Creggan 25 Turbine Windfarm Glenbarr

[argylltourist]

You don't have to live in Glenbarr to visit event.

All interested parties can go along!

[jowett63]

I went to the event at Glenbarr today and commend Burcote for the quality of visual displays that gave an excellent idea of the visual impact of their proposals; both an animated drive past simulation and an adjustable fly past computer simulation that let you see what the view would be from almost any vantage point. I hope they put both on their website so more than just the folk who attended their event can see it. It was a stark contrast to the disingenuous photomontages that SSE used for their doomed inshore proposals.

What it does show is that the 9 most westerly 125m high turbines on the development are utterly inappropriately sited and will completely dominate the village, the valley, the school, the views from the A83 and to Gigha and seaward. There is not the slightest chance that planners or politicians will allow them to proceed and if Burcote are true to their stated company objective of building "site appropriate" windfarms and being a "considerate and respectful partner to local commnities", they should ditch these immediately or be regarded as hypocrites.

As to the remainder, whilst Burcote make much of the fact that there are no environmental designations on the site, they ignore the fact that for good reason the council has a preferred planning designation that major windfarm developments should be on the spine of the peninsular where the disbenefits of development can be minimised. Even the Easterly 17 turbines can hardly be said to be sited out of sight on that spine, so what is the overwhelming argument for why this development should be excluded from that sage guidance? In their handout Burcote have a section that says Why Creggan? The first reason they say is it has the potential to power 58,000 homes, but it would do that if it were appropriately sited elsewhere. The second is that the area has excellent wind speed....but so does the spine of kintyre - so site it there. Next they say it could boost the local economy.... the community would still get the community benfit if the development were 5 miles east. There are no environmental desgnations....are there any on the spine? And finally grid capacity in 2015...well that will benefit all the sites on the peninsular no matter where they are sited.

I think the real reason Burcote has selected this site, off the spine next to a village and adjacent to the main arterial route we all travel, is that they found willing landowners and it is far easier to develop than a remote site.

So I say to Burcote, if you really honour all the stuff on your website about moral imperatives, benefiting local commu nities and being site appropriate then go and find a location away from the coast, truly up on the spine of Kintyre like they did at Beinn an Turic and submit a proposal for that. Leave this valley, the gateway to South Kintyre alone.

[WC1]

Hear, hear! A couple of points from my own questioning of the representatives:-

They claim this wind farm will have the capacity to power 58,000 homes. This apparently is based on an output of about 40% of installed capacity, which is at the high end of the norm for wind farms in Scotland generally.

One of the representatives spoke about "the current proposals". When I asked what he meant by "current" he said this meant that not all of the 26 turbines might actually be installed. When pressed on the point that another interpretation of this could be that there were further proposals lurking somewhere down the line, he would not rule out a "Creggan 2" in the future, in the way that we've seen a Deucheran 2, Beinn nan Tuirc 2 and Tangy 2. Somewhat worrying.

I agree that the visual displays were excellent. Horrific, but excellent.

[Han_OH]

I, too, attended this event and agree that Burcote Wind has to be commended on the quality of visual displays on show today. They gave a thorough insight into what this preposterous and completely inappropriate wind farm would look like. It was shocking, to say the least - this proposal is like nothing we’ve ever seen in Kintyre before! At a monstrous 125m in height, these turbines would be completely inescapable from most of West Kintyre. Unlike the other wind farms on the peninsula, which are visible from a few places but located far enough away not to cause distraction, these turbines would command the attention of everybody, the instant they come into view. From watching the drive past simulation, I cannot imagine that this proposal will ever be permitted. After seeing the views of the site, particularly from Glenbarr, Barr Glen, Glenbarr School and going north on the A83, I find it hard to believe that this proposal has even made it to the community consultation stage. What is the point in the council having policies in place regarding the suitable locations for wind farm development, if they are to be completely disregarded by developers, such as Burcote Wind?

Besides the drive past simulation and adjustable fly past computer simulation, there were a number of written displays and wireframes/photomontages presented. However, as soon as I walked in the door, a representative of Burcote Wind was at my side, before I had absorbed any of this information. Thereafter I was accompanied around the hall, until I left, leaving me unable to properly take in any of the details on display. I feel that these events would be far more valuable for everyone, if people were allowed to digest the information first, and then discuss the proposal with the developers afterwards, should they wish. However, I have to say I am glad I attended this event, as I now realise that this proposal is much worse than I first imagined. I just hope that Burcote Wind realises the inappropriateness of this proposal in terms of both scale and location.

[John Cowan]

I too attended the event and I agree with all of the above comments.

What was most telling to us, however, was what appears to be a completely disingenuous attitude revealed by the company... as demonstrated by their feedback form. We have retained copies for future reference.

The first question was, "On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being strongly disagree, 5 being strongly agree), do you agree there is a need in Scotland to produce more electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and tidal power?"

Wind Prospect - the proposers of the rejected Kilchattan project tried exactly this same trick. They asked a vague and general question about are you in favour of renewable energy at the Southend public "consultation", and then used the numbers as though it was a survey, as though everyone who had answered yes to that very general question... was in favour of that specific windfarm.

If Burcote Wind truly is the ethical company that it claims to be and if it was actually looking for real feedback, the obvious question that should have been asked was ,"On a scale of 1 to 5, are you in favour of this specific wind farm?"

But it was not.

[Han_OH]

I thought the exact same thing, John! I wrote beside questions 1 and 2 on my form that I thought they were pointless, and that they were misleading, as they made it appear as though everyone is in favour of this wind farm. Hopefully, though, most people will have made it quite clear in the following questions that they are not!

[Tracker]

In agreement John, I refused to fill in a questionaire as I realised it was heavily weighted to show consent and agreement for the proposal.
On the A4 glossy handout the Chairman,Graham Brown, states "We believe passionatley in the need for renewable energy bur are also aware of the necessity for sensitive and sustainable development. This means we take great care to make sure our wind farm proposals are sympathetic to the needs of local people and local environment". Anybody who was in the village hall last night would have seen the local peoples' reactions! So if Burcotewind are "sympathetic to the needs of local people" they will pack up their high tech displays and look for other sites which do not have a devasting affect on fragile local communities.

Tracker

[democat101]

Public to get new rights to block 'eyesore' windfarm plans

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1nOZDGL4a

[Swanseajock]

Public to get new rights to block 'eyesore' windfarm plans

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1nOZDGL4a

I can't actually be bothered to read the whole report, but as a long term Tory voter, I will not hold my breath for the "Heir to Bliar" changing anything. The LibDem tail is wagging the dog, and renewables, despite the huge supplements and poor performance of these wasteful monstrocities, they will continue to be constructed, despite local opposition. I am agaist them and I am biased.

[Kintyre Forum News]

It's great to see people use the forum to educate people on what is happening in Kintyre and in particular the proposals at Creggan. Well done all and keep this thread active (along with the other ones you have been posting on!)

[democat101]

Does anyone know what A&B planning guidelines are with regards to separation distance of commercial wind turbines to residential properties?

[jowett63]

Democrat 101 the Government's Planning Policy for renewables developments is SPP6 and it says: " PAN 45 confirms that development up to 2 km is likely to be a prominent feature in an open landscape. The Scottish Ministers would support this as a separation distance between turbines and the edge of cities, towns and villages so long as policies recognise that this approach is being adopted solely as a mechanism for steering proposals to broad areas of search and, within this distance, proposals will continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis".

You will note the get out clause that avaricious developers exploit to try and bang in windfarms in inappropriate locations. But of course that will not be Burcote at Creggan as they only believe in building "site appropriate" windfarms and in being a "considerate and respectful partner to local commnities". Which is why it is clearly a mistake that their turbines at Creggan are only 1km from the village and 800m from the Primary school. A mistake I am sure they will soon rectify by withdrawing their flawed proposals.....

[democat101]

£120billion gamble on wind turbines: Green energy 'ten times dearer than power stations'

A rush to green energy by spending billions covering much of the countryside with wind turbines would be an expensive blunder, a damning study has found.

Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University said the massive programme will cost consumers £120billion by 2020 through higher bills.

This is almost ten times more than the £13billion it would cost to generate the same amount of electricity from efficient gas-fired power stations, according to the leading energy and environment economist.

Supporters of wind power insist the key benefit is that it allows a huge reduction in CO2 emissions, in line with EU obligations.

This is challenged in the study, which suggests the switch to wind will actually deliver only a tiny reduction.

The report is published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think-tank devoted to challenging conventional wisdom about climate change. GWPF’s chairman is the former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson and its findings are backed by Lib Dem peer Emma Nicholson.

Professor Hughes said families are being forced to subsidise wind farms through their bills.

Meanwhile business energy costs are also being driven up, so harming their profits and ability to invest and grow.

By contrast around a dozen landowners who allow wind farms to be erected on their property are to share an £850million subsidy windfall.

A wind turbine generating £150,000 of electricity a year is eligible for ‘monstrous subsidies’ of £250,000 a year.

Professor Hughes warned: ‘Unless the Government scales back its commitments to wind power very substantially, its policy will be worse than a mistake, it will be a blunder.’

Wind farm support stems from a pledge in the 2008 Climate Change Act for a 34 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions.

However, Professor Hughes insists figures show opting for wind power rather than building efficient gas-fired power stations will – at best – reduce emissions by 2.8 per cent.

He said the figure is so low because any investment in wind farms will have to be backed up with the building of gas turbine power stations to ensure the lights stay on when there is no wind.

Professor Hughes said: ‘There is nothing inherently good or bad about investing in renewable energy and green technology. The key problems with current policies for wind power are simple. They require a huge commitment of investment to a technology that is not very green but which is very expensive and inflexible.’

Baroness Nicholson joined the attack, saying: ‘A dozen of the biggest landowners will between them receive almost £850million in subsidies, a huge amount paid by ordinary families through hidden taxes on their electricity bills.

‘I am immensely unhappy wind power has attracted such monstrous subsidies. I am particularly unhappy because the facts have been hidden from the consumer who will have to pay the bill for this folly.’

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said developing wind power will mean the UK is less reliant on imported gas.

She said: ‘We need investment in new energy capacity. Wind will be a crucial part of that, alongside gas, new nuclear and carbon capture and storage.

‘Home grown renewables will help insulate our economy and consumers from depending excessively on gas imports.’

Source: Daily Mail.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l?ITO=1490
http://www.thegwpf.org/

[kintyreturbinewatch]

RSPB Overview
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/casework ... m:9-327336
Why is it worth fighting for?
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/casework ... m:9-327336