Plans for the UK’s biggest community wind farm have received a setback, with an objection submitted on behalf of a neighbouring national park.
The Cove Community Wind Farm would see five 92-metre turbines sited above Loch Long, facing part of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park.
Members of the Rosneath Peninsula West Community Development Trust offered to share the money raised – estimated at up to £400,000 per year – with villagers in Strone, Blairmore and Ardentinny.
But yesterday (Monday) members of the national park’s planning and access committee voted unanimously to lodge an objection to the plans with Argyll and Bute Council – against the recommendation of their officials who said it would have a ‘moderate adverse impact’.
A spokesperson for the park authority confirmed:
“Members unanimously agreed to submit an objection to the application as the proposal would have a significant adverse visual impact on the landscape setting of the southern aspects of the national park from the Firth of Clyde, Loch Long, the communities of the Cowal Peninsula and the southern marine gateway to the National Park.
“The proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the residents and recreational / visitor enjoyment and landscape experience of the southern and western areas of the National Park.
“In addition, the National Park Authority requests Argyll and Bute Council to consider carrying out an economic assessment of the impact on tourism of the proposed development.”
Trust convener Murdo MacDonald was at the meeting, and said afterwards: “We are very disappointed that the national park planning committee did not agree with the opinion of their professional officers and overturned the recommendation of no response.”
The park authority report made clear that it did not take account of Argyll and Bute’s policies such as the landscape wind energy capacity study; it stated that although the turbines would have an impact on the landscape character of the area, there are already ‘intrusive built structures’ such as RNAD Coulport.
It concludes: “The national park has been consulted on the proposed wind farm and from involvement at the pre-application stage concerns have been expressed about he scale of the turbines and their appropriateness in regard to landscape character and their impact on visual experience of the landscape of the national park.
“However it is considered that the moderate impacts will be of a localised nature around the Cowal Peninsula and the landscape integrity of the wider national park will not be significantly affected.”
An overwhelming majority of residents in Cove and Kilcreggan voted in favour of the plan, but on the other side of the loch Kilmun Community Council found there was a similar majority against.
Councillor George Freeman, whose Lomond North ward includes the wind farm site, is a member of the committee which met on Monday but declared an interest and left the room as he is also member of the Argyll and Bute committee which will decide on the proposals.
“Did not agree with the opinion of their professionals” MMMM now where have i heard that before????????
The problem of course was the “professional” officer(s) did a ‘cut-n-paste’ job from the Trust’s brief. Which was only brought to the committee’s attention by ‘diligent’ opposition.
Well said John, a little reading here and there and you will be suprised!!! Well said again and well done to all!!!!
Well same again and again nothing from the trust “No Comment” and they expect public support for their project how long will it take to make a statement???????????? They are soon quick enough banging on peoples doors and asking for it and then they are no where to be seen. If anyone knows there where abouts please contact Wind Stoppers!!!! not crime stoppers!!!!
The decision of the National Park Planning and access committee was the triumph of common sense over lunacy. It was very embarrassing to attend the meeting of a respected public body when one of there employees has for reasons still to be determined produced a briefing document that is contrary to all the policies of their employer. I must credit the members of the committee in their restraint and vocabulary as the consideration of agenda item 8 was steered to the only possible result, the preservation of the jewel of Scotland’s tourist industry the second highest earner after whisky and possibly the largest employer in the country.
It is a great pity that Murdo MacDonald cannot even quote correctly from the National Park report when it is mostly made up of passages lifted from his own planning proposal almost as strange that the National Park professional planners cannot correctly interpret the advice documents prepared by their sister organisation Scottish National Heritage although there are regular structured exchanges of staff and ideas between the 2 organisations.
I cannot understand how the RPWCDT cannot understand their own planning application one presumes they have no real concept of measurements in the metric system and had to be educated by the national Park planning committee in the simple mathematical fact that if you build a 92.5 m structure 130m up a 160m high hill then surprise, surprise 60m will be visible over the top of the hill and therefore can be seen from any view point through the full 360 degrees. Failure to issue picture showing the wind turbines does not mean they would not be seen.
As a spectator at the National park meeting it was gratifying to realise that the hyperbole peddled by the wind turbine companies and developers is more than matched by the real and seasoned protectors and conservers of an ecologically sound and environmentally sustainable country.
Can the anti wind farm committee please inform the rest of the community there plans to raise funding for projects in this area?
Here are your “real and seasoned protectors and conservers of an ecologically sound and environmentally sustainable country,” as described by somebody who has intimate dealings with them, in just one examination of their machinations back in 2011:
“Councillor George Freeman has embarked upon a substantial challenge to the management of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, a considerable proportion of which lies in Argyll.
