Seil Chat

.
A 'drop-in' session to show the planning application for Clachan wind farm will take place in Seil Village Hall on Thursday 12th May . . . (that's a week today)

3.30pm - 7pm

All welcome to view plans, discuss community involvement and talk to experts on hand.

Yeah, I got their new booklet today too through my letterbox.

I must say the photos of what it will look like have taken away my worries. We'll hardly notice it really. Also I do like the idea of them giving £80,000 a year to the local Primary Schools and paying burseries to our students to go to college.

They seem to also have assuaged any worries anyone had about noise and health.

I doubt I'll object now. Anyone else happier after receiving the booklet?

mags
x

ps Is the PACT person now going to remove his "impression" from his website? Seems totally exaggerated having seen the professional impression in the wind farm booklet.

Maggie wrote: ps Is the PACT person now going to remove his "impression" from his website? Seems totally exaggerated having seen the professional impression in the wind farm booklet.

PACT is a group, not an individual, Mags, and that question might have a better chance of an answer if posted on the PACT website as I don't think many PACT members post on this site.

I can't comment on the visualisations as the postie must have run out of booklets by the time he got to Balvicar - or maybe they were only given to those up the Clachan end of the island? All I can say is that - obviously - a developer will present the visualisation in the best possible light with respect to sky conditions, viewpoint chosen and other factors.

Has the front row of turbines been moved further back from the bridge skyline then? If so then that can only be an improvement on the original proposal.

£ 80,000 a year is still just a bribe. And a pathetically small one once you look at how public spending swallows it up. Just you see how much it costs to install traffic lights on the Clachan Bridge.

What price do you put on a year of life, or your environment for your lifetime? £80,000 might seem a nice pressie if you can stuff it in your back pocket, but you can't. This bribe is insulting. If it was £80,000 per person that would be much more reasonable. Would you vote for that?

Don't let the developers with flashy backing fob off the islanders with sparkly beads and trinkets. You've got something of incalcualble value that you must not undervalue.

Postie seems to have run out in Clachan too! Nothing delivered here!

NickB wrote: I can't comment on the visualisations as the postie must have run out of booklets by the time he got to Balvicar - or maybe they were only given to those up the Clachan end of the island? All I can say is that - obviously - a developer will present the visualisation in the best possible light with respect to sky conditions, viewpoint chosen and other factors.

Has the front row of turbines been moved further back from the bridge skyline then? If so then that can only be an improvement on the original proposal.

Well, the windfarm people have put three photos in their booklet.
One from Balvicar Bay; you can hardly see the turbines.
Another from Whinbank (same viewpoint as Pact); you can just make out the turbines.
Another from outside the Tigh an Truish looking towards The Bridge Over The Atlantic; you can just see the tips of three windmills.

Regards the £80,000 pa; they are not obliged to contribute anything at all. We should welcome it, not as a bribe because it patently won't affect the final decision in Dunoon or Edinborough, as a generous gesture.

The nuclear disaster in Japan and Mr Salmonds' promise to generate 100% of our electricity using windmills etc by 2020 makes backing windfarms the only rational thing an intelligent person should consider. In my opinion.

mags
x

.
It certainly looks from the rather blurry montages in the booklet (or at least the onlione version of it) as though the first row of turbines has been moved back, but I am looking forward to seeing the new plans and the larger visualisations at the drop-in meeting.

I presume the £80,000 will be split evenly between Seil, Luing and Kilninver as per the original plan? I know you think it is 'generous', but compared to the profits the developer is likely to make it is a drop in the ocean. I hope the respective community councils will, if they choose to support the application, at least attempt to drive a hard bargain with Mr. Young.

Re. your comment on Mr. Salmond . . . the SNP certainly seem to have been given an impressive new mandate by the electorate, which can only give strength and credibility to their big push for renewables.

.
The new booklet is on the WestCoastRenewables site HERE in PDF format.

Here are the photomontages. The usual soft-focus sky tricks have been used - the turbines will be more noticeable in reality than in these pictures, but overall it seems to be an mprovement. Hopefully bigger versions of the montages will be available at the drop-in session. (Note that in the central picture the area to the right of the bridge is cut off - are there any of the nearer turbines just out of view there? This montage in particular might be a bit misleading IMO)

So where are the plans that show the actual turbine positions?

They obviously don't want anyone to see what these will really look like as they have given such distant, low 'impact' imaging, it is so deceiptful.

Have they really repositioned the turbines? Because if they haven't I can say that from my own line-of-sight drawings these images are totally unrepresentative of what the windfarm will look like.

And Nick is completely right about the nearest turbines not being included in the bridge photo.

Name ONE windfarm in the UK that doesn't stand totally exposed and visible on the skyline for miles around?

Mr Young would say it is the one at Clachan Farm and he'll give you £ 80,000 if you believe him.

Having now seen PACT's montage, and Mr. Young's there is no way that one can be sure which represents the true picture as they both have an axe to grind.
If the scheme were to be given the thumbs up could it not be written into the contract that for every foot that the blades were more visible from the various vantage points on the Young version, that an extra £10.000 per year, was donated to the local communities?

We shouldn't be interested in selling our environment for £10,000/year/foot. We just don't need these useless vulgar follies here. Salmond says the emphasis now is offshore so ditch the subsidies and bury this proposal.

Well it would appear that certain members of this forum are not capable of learning from experience and are still peddling misinformed ,ill judged and plainly inaccurate tripe ,is this too massage their own ego,s !!!!
It is a while since i have been on here and had the "BENEFIT " of our pirate friends rantings.
1) I would assume after the Japanese Nuclear disaster he possibly will not be so keen to sight his latest reactor beside HIS family ( where ever) he lives?
Even if he does has he sorted out the waste issue yet ? If he has he needs to contact the government as they still have not sorted it out.
2) The last meeting that was held when the developer and his team laid out the proposal, his Pirate ship was not sighted and neither he nor his parrot were spotted.
3) Who is the person behind the idea to use potential wind farm earnings for traffic lights at the bridge ?
4) I have now e-mailed Mr Young himself to ask him if the detail in the brochures is accurate and could be misleading,His reply which i have in writing states that it is a legislative process he must go through and he cannot instruct photographers to alter or mis-represent photographs and that ALL turbines are actually shown and that NONE are left out.
5) Is £80000.00 really an insignificant sum per annum over 20 years i.e £1.6 million.Like i said before what are the other constructive offerings on the horizon and does P/Pirate have anything to offer the community other than inaccurate information.

I hope that as many people as possible can go to their viewing sessions and we can see if their offerings could really benefit the community and at least give us full information so that the whole community can have a balanced view of what the full offer and proposal is.
Val T

I want to know how scientifically these montages were constructed. I did my own scale drawings from various points correctly showing heights over distance on the actual profile of line of sight and I am highly sceptical that these are an accurate representation of what we will see.

There are many tricks used in these montages. Pick a nice sunny photo to 'drop' your turbine images into and you can fairly show them lightly profiled against the sky (subject to the direction of sun). But on a typical cloudy day the turbines will stand out dark against the skyline. Pick a low view point and of course something tall will be better hidden but we don't all live at sea level. Even a few feet difference makes a significant difference to line of sight.

If the developers are suggesting they have reviewed the positioning I am sceptical. The turbines are no smaller and they will still want maximum benefit of the available wind. They will be in the most exposed positions possible. The original positions of the turbines use up most of the available space on the hill. There is little room for adjustment of positioning, otherwise they would have planned even more turbines in the first place. If I did believe the Balvicar view montage it would suggest most of the turbines are now positioned down low, by the road alongside Loch Seil, sheltered by the hill. I just don't believe it.

Anyhow what's so wrong with nuclear? No I haven't been on a desert island for the last few months. The long anticipated nuclear disaster happened. Which one of you has done ANYTHING different with your lives since then? Can you even find it in the news now?Don't forget it was a tsunami that caused the problems by knocking out the diesel pumps that supply cooling water. A handful of workers died because of an explosion caused by a build up of hydrogen gas. We've had a nuclear disaster. The human race hasn't been wiped out. Life goes on as it did before. But what precautions have residents of Easdale and Seil taken against a tsunami?

I'm still in favour of nuclear energy. These windfarms are going to devastate our landscape if we don't prevent them. A newly released report proves that over years of gathering facts they are only 30% efficient at best. They cost a fortune and miles and miles and miles of monstrous turbines still create a tiny amount of energy compared to one nuclear power station. It may only be a matter of time before it is found that the best form of renewable energy is nuclear fusion. All the main and developing countries of the world are forging ahead with nuclear energy. If you look at how many nuclear facilities there are around the world now, even after Chernobyl, Long Island and Fukashima, can nuclear's opponents really say that nuclear is the danger they thought it might be? The SNP's 100% against Nuclear policy is not good news for Scotland's future.

A most amazing response,
What about the numbers of seriously injured affected people for generations to come.If Torness failed with a South East wind it would render 90% of OUR COUNTRY A WASTE LAND.
Have you been to Russia to see the dying and deformed children ??

Val, what inaccurate information have I supplied?

Torness was put where it was because the South East is the least likely direction for wind to come from. If you put a wind farm there dependent on south easterly winds it would fail miserably.

I haven't been to Siberia (have you?). Accidents are a fact of life but in the overall scale of things the victims of Chernobyl are only unfortunate casualties of life like anyone else who dies early.

After what happened to the Fukashima nuclear plant would I be prepared to live next to one? Yes, I lived down wind of Dounreay Nuclear Power Station for 17 years, when there were radiation leaks (.....and I'm still here!) Would you live in a low lying coastal area like Easdale or Balvicar after what the tsunami did in Japan?

Would I buy a house near a windfarm? No. And I am not happy that my Godfather allowed one of Scotland's biggest wind farms to be built on his land. It has ruined a landscape I hold dear.

The analagy to the traffic lights on the Clachan Bridge was not to suggest windfarm monies pay for them, but to suggest how £ 80,000 to a community per year is a piffling amount. You get so little for your money and I'm suggesting that the cost of putting traffic lights at Clachan Bridge would cost, I'm guessing, something like £ 30,000, perhaps more. You'll be amazed how £ 80,000 can vanish when spent on public projects.

So, even if £80,000 (split 3 ways) is given to the local communities who is going to compensate the home owners closest and in direct view (and earshot) of the turbines? Shouldn't those nearest get most? After all their quality of life and house values will be most directly affected by the wind farm?

Who is saying the community will get £1.6 million. Haven't the developers offered £ 80,000 a year? Is it guaranteed for 20 years? What if the site stops operating after 5 or 10 years? Even if you accept the paltry amount of £ 80,000 a year you should want payment for the lifespan of the windfarm paid up front as a guarantee. Then you can invest it properly for the community's future.

When I see the 'revised' turbine layout I'll work out how much of the turbines you can see from various viewpoints. As for the montages you say, Mr Young says all turbines must be shown. How many turbines can you count in each picture?

So these photomontages are within SNH guidelines, details of which, for visual representations of onshore windfarms, are here http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A305436.pdf

It is worth pointing out that 7) Introduction states, "It is important to stress that visualisations, whether they are hand drawn sketches, photographs or photomontages, will never appear ‘true to life’."

Too right! Not until they can make the blades go round in the photomontage, with sunlight flashing off them when it is bright or silouetted, black on a dull day, or making them visually jump out at you as you come round a bend or over a skyline, and with sound effects of whoosh, whoosh, whoosh, 24/7 for ever and ever and ever.

Whilst everyone still depends on nuclear, coal and solar power because the stupid windfarm things are so inefficient.

Photomontages are static views that are not representative of what would be seen in practice, they tend to suggest slimmer profiles for the turbines because of lack of rotation of the blades and they are contrived to depict the scene from a viewpoint that is the most advantageous to the applicant. PAN 45 recognises that photo montages have these limitations and that they do not reflect ‘the significant characteristic of movement’.

Pentlandpirate wrote:Who is saying the community will get £1.6 million. Haven't the developers offered £ 80,000 a year? Is it guaranteed for 20 years? What if the site stops operating after 5 or 10 years? Even if you accept the paltry amount of £ 80,000 a year you should want payment for the lifespan of the windfarm paid up front as a guarantee. Then you can invest it properly for the community's future.

If Mr. Young chooses to sell the faciliity at some point in its estimated 20 year lifespan what implications this would have for any annually paid 'community benefit'? This is indeed somethng that the community needs to know before giving its blessing and taking the money.

Pentlandpirate wrote:When I see the 'revised' turbine layout I'll work out how much of the turbines you can see from various viewpoints. As for the montages you say, Mr Young says all turbines must be shown. How many turbines can you count in each picture?

I think details will be easier to make out on the larger photomontages that no doubt will be available at the 'drop-in' session. Presumably we will also be able to see the new layout there. I am sure that once these details are known PACT will check the accuracy of the montages and post any relevant information they feel is necessary.


Mr. Young has posted the following on his blog regarding the new montages:

have received an e mail regarding the accuracy of the photos that have been published in our latest booklet. I can assure everyone that these images have not been altered or designed to limit the view of the proposed wind farm. They are produced following the guidlines set out by the planning authorities and SNH and will be fully reviewed by these public bodies. I would encourage everyone to come along to the drop in sessions this coming week where you can view those photos and many others that will clearly show the visual impact of the proposed wind farm.
Please note that the number of turbines has been reduced from 11 to 9 and there for the layout has now been changed considerably.

On that subject, don't forget that this is not the only forum to discuss this issue. PACT's website is a single-issue site devoted to the subject, as is Rory young's own blog at WestCoastRenewables. These are the movers and shakers in this development, so why not give them some input if you feel passionately one way or the other? And while you are at it it might be sensible to contact the Community Council to make your views known. The posts on this site, although viewed by a lot of people, only represent the views of a tiny proportion of residents.

Well Mr Pirate your level of ambivalence to other peoples lives from around the world is i find repugnant.For you to cast aside so flippantly the lives of the poor people around the Fukushima plant is a disgrace.These peoples lives and LANDS have been decimated by this plants failure.
I am sure any sane person would never wish Scotland to be put in the position these people now find themselves in,these people will not ever be allowed back to their homes.
Your ridiculous statement on the positioning of Torness is laughable if it were not so sad, Torness was placed there because of a need to supply peak power to England ,water supply and other geographical and geophysical reasons.Please also remember that Westminster's MRS Thatcher needed weapons grade plutonium to control the Russians,Torness and Heysham 2 were built for this purpose.
I would suggest you e-mail Mr Young with any questions as he responded very quickly to me and was helpful.It may stop you speculating on things you would appear to have little real knowledge off. Education is a wonderful thing if you have the ability to understand the information you receive.