| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Developer accused of ‘underhand’ tactics
Credit: The Press and Journal | 20 November 2012 | ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Windfarm opponents in an expanding northeast community have accused a turbine developer of dirty tricks.
The Sauchen Group Against Wind Turbines has vowed to fight renewed proposals for a 260ft structure at Littletown Farm near the village.
An initial scheme was vetoed by Aberdeenshire councillors last month after it attracted more than 50 letters of objection. Critics say that the company behind it, Midlothianbased Ruby Energy, acted in an “underhand” way by submitting a second application a day before the deadline for comments on the original plan.
The move means opponents must now object again, said group member Hugh Falconer.
Mr Falconer, of Margaret Allan Grove, Sauchen, said: “We feel that the developers’ tactics are quite underhand, for example by resubmitting a new proposal for the same development a day before objections for the original one expired.
“It means all those who already objected now have to go through the whole process again.
“We have now set up a website to alert people to the fact that objections have to be put in again by November 29, and a dozen objections have already gone in.
“It is exactly the same site, and people are really cheesed off with the situation. A structure of that size would dominate views of the landscape and significantly affect the character of a scenic and unspoilt area.
“There is also the fear that if it goes ahead, then it will be the thin end of the wedge and other commercial-scale turbines will follow.”
Previous objectors raised concerns about the effect on the landscape and wildlife, as well as noise and loss of amenity.
Councillors rejected the initial Littletown Farm development, saying it went against planning policies to safeguard the countryside and the setting of local historic properties.
A spokesman for Ruby Energy yesterday denied there had been any underhand intent involved in submitting a new application for the wind turbine at Sauchen.
He argued the development would have a negligible impact on the local landscape.
“The new application was put in on the advice and guidance of a planning officer, so as to provide fuller information on the proposed development,” he said.
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Funding |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=30203 ]