This challenge – and the detailed evidences which has led to it – which he has circulated, highlights a major national institution whose processes do not merit the description of ‘management’, which is effectively a law unto itself and which is in default of a wide variety of legal requirements.
Equally seriously, the National Park ‘management’ is riding roughshod over the survival needs of established local businesses by using public money to subsidise the commercial operations of preferred bidders it has appointed to run visitor centres within the park area.
It is a matter of the most serious concern that these preferred bidders were apparently appointed outwith an open tendering process – leaving no evidence as to whether their appointments were in fact the best option for the Park. It is difficult to argue otherwise as most of the discussion on this issue was in secret.
The ‘management ‘ of the Park appears to operate on no more than an ad hoc basis of response to crisis and appears to lack a well found policy to guide its operations,.
[…]
It is presiding over significant changes of use of the visitor centres now commercially leased, for which the planning permission considered necessary by the community has neither been sought nor granted.
In the case of the lavatory arrangements at the Luss Centre, now a substantial restaurant, it is hard to see that these are not in serious breach of public health standards governing the provision of food and restaurant services, although strangely enough, Councillor Freeman has been told that under the regulations, there is no need for restaurants to provide lavatories for their customers.
[…]
The issue here is first one of competent management- or not – and the evidence is of a pretty shambolic state of affairs.
Then the issue is one of undermining proper commercial competition between existing businesses and those private sector companies who have become commercial lessees of Park properties.
Councillor Freeman has been pursuing investigations in response to constituents’ expressions of concern as to what has been going on within the Park Authority. He has found an astonishing degree of decisions taken and and information given – and subsequently reversed – on what is nothing other than seat-of-the-pants firefighting as opposed to management.
A core problem here is that the Park exists as a virtually self regulated and autonomous body. This means that it has not had to meet the level of external scrutiny that tightens up inexperienced management.
The Park is both landlord and its own planning authority. The National Park’s Director of Planning and Rural Development acts as the senior Planning Officer within the Park.
When the Government set it up this way, it looked like a fresh and imaginative structure that would free the Park to manage its affairs efficiently.
The reality is a dangerous autonomy, seen to be used irresponsibly, both in terms of legal compliance and of corporate social responsibility.
As its own planning authority, the Park can do what it likes, without the tests that would normally be applied to development proposals by external planning authorities.”
http://forargyll.com/2011/08/freeman-challenge-underlines-management-crisis-at-national-park/
We in this area are excluded from the National Park, not least because we host two large submarine bases. We see few of the benefits of National Park status beyond some tangential droppings from the table, but our current initiative is being impeded by this body with “dangerous autonomy” that evidently cares not a jot for us because we do not fall within their remit, and they are to have a say about the development of our community.
Yet you applaud them without reservation while continuing to castigate the Trust with constant unfounded libel? Dual standards indeed!
I would like to ask the TRUST the same question!!! If you build a 92.5 m structure 130m up a 160m high hill then surprise, surprise 60m will be visible over the top of the hill!! True or False?. According to one Director no they will not be visible from Shandon, Rhu or anywhere along that loch side!!! Quoted on Face Book page and yet according to another Director just the tips will be seen? So who is telling the truth and I really think the Trust need to talk to each other. What I will say is it’s simple and if the Trust really want to get peoples support then purchase a Big Red Weather Balloon, tie it to a 92.5M leash and stand on each proposed grid reference and let everyone take a look. This way we will sort the lies from the truth!!! And here is an offer I will even throw in a few quid in case no funding is left or available. I don’t think I can be more fairer than that!!!!
M Fish!!!!
What a fantastic idea Graham. Come on the Trust and prove/disprove us, They are available on ebay.
Still not answered my question.How do the anti’s propose to raise money for the community if the wind farm does not go ahead,or is it you are all anti-community?
Anti Community mmmmm NO just wind farm!!!! When the Trust answers questions that were posed to them over 4 months ago then you might get an answer. So you will know now how we have felt waiting on the Trust because and I quote “ Send in your questions to us and we will answer them” These are the words of the Trust not the antis has you call us!!!!
Ref for the TRUST.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Large-Weather-Meteorological-Balloon-4-Diameter-/251212411651?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item3a7d6d3303
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Balloon-36-Weather-/400436421596?pt=UK_Home_Garden_Celebrations_Occasions_ET&hash=item5d3bdee3dc
Links for weather balloons many colours available!!!!
So what do you suggest the community does to raise funds for projects in the area?If as you say you are not anti community then your good self and anti wind farmers must have a few ideas up your sleeves.I’m sure the trust will welcome your ideas!!
Come on the ‘Trust’ (strange to call them ‘trust’) get balloons up and prove us wrong – do the maths, if you’re correct, you’ll get my support. But (in my opinion) we have been mislead on visibility.
Rodders
I know of no trust members who seek public acclaim only people who are working for the good of the community.
Ally
I’m not on any committee. I don’t like being labelled an ‘anti’. My views are my own and carefully considered. I do find constant comments here – from both sides – along the lines of ‘still no reply’ infuriatingly pointless. Perhaps people have something else to do?
I am afraid I don’t accept your apparent premise that such vast amounts need to be spent in our communties – perhaps we should just differ there.
I do believe that those who talk about threats to close schools (including) Rosneath!) and private businesses (the post offices) are potentially reckless and anti-community. Look at Cove & Kilcreggan and compare it with other villages of the same size in Argyll or wherever – we could all name them but to do so would inevitably cause offence. How many have grocers, post offices (shown on this site NOT to be under threat), a school (likewise), pharmacy, bank, pub, hotels, garage, pier, butcher, cafe, GPs surgery… OK the council closed the library and burgh hall but they’re still open thanks to the community. I’ve had enough of this place being talked down as a deliberate tactic to gain planning
Ally, I think your question as to financial plans should really be addressed to the Trust; they have courted the community with figures of £300-£400K per year, but when asked, refused to release the detailed plans to show HOW and WHEN that will be achieved. They suggest their refusal is due to reasons of confidentiality, yet the same issues don’t seem to affect the Helensburgh project – they have released their figures. So why won’t the Trust? Do they have something to hide?
I’m afraid Sue, they don’t know what the’re doing. They have got themselves carried away on a fantasy project which has grown ‘arms and legs’ on what could possibly be achieved. They have got caught up in their own hyperbole and are now like rabbits frozen in a cars headlights, they just don’t know what to do, what to say, where to turn to. How about, pulling the flawed plans, be honest and admit it was wrong (maybe it was in good faith), and use the remaining funds to do something useful in the community; rather than p*ss it away jumping through hoops trying to make an unworkable proposal workable. After all they were warned in the documentation they bought from their own consultants of the failure modes in the proposal.
I’m not sure what point Sue G is trying to make. All figures for revenue from Wind Farms can only be an estimate, even when they are up and running. As far as the Helensburgh project is concerned, only 1/3rd of any revenue generated will be available for the community, where as all revenue from the Cove Wind Farm will be for the good of our and neighbouring communities. It is a little difficult to predict when this will happen until such times as the turbines are built and on line. I suggest you take a look at the RPWCDT website as you obviously know little about them and their aims.
i’m just curious who this “Sue G” is?
Given the suspicion and unwarranted accusations from the “”anti” crowd here about the Trust, whose board are well known in the community, the fact that the media cheerleader for their cause (in outlets like the Greenock Telegraph and Helensburgh Advertiser) is anonymous and as far as I can tell knows very little about the locality if she even lives here just whizzes over their heads.
I’m also quite taken with Mr Snook’s invocation of “the real and seasoned protectors and conservers of an ecologically sound and environmentally sustainable country” as embodied by the national Park committee. It suggests he knows little of the shenanigans concerning planning wrangles within the National Park itself.
So in order to safeguard, for instance, the fleeting view of people on cruise ships visiting Greenock, it seems this community must be preserved in aspic and ossify. Aside from the Cloch turbines, there are also two wind turbines visible (on a clear day) above Greenock from Kilcreggan. This in addition to all the other industrial developments in the area surrounding us that I’ve discussed before.
It’s a shoddy dual standard. They apparently want to treat us like a latterday Brigadoon. And they have allies in the vocal gleeful “antis” here, high-fiving the fact that there will be no affordable housing development in Kilcreggan, no investment in the foreshore which might mean that tourists actually tarry in the area and patronize some of our local businesses rather than passing through in haste in search of something as basic as a public convenience at Cove or Rosneath, for heaven’s sake, among the other priorities the community set for the Trust.
Heaven forbid anybody ask the “antis” for solutions. I mean, how DARE you?
To serve their purposes, these “antis” will take as Gospel the word of a collection of bodies which are 2/3rds commercial (as opposed to the Trust, which isn’t), and use this as a stick to beat the Trust, whereas those figures (ungenerous as they are to the local community which will be able so see the wind turbines from most of Helensburgh) themselves can obviously only be estimates.
The implication is that the Trust should be less honest and just cook up the figures the “antis” claim they want to see.
Then they can move the goalposts yet again. Wheee! Are you dizzy yet?
I beg to differ that ALL revenue is for the good of the communities. Unless I have missed something and the banks are giving the Trust free money and the land owners are giving free rent?????? So that statement is not TRUE is it?
Trust Graham to be pedantic! Sensible people know that useable revenue is after all expenses have been taken off!
And those ‘expenses’ will include fees to employ people at the turbines and administrators dishing out contracts from the trust to build the low cost accommodation promised (including architects and planning fees) and everything else the say they will do. There will also be accountants fees etc. The money will drain away. Oh, and what if they don’t perform as well as promised?
“I do not think it necessary to answer your question I have not taken £0.5M and planned to waste it on a project that was doomed from day one.”
The first part of your response comes as no surprise at all. As for the second, that funding came from grants to pursue the wind farm plan, and the money would not have been available to the community for other purposes, so that’s a complete red herring.
“Do not ask me what I plan do for the community because I do things for the community in a quiet descrete manner and do not seek public acclamation.”
LOL
I sympathize with Ally and applaud his persistence, but we all know that neither you nor Mr Younger nor Mr Walker and allies have any response to his question beyond “Do not ask me …”, then jump up and down in glee when a plan which could inject a cash flow into the community suffers a potential setback. Well done, all of you. This community already regularly puts its hands in its pockets generously to support local causes such as the Village Hall, so it’s not as if it’s a community of freeloaders. How many concerts, sales and other activities would be needed to fund any of the large number of thing the community itself has identified as priorities? Where are your alternatives? You have none, and get defensive when asked about them. You come across as self-centred nihilists.
I’m highly amused that a number of you who fall into the “anti” camp have prefaced your remarks with the boilerplate “I’m not against wind farms per se, just this one …”, then gone on to cite blatantly scaremongering and ill-researched articles from the Telegraph (good grief, is there a more biased outlet when it comes to such matters, what with its giving houseroom to the ridiculous clown James Delingpole?) etc. that you hope undercut the whole case for them.
And then you have the brass neck to impugn others’ honesty? It’s a joke. Just not a very funny one.
NOT ME
“I’m not against wind farms per se, just this one …”
No, not me, you see I actually am a qualified Environmentalist and the damage wind farms do is incredible. If the trust, or indeed any developer were to carry out a full Life Cycle Analyses in accordance with ISO 14040 (and they have not) they would discover the carbon cost and the full financial costs of the project from ‘cradle to grave’, this has not been done, if it had they would know it’s just not feasible or indeed moral. This project is the wrong solution to the problem. Don’t come back and ask me what the solution is, I’ts not my place, but I would stop the nonsense now and save what little cash is left. To illustrate the waste of money; it cost £12700 (planning fees) plus £156 (for the advert) to apply for planning, using a document set which proved the project was a non-starter. I have said enough.
“This project is the wrong solution to the problem. ”
Perhaps it would be more illuminatating if you were to elucidate what you think “the problem” is. A number of you “antis” have already informed us that the Trust isn’t seeking to “save the world”. The problem the Trust is seeking to address, in line with its brief, is funding local projects which local and central government are increasingly unable or unwilling to fund.
“Don’t come back and ask me what the solution is,”
There you go again! You don’t have a solution. You can’t even identify “the problem”.
Mr Younger, for every study that “proves” what you seek to prove, I can easily cite a number of others that tell a different story, and that could go on for days or weeks. That’s in the nature of a new field and scientific inquiry.
As for this “save what little cash is left” red herring again, I dealt with that in response to Mr Snook – this was grant-funded. Whether the money could be used for other purposes if not devoted to the purpose for which it was raised is dubious.
“the project was a non-starter”
Keep counting those chickens!
OK, let’s give the money back to people with justified realistic projects, not fanciful dreams. As for my opinion, i am fully qualified to talk about environmental issues, are you?
J Younger DipEM MIEMA
It’s been said many times, but it bears repeating; the majority of the money was from sources only available for green energy projects. If the trust had not planned a wind farm they wouldn’t have the money at all, as there are no prospects for solar, hydro, wave or tide around the peninsula that would offer the prospect of a profit.
Dave: sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. I was trying to say that if the national park is really that bad (and I’m not rushing to defend it) then it’s the officers not the elected members who are responsible in terms of continuity.. And it was the officers who did not recommend an objection to this plan. You may have been at the meeting, I wasn’t, but the report I’ve seen on their website is clear enough. I read the full For Argyll story at the time. The point I wanted to make about Cowal in the planners report was that they hadn’t done it v well. Am I allowed to make such points?
My last post leapt up to somewhere else – so I’ll take the opportunity to amend and apologise !
Should have said an objective voice re NP report – in reply to ‘Who do….’
You are absolutely right – in fact there were glaring errors in the report – and not the type to be expected from a professional.
So yes, I believe the report submitted for approval had inaccuracies, and omissions, and did not reflect several aspects relevant to the Park’s remit.
This was recognised by the Committee, and their decision reflected the aims of the NP more accurately.
“i am fully qualified to talk about environmental issues, are you?”
It’s your English comprehension, medium-term memory and social skills that are giving cause for concern!
D Watson NOTABSER NOTIMPRESSED
That is Libel. (in reply to Dave Watson)
Yes and sensible people would take the recommendations of professionals especially when you have just paid them £180,000 of tax payers and public money but this seems not!!!!
Very true John, because we all know that the Trusts calculations are based on 30% and not 26% efficient like they were told over and over again,but again ignored it.They seem to ingnore a lot of good advice. And still no takers on my donation of a balloon???
I’ll match your balloon with my balloon. Let’s get them on a 92.5 m bit of string and prove they will be visible from all around – gauntlet is thrown down! Prove us wrong.
Thanks John, But no doubt they will not come back to us and there supporters will come back with an excuse!!!
Inflated ego’s, but not balloons. After all, it’s all hot air!
Will there be enough money to pay the bills????? These are not made up either!!!!!
http://utilitiessavings.co.uk/2011/04/wind-farms-less-efficient-than-expected/
With this evidence, the nonsense MUST STOP NOW, while the community has a few bob left.
Your point about the national park is a bit confusing Dave – quite apart from the fact that you seem to take Forargyll as Gospel, which is a bit brave!
The main critic quoted is Councillor Freeman, who since then (the episode is some years ago) has actually become a member of the park authority. Not sure about the terminology but he’s an A&B rep. Has he perhaps helped to change things?
Also, I rather doubt that the same people who look after toilets and cafes are those who make planning policy but I might be wrong; in either case I’d have thought it was officials rather than members at fault – and officials seemed to support the windfarm!
I was also bit baffled by the quote in the story (not the comments afterwards) which seems to be key to why those officials did not recommend an objection, “However it is considered that the moderate impacts will be of a localised nature around the Cowal Peninsula and the landscape integrity of the wider national park will not be significantly affected.” Just how many things could ‘affect the landscape integrity of the wider national park’? I really can’t think of any such development apart from a 50-storey skyscraper in Bonhill – so would they never object to anything, on that basis? I’m not making this point either for or against thew windfarm, but to point out the inherent contradiction.
And if I lived in Cowal and saw my concerns dismissed in this way, I think I’d make my feelings known.
To; Who do they think they’re kidding?
I suggest very strongly that you read the entire Forargyll article, from which I have briefly and only partially excerpted the introduction, as there has been much more cause for concern about this unelected and extremely powerful quango over the years, and the article deals with some of it. It goes far, far beyond the minutiae of planning and toilet facility provision. I cited it as it’s fairly comprehensive. A few minutes on Google and some appropriate search terms will show wider coverage, quite possibly from sources you won’t so readily dismiss.
I applaud your optimism that things may have changed. However, able as Cllr freeman is in some respects, the idea that his influence could have overcome the structural issues in the constitution of the Park Authority is stretching my own optimism. He was, and possibly still is, a thorn in their side, and this may or may not have had any bearing on the decision.
I do find it odd that conspiracy theories and libellous accusations against members of our own community whom a number of us know pretty well are readily entertained and applauded, whereas the Park Authority, where far greater sums and influence are at stake and where there have been actual grounds for allegations of incompetence, if not malfeasance, is apparently exempt from such suspicions and beyond reproach. I don’t find it surprising, as such a selective dual standard is par for the course in this discussion, such as it is.
“And if I lived in Cowal and saw my concerns dismissed in this way, I think I’d make my feelings known.”
If you live on the Peninsula, do you ever recall any fuss or consultation over the erection of the two wind farm developments south of the Clyde, at Cloch and above Greenock, visible from both Kilcreggan and Cowal? (I won’t mention some of the other eyesores that have appeared over there over the years.) I’d be willing to bet you can’t.
