge base is narrow and/or blinkered.

Report this post »

shed says...
12:05pm Sat 25 Aug 12

This stinks of that EU tactic of 'keep asking the question till you get the answer you want' like they do with referendums.

Use less resources is the answer, there is far to much waste of energy and the government is the worst offender.

Of course the real answer to energy consumption is a massive cut in population world wide.

Report this post »

howcomethatdoesntsurpriseme says...
4:30pm Sat 25 Aug 12

SteveLW

what tosh... you're all doomed etc.. etc.. etc..

I really take exception to unsusubantiated shrill scaremonegering and wholesale misrepresentations like the emotive bilge above.

You think just because you repeat the sacred litany of eco-doom - it becomes true ? Copy 'n paste from Gweenpiece flyers eh?

Windmills don't work as advertised - or anywhere near it.

Richard Muller was never a sceptic.

Denmark only keeps the lights on becuase of a **** great extension cable from Norway.

Germany is looking to bun lignite to keep the lights on.

Wise up sunshine - I suppose you live in a yurt with a solar panel and heat it with smouldering dung?

Thought not ...

Report this post »

SteveLW says...
5:08pm Sat 25 Aug 12

howcomethatdoesntsur
priseme - We are not all doomed but we are in for a very tough time indeed unless we change our lifestyles and/or do something positive on clean energy. I've never even read anything from Greenpeace in my life but am a perfectly normal person who just happens to have studied this in a little detail so please refrain from commenting on your perception of my lifestyle and don't call me sunshine while hiding behind a comment box. Richard Muller challenged the science behind the conventional global warming consensus but, after his own studies funded from within the sceptic fold, changed his mind and even implied that global warming might be even greater than the original models had predicted. This is the central issue - we are dangerously warming our planet! If you accept this then all else follows - we must try our hardest as a society to rectify our mistakes and slow down climate change. Of course turbines aren't the answer in themselves, I'd even personally concede that they aren't that pretty. They are not suitable for some landscapes or too close to people or wildlife. They are, however, a small but useful part of the solution alongside solar, hydro etc.

Report this post »

moonrakin wurzel says...
5:20pm Sat 25 Aug 12

What about all the methods of reducing the cost of heating and electricity that Sophie and her subsidy junkie friends choose to utterly ignore ?


Surely ground source heating and combined heat and power - both non subsidy attracting techniques for reducing energy consumption should be explored before pillaging the public to subsidize solar & wind the "darling" fashion victim technologies of the arithmetically challenged green movement?

It's a shame that HM Planning Inspectorate don't get to do an inquiry into if windmills actually work as advertised isn't it ?

Report this post »

SteveLW says...
5:32pm Sat 25 Aug 12

moonrakin wurzel - A lot of turbines don't work as well as advertised but then again nor does 'Lynx'. There is enough evidence out there, however, for us to say that they can play a useful part alongside ground source heating, CHP and everything else. I've no great sympathy for subsidies that benefit the already wealthy either but the answer is not to blanket ban wind turbines. Better still to develop models where more profit goes into communities and compensation for anyone adversely affected. There is no one answer to the problem but we need to make sensible and positive progress on a number of fronts.

Report this post »

howcomethatdoesntsurpriseme says...
5:40pm Sat 25 Aug 12

SteveLW or is that Moonbeam?

"who just happens to have studied this in a little detail"

It's clear you really need to study it all in a little more detail.... particularly what Dr Muller is up to and I'd suggest that you also acquaint yourself with how the climate models are actually built and if they actually work when applied to periods of time where we know the start conditions and the actual outcomes.... known as hindcasting - they don't work - and have to be comprehensively rigged to produce any sane result at all.

