Mooir Vannin Offshore Wind Farm application:  Public meeting, Tuesday 3 March

That's good.

Good afternoon and welcome and welcome

back to some of you.

Uh it is now 400 p.m. and I would like

to formally open this public

This

>> is that all right?

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Uh formally open this public

meeting for the Moran and offshore wind

farm project. Uh before we introduce

ourselves, I want to cover off a few

housekeeping matters. So can I just

confirm that everyone right at the back

of the room can hear me?

>> Excellent. Thank you. And if I can just

also check in the virtual room and the

teams meeting if people can hear me.

There not many attendees. Okay.

Um if I can confirm with the case

manager that the live stream and

recording have started.

>> Yes. Okay. Um and can I just request

everyone present in the room to please

put your devices and phones on silent.

Um the toilets are located just outside

this door uh on the left. Um there no

planned fire drills during this event.

So if you hear the alarm, it is real. In

the event of a fire, we will exit the

building via the doors to my right and

congregate in the car park.

Um onto introductions. Um I am Mr. Hai.

I have been appointed under section 27

of the Marine Infrastructure Management

Act 2016 or MIMA for short to chair the

panel of examiners for this application.

Together we are known as the examining

body. Uh I confirm that I've made a

conflict of interest declaration as part

of my appointment and I am a chartered

member of the Royal Town Planning

Institute. Uh which means I'm bound by

their code of professional conduct. I

will now hand over to my colleagues to

introduce themselves.

Sorry, it's good. It's a bit like being

on teams and not remembering to actually

unmute yourself before you talk. Let me

start that again. My name is Francis

Fernandez and I am a panel member

pursuant to section 27 of MIMA. Um, I

confirm that I have made a conflict of

interest declaration as part of my

appointment and I am also a fellow of

the RTPI which means I am bound by the

code of professional conduct.

>> Hi, afternoon everyone. I'm um Miss

Powell. I'm a panel member appointed

pursuant to section 27 of MIMA also and

can confirm I have made a conflict of

interest declaration as part of my

appointment. I'm also a chartered town

planner, a member of the RTPI, which

means I'm bound by a code of

professional conduct in the same manner

as it does to the other panel members

and frames my conduct for this

examination.

I'm also a chartered member of the Royal

Town Planning Institute, which means

that I am bound by the code of

professional conduct in the same manner

as it applies to the other panel

members. And again, that frames my

conduct in this examination. Now, can I

just check? I believe I may not have

been on microphone for part of that.

Okay, all good.

Um also present today are members of the

cabinet office case team notably Mr. Tom

Randall uh who provide procedural

support throughout the examination

process. Uh audiovisisual service is

provided by energy media limited.

Now a few words about the procedure for

today's meeting. Uh this meeting will

follow the agenda that was published on

Monday the 2nd of March 2026.

Uh just a few words about how I intend

to run the meeting today. Uh today's

meeting is being undertaken in a hybrid

way meaning some of you are present here

with us at the venue and very few people

um are joining us virtually through

Microsoft team. Uh some of you have

chosen to watch the live stream.

Additionally, a recording of today's

meeting will be made available on the

MIMA website as soon as practicable

after the meeting has finished. Um, with

this in mind, uh, please ensure that you

speak clearly into a microphone stating

your name and the organization that you

represent if relevant each time before

you speak. Um, if you're not at a table,

um, then there are roving microphones,

so please wait while one of those is

brought to you.

Uh, just a few words about personal

information. Um, when speaking, do think

carefully about your personal

information. If you feel the need to

refer to something of a personal or

confidential nature, please remember

that anything you do say will be

included in the published recording. Uh

the cabinet office is administering the

consenting process for applications made

under MIMA and in that regard it will

process personal data in accordance with

the data protection act 2018

um and GDPR and LED implementing

regulations 2018.

Um, further information relating to data

protection can be found in the cabinet

office privacy notice. A link to cabinet

offices offices privacy notice was

provided in the regulation 32 letter

published on the 6th of February. Um,

and I will assume that everyone here

today has familiarized themselves with

this document. Uh, please speak to Mr.

Randall if you have any questions.

Moving on to the purpose of the meeting.

Under section 32 of MIMA and regulations

31 and 35 of the marine infrastructure

consenting process regulations 2024,

the examining body can hold public

meetings to provide opportunities as

appropriate to anyone who wants to speak

about the application. The examining

body notified parties of its intention

to hold public meeting one, which is

this one today, in its regulation 32

letter issued on the 6th of February,

2026.

The agenda for the public meeting was

issued on Friday the 27th, 2026 and then

reissued uh yesterday on Monday the 2nd

of March. This includes the list of

persons who have registered um uh and

indicated uh that they wish to speak

today. Um and that registration uh was

received at procedural deadline B uh

last week, Tuesday the 24th of February.

In order to maximize the time available

for those parties to have their say, the

examining body considers it appropriate

that the applicant's response to matters

raised are provided in writing. The

applicant will therefore be invited to

respond at deadline 1 on 31st of March

2026 rather than orally at the meeting

today.

>> [snorts]

>> Now turning to all of you present today.

Welcome and thank you very much for

coming. Um can I just confirm if there

are any members of the press attending

the meeting?

Okay. Um are you intending to video

record any of the proceedings? Okay. No.

Thank you. Um

moving on to registered attendees. Um,

persons registered to speak today are

listed on the agenda and I suggest that

we take your introductions as we invite

you to make your representation.

Please note that if you've not

registered to speak and your name is not

included on the published agenda, we

will not be calling you to speak now. We

will deal with requests to speak by

unregistered speakers if there are any

in agenda item four after all the

registered speakers have had their say.

Are there any questions from members of

the public on the matters that I have

just spoken about?

No. Okay, that concludes this agenda

item. I will move on to agenda item

three.

We will invite you in the order listed

in the agenda.

Following your representation, we may

wish to ask you some questions.

I don't envisionage needing to take a

break this evening, but we will do so if

we feel it is necessary between agenda

items three and four.

Speakers will be told roughly one minute

before their time is up.

Miss Fernandez, handing over to you now.

>> Sure.

>> And so may I invite Alan Desmond to come

forward, please?

Alan, you are very welcome.

>> And when you're comfortable, please do

start.

>> Alan Desmond,

uh, native Banksman, a resident of GF.

Uh, my educational background is I have

a degree in geography. I have

post-graduate qualifications in

geography where I specialized in tourism

because I'm from the aisle of man. and

uh town and country planning as it was

known then.

And the one thing I've taken from my

education, my further education was when

it came to planning, precedent was

everything. Uh anyone wishing to lodge

an application, if you had precedent,

you had a very good chance of your

application being accepted and going

forward. And I'm sure Lorstead believe

they do have president because they

already have a wind farm located within

the Irish Sea as well as other wind

farms uh allocated in the Irish Sea. But

um I don't believe that we can judge

apples with oranges. I think you've got

to go apples for apples. So for that

reason I wanted to touch upon a planning

application which went in uh around 10

years ago uh from EDF the French energy

giant for a wind farm to be located off

the Jurassic coast of Dorset which is

also coincidentally um a UNESCO world

heritage coastline. So there is that

connection with the aisle of man with

the UNESCO biosphere whole nation

status. Uh of course endorse it that

didn't include the coastal waters. it

simply included the the coastline itself

and the land. Uh so what happened was we

had a an application there for 121 wind

turbines which were maximum of 200 mters

high and they covered 59

square meters of the coastline

from the outset. Um I must say that I do

have a business in in Swanig and Dorset

a retail business attached to tourism. I

have one here as well in the aisle of

man. So I know the area really well.

I've walked every inch of the coastline

there and every inch of the coastline

here. So I know them both at the back of

my hand. And I would say that the aisle

of man just about just about edges it

for scenic beauty. Um that's my personal

opinion. I'm max but there you go. So

the thing was from the off from the

outset EDF and the UK government and all

the planning departments who are

involved in this. They came out and they

gave copious amounts of information to

the general public, town councils, etc.,

etc., etc., including

um visual images of how the wind farm

would look whilst viewed from the

coastline. Now, the big difference we

have here is we have never had that sent

out in a public document by Orstead.

I funny enough yesterday this arrived on

my desk

uh and it's a repeat of the thing they

sent out last year and on the front you

have a lovely picture of Macklehead

lighthouse but there is not one wind

turbine

on view and this has been a bit of a

weakness in this process from the start

in that there's no wind turbines in view

as regards the the Navatus Bay uh

project it was turned down

And the

objectors were long and they were pretty

impressive. Dorset County Council,

Bournemouth Burough and Bournemouth and

Pool Burough Council as it was then the

Perfect District Council, Christ Church

Burough Council, the National Trust,

English National Heritage, the Jurassic

Coast World Heritage Site Steering Group

and the Royal Yacht Association. and

perhaps most telling of all, UNESCO.

If I might take the opportunity to read

UNESCO's nine-page letter, I'll just go

to the conclusion,

which reads as follows. Um, and the the

you'll probably be aware of this. The

IUCN referred to as the International

Union for Conservation of Nature, which

is attached to uh UNESCO.

The the RUC considers that this project,

meaning the Jurassic Coast uh um wind

farm, will have a significant impact on

the natural setting of the property,

which is the coastline, in that it would

adversely impact on important views from

the property, including views from the

main visitor center at Derlson Castle

towards the aisle of white, where the

project would replace the aisle of white

as the dominant feature on the horizon.

