MCWAG NEWS ARCHIVE

1st May 2001. Minutes for Hearing Issued by Aberdeenshire Council

Minutes for the Special Hearing, held on 06/03/01, have been issued by the council. The covering letter states that "The application is still subject to ongoing assessment by the Council's Planning and Environmental Service and at this stage it is not possible to say when the Head of Planning and Building Control's detailed report, including recommendation, on the proposal will be put to the Area Committee for consideration".

At the hearing several consultees voiced their concerns relating to the proposed development:

Jason Strong of the the National Air Traffic Service (NATS) and also representing the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) reaffirmed their position by stating that the proposal should be rejected on air traffic safety grounds.

Alan Fraser, representing Cable and Wireless, raised new concerns relating to plans for a relay mast. He requested that RES conduct further investigations to ensure no detrimental effect to TV reception will result.

Martin Faulkner, of Scottish National Heritage (SNH), raised concerns regarding the intended site layout stating that the landscape and visual assessment within the Environment Statement did not seem to have taken full account of the impact from certain view points. He also discussed the possibility of bird collisions particularly wintering geese saying that it the windfarm, depending on the outcome of monitoring, may have to shutdown during the migration season (winter months).

Copies of the minutes may be obtained from Aberdeenshire Council, Viewmount, Stonehaven, AB39 2DQ. Telephone 01569-762001.

6th March 2001. Windfarm Public Hearing, Stonehaven

Wind farm opponents lead by North Kincardine Rural Community Council on behalf of over 400 opponents and many other groups not able to attend presented their case in a packed hall to Aberdeenshire Council on Tuesday. They were supported by presentations from members of the Meikle Carewe Windfarm Action Group, the neighbouring community council, local MSP David Davidson, the local branch of the Scottish National party and many other individuals.

It was emphasised to the council that these turbines are bigger than any others on the Scottish mainland. They are proposed to dominate the ridgeline for a couple of miles in contravention of the planning regulations and are far too close to housing unlike any other operating wind farm sites in Scotland today. Elsewhere wind farms have been built which do not have any of these problems, let alone all of them, and once again we have been given no good reasons why we should have to endure them here.

The National Air Traffic Service (NATS) organisation once again renewed its objection to this wind farm. But this is only one of a whole host of problems associated with this site, everything from archaeology to microwave links have been brought up in the past as problems by the council's consultees and more issues came up at yesterdays hearing. This site is just too constrained to allow manoeuvring around all of these issues. We are afraid that it is people rather than the geese and the stones that will be the ones on whom the effects will be ignored. We don't see why after a couple of years of being unable to solve these problems this proposal is still here. The representative from Cable and Wireless indicated that the new proposal for an additional 40 metre high TV mast on the hill might now interfere with their communications links across the site. Scottish Natural Heritage indicated that several of their concerns had not been resolved and that if they are not then their submission as well is an objection. This site is simply too small and too constrained to be suitable.

It was clear from the start that this project was presented on a totally inflexible basis and it is evident that no account has been taken of the effects of putting turbines larger than any yet erected on the Scottish mainland closer to more houses than anywhere else in Scotland and in a dominating position towering down along a couple of miles of skyline in contravention of all of the planning guidelines. The developer yet again refused to put forward any good reasons why they had to be this big and this close and this poorly sited. He just seemed to have flown in lawyers and fellow developers from either end of the UK to knock objectors' arguments rather than promote his own. We think this again shows how weak his case is and it is very disappointing that anyone is trying to promote renewable energy in this way.

The developer showed his contempt for the council and the community by refusing to comply with the clear rules of the hearing - refusing to present his case, as required at the start, and trying to make a huge presentation at the end merely knocking opponents and introducing new and often misleading or false statements once it had been re-established that the council were not allowing members of the public to question him. Eventually his lawyer (flown up from England) gave up. We will presumably have to endure another PR offensive while his PR consultants who were at the hearing lobbying in force try and redeem the situation.

The council has received hundreds of objections to this scheme. There has been more local objection to this insensitive design for a windfarm than there was to all of the windfarms built so far in Scotland put together. The local community council have surveyed households here and indicated the vast majority some 84% were against - this from an unprecedented response rate of over 90% - The developers claims of support have little backing. At the hearing yesterday Mr Hunter of RES was called a liar to his face by Robert Kerr of the Stonehaven SNP for making such claims and rightly so.

June 2000. Visit to Inverness Wind Farm