Machrihanish Offshore Windfarm

[weetoonboy]

I must admit I find it amazing that there is never any comment from Kintyre Offshore Windfarm Action Group (KOWAG) on this thread. The most debated thread ever on the Kintyre Forum and no representations made from the action group. Nearly 20,000 views and no comment.

Comments on Facebook, letters to the Courier etc but nothing on here - where people are debating the issue.

Good point.

Personally I want to hear the economic argument against the Windfarms backed with statstics, facts and figures. I dont want to hear about spoiled views and the ruining of my holiday home.

Might it be that the lack of opportunity for shock and awe headlines are the reasons behind the noticable abscence, may it also be due to the fact that users on the Forum are not so easily swayed by mere suggestion, and that self serving interest has to stand up to the scrutiny of the forum users?

[WC1]

I'm sorry if my response to Wee Toon Boy caused offense. Apologies also for 'big words' - written hastily long after my usual bed time. I based what I wrote on my own equally heart-felt concern for the town in which I grew up and still love as much as anyone. Having served as a town councillor at the tender age of 21, more than 40 years ago, and given a lot of my life and energy to various of its institutions and activities over those years, I have nothing to prove in terms of my interest in and commitment to both promoting its unique qualities and finding answers to its equally unique and deep-rooted problems. However, I should express my concerns in ways that don't cause offense.

The big problem we have always faced in Campbeltown is the demise of the single, big employer and its replacement by another which then goes the way of the first, and so on. I remember going to London and other places as a councillor 40 years ago, lobbying government minsters and officials about the need to find solutions to Campbeltown's unemployment problem. Governments and other agencies have tended, over the years, to see that problem and try to find some sort of silver bullet to fix it. I'm simply suggesting that the Scottish Government's own rural development strategy may offer another way forward which takes us out of that boom and bust cycle and that that's something we should be taking a good look at. We should do so without blithely rubbishing these possibilities. And before anyone jumps down my throat, you can do that while still doing everything you can to save Skykon, which I genuinely hope will be achieved.

[jowett63]

Weetoonboy, you will never hear an argument against windfarms by a representative of KOWAG as we are not against wind energy and as individuals many of us support them and recognise the varied benefits that they can bring. Nor are we against appropriately sited offshore windfarms in Argyll and Kintyre - we simply oppose the opportunistic and inapproprite siting of the vast Kintyre Windfarm and ask that it be relocated to somewhere where the benefits will more clearly outweigh the disbenefits to the community and the environment.
To paint KOWAG supporters as somehow being against economic development in kintyre in general and having damaged the prospects for Skykon in particular is an unfounded and shameful allegation. Unfounded because the success or otherwise of Skykon and the Government's wider Renewables Infrastructure Plan will not be decided by whether a single site is placed 2km inshore or asked to be moved 10km offshore. As has been pointed out the Government is set on a targetted course to hugely increase offshore electricity generation and so the opportunities will be there.
WC1 has correctly pointed out however that those opportunities may or may not turn into actual employment (it is telling that SSE has purchased a stake in Fife/Lewis based BiFab and placed Jacket orders with them), so it is very important that we protect the employment bird in the hand that we already have in terms of tourism, leisure and fishing based employment and asking that the Kintyre Windfarm be relocated is the win-win way to do this.
The responses to the Government Consultation on offshore wind for kintyre show the tremendous concerns from a huge range of private and public organisations about the scale and proximity of this development - which may or may not come to pass if it were built. But why should the community and ecology of Kintyre be asked to take the risk, just because it makes the engineering solution for SSE easier? The Islay Array is 17km offshore and is sited in a much more appropriate location and hence elicited barely a murmer of responses from the same organisations (SNH, Visit Scotland, Clyde Fishermans Assoc. etc.)
I also said the allegation was shameful. I am Vice Chair of KOWAG and live on the Sound of Kintyre where a number of my neighbours are local and EU workers at Skykon. I fervently hope and believe that the Skykon plant has a future and that it wins many, many orders for the thousands of turbines planned to be built over the next decade.....but that does not prevent me from opposing the unneccessary exploitation of Machrihanish Bay. Sustainable Power yes, local jobs yes - but not at any price. We all work to live and the unspoiled beauty of Machrihanish Bay is a huge asset to the quality of life of us and the tens of thousand of folk who visit us every year and the wildlife whose habitat it is too. To paint us anti skykon and anti local jobs is simply unfair.

Ship - many of the posters on this topic are KOWAG members so we have not been silent, but rely on those members to put the arguments against the SSE inshore development. We are conscious however that we need to lobby through a variety of media and keep our own website and facebook sites up to date and research and monitor developments that affect these proposals - remembering we are all volunteers doing this in our own time. I spent most of today for example producing and distributing leaflets around SOK telling people of the public meeting in town 2moro and drawing attention to the Government's summary of the responses received to their nationwide consultation. http://forargyll.com/2011/01/35-respons ... ent-222825

[Ship called Dignity]

Ship - many of the posters on this topic are KOWAG members so we have not been silent, but rely on those members to put the arguments against the SSE inshore development. We are conscious however that we need to lobby through a variety of media and keep our own website and facebook sites up to date and research and monitor developments that affect these proposals - remembering we are all volunteers doing this in our own time. I spent most of today for example producing and distributing leaflets around SOK telling people of the public meeting in town 2moro and drawing attention to the Government's summary of the responses received to their nationwide consultation. http://forargyll.com/2011/01/35-respons ... ent-222825

Jowett63. Certainly wasn't a dig at anyone on the Committee’s commitment to the cause. Just there appears to be a lack of engagement on here where questions are being asked that are not asked on other mediums.

Having now looked up your website I see Nancie and WC1 are on your committee but there posts make no reference to KOWAG and appear to be personal posts.

If anything its more to do with it being the most highly debated thread on this forum in 6 years so it is being used to persuade people's views (either way) on these proposals.

Certainly appreciate your post so cheers.

[Lossit Lass]

I must admit I find it amazing that there is never any comment from Kintyre Offshore Windfarm Action Group (KOWAG) on this thread. The most debated thread ever on the Kintyre Forum and no representations made from the action group. Nearly 20,000 views and no comment.

Comments on Facebook, letters to the Courier etc but nothing on here - where people are debating the issue.

True. If there, why NOT here? We KNOW they know (about this thread/discussion). Further, they know we know they know.

[Nancie]

My post was certainly not a 'personal post'. I wrote it as secretary of Campbeltown Community Council which opposes Kintyre Offshore Windfarm.

I referred to our response to the consultation which is available for anyone to read. I don't feel it is necessary to say every time I post something that I am a member of KOWAG.

[Ship called Dignity]

My post was certainly not a 'personal post'. I wrote it as secretary of Campbeltown Community Council which opposes Kintyre Offshore Windfarm.

I referred to our response to the consultation which is available for anyone to read. I don't feel it is necessary to say every time I post something that I am a member of KOWAG.

To be fair Nancie I did read your posts as a response as secretary of Campbeltown Community Council - that is quite clear. (use of smilies )

[Nancie]

[weetoonboy]

I'm sorry if my response to Wee Toon Boy caused offense.

It doesnt cause offence to me. You've clearly earned your right to say whatever you like about our town and surrounding area. If you managed re-election for 40 years then who am I to be offended.

Your also spot on with the assessment that Campbeltown does need more than a single silver bullet but i feel that the industries that you mention are not expanding industries and large employment opportunities with a decent wage packet are few and far between.

I was in the Bangladesh Tandoori and noticed a sign asking all citizens to give one days labour or one days pay to the building of the Quay. Now that is a single piece of Infrastructure that probably did our town wonders. That made me smile.

@ Jowett63 - I understand and respect your views. It is a beautiful sight. I know that everyone wants to see Campbeltown prosper. I, as you and your group clearly do, feel that this is a legacy issue and should be freely debated by all. The entire community is not against the proposal but that is sometimes the impression given.

Im clearly in the "For" camp. The problem with the "For camp" is that they never shouts as loud as the "Against Camp". This is true for every issue ever debated. I only try to put my humble opinions to the readers of the forum so that the argument can be more balanced and that people may read my posts and use my points as I do theirs in discussing the matter in hand.

I do not believe that the opposition to the Development has in anyway affected the current situation at Skycon. I do however feel that if the development was to proceed, that assurances coud be made to the factory and investors that the towers will be built and maintained here, locally. Obviously the development is a few years off yet and much debate will continue. The factory will clearly be up and running long before then. Or it will not and Campbeltowns problems will be very deep indeed.

Best Regards to you both.

[SKYKON EMPLOYEE]

@jowett63

Talking of shameful, were you not the same person that published a letter in the courier calling for the support of the opposition against the proposed site at a time when 120 jobs were put at risk in the same week.

Talking of offensive. You are insulting the skills I have learned over the last 9 years when you and WC1 refer to the people of Campbeltown to make a living out of Tourism, Leisure activities and fishing. Who are you to decide what the people of Campbeltown should accept.

To state that you and your campaigners are not anti windfarms, I think you need to refer to an earlier post by WC1, which states that 'people' are starting to question the whole rationale of windfarms. Also as WC1 states, organisations like the one you are part of, are becoming more frequent and having a direct affect in the delay of windfarms being given the go ahead. This is where companies like Skykon come in to play, we depend on energy companies like SSE, so if organisations like yours delay the windfarm (remember, this is not solely directed at KOWAG) then it has an indirect affect at Skykon.I feel you and WC1 are contradicting your organisation.

Again, as so many of us on this post have requested, where is the evidence that they have an affect on tourism and wildlife. Post some statistics, facts and figures from a non biased reliable source. Also who are you refering to when you say that the unspoilt beauty of Machrihanish is a huge asset to the quality of llife of 'US'.

[jowett63]

Skykon Employee, can I first say how delighted and relieved I am that the Skykon plant has been opened again from tomorrow for the completion of the Siemens contract and I am positive that the breathing space will result in a longer term security for the plant being secured. That security does not depend on the consent for a single windfarm, be it at Kintyre or elsewhere. It lies in the successful implementation of the Government's National Renewables Infrastructure Plan of which the Deep Harbour developments and the Skykon extension are a crucial part and that infrastructure is not there just to service Kintyre, but to service all the offshore developments (Wind, Wave and Tide) in the South West, West and North West Regions.
Just because an industrial development can secure jobs, does not mean its developers should be given carte blanche as to its location, no matter how damaging that location is, particularly when there are other options - and the regions I have just mentioned are not short of locations for sustainable energy projects that would be less damaging. Remember that the Kintyre site was not chosen following an exhaustive impact assessment. planning scrutiny or any form of democratic process, it was a unilateral commercial decision between SSE and the unelected and anaccountable Crown Estates. I therefore have no shame in standing up to ask that our local natural heritage should not inthis case be mortgaged to the shareholders and executives of SSE for the next generation, when they have the resources and technical ability to genuinely locate it offshore.
The Kintyre proposal has made many people examine the economic case for Wind Power Generation, but again I assure you KOWAG remains neutral on that, for the simple reason that we want to focus all our energy on the issues of the Kintyre Site's location and not get mired in that wider debate. We also do not want to alienate people from either side of that debate if we are to attract support for the site specific Kintyre campaign. HOWEVER what we will do is research and challenge the inflated and risible claims of SSE that the Kintyre site will power 405,000 homes. This is a valid thing to do as Ministers will approve the site or not based on an assessment of the benefits and disbenefits of that site and if they are given false information we should make it known. Personally I believe in a balanced energy generation portfolio for the nation and support onshore and offshore wind generation when there is a demonstable burden of evidence that the benefits out weigh the inevitable damage and the options have been considered. For example from reading the Islay Energy trust material on their windfarm (17km offshore) that seems to be case and the fact only 7 responses were received on that development is a good indicator of this.
I understand the concern that too much NIMBYism may prevent Scotland realising the benefits of sustainable wind power, but once in a while when the boy cries wolf, there is actually a wolf, and I firmly believe that in this case there is a wolf! But it is not just me or KOWAG that think so the following organisations all wrote in to the Government Consultation on Offshore Wind specifically about the Kintyre site and if you read their submissions you will find a huge amount of information to support the call for the relocation of the Kintyre Windfarm: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 22153227/4
Argyll and Bute Council
Visitscotland
Scottish Natural Heritage
Sportscotland
Campbeltown Community Council
Campbeltown Loch Berthing Company
Chamber of Shipping
Clyde Fishermen's Association
Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.
Logan Air
Kintyre Civic Society
Machrihanish Golf Club
Riders of the West
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Scottish Canoe Association
Scottish Natural Heritage
Sportscotland
The Village at Machrihanish Dunes / Kintyre Development Company Limited
Tiree Community Development Trust
Visitscotland