Here’s the link to that article again, in case the layout of the comments is confusing for newcomers and they have trouble finding it:
http://forargyll.com/2011/08/freeman-challenge-underlines-management-crisis-at-national-park/
I should first of all state my position on the Cove wind farm so as to put my post in some context. I live in Helensburgh and therefore have no particular opinion either way about whether or not it gets built (from a personal impact perspective). If it does then I will be delighted if the Trust’s hopes and aspirations for the Peninsula are delivered. It is always heart-warming and refreshing to see local people being prepared to invest so much of their own time for no personal reward because they have a desire to improve the community they live in. Despite some of the thinly veiled accusations posted on various threads on here I do believe that none of the Trust members will be personally pocketing from this. I only have a passing acquaintance with two of the Trust members but from the brief conversations I have had with them I am confident in saying that, as a Trust, they are not pursuing this for personal gain, nor are they in any way lacking in the capability to deliver this project. In fact it appears to me to be quite the opposite – that they have advanced this project as far as they have without depending on the more standard private developer/community hand out model speaks volumes about their capacity and determination. I would hope that the people on the Peninsula recognise that, regardless of whether this project succeeds, the Trust (unlike some of the other posters in this thread, and others like it) have very clearly evidenced that their intentions and efforts have been very much focused on something which will benefit the many rather than the few. Hell I wish we had them in Helensburgh!
The wind farm debate rolls on and on across Scotland and I sit in the middle of it. I am not in favour of wind farms being built anywhere without proper consideration of impact and without weighing up the pros and cons of each project on a case by case basis. The arguments for and against are well documented and both sides tend to overly emphasise arguments in their favour whilst tucking the arguments against them under the carpet. This particular project, especially due to the fact there are no private developers involved, is, for me, one where the pros outweigh the cons. The National Park, as is there right, have objected and I am in no position to dispute whether they should have. They are entitled to object and the local Council will need to take account of that objection during their decision making process. It is just one opinion amongst many, with very few of those opinions based on a totally impartial view point (and I speak both for supporters and objectors when I say that).
I trust that the Council make their decision factoring in the whole range of evidence and opinions made available to them. The professional bodies involved (such as the Park, SNH, RSPB, those associated with planes (OK that wasn’t exactly technical!) MOD and whoever else) will be key players in this as they have detailed knowledge and experience that the rest of us don’t. That doesn’t mean our opinions should be ignored but it does mean that professional advice should be given the weight it has earned the right to deserve. If the Trust say there is no issue with, say, places of historic interest but SNH think it does then SNH’s opinion should be considered very seriously. Equally if a couple of people claim they have witnessed a couple of particular birds flying overhead at some point but the RSPB have no concerns with the project then the RSPB’s opinion should be the significant one.
What I would say is that, irrespective of what the end game is, the some of the language and attitudes demonstrated on this website by the likes of Mr Snook, Younger and, to a lesser extent Mr Walker, borders on odious and I hope that people, even if they disagree with what the Trust are proposing, can differentiate between the people who are trying their best and the people who offer nothing but vitriol.
I’m sorry if I offend you sir, I am passionately against all wind farms as I know the full story, I can not change my position, but you should respect it, as I do yours.
It is not your opinion that I find offensive. We are all entitled to an opinion on any matter regardless of whether the letters after your name are relevant to the matter being discussed. I do find it a little at odds that you feel your qualifications give your opinion on wind farms more strength yet you suggest the Trust are ill equipped to manage the project when their combined qualifications (a number of which are extremely impressive) make them more than equipped to manage a capital project, and the ongoing revenue elements, of this size and nature. There are many boards with paid directors who couldn’t boast that sort of ability. I would suggest that that particular accusation you made is ill advised and motivated purely to denigrate them as a board rather than through any constructive concern.
It is this sort of thing and others elsewhere on this site (yes I did just spend a couple of hours trawling through them), like:
1. Mr Snook’s accusation that the Trust deliberately tried to hide the planning application by submitting it near Christmas. Mr Walker makes a similar comment when he says ‘the impression that the application is trying to use and waste the time given, so preventing people objecting to the wind farm in the given time.’ Zak makes similar comments.
2. Constant accusations that they are refusing to answer questions about finances when the answer has been given – it is just that you don’t like the answer. I see Ms Glover thinks they should just because the Helensburgh project has published high level figures. If I tender for any of the work related to the Helensburgh project then I am delighted that I now have a good ball park figure what my quote should be. The Rosneath Trust have not been so negligent in their business practices (maybe further evidence that the accusation that they are ill equipped is utter nonsense).
3. Mr Walker calling people on the Peninsula gullible because of something he claims they may have been told by the Trust – something which he has no evidence of and which I have been assured by the trust has never been told to people (and was made clear at a public meeting).
4. Mr Younger referring to people on the Peninsula as ‘sheep and one poster as a ‘silly girl’
5. A poster called ‘green’ saying By the way if I hear the tennis courts dilapidation mentioned one more time I’ll scream – I’ll lend you a lawnmower and some garden tools for heaven’s sakes – never heard of a ‘green gym?’ – I notice he/she doesn’t actually offer to get his lawnmower out and do it him/herself. No that would be effort, better to scoff at the efforts of people who are actually trying to make a difference.
6. Mr Walker accusing the Trust of trying to mislead the people with their references to school closure with a daft point about ‘is the Trust going to run them as a private concern’ – it is quite obvious to anyone reading with an impartial mind (and using an inkling of common sense) that long term sustainability of primary schools is affected by population and school rolls – something that the Trust are looking to address through the projects it would fund through wind farm money.
My personal favourite having trawled through all the threads on here is from you Mr Younger when you say ‘Hold on, what about the people driving the proposals; what’s in it for them further down the line, when contracts need to be managed – OK, profits will go to the community, but after what ‘legitimate costs’ have been incurred?.
A clearer accusation that the Trust directors will be looking to line their own pockets I don’t think could be made. It is bordering on slander and is nothing short of shameful.
I have no problem with people raising concerns about environmental impact, visual impact, ornithology etc etc – all these things need to be given proper consideration however the cheap tactics referred to above are quite disgusting.
For Graham Walker; perhaps the Trust won’t answer you because your emails to them are like your posts here, posts which are variously repetitive, rude, incoherent, bordering on libel and lacking in fact. Are the exclamation and question mark keys on your keyboard sticky? Haranguing and insulting people who are doing something voluntarily isn’t a good way of getting a response.
The balloon exercise you outline would be a good one, it would reveal that there is little or no visibility from the road along the Gareloch; it’s necessary to go some way up the hillside to see very much. Even without Tilhill’s trees there would not be much to see, while the trees remain there would be practically nothing to be seen from the lochside road.
For Sue G; you don’t make clear what figures you want to see, the Helensburgh proposal published in the Advertiser contained less information than has been given by the Trust either on here or on their own website.
OK, here’s the gauntlet; the trust procure five balloons (there’s plenty money in the pot, because it’s in aid of the project) and we will get the answer. This is simple stuff, if they’re correct, any right minded opposer will shut up, if not, they’re argument is lost, and the project should be dropped.
Now, come on ‘trust’ pick up the gauntlet or pull the project.
.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHH Must be hitting a nerv to warrent such a response!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oooopppppsssss that sticky keyboard is this perhaps excuses to avoid answering the very pertinent and relative questions!!!!!!!!!!!
For those who don’t know and Mr Younger forgot not to elaborate the qualifications are;
British Safety Council International Diploma in Environmental Management (DipEM)
Member of The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (MIEMA)
It is a pity that Mr Younger has chosen at this late stage to disclose his expertise and did not offer to work with the trust when the project was in it’s infancy to explain the “incredible damage” wind farms do. I am quite saddened that someone who is so qualified would chose not to share such important information on a project they feel so strongly opposed to.
Mr Younger if you have carried out a life cycle analysis would you be willing to explain this (in lay terms) to the public (perhaps at the next Community Council Meeting).
I think that an educated reasoned explanation is the only civilised way forward and would be productive for everyone instead of the descent into a grubby and tawdry on-line exchange.
(previously posted randomly half way up because I wasn’t wearing my glasses and should know better)
For those who don’t know and Mr Younger forgot not to elaborate the qualifications are;
British Safety Council International Diploma in Environmental Management (DipEM)
Member of The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (MIEMA)
It is a pity that Mr Younger has chosen at this late stage to disclose his expertise and did not offer to work with the trust when the project was in it’s infancy to explain the “incredible damage” wind farms do. I am quite saddened that someone who is so qualified would chose not to share such important information on a project they feel so strongly opposed to.
Mr Younger if you have carried out a life cycle analysis would you be willing to explain this (in lay terms) to the public (perhaps at the next Community Council Meeting).
I think that an educated reasoned explanation is the only civilised way forward and would be productive for everyone instead of the descent into a grubby and tawdry on-line exchange.
At last the sensible voice.
You are absolutely right – in fact there were glaring errors in the report – and not the type to be expected from a professional.
So yes, I believe the report submitted for approval had inaccuracies, and omissions, and did not reflect many aspects relevant to the Park’s remit.
This was recognised by the Committee, and their decision reflected the aims of the NP more accurately.
db – I beg to differ, on Helensburgh Renewables website they have provided both a detailed capital expenditure breakdown and a 20 year cash flow projection. Perhaps the Trust would like to start with both of those, particularly as neither would appear to in any way breach the issues of confidentiality they have previously mentioned?