This is likely to significantly impact

on visitor experience and appreciation

of the property in its wider natural

setting which could in turn compromise

the longterm sustainability of the

management of the property through loss

of revenue and reduced opportunities to

present the property in its natural

setting to a wide audience i.e. of visi

visitors. Basically,

I go on um

any potential impact from the project of

this of this natural property are in

direct contradiction to the overarching

principle of the World Heritage

Convention as stipulated in article 4,

as the completion of the project would

result in the property being presented

and transmitted to future generations in

a form that is significantly different

from that for which it was at the time

inscribed and until today, i.e. when

they were designated as a world heritage

coastline, it would alter that

permanently.

Specifically, the property will change

from being located in a natural setting

that is largely free of man-made

structures to one where its setting is

dominated by man-made structures.

And I can add some my words of my own

there. Basically, this is an

industrialization of the marine

environment. Mr.

>> Are you shortly coming to the end of

>> Okay. Yeah.

>> Yes.

So compare this to the aisle of man. We

have 81 square miles. We have turbines

which are 300 meters high which are six

miles offshore. Whereas the UK gu

national guidelines are for something of

this scale to be a minimum of 22 km

offshore. So every turbine virtually

every turbine that planned to site would

would be in contvention of the UK uh

well certainly the arrangements for for

2015.

So that that concerns me. Um

>> so I'm just conscious of times to um

enable everybody this evening to have

time this afternoon to speak to.

>> Can you say one more thing?

>> One more thing for sure.

>> Okay. It was also estimated in Dorset

that um the loss of revenue to local

businesses would be1 billion pounds

annually and loss of jobs mainly in the

turb sector 25,000.

Thank you. Thank you. And a few

questions if I may um

for you.

>> Does somebody just walk in?

>> And and so what I would ask is I am sure

that many of you are supportive of many

of the comments you would hear this

evening, but we would ask that you don't

clap after speakers, please. Thank you.

Um so a couple of things. UNESCO

Biosphere. Do you happen to know when

that was um signed up to within the

aisle of man?

>> Uh I should ask a government official

there

>> if you'd mind. Not now, but perhaps at

deadline one if you could just clarify.

>> Not off the top of my head.

>> That would be helpful.

>> And accepting of course the World

Heritage site at UNESCO is different

from the UNESCO biosphere.

Um would you again talk explain a little

bit more about the UK national

guidelines which you referred to at the

end. If you could provide a link or

reference to what they were that would

be hugely helpful.

>> Yes.

>> Thank you very much Mr.

>> Thank you.

>> And um may we please hear from Ian

Straford who I think is is standing in

for Amy Farger. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. Um, Ian Straford,

resident on the aisle of man. Um, quick

check by the way, 2016 biosphere.

Um, so I'm standing in for for Amy,

who's not able to speak today. Um and I

wish to just uh read out a a statement

here regarding the more van in agreement

for lease. Uh the reason I want to touch

on that is around the scope of the

project that's being considered. Um the

key benefits in particular that have

been purported in terms of financial uh

and also in terms of public engagement

or lack of

um so the more vaning agreement for

lease um this was signed with Dong

Energy uh back in 2015

um and this is the fundamental starting

point for this project. Okay. um that

agreement um and I'm uh this is based on

whatever publicly available data is

available through news reports uh etc

because as I'll come to later nobody is

allowed to see the agreement for lease

uh even freedom of information uh

requests are constantly denied

um but what we do know is that that uh

that agreement was for feasibility

studies for an offshore wind farm of up

to 700 megawatts

it was not for 1.4 gaw.

Um

as we know allstead are now presenting

proposals for a 1.4 gawatt wind farm. So

the question is is when did this change

in scope occur?

Uh when was it authorized under the

lease and when were the public consulted

on this significant scope change and how

was that decision authorized? Okay. And

I think that is a key requirement um and

something that we would request is

considered as part of this examining

body because it seems to be a very

significant change of scope from the

original intent for between actually a

350 and a 700 megawatt uh agreement for

research into that size of wind farm.

Uh we are aware [clears throat]

based on questions that were asked in

Tinwald that this lease reached its

10-year limit in 2025

um although it was extended by deed in

2017 out to 2030.

But a question was asked in Timwald um

of the Alaman government uh respons the

department responsible um what value had

been assigned to that lease in 10 years.

Uh the answer was £100,000 or

thereabouts u i.e£10,000 per year in

terms of payment that the Alaman

government had received. Um

we know that the lease was and I'll come

back to that point in one second. We

know that the lease was extended. We

know that the lease was also revised in

terms of option payments, socioeconomic

benefit requirements and key project

milestones and project requirements.

Um,

we are led to also understand that this

lease has not been seen by any members

of Tinald, our parliament, our MHKs, the

equivalent of members of parliament in

the UK, bar one. It has not been seen by

the chief minister, our equivalent of

your prime minister. It has not been

seen by the economic policy committee

and it has not been seen by the energy

strategy committee.

So it would appear that there has not

been any significant oversight of this

within our own parliamentary system that

we can see. But again I I I I'm clear

that this is despite asking questions

but there is no information particularly

forthcoming. So this is based on

questions asked within Tinwald.

Freedom of information requests as I

said to see the lease have been made but

they have been refused.

In the UK, the basics of the crown

estate leases are published. Financial

details are published. Developers who

competed for the leases and who won and

who lost are published

from that information that is published.

If I was to use the latest examples of

Morgan and Mona wind farms, um we would

know that the um the value that our our

agreement for lease has significantly

undervalued the market value of the

bank's territorial seas. Um, and I say

that purely on the basis of knowing that

the publicly available dation for the

crown estates shows 231 million pound

sign on fee for Morgan, 231 million sign

on fee for Mona um and then the ongoing

annual option fees compared to the man

receiving £100,000 over 10 years.

>> There is

>> Mr. Stafford, are you nearly at the end

of your representation?

>> I will be there soon. I know you are

speaking on behalf of

>> I am I will be there soon but trust me

I'll be there soon keep it concise be

helpful thank you

>> so there is no transparency of what this

lease may or may not bind the aisle of

man taxpayer to people in this room um

there appears to have been a significant

increase in scope without consultation

I therefore request and this is where I

come to please that in order for a fair

and transparent process to be evident

that the key aspects of value for money

because they are purported to be a key

benefit to the aisle of man from this

project. Risk aortionment in basic in

terms of what liabilities this project

could end up with for the aisle of man

taxpayer.

Key milestones and the consequences of

them not being met. What the

socioeconomic benefit assessments tell

us about this project and what

liabilities and commitments um have been

made on behalf of the aisle of man

taxpayer.

Um,

if these if this is to be a fair and

transparent examination on the basis of

the purported benefits to the aisle of

man of providing the UK with electricity

which are predominantly financial, then

it's important that these aspects are

considered as part of this examining

board. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Mr. Stafford. And if we could

ask, the way that we

listen to and report on what we hear is

very much an evidence-based process.

>> If there is anything that you can

provide relating to the matter that

you've raised this evening, that would

be very helpful to us understanding all

that you've said about it not being in

the public domain as per the crown

estate. But anything that would um

support your representation this evening

would be helpful to us.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Uh Minda Fa, please.

>> Can I just help myself to a bit of water

first?

>> Thank you.

>> You'll see I'm doing the same thing.

[laughter] Thank you. It's very warm in

here.

>> Take your time. Take your time.

>> Are you ready now?

>> Yes, as soon as you're ready.

>> So, um, Minda Farra, vice chairman of

golf commissioners, but speaking

>> I apologize for mispronouncing your

surname.

>> That's fine. Lots of people do. speaking

from my personal experience and

perspective as a man's qualified blue

badge guide today since for 30 years and

I also hold a master's degree in MS

studies in the light of the assertion by

Mua Vanon that its approach to their

environmental assessment is uniquely

Mans

have concentrated on M's identity what

it is can it be defined what contributes

to it or may diminish it and who has

been consulted on on this. This last

year I've led pilgrimage tours a growing

visitor interest worldwide to our island

and the visit to Kurt Mack is a musto

7th century monastic site on the

northern coast promonry where people

come year round to experience the

centuries old spiritual connection peace

beauty and tranquility as evidenced in

the visitor book. Mu Vanon's

environmental statement states that here

the impact of development will be

negligible.

Who have they asked about this? Where is

their research? And have they consulted

with the body, the organization which

represents historic Mackold, who have in

invested much time and effort in recent

years into researching and promoting

this ancient and unique Mans pilgrimage

site made famous by our island's patron

saint himself, Mackled.

Can you can they identify any other

sacred sites where wind farms have been

permitted in such close proximity,

please?

Many such sites are in isolated and

coastal positions like Mackold. How

would the Scottish government react if

something like this was planned

overlooking Iona? I wondered.

I also work with the visiting cruise

ships, the luxury expedition ships which

travel the world. They call in here

because of our island's distinct

identity and differences. It is a

growing business. These visitors will

have seen wind farms everywhere. Nothing

different here then. These are people

who come here to see our wildlife, to

walk our coastline and take photographs,

travel on the unique coastal railway and

admire the seven kingdoms from the top

of Snowfell. Views to the Lake District

most summer days. They are educated,

interested in environmental things and

how we manage conservation. If this goes

ahead, they may quote environmental

damage in other parts of the world,

whether factual or perceived. They will

ask me about our mans dolphins,

moonlight, and starlight. how they are

affected and the decline in coastal

nesting birds. They will ask me who is

benefiting from this. How will I answer

them knowing the differing scientific

opinions on environmental

um issues and the financial arrangements

yet to be determined? It's like manan's

mist. Another question then, have they

consulted our Mansbased cruise ship

management company to ask how they

perceive the industry which they and our

government have helped to grow will be

impacted by this? Have they asked any

local guides?

Nicola Dixon, the professional mans

artist, is quoted in the Mans Marine

Environmental Assessment 2018 on the

marine environment. It is far better,

she says, for the outside observer that

the aisle of man is home to its basking

sharks and wonderful scenery than its

banks, trusts, and online gambling. I

agree with her. How often have I had to

defend the island's reputation as a tax

haven? I work with these outside

observers. I have to try to put a

positive spin on things to promote the

island. It's my job. But how will I

answer their questions on this massive

development so close to our shores?

How have you allowed this to happen?

They will ask me. I will have similar

questions from those I lead on at our

walking festival who've traveled here to

enjoy our coastal our coastal walks.

This is not a uniquely Mans project. It

is uniquely non-Mans. It is in a danger

of altering our island character. It is

an invasion. Surely we have the chance

to protect what makes the island

special. Those things which identify us

our differences. What makes our island

stand out as a gem of God's earth? This

is what people come here for.

Have they consulted consulture culture

van on the subject of man's identity

then and how this development may impact

this? There are other bodies on the

island with an interest in the cultural

landscape and heritage, not just man's

national heritage. I feel this is vital

for the island going forward to the

preservation of our very sense of place.

Where is their survey of visitors to our

shores which may have provided some

evidence of impact the visitor numbers

which is the island is in um committed

to increasing. They simply state in

their EIA, a lack of data on tourism

assets, on usage of our public rights of

way, a lack of data on visiting cruise

ship numbers. They're easy to get. Is it

enough to say that government did not

reply to their questions? I cannot

believe that a discerning visitor would

choose a boat trip out to see a wind

turbine rather than a boat trip to have

an encounter with our dolphins.

Why don't they ask them? This should not

be a desktop job. The island deserves

much more. Have they ensured that

they've consulted with those with

specific MS and local knowledge and

experience? And surely this should have

been done at the formative stage of

these proposals to follow the gunning

principles which they mention volume one

chapter 6 page 10. What is the urgency

about? If this is driven by financial

gain, then to balance that, how can the

island afford to risk losing any of its

distinct identity?

>> Thank you very much. Um, a few questions

if I may. Um, what is a blue badge

guide? And forgive me if I should know

this.

It's a qualification um which is

particularly mank

you you have a blue badge for working

anywhere in the world or you can have

but mine is specific to working on the

aisle of man

>> and does that mean that you take groups

around the island so what what how does

it manifest itself if I can understand

>> I can take them anywhere um I'm

qualified to lead any trips anywhere on

the island so it'll be on a coach a lot

of the work I do these days is with the

cruise ships that come in and the p the

pilgrimage tours was new this year. I

was asked to do that. Um so I've done it

for 30 years. Lots of people earn a

living by it. Earn a living being a blue

badge guide on the island. I I I don't

I'm retired. Um so I do other things.

>> And you also refer to cruise ships and

data. If you again, you'll hear us say

this several times this this afternoon,

this evening. If there's any evidence

that you have available, would you

please send that to us at deadline one,

which is at the end of March? Again,

that's extremely helpful for us.

>> I could get those visitor numbers for

you.

>> Yeah, that be helpful. And just a small

point of clarification. Are you speaking

to us today as yourself or as part of

GAF commissioners? I wasn't quite clear.

>> I'm speaking I'm speaking as myself

because I wanted to bring something else

to the table that I I wasn't aware of

from the environmental impact

assessments.

>> Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you ever so

much.

>> And um now Richard Henthornne please.

Okay, I'm going to time myself because

I'm gonna have to just keep

[clears throat] a check. I I'm keeping

time. Thank you.

So, my name's Richard Henthornne. I'm

here this afternoon to represent both GF

commissioners and also, if I have time,

a minute at the end for my own personal

views, if I may. Following a public

meeting last year to uh gauge our

community's views on this proposal, GF

commissioners found that they shared the

concerns voiced by many residents and

I'd like to highlight some of those

concerns this afternoon. Others speaking

this afternoon, I'm sure we'll cover the

other concerns. The first and most

obvious concern of residents is the

devastating visual impact this proposal

will have on the coastline of GF. These

structures are obscenely huge and

overbearing, the largest ever created,

over a thousand foot high each one. They

will be viewable from the entire east

coast of the island, but will have a

particularly unavoidably oppressive and

overbearing presence on the entire g

seascape all the way to the top of

Snfel. They will become the eighth

kingdom of man, the kingdom of Orstead.

They will completely obliterate the

idyllic and tranquil sea views

experienced by all who visit the

beautiful little idyllic coves like

Corna, Port Moore and Dune. And I urge

the board, these uh panel members, if

you have time after these meetings to go

down to Corna and sit on the beach and

just see how absolutely beautiful it is.

The original scoping report document for

the island of man government fairly

casually says the approach to visual

receptors should be the same as those

used in the UK shoreline. What they are

saying here is that they haven't

identified their own approach. So

they're simply going to borrow one from

the UK. We are not the UK. However, in

the government's own landscape character

assessment document 2025, section H

states amongst other things these

fundamental facts. The key

characteristics of the cliffs and

headlines of GF are some of the most

spectacular and dramatic scenery on the

aisle of man. This is partially due to

the constant awareness and juxosition of

with the sea. These magnificent

panoramic views and sense of isolation

and tranquility are fundamental to M's

identity.

Mack's heads depth of landscape and lack

of modern elements gives views of an

everchanging seascape. Sometimes with

Scotland and England visible on the

horizon, the lighouses and headland are

striking landmarks from both the sea and

the dramatic views from the clifftops

and the coastal paths out to sea.

It is a dark skies area because of any

lack of light pollution.

These statements are from the

government's own landscape character

assessment document published in 2025.

It states our strategy to protect these

unique features in the island are the

views should be retained and care should

be taken to avoid any placement of

insensitive or intrusive features within

these views. Offshore wind farmed may

impact the views from the coast and on

the settings of coastal landmarks

introducing man-made elements into an

otherwise natural landscape. We should

avoid new developments which provide a

protrude above the skyline. We should

avoid light pollution from existing in

new developments. We should protect the

o undeveloped and open character of this

distinctive skyline and avoid

development which protrudes over them.

We should protect the dark skies. We

should protect the archeological and his

historical sites and their settings

resisting the introduction of new

features which could become distracting

elements within. For these reasons

stated in the government's own landscape

character assessment document alone,

this application should not get past the

consenting stage. Orstead's own

environmental impact which is buried in

their application technical papers

agrees with these statements saying that

Mack coastline is relatively modest in

scale and closely associated with the

open sea. There are long range and

expansive views from the coastline that

are dominated by the everchanging

eastern Irish sea. The effect of the

offshore array on the perceived

character of Dune Cornet and Mackled is

assessed as being major significant.

Laxi Bay

there is a distinct sense of place

derived from the shallow bay and its

contrast to the vast open expanse of the

sea. The distant coastline of England

encloses a long range and wide views out

to sea. The consistent rotor movement of

an offshore array would contrast with

the dynamic and remote appearance of the

sea from the clifftops.

The array would exert close range

influences on the coastal landscape and

for this reason the offshore array would

exert a relatively strong influence in

the area within Laxi Bay. The perceived

character of Laxi Bay is assessed as

major significant. It ends by saying the

effect of the offshore array would be

largely unprecedented due to the

apparent scale of the proposed turbines.

There would be artificial they would be

artificial structures in contrast to the

vegetated cliffs and the headlines which

uh promote a sense of remoteness and

seclusion. The artificial nature of the

proposed turbines would erode these

qualities along with natural qualities

of the coastal edge. The visual impacts

of the installation are considered to be

major and significant. Just by admitting

this instead's paperwork doesn't mean we

can tick the box and move on. It begs

the question, why are we even having

this conversation? As it's obvious that

what I've read out from this uh proposal

is completely unsuitable amongst our

coastal waters, both in terms of its

size, its proximity and the fact that

its primary generating power is for the

UK network. And apart from the unknown

financial details, it has very little

benefit for the aisle of man.

Unfortunately, I personally feel that

the present administration are so

financially and morally bankrupt,

they're willing to sell GF down the

river for what appears to be a very very

poor deal. And it's all down to money.

Whatever the deal is and whatever may

become or it's not worth selling our

heritage and our sense of man's nation

and giving up our long fought for Mans

territorial waters. G commissioners are

not against green energy or move uh

government net zero policy.

>> You there are you shortly to finish.

>> Yes, three lines. [laughter]

GF commissioners are not against green

energy or government's net zero policy,

but the dev devastation of G seascape is

too big a price to pay to achieve a

UK-based goal. If you the UK think these

wind farms are so great, why don't

install them right the way down white,

right up the mall to Buckingham Palace.

Try to imagine that. It would be an

uproar. It would be a monstrous

carbuncle. It's not acceptable for them

and it wouldn't be acceptable for us.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And as I said

before, no clapping, please. No, you

might want to, but please don't. But

before you before you disappear, Mr.

Henthornne, before you disappear, Mr.

Henthornne,

>> sorry,

>> I would be grateful if you'd return to

the table.

[laughter]

>> And indeed, we'd be very happy to

receive deadline one. Anything further

you wish to submit to us?

>> Yeah. But before you do that, you

referred to a public meeting to gauge

the feeling of people within GT on the

proposals.

