Written evidence submitted by Laird David Whannel
(Re)Introduction
I have previously submitted evidence here and would like to correct two of the figures I used, along with some further information, and an example of an objection since Pete Wishart insisted in the House of Commons that he's hardly seen any objections throughout Perthshire. Given that I've personally emailed every single Perth & Kinross Council contact available on their website, and that a recent proposal faces 378 objections I severely doubt that unless he keeps his eyes wide shut to the world around him (just one story from 6th May 2016: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201830113472457&set=g.281302381898831&type=1&theater).
S***ishPower?
I would also strongly advise that the evidence submission from Spain's ScottishPower be considered for ejection from this case or be treated as further outright dishonesty given what they have recently been disingenuously claiming in the media about their South of Scotland subsidy sites (again 6th May 2016: http://www.carrickherald.com/news/14467976.Barrhill_scoops_bumper___1m_bonanza)
“Over the last five years, more than £3 million has been awarded by ScottishPower Renewables windfarms to benefit communities in South Ayrshire including Arecleoch, Mark Hill, Dersalloch and Kilgallioch.
Funding is set to increase further with funds from Glen App windfarm, which was granted consent for development last year.
Keith Anderson, Chief Executive of ScottishPower Renewables, said: "Having local support for our windfarms is extremely important to us. Community benefit funding is one of the ways we can say thank you for that support."
| Keith Anderson should remember this table extremely well as it is from the final page of the report into his Dersalloch site which the Scottish government shadily announced permission for on the opening day of Glasgow's Commonwealth Games on 23 July 2014 to limit media coverage. 4,723 objections including both East Ayrshire and South Ayrshire Councils with Dumfries & Galloway Council expressing their serious concern is clearly the very opposite of their claimed 'local support' in any language. I'd be disgraced as a former SNP voter if Pete Wishart had no idea of this as such an important non-democratic decision to now be on this panel, unless he too is full of err, mince? |
Local support of Dersalloch is extremely far-fetched (https://savestraitonforscotland.com/2014/07/24/dersalloch-windfarm-approved-despite-assurances-of-an-inquiry) surrounding one well-loved conservation village of just 200 Straiton residents who had previously made the UK press (11th March 2013: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9922913/Picturesque-village-is-facing-wind-farm-catastrophe.html) hardly something ScottishPower could forget. Despite construction work well under-way as far as I'm aware there's even still an ongoing legal challenge, albeit one they've already started to defend with no less than four very thankful QC's. So it's purposeful lying from Keith to get what the shareholder's want, more, via more misery for Scottish people over-ruled by a lost cause government of ignoramuses. Let's pray common sense and justice prevail and that both learn the hard way so locals finally get our chance at the promised public inquiry. A link to an older report within that Telegraph article is well worth mentioning for this evidence session about the SNP over-ruling the majority of all cases in favour of foreign-owned multi-national turbine-importing subsidy-extractors opposed to the people who live, work and vote here (25th January 2013: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9825296/Most-wind-farms-in-Scotland-after-SNP-overrules-councils.html) which points out:
“In particular, the academics found planning applications for the largest wind farms, which are referred to ministers rather than councils, have “higher consent rates”. Even where decisions are taken by local authorities, the report said ministers regularly [instruct] planning authorities to take a “positive stance” and “override” them if the council attempts to limit the area in which turbines can be built.”
PDF: https://www.rgu.ac.uk/download.cfm?downloadfile=43A1CD70-713C-11E2-86BD0050568D00BF
Full academic report: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/cy/news/view/46981-devolution-is-driving-force-behind-uk-renewable-energy-agenda
As for Kilgallioch, locals were so disgusted with their treatment over rushed planning permission they went all the way to the United Nations, but I'm sure Keith's office was awash with tantalising new PR/lobbying ideas the minute they read this (2nd April 2013: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13098528.UN_to_probe_new_complaint_about_Scots_wind_farm_UN_to_probe_new_complaint_about_Scots_wind_farm).
