Wind farm ban confirmed on Hampshire county land

Wind farm ban confirmed on Hampshire county land

Wind farm ban confirmed on Hampshire county land

First published in Winchester Hampshire Chronicle: Photograph of the Author by

HAMPSHIRE county chiefs have confirmed a blanket ban on windfarms on council land despite strong protests from green campaigners.

Members of Winchester Action on Climate Change (WinAcc) and Friends of the Earth failed to persuade the Conservative-run county council to rethink the controversial policy.

Tory council leader Ken Thornber rubber-stamped the ban at a policy and resources meeting yesterday in Winchester after hearing from protestors.

The council’s position is that the adverse impact on the countryside outweighs the benefit in clean, sustainable energy.

But campaigners challenged why a blanket ban was necessary instead of considering the merits of individual schemes, including impact on the landscape as already required under planning law.

Ray Cobbett, representing Hampshire FoE, said campaigners asked the council for evidence to support the ban but was just told it was based on similar policies in Wiltshire and Lincolnshire.

Mr Cobbett said: “As far as we can see this policy is evidence-free and appears to be based almost entirely on subjective opinions by people who don’t like wind farms.”

He added: “Banning wind turbines send a loud and clear message to every major landowner in the county to do likewise and say that Hampshire supports renewable energy provided we don’t have to produce any ourselves.”

Dennis Garrison, a Winchester-based company director, said wind farms were considered tourist attractions in Denmark where they generated 90 per cent of the country’s electricity.

He said they created more jobs and gave a greater return on investment than gas, according to a report by Ernst and Young.

Mr Garrison called for the council to support the development of “centuries-old” wind technology.

Frank Adsett, a Winchester resident, said income generated from the wind farms could help to maintain frontline council services.

Environment chief councillor Mel Kendal said he had travelled extensively in Europe and visited wind farms as a county councillor and a leading member of the climate change committee of the Assembly of European Regions.

He said: “I personally think in the correct setting that wind farms look very attractive.”

But Cllr Kendal said he took very seriously his duty to protect Hampshire’s landscape and keep it a beautiful place to walk, cycle and ride horses.

The environment chief said he had heard arguments for and against wind farms and whether people thought they were “pretty or ugly” 100-metre masts were still visually intrusive.

Cllr Thornber added: “I take the view that while Hampshire should prosper it will not be at the cost of the environment.”

He said the ban did not mean the council had ruled-out applications for individual turbines, for example from schools.

Liberal Democrat councillor Adrian Collett, opposition spokesman for policy and resources, also called for the council to produce evidence for the ban.

He said: “I find it very hard to believe that in a county the size of Hampshire there is nowhere suitable.”

A planning battle is looming north of Winchester after EDF unveiled plans for a wind farm near Bullington Cross.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:32pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Jim Wiegand says...

The logic of the turbine builders and their supporters goes something like this; we (the world) are going to lose so many species because of climate change that the destruction from our turbines and infrastructure is the lesser of two evils. We should be able to kill off bird populations across the world because it is really in our best interests. According to them they have taken a higher road that will lead to our salvation.



What complete nonsense. This all in their best interests. If one buys into this twisted logic then why should we have any wildlife protection laws, wildlife agencies or conservation groups? According to them most of these species are going to die off anyway. This same logic is being used to ruin communities with turbines and let these cons run off with profits. Or maybe we take it even further and use this logic to start killing whom ever we want, after all people are going to die anyway.



Climate change may alter bird life in places but these turbines will absolutely slaughter off many rare protected species to extinction. It is already happening. Climate Change also means shifting precipitation patterns and changing ecosystems. Birds can fly and adapt, but not if they are killed off by turbines. And what about biodiversity and the important role birds play in our world? Where are the voices of reason? Where are the studies that will expose the hell we will have to pay for a turbine infested world?



First and foremost in this climate change debate everybody has to keep in mind the character of those behind this green madness. They receive incredible profits and have their own tailored "credits" from taxpayers. These carbon credits and production tax credits are actually diverted funds or stolen tax dollars that could be used for real solutions. Why is all this supposed to be OK? Then we have these same people that believe it is perfectly fine to rig science (universities), rig conservation groups and rig politicians with their donations. The we have all of their Wind studies that are routinely rigged for a desired outcome. Even Government agencies are rigged so these fine people get their free passes for their avian genocide, and of course they rig the media to keep meaningful stories away from the ignorant masses.



