| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Campaigners seeking apology over late Saddle Hill windfarm report
Credit: By Richard Watt | The Courier | 19 January 2016 | www.thecourier.co.uk ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
A public protest against a proposed windfarm on the border of Angus and Perthshire has been delayed by an 11th-hour application by its developers.
The Saddle Hill windfarm would comprise 14 turbines up to 115 metres high around 2.4 miles north-west of Kilry.
It is understood Angus Council was to recommend refusal of the controversial scheme at a meeting of its development standards committee next Tuesday.
Local campaigners had arranged a bus and car sharing arrangement to bring as many people as possible to lobby the meeting in Forfar.
However, representatives of Wind Prospect arrived at Angus Council offices late on Friday afternoon with a Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) report regarding noise, water supply and forestry.
This led to the council removing the item from the agenda.
One of the leading Glen Isla objectors, Dr Jo Chapman Campbell, said people from across Scotland had already made arrangements to protest in person, and asked for an apology over the lack of notice.
She said: “Residents are appalled by Wind Prospect’s contempt for the community.
“We received no notification from the company that they were submitting SEI – there was total silence.
“We deserve a public apology.
“Residents had arranged time off work to attend the hearing on January 26, others had arranged child care.
“In fact, regular visitors to Glen Isla were heading to Forfar from all quarters of Scotland to demonstrate their opposition to the scheme.
“We had also organised a bus to take residents of the glens to the hearing, and others had promised to car share.”
The local authority has taken the unusual step of sending urgent messages to residents, explaining that it had to take the application off the agenda or fall foul of planning legislation.
Planning officer Murray Agnew said: “We have reluctantly taken the decision to remove the item from the agenda.
“The decision has not been taken lightly and I am abundantly aware of the preparations that some parties have been making for attendance at the meeting.
“As such I fully appreciate that disappointment and frustration that this will cause and I can only apologise for this.”
Sarah Dooley, Wind Prospect’s senior development manager, said of the submission of the Supplementary Environmental Information: “This was always our intention as we felt it was important to provide further details on noise, private water supplies and forestry as a result of questions raised during the development process.”
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=75609 ]
| Tag: Complaints |