Kind regards
Bob Miller (Jowett63)

[jowett63]

I thought readers of this thread might be interested in a summary of the outcome of the public meeting held on Monday at the behest of Marine Scotland in the Argyll Arms. It was a "Consultation Workshop" on the outcomes of the Government's consultation on its offshore wind plans. The Kintyre site evoked the most responses nationwide and so it was no suprise that about 60 folk turned up to listen to and question the government officials. Summary is as follows, sorry it is a bit long but the meeting lasted 3.5 hours!

This was Kintyre’s opportunity to hear face to face about the outcomes of the Government’s national consultation and what it means for the vast inshore windfarm planned by SSE Renewables, just 2km from the unspoiled, award winning, beaches of Machrihanish Bay.

Marine Scotland had come in force, safety in numbers. There were three members of the team who are producing the final report for Ministers, a consultant from the ABPMer who are doing the socio economic and habitats impact assessments and two independent facilitators to run defence (one wag commented that the 20,000 jobs the government will be created by offshore wind will be consultants and civil servants…). Their stated purpose was:

■to tell us about the outcomes of the Nationwide consultation
■to check that their published summary of responses was representative of local views
■to make sure nothing had been missed
The importance of the consultation is that the outcomes will influence the final version of the National Plan for Offshore Wind and is, we have been told, the last opportunity for specific sites like Kintyre to be ruled out of that Plan. If they are not, then the only way to defeat the proposal is through the long, complex and resource intensive approvals process, where cards are stacked very much in favour of the Power Generating developers and against the meagre resources of local communities.

The meeting lasted over three hours, which is testament to the volume of responses sent to the consultation by the people and businesses of Kintyre and to the diligence with which the attendees held the Marine Scotland officers to account. The evening had four distinct parts.

1.The how we got to where we are session
2.The Feedback on responses to the National consultation session
3.The Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) summary
4.The Socio-economic Study summary
part 1 – How we got to where we are:

This session was led by Phil Hughes of Marine Scotland who explained that the need for a National Offshore Plan for Wind and accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)had been triggered when the unelected and unaccountable Crown Estates had entered into commercial Exclusivity Agreements, leasing the Scottish seabed to power generating companies for Offshore Wind farm sites around the coast.

The Scottish Government adopted these sites into the Draft Plan and labelled them as the first wave ‘priority sites’, with a subsequent wave of areas designated as ‘medium term’ opportunities – one of which is South of the Mull of Kintyre adjacent to an area now available for tidal power leasing. There was anger in the meeting that the Crown Estates should have the ability to enter into such commercial arrangements regarding Scottish sea beds without regard to any planning or impact framework and without consultation with local communities. There was equal anger that the Government should then just adopt the 10 sites into their draft plan without demur. Phil Hughes said that 9 out of the ten sites had passes an SEA to go into the plan (albeit the Mk1 prototype SEA that is under development) and there was incredulity that Kintyre had passed the test for having acceptable visual impact, but the Bell Rock (and earlier) St.Kilda sites had been ruled out on this criteria.