>> Yes.

>> Again, for our benefit, if there is any

record of the meeting or anything that

happened at the meeting, notes,

whatever, if you could send that through

through to us at deadline one, that

would be extremely useful.

>> I'll ask the clerk of commissioners to

send through notes from it, I will. Yes.

Thank you. Um again there's a slight

ambiguity as to whether you were

speaking as yourself which I think you

were but I think whether you registered

[clears throat] as representing GF

commissioners. So a clarity on that

point would again be

>> I did I it's entirely um represented G

commission's views apart from the bit

where I personally said I thought the

government were morally and uh

financially bankrupt. [laughter]

That was my own that's my own view and I

stick and I stick by it.

>> Thank you.

>> They've seen the dollar signs.

>> Thank you very much.

And then let's turn to please Jim

McGregor.

>> Not really prepared. I haven't got any

papers here with me.

>> You don't have to have papers, but

that's

>> that's all right. That's good. So, my

name is Jim McGregor. Um, I'm a uh I've

got a geography degree, post-graduate

geography degree, and I've been teaching

geography on the islands for 28 years

now. Um but these are my own views not

anything to do with education. So just

make that clear. We've uh recently been

changed our syllabus uh that we teach

the students on the island. And one of

the big changes is change itself on all

the different aspects we look at in

geography is about changing coastlines,

changing rivers. Um so sustainability

clearly comes into everything and

we obviously have to teach and we're

surveyed by the governments and make

sure that we are teaching about

sustainability in amongst our syllabus

and one of the things that sort of comes

up is how do you put across

sustainability to the students now

sustainability should be about keeping

things for future generations and I

think already it's been made really

clear the point that the coastline here

is something unique. Um,

I personally am not against wind farms.

Now, I'm probably going to sound a

little bit like a ny now uh because I

live on Shore Road in Laxi. Um, and my

my bedroom looks straight out over Laxi

Bay. So, obviously I'm going to be

looking at wind farms very soon. But

it's really for me it's about the

location. I've canoed around the islands

a couple of times and so I've got a good

perspective of usually when you're

canoeing out you go across the bays

through the headlands. Um so we're

talking about sort of you know sometimes

two three miles out and quite honestly

from Laxi around to uh Ramsey is one of

the best bits of the coastline on the

Alaman.

Now, I actually got in touch with

Orstead and asked him about how many

properties would actually be looking out

onto the proposal. Um, I've got to say

it's a little bit flippant the answer

and that we don't have that data which I

think we've already heard from other

people before and I disagree with that

and that's what I that's really my main

request and my main reason for coming

today is to ask that actually as part of

the process can we actually get a proper

visual impact assessment of how many

properties on the island are going to be

seeing these turbines. Now I don't think

it's too difficult. We've got the the

mangus um map work on the Alaman and

with GIS you should be able to

accurately not maybe get every single

window but you should be able to get

every single property and how many will

see there and then maybe survey those

properties because of course they're the

ones that in sustainable terms it is

going to change no question about it and

I I find it quite difficult to I know

the benefits I know about that you know

the marine wildlife increases when you

build wind farm around the base of it

there's no fishing in the area, things

like that. I I get that. But like I said

before, canoeing around the islands, one

of the things that um do consider is I

actually made a suggestion and said I

really don't know. It's why it hasn't

been located maybe to the to the

northwest of the islands. As you can

round, you've got clay uh boulder clay

cliffs. And there's some places for

example Jerby Head you might get about

three or four isolated farmhouses which

have got a view out onto the the uh the

coastline. Now that's a very different

sort of relief for terrain compared to

Mold Laxi and down onto Enken where

we've got a large percentage of the

population even in Douglas of course

that are going to be looking at these

wind farms and I I I look out of my

window at night and I can see the

blinking of the the wind farm I don't

know the name sorry but the one in

Morinham Bay is it called Morin Bay um I

can see the red light sort of drinking

there that's a very very different

proposition it's already been

highlighted If you look at the the

leaflet, you look at the website, it's a

lovely image of Mac old head. Um, no

wind farms.

Surely we we've been a bit disingenuous

with the public and not sort of

highlighting what actually is going to

be looking like. Um, I went to the uh

the the meeting where I think it was in

the Laxi pavilions where you could put

on the VR headset and you could actually

see you could see from Ramsey, you could

see from Molds what they were going to

look at. It's quite horrifying and I

think there's a good reason why it

hasn't been promoted. So I'm a little

bit confused firstly with why it hasn't

been located somewhere where there is

very little in the way of visual impact

and they've chosen the one side of the

island. The only thing I can come up

with maybe I don't know about money and

things but I'm just wondering whether to

do with electricity connector cables. I

had a visit with the school students

down to uh Douglas Key the other day and

we visited the power station there

that's been converted where the um the

the cable comes ashore.

So presumably there's some connection

with it has to be on the east of the

island to connect with the cable but

that that's solvable in itself doing a

connector cable across the island if it

was located on the on the north um

northwest of the islands maybe sort of

chirby head that sort of area would have

a lot less impact. So I would request

that you know we look at properly at the

visual impact and how many properties

actually can see it. The other thing I

was just thinking about then I'm just

listening to um our commissioners there.

>> If I could just ask you to be concise on

any final points

>> about what say sorry

>> any final points if you could be concise

now.

>> Yeah. So um just the last thing I was

going to say is that um you know I was

just listening to commissioners there

and living in GA if I want to change my

windows I have to get planning

permission. I live in a conservation

zone. It is very stringent in our

conservation zone in old Laxi. Now it's

a little bit like I teach about

Antarctica. Antarctica the rules are

ridiculous. You cannot do hardly

anything at all in Antarctica. Of

course, there's nothing to do stop the

fishing. So when the krill are

overfished off the coast of Antarctica,

the impact of course affects everything

that's on Antarctica. you know, the king

of emperor penguins, everything else.

And I think there's some sort of analogy

there between that and what we're

looking at here with uh the wind farm in

the fact that we're very restricted on

the island and yet there's big

development plans for something that

seems like we don't have much control

over.

Thanks.

>> Thank you very much. Um and just a

couple of points that we I we should

make across um the room this evening.

the applicant is hearing what you're

saying and will be responding after the

public meeting at deadline one with any

of the comments that have been made in

response to those. And also earlier this

afternoon at the preliminary meeting we

um made a procedural direction about

accompanied site inspections and if

people have uh locations where they

would like us to visit on an accompanied

site inspection then please do let us

know. Um, thank you very much for your

representation, Mr. McGregor.

>> And then may I ask uh Ms. Newton to come

forward, please.

I won't cover the mic with my papers.

Sorry. [laughter] And if you would like

to [snorts] take a drink or anything,

please do.

>> My name's Patricia Newton. I'm a GF

resident. I'm also a town planner, but I

resigned my membership after 40 years.

Um, of the institute that is I've worked

on the man as a town planner for 36

years.

There's two considerations I want to put

before you. One is to do with the Morgan

wind farm. Obviously, I know the

proposed Morgan wind farm is not on the

island of Man, but it will be adjacent

or may be adjacent to us in the Irish

Sea. Most recently it was announced um

not by the proposers but by somebody um

the local MP who reported in the monks

press that Morgan Winfarm was the

operator was no longer going to go ahead

with our plans albeit they were

consented at the end towards the end of

last year.

However, um I understand that that

consent is personal to the operator but

can with the consent of the secretary of

state be phased be um passed on to

another operator or be at the marine

licens licenses with it can't

automatically be transferred.

I would hope the panel will look at this

proposal

um in terms of the cumulative

impacts it could have

um has oper implications for the

operational effectiveness of Moran wind

turbines the visual impact ecology and

shipping lanes in relation to more van

so I think albeit we don't know whether

it will be built or not I believe we

need to look at this along with um you

know the fact that the wind turbines are

the same height as proposed at Murana

they're proposed at Morgan the proposed

um an extension

the Morham field no sorry the Mona field

and possibly the Morham ones as well so

I think it's not it's not just that

um more van I think will become the

largest possible well possibly the

largest windtime turbine field in the

world because of its basically linked to

the Waln extensions and the wall wind

farms at the moment. um the it has to be

put looked at in the wider context of

the Irish Sea. And if as you do if you

do, as I suggested this morning, take

the opportunity to cruise across the

Irish Sea, um the Irish Sea is just

going to become a sea of wind turbines.

And the Irish Sea is the worst worst sea

in the world. And any ship captain will

tell you that the because of it is so so

shallow, it is rough. And the sea um the

ferry links, boat links have to have the

ability to alter their routes um to cope

with conditions. Albeit at the moment,

as we've found in the mand, they're more

likely to cancel the sailings. But

um the other points I mainly want to

make of I think have primarily already

been made. It's a visibility of the um

wind turbines. I know from your list

you've seen a lot of the viewpoints

suggested by the operators but most of

those are sitting at low level. I would

hope and I will be suggesting other

viewpoints for you to look at which link

to both the

um historical and archaeological

importance of sites which basically

because man is an island their history

and their archaeology link to the fact

that it is an island and to the sea and

that opened sea which will not become

come open if this proposal goes ahead.

I think some of the other viewpoints

of obviously again have been mentioned

the Grow Glenn Railway, the Max Electric

Railway. I invite you to have trips

along the whole of the the length of

those railways because I do it regularly

certainly in the ms electric and the

comments from people

you you point out viewpoints to them but

you hear their comments all the time on

this coastline.