Recently we got to see another trick from their playbook, the parading of ignorant celebrities (Derek Jeter) in front of us from the World Economic Forum as their guest. All so they can muster support for their **** turbines and endear themselves to taxpayers.



Folks, this is what is going on. Wake up. It is 100% complete insanity. It is even more insane that anyone would ever BELIEVE A WORD from these people because the foundation laid by this industry was built with lies.



If readers remember nothing else, never forget this....... Climate change will never be solved with millions of wind turbines slaughtering off bird species and by robbing taxpayers, but it can be solved with ecosystem management.
The logic of the turbine builders and their supporters goes something like this; we (the world) are going to lose so many species because of climate change that the destruction from our turbines and infrastructure is the lesser of two evils. We should be able to kill off bird populations across the world because it is really in our best interests. According to them they have taken a higher road that will lead to our salvation. What complete nonsense. This all in their best interests. If one buys into this twisted logic then why should we have any wildlife protection laws, wildlife agencies or conservation groups? According to them most of these species are going to die off anyway. This same logic is being used to ruin communities with turbines and let these cons run off with profits. Or maybe we take it even further and use this logic to start killing whom ever we want, after all people are going to die anyway. Climate change may alter bird life in places but these turbines will absolutely slaughter off many rare protected species to extinction. It is already happening. Climate Change also means shifting precipitation patterns and changing ecosystems. Birds can fly and adapt, but not if they are killed off by turbines. And what about biodiversity and the important role birds play in our world? Where are the voices of reason? Where are the studies that will expose the hell we will have to pay for a turbine infested world? First and foremost in this climate change debate everybody has to keep in mind the character of those behind this green madness. They receive incredible profits and have their own tailored "credits" from taxpayers. These carbon credits and production tax credits are actually diverted funds or stolen tax dollars that could be used for real solutions. Why is all this supposed to be OK? Then we have these same people that believe it is perfectly fine to rig science (universities), rig conservation groups and rig politicians with their donations. The we have all of their Wind studies that are routinely rigged for a desired outcome. Even Government agencies are rigged so these fine people get their free passes for their avian genocide, and of course they rig the media to keep meaningful stories away from the ignorant masses. Recently we got to see another trick from their playbook, the parading of ignorant celebrities (Derek Jeter) in front of us from the World Economic Forum as their guest. All so they can muster support for their **** turbines and endear themselves to taxpayers. Folks, this is what is going on. Wake up. It is 100% complete insanity. It is even more insane that anyone would ever BELIEVE A WORD from these people because the foundation laid by this industry was built with lies. If readers remember nothing else, never forget this....... Climate change will never be solved with millions of wind turbines slaughtering off bird species and by robbing taxpayers, but it can be solved with ecosystem management. Jim Wiegand
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Red Grouse says...

FoE's position is more 'evidence free' than that of the council.

Dennis Garrison's comments are laughably wrong: Denmark does NOT generate 90% of its electricity from wind turbines.

The Danish State Energy Agency has a very good website which provides information in English.

They state that, "In 2011, wind power generation accounted for
28.1% of domestic electricity supply".

However, Denmark dumps a high proportion of wind-generated electricity to neighbouring countries at below generation costs. This, historically, has resulted in only 6-10% of consumption being met from wind, and at very high cost!

If we look at ENERGY (which is how EU targets are measured - even if Tony Blair did not understand the difference according to Professor Sir David King, his Chief Scientific Advisor!) wind is relatively small player in Denmark:

"Production of renewable energy was 134.8 PJ in 2011".

"Wind power generation was 35.2 PJ in 2011.

"Production of biomass was 83.4 PJ in 2011.

Another lie is that wind turbines are a tourist attraction. Even Government sponsored surveys in Scotland show that 20-25% of tourists do not want to see turbines.

No mention of the fact that the Delabole Gaia Centre, in Cornwall, at the first commercial wind farm in the UK (when turbines had some rarity value) went bust because of poor visitor numbers.

The £5.5m attraction was opened in August 2001 as an exhibition and education centre for green energy.

But only 20,000 people visited it in its first year and it was bought by a venture capital company.

"Ian McIvor, chief executive investment of Surrey-based investment company Neovenator, which took over in November, said the original project was 'doomed from the start'and 'fundamentally flawed'.

"Mr McIvor said: 'When we are talking about an exhibition on renewable energy it is not high on holidaymakers' list of fun things to do while they are on holiday.'" (BBC News).
FoE's position is more 'evidence free' than that of the council. Dennis Garrison's comments are laughably wrong: Denmark does NOT generate 90% of its electricity from wind turbines. The Danish State Energy Agency has a very good website which provides information in English. They state that, "In 2011, wind power generation accounted for 28.1% of domestic electricity supply". However, Denmark dumps a high proportion of wind-generated electricity to neighbouring countries at below generation costs. This, historically, has resulted in only 6-10% of consumption being met from wind, and at very high cost! If we look at ENERGY (which is how EU targets are measured - even if Tony Blair did not understand the difference according to Professor Sir David King, his Chief Scientific Advisor!) wind is relatively small player in Denmark: "Production of renewable energy was 134.8 PJ [Peta Joule] in 2011". "Wind power generation was 35.2 PJ in 2011. "Production of biomass was 83.4 PJ in 2011. Another lie is that wind turbines are a tourist attraction. Even Government sponsored surveys in Scotland show that 20-25% of tourists do not want to see turbines. No mention of the fact that the Delabole Gaia Centre, in Cornwall, at the first commercial wind farm in the UK (when turbines had some rarity value) went bust because of poor visitor numbers. The £5.5m attraction was opened in August 2001 as an exhibition and education centre for green energy. But only 20,000 people visited it in its first year and it was bought by a venture capital company. "Ian McIvor, chief executive investment of Surrey-based investment company Neovenator, which took over in November, said the original project was 'doomed from the start'and 'fundamentally flawed'. "Mr McIvor said: 'When we are talking about an exhibition on renewable energy it is not high on holidaymakers' list of fun things to do while they are on holiday.'" (BBC News). Red Grouse
  • Score: 0

10:00pm Fri 25 Jan 13

mrs m ward says...

so proud of hampshire council for this
action. Hopefully others will see sense
and follow suit.
so proud of hampshire council for this action. Hopefully others will see sense and follow suit. mrs m ward
  • Score: 0

10:39pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Ivor Ward says...

"Mr Cobbett said: “As far as we can see this policy is evidence-free and appears to be based almost entirely on subjective opinions by people who don’t like wind farms.” "
Well here you are Mr Cobbett:
https://www.wind-wat
ch.org/
and:
http://www.metoffice
.gov.uk/climate/uk/s
o/ I quote from the windspeed section:"Southern England is one of the more sheltered parts of the UK, the windiest areas being in western and northern Britain, closer to the Atlantic. " i.e. Not enough wind for the effective use of turbines.
Try this:http://www.stam
fordmercury.co.uk/ne
ws/local/personally-
speaking-call-for-fu
ll-facts-on-wind-tur
bines-1-4662998 An Engineers opinion.
Try this: http://www.windenerg
y-the-truth.com/nege
n.html
Now Mr Cobbett, perhaps you could supply me with one fact about wind turbines: Who is paying the massive subsidies that are the only reason these things exist? I'll tell you one person I know of...My 93 year old mother on every one of her electricity bills.
Try this one.....Name one fossil fuel power station that has been replaced by wind turbines and shut down,,,Just one....go on.....I am only asking for one. No? Perhaps you are beginning to understand who has the facts and who is peddling b*llsh*t Mr. FoE.
"Mr Cobbett said: “As far as we can see this policy is evidence-free and appears to be based almost entirely on subjective opinions by people who don’t like wind farms.” " Well here you are Mr Cobbett: https://www.wind-wat ch.org/ and: http://www.metoffice .gov.uk/climate/uk/s o/ I quote from the windspeed section:"Southern England is one of the more sheltered parts of the UK, the windiest areas being in western and northern Britain, closer to the Atlantic. " i.e. Not enough wind for the effective use of turbines. Try this:http://www.stam fordmercury.co.uk/ne ws/local/personally- speaking-call-for-fu ll-facts-on-wind-tur bines-1-4662998 An Engineers opinion. Try this: http://www.windenerg y-the-truth.com/nege n.html Now Mr Cobbett, perhaps you could supply me with one fact about wind turbines: Who is paying the massive subsidies that are the only reason these things exist? I'll tell you one person I know of...My 93 year old mother on every one of her electricity bills. Try this one.....Name one fossil fuel power station that has been replaced by wind turbines and shut down,,,Just one....go on.....I am only asking for one. No? Perhaps you are beginning to understand who has the facts and who is peddling b*llsh*t Mr. FoE. Ivor Ward
  • Score: 0

1:08am Sun 27 Jan 13

Red Grouse says...

Mr Garrison.

In Denmark wind turbines are so popular with the natives and tourists that Dong, the state-owned energy conglomerate which si so active building turbines in the UK has given up on onshore turbines:

‘‘Mass protests mean the energy firm will look offshore

"State-owned energy firm Dong Energy has given up building more wind farms on Danish land, following protests from residents complaining about the noise the turbines make.

"It had been Dong and the government’s plan that 500 large turbines be built on land over the coming 10 years, as part of a large-scale national energy plan. This plan has hit a serious stumbling block, though, due to many protests, and the firm has now given up building any more wind farms on land.

"Anders Eldrup, the CEO of Dong Energy, told TV2 News: 'It is very difficult to get the public’s acceptance if the turbines are built close to residential buildings, and therefore we are now looking at maritime options.'
(‘Dong gives up on land-based turbines’,
Copenhagen Post, 1 September 2010).
Mr Garrison. In Denmark wind turbines are so popular with the natives and tourists that Dong, the state-owned energy conglomerate which si so active building turbines in the UK has given up on onshore turbines: ‘‘Mass protests mean the energy firm will look offshore "State-owned energy firm Dong Energy has given up building more wind farms on Danish land, following protests from residents complaining about the noise the turbines make. "It had been Dong and the government’s plan that 500 large turbines be built on land over the coming 10 years, as part of a large-scale national energy plan. This plan has hit a serious stumbling block, though, due to many protests, and the firm has now given up building any more wind farms on land. "Anders Eldrup, the CEO of Dong Energy, told TV2 News: 'It is very difficult to get the public’s acceptance if the turbines are built close to residential buildings, and therefore we are now looking at maritime options.' (‘Dong gives up on land-based turbines’, Copenhagen Post, 1 September 2010). Red Grouse
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Sun 27 Jan 13

save energy says...

Ref Denmark-
Here’s a link for- Real time generation/consumpti
on - showing energy splits - http://www.emd.dk/el
/
Look at tue 22/1/13.
Exporting to Norway they get 249 DKK/MW,
Importing it back a few hrs later they pay… 600 !!

As an ex member, I know Friends of the Earth should be used to evidence-free policy’s, it’s how FOEs work, based almost entirely on subjective opinions by people who don’t understand physics or climate.

As I write this, on a mild winter day, 8°C, with gale force winds, the UKs entire 4,367 wind turbine fleet is producing- just … 9.6% of demand !!! ( last week it was less than 2%)
So fortunately 86% of our energy is being supplied by coal, gas, nuclear & 4% from Europe.

Colossal amounts of our cash has been thrown at the most intermittent & unreliable resources (wind & solar), but next to nothing for something constant & predictable, like run of river hydro or tidal stream generation, although our rivers are full & while the moon stays in the sky, the tides will keep running.

Political Madness, driven by greed for subsidies.
Ref Denmark- Here’s a link for- Real time generation/consumpti on - showing energy splits - http://www.emd.dk/el / Look at tue 22/1/13. Exporting to Norway they get 249 DKK/MW, Importing it back a few hrs later they pay… 600 !! As an ex member, I know Friends of the Earth should be used to evidence-free policy’s, it’s how FOEs work, based almost entirely on subjective opinions by people who don’t understand physics or climate. As I write this, on a mild winter day, 8°C, with gale force winds, the UKs entire 4,367 wind turbine fleet is producing- just … 9.6% of demand !!! ( last week it was less than 2%) So fortunately 86% of our energy is being supplied by coal, gas, nuclear & 4% from Europe. Colossal amounts of our cash has been thrown at the most intermittent & unreliable resources (wind & solar), but next to nothing for something constant & predictable, like run of river hydro or tidal stream generation, although our rivers are full & while the moon stays in the sky, the tides will keep running. Political Madness, driven by greed for subsidies. save energy
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Sun 27 Jan 13

save energy says...

Some useful tools re windturbines

For a totally unbiased view of their cost effectiveness, please link to these DATA only sites.

For how much they give…. see –

Map of Europe showing RWE’s ‘green’ plants – live output production data –
– nb capacity in MW but output in kW
http://www.rwe.com/w
eb/cms/en/206488/rwe
-innogy/sites/produc
tion-data-live/rwe-r
enewable-energy-live
/

• • •
How much we need & use –

http://www.gridwatch
.templar.co.uk/
This site gives UK Grid status - demand & generation by fuels.….. now + Day, Wk, Mth, Yr, history.
* Caution *, scales are all different so don’t compare dials at first glance !! Look at the figures !!

• • •

For how much money they take….

See- http://www.variablep
itch.co.uk/stations/
map/

- for a flavour of the ROC subsidy’s WE are being forced to pay to (mainly foreign ) windfarm developers.

Expand the map to see the area you are interested in.
Click on a site,
Click on ‘View details’.
Totals are at bottom of page.
Sit down before you read them (& have smelling salts handy),

…. these are the OFGEM monthly payment figures.
• • •

Now make up your own mind if wind is cost effective.
Some useful tools re windturbines For a totally unbiased view of their cost effectiveness, please link to these DATA only sites. For how much they give…. see – Map of Europe showing RWE’s ‘green’ plants – live output production data – [It’s a manual refresh] – nb capacity in MW but output in kW http://www.rwe.com/w eb/cms/en/206488/rwe -innogy/sites/produc tion-data-live/rwe-r enewable-energy-live / • • • How much we need & use – http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/ This site gives UK Grid status - demand & generation by fuels.….. now + Day, Wk, Mth, Yr, history. * Caution *, scales are all different so don’t compare dials at first glance !! Look at the figures !! • • • For how much money they take…. See- http://www.variablep itch.co.uk/stations/ map/ - for a flavour of the ROC subsidy’s WE are being forced to pay to (mainly foreign ) windfarm developers. Expand the map to see the area you are interested in. Click on a site, Click on ‘View details’. Totals are at bottom of page. Sit down before you read them (& have smelling salts handy), …. these are the OFGEM monthly payment figures. • • • Now make up your own mind if wind is cost effective. save energy
  • Score: 0

10:47am Mon 28 Jan 13

retiredoldgit says...

I assume the ban on wind turbines also extends to Nuclear Power stations that are the only viable longer term alternatives to satisfying our demand for power.

Basically the Tory led Council want to shove the problem onto someone else - preferably one of those nasty industrial areas up north.

I would be quite happy to see a wind farm alongside the mobile phone radio masts towards Crab Wood.
I assume the ban on wind turbines also extends to Nuclear Power stations that are the only viable longer term alternatives to satisfying our demand for power. Basically the Tory led Council want to shove the problem onto someone else - preferably one of those nasty industrial areas up north. I would be quite happy to see a wind farm alongside the mobile phone radio masts towards Crab Wood. retiredoldgit
  • Score: 0

2:34am Tue 29 Jan 13

Red Grouse says...

Retiredoldgit.

Nuclear is not an "alternative" to wind. It provides base load power, whereas wind is a parallel generator which provides intermittent and erratic amounts of power to the system, normally in inverse proportion to load.

The most pro-wind report to date, which is invariably referenced by the BWEA, Greenpeace and FOE, states: “It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,” (‘Wind Power in the UK’, Sustainable Development Commission, p35).
Retiredoldgit. Nuclear is not an "alternative" to wind. It provides base load power, whereas wind is a parallel generator which provides intermittent and erratic amounts of power to the system, normally in inverse proportion to load. The most pro-wind report to date, which is invariably referenced by the BWEA, Greenpeace and FOE, states: “It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,” (‘Wind Power in the UK’, Sustainable Development Commission, p35). Red Grouse
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Tue 29 Jan 13

jonone says...

