Turbines Evaluation Group - Helensburgh and Area (TEG-H) |
|
Topic |
Brief summary |
Conclusion |
Renewable energy S and O **** |
TEG-H supports renewable
energy. But it should be the right sort in the right place. TEG-H has
concluded that the proposed Helensburgh wind farm
is not in the right place. |
Support
renewable energy, but not this proposal |
Height of turbines O **** |
At 86.5 metres in height, these
turbines are well in excess of the Council’s guidelines which are adopted
policy. They will be conspicuous. Section 174 of the SPP allows
subsequent increase in height, though that is not part of the submitted
application. |
Strongly advise object |
Visual impacts O **** |
The turbines, as proposed, would be seen from across Helensburgh, the south of the National Park, across the Clyde
and from elsewhere. They would be visible daily to a large population. |
Strongly advise object |
Landscape O **** |
Landscape is addressed in European, Scottish and local policies.
Landscape is precious to Scotland’s heritage, economy, health and welfare.
Damage to local landscape would be a serious failure for generations to come.
|
Strongly advise object |
Probable adverse impacts on local
economy O **** |
Helensburgh’s economy largely depends on people: residents and visitors who spend
money. Our population is declining.
A&BC policy is growth by 9%. (‘Population for prosperity’). Attractiveness attracts. Anything that
reduces the attractiveness of the town damages its economy. The same applies to the National Park. |
Strongly advise object |
Questions about developers’
finances O **** |
The developers’ finances are in question, in part because there are
unknowns (e.g. how much wind) in part because some information seems not to be
public yet. So-called ‘community
benefit’ is not a planning matter. But it has been emphasised by the
developers who seek public support. Cash for affected communities (which
communities?) is likely to be small relative to population and uncertain in amount.
Government subsidy may reduce or end.
|
Advise object, but recognize ‘community
benefit’ is not a planning matter. It is a PR device |
Impact on communities/ residential
amenity O **** |
This is a broad category. The turbines would change the character of
the town which is the basis of its success. Noise can affect closest houses.
Other impacts are related to the size of populations of the different
communities affected. |
Advise object |
Impacts on historic monuments /
listed buildings O *** |
TEG-H has been advised by a professional archaeologist whose detailed
report shows both historical and archaeological features of high value which
need to be protected. |
Advise object |
Impacts on tourism O **** |
Tourists / day visitors to Helensburgh
matter. Evidence is mixed, but if only 20% visitors are deterred by wind turbines, that is 20% less visitor income. The opening of
the John Muir Way and the Three Lochs Way, the CHORD project, and other
improvements could increase visitor numbers. Turbines would not. |
Advise object as harm to visitor income |
Public access O *** |
In planning terms, this refers to countryside access. On the ‘plus’ side,
the public would be allowed to walk on the developers’ construction and
maintenance roads. On the ‘minus’ side those roads are irrelevant because the
area is well provided with major paths. The area is well provided with major
paths. The turbines would damage quality of the countryside experience and
harm bird life. |
Advise object |
Bird life O **** |
Bird life is a designated planning consideration. The site is rich in
bird life, including some threatened species. The RSPB has noted the dearth
of developers’ data. TEG-H has further information. |
Advise object |
Other natural heritage U * |
TEG-H has insufficient evidence yet. |
Insufficient
evidence to advise |
Cumulative impacts O **** |
The new SPP (2014) provides a fuller definition of ‘cumulative impacts
than previously. It includes the above aspects and others. It is an important
consideration. |
Strongly advise object |
Aviation & defence interests O *** |
The National Air Traffic Services and Glasgow Airport have objected.
There would be ‘clutter’ on the radar caused by the turbines. It is therefore
a matter of air safety. |
Respect air safety objections |
Impacts on telecommunications U * |
TEG-H has insufficient evidence. |
Insufficient
evidence to advise |
Impacts on road traffic U * |
TEG-H has insufficient evidence yet, but does not expect road traffic
to be a major consideration, especially if construction materials are
conveyed by night. However, if the new
road across the development site gets used for other purposes (e.g. to transport
felled timber) this issue could escalate. |
|
Effects on hydrology/ flood U ** |
TEG-H has insufficient evidence. |
Insufficient
evidence to advise |
Proximity of turbines to grid S ** |
TEG-H recognises that the turbines would be close to the grid and
supports the intention to place cables under the ground. |
Support |
Decommissioning of the site S / U * |
Developers have given assurances.
However, the site could still be used ‘in perpetuity’ (Para. 170 of
SPP, 2014). |
TEG-H views
pending |