4 days left to object to the 50m high mast at Clachan Seil

[NickB]

.
Apologies for starting a new thread but this has been buried on p4 of the Clachan Wind Farm thread.

A very concerned and well known local figure reminded me last night that objections to the proposed 50m high anemometer mast at Clachan Seil have to be in by the end of the month. Apparently a minimum of 25 objections are needed to stop this going through 'on the nod'.

If you look at the relevant page on Argyll and Bute's website and check out the Associated Doocuments section you will see that only half a dozen letters have so far been received and acknowledged. There is a mechanism for e-mail submission, but it is not working - so if you want to have a say in the erection of this thing then you will have to put a letter to Fiona Scott in the post this week.

I have created a couple of templates you can use if it makes getting started on a letter easier. They are in Word format. Either click the link then save to your computer and open in Word to edit or alternatively you can click the link and select Open - the document will then open in your browser and you can copy and paste the text.

Letter template 1

Letter template 2

[novus ordo seclorum]

A couple of very relevant points to clarify the above:
1. If less than 25 objections are received then the application won't even go to committee stage.
2. Only use the letter templates the webmaster has provided if you live in the Kilninver CC catchment. They are no use if you live on Seil, Easdale, Luing.
viz
[i]"Mike Shaw replied that any planning submission had to be based on firm planning issues, and each has to be considered on its individual merits. As [u]the base of the wind farm is not within the Seil and Easdale Community Council area[/u], we can only object on the basis of either[u] visual impact or effects of noise on health or wellbeing[/u].[u] If objections were raised by us on any other grounds, they would be bound to be overturned on appeal[/u]."[/i]
SeilComm. Council AGM
Thus objections on the grounds of negative impact on tourism and business, or that the current economic climate is precarious, or a personal belief that the windfarm will never be built anyway, or tidal generation is better than wind, or a belief that the law will change in future regarding planning for windfarms....these will be overturned automatically if you write from Seil, Easdale or Luing.
Keep it simple and only object on grounds of visual impact or affects on health.

If we stop the anemometer we stop, per se, the windfarm. But if less than 25 write (only seven so far with four days to go) then the anemometer will be waived through.

[Pentlandpirate]

I'm surprised more folk didn't object more directly to Rory Young on his 'blog' http://www.westcoastrenewables.co.uk/news/ (You have to click on 'Read More')

Besides, why do they need a 50 metre mast? That's hellish high. Then I remember with a jolt these turbines are 56 metres just up to the hub....76 metres to the tip. That's awful high when you consider how high the base will be compared to the land and sea around.

C'mon folks, do you really want this? Don't leave it to someone else to do the fighting, beacsue without your help, they might not win this battle.

[moonraker]

dont see what the problem is :English Flag :English Flag
they are all over scotland .. :jack :jack
get up with the times .. :English Flag :English Flag
or is everyone nimby :jack :jack

[NickB]

A couple of very relevant points to clarify the above:
1. If less than 25 objections are received then the application won't even go to committee stage.
2. Only use the letter templates the webmaster has provided if you live in the Kilninver CC catchment. They are no use if you live on Seil, Easdale, Luing.

My template was based on objections already lodged and visible on the website. If it is useless then so be it, but the address and planning reference number is correct at least. Perhaps NOS will suggest some alternative content. My understanding is that 25 objections, even if latterly overruled, will at least delay the application. It would have been more helpful of the Community Council if they had indicated what WOULD have been a useful way to proceed rather than merely telling us it was all futile.

[novus ordo seclorum]

[quote="NickB"]It would have been more helpful of the Community Council if they had indicated what WOULD have been a useful way to proceed rather than merely telling us it was all futile.[/quote]
I do most certainly do not recall the CC saying it was futile and my reading of the minutes confirm that recollection.
What Mr Shaw, quite correctly, pointed out was that the windfarm (both in fact) is, for planning matters, within the catchment of Kilninver Community Council. People from other areas are free to object but only on grounds of visual intrusion and/or health concerns.
Thus it is a waste of effort for people from Seil, Easdale and Luing to write about economic, wildlife, amenity, views on global warming, or politics etc. etc. The same applies to people from Glasgow. Two people from Seil have objected on the grounds that Rory is an absentee landlord (that has absolutely no relationship to the planning process). Someone has even objected on the grounds that yachties won't like it!
If we can take the number of letters past the 25 number and trigger a Planning Committee meeting then those of us who live outwith Kilninver must make sure our objections are only based on visual and health concerns. If we object about anything else then the objection will not be considered.
Quite a simple and straightforward letter to write and I would not insult my fellow citizens' intelligence by providing a template as you suggest.

[NickB]

.
Mike Shaw's comments in the minutes of the August AGM referred to the Raera windfarm proposals, not the Clachan Farm windfarm, but the same point applies to the Clachan development. Both the letters submitted from our household mention visual impact, which is according to you and Mr. Shaw constitutes acceptable grounds, so there should not be a problem even if other parts of the letter are deemed irrelevant.

Good to see the number of objections increasing as the deadline approaches - the main concern is that this does not just go through with no further discussion.

[novus ordo seclorum]

[quote="NickB"][color=#FFFFFF].[/color]
Good to see the number of objections increasing as the deadline approaches - the main concern is that this does not just go through with no further discussion.[/quote]
Great.
14 public objections now and with your 2 in the post we are only 9 short.
Of the 4 public bodies which have been notified only 2 have replied so far (NATS and RSPB) Neither object.
Lets hope it goes to Committee.
I suggest, then, that you organise a picquet of the meeting. Banners, placards etc.
Keep up the good work.

[NickB]

I suggest, then, that you organise a picquet of the meeting. Banners, placards etc.
Keep up the good work.

Thanks NOS but my contributions will probably continue to be largely virtual. Hopefully others will get involved - there are many who are going to be far more affected by this development than us. I merely posted because someone had pointed out that the deadline was getting close and I became aware that a lot of people were not aware of it.

[NickB]

.
Now well over 25 objections recorded.

[moonraker]

dont see why people dont want them :English Flag :English Flag
at the end of the day it is better for us all in the long run :jack :jack :jack
as long as they build them well up the hill
just in case one of the 5.00 pm club dont hit them on the way home
now thats a topic we should post

[jimcee]

Without decrying Moonraker's viewpoint on the issue in question which is one of the few in favour of the windfarm developments ( and there are bound to be others who have a positive attitude to this course of action, but who do not like to stick their heads above the parapet) I would take issue with his use of all the emoticons to get his message across. Emoticons are a suggestion of failure to make your point in plain old english (sorry English) text.

[NickB]

.
Posters are now limited to a maximum of five smilies in any one post.

[moonraker]

why do people not want them :English Flag
wildlife and others must just re adjust like other sites :jack
surely its better than dirty power plants :English Flag
and good for all our future :jack

p.s serious quote

[NickB]

why do people not want them :English Flag
surely its better than dirty power plants :English Flag
and good for all our future :jack

p.s serious quote

OK,, I believe you, so a serious answer:

Wind turbines are superficially attractive but they are not the best solution to our future energy needs - they are not as green or as efficient as you may think, as extra conventional power stations have to be built as back-up. This book is a good primer if you are really interested in the subject:



(Click the pic to go to Amazon)

Tidal turbines can provide some base load power. Insulation and other energy conservation measures could save more than wind turbines will ever generate. New efficient pollution-free thorium-powered nuclear reactors could be developed. There are lots of options, but at the moment it is easy to stick up great big wind turbines and say look, we are doing something. They are a huge moneyspinner for landowners.

[Pentlandpirate]

Of the three landowners I personally know, who each have amongst the largest existing wind farm developments in their respective areas, I can say, I believe they are solely motivated by GREED issues, not GREEN issues. None of them are interested in the environment. They just want the dosh for sticking things up on their land, and who cares what anyone else thinks.

The fact wind energy is being heavily supported and subsidised (at huge public expense) is a convenient excuse for these land owners who will give significant bribes to local communities by way of 'gifted' turbines just so they can get their plans approved without objection and get their hands on the loot.

They would never allow you to build a factory at Clachan Seil, and the planning conditions should be the same for industrial energy production as they are for a factory.

[Maggie]

This book is a good primer if you are really interested in the subject:



(Click the pic to go to Amazon)

I am against the windfarm.
I am not one usually to complain but somehow I do noit think it is right to use our community website to promote antiglobalwarming propoganda. Everyone knows that the ice is melting everywhere, the polar bears are drowning and that islands are sinking under the sea (us next?) due to globalwarming. You might be a globalwarming sceptic or a globalwarming denier MrB and you are entitled to those dinosaur opinions but I think you should keep you views to yourself on the community website and not promote sceptic or denier propoganda like this book.
Moan over.
:English Flag :jack

[NickB]

I am against the windfarm.
I am not one usually to complain but somehow I do noit think it is right to use our community website to promote antiglobalwarming propoganda. Everyone knows that the ice is melting everywhere, the polar bears are drowning and that islands are sinking under the sea (us next?) due to globalwarming. You might be a globalwarming sceptic or a globalwarming denier MrB and you are entitled to those dinosaur opinions but I think you should keep you views to yourself on the community website and not promote sceptic or denier propoganda like this book.
Moan over.

Hi Maggie, thanks for giving me a laugh - your comment I am not one usually to complain had me in stitches

This book is an excellent source of information about large scale grid-connected wind electricity generation. It covers the history, physics and economics of the issue in highly referenced but easy to follow detail. I believe that if people are going to object to local windfarm developments it should be from a position of informed knowledge and not good ol' NIMBY-ism.

It is as you quite rightly point out written by a global warming sceptic, whose views on the general validity and importance of anthropogenic global warming I profoundly disagree with. However, this particular book deals with a very specific issue and does not push any wider GW sceptic or denier agenda, as you would know if you had read it. If it did I would not be recommending it as I believe anthropogenic global warming to be the second most significant problem ever to have been faced by our species.

[jimcee]

What is the first (in your opinion)?

[NickB]

What is the first (in your opinion)?

Population growth.