Editor – THAT rather truculent, light-headed letter in last week’s paper (“Back the windfarm, listen to the kids”) would, I’m sure, gladden the hearts of would-be windfarm developers.
I understand that the company Statkraft, who are applying to build the Giants Burn windfarm above Dunoon and Sandbank, did include a visit to Dunoon Grammar School in their recent promotional tour of Cowal. No doubt their visit was strongly windfarm-friendly, since we know very well that what drives windfarm developers (and landowners) is the chance to make massive profits, while they use the green card for their own spin and promotion.
I also know from experience of previous public inquiries into proposed industrial windfarms on Dunoon’s hills that very often, windfarm developers throw serious money at their planning applications, hiring top KCs and professionals to try to force their applications through at planning hearings.
Sadly, they rarely care at all about the areas/communities which would be affected, but they love to offer benefits and promise jobs. Many such jobs typically turn out to be for specialist workers, often their own employees, while others are only temporary.
Nevertheless, so ridiculous is the notion of wrecking precious landscapes adjacent to a National Park that on four previous occasions, permission to build wind turbines on the Dunoon hills has been refused, this despite that David and Goliath situation at the relevant planning hearings.
Rather than just trying to poke fun at the issue and demonstrate the effectiveness of Statkraft’s self-promotion in the local area, the real issue under discussion should be which type of renewable is appropriate in which location.
In the UK, other very effective renewable options are available, such as hydro, micro-hydro, solar and tidal, which don’t ruin landscapes over vast areas (and disturb peatland, causing CO2 release), but indeed would help greatly with baseline power generation. In contrast, wind power is notorious for its intermittency and consequent related need for BSS (battery storage systems).
The scale of the landscape transformation incurred due to giant turbines means that in a country like Scotland, with its invaluable landscapes, National Parks and national scenic areas, any gigantic industrial moving turbine structures, 656ft high, being sited on high ground is a very extreme proposition indeed, affecting wide areas, and the effects of infrasound and shadow flicker on nearby residents or visitors should not be waved away as a joke.
On the contrary, there are heart-rending reports out there about people living close to turbines suffering a combination of noise, sleep deprivation and other ailments, while feeling trapped and being unable to sell their property. And property values matter, especially in an area where the whole essence of choosing to live here or visit is underpinned by Dunoon’s Gateway to the National Park status.
Rather than attempting to ridicule the risks involved, I suggest those who may support giant turbines being built on Dunoon’s hills should read the findings from the Scottish Government reporters who have already done the relevant and thorough assessment work for this area.
And no one should forget that the new generation of turbines proposed involves turbines twice the size of those we know at Ardrossan, Greenock or Whitelee, with twice the visual impact. No wonder so many people, young and old, are alarmed by the prospect, and no wonder there have already been emergency protest meetings involving up to 50 community councils in the north of Scotland, and a fighting fund set up by the renowned John Muir Trust to oppose windfarm development in unsuitable locations.
Philip Norris
Hunters Quay
0 Comments