That is all

Report this post »

moonrakin wurzel says...
6:39pm Sat 25 Aug 12

SteveLW wrote:
moonrakin wurzel - A lot of turbines don't work as well as advertised but then again nor does 'Lynx'. There is enough evidence out there, however, for us to say that they can play a useful part alongside ground source heating, CHP and everything else. I've no great sympathy for subsidies that benefit the already wealthy either but the answer is not to blanket ban wind turbines. Better still to develop models where more profit goes into communities and compensation for anyone adversely affected. There is no one answer to the problem but we need to make sensible and positive progress on a number of fronts.
Lynx? what is Lynx?

I'm not talking about banning wind turbines - merely that they aren't subsidised and that some proper cost benefit analysis is done (which sad to say isn't within HM Planning Inspectorate's remit - I bet Sophy's happy about that) Clearly, wind and solar were chosen as "poster children" for this "clean energy" campaign without any regard for what was already known about them = PR over-riding physics and reality.

Wiltshire could take the lead and start properly addressing the efficiency of municipal assets like swimming pools, schools, hospitals, doctors surgeries, council offices and so on instead of being hectored by the innumerate green movement into daft photovoltaics , windmills and other self evidently futile, subsidy driven politically motivated gesture engineering.

Report this post »

Ricky45 says...
8:51pm Mon 27 Aug 12

Ok I've got the perfect solution for all those who dislike wind turbines. Let's follow the lead of the Wiltshire council visionaries, scrap all new turbine applications and build new nuclear power stations iinstead. We could have a couple in Wiltshire, Salisbury Plain reactors A and B and a few in North Wales, Upper Dee Valley A, B and C. So no new wind turbines, no power cuts and everybody goes to bed happy.

Report this post »

notscot says...
7:37am Tue 28 Aug 12

Ricky45 wrote:
Ok I've got the perfect solution for all those who dislike wind turbines. Let's follow the lead of the Wiltshire council visionaries, scrap all new turbine applications and build new nuclear power stations iinstead. We could have a couple in Wiltshire, Salisbury Plain reactors A and B and a few in North Wales, Upper Dee Valley A, B and C. So no new wind turbines, no power cuts and everybody goes to bed happy.
So if we don't have wind turbines we have to have Nuclear Power stn's?

Report this post »

Ricky45 says...
10:42am Tue 28 Aug 12

notscot wrote:
Ricky45 wrote:
Ok I've got the perfect solution for all those who dislike wind turbines. Let's follow the lead of the Wiltshire council visionaries, scrap all new turbine applications and build new nuclear power stations iinstead. We could have a couple in Wiltshire, Salisbury Plain reactors A and B and a few in North Wales, Upper Dee Valley A, B and C. So no new wind turbines, no power cuts and everybody goes to bed happy.
So if we don't have wind turbines we have to have Nuclear Power stn's?
"So if we don't have wind turbines we have to have Nuclear Power stn's?"

Yes unless you've discovered how to power your computer and other electrical appliances on fresh air. Other suggestions might be Hydro we could build a dam and flood the Upper Dee Valley, Gas/Oil we could start importing from that nice Mr Putin and his Iranian chums or Coal, more opencast mines anyone? Take your pick.

You see if we want all the luxuries of a 21st century lifestyle, the infrastructure to support it has to go somewhere which is why Nimbies are held in such contempt.

Report this post »

KarenSTEMM says...
1:51pm Tue 28 Aug 12

Ricky45. What about the fact that the wind industry does not meet its claims? You only have to check out this UK National Grid Status website to figure this out for yourself.
http://www.gridwatch
.templar.co.uk/
It has shown average wind energy for the past month at around 500MW and possibly an average of around 1200MW for the past year with nearly 6000MW installed. This is less than 10% capacity to output for the past month and around 20% for a whole year. Why are all you windies keeping quiet about this data? How many colossal wind turbines would the UK have to be shrouded in to make this go anywhere near meeting the claims that are so brashly touted? It is a scam, pure and simple, and one that blights our countryside.

Report this post »

Ricky45 says...
5:08pm Tue 28 Aug 12

I don't argue that windfarms generate their maximum capacity, nor does any power station. I also agree when assessing the viability of windfarms developers should use realistic power generation figures. Just like every other method of generating electricity wind has it's flaws but labelling it as a scam is being childish and ignorant. So I can clearly see that you see that you use electricity unless your computer is steam powered. In which case would you be willing to have a Nuclear Power Station (perfect location, low population and isolated to minimise impact in case of meltdown), an Opencast coal mine (I’m sure there’s coal there somewhere, go and read about strip mining in West Virginia) or a shiny new dam (plenty of mountains and rainfall and who cares if the reservoir floods a few villages) in the Upper Dee Valley? We both already know what the answer is, don’t we Karen?

Report this post »

KarenSTEMM says...
6:34pm Tue 28 Aug 12

Ricky45 You really are repetitive, aren't you, in your key aim to try to blinker everyone into going down the 'wind energy is our saviour' road? The Upper Dee Valley stuff you keep restating is 'childish and ignorant' and that is why, until now, I haven't taken the bait. You know what? I go round switching lights and electrical appliances off all the time and drive my teenagers mad! One reason why, is that I would like them to enjoy our beautiful landscapes and not feed the so called 'need' for industrialisation of the countryside by wind factories. That's me finished now - on this site, at least!

Report this post »

Ricky45 says...
9:28pm Tue 28 Aug 12

Another nimby timewaster throws their toys out the pram when you expose them for what they really are.

Report this post »

notscot says...
10:25pm Tue 28 Aug 12

Ricky45 wrote:
Another nimby timewaster throws their toys out the pram when you expose them for what they really are.
Your answers show the only way, The best way, The most informed way??
And you'll stamp your feet & name call if anyone disagrees.
Childish.
You do a nice line in patronising & pompous, too.

Report this post »

Ricky45 says...
10:52pm Tue 28 Aug 12

So Notscot putting aside any personal matters, I don't stamp my feet I just shake my head and smile. I’m practical I’d rather support people who try and solve our problems rather than sitting on my behind and sniping and moaning at them. Here's the issue we consume ever increasing quantities of electricity in the UK however our generating capacity is shrinking as our nuclear and coal fired powered stations are decommissioned. So if we want to ensure our electricity supply covers our demand we will have to build new generating capacity which means new power stations (wind, nuclear, coal and gas) . I am sure we can agree on that.

The trouble is if you try and build anything in the UK people moan. They want all the benefits they derive from utilities but don’t want them in their backyard i.e they are nimbys. It is ridiculous I live in Coventry and the villagers round here protest against the stupidest of things such as a farmer building some chicken sheds (Clifton Campville) or a new cemetery (Willoughby). I’m all for a bit of democracy but if we continue appeasing these vocal yokels and having no change we’ll be back living in caves hundred years down the line. This isn't about wind turbines it's about people who want to move the UK forward versus those trying to hold it back.

Report this post »

KarenSTEMM says...
11:17pm Tue 28 Aug 12

Ricky45 'Vocal yokels' - what a simplistic way to denigrate those thousands upon thousands of people who oppose wind turbines across the UK! You really are a total idiot. And, yes, I have definitely signed off now, but couldn't stand your asinine posturing. Go on now, have the final word - like the numpty you clearly are, you can't resist it....go on...go on.... you want to.......you HAVE to...

Report this post »

Ricky45 says...
11:34pm Tue 28 Aug 12

KarenSTEMM wrote:
Ricky45 'Vocal yokels' - what a simplistic way to denigrate those thousands upon thousands of people who oppose wind turbines across the UK! You really are a total idiot. And, yes, I have definitely signed off now, but couldn't stand your asinine posturing. Go on now, have the final word - like the numpty you clearly are, you can't resist it....go on...go on.... you want to.......you HAVE to...
Thanks I will and please you really don't have to use fancy words to impress me. I hope you enjoy your future view as the answer dear Karen is blowing in the wind. Noswaith dda sguthan !