So, and the final bit I would refer you

to which I can hopefully get more papers

about and excuse my um Welsh

pronunciation.

Is it Ollie Moore Moore? Um I'm not

sure. Aw.

[laughter]

>> Um turbine farm.

This one was reduced from I believe

around 90 to 50 well between 32 and 50

turbines.

The reason it was reduced was because of

the adverse comments he got at public

consultation.

That public consultation was undertaken

by the operator before submitting the

application.

So basically they reduced down a huge

amount because of adverse comment and

the adverse comment was on this impact

on the seascape and the adverse impact

on tourism and recreation.

What we have here is we've got a reduced

number but it's come down from about 98

or something to 87 as a result of public

consultation.

And it was not clear the height of these

turbines at the beginning. They are

three times the height of existing

turbines in the Irish Sea. Albeit other

fields have also been proposed to have

1,000 ft and that's to the blade tip.

It's not to the not to the hub or um

which

>> may I may I ask if you're nearly

finished?

>> That is it basically. So

>> thank you. And um just in reference to

one of your points earlier, we did

indeed um walk down the Grower Glenn

Railway. Of course, there were no trains

on it at the time, but we have walked

along there, so we know exactly where

you're

>> um but thank you very much for your

representation this evening.

>> Ren, I think Mr. Smith has one question.

Before you disappear, um I will

flag the fact that we are taking a

careful note of matters in relation to

navigation and navigational risk for all

classes of vessel in the Irish Sea and

we are conducting this week um specific

issue hearing number three that will

start the process of unpacking the

applicant's approach to the assessment

of navigational risk. Um I would given

your given your interest in that two

things. If you have specific

observations to make on it that might

assist us then please do put something

in at deadline one but secondly for your

own interest and background um either

attend or alternatively um watch online

or or or the recording of specific issue

hearings three because we will be

investigating those matters with some

level of detail

>> come throughout the inquiry. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Thank you very much Miss Newton. And um

at that point I will um invite uh Ms.

Miss Ward and

>> uh I'm meant to be leading these items I

believe. Um Miss Fernandez um if we can

just transition now. I believe Rachel

Ward

representing BAE Systems and Alistister

Old representing NATS on route um

safeguarding air traffic services. they

were due to be appearing virtually. If I

can just do a final check with case

team, see that they're not in the

virtual room and just to check to see if

they've managed to find their way into

the back of the room without announcing

their presence. I don't believe they're

here. So, items seven and eight on this

evening's agenda. Therefore, ladies and

gentlemen, we will move past.

Um,

can I then invite Miss Janet Clark,

please, to come forward?

>> Good afternoon.

>> Good afternoon, Miss Clark.

>> Um, I am a Mans. I'm Janet Clark. I'm

Mans. Um, I have a physics background uh

with post-graduate qualifications and

research papers in medical and social

science.

I'd like to address this question to the

applicant or Stead through the examining

authority.

This project like most largecale

renewables is managed through a special

purpose vehicle. A company that can be

sold, restructured or wound up during or

after construction. That structure

protects investors but not necessarily

the host community.

Across the sector, we've seen what

happens when markets change. Vassenfall

abandoned its Norfolk Bore project in

Britain. Agrid withdraw from the

Commonwealth wind in Massachusetts. And

BP and Ecuinor terminated their Empire

Wind contracts in New York. Even

Olstead, the world's largest offshore

wind developer, has canled or withdrawn

from major projects in New Jersey,

Maryland, Norway, and Britain's horse

horn Cy 4 after recording over 7 billion

pounds in writeowns and an approximately

80% share price collapse since 2021.

Last year, its own government

shareholder in Denmark was forced to

inject new capital and underwrite a

rights issue to maintain solvency. A

level of bailout the man could never

duplicate. For a community of 85,000

people, a collapse on that scale would

be devastating.

Therefore through you chair may I ask

the applicant willstead go beyond the

standard industry practice and commit to

fully funded inflation linked bond to be

held and administered by the aisle of

man government together with a binding

parent company guarantee fromstead

ensuring that all construction

decommissioning and environmental repair

costs are covered should the SPV that is

the special purpose vehicle or its

parent entity fail. To avoid any

misunderstanding, it would be helpful if

the applicant's written response could

address this question directly instead

of referring only to standard procedures

or general industry practice. Standard

approaches elsewhere rarely require a

locally administered parentback bond.

The request here is for a specific

enforcable condition that ring fences

the full liability within a secured

local instrument rather than a revocable

corporate undertaking. This is not an

obstacle to development. It is a basic

prudence. If all cannot make that

commitment, it would raise serious

concerns [clears throat] about the

project's financial resilience and its

capacity to protect the island from

unfunded liabilities in future. Thank

you.

>> Thank you very much, Miss Clark. Now, um

I will just briefly explore um the

underlying issue there, which is your

your concern about the financial

>> I will do my best to respond, but I I'm

I'm I'm I'm got a big a big hearing loss

and and and the speed the sound is a

little bit distorted for me.

>> Okay. Well, I will do my

>> I have got I have got the references of

the different

>> Excellent

>> there. And I can hand them to you now or

I can send them in. send them in at

deadline one. And I will also indicate

that one of the dimensions of the

proposal in front of us that we are in

the process of investigating is the

financial relationship between the

proposed development um and its ability

essentially to pay its way. Um the

applicant has offered to prepare what is

referred to as a funding statement. Um

and that was an offer that was put into

us in the preliminary meeting this

morning. We haven't received it yet. It

is likely to arrive at deadline one. And

again, my suggestion would be that you

also review that document when it

arrives because it may address some of

the points that you have raised.

everything you said, but I'll I'll watch

the the recording. Thank you very much.

>> Thank you very much.

>> I raise a point forward, please.

>> Uh, yes, by all means.

>> Can I just ask you to come forward and

use the microphone so that you're on the

recording and then to introduce yourself

by name, sir?

>> Jamie Smith. Um, I am a GF Commissioner,

but this is just a personal point and I

apologize for the interruption. I am

concerned that you you've mentioned that

two of your speakers haven't been able

to join virtually. There is only one

person in the room at this morning's

session. There were literally dozens in

the room. I realize there's a live

streaming as well. Are you not concerned

that people are unable to connect?

>> Um there is a possibility that there may

be a technical issue. What we will ask

the case team to do is to make contact

with the individuals who did register

for virtual connection. Um and if it has

turned out that they have been unable to

connect because of matters beyond their

control, then we will of course make the

arrangements that we need to make to

bring them back into a later event. But

I think it's fair also to observe that

whilst we did have many registrants for

virtual attendance this morning and as

far as we could tell they all were able

to attend um this afternoon we haven't

had as many registrants. So their

absence um may turn out to be oversight.

It may turn out to be uh to be to be

blunt with you sir the two individuals

concerned represent two corporate

entities. um for whom there may be other

dimensions in this examination that will

bring forward their views either written

questions from us or possible later

hearings I don't know

>> I was just concerned that there might be

other people as well who would want to

listen but okay I apologize for the

interruption

>> just on that matter um is my microphone

on that matter um it's a good point um

and if we were to take a break this

evening That is a matter we'll

investigate and um look into um because

I think the point is well made. There

are a few virtual attendees and I'm

looking at the register um who appear to

have not turned up. So thank you very

much for bringing that to our attention.

>> I understand three virtual registries in

total.

>> Okay. Thank you very much for that

point. We as as Mahai has committed we

will investigate it. Now, we do have a

request to be heard from Mr. Ian

Straford.

On this occasion, Mr. Straford, not

representing another person, but

speaking on your own behalf. I will make

the point, by the way, that we don't

normally allow double representation in

public meetings. We normally ask people

to make their point and then in fairness

distribute the time so that everybody

who has to speak can speak. But equally,

it is fair and correct that somebody can

represent somebody else who is unable to

be with us. So, Mr. Strafford, you were

representing somebody else. You're now

representing yourself. Please do come

forward.

Thank you very much. Um, yes, Ian

Straford representing myself. Um I'm

conscious that uh many other people

actually explained what their background

is. Um and I haven't. Um I hold a

mathematics degree. Uh I um am

experienced in writing complex nuclear

safety cases for nuclear facilities. Uh

and have spent 32 years in the nuclear

industry.

Um I'd like to just touch on two points

if I may. One around the biosphere. I

appreciate it's been mentioned earlier,

but there are some additional points I'd

like to make. and one around the uh

renewable energy net zero claims. Um in

terms of um the biosphere for context um

the project being considered um in terms

of percentage of territorial seas to

give a a an understanding of size and

scale. We're talking about consenting a

project which is the equivalent of five

times the current installed capacity in

the UK in one go in terms of what it

covers. um in the fact that this will

cover around about 5% or so of our

territorial seas and currently about 1%

of the UK's territorial seas are covered

through offshore wind farms. So this is

a huge deal in terms of scale and that

relates to our biosphere. The project

claims that this is aligned with the

aisle of man's UNESCO biosphere aims.

Um, as I said earlier, we became a

UNESCO whole nation biosphere, including

our territorial seas in 2016. And this

is a key selling point for the aisle of

man and therefore incredibly important

to the aisle of man, both the tourism

and indeed what our nation is about uh

in terms of ecological sustainment,

sustainable living and development and

so on.

I believe that this project has the

potential to significantly damage our

UNESCO biosphere status.

The aims of our biosphere are well

publicized. Examples are an aim of our

biosphere is to celebrate and promote

all that is special about the aisle of

man and its surrounding seas. This is

not aligned to that aim.