I am relieved i am not alone in having ‘leaping post syndrome’ so lets try again, (for the sake of chronology can the previous attempts be ignored/deleted? Thanks
For those who don’t know and Mr Younger forgot to elaborate the qualifications are;
British Safety Council International Diploma in Environmental Management (DipEM)
Member of The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (MIEMA)
It is a pity that Mr Younger has chosen at this late stage to disclose his expertise and did not offer to work with the trust when the project was in it’s infancy to explain the “incredible damage” wind farms do. I am quite saddened that someone who is so qualified would chose not to share such important information on a project they feel so strongly opposed to.
Mr Younger if you have carried out a life cycle analysis would you be willing to explain this (in lay terms) to the public (perhaps at the next Community Council Meeting).
I think that an educated reasoned explanation is the only civilised way forward and would be productive for everyone instead of the descent into a grubby and tawdry on-line exchange.
Firstly; as for my expertise, the project was well underway when I found out about it.
Second; what was required at the concept stage was engaging a consultant to undertake this task rather than blindly race ahead trying to get a project running before Government subsidy deadlines reduce, as they do every April. Did anyone ‘Google’ “wind farm feasibility study”?
Maybe, the project should be stalled whilst a study is undertaken, then everyone will find out if it is cost or morally effective.
Comments on this story have been closed for the time being; the various replies on both sides have become hard to follow and I really don’t think the exchanges are adding anything to the debate.
Comments on this story have been closed for the time being; the various replies on both sides have become hard to follow and I really don’t think the exchanges are adding anything to the debate.
(apologies for the duplicated post – last one hidden quite a long way up now so maybe better to just post at end – it would be useful if the forum could include a ‘recent comments’ section)
This in response to Mr Younger.
It is not your opinion that I find offensive. We are all entitled to an opinion on any matter regardless of whether the letters after your name are relevant to the matter being discussed. I do find it a little at odds that you feel your qualifications give your opinion on wind farms more strength yet you suggest the Trust are ill equipped to manage the project when their combined qualifications (a number of which are extremely impressive) make them more than equipped to manage a capital project, and the ongoing revenue elements, of this size and nature. There are many boards with paid directors who couldn’t boast that sort of ability. I would suggest that that particular accusation you made is ill advised and motivated purely to denigrate them as a board rather than through any constructive concern.
It is this sort of thing and others elsewhere on this site (yes I did just spend a couple of hours trawling through them), like:
1. Mr Snook’s accusation that the Trust deliberately tried to hide the planning application by submitting it near Christmas. Mr Walker makes a similar comment when he says ‘the impression that the application is trying to use and waste the time given, so preventing people objecting to the wind farm in the given time.’ Zak makes similar comments.
2. Constant accusations that they are refusing to answer questions about finances when the answer has been given – it is just that you don’t like the answer. I see Ms Glover thinks they should just because the Helensburgh project has published high level figures. If I tender for any of the work related to the Helensburgh project then I am delighted that I now have a good ball park figure what my quote should be. The Rosneath Trust have not been so negligent in their business practices (maybe further evidence that the accusation that they are ill equipped is utter nonsense).
3. Mr Walker calling people on the Peninsula gullible because of something he claims they may have been told by the Trust – something which he has no evidence of and which I have been assured by the trust has never been told to people (and was made clear at a public meeting).
4. Mr Younger referring to people on the Peninsula as ‘sheep and one poster as a ‘silly girl’
5. A poster called ‘green’ saying By the way if I hear the tennis courts dilapidation mentioned one more time I’ll scream – I’ll lend you a lawnmower and some garden tools for heaven’s sakes – never heard of a ‘green gym?’ – I notice he/she doesn’t actually offer to get his lawnmower out and do it him/herself. No that would be effort, better to scoff at the efforts of people who are actually trying to make a difference.
6. Mr Walker accusing the Trust of trying to mislead the people with their references to school closure with a daft point about ‘is the Trust going to run them as a private concern’ – it is quite obvious to anyone reading with an impartial mind (and using an inkling of common sense) that long term sustainability of primary schools is affected by population and school rolls – something that the Trust are looking to address through the projects it would fund through wind farm money.
My personal favourite having trawled through all the threads on here is from you Mr Younger when you say ‘Hold on, what about the people driving the proposals; what’s in it for them further down the line, when contracts need to be managed – OK, profits will go to the community, but after what ‘legitimate costs’ have been incurred?.
A clearer accusation that the Trust directors will be looking to line their own pockets I don’t think could be made. It is bordering on slander and is nothing short of shameful.
I have no problem with people raising concerns about environmental impact, visual impact, ornithology etc etc – all these things need to be given proper consideration however the cheap tactics referred to above are quite disgusting.