Report this post »

Don Jones says...
11:14am Wed 29 Aug 12

SteveLW wrote:
Not insane at all but blessed with the ability to look beyond their own back yards. It's not about money, although ironically Conservative councillors may be denying their constituents much needed community funds if they persist with their plans, but more about the future of the planet and our environment. Wind turbines are a temporary solution that works until we can find better ways of delivering clean energy that doesn't overheat our planet. They are not expensive in comparison to conventional fuels, especially if the effects of global warming are costed into the equation. What would be utter lunacy would be for every community across the UK to follow the misguided lead of the Wiltshire councillors and impose undemocratic bans on clean energy whilst continuing to consume energy at one of the highest rates in the world. I, for one, do not want to be part of such a folly.
How is it undemocratic when it's voted for by democratically-elect
ed councillors? Or does "undemocratic" mean "I don't like it"?

Report this post »

SteveLW says...
11:30am Wed 29 Aug 12

Don Jones - Undemocratic because the whole of the Wiltshire Core Strategy was supposed to be consulted upon. This amendment was deliberately introduced at the last moment without consultation. Quite rightly the Government inspector has ruled that the amendment should be put back out for consultation.
There are potential side effects to this dangerous political game in that the Core Strategy might be delayed. Other aspects of the strategy are very important for the people of Wiltshire and planning decisions on housing etc. could be affected.

Report this post »

notscot says...
7:50am Thu 30 Aug 12

I'd like to see the introduction of discounts for careful users. Have energy companies & the govt. using carrots in preference to threats & sticks - make tarrifs/rates clear & concise - and discounts/bonuses transparent & open. Some form of discount/incentive at the end of the financial year for those who's energy use has shown a marked drop.
Let's have a concerted effort to encourage us to use less fossil fuels to encourage the nation to "get off it's collective butt" and get on it's feet or bikes.
At the moment we leave pedestrians the choice of facing huge routes or "rat runs" to get from a to b - allowing (ignorant/blind drivers notwithstanding) cyclists no more than an 18" wide gulley across badly sunken drains at the side of the road and having the "lanes" disappear at random points.
Public transport? It's a costly joke when it's cheaper & more efficient to use your own car!!!
We do less than nothing in that respect - we allow time & money to be spent badly, resulting in inadequate schemes to be inflicted simply to allow Councils' and our "representatives" to tick boxes to further political agendas.
Better to start NOW, properly - researching ALL possible future ways to generate cleaner energy, rather than offer massive financial incentives to cover the country in ill thought out short term projects and products.
Perhaps it's something we should have started 50 years ago - but that's no excuse to rush headlong into anything - it's simply further waste.
Research & attainable goals for the public in the reduction of energy use - with worthwhile incentives, please.

Report this post »

notscot says...
7:53am Thu 30 Aug 12

"inadequate schemes being inflicted"
oops. Should've gone to specsavers....

Report this post »

WiltshireGlory says...
2:37pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Ms Sophy Fearnley-Whittingsta
ll is incorrect.

Wiltshire Council's decision allows both for the development of small scale micro generation sites and for the final decision on whether planning distances should be applied to wind turbines to be made by local communities on a case by case basis. This is in keeping with Wiltshire Councils strong belief in local decisions being made by local people.

Ms Fearnley-Whittingsta
ll seems to work for an energy company that supplies heavily subsidised electricity. Not exactly impartial.

Report this post »

WiltshireGlory says...
2:45pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Ms Sophy Fearnley-Whittingsta
ll is incorrect.

Wiltshire Council's decision allows both for the development of small scale micro generation sites and for the final decision on whether planning distances should be applied to wind turbines to be made by local communities on a case by case basis. This is in keeping with Wiltshire Councils strong belief in local decisions being made by local people.

Ms Fearnley-Whittingsta
ll seems to work for an energy company that supplies heavily subsidised electricity. Not exactly impartial.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree