Seil Chat

Seventhseil wrote:So what you are saying is that if mr young had put in a planning aplication for a nuclear power station you wouldn't object?........ or is all this objecting a cover for house price panic......

It's nothing to do with house prices as far as I am concerned as we are here for the duration. It might be for Husker - he is looking for a big house on Seil, so this could make it more affordable

I don't think planning permission is ever likely to be given for any conventional nuclear reactor 500m from a house, so your comparison is not really valid.

As there are several existing prime sites for new nuclear reactors, where the people also want them, your comment, 7th, is sadly inappropriate and irrelevant. Wind farms deserve the same 2 adjectives. Indeed it's all p_ss & wind!

All this nuclear talk is hogwash,what you are saying is that you would be happy with a plant near your home,and you would be happy with the spent waste being stored near your home and happy with the 60 years it takes to decommission just because you
don't want turbines, you've walked in to a dead end with your arguments.
Reducing your energy use by 10percent is great but it doesn't solve the problem in fact it`s lazy because you don't really do anything and it gives you a self righteous glow and it gives you time make up reasons against tidal,wave,hydro and whatever else might come along.
Come on be honest you don't want Scotland/Argyll to be successful in anything but tourism because that's what pays crap wages,entices lots of folk here and keeps up property prices.
Its a no brainer

Husker Doo wrote:All this nuclear talk is hogwash,what you are saying is that you would be happy with a plant near your home,and you would be happy with the spent waste being stored near your home and happy with the 60 years it takes to decommission just because you
don't want turbines, you've walked in to a dead end with your arguments.
Reducing your energy use by 10percent is great but it doesn't solve the problem in fact it`s lazy because you don't really do anything and it gives you a self righteous glow and it gives you time make up reasons against tidal,wave,hydro and whatever else might come along.
Come on be honest you don't want Scotland/Argyll to be successful in anything but tourism because that's what pays crap wages,entices lots of folk here and keeps up property prices.
Its a no brainer

Low on the pyramid Husker . . .

Reducing energy consumption by 10% nationwide with energy savings would have the same result as replacing 10% of our grid generating capacity with wind turbines. (And in real terms we can never do that anyway . . . )

It is throwing more money at developers to build wind turbines that is lazy and short on foresight. It diverts funds from other forms of renewable energy and leads us to believe that we can continue with our current (pun intended) profligate energy use profile indefinitely without making any real effort to develop new energy sources that provide the base load capacity the grid needs to continue to function.

Why you think covering Argyll in windfarms will make it 'successful' is difficult for me to fathom, so please enlghten us. None of the turbines are going to be made in Argyll, and I imagine the bulk of the installation crews will come from outwith Argyll. Windfarms create very few jobs, and it seems unlikely to me that this one will create any beyond the installation phase. The Skykon plant at Machrahanish rescued 100 jobs when it took over from Vestas (with Scottish government backing) - but now there is a big question mark over those 100 jobs again and no hope of the planned expansion taking place.

On the other hand a nationwide campaign to install better installation would be extremely cost-effective in terms of carbon emission reduction and result in many jobs for all areas including Argyll. Not as good for landowners, developers and energy companies - most of whom in all three categories come from outwith Argyll - but better for the rest of us.

You can sneer at tourism if you want, but Argyll needs it. I don't think the turbines at Clachan are going to help.

Well, Husker Doo:

All this nuclear talk is hogwash,what you are saying is that you would be happy with a plant near your home,and you would be happy with the spent waste being stored near your home and happy with the 60 years it takes to decommission just because you don't want turbines, you've walked in to a dead end with your arguments

That is exactly what I lived with for much of my life in Caithness. I support Dounreay for all the benefits it gives the community, affordable housing, jobs, training, investment, better roads, better schools an influx of young people witha future. Now I but am bitterly opposed to the rash of windfarms that are desecrating the landscape. I'm in no dead end with my arguments.

Yeah, PP, and the great majority of Caithness folk, having lived with the Dounreay site, were in favour of it. It's just a pity that Britain threw away its world lead in fast breeder technology which was developed at Dounreay. Creating more fuel than you use is a pretty good idea. Compared to this feeble nonsense of windmills, nuclear has it all going for it. Mind you, it would have to be done a bit more responsibly and openly than in the old days. But waste disposal is not the problem it is often made out to be and the benefits are phenomenal.

NickB wrote: landowners, developers and energy companies - most of whom in all three categories come from outwith Argyll

I don't see your point in making that statement McB.
Apart from the fact that its inaccurate; for example only one of the landowners in Kilbrandon parish comes from outwith Argyll.
You could equally, and this time truthfully, state that most of the vocal objectors to the windfarm come from outwith Argyll. Further, all of the PACT committee bar one come from outwith Argyll.
People's origins are totally irrelevant to this case.

Long Distance (migrant by choice)

They'll need all that extra cash to send their brats to school...

longshanks wrote:

NickB wrote: landowners, developers and energy companies - most of whom in all three categories come from outwith Argyll

I don't see your point in making that statement McB.

It was in response to Husker Doo's assertion that the erection of windfarms would mean money coming into Argyll. Very little of the money made as a result of wind 'farming' in Argyll will remain in the county.

To make my point clearer: the majority of landowners, developers and energy companies currently involved in large scale windfarm development in Argyll are based outwith the area. The returns from their investments will therefore largely go outwith Argyll. Little or no financial benefit (other than so-called 'community benefit' payments - or bribes) will accrue to Argyll as far as I can see.

On the other hand, a nationwide energy saving campaign involving the installation of insulation in every sub-standard home in Argyll and throughout the UK could save more energy than these windfarms will ever generate while providing lots of local employment in sectors where there is plenty of local expertise. Another area where money could fruitfully be invested locally would be in the development of more sustainable forestry, wood pellet production etc.

Let's try to keep this at least half way up the pyramid. At the end of the day we all have to live together whether this project happens or not.

NickB wrote:It was in response to Husker Doo's assertion that the erection of windfarms would mean money coming into Argyll. Very little of the money made as a result of wind 'farming' in Argyll will remain in the county.

Yeah, but, so what.
We don't live in glorious isolation here, we're part of a country. So. if profits happen to be made in Argyll end up in East Lothian so what? I don't see the problem.
Are you saying I would be wrong to invest in a business in Perth, or York or anywhere outside Argyll and then spend the profit I make back here? I hope you don't think that because that's real Little Englander (little Argyller) thinking.
Certain inhabitants of Loch Melfort were laughed down at a CC meeting there a year ago when they suggested that the community should oppose Raera (which I see is now recommended for refusal) because the electricity generated would end up in England. Dinosauar opinions.
A certain resident here has written a letter of opposition to Clachan on the grounds that the land is owned by an "absentee landlord". Some folks are still living in Victorian times.
Finally, and at risk of you getting pyramoid, please don't suggest further afforestation as the solution. Our grandfathers here fought against that; it was a real rape of our landscape; far worse than any windfarm.

Long Winded (against clachan wind farm by choice)

Dear Longshanks

I've missed you my friend! But as for

A certain resident here has written a letter of opposition to Clachan on the grounds that the land is owned by an "absentee landlord".

I think it is a valid point to make. It does seem to me that so many of those who are proposing these schemes (and I do know some) do not live on the same land or within sight of these developments. Do they know something we don't? i.e the low bass woomf, woomf, woomf of the blades turning 24/7 does disturb your life, your sleep, your health so that even they can't bear to live close to these things?

It's a fair point too to suggest the profits from these developments will go out of the local area. Remember a big part of the developer's sales pitch is that a windfarm is good for the local area and that is another lie.

Pentlandpirate wrote:Dear Longshanks
I've missed you my friend!

Boomerang that.
In fact I attempted a return a few days ago but the forum appears to have another glitch viz I posted recommending that we don't insult our neighbours on Luing and in Kilninver because we need to fight the proposal together. Most strangely my post appeared but then a few hours later it had gone. Deleted ? Glitch ? Whatever !
I do take your valid points that it would be nice that some of the profits stay in the area and also that, in this case, the landowner won't suffer the side effects of the turbine in his daily life. But, I don't really see how that conundrum can be resolved. Just being realistic, though, the "community grant" is an attempt at putting something into the community.
Its disappointing that while our neighbours are busily discussing how to utilise these monies we on Seil are behaving like ostriches.
I would suggest that all the monies are pooled and used to keep Luing Primary School open; even as a private school funded by the community turbine grants.
My big worry at the moment is that now that Raera has been officially "Recommended for Refusal" there will be greater pressure on Dunoon to pass Clachan so it can hit Salmonds windpower target.

TutankaShanks (Pyramid builder by choice)

I would suggest that all the monies are pooled and used to keep Luing Primary School open; even as a private school funded by the community turbine grants.

It shouldn't need the windfarm bribe to keep the school open. That is a bad decision that will allow Mr Young to 'blackmail' the local economy.

.
The recommendation for refusal of the Raera project can only be seen as a huge boost for those intending to fight the Clachan proposal. The primary reason for refusal is that:

This proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of the Development Plan. All ‘other’ material issues have been taken into account but these are not of such weight as to overcome the significant adverse impact consequences of the scale and location of the development upon landscape character, which cannot be overcome by relevant planning conditions or by way of legal agreement.

While this application could 'called in' by the Scottish government (developments over 50MW are automatically 'called in' - Raera is 45MW) it would seem to be a promising precedent for a subsequent similar recommendation for Clachan, where the major objections to Raera apply in spades.

The document recommending refusal can be seen HERE. There is a huge amount of material to be gleaned for the fight against the Clachan development, including summaries of all the objections received from public bodies and private individuals.

I've said unkind things about planning in Argyll and Bute in the past but this time I think they have come up trumps, refusing to be cowed by the hectoring voice of Big Brother telling us they know what is good for us. It seems that the tide is turning across the UK - an article in today's Independent shows that nationwide developers and energy companies are struggling in the face of concerted local opposition from people fighting to protect their environment.