Stroupster windfarm appeal hangs in the balance

Printable View

01-Nov-09, 11:45
joye wilson

Stroupster windfarm appeal hangs in the balance
STROUPSTER WINDFARM APPEAL HANGS IN THE BALANCE

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/7767/barrockwindow.jpg

This is at Barrock. Would you like 25 years of this significant effect?
You can turn off the Weakest Link, but…..

The first week of the Stroupster Inquiry is now over and it is clear that Highland Council’s ineffectual case will not persuade the Reporter to refuse in spite of an excellent effort from Councillor Bremner.

The case for Tourism was lost because no tourist organisations turned up.

CWIF-W has presented a strong case on protection of residential amenity but it could still be lost if no residents turn up.

The developers are arguing that it is in the national interest to impose this development on the community even though the Scottish Government says that developments “shall not be allowed if they would have a significant long term
detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby.”

The applicants argue that only an overbearing significant effect should be sufficient to turn it down. ------Just short of intolerable.

On Tuesday 3rd November, at 10am in Mackays Hotel in Wick, the Reporter will hear the arguments on residential amenity from residents. If there are no residents he can’t hear the arguments.

The communities of Skirza, Freswick, Auckengill, Keiss, Reiss, Killimster, Myrelandhorn, Kirk, Hastigrow, Bower, Bowermadden, Reaster, Lyth, Sortat, Alterwall, Slickly, Brabster, Barrock, parts of Dunnet, Brough, East Mey, and higher parts of Canisbay will be particularly affected with lesser effects at longer distances.

If ever there was a time it needed people to make a difference this is it. It needs Residents to turn out, just ordinary people. Preferably from the communities nearby.

But if Stroupster goes ahead it will make it harder to turn down the next one, so if you live anywhere in Caithness this is of vital importance to you too.

So please;
- If you know people in the communities most affected make sure they know about it.
- Come along on Tuesday
- Call your friends and get them to turn out on Tuesday.
- Print this out and give it to people.
- Put it in shop windows and notice boards.
01-Nov-09, 12:24
Mr P Cannop

do you have any meeting paper for this ??
01-Nov-09, 13:19
Rheghead

Quote:

Originally Posted by joye wilson

CWIF-W has presented a strong case on protection of residential amenity but it could still be lost if no residents turn up.

According to the article in the paper, the nearest occupied property was 1.8km away from the nearest turbine. SSSP6 recommmends 2km but it is only a recomendation and should be judged on a case by case basis, near as damn it you could say. For many years until recently, CWIF were recommending a 1km distance from nearest property, that line on their website has since been removed since the SSSP6 clarification has been commented upon by ministers regarding a 2km distance. Talk about jumping on bandwagons etc.
02-Nov-09, 11:47
rupert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rheghead

According to the article in the paper, the nearest occupied property was 1.8km away from the nearest turbine. SSSP6 recommmends 2km but it is only a recomendation and should be judged on a case by case basis, near as damn it you could say.

200m may not be very far in your book but it may make a lot of difference for the residents of that house.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rheghead

since the SSSP6 clarification has been commented upon by ministers regarding a 2km distance.

Please get your facts right before posting - the SPP6 clarification came from the minister.
02-Nov-09, 12:11
Rheghead

Quote:

Originally Posted by rupert

Please get your facts right before posting - the SPP6 clarification came from the minister.

And what fact did I get wrong, that is what I said! Really, jeez...:roll:

Getting facts right? Pity you don't offer the same courtesy.

Anyway regarding the so called clarification. The executive have been a bit ambiguous in their response but the 2km guidance from cities, towns and villages was always meant to apply in relation to finding "broad areas" of search for wind farm proposals. Within that distance, or indeed beyond it has always been the case that if you subject someone to a long term adverse detrimental effect on their amenity then the proposal should be refused. The grey area is defining what is a long term detrimental impact! So I do not think anything has changed. CWIF and other groups are just using what the minister says for what comes naturally to them.

SSSP6 has always been guidance for developers, they never have or will be a go-no-go yardsick to be hijacked by anti-windfarm groups. Repeating what the guidance says in order to object to a windfarm is nugatory, the ministers already know the context in which the guidance were set.