An aim of our biosphere is to celebrate

and contribute to our sense of place.

Destroying the unique seascape along the

eastern seabboard is not aligned to that

aim.

An aim of our biosphere is to contribute

to preserving and enhancing our land and

seascapes and biodiversity.

This project is not aligned to that aim.

An aim of our biosphere is to encourage

people to live in, work in, and visit

the aisle of man. This project is not

aligned to that aim.

An aim of our biosphere is to connect

people with nature and their

surroundings.

This project is not aligned to that aim.

An aim of our biosphere is to recognize

and value the environmental, social, and

economic benefits we gain from our

natural systems. This project is not

aligned to that aim.

And an aim of our biosphere is to engage

our population on issues and challenges

relating to conservation,

sustainability.

And I would contend this project has not

effectively engaged with the population

of this island. It has not effectively

explained what this will mean, what it

will look like. You've heard about that

before. And whilst there has been, I

will call it publicized material,

beautiful uh posters down at the

airport, which I'm sure you've all seen,

showing the beautiful headlines uh

headlines of Mackled um with a few

throwaway benefit potentials, but not

really showing the true reality of what

is proposed to be delivered. I would

argue that is not effective engagement

and allowing true public consultation.

Our biosphere status celebrates what

makes us special. It tells the world we

care about it.

We have a conscience and are committed

to sustaining it.

Irelands need to be more self-reliant

than other jurisdictions. Establish a

local perspective on sustainability and

find local solutions to local

sustainability issues.

delivering power in the latter half of

the 2030s when the island is legally

committed already to have clean power by

2030. This is not a local solution to

local issues. This is a UK solution to a

UK issue.

Construction, operation, and

decommissioning furthermore of more van

will add significantly to the aisle of

man's carbon footprint

whilst the UK offsets its own.

We know that construction is estimated

at 5.8 million tons of carbon footprint.

The aisle of man from its electricity

generation creates about 200,000 tons of

carbon dioxide equivalent. But by 2030

is aiming to be zero.

So this does add to our carbon footprint

whilst offsetting the UK.

>> Mr.

>> Yeah.

>> Can I ask you now?

You can but I have got a second point

and it is important. Um so I request

that the examining board seriously

consider the aspect which is unique for

any application of this type less the

aisle of man risk losing the hard one

and internationally significant

environmental status of our biosphere.

The second point which I'll come to very

quickly for you which I've probably

touched on some of it already is the

project claims to support our renewable

energy and near net net zero targets.

It's not scheduled to be connected to

the UK grid until 2037 according to the

tech database of NISA.

We will be carbon zero by 2030 under our

climate act.

It therefore does not support the aisle

of man renewable energy targets.

Moranning does not support net zero

because the electricity exported to the

UK will displace UK carbon emissions and

according to IPCC conventions this

cannot be claimed therefore displace is

of man emissions

and the aisle of man can't claim

offsetting until it's followed the

carbon hierarchy of avoid reduce and

replace and only then can it claim for

those emissions that cannot be avoided

for carbon offsetting but more vanimin

will not be able to do that because they

have already been claimed named D.

>> I'm going to go to my final point and

then I will shut up. I promise.

>> I do have to speak at the same time as

well. So very very conclusion now. So my

final conclusion is

um and I mentioned it this morning

other options have been considered as

far as the aisle of man is concerned and

I asked that those those five Arab

considered and I have sent the report to

uh Tom uh with respect to um how we meet

net zero how the aisle of man's local

solution is delivered on a local basis

as opposed to the authorizing the

construction of an offshore wind farm.

to provide electricity and net zero to a

different nation from the aisle of man.

>> I'll leave it at that.

Yes.

relications

that you would like to make. Apologies

if I've been switched off. If you've got

observations that you would like to make

in relation to those matters, then

please do put them in at deadline one.

But I would also direct this point to

the applicants and ask them to address

um the relevance and the weight to be

ascribed to the biosphere designation in

their written response to this evening's

proceedings.

Thank you very much. And on that basis,

I'm going to hand over to Miss Pel.

>> Mr. Smith, I think the early part of

that recording was not heard, but maybe

just summarize again for the audio

because those listening online, I think

didn't hear.

>> Indeed. Well put. um just to say that in

hearing Mr. Straford he made extensive

um reference to the um UNESCO biosphere

status of the aisle of man and what we

have therefore asked him to do is to put

to us any observations that he might

have about the relevance and weight in

policy terms that we might accord in our

recommendation um to those matters um

when we finally make our report. but

also to ask the applicant to provide the

same comment in writing when they

respond to this matter um at deadline

one. So those opportunities are both

there.

Now can I hand over to Miss Panel

please?

>> Thank you Mr. Smith. I think it's um an

crane. Is it an crane?

While you get yourself settled, I just

wanted to pull together the points that

the panel are making in terms of

three things. One is that the applicant

is recording and responding to the

issues you're raising. The second thing

is that Sorry,

>> yeah, I think we missed Mr. Dugen.

>> Oh, did we?

>> We can go to him after just

>> Mr. Dugen, do you mind if you come after

an crane? Would that be all right? He's

attending virtually.

>> He's attending virtually. I'm hoping

that he'll give a thumbs up. I can't

actually see the screen.

>> If I just continue what I was just

summarizing that um the applicant will

be responding to the issues you're

raising today and that as we keep

saying, if you have any additional

information over and above your

consultation responses, then please do

if you think that they'll be useful to

us, submit them at deadline one. And the

third thing is that as Ren was saying

there's a issue specific hearing on

Friday on shipping and navigation. So do

look at the timetable which was in the

regul regulation 32 letter because that

will tell you when issue specific

hearings are coming up. So there issue

specific issues to use the word twice

that you want to raise then you're very

welcome to attend those as well. It's

not just limited to this public hearing.

So we do want to hear what people have

to say and take it on board and consider

it as part of the examination.

Um so an if you'd like to start that'd

be great. Thank you so much.

>> Pastor Mai good afternoon and thank you

for the opportunity to speak to you this

afternoon. My name is Anne Crane. I am a

resident of Mackled Parish and the

sheeting of GF.

I am a past member of Timwald where I

served as education minister and

minister for the treasury. I'm also

along with Mirinda a blue badge guide.

Much has been made in the accompanying

procedural papers of this hearing to the

uniquely a Mans approach to be adopted.

Well, I am one of those who is uniquely

Mans and my family have lived in the

same farm Balofail just south of Mackled

Head for 300 years.

We have to the back of us the Balafail

Ken, a Neolithic tomb dating from 25,500

to600 BC.

And we have within sight of that Ken one

of the island's most outstanding and

best preserved ancient monuments, Castal

Linard.

This monument dates from around 2,000 BC

and was a megalithic chambered k such as

we used for communal burial places of

Neolithic chieftains and their families.

Along this stretch of coastline we have

many such kes east balotessan the bariny

kilwura to name but a few which bring a

rich sense of spirituality to our

community.

As we turned to the sixth century and

the arrival of St. Mackold so mackled

became the birthplace of Christianity in

the aisle of man.

It became a time of pillage and

monasteries such as that of Mackold were

frequently robbed.

By the 8th century, the Norsemen

arrived, plundering our coast. There is

a Gaelic verse written which translated

tells that comfort can be taken from the

storms of the night because it will

prevent pirates from approaching the

shore. It reads, "The wind is boisterous

tonight. The white hair of the ocean is

tussled. I do not fear that there may

come across the Irish Sea hordes of

fierce Vikings.

Unfortunately, it takes more than stormy

weather to hold them back today. But

what was created as a result was a

unique system of watch and ward with

stations or forts the length of the

coast. Mackled Head being one that were

established to protect our shores from

marauders.

That of Gobner Garvin south of Mackled

Head is cited on an Iron Age promonary

fort.

The establishment of the mustering

cross, a burning cross that was

delivered around the islands watch and

ward outpost to call for help was a

uniquely mans act and still within the

powers of the captains of the parishes

that date back to the 15th century.

We are steeped in history. The poet John

Bcherman said of our cha churches, "They

may lack architectural distinction, but

they have a stormresisting prayer soaked

holiness about them."

It's against the backdrop of this

ancient heritage that your decisions are

set today.

In 1991,

in impassion debate, the territorial

seas consequential provisions act was

passed in order to extend and secure our

marine limit to 12 miles.

It was done to enable us to have greater

strength to command what happens to the

marine environment around the island and

enables us to collect fees and issue

licenses.

It also affords us a level of protection

from those who would choose to exploit

the beauty and natural resources of our

island.

We've seen this kind of approach before.

One such was an American company who

back in the 1960s

made a strong bid to develop an oil

refinery at the point of air.

As can be seen today, they were

thankfully unsuccessful.

But there have been others who have come

and who have gone.

To allow our island home and ancient

heritage to sit against a wall of

oversized in height and number wind

turbines is obscene. Would this be

acceptable on this scale at Stonehenge?

Go on your location visits, walk the

mackle bruise, visit Balafale, Ken and

Castonard and get an understanding of

what is being proposed here and the

impact that these tea turbines will do

to our soul.

This development would have an

unacceptable sacriiggious impact on our

cultural heritage. The benefits to us

are minimal. Looking elsewhere, the

proliferation of wind farms is a blight

on the landscape. We cannot allow that

to happen here. There are alternatives

that over time will come to fruition.

