CLACHAN WINDFARM 'DROP-IN' SESSION

[Pentlandpirate]

You're absolutely right Peter!

Rory Young should live in one.

[country bumpkin]

the only thing staring Cnoc Crom in the face is the Henderson house across the water. If you hadn't noticed the windmills are up to the North so if you have a squint then you might think they are in your face but otherwise you will only see the tops of them from outside or the from the conservatory. It is also not the wind farm that is taking prices down it is the recession in case you forgot we have one and people like you saying the things you are saying. Cheer up and don't be so down.

[NickB]

.
I missed the drop-in session because I was working and simply forgot about it. I have however since been talking to people in the pub who were there, and the general consensus was that they were not impressed. They all said that the turbines appeared far more intrusive in the wireframe diagrams than they did in the montages, lending support to the view that the montages have been created to show the turbines in the most favourable conditions possible. A couple of people even said that the turbines appeared to be shorter in the montages than in the wireframe, leading to speculation about the camera angles used.

The turbines have definitely been moved further back, but there are no publicly available site plans at the moment so it will not be possible for PACT or anyone else to create their own montages - with turbines against a bright blue sky rather than a washed out one for example - until the plans are made public. (Unless anyone took pics of the displays?) From a planning point of view the most critical question would still seem to be whether the new turbine positions comply with the Scottish Planning Policy recommendation of a 2km separation from houses.

Let's hope that if/when the project is actually realised no-one is unduly surprised by what they see.

[Beetlejuice]

Whoever took the photo from Whinbank must have been lying on the shore with their chin on the seaweed. Apparently all you'd be able to see of the turbines is the teeniest bit of the topmost blades peeking from behind the hilltops. Having looked at the wireframe diagram, I don't believe that for a minute.

[Pentlandpirate]

For this sort of project the lower the view point, the more you can hide. How low can these people get?!

It is true that a tiny increase in the height of the viewing point considerably increases what you can see on the horizon.

But what is the validity of creating photomontages from a point too shallow for boats yet at a point pedestrians are unlikely to set foot? Definitely only the view of people who can walk on water!

It would be nice to see a developer who had the integrity to show a 'worst case' scenario, rather than the opposite, so that no one had any dillusions over what is confronting them.

[NickB]

Whoever took the photo from Whinbank must have been lying on the shore with their chin on the seaweed. Apparently all you'd be able to see of the turbines is the teeniest bit of the topmost blades peeking from behind the hilltops. Having looked at the wireframe diagram, I don't believe that for a minute.

The new photomontage from Whinbank is now on display on the noticeboard at Balvicar Stores.

[Husker Doo]

Are we still going on about this.
I see PP has brought up the only subject that moves his kind and that is house prices.
I wonder if we still have the same support for Nuclear as we did the last time i dropped in on this subject i better watch where i am on the triangle

[Pentlandpirate]

Husker Doo: yes the Clachan Wind farms are still very much a 'live' issue.

The nuclear arguments can go to a new topic.

[Pentlandpirate]

There's a new series on BBC2 TV, Windfarm Wars. I didn't see the first one but you can catch up with the first and second programmes on BBC iPlayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... Episode_1/

"The first of a revealing observational documentary series that follows what happened when a global windfarm developer tried to build a windfarm in the heart of some of Devon's loveliest landscape.

In this episode, passionate developer Rachel Ruffle puts forward plans for the Den Brook Windfarm. Its nine 120-metre-high turbines will transform the landscape in a shallow valley that lies four-and-a-half miles from Dartmoor National Park. One of her allies is farmer Martin Tucker, who stands to gain hugely if the development goes ahead. Set against them are the local action group, including Martin Tucker's cousin, which mobilises to fight the proposals, claiming the turbines are visually intrusive and ineffective. And there is Mike Hulme, an increasingly disillusioned local resident who starts off on good terms with Rachel, but whose conscience is torn between the need for action on climate change, and his fears that turbine noise could blight the countryside's peace and tranquillity.

Before the local authority West Devon Borough Council votes on its decision, there are acts of vandalism, angry scenes and tears of frustration and disappointment".

[Husker Doo]

some people cannot afford your peace and tranquility
I listened with concern to the reports of pilot whales in a loch on uist what with the arrival of the BDMLR i became even more worried as this usually ends up with lots of dead whales.I wonder if we end up with a number of freshly dead whales should we use all this flesh and turn it in to food for the hungry masses out there or shouldn't we go there?

[Peter Connelly]

http://forargyll.com/2011/05/communitie ... ind-farms/

[NickB]

http://forargyll.com/2011/05/communitie ... ind-farms/

Thanks Peter. Not one of ForArgyll's best pieces when you consider that they have come out against the 1800MW development off the coast of Tiree because it will 'spoil the view' but are all in favour of our rather more modest 9MW development. ForArgyll really needs to get its position on renewables clarified.

Check out the following three pieces and compare and contrast the tone with that used by Ms Wiener in her poorly constructed an ill thought out article.

http://forargyll.com/2011/03/scottish-a ... out-tiree/

http://forargyll.com/2011/01/the-times- ... -windfarm/

http://forargyll.com/2010/11/questionna ... -projects/

As some people already know, with the resiting of the turbines at Clachan I no longer intend to object when the planning application goes in, although I am not actively campaigning for the development either. I do however object strongly to ForArgyll apparently playing one community off against another and deciding that 9MW here is OK but 1800MW off Tiree is all wrong.

[longshanks]

.......all in favour of our rather more modest 9MW development. ForArgyll really needs to get its position on renewables clarified.

....... poorly constructed an ill thought out article.

.... I do however object strongly to ForArgyll apparently playing one community off against another and deciding that 9MW here is OK but 1800MW off Tiree is all wrong.