Is anyone suggesting that wind turbines should be the entire source of energy, or just used as a supplement? Surely more houses should have an individual wind turbine (they don't have to be big fans you know) and/or solar panels in support of the supply from the National Grid. If the suggestion was mounting these turbines on the roofs of buildings in urban areas, would the outrage displayed here be as great? Doubtful.
Is anyone suggesting that wind turbines should be the entire source of energy, or just used as a supplement? Surely more houses should have an individual wind turbine (they don't have to be big fans you know) and/or solar panels in support of the supply from the National Grid. If the suggestion was mounting these turbines on the roofs of buildings in urban areas, would the outrage displayed here be as great? Doubtful. jonone
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Red Grouse says...

Jonone.

Two government sponsored reports have shown that domestic wind turbines are next to useless in most of the UK and especially in urban areas. This is due to poor wind speeds and turbulence.

Often they will fail to cover the carbon burden of manufacture in their lifetime.

Some models can also be a real noise nuisance for neighbours.

Personally, I am all for solar but do not see why fuel-poor electricity consumers should pay for the middle classes to get a very high return on PV through Feed-in Tariffs. This is a regressive energy tax on the poor.
Jonone. Two government sponsored reports have shown that domestic wind turbines are next to useless in most of the UK and especially in urban areas. This is due to poor wind speeds and turbulence. Often they will fail to cover the carbon burden of manufacture in their lifetime. Some models can also be a real noise nuisance for neighbours. Personally, I am all for solar but do not see why fuel-poor electricity consumers should pay for the middle classes to get a very high return on PV through Feed-in Tariffs. This is a regressive energy tax on the poor. Red Grouse
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Sofia branstino says...

Ivor ward.

Perhaps your links would have a vague relevance if they were not supplemented with aggressive comments aimed at Mr Cobbett. Poor show to use swear words and quote the met office??? when you already have the outcome you so clearly desired and wind farms will not be built here in Hampshire, At least Mr Cobbett is clearly thinking of the needs of tomorrows generation and trying to help clean up the mess that people with attitudes like yours have left myself and other young people. Thanky-ou Ray Cobbett, you are an inspiration to so many.
Ivor ward. Perhaps your links would have a vague relevance if they were not supplemented with aggressive comments aimed at Mr Cobbett. Poor show to use swear words and quote the met office??? when you already have the outcome you so clearly desired and wind farms will not be built here in Hampshire, At least Mr Cobbett is clearly thinking of the needs of tomorrows generation and trying to help clean up the mess that people with attitudes like yours have left myself and other young people. Thanky-ou Ray Cobbett, you are an inspiration to so many. Sofia branstino
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Wed 30 Jan 13

800Jimbo says...

It's interesting that the debate here focuses on the technical matter of whether wind farms work and how they might be used. The County Council decision has NOTHING TO DO with whether they actually work (or indeed may come to work); it completely rules out wind farms regardless of their efficacy. HCC are simply, as a matter of policy, refusing to consider them. It's entirely a political decision based on not liking what they might look like, and the more one thinks about it the more absurd the decision is.
It's interesting that the debate here focuses on the technical matter of whether wind farms work and how they might be used. The County Council decision has NOTHING TO DO with whether they actually work (or indeed may come to work); it completely rules out wind farms regardless of their efficacy. HCC are simply, as a matter of policy, refusing to consider them. It's entirely a political decision based on not liking what they might look like, and the more one thinks about it the more absurd the decision is. 800Jimbo
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Red Grouse says...

Jimbo.

Suggest you actually read what they are saying.

Councillors are not elected to damage the countryside, the amenity of voters and the tourist economy of the county.

Nothing to do with politics. Everything to do with planning policy and the rural economy.
Jimbo. Suggest you actually read what they are saying. Councillors are not elected to damage the countryside, the amenity of voters and the tourist economy of the county. Nothing to do with politics. Everything to do with planning policy and the rural economy. Red Grouse
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree