Tomaig wind turbine

[mameg21]

I spotted these applications for a 150foot wind turbine at tomaig, oatfield and bellochantuy on the argyll and bute council weekly planning list:

20 - South Kintyre
Community Council: Campbeltown Community Council
Proposal: Erection of 45.9 metre high (to blade tip) wind turbine and formation of temporary access road.
Location: South Tomaig Farm, Tomaig Road, Campbeltown, Argyll And Bute, PA28 6PE
Applicant:
Intelligent Land Investments
Mr Andrew Hughes, The Shires, 3 3 Bothwell Road, Hamilton,
ML3 0AS

Also another one for Oatfield:

Reference: 12/00007/PP Officer: Allocated To Area Office
Telephone: 01546 604070
Ward Details: 20 - South Kintyre
Community Council: Campbeltown Community Council
Proposal: Erection of 45.9 metre high (to blade tip) wind turbine and formation of temporar y access road.
Location: Oatfield, Campbeltown, Argyll And Bute, PA28 6PH
Applicant:
Intelligent Land Investments
Mr Andrew Hughes, The Shires, 3 3 Bothwell Road, Hamilton,
ML3 0AS

Full list available here:
http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/planning-and-environment/Weekly%20list%20of%20valid%20planning%20applications%2027th%20January%202012.pdf

Intelligent Land investments seem to be sticking in applications for turbines throughout Kintyre and beyond. There are quite a few applications for planning permission on the East of Kintyre and a few on the west.

If they all get through Kintyre will be peppered with single turbines!

[jowett63]

Yes the list of recent single and small scale multiple turbines applications has been gathering alarming momentum of late. A a brief search on the key words wind turbines in South Kintyre and Kintyre and Isles since end of last August shows:

Kildalloig Farm Campbeltown one 30m turbine
Auchaleek Farm Campbeltown one 18.4m to hub turbine
Auchadaduie Barr Glen three 100m turbines
South Tomaig Farm one 46m turbine
Oatfield Campbeltown one 46m turbine
Lagalgarve Farm Bellochantuy one 46m turbine
Land North West Of Ardnacross Farm Peninver one 47m turbine
Land North East Of Strathnafanaig Clachan one 47m turbine
Drum Farm Kilkenzie Campbeltown two 15.4 m to hub turbines
Land South West Of East Laggan Peninver one 47m turbine
Land North West Of High Ugadale Campbeltown one 47m turbine
Killegruer Glenbarr one 27m turbine
Plus 5 aplications for meteorological masts that are precursors of larger scale developments.

Larger wind farms have to meet strict criteria regarding "cumulative impact" effects, but it is a matter of grave concern that planners treat these individual applications in isolation and do not take into account both the individual turbines that are already there or the others in the planning pipeline. In effect they do not join up the dots. One can but hope that our elected representatives are aware of the hedgehog effect of these myriad applications....

The other concern is that whilst the landscape that we all share as our common environment is being marred by this incremental plaque like build up of turbines, these constructions benefit nobody but the landowner and the speculative partner in whose name they are being advanced..... paid for ironically by the rest of us through the feed in tarifs and other subsidies that increase our fuel bills. They are in a win - win situation while we the rest are are in a lose, lose situation.

[WC1]

Is there likely to be any effect from the Tomaig turbine on our television and radio signal from the local transmitter, which it will be fairly close to?

[WC1]

From the Intelligent Land Investments website:

Presently ILI RE is working alongside set government strategies to push the growth for single rural turbines within the feed in tariff. This is an opportunity like no other for landowners to benefit from a government set subsidy for the next 20yrs. We at ILI promise to do our upmost to deliver for all landowners we work with.

So it isn't really about green energy then.

[daisy]

It most certainly is not about "saving the planet", WC1. Whether they are single turbines or large developments, profit is the number one aim. Profit for the few at the expense of the many - both literally in the subsidies we pay through our energy and tax bills, and metaphorically in the cost to our beautiful environment. This is one of the biggest scams ever, yet Government have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

[WC1]

Completely agree Daisy. Truly there is nothing worse than a racket you can't get into! This whole matter is something that urgently needs another look. However, I noticed in yesterday's papers that over 100 MPs are calling for the government to scrap the subsidies for these developments, so it seems that there is a bit of a groundswell building up.

[John Cowan]

For the record and despite what it says in the details on the Council website, the application for a 45.9 metre turbine at Oatfield is most definitely not put in by, or on behalf of, Oatfield House. It is from Oatfield Farm and nothing whatsoever to do with us.

Indeed, it is most inappropriately sited right on the crest of Oatfield Brae, only 250 metres from Bealloch hill fort (an important Scheduled Ancient Monument, excavated in the 1970’s by Professor Peltenberg and his team from Edinburgh University. A number of artifacts from there were recently put on display in the refurbished Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow).

This wind turbine, if approved, will be a dominant feature in the landscape - visible for miles, from just outside town, right through Stewarton to beyond Kilellan Park on the Southend road, past Strath on the Machrihanish Road and, more distantly from much of the A83 from Kilkenzie into Campbletown.

We are very much against this proposal and against this proliferation of turbines generally throughout our open countryside. I personally (along with many others) spoke against the Kilachattan wind farm at the recent appeal at Southend in December and we have just had notification that the appeal by the developers has been rejected. Although I do understand that there is to be a further press release from the developers in this weeks Courier.

Kintyre as a whole already has six times the Scottish National average of wind turbines per square mile. The planning policy is for wind farms to be only approved along the spine of the peninsula from Tangy northwards, which (aside from all the arguments as to whether they are only really efficient at generating subsidies, rather than electricity) is good. But, as has already been pointed out, this does not apply to single, isolated turbines. We think it should.

[John Cowan]

The council have now corrected their website to state that the Oatfield wind turbine application is from Oatfield Farm, not Oatfield House.

[FieldofStone]

Also one named as Achnaglach, this had nothing to do with us but was submitted again by Oatfield Farm. 'Achnaglach' was all over the documentation inc. SNH reply and as applicants address. They should have been much clearer in naming the site as it reads like it was to be placed on our land. I feel this may have been to try and apply for two sites by the same applicant without looking greedy.

[tarmmaker]

And now another 10 turbine application at loch Freasdail at 100m high, (that's FIVE times higher than the Drum farm two) near Whitehouse. As with all planning applications, if anyone doesn't agree with them you should object to the planning dept. The easiest way to view the applications with maps etc. follow the links on the Kintyre Turbine Watch website, where you can also object. If anyone doesn't object, fair enough, don't do anything.

[John Cowan]

It seems that Intelligent Land Investments are back on the scene again, with (currently) eight large single turbines applied for, including one re-applied for at High Ugadale. Which means that all of the previous objections to that are now irrelevant and will need to be made again... if you should wish to. The High Ugadale application is reference number 12/02281/PP on the Council web site. The others are spread thinly around the county but are, nevertheless, still an 8 turbine wind farm - 12/02301/PP, 12/02275/PP, 12/01993/PP, 12/01994/PP, 12/00251/PP, 11/02173/PP and 12/01995/PP. Two of the applications (including High Ugadale) are filed under the Applicant name Mr Andrew Hughes but, seeing as Mr Hughes has some 33 planning applications listed on the A&B web site, I would have thought he should more accurately be described as an Agent? Rather than as the applicant, whose real identity he thus conceals? Hmm