Dear Editor,

ON behalf of the directors of West Somerset Lagoon Ltd. (WSL) I wish to respond to Dr Clark’s letter article in last week’s Free Press of April 24. Dr Clark’s article has many key errors, and I cite just three examples below:

1. Dr Clark states that the power of the lagoon is 750 MW. This is grossly incorrect, with WSL including 125 turbines, each having an installed capacity of 20 MW, thereby giving a Power capacity of 2,500 MW as shown on the project web site, i.e. over 3 times greater than the figure Dr Clark quotes.

2. Dr Clark’s letter compares schemes based on cost/MW of installed power capacity instead of cost (MWh) of energy produced. Costs/MW provide a meaningless comparison as energy is sold to the public and industry in units of kWh.

3. Dr Clark alleges that the WSL scheme is much more expensive than the Swansea lagoon. This is a highly erroneous statement as proven by independent energy assessment made by Cardiff University researchers using 40,000 lines of spreadsheet, and by the 400-page, year-long, independent local government funded Severn Estuary Commission (SEC) report, of March 2025, which found the cost of energy from WSL to be £85/MWh, less than half the comparable energy cost of Swansea Bay Lagoon at £172/MWh under the same conditions.

We would also point out that the WSL scheme would use the third highest tidal range in the world (spring tide 10m), to bring substantial, predictable, long life, cost competitive, renewable energy to the region. The lagoon would also have many other ancillary benefits, such as providing coastal erosion protection against sea level rise and increased wave and storm activity, increased benefits from calmer waters within the lagoon, thereby increasing opportunities for water-based recreation, improvements to the A39, thus improving traffic flow, along with increased tourist interest in the region. There would also be opportunities for deep water ferry berth to South Wales. It would also provide employment, both during construction and post construction for the 120 years of operation.

Yours faithfully,

Chris Binnie MA, DIC, HonDEng, FREng, FICE, FCIWEM

Chairman West Somerset Lagoon Ltd

Dear Editor,

IT was very interesting to read that a man with expertise on the subject, Dr Colin Clark, having examined the costs and benefits of the proposed WSL (tidal lagoon) and compared them to those of a network of small, river based turbines, concluded that at £10.9-billion it is “very expensive”. (Letter to the Editor, April 24).

My observations are:

a) In the present world economic climate, taking that information into account, will those £billions be forthcoming?

b) The Middle East war has highlighted the destruction of power plants — could one well-aimed missile breaching the 22km lagoon barrage render it useless? Many wide-spread small turbines may be less vulnerable and not risk one massive drop in energy generation… does the lagoon make sense in terms of our energy security?

Our MP Rachel Gilmour, seems to have fallen for the idea that, viewed from Minehead, what is basically an industrial blot on the seascape consisting of turbines and floating solar panels, will be an up-market tourist attraction for the well heeled yachting community. As chair of the Scrutiny Committee on her Devon Council she oversaw a scheme which cost ratepayers £millions so maybe finance is not her forte.

All that... and a reminder that a scheme involving some of the WSL participants landed Brighton Council with a £51-million loss. HS2 had all the hallmarks of a vanity project, costs rocketed out of control. Hinkley Point is £3 billion over budget. Public money is not involved with the lagoon but the world is now less stable than it was. A part finished project would be disastrous for the Minehead area. Time for a reality check on the lagoon I think.

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Jones

Old Cleeve

Dear Editor,

IT’S extremely alarming that not only are Minehead’s residents are to lose our only Post Office and the superb service the staff have provided for many years, but that there is a proposal to site the Post Office in Queens Hall on the sea front. West Somerset District Council built a Visitor Centre a few doors away from that building years ago and had to close it because no one visited it due to lack of parking and access. It is now the Adventure Centre and even that excellent company partly operates elsewhere. Parking at the present premises is ideal as it has adjacent disabled parking and is accessible from the street and buses for people with limited mobility or young children. The Post Office hierarchy may not be aware that Minehead has a very high proportion of older residents which makes this makes the site unsuitable.

The siting of the Post Office on the sea front would not survive an impact assessment as it is discriminatory against everyone other than the young and able (who themselves will not be that forever). As the parking on the Esplanade is limited it should be expected that there will be a shortage of spaces for tourists and extensive and completely legal use of blue badges on the yellow lines.

The administration of many PO services is having to be done online by customers and it is likely that this will be increased leaving behind those without the ability or equipment to do this. It is obvious that an accessible personal service is essential for the wellbeing of the community.

It seems that the only option for a post office in Minehead is a franchise within an existing retail site. Sadly, there are increasing numbers of empty shops in the town centre, but this might mean that the necessary partnership with a retailer or even a charity might be found.

Maureen Smith

Minehead