I'll close by quoting our national poet

TE Brown who said that there are things

that are not for the mart of commerce

and this is one of them. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much. That was really

helpful, informative. There was two

things um if I may. Um I think we're um

we really recognize the importance of

uniquely mans and that's something that

is on the agenda for the issue specific

hearing on Thursday. So we we are we do

recognize it. Uh the second thing is

that you've presented a lot of um

important historical and unique context

to the application. So if you are able

to submit that at deadline one

>> um then we'd be grateful because it does

provide information to us that we can

take into consideration as part of the

examination. So thank you. That was

really helpful. Really helpful.

>> I think it's Jeffrey Alan Dugen next

who's online. I can't actually see the

screen. Is he there?

>> If you could turn your camera on, Mr.

Doug.

>> Um

>> perfect.

>> This you got it. I I'm We can see and

hear you. Yes. That's brilliant.

>> Are you able and ready to start your

>> I am. Yes. Can you see? Can you Can you

hear me?

>> We can hear you. Yes, we can hear you

very well. I can't quite see you because

I'm behind a screen.

>> Can you see me? Yes,

>> I can see you now. Yes. Excellent.

>> Okay.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Um my name is Jeffrey Dugen.

Um I am a man citizen, albeit I now live

on the mainland. Um

before I'm now fully retired, but before

I retired I was um in construction. I

was a chief design manager for design

and build contracts.

I fully support net zero and the

transition to clean energy. However, I

do have significant concerns regarding

the more valid proposals and the narrow

focus on the environment and economic

assessments.

>> [clears throat]

>> I still have family living on the island

and I visit at least twice a year. On

doing so, I'm sure I see the island

as many tourists do, which is a little

oasis mostly unspoiled by the modern

world. Indeed, it is a gem in the Irish

Sea.

The island of man UNESCO biosphere

status and its 212 million pound annual

tourism industry

are built upon a pristine coastal

character.

each replacement of unspel horizon with

an array of 87 turbines each 350 m high

and chapter 3 it refers to this with a

western boundary just 6.5 miles of

knackled head comprising 12 to 15

turbines represents a permanent

industrialization and degradation of a

finite national asset

for which the proposed 1.5 million

annual UAL community fund is not a

benefit but a wholly inadequate

inadequate attempt to mitigate the

irreversible environmental

degradation.

I believe the island's 2030 target

should be viewed as a policy goal not as

a mandatory deadline that justifies

environmental destruction.

By rushing we are precluding cleaner

more compact technologies.

While the island moved away from nuclear

in 2021,

that stance predate predates the

viability of small modulate reactors,

SMRs,

which now form part of the UK's 2026

energy strategy.

An SMR provides a firm 247 base load

with a footprint of just 0.04 square

miles

compared to the 82 square miles required

for this wind farm.

This is far a far less destructive path

to decarbonization

that does not require fossil fuel backup

when the wind doesn't blow.

An alternative solution would also be to

have a connector to the one wind farm.

Why doesn't all extend the Walnik wind

farm instead of building this horrendous

87 turbines array of tur array off our

coastline.

Environmentally the underwater

construction noise and vibration will

drastically damage the seabed ecosystem.

While our dead suggest foundations act

as reeves, these are often colonized by

non-native species. disrupted our native

ecology.

Chapter 8 refers

above the water. The collision hazard to

bird populations along the northeast

coast is critical. Mackled head is home

to the island's largest comrant colony

alongside puffins and kitty wakes. These

are sensitive receptors, chapter 9

refers, that face displacement or death.

The iron man carbon footprint is only

0.0001%

of the total global carbon output. Is

the mice government prepared to

sacrifice these precious habitats for

this small amount of carbon?

The nighttime impact of the red medium

intensity aviation lights chapter 15

refers will destroy the dark sky and

nighttime horizon.

The UNESCO biosphere is not just for

land but also for the night sky.

The existing photo montages are not very

clear, especially those at night. And I

consider more highresolution photo

montages should be produced.

In addition, and I think it's already

been mentioned, I urge the examiners to

view the pristine coastline that will be

lost not only from Mackled Head, but to

view it from a higher point like North

Peru or Snakefell because from a higher

point you see the full depth of the

array. You'll see the full depth of

these 87 turbines. So in conclusion um

Mr. Chairman I ask the examiner body to

consider whether the island of man is

truly being offered a partnership or

merely a payout for the destruction of

its greatest asset. If we allow this 350

meter industrial the industrial array to

permanently alter our UNESCO biosphere

and our seabed and our skyline for such

a disproportionately small return. We

aren't just losing our horizon. We are

signed up to a blind bargain with no

guarantee of restoration.

I urge you to recommend the council of

ministers rejects this proposal as an

unacceptable compromise of a man's

heritage and to seek other less

intrusive technologies and preserve our

coastline in perpetu in perturity. Thank

you.

>> Thank you, Mr. Doug. And that was really

helpful, really informative. You've

raised some core issues for the

examination. Things like landscape and

visual which was forming an integral

part of it. Design, appearance,

engineering, energy. They're all really

valuable and important issues that we're

addressing as part of the examination.

And also ecology and particularly

kittywake. So ecology is a big feature

of the issue specific hearing on

Thursday. So I can assure you that all

the issues you've raised have been

incorporated and will be included in the

examination process. Thank you. Okay.

>> Thank you.

Yeah, sure. Go. And Monica, sorry. The

chair would like to comment.

>> Thank you for that representation, Mr.

Dugen. And not just um uh based on your

representation, but based on a few that

have been made today. I did have a

request from the applicant. Uh can I get

a show of hands um from who's present

here from the applicant?

Okay, thank you. Um just there's several

reps today about the scale of the

project and it's not just spatially but

also in terms of the energy generation

um you know the maximum energy

generation that the uh that um you know

that could be provided um with this

development. Um and what a lot of

representations have said today uh is

that this is more than what compared to

what um principal stakeholders or rep

representations today claim is needed by

the island. I think what would be really

helpful is if you could pick that point

up um on its own and provide a

justification and a policy context

um for why that scale in terms of number

of turbines the order limits itself um

offshore uh and the energy generation

capacity that you've chosen what is the

justification for that

okay applicants nodding for this is for

the recording applicants nodding that

they will provide this for us.

>> Uh deadline one. Apologies. Yeah.

So I think the next person is is it

Janet Clark now representing David

Crane. Perfect. If you'd like to come

forward. Welcome. Make yourself

comfortable.

>> Thank you.

>> Sorry.

>> I'm Janna Clark. Hello. Thank you.

>> If you'd like to start when you're

ready, that'd be great.

>> Sorry.

>> If you'd like to start when you're

ready, that'd be great.

>> Oh, thank you. [laughter]

Um, I'm speaking in the time slot which

was originally reserved for Mr. David

Crane. And this relates to a matter of

governance and transparency.

Over the past decade, several

international policy and finance

networks, including the UN Global

Compact, the International Renewable

Energy Agency, the World Bank's Climate

Investment Funds, the World Economic

Forum, and the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development have become

closely involved in developing the

frameworks which now shape the

renewables industry. Many of the same

corporations that helped design those

frameworks, including Orstead, now

participate and profit from them

commercially. That's perfectly lawful,

but without transparency, it can blur

the distinction between policy influence

and commercial interest.

In light of the recent resignation of

the World Economic Forum's chief

executive and Orstead's ongoing role as

a World Economic Forum partner and as a

participant in its responsible

renewables infrastructure coalition and

the First Movers Coalition, this seems

an appropriate moment to strengthen

public safeguards. May I therefore ask

the examining authority to require that

all organizations involved in the

project including developers,

consultancies,

departments, examining officers and

invited stakeholders to formally declare

any current or recent partnership,

memberships or funding relationships

with such international policy bodies

over the past five years. A simple

public register showing both connections

and the absence of connections would

demonstrate that decision makingaking

here is fully independent of global

policy alliances and that public

governance remains separate from private

influence. Transparency at this level is

not a criticism. It is a practical

assurance for everyone involved. Thank

you very much.

I've got my references as well I can

send in.

>> That's perfect. Thank you. That was

really helpful. If you can send them in,

that'd be great.

>> That was really helpful. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> I'll now hand over to the chair.

Thank you, Miss Powell.

Um, can I invite uh Miss Kate Greavves?

Did I pronounce your name correctly?

Okay,

you have five minutes, Miss Greavves.

>> Thank you.

>> Um, so I'm Kate Greavves. I'm a resident

of um G Mold in particular. Um,

>> and I'm here representing myself members

as a member of the public.

>> Could you pull the microphone closer to

you?

>> Excuse me. Yeah, it needs to be quite

close.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Okay. Is that better?

>> No. Is [laughter] it on?

>> Hello.

give your name and title.

>> Uh my name is Kate Greavves.

>> Um and I'm here um representing myself

as a member of the public. I live in

Mold in G um along with my family and

I've been a Mans resident for 30 years.

Um, I'm an accountant by trade and my

points are fairly brief, but they are

specifically surrounding the um, largest

benefit to the island that has been

advertised recently and um, shared with

the banks public.

>> We can't hear.

>> Sorry,

just speak

>> closer.

>> Yeah, closer.

>> Okay.

Um, I would like to raise questions

regarding the 2 billion pounds income

figure that has predominantly been

referenced in public communications as a

key benefit of this proposal to to the

island. Um, in the absence of any

benefit of fuel or um security fuel

security for the island, this seems to

be the biggest benefit that I can see in

the documentation.

Um the projected financial benefit

appears to be relied upon in justifying

the scale of the development as well and

I believe it is relevant to the panel to

understand the basis and the certainty

of that figure of that income to the

aisle of man. So I would like the

applicant to confirm when the 2 billion

pounds figure was first calculated and

whether it's been updated to reflect

current market conditions and inflation.

If so when was that updated? Uh, is the

figure derived specifically from the

projected seabed rental payments and

taxation payments or is there something

else that's included within that figure?

Um, is the 2 billion pounds a guaranteed

contractual income to the aisle of man

or is it a projection that's dependent

on assumptions such as electricity

prices, generation, output, and export

agreements?

Is it a figure that's been expressed as

a gross lifetime receipt or is it a net

benefit after accounting for additional

public costs such as regulatory

oversight, environmental monitoring,

administrative resources, infrastructure

upgrades and decommissioning

supervision? If it is growth, has any

net net impact assessment been

undertaken? And if so, can this be

provided?

And could the applicant explain how the

2 billion pounds income is expected to

arise over time? Is the income profile

relatively even across the 35 year

operational life or is it weighted

towards later years?

If the majority of the income is

projected in later years, how does this

affect the certainty of the figure given

market volatility and policy change

risk? Has the figure been discounted to

present value using a net present value

methodology? And if so, what discount

rate has been applied?

In recent communications, it's been

suggested that all costs will be borne

by the developer. Will the applicant

clarify when whether any costs

associated with bringing the electricity

on shore should it be brought on shore

including grid reinforcement or

integration with the bank system any

substations that need to be constructed

and so on. Will this be born by the

developer or will this fall directly or

indirectly to M's utilities or the

bank's taxpayers?

And finally, it's been stated that

approximately 1.5 million pounds per

year may be available in the first 15

years through community benefit benefit

mechanism.

Is there any additional provision for

compensation where residents can

demonstrate material financial loss or

adverse impact arising from the

development

given that the financial projection is

being presented as a significant public

benefit to justify the long-term

environmental impact? Um, would the

applicant be prepared to publish a

transparent breakdown of the calculation

model used to derive this two million

pound billion pound figure?

Thank you,

Miss Greavves. There was

those are really um really good points

and just to assure you that several of

these points um are being covered

tomorrow at specific issue hearing one.

Um and whatever the the uh applicant

shares with us then because we will be

seeking some justifications and further

information on uh some of these matters

um whatever uh there will be follow- on

questions from that in written questions

as well. So just to assure you that the

matters are being covered uh there.

>> Thank you. The 1 million pound 1.5

million pound community benefit is a

matter that we will cover through

written questions and not necessarily

through um the um uh through the

hearings.

Um

there is a certain limitation to the

scope of this examination. So there are

certain matters that we of course it's

within our power to ask the applicant to

provide because we need that

justification in order to ultimately

make the case to the council of

ministers. And I think a lot of what

you've said is within the scope of the

examination. There are some matters

outside the scope of the examination. So

bear with us if we are unable to uh

explore some of those matters. But um

but as I said a lot of those matters are

within the scope of this examination. Um

I'm just going to wait to see if any of

my colleagues have questions.

>> Okay. Uh good. I

>> thank you.

>> Thank you very much Greavves. I will um

invite the next speaker. We've got Miss

Georgina O. Sullivan.

Good evening, Miss O Sullivan. Uh you

have five minutes whenever you're ready.

Good evening. My name is Georgina

O'Sullivan. I'm here to discuss

procedural fairness and natural justice.

Let me preface my comments and say I'm

here in the capacity of a fair-minded

and impartial observer. I am not a

lawyer, just a local GF resident. These

are my concerns and opinions and my

remarks in no way are meant to impugn

the examiner's abilities.

I'm questioning the procedure and

process under which they were retained

by the aisle of man government.

The Marine Infrastructure Management Act

requires an independent examining body.

In simple terms, that means to me the

people sitting at the table should have

no skin in the game. They should be like

a jury, neutral and objective. But when

we look at the composition of this

panel, it's difficult to see how that

standard is met. Three of the four

people appointed to judge this

application are senior leaders at the

same private company, Infrastructure

Matters. This isn't a diverse group of

independent experts. It's a firm

majority.

If three people from the same office are

making the decisions, there is a risk

that the fourth person becomes a

passenger.

To a regular person, it appears that the

independent check has been concentrated

within a single commercial interest.

Now, let's look at the commercial nature

of infrastructure matters. They

advertise. They help applicants get

approval. Their website highlights their

success in navigating the path to

consent.

Their commercial viability as a firm

would appear to be built on the success

of these types of projects. How can the

public have confidence in a panel's

ability to remain impartial when their

firm's professional brand is built on

securing approvals?

If I'm in a court case, I don't expect

the judge to be a partner in a firm that

tells the public we help people win.

This creates an apprehension of bias

that fails the common sense test of

fairness. In my mind,

the aisle of man's own rules on public

life say the appointees should not be

under any obligation to outside

interests that might influence their

duties. By having a majority of the

panel come from one firm with a

pro-approval track record, the process

risks falling short of that standard.

If this continues, the public can't

really have full confidence in the

result. Any recommendation made by a

panel with this level of commercial

overlap may be seen as legally fragile.

Having considered these facts, the

appointment of such examination team

could lead a fair-minded and informed

observer to believe that there was a

real possibility that the decision

makers could be biased.

I ask that the following be recorded in

the minutes today. I object to the

panel's composition on the grounds of

objective bias. I'm requesting a formal

statement on how these examiners can be

viewed as independent when their private

firm success is linked to the very

approvals they are here to judge.

Justice not must not only be done but be

must be seen to be done. Right now the

appearance of impartiality has been

compromised in my mind. Thank you.

>> Thank you for that representation miss

Sullivan. Um there are a few points that

I would like to respond to. So the

process of the examination will be open

and transparent and all principal

stakeholders are free to raise all

relevant issues. Um we will not the

examining body will not be making the

final decision. So we are only making a

recommendation

uh and the decision will ultimately be

made by the council of ministers

as we declared in our declaration of

interest uh speech this morning at the

preliminary meeting. you were present

but if you have missed any part of that

it will be noted in the minutes for the

meeting this morning. Um we have made a

declaration that we do not have any

financial commercial or otherwise any

professional relationship with either

the applicant or any department at uh

the aisle of man.

Um indeed and more importantly we've not

made any decisions on the merits of the

application. We will ensure that this

examination allows all principal

stakeholders to participate make their

points and we will ensure that all

matters raised and evidence provided

into examination is taken into account.

Um

we when we uh gave our introductions um

and I don't want to uh labor on this

point at all about the conflicts of

interest but we have no financial

interest um in any entity or land

affected by the proposed development.

You have raised points about our

appointment and the fact that we are

senior members of infrastructure

matters. Uh these are matters that I

will um that I will defer to the ca the

cabinet office to respond to uh as

cabinet office and the council of

ministers are the bodies that have

appointed us. Uh they have led a process

of recruitment uh with selection

criteria and due diligence which has

been it's been done transparently and

they are able to give you their

rationale for appointing us uh and their

reasoning for appointing us.

Um it is worth highlighting uh that all

four members of the examining body today

have we have successful careers uh as

unchallenged inspectors. It is worth

also highlighting that we have not just

uh uh recommended offshore wind farms or

other infrastructure projects for

approval. We have in fact made

recommendations that consent be

withheld. So in delivering our duty as

impartial independent examiners which

collectively we have done for several

years um we have a track record of both

wi uh recommending approval and

withholding consent. Um

I think the important point over here is

that while our um experience is one

thing uh predetermination is one thing

which we would consider unlawful and we

can demonstrate with our professional

track record that that is something that

is not on the table um at all. Um but

like you said on certain other matters I

think the matter needs to be uh

responded to in writing uh and possibly

some of those matters will need to be

responded to in writing by the cabinet

office. Don't leave yet. I will see if

some of my colleagues have any comments

to make.

>> You do? Okay. I'll hand over to Mr.

Smith.

I think it's very important to

acknowledge M Sullivan the

degree to which

you have brought this matter to this

meeting because you believe that it is

critically important that a fair

impartial process of examination is

conducted

and

I think all of us have to acknowledge

the rectitude of that position.

Um I think as our chair has has put to

you very plainly um we have all um in

our various ways and in our various

professional capacities

um had long careers that have involved

us always delivering whoever we are

working for an independent appraisal and

independent recommendation on the

matters before us. And as as our chair

indicated that that has included making

recommendations that both support and

indicate against um on the basis of

applicable law, applicable policy and

planning balance planning merits the

schemes that we have been asked to

investigate. I will finally touch on the

fact that all four of us are um

chartered town planners. We're all

members of the Royal Town Planning

Institute and that has an independent

code of conduct irrespective of any

other matters in play here and that

binds us to be fair and independent and

free of bias in any of our professional

activities whatsoever. And frankly, it

also holds us to account because that

entity, the Royal Town Planning

Institute, also has um a director

responsible for professional conduct and

complaints can indeed be made to that

body if anybody believes that we have

veered from the path required of us by

that code of conduct.

These are matters that professionally we

all take very seriously and all I can do

is indicate for myself and I'm sure for

my colleagues too our utter commitment

to the delivery of an examination in

this place that it fully aderes to the

requirements of that code of conduct.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you Mr. Smith. Um Mr. O' Sullivan

your objection is noted. Um, and it is

uh I don't expect that our represent,

you know, our responses to some of the

questions you've raised will alleviate

your concerns. Uh, but was there any

follow-up points after what you've heard

from myself?

>> Uh, no, I'd like to thank the examining

body. I think uh those assurances are

taken on board and um obviously we are