FAUCH HILL WIND FARM - KIRKNEWTON COMMUNITY SURVEY

Open Ended Responses

Q7 Should you wish, please give brief reasons for your answer to Question 6 in the

space below (In terms of the specific Fauch Hill Wind Farm proposal, do you think

that West Colzium & Crosswoodburn is an acceptable location for a wind farm?).

Yes

Site is exposed - windy, site is close electricity users - less transmission costs, and the

site is relatively well secluded.

A sensible use of the land. Though visible from Pentlands Park, it will not really alter

the balance of wilderness versus industrialised visual landscape.

Think anywhere is good as I like the look of wind turbines. Better than pine trees.

New to population. Irremovable landscape.

It's far enough away.

Doesn't matter there.

It's far enough away.

Not sure where that is, but it should be ok.

They're nice to look at.

This farm may need to expand in the future.

It must be placed in a site to give maximum efficiency.

To generate the power near the users makes sense.

The is ground is not usable for other things.

Doesn't affect me- too far away.

I think they look nice.

Is out the village, should not affect me.

It could maybe destroy the beauty of the village.

Doesn't bother me where they go.

It doesn't affect my area.

Provided the relevant weather mast data and the design is accurate the location is

fine. There is no reason to think that the wind turbines are in any way more offensive

than power-lines.

Good average wind speed, not in an obtrusive location.

Unused land.

It is highly degraded land of poor agricultural potential with little scenic value and

currently largely inaccessible because of the presence of dense conifer plantations.

High elevation, exposed it’s a perfect site for a wind farm. Site isn't particularly

scenic. I find wind turbines attractive.

No

Wind turbines are unsightly and spoil the landscape. They don't work unless there is

wind. They can be dangerous. It is claimed that at times the national grid can't cope

with their output.

If I was directly affected by the proposal it would be no.

Opposed to all wind farms.

Considering the number already in the area. I believe a line needs to be drawn.

This site is at the start of the Pentlands ridge and could start to set precedence for

future wind farms to the Pentlands.

Wind farm proposal will have damaging impact on Pentland Hills landscape – visually,

culturally and ecologically.

Too close to existing homes. Visual impact is too great. Noise impact, geese migrate

over Fauchhill.

Too close to existing houses. Visual impact, noise impact, geese migrate over Fauch

Hill site.

I cannot see the wind farm. However, this does not mean we should impose it on

others who will have their views and amenities spoilt and diminished.

As a high percentage of Scottish tourism is people coming to a country of great

natural beauty, planting wind farms on all the available unspoilt landscape areas of

Scotland is not the solution.

I do not agree as it appears that it more important to spoil any area of natural beauty

by putting up these god awful ugly turbines.

Aside from adding to the cumulative impact of wind farms in this scenic area, it will

industrialise one of the few remaining undisturbed landscapes in Central Scotland and

should be protected at all costs.

I don't believe renewable forms of energy are a reliable or cost effective answer to

our energy needs. The main supporters appear to be the renewable energy firms

themselves and other people (i.e. Kirknewton Community Council) who will benefit

financially from them.

This is next door to the Pentland Hills National Park.

This would appear to be on the wrong side of the A70. The Pentland Hills are a

regional park, the natural environment should be preserved.

I think they spoil the landscape.

It's a waste of time and money.

Because it will be on the Pentland Hills, just outside the Regional Park, just outside

the Regional Park, and there will be an accumulative effect if all the wind farms are

approved.

My objection is the cost. If it was not subsided by energy bills it would not be

considered as an energy source. It also requires a backup source for power when wind

is not blowing so what is the point?

It's too close to the Pentland Hills and Harperrig reservoir, which is an area of

outstanding beauty and unspoilt nature that it is unique in West Lothian.

Don't think there is any location for wind farms.

Don't think it is necessary.

I don't think it is practical.

Landscape impact and proximity to residential properties.

Impact on the LOCAL rural community.

They are too close to habitation.

This scheme is in near proximity to a main road and is therefore unsightly to many

drivers and as a moving object is distracting. Further this scheme is close to a

number of domestic properties and is to south of them all such that their view of the

hills is destroyed and they will be subject to stroboscopic sunlight interruption.