“She claimed the UK Government and the European Union breached the UN's Aarhus Convention, under which the public must be given reliable and transparent information on environmental matters, and sufficient participation in decision-making.”
“I wrote to the UN to point out Christine Metcalfe's case was not an isolated one. I believe the same breaches of the Aarhus Convention took place with regard to the Kilgallioch wind farm. She claimed the Kilgallioch application was approved by the Scottish Government while she had a number of outstanding requests for information about it. Her complaint will be considered as part of the wider case brought by Mrs Metcalfe.”
UN: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/C2012-68/Communication_with_Observers/frObserverAddInfo3March2013/6.EmailCorrespondence
Kilgallioch, the second largest of their Ayrshire subsidy sites also featured in an essential read in the Telegraph about the problems from increasing CO2 by constructing on peat stores causes, I can't imagine any further public support will arise from this study either (23rd February 2013: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html).
“One typical large peat site just approved in southern Scotland, the Kilgallioch wind farm, includes 43 miles of roads and tracks. Peat only retains its carbon if it is moist, but the roads and tracks block the passage of the water.
The wind industry insists that it increasingly builds “floating roads,” where rock is piled on a textile surface without disturbing the peat underneath.
But Mr Lindsay said: “Peat has less solids in it than milk. The roads inevitably sink, that then causes huge areas of peatland to dry out and the carbon is released.”
Full scientific peer-reviewed study paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513010896 'Wind farms on undegraded peatlands are unlikely to reduce future carbon emissions'
The second proposed refusal via impartial BBC coverage does not make this sound like a locally supported case whatsoever, but the numbers went down again and it went ahead (12th April 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-17688706) headlined 'Kilgallioch Forest wind farm council objection advised'.
Further back a decade and neither of their Mark Hill nor Arecleoch subsidy farms were locally supported here (26th May 2006: http://www.carricktoday.co.uk/news/local-headlines/call-to-msps-for-public-enquiry-into-wind-farm-1-331773).
“THE past year had been one of the busiest for the "small, beleaguered but determined" community council of Pinwherry and Pinmore according to Chairman Keith Dawdry. The year, he said, had been "dominated by wind farms", with the formation of the Almont Windfarm Action Group opposed to the Almont wind farm followed by a proposal for a development at Mark Hill. Mr Dawdry expressed concerns from the community that the name Mark Hill may have made the exact location of the development unclear.
The community council had also lodged objections to the proposed Arecleoch wind farm and were "appalled by the standard of debate" at last week's meeting of South Ayrshire Council to discuss their stance.”
A couple more past stories in the same region Anderson's just shown extreme contempt towards locals' views and concerns by trying to get away with publishing such crass lies highlights once again why nobody anywhere should be listening to his company line:
11th January 2013: http://www.carricktoday.co.uk/news/local-headlines/residents-speak-out-in-barrhill-wind-farm-row-1-2732678
“While not opposed to wind farms generally, she said she is concerned about the potential health affects of life so close to turbines 125m in height.”
“Now she fears not only will that suffer, but residents will have no option of escaping due to a drop in the value of their properties.”
7th March 2014: http://www.carricktoday.co.uk/news/local-headlines/developer-s-barrhill-turbines-appeal-dismissed-1-3328324
Across (pre-Dersalloch) South Ayrshire in five years there were 1,342 objections (until 29th March 2013: http://www.carricktoday.co.uk/news/local-headlines/wind-farm-objections-reach-five-year-high-and-still-growing-1-2866000) when we ranked 7th out of 23 local authorities in Scotland, I fondly wonder how Perthshire performed? As we can see most of these were ScottishPower oriented sites that are still unwanted and we do not wish to ever see repowered, thanks, but no thank you Keith Anderson.
Glen App was an abysmal decision allowed by South Ayrshire Council to ignore the million member strong RSPB's warnings over the nearly extinct hen harrier in favour of following government orders for a pointless 25% of 33MW if the wind's on (5th June 2015: http://www.thenational.scot/news/rspb-fears-for-hen-harriers-after-council-gives-go-ahead-for-glen-app-wind-farm.3742)
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13411472.RSPB_warns_of_windfarm_threat_to_birds_of_prey
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/wind-farm-glenapp-gets-green-5857964 “If there’s a right place for a wind farm – this is it.”
