The second closing of PTEC’s application to put a 30MW substation at Flowersbrook occurred on Monday.

The application was extended because PTEC submitted new information after the first closing date, itself an elementary mistake.

Many matters remain outstanding or unanswered. Here are some:

* Noise. The noise report was based on a 20MW facility, not 30MW. Why? And why is this deemed acceptable by anyone seeking to be socially responsible? Hopefully the planners will insist on a new report with a different expert, as the current one feels a little too close to PTEC.

* The viability of the project. Estimates vary widely on capital costs, the chairman has quoted £125 million, his right-hand man £70 million last Friday. Which is it?

Or is it more as other tidal energy experts suggest? To be “viable”, what level of subsidy from the taxpayer is needed and for how long? PTEC won’t say, and have been vague about their business model, but this is likely to be seven to eight times the current whole price of electricity.

Unlike wind, the false analogy used by the tidal industry, the cost won’t reduce quickly, because operating costs for tidal are much higher, especially in open sea. There is time for more openness here from PTEC.

* IW Council’s giveaway. The project was initiated and promoted by the council, with grants, employee time and hard cash, yet 95 per cent of the project is now in the hands of private individuals. Why?

The council has received nil consideration or preference for shares it gave away and yet it currently stands behind the remediation liabilities, with no control over the project.

The result is that a local businessman owns more than 80 per cent of the shares and for his contribution has only lent the money. Why has this been allowed to happen?

Why has the council given away this opportunity without independent valuations, and, if the valuations exist, why aren’t they disclosed. Why did Dave Stewart’s administration give up its preferred rights in the project and still continue to underwrite restitution liabilities? It doesn’t feel right.

Read more: PTEC chairman outlines why plan is good for Isle of Wight

Given what’s happening in Westminster and concerns around probity, shouldn’t there be an investigation, and shouldn’t our elected leaders want a proper investigation? Who will lead it, the council won’t!

PTEC and its main shareholder seem to think that can be an exception.

Renewable projects need to have the same accountability as any other development. They require the same social licence. Why do they think they will get away with it?

Let’s hope that these and other matters are investigated and addressed and that our leaders want every project, renewable or otherwise, to meet a high public stand, and a high level of disclosure and scrutiny.

That after all is the minimum stand, we the public, should expect of them and those that work for us in government, and particularly if public money is used to benefit the private sector.