North Beachmore Wind Development

Forum publicising and discussing local issues and news in general.

Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby Mary G » Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:42 pm

I offer this as food for thought:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15295769

No endorsement or criticism should be inferred from my act of sharing. :lol:

But I did find it really interesting, especially the historical analysis and

    "that the pattern of land use we see the length and breadth of these isles is as much a human artefact as Stephenson's Rocket."

Extremely relevant to this discussion, I would have thought.
Mary G
Can't Stay Away
Can't Stay Away
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:25 am


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby democat101 » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:42 pm

more food for thought.....
ENVIRONMENTALIST David Bellamy has spoken out on how wind farms are destroying our landscapes for profit.

In an interview with The Journal he claims companies are profiting from green energy plans which end up doing more harm to the environment than good, and push up electricity prices.

Read More http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east ... z1bzfUd67P
democat101
Happy Camper
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:31 pm


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby Mary G » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:07 pm

Surely democat101, we have been adapting our landscape for thousands of years? Who is to say that the way it is now is how it must be preserved?

So the fact that we are changing the landscape by virtue of introducing wind turbines does not, on its own, constitute a robust argument against them.

Did you read the Will Self piece?
Mary G
Can't Stay Away
Can't Stay Away
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:25 am


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby WC1 » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Mary G and Will Self, whose opinion piece she very kindly shared with us, are absolutely right: the landscape we live in today is almost entirely man-made. You'll be hard put to find any area in the British Isles where the true, original, natural vegetation still exists. But that doesn't mean that what we have doesn't appear to be natural and that it isn't worth preserving. That's why we have National Parks and it's why those who make planning decisions take amenity and scenic value into account in making their decisions. They don't say, "well, the landscape has been changing over millennia, so we just have to accept this development".

Let me give you an example closer to home, and just as relevant to this discussion, I would have thought, as Will Self's rather pompous opinion piece. I seem to recall that not so long ago there was a proposal to put up one wind turbine on Davaar Island. There was a very minor outcry and the proposal disappeared again. Why? If Mary G's argument is valid, it would have been as valid for Davaar as for Beachmore. Davaar's landscape is as man-made as any in these parts. And it was only one turbine after all, and nothing like as big as the one proposed in the present case, and if she's right, the fact that we are changing the landscape by virtue of introducing wind turbines does not, on its own, constitute a robust argument against them.
WC1
WC1
Can't Stay Away
Can't Stay Away
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:45 pm
Location: Campbeltown


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby democat101 » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:10 pm

Mary g
Historically we have adapted our environment according to our need.
This development is not dictaded by need but dictated by greed.
Therefore we should not be forced into adapting to unnecessary environmental change.
democat101
Happy Camper
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:31 pm


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby A15 NMA » Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:52 pm

WC1 wrote:Let me give you an example closer to home, and just as relevant to this discussion, I would have thought, as Will Self's rather pompous opinion piece. I seem to recall that not so long ago there was a proposal to put up one wind turbine on Davaar Island. There was a very minor outcry and the proposal disappeared again.


FYI

This application has been permitted!

http://publicaccess.argyll-bute.gov.uk/ ... N5YCH06C00
A15 NMA
The Quiet Type
The Quiet Type
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:35 am


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby WC1 » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:49 pm

Well well! I was not aware of that. In the context of this particular thread, I remembered a proposal for Davaar being questioned, and criticised, somewhere on the Forum (from the dates on the link provided that would seem to have been about two years ago) but since the issue disappeared from view I had assumed - wrongly it would now appear - that it had gone no further. I don't think it changes the point I was making, however, and I suppose we should be grateful it's only 12 metres in height . . . or should we?
WC1
WC1
Can't Stay Away
Can't Stay Away
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:45 pm
Location: Campbeltown


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby argylltourist » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:27 pm

12 mtrs-I would have thought that at that size,for local use is acceptable.The turbine on Davaar is prob.not noticible.I must admit,I haven't.

45 mtrs-a different matter.Damaging in so many ways.

So much info is now available about the real cost of these industrial turbines,that you don't need to look far to find it.

It's not "rocket science" to realise that electricity prices are rapidly rising and why that is.Add to the mix the questionable enviromental benefits and it's difficult to understand how the power co.s are being allowed to get away with it.

It's all down to greed and that is despicable.
argylltourist
Happy Camper
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 2:35 pm


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby Mary G » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:59 pm

Getting back to the North Beachmore proposal, I should have written before that Hannah is to be applauded: She shifted from using a pseudonym to her own name. While I was more interested in knowing the names, organisation and provenance of the group behind the website, Hannah has earned respect for her own commitment to openness.

Initially, I did share the Sheik's suspicion about so many new people suddenly appearing. But Hannah's robust response is spot on - people won't just use the forum because it's there - there needs to be a genuine need, and for some people this is exactly such an issue.

Han_OH wrote:
Sheik Yir Erse wrote:The general level of 'suspicion' on threads like these is aroused when 5 new members suddenly start posting.


When are people supposed to join a forum like this one? Surely it’s when something particularly interests/concerns them and they feel the need to contribute their opinions. As this wind turbine proposal affects me, I joined to express my views. We all have to start somewhere.