Just further South and over fifty community councils in Dumfries & Galloway wrote to Alex Salmond FM asking for a moratorium on wind farms since there was such strong outrage among locals (25th March 2014: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-26732693) the SNP should note, how they all now vote. Do not continue to emulate yesterday's bosses like Keith Anderson or Alex Salmond, you have a very serious problem coming, utilise back-dated local democracy.
"Any moratorium on determining wind turbine applications would be an unprecedented step in Scottish planning practice, and would simply lead to a build-up of cases to be determined once the moratorium had been lifted," he added. "Previous calls for moratoria in Moray and in Fife have been rejected on this basis."
See the local paper for the full list and of all the communities represented who the Scottish Government have openly ignored in pursuit of Salmond's gamble: (http://www.gallowaygazette.co.uk/news/local-headlines/50-community-councils-demand-wind-farm-moratorium-1-3352722)
“The letter signed by the 50 community councils – 80% of those who responded – asks both the Scottish Government and Dumfries and Galloway Council for a moratorium on wind farm applications until the cumulative effects can be properly assessed. Faced with a similar situation in mid Wales, Powys County Council agreed to such a moratorium.”
The best coverage though as usual comes from the livid locals themselves with the finest two must-read letters about Kilgallioch, Arecleoch and Mark Hill published in the sister paper (23rd February 2013: http://www.gallowaygazette.co.uk/news/letters-powerless-to-halt-wind-farm-1-2805156) to which ScottishPower have mistakenly now openly lied in. A drastically low £3m return across four sites over five years which we pay [“benefit”] for anyway doesn't really compare to the figure for untimely, dependent, needless, intermittency;
“£72,532,800 is the extra cost to the consumer for this one wind farm alone each year.”
Iberdrola (ScottishPower) have no, nor earn any interest in decarbonisation, security of supply, lowest costs to consumers, carefully chosen locations, nor in innovation or utilising the latest technology but serve only their foreign shareholders, and to suggest Scotland will play a key role for the UK's targets goes directly against the grain of the SNP's upcoming summer 2016 proposals for another referendum to leave the UK forever.
The Scottish Government??
Our SNP government may share the same PR squads that Iberdrola rely on who attempt to maintain Scottish public support for wind energy going by the proof provided in the false claims they present to their support. Or perhaps they rely far, far too heavily on the information exchanged to them during lobbying hours and convert it to the lowest form of propaganda themselves, can they honestly be trusted with control over our energy without a realistic plan A? Some examples show that they're bluffing when it comes to their boasts of winning the natural lottery twice when we and the experts all know nuclear, it's future variants, and the expected breakthroughs in fusion within the next decade will leave them (but mainly us) red faced and empty handed.
16th May 20016: http://www.snp.org/10_things_ruth_davidson_would_rather_you_didn_t_know
“The UK government has slashed support for renewables, with subsidies for onshore wind being scrapped altogether. Experts say their approach to the industry is harming investment, putting jobs in Scotland at risk and jeopardising energy security.”
Can we please ensure the UK government live up to this accusation effectively back-dated to mid May if not before, did they somehow miss the Conservatives election winning manifesto? Why stop at just ending the new-build only (after £1.5bn worth of over-uptake on estimates) 365 days early when everything to onshore, including all existing payments can be scrapped and better invested in new safer, affordable nuclear that doesn't require 100% backup, new grids, and cross-border interconnectors from much less safe countries than ours and all of the added “security”/ risk that brings to imported energy dependent nations.
In a recent pre-election graphic (5th April 2016: https://www.facebook.com/theSNP/photos/a.339647974077.151375.77249349077/10154174466419078/?type=3&theater) the SNP attempted to once again twist our views on “renewable energy” this time completely inventing a chart of their own alongside the BBC and IPSOS/MORI's names on their new version to falsify authenticity towards their desperate belief system. Next to the claim of support for "Renewable Energy" is the figure 7.7/10 which suggests 77% support for renewables based on the "quoted" BBC/MORI poll. In the poll itself though there was no such question or answer options to show support for "renewable energy". The question was in fact worded to read:
"Subsidise the cost of new sources of energy that are less harmful to the environment" followed by the level of agreement options 1-10 given by the BBC, in this case the result being 7.7/10.
The question clearly makes no mention of renewables, and in the case of biomass it suggests renewables are categorically not included here as biomass the well funded renewable has been shown by many environmental groups to be much more harmful than the coal we're meant to be replacing. If anything the question appears to be geared towards new nuclear MSR which the UK government have recently revealed a new £250m research fund award for. No other current "renewable" can be classed as a "new source" but this hasn't stopped SNP cherry-picking and manipulation of data and twisting it to attempt to display more support for their economically suicidal renewables project. Full results/wording PDF: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-mori-scotland-voters-priorities-other-issues-tables-2016.pdf
WingsOverScotland's panelbase poll from January 2016 http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/Scotlandonly-TablestoWingsforpublication260116.pdf was in fact a much more accurate depiction of support for renewables with more wind (ie current policy) only being supported by 57% of those polled, Yes voters making up 2/3's of that 57%, definetely something to consider during planning and scoping, though I hear Perth's a Yes city. A very sharp fall from recently promoted to broadband installer Fergus Ewing's “71% support” claim despite his favour of fracking also being reflected in the panelbase poll with only 39% of SNP voters supporting a full ban, compared to 42% of UKIP voters. (71% September 2015: https://www.energyvoice.com/opinion/87703/opinion-turbines-and-tourism-can-co-exist)
The SNP's finest claims though were in their latest manifesto, I've tried my best to have these answered everywhere, to zero valid response. This is the exact reason you need coherent, exact, accurate figures in every single thing you do that involves our money and your friends in the energy industry:
"We met ambitious targets to make Scotland greener, with 50% of our electricity now generated from renewable energy - and we led the world with our climate change ambition."
No country or investor in the world is looking to Scotland before 2020 asking how did we manage it, 100% renewables yet only paying for 8%? There is no subsidy centipede, get your heads out of the sand and educate yourselves on the difference between parasitic dependence and reality.
"We will give communities the opportunity to use some of their income from renewables to support Scotland’s Climate Justice Fund if they wish to do so."
In 2015 community benefits topped £8.8m (https://www.scottishrenewables.com/news/wind-farm-community-cash-hits-88m-year-record-high), less than what 2 turbines spin in subsidy alone, less than what one tax dodging landowner is backhanded for hosting just 9 turbines (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/28/windfarms-risk-free-millions-for-landowners) and you want rural communities in 40-60% fuel poverty to hand back what they've already paid for?
"Unless it can be proven beyond any doubt that there is no risk to health, communities or the environment, there will be no fracking or UCG extraction in Scotland."
Care to offer the same rules on wind turbine noise, infrasound and AM and use some of those millions instead to fund the world's first full medical study with EEG recordings, stress indicators and +3hz monitoring?
"The SNP will always stand up for the interests of rural Scotland. We want our rural communities to prosper and be well supported by high quality public services."
Rural Scotland want the democratic local final say on planning decisions, just like the rest of the UK, why are we waiting.
"We recognise that the benefits of green energy must be balanced with the need to protect our most scenic and wild areas. We have introduced a ban on wind farms in Scotland’s National Parks and National Scenic Areas and increased protection for our wild land areas. This will continue in the next Parliament."
Yet no new National Parks that would bring billions to poor local communities like offered by Scottish Green Party, Scottish Labour, Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Conservatives, pathetic. http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/students/whatisanationalpark/factsandfigures
"We have championed Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and the UK Government’s decision to withdraw financial support for CCS is unacceptable. We will continue to work with all stakeholders to examine what can be done to revitalise the future of CCS in Scotland."
The University of Aberdeen recently found CCS infeasible, people normally stop when this is the case, but there seems to be no telling the SNP when there's fingers to point, you're making fools of all: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/carbon-capture
"The SNP – and industry – has repeatedly called on the UK Government to reform its transmission charging regime, which contributed to the early closure of Longannet coal fired power station in March of this year. We will continue to challenge the UK Government and Ofgem to reform the transmission charging regime."
It's very clear your renewables policy caused the transmission charge problem http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=12796 and you've not made things better now: http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14417954.Agenda__Counting_the_cost_of_energy_policy
"We will ensure that by 2020, at least half of newly consented renewable energy projects will have an element of shared ownership. And we will argue for Scottish control of our share of feed-in tariffs to help promote community ownership schemes."
In Scotland community wind energy ownership is a sub-human 1.2% at 44MW, hitting SNP targets 5 years early, please refrain from using the word “community” in your marketing releases. In Germany by contrast, in 2010 community ownership accounted for 65% of renewables, it's costing them dearly now though, reverting to killer lignite coal and ending support to wind early.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/30/germany-renewable-energy-revolution
"We will maintain a ban on the creation of new nuclear power stations due to their excessive cost."
520MW of 90% efficient MSR will cost £1.2bn, an untimely 30% of 30MW via five turbines off Peterhead just cost us £180m.
http://www.transatomicpower.com/the-science
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601481/floating-wind-farms-great-concept-implausible-economics
Apology
I would like to apologise for some of the spelling/signing mistakes in my last submission, I've hopefully managed a little better this time. I also apologise for not having enough time to write either document in the Easy Read format, something I hope our governments will be able to provide upon request, and as standard on all required future documents, particularly around difficult and often easily misunderstood energy matters, for everyone's benefit, but particularly the SNP.
Correction
In my previous submission I stated that UK renewables subsidies were heading to be £9.4bn by 2020 when the figure I misremembered was in fact £9.1bn each year, a £300m over-budget mistake, and from anti-Trident infographics we all know how many schools and hospitals that could've built.
I also went with the figure of one third of those being in Scotland by using the information in the Guardian article, although I've since read in a ClimateXChange report for the Scottish government, that by 2020 two thirds of renewables will be in Scotland. A 100% mistake if ever there was one. This two thirds also massively affects the LSE £34bn halfway point home values reduction owed.
Conclusion
The people of Scotland who both industry and government completely ignore in pursuit of profit as shown must be awarded the same rights as those in the rest of the UK on local democracy for the final say on planning developments. The Scottish government must earn the right to ask for control of energy before it ever attempts to ask again. Answers to all of the problems presented must be fully and openly clarified and debated or the UK should rightly scrap all energy subsidies to a country who do not intend to pay our share of what they have taken, even under independence. People in Scotland and throughout the UK must be compensated for the damages caused by energy developments just as they are in Denmark. A full medical study on the health effects on people being in the vicinity of wind turbines must be undertaken or moratoriums must be offered here like they are in Wales.
Addition
The following pages are an example of what a wind farm application objection looks like, everything within it needs fully addressed in the UK as this only has a few single site specific elements, the rest can be freely borrowed and used in any wind turbine objection. The religious and disability discrimination should be enough for a response from the developers I have also CC'd this too, but they too ignore it, as we've come to expect from their breaches of human rights mentioned within. I will continue to update it and add to it and send it and link to it, I meant to have exact links for this inclusion but time rarely permits, feel free to contact me should you require further information, or if you have any more information we require plenty because the Scottish government's empty answers are an embarrassment to society.
24th May 2016 - Also at the end are a carefully selected list of essential viewing/reading materials relevant to this case.
Hiya,
I'd like to strongly object to the xx,xxx,xxx wind farm near xxxxxx Ref. xx/x/x/xxxx and for you to read and fully understand my objections. If there's anything here you need proof of I can provide full links and details, generally to peer reviewed studies - although most are common knowledge which can be found using some accurate Google searching and/or obtaining official figures and confirmation.
I object extremely strongly to this development due to the serious epilepsy risk faced by anyone living in the area, working here or in any of the affected areas, visiting the area or using their access rights to fully enjoy the landscape here. Each turbine will revolve up to 60 times a minute, i.e up to 1 cycle per second, with 3 blades this produces 3 flickers per second i.e. 3Hz, with the danger zone for photosensitive epilepsy being above 2.5 - 3Hz. I would like to point out their operation may be safe for one individual turbine but they have proposed many turbines - each of which will create overlapping flicker effects which will easily surpass the 3Hz with two or more turbines overlapping and this poses a serious risk in such a remote location.
There are 500,000 people in the UK with epilepsy, with greater occurrences in both the elderly and the young, who coincidentally reside in greater numbers in the countryside near where wind turbines are mistakenly placed. Furthered numbers are increased in areas of deprivation often found in smaller towns villages thus all of these factors will present a much greater risk for the many more people with epilepsy here.
The most common causes of seizures are from a lack of sleep (very commonly associated with noise and low frequency infrasound) and from stress (again commonly associated with wind turbine infrasound).
The infrasound emitted from the turbines at close proximity, particularly to those using their right to roam and camping nearby which could legally mean they will be right beside the turbines - possible in foggy conditions without even knowing about the turbines - presents a more serious problem as it can apply to all more common forms of epilepsy (news reports only warn for the photosensitive types during flash photography broadcasts). The danger to disabled people from low frequency infrasound is documented in the dangers presented by synthesising low frequencies using binaural beats used in subliminal (low level) background recordings by psychologists.
The dangers presented by the combination of both visual and aural frequencies to disabled people with epilepsy will amplify the problem and planning should never even be considered - turbines this scale were designed for offshore use where they can be correctly spaced with adequate warning provided for fishermen - although epilepsy can in many cases such as mine go undetected for many years until it begins to worsen and can change between types as different areas of the brain become affected.
It is a hereditary disability so I expect any children in the area will be even more greatly affected as they will be expected to develop in an area affected by flicker, glint, glare and infrasound. To even consider this and many other applications shows a severe lack of attention or improper consultation which will later be realised as gross misconduct, how long will it be before a lethal seizure is triggered in such a dangerous location? There's not a lot you can do when a seizure strikes with some disturbing examples available on YouTube which I strongly encourage you to study with some mindfulness and compassion and apply that situation to sole, often young or developing, perhaps inexperienced hill climbers near this development you are responsible for.
I also strongly object to the low frequency noise, possible amplitude modulation, and the guaranteed infrasound that these turbines will generate whilst people are trying to sleep, nowadays at all times of day - not something that can be switched off at night to overcome. The noise annoyance these will lead to has been shown to cause a lack of sleep which in turn will negatively impact on peoples health. Both local people as the unstoppable infrasound travels for miles, and anyone camping much closer in the area who as I have pointed out will include disabled people with epilepsy who are dependant on sleep to avoid seizures. I find that this development will therefore be direct discrimination towards disabled people, other disabilities that will be negatively affected by the inevitable lack of sleep include chronic fatigue syndrome (250,000 UK residents), complex regional pain syndrome (1 in 3,800 UK residents per annum), fibromyalgia (1,760,000 UK residents), inflammatory bowel disease (261,000 UK residents), lupus (15,000 UK residents) and multiple sclerosis (100,000 UK residents).
I object to the worsening health problems this development will have on people with various other conditions which are severely affected by sleep disturbances which the noise annoyance from these turbines will lead to including Alzheimer disease, ADHD, asthma, dementia, narcolepsy, insomnia, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, trauma, sleep apnoea and all other sleep and stress-related disorders.
I object to the negative health effects this development will pose a risk to in all people with particular attention to developing children and vulnerable people who are in this area, visiting, working or here for recreation. Those with any of the above disabilities, disorders and conditions and anyone who may develop any of these conditions in their lifetimes who would otherwise benefit from being in this tranquil environment must be considered with the highest priority in this decision.
I object to this development because it will spoil the natural beauty of the area.
I object as this area should be a part of a fully accessible national park, or part of an entire country which is announced as a fully accessible national park in future.
I object to the impact this will have on wildlife.
