The Kintyre Forum

bye bye sunsets & waves, and just to clarify I am all for windfarms, It just seems a shame to put 126 of them straight off the 1st tee. I'm guessing the golf course's won't think much of this either. Pay £40,000 for a lovely view of 126 wind turbines. Just move them round the corner a couple of miles and no-one will see them. Any thoughts?

SBpete wrote:bye bye sunsets & waves, and just to clarify I am all for windfarms, It just seems a shame to put 126 of them straight off the 1st tee. I'm guessing the golf course's won't think much of this either. Pay £40,000 for a lovely view of 126 wind turbines. Just move them round the corner a couple of miles and no-one will see them. Any thoughts?

Pete, where do you get the information on this? Is this a definite? Hope not!

Just a proposal at the moment as far as I know. We have got a group of surfers together and have sent a letter to registered an interest in this development with the Scottish Govt Energy Department. So far we have not had a reply.
I have heard that their is a meeting for councillors on Wed 2nd December however I'm not sure if this is an open meeting.

How did we all miss this? The original press release went out back in February!

Further info and contact details at:-

http://www.scottish-southern.co.uk/SSEI ... gment=True

thanks for that wc1. I knew I'd seen a map showing similar ventures round Islay and Tiree.

So let me get this right........

There is another thread ....

"SKYCON ORDER
Postby DRUMLEMEN1 » Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:59 pm
Good news-SKYCON win order for Europe's largest onshore windfarm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/gla ... 378524.stm"

Which is ofcourse fantastic news,but when there is a plan afoot to situate a windfarm off the coast at Machrihanish,which it is possible Skycon could get the order for,it is not good news.

Sounds like a case of Not In My Back Yard to me.Great news for Skycon winning orders as long as they are not going to be situated to spoil your views.
Can't really have it both ways.

I wondered how long it would take to be called a NIMBY.
As I said, I am pro-wind turbines, whether they are built in Campbeltown or not. The ones at Tangy can also be seen from the 1st tee, and I don't think they spoil the view, but 126 of them 3 miles offshore will be pretty imposing.
Why not move them 3 miles south? No-one would see them?

Its not so much a case of not in my back yard, more a just not outside my window. There are miles of coast line so why stick it right in the line for one of the best sunsets in the world. As said earlier in the post why not stick it a mile or so further south and then it keeps everyone happy.

bill wrote:So let me get this right........

There is another thread ....

"SKYCON ORDER
Postby DRUMLEMEN1 » Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:59 pm
Good news-SKYCON win order for Europe's largest onshore windfarm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/gla ... 378524.stm"

Which is ofcourse fantastic news,but when there is a plan afoot to situate a windfarm off the coast at Machrihanish,which it is possible Skycon could get the order for,it is not good news.

Sounds like a case of Not In My Back Yard to me.Great news for Skycon winning orders as long as they are not going to be situated to spoil your views.
Can't really have it both ways.

Pergaps because it actually is OUR backyard Bill? You seem to be jumping the gun here. Seems some of us are simply saying we hope it isn't where it is proposed and why not use another bit of coast?

And, I'll complain about things on my back yard if I want to.

Bill is right to hint that local jobs and the future growth of the local economy both point us towards supporting this sort of development. And goodness knows, post-Thatcher we need to rebuild the country's manufacturing base, plus there is a real need to tackle climate change by developing 'green' sources of energy, so there are wider implications.

However, the construction of towers for wind turbines is not the only local industry. Arguably tourism is of more importance in terms of both jobs and income and it certainly has the potential to be vastly more important in the future. The effect of a wind farm in this particular location - impacting on the iconic seascape views which are one of the reasons this area is so attractive to visitors - could be catastrophic. Have a look at some of the pictures in the 'Photos from around Kintyre' thread or on the visitkintyre.info site and imagine them with 126 wind turbines in the middle distance. This proposal requires a bit more thought than NIMBYism on the one hand and knee-jerk accusations of NIMBYism on the other and it is to be hoped that there will be full public consultation to allow a proper debate to take place. Unless offshore developments like this one don't need planning approval . . . .

SBpete wrote:I wondered how long it would take to be called a NIMBY.
As I said, I am pro-wind turbines, whether they are built in Campbeltown or not. The ones at Tangy can also be seen from the 1st tee, and I don't think they spoil the view, but 126 of them 3 miles offshore will be pretty imposing.
Why not move them 3 miles south? No-one would see them?

According to the report, it's 3km not miles !!

I agree this is the wrong place for them, south indeed would be a better option imo.

WC1 wrote:Bill is right to hint that local jobs and the future growth of the local economy both point us towards supporting this sort of development. And goodness knows, post-Thatcher we need to rebuild the country's manufacturing base, plus there is a real need to tackle climate change by developing 'green' sources of energy, so there are wider implications.

However, the construction of towers for wind turbines is not the only local industry. Arguably tourism is of more importance in terms of both jobs and income and it certainly has the potential to be vastly more important in the future. The effect of a wind farm in this particular location - impacting on the iconic seascape views which are one of the reasons this area is so attractive to visitors - could be catastrophic. Have a look at some of the pictures in the 'Photos from around Kintyre' thread or on the visitkintyre.info site and imagine them with 126 wind turbines in the middle distance. This proposal requires a bit more thought than NIMBYism on the one hand and knee-jerk accusations of NIMBYism on the other and it is to be hoped that there will be full public consultation to allow a proper debate to take place. Unless offshore developments like this one don't need planning approval . . . .

In full agreement with this. An area with an underexploited tourism potential should not have a development like this foisted on it, effectively placing a further challenge or obstacle to attracting visitors who are becoming more and more important to remote rural areas.

Bear in mind that the seabed is not uniform in topography and as such 'moving them a couple of miles south' might simply not be an option.

Also, bear in mind that at sealevel the horizon is only a couple of miles away anyway. They might not even be visible from the 1st.

Beachcomber wrote:

Also, bear in mind that at sealevel the horizon is only a couple of miles away anyway.

I'm no mathemagician, but I got this from Wikipedia:-

"In SI units, the straight line of sight distance d in kilometres to the true horizon on earth is approximately d = square root of 13h where h is the height above ground or sea level (in metres) of the eye of the observer.

"Examples:

"For an observer standing on the ground with h = 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in) (average eye-level height), the horizon is at a distance of 4.7 kilometres (2.9 mls)."

and

"For a tower with a height of 100 m, the horizon distance is 35.7 km. Thus an observer on a beach can see the tower as long as it is not more than 40.35 km away."

Just received from Chris Bell, Communications Manager for the project at "Airtricity":-

"The proposal for this project is at very early stages. We were awarded the right to develop a proposal from the Crown Estates earlier this year. To proceed fully with the planning process we are waiting on the results of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) being carried out by the Scottish Government, the results of this study are not due to be published until early next year.

"We have undertaken consultation so far with relevant stakeholder groups and are in the process of meeting with Councillors and Community Council members from the area. We will hold public exhibitions sometime in 2010 which will be advertised but as yet I don’t have any dates for this.

"We do not expect to submit a planning application for the project with the relevant authorities until late 2011."