So what about the suggestion that the spine of Kintyre, rather than the areas nearer its shores, is exploited? Again, I'm not saying I am pro- or anti- any of these specific proposals - just keen to hear what others' views are at this stage.
Mary G
Can't Stay Away
Can't Stay Away
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:25 am


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby democat101 » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:49 pm

Scottish National Wind farm Conference 11th November 2011
http://www.communitiesagainstturbinesscotland.com/
democat101
Happy Camper
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:31 pm


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby daisy » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:11 pm

Mary G said: "So what about the suggestion that the spine of Kintyre, rather than the areas nearer its shores, is exploited? Again, I'm not saying I am pro- or anti- any of these specific proposals - just keen to hear what others' views are at this stage."


That sounds remarkably like Argyll and Bute's current policy in the Local Plan. But certain wind farm developers and some greedy landowners prefer to ignore it.
daisy
The Quiet Type
The Quiet Type
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:22 pm


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby democat101 » Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:07 pm

Campaigners want halt to ‘scourge’ of wind farms
A coalition of politicians, industry experts, environmental groups and members of the public has delivered a collective warning to the Scottish Government not to create a “Klondyke Wind Rush” in its bid to become 100% dependent on clean energy sources.

The landmark Scottish National Wind Farm Conference saw turbines variously described as “destructive menaces” that were “harmful to human health and mental wellbeing” and “symptomatic of a shambolic Government planning system”.

The Cats (Communities Against Turbines Scotland) event in Ayr was attended by representatives of the John Muir Trust, the Ramblers’ Association, the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland and local residents, led by Rhona Weir, the widow of environmentalist Tom Weir.

The Scottish Government has pledged the country will generate the equivalent of 100% of its demand for electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. In May, First Minister Alex Salmond vowed to move “still faster and further” to secure the country’s place as the green energy powerhouse of Europe.

Yesterday’s event, chaired by Labour MSP Graeme Pearson and attended by 300 people, was organised with the aim of putting pressure on the Westminster and Scottish governments to create a national energy policy to halt the “scourge” of wind farms on the Scottish landscape.

One of the most pressing concerns was the number of applications for what delegates regarded as “inappropriately” located wind turbines that were being approved.

Howard Wilkinson, whose Ayrshire home overlooks 100 turbines at the Whitelees wind farm, was concerned about the “inconsistent” planning guidelines.

He said: “I’m a great believer in renewable energy and agree we need wind farms, but they need to be placed sensitively … It’s as if all the planning guidelines are being overwritten in order to reach Government targets.”

Dr Chris Hanning, of Leicester University Hospitals, said studies conducted in the United States and Canada showed rural communities felt the negative health impacts of wind turbines more keenly than those in urban communities and that they can interrupt sleep.

Dr Malcolm Swinbanks, a noise and vibration analyst, agreed the low-frequency rumble of turbines was heard more in rural locations, where tolerance decreases. “In rural locations, the ears are like wide open eyes,” he said. “To accuse people living in the countryside of being Nimbys is adding real insult to real injury.”

Dr Swinbanks read out a statement from Dr Sarah Laurie, an Australian GP who was invited to speak at the conference but who could not attend.

She said: “The time for the denial of the serious adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents globally is well and truly over. There are now hundreds of case reports in Australia, the UK, Europe, Canada, the US and New Zealand of people who have been seriously affected: some have left their homes, some their farms as well.

“Some have signed confidentiality agreements in exchange for being bought out in order to regain their health.

“It is my opinion that the only reason for this practice of secrecy clauses has been to keep these health problems out of the public view.”

Noise consultant Dr Dick Bowdler said the public felt they were being treated unfairly, and believed in the “malfeasance” of developers and local councils, because it was they who made money from turbines, while the public were left to pay for it.

Dave Morris, director of the Ramblers’ Association, attracted a standing ovation from delegates when he asked if the time had not now come for the Government to look again at the Beauly-Denny power lines and others that will come to south-west Scotland.

He said the cost for the controversial line of “mega pylons” carrying energy through some of Scotland’s most breathtaking countryside to the national grid has doubled since the first public inquiry, and it was suggested that a second inquiry into its feasibility should now be held.

Chick Brodie, SNP MSP for South Scotland, told the conference he was making it his personal task to look closely at the many applications due to go before the local authorities in his constituency.

He added: “I am astounded at the number of applications that are going ahead.”

Source: The Herald. Read the original article here.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home ... 4520?69399
democat101
Happy Camper
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:31 pm


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby north beachmore » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:48 am

Argyll and Bute planners show wisdom and sense when dealing with ad-hoc commercial wind turbine development proposals. In a promising move the planning department have clearly outlined reasons for refusal of the Skipness proposed turbine and all the reasons given are parallel with the concerns and issues raised for the proposed North Beachmore development.
Read the whole document here: www.northbeachmore.webs.com
or
here: http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/Planning/ ... /00937/PP#

Congratulations must be offered to Argyll and Bute planning for their sensible and sensitive approach.
north beachmore
Happy Camper
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:40 pm


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby north beachmore » Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:56 pm

For information for everyone; The full planning application for the North Beachmore Turbine has been submitted to the planning department. The application can be found at the following link:-

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/Planning/ ... 1/02521/PP

I see from numerous other posts and also from the flurry of application activity printed in the local press that it may be time to get some solid activity amongst the residents of this beautiful countryside to vet these applications and to fight them where necessary...

Any thoughts?
north beachmore
Happy Camper
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:40 pm


Re: North Beachmore Wind Development

Postby democat101 » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:47 pm

You should also check the thread "Tomaig Wind Turbine" for a list of some further single turbine applications. It would appear that these types of wind turbine applications are coming thick and fast. I also think its time we acted accordingly to prevent the destruction of our beautiful landscape in the name of greed.
democat101
Happy Camper
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:31 pm


PreviousNext

Return to Local News and Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests