Seil Chat

.
The visibility map in the scoping report quite clearly indicates the areas the turbines will be visible from - I have reproduced the relevant section below. As we can already see the big shed at Clachan across the bay from Balvicar we are not going to have any difficulty seeing the turbines.



I have spent the last few days imagining the changed skyline across the bay and I can certainly live with it - but it will be changed, make no mistake. Like Jim I am in favour of renewables myself, but I believe the overall part windpower has to play in solving the environmental crisis is limited. It is currently very attractive as it is a simple technology that makes a big 'look, we're doing something' statement. For these reasons it currently attracts big funding and I believe it is actually detracting from investment in more appropriate solutions including among others energy efficiency and tidal power.

My own objection is not to the visual intrusion or loss of amenity, rather it is my belief that this development is fundamentally unnecessary and that the application is based on naked self-interest supported by a transparent bribe to the community. Instead of giving Mr. Young an easy ride the community should ensure that it gets as much benefit as it can from this development with a minimum of inconvenience or loss of amenity for those most affected.

Is it not called the Frog of Lorne??? When did it become a toad???

Sorry if this is a bit of diversion from the main topic, which is of genuine public interest.
But it is definitely listed in every account I have come across as the "Toad of Lorn". The only reason that I mentioned a frog was because the two animals are very similar in appearance.
Coming back from Oban, after one passes the Knipoch, and again after the Barnacarry junction, there are two excellent views of this particular feature, if you can call a bit of hillside a feature.
From both angles, and I have studied this particular feature as many times as I have had left over dinners, there seems to be as much similarity to a toad as there is to a windfarm.

canUsmellthat wrote:Is it not called the Frog of Lorne??? When did it become a toad???

Canu; its always been the toad. Only incomers call it the frog.
Gaelic you see (Losgann = toad)
oh, and Nick MacB; you keep banging on about "loss of amenity". Just what "amenity" are we going to lose with the erection of these turbines ? I'm at a loss as to what you're on about. Is there a cricket pitch up there or something?

ConLib Shanks (coalesced by choice)

.
Loss of amenity is a general term referring to the degradation of the environment for those living nearby or using the area for recreation. It is very widely used with reference to wind farm planning issues, but rarely in connection with cricket pitches. I apologise if you consider using the phrase 'loss of amenity' once to be 'banging on about it' , but if you are intending to oppose this development you will need to become a little more media-savvy. Your comments about 'drastically damaging' a 'fragile ecosystem and habit' aren't likely to get you anywhere - the ecosystem on Clachan Farm is not particularly fragile and the scoping study indicates that there are likely to be few ecological objections compared to the Raera development.

You could go out at night and scatter greater crested newts liberally over the site I suppose . . .

Re. the Toad of Lorn aka the Frog of Lorn - the matter is not as clear-cut as you would have us believe. Losgann is variously identified in Gaelic dictionaries and reference works as either 'toad' or 'frog'. Some sources give losgann as frog and losgann dubh as toad, which would make 'Frog of Lorn' more accurate. Other sources give losgann-buidhe for frog, and losgann-dubh for toad. It seems to me that you pays yer money and takes yer choice, although the majority of locals do seem to refer to the 'toad' rather than the 'frog'.

Come to think of it, cricket pitches are pretty thin on the ground hereabouts. Maybe a twist on the arm to Messrs Young could produce a couple of these. Then we would be faced with finding cricketers. But there must be some worthwhile amenity which aforementioned developer might be prepared to supply as a quid pro quo ?

NickB wrote:.
- the ecosystem on Clachan Farm is not particularly fragile

Oh come on McB; you, of all people, should know that all ecosystems are fragile and I really don't know where you got your definition of amenity from. (BTW you banged on about "loss of amenity" twice in one post but that's by-the by). The only amenity those eleven windmill sites provide for the nearby community is as an open space for walking and I can tell you that no-one, absolutely no-one, round here ever walks up there. If anyone reading that assertion wishes to challenge it then tell me how many duns (small iron age forts) there are where the proposed windfarm is sited; if you'd ever been up there you'd know.
You were really having a pop at me weren't you, my wee buddy. Why on earth would I want to become "media-savvy"?
Listen, we're on the same side here. I don't want the wind farm and neither do you; the only thing is I'm at a disadvantage as I am slightly I.T. illiterate whereas you are leading from the front with your stop Clachan windfarm website etc. Well done.
Regarding the Toad v Frog debate you need to understand that old Gaelic was a dynamic and localised language. In the same way as we have Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic my Grandparents on Barra would have had many nuances of words which would have differed fron the Gaelic spoken here. Here Losgann means toad, reference to dusty dictionaries will never elucidate those nuances.
I find attitudes to Gaelic here (rant begins) rather sad. I give one example.
Last year the council offered to put on language lessons in The Hall and asked residents what language they would like to learn. A great opportunity for Gaelic learning you'ld think.
No.
A bunch of incomers outvoted those of us who asked for Gaelic language lessons and we got Spanish lessons instead.
I ask you!
(rant over)

Calm Shanks (opinionated by choice)

longshanks wrote:

NickB wrote:.
Here Losgann means toad, reference to dusty dictionaries will never elucidate those nuances.

What's the local Gaelic for frog then?

Surprised you needed to learn Gaelic at language classes with your ancestry and depth of knowledge.

Surprised you needed to learn Gaelic at language classes with your ancestry and depth of knowledge.

Ouch!

.
Please sign this petition before May 29th

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to guarantee a minimum separation distance of two kilometres between a wind turbine development and any residential property or building, regardless of whether they are single dwellings or part of a settlement, to minimise potential health, safety and environmental risks.

http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=385

NickB wrote:Surprised you needed to learn Gaelic at language classes with your ancestry and depth of knowledge.

McB; I'll thank you not to make comments about my abilities and about my family heritage. Evin Eric spotted the sarcasm.

Regarding the petition you are telling everyone to sign.
Before I put my name to such a thing I need to know much more about it.
Can I suggest you provide links to any research into the "health, safety and environmental risks" which happen within two km of a windfarm. Are they proved? This is not just another elf 'n safety scare story is it?

Many thanks

Sancho Shanks (tilting by choice)

I walked up around the Toad/Frog twice last year. Does that make me a "no-one"? Funnily enough, I was with a group of locals the first time, and we met some other locals coming in the opposite direction. I take it these don't count either.

.
Further to the above post - can I just make it quite clear that I am not personally starting an anti-windfarm campaign - all I have done is offered to support any organised protest group by providing a website. I have already had one semi-retired member of the community tell me he does not have time to get involved because he is too busy with other projects. Well, I don't have unlimited time either, and I can certainly live with a horizon full of gently spinning turbines if it is inevitable.

I don't believe that large scale windfarms are the most appropriate way to deal with the current crisis - therefore I would be happy to help any organised group. However, I suspect that there is simply not enough energy in the community to do much about this. Stopping a windfarm in Scotland in the present planning climate means climbing a mountain, not chuntering on a bit on a forum. I am sure however that the Community Council will do their best to represent our interests in this matter.

Regarding the e-petition linked to above - it is unlikely to have any effect, but every little helps. The 2km rule seems sensible to me and would in itself if it became law prevent this development.

Min, as far as I know loads of people walk up and around the Toad. We certainly try to at least once a year. There is a guide to walks in the area on sale in the Heritage Centre for visitors apart from anything else.

I'm up for climbing a mountain!

NickB wrote:.
can I just make it quite clear that I am not personally starting an anti-windfarm campaign

That's a relief.
Of course there is opposition to this windfarm and counter arguments are best left to those who properly represent the community here; The Community Council.
If the CC decide that the community would be best served by opposing the windfarm then the CC have a website (this) which the CC can use to get their message aired.
Wildcat anti windfarm websites created by individuals would just be met with disdain, ridicule and cause divide in our community. So I am glad you are not falling into that trap.
Just as an aside, McB, there are many on these islands, like you (see previous post) who are happy to live with the changed skyline and feel little need to get involved in a campaign against a project which will produce jobs and social funding for us all.
Personally I'm against the windfarm but am far too busy earning a living to get involved in some kind of (inevitably) doomed protest group.

Eco Shanks (nuclear by choice)

longshanks wrote:

NickB wrote:.
can I just make it quite clear that I am not personally starting an anti-windfarm campaign

That's a relief.
Of course there is opposition to this windfarm and counter arguments are best left to those who properly represent the community here; The Community Council.
If the CC decide that the community would be best served by opposing the windfarm then the CC have a website (this) which the CC can use to get their message aired.
Wildcat anti windfarm websites created by individuals would just be met with disdain, ridicule and cause divide in our community. So I am glad you are not falling into that trap.
Just as an aside, McB, there are many on these islands, like you (see previous post) who are happy to live with the changed skyline and feel little need to get involved in a campaign against a project which will produce jobs and social funding for us all.
Personally I'm against the windfarm but am far too busy earning a living to get involved in some kind of (inevitably) doomed protest group.

Eco Shanks (nuclear by choice)

Anyone else find this post a little strange?

NickB wrote: Anyone else find this post a little strange?

Probably not.
What exactly do you find strange about a balanced, thought-through opinion?
To be perfectly honest, McB, I think most people will find your post more than a little strange. What was its purpose may I ask?

Shankers (zzzzzzzzzzzz by choice)

.
You are as reliable as the wind, Longshanks. What direction will you be blowing from tomorrow?

Next Community Council public meeting is on Tuesday.

It is really surprising how the last 8/10 posts on this subject are from two opponents of this proposal who have involved themselves in a slanging match against each other. Surely we are getting a bit fed up with this continual bickering, which does not really make interesting reading to other than the two protagonists.

.
Here's something which probably does make more interesting reading:



(Click the pic to go to Amazon)

The author is a global warming sceptic, but that does not necessarily detract from the validity of many of his arguments against the current rush for windpower. I've read several reviews of the book, and have just ordered a copy.