Part 2 Feed back on Responses to the National Consultation on Offshore Wind Power

Fiona Simpson from the Government’s Environmental Assessment Team said that the number of responses to this consultation had broken all records for any public consultation and 35% of all responses were about the Kintyre site…more than any other single site. A huge range of economic, social, environmental and cultural issues were raised by the respondents about the Kintyre site. The attendees however pointed out a number of significant errors and omissions, including:

■The response by Logan Air detailing their safety fears re the flight path to Campbeltown Airport was missing
■The Campbeltown Yacht Club’s response re sailing leisure impacts was missing
■The Marine Policy Statement referenced by the Clyde Fisherman’s Association had not been referenced or their concern that the imposition of this plan was prejudicing the outcome of the potential for Kintyre to be a designated Marine Protection Area
■The representative of the Royal Yacht Association was dismayed that the submission date to Ministers was before an already scheduled meeting between the Association and government officials about the sea safety issues of the Kintyre site’s location.
■Comments on the limitations of the SSE sponsored Shipping Study had not been recognised
■Comments on Coastal scour, light flicker effects and the Burnett Moth habitat were also lodged.
Attendees were anxious that this additional material should be included in the submission to Ministers but the officials were very vague as to what the shape of the final document to Ministers would be or who would actually make the final decision regarding the plan and how. They were clear however that a post adoption statement would detail the reasons for the ultimate decision.

Part3 Habitats Regulation Assessment

Marine Scotland has employed consultants ABPMer to undertake the Strategic HRA and Socio-economic studies that will accompany the plan submission. Dr Stephen Hull explained the mechanics of the HRA and that it had begun in October and had to be finished by the end of January. This did not inspire attendees that the rich diversity of Kintyre’s wildlife would be captured in such a short study.

This feeling was compounded when Dr.Hull went to say the HRA would be pitched at a national level, only take account of already designated sites of ecological importance and would focus mainly on mitigation measures that developers should take to minimise impacts. It was clear to all attendees that this meant NO site specific assessment would be presented to demonstrate to Ministers that the Kintyre site would suffer disproportionate ecological harm from the proposed SSE development.

Part 4 Socio-Economic Assessment

The consultants are doing this one too and have to complete all the work 18thFebruary. Once again Dr.Hull gave a tedious exposition of the methodology of the study without enlightening on the outcomes – except to say that these would be assessed on a regional level. This caused profound unease in the meeting as it means that Kintyre data will be added in with the Tiree and Islay sites where it was felt the benefits of their planned developments manifestly outweigh the negative impacts, whereas the total opposite is true for Kintyre. Once again the case for Kintyre’s exclusion from the final plan would be diluted by being aggregated with other sites.

There were also numerous concerns raised that this study seemed to be all economic and not much on social factors, which are harder to quantify, but which the Machrihanish Bay area has in abundance. Quality of life, health benefits, social and visual amenity and leisure appeared to be demoted in importance and yet these are hugely important but greatly at risk in the Kintyre site compared to any other.



In over three hours of questioning and discussion not one single voice was raised in support of the Kintyre Windfarm as currently proposed. Once again the community voiced its united and wide ranging opposition to the development and the way it was unilaterally imposed on it without reference to any planning rules, prior consultation or democratic process. At the end the mood of the attendees was sombre, believing that despite the ringing message from the consultation exercise and two local consultation events, these would not be accurately presented to Ministers on a site specific basis and so the overwhelming evidence that the present Kintyre Windfarm should be struck from the final plan for offshore Wind would be ignored. Another triumph for bureaucratic process and national strategy over the manifest wishes of communities and overwhelming site specific evidence.