I object to the slaughter of avian life shown in the review of 150 peer-reviewed papers studied by Queens University in Belfast.
I object to their being no CCTV and nets set up to prevent scavengers clearing up some of the mess before the deaths can be recorded and reported to authorities.
I object to their being no fines in place in Scotland like there are in countries like the US where firms have been fined millions and recently closed down entirely due to the destruction of wildlife.
I object to there being no study into the changes in avian habits expected over the lifetime of this development, which compared to early climate models show the potential for temperatures here to be many degrees Celsius above what it is now - the potential for different avian life here if those promised temperatures arrive must be projected and reflected in the consideration of this siting.
I object to the slaughter of bats which are attracted to wind turbines thought to be from the low frequency sounds which in turn explode their lungs - this could lead to an alarming mis-balance of local biodiversity.
The impact of the loss of bats will likely lead to greatly uncontrolled levels of midges which may spread disease in farm animals and other wildlife whist causing severe irritation to humans.
The irritation from midges in Scotland already causes £286m in tourism losses annually so return visits will be even less likely than they already will be due to the turbines alone.
I object to the negative impact wind turbines have on horses which is well published in Ireland as a concern and shown in Germany where they refuse to go back in their barn likely due to the infrasound patterns changing inside built structures, just as it does for homes.
I object to the possibility of negative impact wind turbines have on cows which has been discovered in France.
I object to the harm caused during pregnancy in animals which may have implication for humans, shown by Denmark cancelling all new onshore turbine construction subsidies following birth defects and miscarriages in thousands of mink.
I object to the obscene rates paid to landowners for doing nothing, especially compared to rates paid in wealthier countries such as the US being many multiple times less.
I object to any (including under future governments or house of lords decisions) subsidy being paid to this non-reliable attempt at energy supply.
I object to all other associated costs that will arise from this development in a time where the government are indefensible in the useless promotion of this waste which could be much better, much more intelligently spent.
I object to the possibility of the inability of the Scottish government being able to pay any future wind energy subsidies under poorly planned independence.
I object to intermittent wind energy in this area as much more affordable molten salt reactor nuclear technology will replace wind energy safely, reliable and more cleanly within 10 years, whilst these rust on for 15-25 years.
I object to wind energy being permitted whilst even within the borderline boundaries of "renewables" it will be much less cost effective given it's debatable lifespan against solar which is forecast to replace wind competitively from as early as 2017.
I object to this wind farm not being community owned, particularly when only 12% of the 10% "community" renewables 500MW target is in fact owned by communities - just 1.2% in 2015 compared to Germany's 65% community ownership by 2010.
I object to this wind farm not being nationally owned.
I object to the potential for objections to be ignored by planning on the grounds that objectors are 'NIMBY's' as has happened in the past pointed out eloquently by left wing politician and Women for Independence campaigner Carolyn Leckie in The National newspaper.
I object to not using much cheaper, always on, clean gas plants for energy in the meantime instead.
I object to the pollution and expense caused by running older power plants in ways they were not designed for to attempt to deal with the problems caused to the grid by wind power.
I object to the use of rare earth materials being used in this construction due to the environmental destruction elsewhere in the world.
I object to importing these structures due to the environmental damage unaccounted for.
I object to the planned amount of waste and environmental damage that will be caused by the construction of this development.
I object to any deforestation and restriction of land for possible reforestation this development will cause, particularly at a time when the UK parliament have been petitioned on this issue for the increased flooding risk.
I object to the cumulative impact created by the scale of this development.
I object to each of the turbines being completely out of scale with the surrounding landscape, as any industrial turbine is, with any landscape, particularly compared to the tallest trees.
I object to the bright white colour used as this naturally draws the eye away from the surrounding landscape, as does the blade rotation through unnatural movement, and the perceived 'circle' shape created if ever in motion. The perceived 'triangle' shape when the blades are not in motion or moving slowly has a similar effect as they eyes are drawn to shapes. The lines in both the structure and each of the blades also draw the eye and even intersect the natural line of the horizon to which the eye is generally drawn. Each turbine adding to a multiple of this uncomfortable, unwanted distraction and invasion of natural eyesight usually favoured, highlighted and exploited by artists, professional photographers and videographers the world over.
I object to the increased stress and frustration this proposed development has caused to locals.
I object to the inadequate public consultation, and the lack of drive to ensure everyone has a fair say and knows all the facts about the wind energy industry.
I object to the council only being permitted to charge £25,000 per application where it would be £250,000 in all other countries within the United Kingdom, the £225,000 spare would be sufficient to fund the required full medical study.
I object to the planning only requiring a small advertisement in more commonly unread local newspapers, when it should be posted to every local household and those in neighbouring local districts who should also have a say.
I object to tourists not being involved in the planning phase and they should be by means of prolonged advertising in national media and using local businesses and hotels calling and emailing and past customer lists to spread the news much further afield.
I object to the future generation not having a full say as these developments will stretch into their lifetimes and affect them negatively but schools will only allow one side of this heavily sponsored farce to shape the opinion of the young.
I object to this breaching human rights by negatively impacting people's lives and lowering their standard of living.
I object to the yet unaccounted for devaluing of surrounding properties with the London School of Economics estimating around £34 billion in losses in the UK - over half of developments are in Scotland where this is unaffordable, especially under planned independence.
I object to the increase of energy bills this development will lead to, particularly at times when fuel poverty is so high and the Scottish government's sole plan to combat this is in the form of a start-up called 'Our Power' who plan to undercut the Big 6 energy firms by a mere 10% (compared to our 11% and increasing 'green' levies) and only to 200,000 customers, by 2020.
I object to any roads leading into and around this development not having a tarmac surface, not being accessible for most cyclists or many wheelchair users, or visitors in cars - even with small level stretches or particularly around the higher viewpoints may help some enjoy the development by looking away from it.
I object to the inconvenience and disruption the construction phases will cause locally.
I object to the temporary construction jobs this will create rather than local permanent jobs which could have been developed instead.
I object to the job losses this will lead to at a local and national level through the use of foreign materials, foreign workers, imported supply of energy and use of shareholder owned firms competing with our own businesses.
I object to the impacts this will have on tourism where many visitors have been proven by the Scottish government to no longer favour returning to areas with wind turbines.
I will avoid promoting this area as a place to visit and spend time and money, promoting it all the while, and recommend others do the same letting them know it is another area to blacklist for 3 decades due to the failings of the Scottish government of the day.
I object to the effect lost tourism will have on all businesses and their supply chains and all other businesses that will be affected due to these losses.
I object to the dangerous infrasound these turbines will create, there is no 'safe' distance limit for those enjoying their right to roam and camping beside the cause without warning of what they are being subjected to.
I object to the use of any company who has previously cited dB(A) recordings being used for wind turbine noise as it purposely eliminates the infrasound below 20Hz as it was designed around human hearing which has recently been proven to respond to a low as 8Hz - fortunately the Scottish government will now allow other scales to be used when requested, but not as standard.
I object to the possibility of Amplitude Modulation and the negative effects that will have on people.
I object to these turbines being allowed to operate at night when people need the best quality sleep available and there is no realistic demand for electricity from wind, although daytime operation will not help those who work staggered shifts.
I object to the potential for this development to discriminate against religious people practising religious rituals through meditation which will no longer be possible in this area in the same way as the infrasound was too obtrusive for meditation as shown in the Tharpaland paper on the Scottish government website.
I object to there being no planning in place to warn all of these people and tourists from overseas of the potential consequences of being in the vicinity of wind turbines which the Scottish government have fully neglected, illegally, the consideration of.
I object to the 'glint' and 'glare' these turbines will cause which is not accounted for in this country unlike Australia, and any cumulative possibility of creating effects greater than 3hz to any spot in the surrounding area they are visible from, due to the epilepsy risk.
I object to all of the injustice listed above whilst this is only at the planning stage presented to a government who in PR at least pretends it is creating a fairer country where it's employers, the people, are priority.
Sincerely,
David Whannel
June 2016