Too close to adjacent properties. Goes against the spirit of the Pentlands Regional

Park. Concerned about the numbers of turbines already and planned for the area, all

of which are clearly visible from the Pentland Hills.

Due to the proximity to adjacent properties and the cumulative effect of so many

wind farms locally. Also it is on the edge of the Pentlands Regional Park and will be

visually intrusive from a substantial proportion of the park. It appears that the

efficiency rating of the individual turbines is well below 50% and therefore is not an

efficient use of financial resources.

Inappropriate location and too close where we live.

As it is you drive along the A70 and all you see for miles and miles is wind farms. The

scenery is now becoming too dominated. It is also a favourite track for geese and

these birds are at risk. Wind Farms are becoming a blot on the landscape.

There is a limited rural environment in West Lothian and the foothills of the Pentlands

are currently relatively unspoiled. I do not favour industrialising this area. Whatever

the claims of the developers, wind farms are large industrial areas. It goes without

saying that the development would have massive visual impact from the Pentlands

and from the viewpoint of travellers along the Lang Whang at points such as

Auchinoon Hill. From a personal perspective building turbines within 800m of my

house amounts to destruction of my quality of life.

There's too many now in this part of Scotland so that area needs to be left untouched.

I think it will hugely impact on what is a remote an untouched area of moor and hill

land. Furthermore the people who live and work in the Fauch Hill area will have these

huge wind turbines in their back yard.

The damn things are a blot on the landscape, cause massive de-forestation, noise,

disturb wildlife, service roads destroy the landscape as do the power lines that

distribute the meager generations of electricity (when the turbines are working that

is).

The density and number of local residential developments in the vicinity of Fauch Hill

is disproportionate and unacceptable in terms of impact. The cumulative impact, the

number of proposed wind farms in this area is unacceptable. The proximity of the

proposed site to areas with great landscape value and specifically the Pentlands

National Park is unacceptable.

Do not think onshore wind farms are are viable. There would not be enough wind to

produce enough power plus it would be expensive for customers to buy.

Wind Turbines are not only an ugly blight on our beautiful countryside, but are much

overrated in their efficiency and therefore, the "ALLEGED" benefits gained from these

units is in fact negligible.

The area is environmentally sensitive. Close to and in sight of Pentland Hills Park and

is one of the recreational break out spaces for a major city.

I believe we should be working on solutions that have a much larger impact on carbon

reduction and not incentivise investment in a technology with marginal benefit in

terms of carbon reduction, disproportionately detrimental impact on poorer

electricity bill-payers and probably much bigger detrimental impact on local

environments and wildlife than is currently understood.

Undecided

Don't want to see the whole of the Pentlands covered in wind farms. One is ok

provided it stops there.

Don't have enough knowledge of the area to form an opinion.

This depends on the height and visual appearance and density.

Don't have enough information.

Not got information on it yet.

Haven't seen the area.

Don't know enough about it.

Don't know where it is.

Can see both sides.

Can't see on the map where it as it's so small.

Too much money outlay to set it up.

Not enough information on cost to install and set up.

Don't know much about it.

I don't know much about it.

I haven't bothered to find out much about the project.

Don't really know what it is all about.

Don't know enough about it.

I am concerned at the number of houses within the area of what I understand is the

limit for residential properties of proximity to the development. These will be

particularly affected.

Too close to Pentlands Regional Park, a popular visitor’s destination and of huge and

special landscape value. The Pentlands supports a wide range of wildlife habitats

some of which are very rare and in decline. This area is on the migratory routes of

many geese, swans and other species of birds. This is indeed a windy spot but we

cannot compromise the uniqueness of the landscape around Pentlands. As residents

we are the custodians of this unique landscape. Too many wind farms proposed, in

development or already sited along the Lanark corridor. We can see a great number

of turbines from our property and do not want to see any more. Site is too close to

the Lhang Whang a popular visitor route to and from Lanark and the western counties

of Scotland to Edinburgh. The site proposed is too close to very established residential

local communities of housing including several holiday cottages. The siting of the

turbines would dramatically affect the quality of life of those living near the turbines.

Several holiday cottage businesses may be adversely affected. The affect of

'flickering' and noise on health of those living in the very near vicinity is wholly

unacceptable.

Although it has been provided I have read enough of the information provided to make

an educated decision about the development.

