Sir, We write in response to your previous correspondent, Dr Williamson, who invited us to account for our decision in rejecting the planning application for the proposed wind farm at Watchfield. I thank Dr Williamson for her comments, and understand that she is not alone in her sincerely held view that the decision to reject the application was the wrong one. We are sorry that Dr Williamson seems to suggest in her letter that the granting of planning permission was a foregone conclusion. It is true that there was much support for the project, but there was also much opposition both in Faringdon, and also in villages such as Great Coxwell, and Coleshill that would be much closer to the wind farm. As district councillors for Faringdon and the surrounding villages we must take into account the views of all residents, particularly those who would be affected directly by the proposal. When planning applications are so controversial it is important that the decision is made on the facts presented at the meeting and not simply by weighing the support for and against. The evidence presented was by no means overwhelmingly convincing on either side of the argument and we think it would be difficult to find any member of the planning committee who did not find the decision a difficult one. Most of the matters that where discussed were ones of subjective judgment rather than simply fact and this is a view asserted by the experts on the night. After a meeting that lasted nearly four hours it was decided that the committee was mindful to refuse the application on the basis of the harmful visual effect on the area of High Landscape Value, and particularly individual properties that would be very close to the site; also on the basis of the possible harmful effects of low frequency noise on local residents; and that the turbines would prevent the safe operation of the nearby gliding club. We have no objection to the erection of wind farms in appropriate locations, but when faced with wind speeds that are at the low end of the levels needed to make the project viable; the absence of a guarantee from the experts that there would be no harm to the local population; and the potential dangers to aircraft that fly from the nearby airfield, we could not have voted in favour with a clear conscience. The disappointment of some local people is understandable but we are happy that presented with the information we had on the night the correct decision was reached.