Oh do calm down old chap.

On what evidence do you base your claim that the article is poorly constructed and ill thought out?

Nowhere in the article do ForArgyll say they are in favour of the Clachan windfarm.

Nowhere do they play Seil off against Tiree.

Scoop Shanks (Daily Beast by choice)

[Pentlandpirate]

You surprise me Nick. We're agreed £ 80,000 is a trifling amount, especially when split between three community councils. Even those who are ambivalent to the windfarm should make sure they get the most out of this. If the developers suggest the viability of the windfarm is lost if they give away more than £ 80,000 there is something far wrong. No, they could afford to pay double, three times easily, if not much more. And apart from upping the amount payable to the individual communities, you should be demanding compensation for all those properties close to the windfarm, and some for those further away but in sight of it. You should be demanding a mobile telephone mast too. Remember the developers are community spirited people keen to be seen helping the locals prosper and have a better quality of life (aren't they?).

If that windfarm is built, you lose something. It is only right you trade, negotiate and bargain for some compensation and you never, ever accept the first price. Deary me.

[NickB]

If that windfarm is built, you lose something. It is only right you trade, negotiate and bargain for some compensation and you never, ever accept the first price. Deary me.

PP, I couldn't agree more. As much leverage as possible should be applied to get as much as possible out of the developer - which is why I found his alleged offer of a free website laughable. Trinkets and baubles spring to mind.

My own feeling is that PACT is, for whatever reasons, short on local support, and a few posts on here by a handful of people will not make much difference either. Mr. Young obviously knows how to play the media and getting a positive puff on ForArgyll was a good move on his part. On here on the other hand some people seem to be more interested in petty point scoring. As I have said, I am no longer in the 'anti' camp, having retreated to neutral ground - but I do dislike the partisan view that ForArgyll seems to have adopted. I want to see the community go into this with open eyes and I want it to get an outcome most people are happy with or can at least live with. If the development goes ahead this of course should include doing whatever we can to maximise any real benefits to the community.

This site has provided a forum, ForArgyll has provided a forum and so has Mr. Young. You can use all three (plus PACT's site of course) to make your views known to as wide an audience as possible - but ultimately this issue will be decided by the planning committee, and surely planning issues are what people really need to focus on as we approach the application. There is now a diagram of the new layout on the Downloads page of the West coast Renewables site, but it is only available at a very small scale. I have enlarged part of it slightly and include it here for information - it is still blurry but you can just about make it out. As you can see, the turbines have been reduced in number and moved northwards, thereby improving skyline views from Clachan Seil and taking the turbines further away from some peoples' houses.

[Pentlandpirate]

Did anyone watch BBC2 Windfarm Wars?

If you care about the Clachan windfarm issue, you will find this mini series of four programmes is unmissable.

You can still catch up and watch the first two programmes on BBC iPlayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/

[NickB]

.
The Evolution document I posted previously has now been posted on the West Coast Renewables site as a proper PDF.

The new plan is just big enough and clear enough for someone to be able to mark the positions of the turbines on a map and do their own montages if they wish to.

http://www.westcoastrenewables.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Evolution-001.pdf

[Pentlandpirate]

OK so now Mr Young has gone to Plan B. Has this just been part of a pre-conceived strategy? We know that there is a bribe on the table which is proving a rather devisive tactic. Is this yet another ploy? Scare the pants out of the locals by initially showing plans of turbines in a position you know will cause controversy, so that when they object you can retreat to a position that seems less offensive and look like Mr Nice Guy bending to the wishes of the community?

Wake up people! The developers stand to make millions of pounds out of this windfarm, with OUR money. Anyone who doesn't fight this proposal stands to lose something, even if that amounts to what they might have won in community benefits if they had fought to name THEIR price (rather sthan simply accept what is on offer).

[NickB]

.
It appears that PACT had quite a good turnout (32) at their last meeting. They have produced a new leaflet which I presume has been delivered to every house.

Once the planning application is submitted the Community Council intends to conduct a survey amongst everyone on the edited electoral roll - 377 residents out of of the full electoral roll of 542. Differently coloured paper will be used for each local area – Clachan Seil, Balvicar, Cuan, Ellenabeich, Easdale and Ardmaddy – to show the differences in views of people living nearer to or further from the development site.

The other recent development that intrigued me was this statement from Mr. Young on the blog on his website:

We are currently in discussions with a green energy supplier about the possibility of local people and businesses been able to source subsidised electricity; most of which would come from Clachan wind farm if it goes ahead. This would then give local businesses an added marketing edge being able to promote these green credentials. I hope that you will agree that having an additional online marketing platform cannot be a bad thing for the area, especially if it has a distinct marketing angle.

Of course, the claim that most of the electricity would come from the wind farm is a nonsense, but the remainder of the proposal is intriguing because it is in a way an offer to 'up' the community benefit while promoting local involvement in the project. Regarding PP's comments that the community benefit on offer is derisory - I have been looking at some of the Community benefits provided by other schemes, and have to say that Mr. Young's offer - which amounts to approximately £9,000 per installed MW per year - is more generous than most. Highland Council, for example, aims to achieve £4,000 to £5,000 per installed MW per year.

One thing that several people have spoken to me about is their concern over the damage to the road during construction. In particular, the condition of Kilninver Bridge is cause for concern. We've been here before . . . One thing I would like to see if this does go ahead is a committment by the developer to return the road to at least its original condition, as it seems unlikely that Argyll and Bute Council will have the funds to do so.

[Pentlandpirate]

This would then give local businesses an added marketing edge being able to promote these green credentials

What's so 'green' about an operation that is so inefficient and so costly???