Mynydd Maen Wind Farm

Dear Ms Giulia Bazzoni,

I am writing about the four large renewable energy projects that are proposed for Mynydd Maen and another close by. The cumulative effect of these 5 projects will be very serious indeed and I am asking if they could be considered at the same time. Although three different companies are involved the projects are intrinsically linked, there is clearly cooperation between the companies at this planning stage, and, if they all become operational, co-operation will certainly be required then.

The projects are linked as follows

1. Projects A, B and D all require modifications to the main road through the housing estate at Pantside and the widening and dualing in places of Abercarn Mountain Road. RES, the developer of wind farm A promise to restore the roads after their project but the other two wind farms are clearly intending to use the same route, so full restoration is unlikely for many years, if ever.
2. The solar farm project C, will use the same route but their plans include connecting to the grid by running a 3km long cable half way across the mountain to the sub station proposed for RES’ project A rather than connecting to the pylons at the edge of the common. Clearly this is with the agreement of RES, it will allow RES maybe to use the battery storage of the solar farm, but it will damage more of the precious peat mountain top.
3. Project B will almost certainly connect in the same way.
4. Project D will access their site by the same route as A and B and then follow the winding route of the construction/maintenance tracks that RES will build for project A. This is clearly with RES’ cooperation.
5. Project D will probably connect to the grid at the substation proposed for project A, again with RES’ cooperation.
6. Residents of Pantygasseg could have project A in full view to the front of their houses and the turbines of project E behind their houses; the cumulative effect of both is very likely to be overbearing.
7. Pennant Walters, the developers of project E, have stated in their withdrawn application that “mitigation” was  necessary in certain conditions involving cooperation between the themselves and RES (project A) when wind conditions made the cumulative sound levels excessive.
8. Cumulative noise levels are likely to be excessive at other dwellings close to the mountain.

I believe that all these projects are interlinked in a number of ways and that they should be considered at the same time and presumably by the same inspector. Please can you tell me if this is possible?