Bob Miller
KOWAG

[SKYKON EMPLOYEE]

In the USA, the Massachusetts Cape Wind project was delayed for years chiefly because of nearby residents' aesthetic concerns. In the UK, repeated opinion surveys have shown that more than 70% of people either like, or do not mind, the visual impact. According to a town councillor in Ardrossan, Scotland, the overwhelming majority of locals believe that the Ardrossan Wind Farm has enhanced the area. They say the turbines are impressive looking and bring a calming effect to the town.

Since the early days of wind farms, engineers have re-designed equipment and reconsidered wind farm design to reduce the noise generated by turbines. Wind industry proponents say wind farms now generate no more sound at 300 meters than a library reading room.


Wind turbine foundations create artificial reefs and, in the long run, might benefit overall ocean ecology.
Construction of wind farms disrupts ocean habitat. Once installed, the noise generated by turbines can affect marine animals, though scientists think the frequency is too low for ocean species to hear.

I thought the 'for' readers of this thread might be interested in some possible positives of windmills although they have all still to be proved, just as the argument 'against' has.

[Frodo]

The discussions and arguments for and against the development are very interesting and it shows a strong community spirit. People in the 'for' camp argue that the development will bring investment and jobs and secure a future for people in the area. People in the 'against' camp believe it will have a detrimental effect on the area with tourism and there will be a loss of jobs. They are also concerned about the damage to the natural habitat.

No matter what the argument both believe they have the interests of the community at heart and that is admirable.

Siemens paying to keep the factory open is a fantastic gesture and must reflect the quality of workmanship. This will surely be noted by the industry and perhaps another buyer can come in. It must also be noted that Siemens have a contract with SSE to provide the towers for SSE's Clyde Wind Farm and when this contract is complete will Siemens still want to fund the factory? Just now the factory makes sense to them as it is close to their site so travel time is reduced (thus the hire of a ship is reduced, the time on road is reduced...) and obviously they have already constructed a percentage of the towers there.

When this project is complete will Siemens give another contract to Skykon? The answer must surely be no. Skykon are gone. The factory is still there, but the company?

So you need to look at reasons why the factory could continue after Siemens are complete. If turbine components can be made cheaper in China, India or Spain why bother in Scotland? If you are moving components large distance by sea to the Americas or Asia you may as well ship them from anywhere in the world as the cost savings in construction will offset the shipping charges. What the plant in Kintyre has going for it is the location if Scottish projects continue to expand. If the project at Machrihanish is given the go-ahead then surely a manufacturer would look at the site and understand that the short distance between the factory and site would allow them to offer a low and winning bid?

There is no guarantee that the factory will win the rights to build the tower sections for the proposed wind farm, and SSE can not (for many reasons, including competition law) say the Kintyre factory will be given the contract - it must go out to tender. If the factory is still running, if the factory tender for the contract and if the factory does not win the contract I would fully understand if 99% of the population was against the project.

I believe strongly that the development would greatly benefit the area. I believe numerous jobs will be created during the construction phase and when the farm becomes active I believe there will be numerous support jobs. Hotels in the area will be packed during construction, perhaps pushing the golf course owners to complete their promise to reopen the hotels...

To conclude, I fully understand both camps. It would be interesting to see a cross section of for/against and discover if there is a pattern. I would hazard a guess that most Skykon employees are for. I understand why residents of Machrihanish are against it. I understand why the Skykon employees are for it. I do not agree with the golfers - but that is my opinion and they are welcome to theirs. I understand the opinion of the airport, but that can be sorted without major hassle. In my humble opinion I think Kintyre would be mad to let this opportunity slip between our fingers.

As a footnote, it is great that Kintyre has this forum to discuss issues in the area. It's a fantastic facility to have and the creators should be applauded for offering such a service.

(Edited to remove a some spelling mistakes!)

[weetoonboy]

@ Frodo - Nice balanced post.

I would sugest that if Scotland is going to be a world leader in renewabale energy, so often trumpeted by our parliament then the Machrihanish Factory has everything going for it and the local area has a skilled workforce already in place. Allowing the factory to close would seem at odds with the Scottish Governments plans for the future.