THE FIRST salvoes have been fired from opposing sides during a public inquiry about two significant wind farm applications in North Devon.

The developers Airtricity and Coronation Power have appealed over the failure of North Devon and Mid Devon district councils to reach a decision within the set timescale.

The inquiry opened on Tuesday to a packed audience at South Molton Assembly Rooms.

Planning inspector Philip Major heard opening statements from counsel representing the two developers and counsel for the opposing side, which is represented by North Devon Council, Mid Devon District Council and the Rural Exmoor Alliance, a pressure group comprising the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Exmoor Society and the Two Moors Campaign.

Each group will be calling witnesses to support their arguments and the inquiry is scheduled to run for four weeks.

A move by Coronation Power to increase the height of their proposed wind turbines from 100 metres to 120 metres was rejected by the inspector.

The inquiry will focus on issues relating to the effect on the landscape locally and in a wider cumulative sense, as well as benefits and costs, noise, and the impact on tranquility, ecology and tourism.

Ailsa Wilson, counsel for Airtricity, referred to the challenging targets that had been set for renewable energy and reiterated the Government's stance that each and every decision on a renewable energy project counted, whatever their scale.

The bigger picture was that even though they might not always appear to convey any particular local benefit, they provided crucial national benefits. She also referred to evidence which argued that Devon's generating capacity target of 151 megawatts (MW) by 2010 could not realistically be achieved on time.

William Norris, for Coronation Power, stressed they were "entirely sensitive" to the fact that any application of this nature produced strong feelings. He added: "We respect such opposing opinions which we recognise are sincerely held... but we disagree with them."

He referred to national policy which supported schemes of all sizes in an effort to answer claims that the renewable energy produced by this proposal would be relatively small. He said he recognised these turbines would be very obvious to people within three kilometres and visible from longer distances.

However, he pointed out that the 'life' of the turbines was 25 years and any impact was almost entirely reversible.

He added: "Of course, that is a long time from the point of view of any individual but in the context of climate change it is a very short time indeed."

He was also confident that any noise generated could be kept within acceptable limits.

Andrew Fraser-Urquhart, for North Devon Council, said no serious commentator disputed that climate change was a reality. Equally, he told the inquiry, no planning professional could dispute government policy stating that the planning system should, where possible, seek to bring about renewable developments.

Nevertheless, it was also entirely plain that wind turbines could have a "dramatic effect" on the landscape, he said. And all levels of planning policy reflected the need to ensure proper protection of the environment.

Mr Fraser-Urquhart said the inspector was faced with a balancing exercise. He argued that the appellants had overstated planning policy support and underestimated the harm to the landscape.

"The environmental damage caused by such schemes cannot be simply dismissed or overlooked because there is a climate change benefit," he said.

The cumulative impact of this scheme alongside others given consent or in the pipeline had to be considered, he said.

Despite the benefits and government policy support for renewable development, he believed the environmental cost was "simply too high."

Peter Wadsley, for Mid Devon District Council, said the authority had produced evidence to show that the proposal's benefits were "exaggerated" and did not outweigh the disadvantages. There was further evidence to suggest that renewable energy targets were likely to be met without the scheme.

And the development of industrial machines, measuring up to 100 metres, would harm the landscape and living conditions of those in the area.

David Cocks, for the Rural Exmoor Alliance, said one of their witnesses who had spent most of his working life in the nuclear power industry, would demonstrate that the developers had "grossly overestimated" the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that would be saved.

He also referred to the confusion surrounding the measurement of noise levels and said the limited wildlife surveys undertaken at both sites prevented a balance being struck between the benefits of the proposed schemes and the ecological harm they may cause.

The inquiry continues.