Machrihanish Offshore Windfarm

[Ship called Dignity]

I must admit I was not that surprised to read in the KOWAG website that on average there was only 110 people present over the two public meetings held in Machrihanish and Campbeltown.If you assume that out of the 110 present,at the very least 50% would be couples,then that leaves only in the region of 80 households in attendance.

Spot on Bill. I too wasn't surprised at the level of support show. Going by your analysis of 80 households that is quite impressive for a village the size of Machrihanish which only has around 100 houses.

[glenn]

Yes, well pointed out Bill and Ship ! An excellent turnout ! Well done to all concerned.

[the ringmaster]

Very vocal minority will always make more noise than the silent majority

[Govangirl]

Very vocal minority will always make more noise than the silent majority

How true, I like that!

[bill]

Spot on Bill. I too wasn't surprised at the level of support show. Going by your analysis of 80 households that is quite impressive for a village the size of Machrihanish which only has around 100 houses.

An average of 80 households split over 2 meetings = an average of 40 households per meeting.Which is less than 50% for Machrihanish(and probably in reality a lot less as it would not have been solely Machrihanish residents ).As for the Campbeltown meeting the percentage must be at the very most 0.04% of households attending.
Always easy to get a petition signed,not so easy to actually get people to attend meetings etc.That is why I have said previous that it is usually a hard core minority who run a protest campaign.

[WC1]

it is usually a hard core minority who run a protest campaign

I can honestly say - based on a large number of conversations with people from a wide cross-section of the community - that in this case the 'hard core minority' most certainly have the support of a majority of the population. It's very rare nowadays to see people turning out for public meetings of any description, so it would be wrong to read too much into the size of the turnout for these particular meetings. Bill is clutching at straws on this one.

[Bertie]

it is usually a hard core minority who run a protest campaign.

I would have thought that statement true of any campaign actually.

[bill]

An average of 80 households split over 2 meetings = an average of 40 households per meeting.Which is less than 50% for Machrihanish(and probably in reality a lot less as it would not have been solely Machrihanish residents ).As for the Campbeltown meeting the percentage must be at the very most 0.04% of households attending.
Always easy to get a petition signed,not so easy to actually get people to attend meetings etc.That is why I have said previous that it is usually a hard core minority who run a protest campaign.

I can honestly say - based on a large number of conversations with people from a wide cross-section of the community - that in this case the 'hard core minority' most certainly have the support of a majority of the population. It's very rare nowadays to see people turning out for public meetings of any description, so it would be wrong to read too much into the size of the turnout for these particular meetings. Bill is clutching at straws on this one.

I would have thought that statement true of any campaign actually.

Is it just me ,or can you not see that we are actually in agreement ??

[kowag]

Please find below the link to the fantastic campaign video.
http://www.youtube.com/v/-NlSI2lLh9Q?hl=en&fs=1

[WC1]

Is it just me ,or can you not see that we are actually in agreement ??

I think it's just you, Bill.

[kowag]

RSPB add their voice to Kowag's campaign:


KOWAG has received feedback from Andy Robinson the Conservation Officer for Argyll & Bute RSPB Scotland, South and West Region about their submission to both the Scottish Government and Scottish Southern Energy regarding the baleful Kintyre Windfarm development.

Andy remarked:

"As you can see we share concerns about the site and have asked that the EIA include in-depth survey work so that an assessment of impacts can be as you will see from the attached responses a big issue in relation to offshore wind development is a lack of data to inform site selection process, in bird terms this does not apply to this site where seabird movements and its importance as a pinch point is well documented. Its situation close inshore is also unique amongst the proposed sites and whilst visual impact is not within our remit there is little doubt that its impacts will be major".

In their formal responses RSPB focused on the particular species in the area that could be affected and the need for diligent environmental impact assessment:

" Uisaed Point at Machrihanish has long been established as a site to watch passage sea and land birds.The regular passage of depressions frequently produce conditions that funnel concentrations of birds close into the area. Birds leaving the bay pass close to the point as they exit it, therefore placing their fligthlines directly through the proposed windfarm site. The EIA should fully consider the barrier impact that the windfarm will represent to these birds, which are in effect storm driven and they capacity to reorientate successfully around/through the site.....

there are potentially adverse impacts on birds including wintering birds in the adjacent Machrihanish IBA to the east of the proposed Kintyre site and internationally important seabirds within the North channel (which are part of the Rathlin Island SPA), that may be displaced through loss of breeding habitat or impacted by collision….the proposals for the West coast sites may also affect the migration of a range of terrestrial qualifying species of SPAs, both close to (e.g. Kintyre Goose Roost SPA) and at a significant distance (international scale) from the proposed sites. Whooper swans, Greenland white-fronted geese, pale-bellied brent geese and black-tailed godwit all have the potential to pass through this area in significant numbers...

A principle concern is the degree to which Special Protection Areas (SPAs) at distance to the developments may be impacted It is likely that seabirds from designated colonies within Northwest Scotland (and Northern Ireland) will occur in the proposed development area. A difficulty in assessing any impacts on SPA, and non SPA populations, is the collision risk potential for many migratory species this potentially will be low a low frequency but a high magnitude event. That is it may not happen often but when it does it is liable to involve ‘numbers’of birds. Such events are liable to be highly influenced by weather conditions during migration.

Figure 2.3e shows the majority of Argyll Array and Kintyre (existing STW sites) as heavily constrained. Further justification is therefore required as to why these sites should be progressed".

KOWAG shares these concerns and questions the need to imperil the priceless diversity of birdlife for a development that is only sited so far inshore to minimise development costs and boost a power generating company's profits. Protect our birds - relocate this ill conceived money machine.

[kowag]

SSE Shipping study Superficial and flawed, in our opinion:

The Kintyre Offshore Windfarm Action Group has obtained a copy of the study commissioned by Scottish Southern Energy Renewables (SSE) to determine the impact on shipping of the proposed Islay and Kintyre Offshore Windfarms. The study was completed by a company called Anatec and has proved to be less than thorough, so the Action Group has written an open letter to SSE detailing the 8 key defects they can see in the study:

1. The study is based on only 28 days of data (8% sample) but the choice of early January data (when there is virtually nil shipping for 7days of that month due to the hangover from the New Year holidays) artificially reduces the traffic density and associated graphics and misreppresents the real picture. You should repeat the sampling data from end January to provide a more honest sample.

2. It is disappointing that this study focuses entirely on shipping carrying the Automatic Identification System, thus ignoring leisure craft and small fishing vessels. I recognise that Anatec recommend a seperate study (and hope the Government insist SSE undertake this) for such craft, but it would be more meaningful to have the complete picture in one document, otherwise for example you are trying to compare and overlay data across two data sets, diluting conclusions and impacts.

3. The report makes vague allusions to "alternative routes that can be taken without adding significantly to voyage distance" but makes no effort to quantify that or the costs associated with it, despite the fact that in both cases the existing sea lanes and associated medium to high risk zones cover the entirety of the proposed windfarm areas, requiring the sea lanes to be rerouted past them.

4. The generalised assertion that "in many cases there is sea room adjacent to the routes for ships to increase their clearance from a wind farm" is preposterous for the Kintyre site as clearly there is no searoom at all to landward of that inshore site and figure 5.4 shows that moving it to the West would impinge on the Islay route and a submarine exercise area.

5. The submarine exercise area gets no analysis at all except for the almost risible statement that "A good lookout is to be kept for them

when passing through these waters"!! This despite the fact it is the most direct transit route for submarines to Faslane and forcing more shipping into this area of "searoom" is logically a greater risk....though how much of a risk we don't know because it was overlooked by Anatec.

6. It is very disappointing that Anatec's high level recommendations blanket cover both sites - taking no account whatever of their differences and features - this is shoddy and superficial. The Kintyre site is only 0.7 nautical miles offshore compared to 7 miles for the Islay site and they have utterly different ship types using the routes, yet no meaningful differentiation is made.

7. The main recommendation is that this study should be used for windfarm "site optimisation". This wholly ignores the main conclusion that "

Development within the Kintyre site will mean that vessels would not be able to use the sheltered coastal route and would have to re-route further to the West which will bring them closer to the larger vessels using the Northbound lanes of the North Channel TSS as well as increasing there (sic) passage times" and the fact that the study shows 100% of the proposed Kintyre site is covered by shipping lanes and zones of medium to very high risk. The study does not state the blindingly obvious - this proposed windfarm site is in the wrong place and it is not the sea lanes that need rerouting but the windfarm.

8. The proposed stakeholder consultation list is deficient. It does not mention representatives of the fishing industry or local sailing clubs in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

This response was copied to MSP Jim Mather, Minister for Energy who responded that the comments had been noted and passed to the relevant departments to consider. Even this flawed study shows that there will be considerable disruption and possible danger to ships no longer able to use the sheltered coastal route..

[Ninja Mania]

If you think this proposal wont go ahead as planned, then visit sky channel 580, and start praying.......

[bill]

If you think this proposal wont go ahead as planned, then visit sky channel 580, and start praying.......

Yes but does HE ever listen?

[katya]

I noticed a couple of men on Main St this morning beside a table with a sign stating "Say yes to wind" - as I was driving I didn't get a chance to see properly, but I assume it is a campaign to support the windfarm?