Clachan Windfarm meeting 25/09/2010 - a report

[NickB]

.
I have been sent a report by someone who attended the meeting on Saturday.

You can read it HERE in PDF format.

[NickB]

.
I see 44 people have looked at this post - and presumably the report - even though no-one has commented.

It occurs to me that one of the most compelling things someone could do to alert people on Seil to the true nature of this project would be to produce a visual representation of the proposed turbines from various locations, as I do not think everyone is aware of the scale of the project. 72m to tip height is well over 200ft, and I suspect they are going to dominate the immediate landscape between Clachan and Balvicar in a way many are not aware of.

'Before' and 'After' photos are needed from various places, but particularly from Clachan and various places on the road from Balvicar to Clachan, across Balvicar Bay from the golf course, from the roadside along Loch Seil and perhaps from the viewpoint where the bench is above the road, looking across to Mull. The proposed locations of the turbines are mapped, and I am sure there must be someone locally who can take pictures and superimpose the turbines accurately in photoshop or similar?

(And not using tippex like the photo that was outside the shop - a good attempt but seriously flawed!)

No doubt someone will be along in a minute to accuse me of being patronising, but I think that a true visual representation of the turbines would help people decide whether or not they can live with them. Better to know now than be surprised a few years down the line.

(Mr. Young says on his website that

During the planning process we will provide maps showing exactly where they will be visible from and how they will appear.

- but I can't help noticing how these pictures tend to be taken in optimum light and weather conditions to minimise the visual impact, and of course they are taken from viewpoints chosen by the developer)

And while on the subject of Mr. Young's website - I see that the trickle of comments has dried up. Mr. Young has invited discussion on his site, and if no-one takes him up on this then he will be able to say quite legitimately that he provided a forum for discussion and no-one said anything. You only have to provide a name and e-mail address to post, and the e-mail address does not have to be confirmed, so there is no reason why people cannot post comments or questions as 'concerned of Clachan' or similar if they wish to remain anonymous.

(There still seems to be a general concern that it is easy to trace contributors to sites such as this or Mr. Young's blog - let me just say once again that this is not so - I have no idea who the majority of you lot are and could not find out if I wanted to unless I went to my ISP - which would only happen in the case of severe abuse). Just don't sign up with an obvious email like joe.bloggs@btinternet.com . Anonymity is a two-edged sword, but it does remove a major reason many have for not contributing to the discussion)

[Pentlandpirate]

This business specialises in producing images of what windfarms will look like
http://www.syvisuals.co.uk

I'm not sure who produced the report, but whoever they are Thank you for putting it together

[NickB]

.
That's Stuart Young Visuals - no relation we assume

Seriously though, no point in paying a fortune - there's no kitty, body to supervuise the kitty etc etc - and I am sure we have the talent to do this locally.

[Maggie]

I've got a nice picture of the bridge if that's any help?

mags
x

[NickB]

.

The decision to propose these more compact turbines is a compromise that my family felt was important for meeting the need for sustaining and improving the area’s productivity whilst being sympathetic to the local landscape.

Hmmm . . . very sympathetic

[Maggie]

Wow !
Bit sizist though
Most of us would love to be 2 meters tall, or higher.
I'm not. You maybe but I'm not and I do get a wee bit bored of tall people looking down on me and thinking I'm inferior.
Could you redo this for us shorties who are less than 2 meters so we can get a better sense of scale and so we feel a bit more normal?
Impressive picture. Well done.

mags

[NickB]

.
Oops, looks like I got the picture above slightly wrong - the turbines are actually 78m high, not 72m - so add another 6m to that . . .

The proposal is for installation of 11 Enercon E44 900kw turbines: 56 meters to hub height; and 78 meters to tip height.

[Pentlandpirate]

Is that right, 78 metres? I can't be believe my maths. Am I right that that is more than 255 feet tall?? TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY FIVE FEET TALL!

And they want to stick some of these at the 100 metre contour line (I am right that those contour lines are 50m and 100m?)

That means the tops of the turbines will be almost 600 feet high. Viewed from the tnt they will look monstrous. You have an historic landmark, a major tourist attraction like the bridge, every coach dropping tourists to have a look.

Whoever thinks the windfarm will become a tourist attraction needs their heads looking at. They'll be hopping off the coaches and climbing out of their cars to say, "WHO THE F*@% EVER ALLOWED THOSE MONSTROSITIES TO BE BUILT THERE?"

We should treasure and protect our landscape, no matter what the price. I wonder if Mr Young is accepting grants on some of his lands in one hand which are intended to set aside land to preserve the landscape and nature, whilst in the other hand accepting grants to ruin it elsewhere?