spurtle
09-Feb-11, 11:26
Just in case the censor at the Politburo headquarters in Glenurqhart Rd wields his black pen again on my public comment on the Burn of Whilk Wind Farm, I am posting it here
Comments Details
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comments:
Dear Sirs, My previous objection to this scheme has not been posted on your website, in common with the other 200+ comments you have received prior to 2010. I am sending this to reiterate the previous comments I have made, which I am sure you will find and post on your website. I expect the full text of anything I send to you, (including this) as a public comment to be shown to anyone who wants to see it. This includes my name and address. It is not acceptable that you go through public comments and block out references you would rather not show. You invite comments on the original application, which is no longer current. You then block out names (sometimes) and addresses.
The eight letters of support shown have been drafted by the same person, on the same machine, on the same day, with name and address missing - who are these shadowy "supporters?
Highland Council has no right to "redact" or censor anyone's contribution. It is understood by everyone, that a public comment is to be public. I oppose this application on the same grounds as before. Please post that immediately.
From your notes of a meeting in 2009, it is clear that the scheme boundary is to change, requiring a separate application to be made. The addendum to this meeting, drafted at the end of October summarises the changes as being : "different access - 9 turbines"
Further in this document, the following two options are listed :
"1. New application - any change to site boundary will require new application.
2. Amended application, with access as first proposed. Then make separate application for new access proposal but this must have EIA" It is quite clear that option 2 is the one you have chosen, continuing as if it is only an "amendment", knowing full well that the boundary is going to have to change. This also shows you are entirely complicit in the fog of misinformation that characterises this application.
Comments Details
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comments:
Dear Sirs, My previous objection to this scheme has not been posted on your website, in common with the other 200+ comments you have received prior to 2010. I am sending this to reiterate the previous comments I have made, which I am sure you will find and post on your website. I expect the full text of anything I send to you, (including this) as a public comment to be shown to anyone who wants to see it. This includes my name and address. It is not acceptable that you go through public comments and block out references you would rather not show. You invite comments on the original application, which is no longer current. You then block out names (sometimes) and addresses.
The eight letters of support shown have been drafted by the same person, on the same machine, on the same day, with name and address missing - who are these shadowy "supporters?
Highland Council has no right to "redact" or censor anyone's contribution. It is understood by everyone, that a public comment is to be public. I oppose this application on the same grounds as before. Please post that immediately.
From your notes of a meeting in 2009, it is clear that the scheme boundary is to change, requiring a separate application to be made. The addendum to this meeting, drafted at the end of October summarises the changes as being : "different access - 9 turbines"
Further in this document, the following two options are listed :
"1. New application - any change to site boundary will require new application.
2. Amended application, with access as first proposed. Then make separate application for new access proposal but this must have EIA" It is quite clear that option 2 is the one you have chosen, continuing as if it is only an "amendment", knowing full well that the boundary is going to have to change. This also shows you are entirely complicit in the fog of misinformation that characterises this application.