In theory it looks acceptable, but despite a sparse population, there are still people

living in the vicinity. I would be concerned on their behalf about the impact on their

well-being, however well mitigated.

It's not an area that I am overly familiar with, so have no strong feeling.

This is a complex issue where feelings can run high and there are many vested

interests promoting their views as fact.

I worry about the wild life living in the area... the lack of wind on occasions, 23 wind

turbines is a sight for sore eyes.

There is significant impact to the 25 properties in the immediate vicinity (within

5km). This impact will be mitigated by a proposed local community development

package, the detail still to be agreed.

Without details of the wind strengths and durations over a year how can I answer

question 6? In any case, the case for wind generation simply has not been made. I am

also totally opposed to the "feed-in" schemes where the feed-in tariffs are simply a

tax on consumers. This approach is driving up bills to an unaffordable level.

I would like to see more consultation papers regarding the impact on wildlife in the

area. I also have concerns about wind turbines after the photos of a turbine on fire

during recent storms in the UK.

Q9 Should you wish, please give brief reasons for your answer to Question 8 in the

space below (Is the number of turbines proposed for the site (23) acceptable to

you?).

Yes

To minimise the effect on landscape, better to have fewer wind farms that are

bigger.

Could accommodate more.

More would also be ok.

Not anymore than this. 23 is enough.

Depends on the location.

That is quite a lot - less would be better.

They're better than some things that pollute the air.

I've been here 2 years and it's a good thing for the community.

Don't know what would be a reasonable amount.

As long as we get a share.

As long as the community gets something back.

Don't know if 23 is perhaps too many.

We need all the wind turbines possible to generate more electric power.

Don't know too much about it.

If it is cheaper power I am for it.

Any number acceptable.

Yes if they don't interfere with each other.

I do not find wind turbines unattractive and in any case there are already 2 sets of

turbines only a little further to the west close to Woolfords and Tarbrax which are

already visible from most locations at which the Fauch Hill Turbines will be visually

intrusive.

Might as well generate the maximum amount of power available on the site footprint.

No

They are ugly and dangerous in high wind and a waste of money. The village will not

benefit.

Seems a lot from seeing other sites. 23 will cover a very little area. This causes a bit

of concern.

Too many.

There should be no turbines.

No turbines are acceptable. Wind power is inefficient, pointless and ruins the

landscape visually whilst achieving little to nothing as far as energy sufficiency is

concerned.

Difficult to visualise the density of the site but it might ruin the area.

Too many.

They are unsightly and only work for a quarter of the time.

They are unsightly and an eyesore.

The visual impact of 23 massive structures on an area of beauty.

High maintenance costs.

I think that it is too big and concerned about what happens in no wind situations.

The wind turbines are too noisy in use.

Too many.

Too many - a bit of an eyesore - spoils views.

Don't think they are worth the money.

It's a lot of windmills in a small location.

Those in prominent positions and close to properties should be removed / relocated.

Affects a variety of wildlife and human issues.

The road has too many already. It's just overwhelming the countryside. Looks awful.

One would be bad 23 is significantly worse.

Planning permission should not be granted.

I would rather not see any.

At 125m tall to the tip of the blades, 23 such turbines will dominate the landscape

and skyline in an unacceptable manner.

Wind power is simply not sufficiently consistent to be reliable.

It is 23 Turbines too many.

Do not agree with them being on this particular area.

The number quoted is almost half right. The document on the Scottish Government

website quotes the number as 43. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-

Industry/Energy/Infrastructure/Energy-Consents/Applications-Database/Wind/Fauch-

Hill-Index/scoping.

Undecided

Don't know exact location.

Don't know what would be an acceptable amount.

Don't know enough about them.

Think 23 is too many.

I don't know if they are cost effective.

Don't know enough about it to say how many is acceptable.

It could be dangerous to wildlife if pieces fall off.

Not sure how big they are.

Don't know much about it.

Seems rather a lot.

Don't know enough about it.

Don't know how big the area is to know if it is congested.

As long as they are hidden they are ok.

Too many.

Concerns over 23 x 125m high turbines - its a lot, its not clear how visible these are

from the road and from residents dwellings.

Too close to Pentlands Regional Park, a popular visitor’s destination and of huge and

special landscape value. The Pentlands supports a wide range of wildlife habitats

some of which are very rare and in decline. This area is on the migratory routes of

many geese, swans and other species of birds. This is indeed a windy spot but we

cannot compromise the uniqueness of the landscape around Pentlands. As residents

we are the custodians of this unique landscape. Too many wind farms proposed, in

development or already sited along the Lanark corridor. We can see a great number

of turbines from our property and do not want to see any more. Site is too close to

the Lhang Whang a popular visitor route to and from Lanark and the western counties

of Scotland to Edinburgh. The site proposed is too close to very established residential

local communities of housing including several holiday cottages. The siting of the

turbines would dramatically affect the quality of life of those living near the turbines.

Several holiday cottage businesses may be adversely affected. The affect of

'flickering' and noise on health of those living in the very near vicinity is wholly

unacceptable.

Do not know enough about the efficiency, impact and output to make an informed

decision.

The size of the turbines is more important than the number. 23 x 20m turbines would

have little impact as opposed to the proposed 23 x 120m turbines. Living within 4km

of the development, I have not been given appropriate visualisations to help me

understand the full impact.

Not sure on noise pollution level?

Q11 Should you wish, please give brief reasons for your answer to Question 10 in

the space below (Do you think the above distribution of the community benefit

fund is a reasonable one?).

Yes

Distribution is fair but £276,000 per annum appears very small when one considers

that every electricity user is effectively subsidising this electricity production.

So long as it's split between Kirknewton / West Calder. Is pro-rata on turbines?

I have to see that there has to be an alternative.

Some of this money to the communities would also come to the neighbours.

Local people know how to improve the community and add to its resources so they

should have the money to spend themselves.

We really need more information.

There's no denying that this income stream will provide a massive opportunity for

Kirknewton to develop and thus attract more people/services//businesses into the

area.

I think what would be good is if this money went towards the communities electricity

bill. If we all got a certain amount of free electricity it would really have an impact in

the community. It would make everyone more energy aware and could lead to people

using less electricity.

Any monies to help local development acceptable.

Needs to be an open process of how money is spent especially by WLC, with public

engagement in the use of funds.

Kirknewton is getting a good deal since the visual impact at Harburn is likely to be

much greater. I expect the turbines will only be visible from a few if any homes in

Kirknewton given the lie of the land to the SW of Kirknewton.

Excellent to get money for investment for nothing more than a bit of visual impact.

Could be invested by the community to make Happerigg hydro scheme viable or buy a

wind turbine.

No

There seems to be little benefit compared to the effect the farm will have on the

environment.

Any community benefit should go directly to those most impacted - that is those who

live in Pentland Hills.

There will be no visual or noise impact on these communities. All impact will be on

local homes - they should receive all.

There will be no visual or noise impact on these towns. All the impact will be on local

houses, they should receive all.

KCC - already taken control of monies awarded to community. This was to be used for

improvements in the area. Still not seen any evidence of this yet.

I don't feel that activities 10 km distant from my home should so benefit at my

expense.

40/40 to Kirknewton and West Calder and 20 to West Lothian.

If wind farms are so wonderful, why do we have to be bribed to accept them? I would

bet good money on the fact that most people advocating this scheme live nowhere

near Kirknewton.

The amount to WLDT is too much. A fairer split would be 20%.

The money is coming from the community from the increase in electricity and gas

bills. So in fact we are getting our own money back. The landowner is making a very

large profit for no effort.

Would prefer to see the host communities share a greater percentage of the profits of

this enterprise.

I feel the financial gain and the proposals for its use will fall very short of

compensating for the loss of rural beauty within the community boundaries.

We should not be forced into anything we don't want.

40% should go to the Kirknewton Development Plan and 30% to the Lothian

Development Trust.

The fact is that the houses closest geographically to the wind farm will be mostly

affected. Local villagers in the high street in Kirknewton for example will in no way

be affected, except to gain financially.

It should be 25% to Harburn 25% to Kirknewton 30% to WLC and 20% to those most

affected i.e. within 5Kilometres of the turbines as they will have most need of

counteracting the problems incurred and with the current suggested distribution, very

little will get there.

I believe it is essentially a bribe, given to an electorate who will be largely unaffected

by this proposal, in the hope of gathering support for the developer.

The distribution of funds includes sections of the community that will not be

adversely impacted by the wind farm, the distribution ignores those residents that are

more directly impacted by the proposed wind farm and who would have minimal

benefit from the proposed 'community benefit fund'.

I think the proportion given to the West Lothian Development trust is too high.

No direct benefit at all to the Village and Community of Kirknewton.

Unfair question without understanding the full economic impact of the windmill. My

gut feeling is that this recompense is less than the community may lose economically,

especially the communities closest.

The Community Bribe package is bizarre. At a time when we're potentially - and

rightly in my opinion - sending senior executives to jail for underhand practice in

business and sacking MPs or their advisers for dubious practice, why is it OK to accept

a bribe to community funds to compensate for the loss of amenity suffered by a

minority. That's the sort of thing our democratic structures are said to be set up to

prevent.

50% Kirknewton, 25% West Calder & Harburn, 25% West Lothian Development Trust.

Why is it biased towards the WDT? Assuming that Kirknewton and West Calder are

equally affected why is it not 40%, 40% & 20%. Surely that would me a more equitable

split?

Undecided

Kirknewton C.C. have already taken control of a large sum of money the community

received as compensation for an illegal landfill and I have never seen evidence of

local improvement since that date. Although we now get a local newsletter telling us

how well they are doing.

Have no idea who owns Fauchhill Wind Farm or what their deal is. Your information is

not enough.

If the army come they might pay for it.

It may spoil my view.

It does not affect the West Calder and Kirknewton villages, only the residents in close

proximity to the farm.

I think we would still need electricity.

This money will come into a centre pot for the whole of the community, something

like 99% of whom will not suffer any disturbance at all to their lifestyle due to the

turbines. Nothing can realistically be done with this money to compensate the 18

properties affected, so Kirknewton gains at the 18 households' expense.

Distribution is not fair on the individuals in the community most affected by the

turbines. Suggest; WLDT - 30% KC - 25% HB/WC - 25% LWLR (Lhang Whang Local

Residents) -20%.

The money is tempting but the impact to the countryside would be devastating.

I'd like more information about West Lothian Development Trust before agreeing they

should have 40%, 10km radius is a large area.

I should think that as the West Lothian Development Trust is not actually a trust

Kirknewton should get the 40% and they should get the 30%

The community benefit will be to the advantage of those in the community who are

largely unaffected by the development and indifferent to it. Those who live in

greatest proximity and mostly effected by the development will not benefit from this

package.

The Community Benefit Package is simply a bribe paid for by vastly increased utility

bills. Let's not kid ourselves that we will "benefit" from this scheme. Every single one

of us will pay for it several times over.

Q13 Should you wish, please give brief reasons for your answer to Question 12 in

the space below (If the Kirknewton Community Development Trust feel the

opportunity to invest is beneficial to the Kirknewton community are you in favour

of us doing so?).

Yes

Provided that this investment gives an appropriate ongoing/recurring return

financially for investment in other projects.

Clearly KCDT will be a very small minority shareholder - therefore the majority

shareholder will clearly take little notice of KCDT.

Some research should be done on wind farms already functioning as to what are likely

profits and/or advantages.

It's the future.

Could be good for the village.

If it's good for the community that's the main thing.

If they decided.

It would benefit the whole surrounding community and in future we could get more

financial benefit.

As above the host communities should be offered a fractional ownership, 1/12th of

the overall development as a right!

If the trust invests their/the village's money, there will be more for the community.

However, you should not have all your eggs in one basket.

If it is going to bring money into the community.

It may create employment in the area.

As long as it worked towards providing electricity for the community. Perhaps

eventually buying our own turbine. This would really put Kirknewton on the map.

Would be a unique selling point for people's homes as well. I think a lot of people who

are against wind farms because of the visual impact would change their minds if they

were getting free electricity.

Although against the wind farm it would make sense, if it should go ahead, for the

community to have an ongoing return as well as the developer's community package.

I think the development trust have been making great decisions (to date) for the

benefit of the Kirknewton people and trust that they would invest wisely!

The long term revenue potential may be greater as the price of electricity is bound to

rise in future.

As I don't believe in on shore wind power, I have answered the above based on the

assumption that I'm in the minority.

Long term returns from investing in wind power makes solid economics for getting

involved. money could be ploughed back into further renewables investments to

benefit the community over decades.

What Kirknewton, IMHO, needs above anything else is a fit for purpose community

centre where multi interest groups, covering the whole demographic and social

needs, could be based. Such a centre does not come cheap, but maybe, with the

combined income stream of community benefit and direct investment, together with

possible Lottery funding etc, such a project would be economically viable.

No

They're a waste of money.

I would need to know more about what the benefits would be.

This would be condoning something which is unwanted.

The trust should have no involvement in the Fauch Hill Wind Farm. It compromises

their position as community development trust.

Disapprove of wind farms. Totally dependent on subsidies which is a tax on all of us.

Kirknewton CC are more than likely thinking that using the money that was supposed

to be used to make the area better would be better spent ruining the surrounding

areas of natural beauty.

KCC - want to use monies for community to invest in these awful eyesores, this in my

opinion is spoiling and not improving the area.

I can't agree to this as if I don't think it is a suitable site for a wind farm.

I think the trust should not have large funds for investment. Any money should be

spent on the community, not invested.

I don't think they would being they are expensive to run.

Not the right time. Don't think it would be profitable.

It is not morally reasonable for the village of Kirknewton to gain at the expense of

those living near the turbines.

No more wind farms locally.

The prospect of a Community Trust investing in a site which intends to introduce such

a detrimental development into a pristine and important environment appears to be

at odds with logic. With anecdotal evidence that local sentiment is against the

development, the proposal for investment in it is again strange, and potentially

unsupported by the local community the Trust is supposed to represent.

The Kirknewton Development Trust in my opinion, consists mainly of tree hugging

self-interest seeking individuals, looking after themselves rather than the interests of

the Community of Kirknewton.

Any such investment I would view as counterintuitive and would provide the investors

with an effective rubber stamp of community support to increase the size of the

development in future.

The KCDT should invest in a scheme where nearly 100% of production is carbon free.

The best onshore wind can achieve is a 6% reduction due to the need to back variable

wind with fast-start fossil fuelled generation, the 30% capacity factor and the fact the

Grid will not tolerate intermittent sources beyond 20%. Currently proven technologies

include sustainable wood burners, and hydro. Wave and tidal are not far from being

proven.

Undecided

I don't know what the extra return would be - need more information.

Any proposals must include a full consultation with the community, open meetings

and transparent infrastructure.

More information on potential returns required.

Not sure about the general gain to a small rural community by a local quango

engaging in financial speculation and who would gain from this.

I think that it would cost a lot to install it.

Depends.

I would need to hear KCDT's arguments to take the benefits of the proposal to invest

and how these benefits would be made to the community.

This is a red herring.

This may be a red herring!

All seems a bit of a money merry-go-round.

Money received from a terrible blot on the countryside.

If the proposal has to go ahead and the community has no option but to accept it,

then it might as well make the best it can of squeezing every bit of compensation

possible in whatever form, from the profit making organisation behind it.

I cannot agree with this if I am undecided about the community benefit package as a

whole.

I do not feel that the impact of large wind farms on the natural environment has been

adequately addressed. Adding solar panels to the top of a roof is one this but

installing large metal structures in hitherto undeveloped areas is quite another.

Q15 Should you wish, please give brief reasons for your answer to Question 14 in

the space below (Do you support this proposal?).

Yes

Only support this if local residents are happy. Compensation must fully compensate

for reduced property values of circa 30%.

Very important that those living very close who will have the value of their isolated

location somewhat industrialised are provided with some benefits of a more suburban

location.

They may be the ones affected and therefore deserve some compensation.

They are affected more and are entitled to personally benefit.

Has to be or we will lose the lottery money.

Get on with it.

The people nearest the development will have most disruption. They all live in more

harsh surroundings so investment will/could reduce their energy use.

Three years is too small a gap.

If it must go ahead.

Only if the proposal goes ahead and to mitigate the detrimental effect on the

immediate neighbourhood and population.

While I totally oppose this development if it is to proceed it is only reasonable that

the developers should do something to mitigate the very significant adverse effect the

development will have on adjacent properties. I also believe that it is inappropriate

for this question to be included in the survey.

I believe people should be responsible for their own destiny, and not have that

responsibility removed by others e.g. councils, government bodies.

Since I will not be affected I think it only fair that any residents directly affected

should be directly compensated for loss of amenity.

No

Any community benefit should go straight to householders most affected - there

should be individual benefit, not community benefit.

Direct compensation to those directly affected should be priority.

Direct compensation to those directly affected should be priority.

Waste of money. This is simply a bribe.

No amount of community benefit could compensate these residents for the

destruction of their quality of life. The developers have acted unprofessionally to

date with these residents - can they be trusted?

These residents tend to live in very spacious, large properties and already enjoy

wealth and privilege.

This is a bribe to residents trying to make them accept money so that they will agree

to the wind farm.

Doesn't cover the damage due to the area.

It appears a sweet deal to make this be given the go ahead, but is it?

I cannot think how the local residents can benefit from a pay-off that can only

provide a short term financial gain. This will certainly not compensate for the loss to

the rural environment in the long term, which would be manifold. Visual, sound,

habitat, etc.

Think it is just a bribe to make no fuss.

My opinion is as stated previously and applies to this as well.

It's practically a bribe.

The local infrastructure fund has been rejected by the local residents. An alternative

fund is in discussion but has not been agreed.

My answer to 1 applies here.

The answer to question 10 refers.

The residents chose to live in a rural location presumably because they wanted to. A

23-43 turbine wind farm is a major industrial complex whose impact cannot be erased

by a short-term bribe.

Undecided

I am not of the residents affected. It is for those affected to comment.

There is no information in the above question 14 for me to support or otherwise I

would require actual facts of their proposal.

Can't comment as I would need actual facts of this proposal.

Depends how much it is going to cost.

Depends on how much the package is.

Don't know enough about what's happening.

Depends on the package.

Don't have enough information on it.

Depends on the funds they will be getting.

Don't know enough about it.

The local residents should be given a separate benefit package. This is still being

discussed.

Don’t quite understand this statement!

The people who live and overlook Fauch Hill will still be looking a 23 wind turbines -

massive blot on the landscape.

Unclear on how this work.

The prospect of a funding package for immediate locals is acceptable, but the

mechanism proposed for accessing the fund is unacceptable; locals should not have to

'establish their own needs', the developer should be engaging the locals and making

steps to assist them in accessing appropriate levels of funding.

What sort of Capital Projects are to be considered? Would this possibly be a capital

sum to compensate for loss in value of property and land. Needs some explanation as

tree planting wouldn't be of much help.

Need to see proper statistics of the harm to the community before this can be

commented on.

Depends on who these residents are.

Q17 Thank you. If you have any further comments you would like to make on any

aspect of these proposals then please write them in below.

Support Proposal

From the start of the project to completion, how long would it be? Building works,

lorries up and running? How many jobs would it create? Are the turbines made in the

UK?

Although I am in favour of wind energy as a renewable source, I feel that the turbines

sit idle for long periods of time when it is not windy, having seen nearby turbines

doing nothing. I feel it is a very expensive investment for 23 turbines plus a major

disruption to the immediate area for when energy, e.g. electrical, is still required for

a regular energy output. Although I don't oppose the site or number of turbines, I

think we do not get enough windy days here to justify costs (financial and

environmental) and disruption.

Generating electricity from wind farms is not a viable or predictable method of

electricity generation. Wind farms receive an excessive scale of subsidy from (limited)

public funds. In principle I am against all wind farms (onshore) but if a wind farm has

to be constructed this wind farm appears quite well positioned.

Would be in the sea and not in landscape. They're ugly.

It could be a little too large. 23 seems quite a large number.

As long as it is going to be good the village.

Not going to affect me.

People who live nearby might not be happy, as it may affect their house prices.

Just got to go with it. It's a way forward.

Don't really know much about them.

It's got to give us electricity. It's a good thing.

Got to embrace technology.

Next time include an A4 map as not everybody knows where you're referring to but I

am assuming it is up on the A70.

I thought planning had been approved for this farm last year. Why is time passing us

by?

Those who oppose the development of renewable energy should be obliged to propose

viable alternative schemes that are sustainable. Sustainable means not doing

something now that will create a liability for future generations.

The wind farm should be part of a more general system of thoughtful energy

generation and use.

It would affect the view of people in the area.

A great idea for the community.

I don't like them as they make a noise.

Which power company would be supplying the energy would be a question.

The developers made many promises at the initial meeting and have backtracked on

them all, so how can any meaningful discussion be held?

It will depend on the environmental impact being kept to minimum.

Anyone in their right mind who is supportive of this proposal should journey down the

A74 to Crawford, South West of Abingdon services, and stop and take a good look at

what they are in favour of having planted on our doorstep. I personally fully advocate

the construction of nuclear power stations, technological developments will

eventually find a means of destroying the nuclear waste produced.

I consider NIMBYISM to be selfish and short sighted. In my view those who reject

development without proposing reasonable and sensible alternatives simply seek to

protect their own interests at the expense of others.

The supporting energy options paper left some important information out that may

influence people’s decisions: 1) Energy security. With North Sea supplies starting to

dwindle we have to secure energy from countries with dubious humans rights records

and can use our reliance on fossil fuels exact further control i.e. Russia turning off the

gas supply to Ukraine. With BRIC countries growing at phenomenal rates there is going

to be competition over the remaining sources which will push prices higher and may

be a cause of future conflict. Self reliance through renewables counteracts this; 2)

Storage of wind power and other intermittent generation. Opposition to wind power

frequently mentions the fact of 'what do you do when the wind doesn't blow, energy

cannot be stored'. Well it can, using Pump Storage schemes, initially built in the 70s

to provide power at peak periods. Scottish & Southern Energy has two planned on

Loch Ness to store renewables and the Beauly Denny Power-line is to be built to

transfer this power south. In addition there are plans for more sub-sea cables to

Europe and a formation on a pan European grid to smooth out peaks the troughs.

Do not support proposal

The village is the same as it always has been. I do not want the wild life disturbed.

Be better putting solar panels on roofs which do not look ugly. I feel it would affect

people's health.

The application is contrary to planning policies for Pentland Hills. The wind farm will

industrialise a beautiful upland landscape. It will also impact upon resident and

migrating geese, Harperrig reservoir environs and important views along tourist routes

into Edinburgh, e.g. A70.

At no point has anybody made an economic use for wind power - because they can't.

It will do nothing to provide energy requirements of this country - reliably and

consistently.

This development is not supported by the draft landscape capacity study for wind

energy development in West Lothian.

It is difficult to get unbiased information in regard to renewable energy as most data

we get is supplied by the renewable firms or their supporters (i.e. Kirknewton

Community Council). Energy experts elsewhere say that renewable targets are totally

unrealistic, the supply will be erratic and other sources of energy (i.e. nuclear, fossil

fuel) will always be required. Meanwhile our countryside is being destroyed, lives are

blighted and property values plummet. Travel along and you will see wind farms

sprouting up in all directions. I believe this survey is a token exercise in democracy

for a project that will go ahead whatever we say.

They are unsightly. I am not convinced they do what they are supposed to do.

The most ugly looking things on this earth and don't think they have any purpose at all

to help the environment.

I fail to grasp what the long-term benefits of this project would be to improvements

in Kirknewton. The initiatives so far are, though of some value, minimal as far as

initiatives such as allotments, etc. Have tried to use energy advice service but found

this short of what can be easily obtained nationally.

The insulation is very damaging to the environment. Would be better the money on

projects in the village.

I feel it is unnecessary as a renewable energy source - there are other alternatives.

I feel too much land being used up on those turbines.

There are other wind farms in the moor area which should be expanded first.

I was under the impression that the planning application for the wind farms had been

withdrawn.

Not only do I strongly oppose this particular insanity, but having seen other

developments of this type, (i.e. Clyde Valley Wind Farm) and the proposed

development in the Outer Hebrides (which would cover an area similar to that of the

width of Greater London) only strengthens my resolve to oppose this and all other

idiotic proposals like it, in ANY AREA.

I am offended by the suggestion that damage to birds is of interest to a few specialists

and "twitchers". I am not a "bird spotter" myself, nor am I a professional

conservationist. But I think most people today would consider an array of 20-40

devices whose wing tips move above 600mph close to the ground potentially making

mince-meat of possibly rare birds as something to be taken seriously, not dismissed as

the worries of a tiny minority. I suspect that most people nowadays have great

interest in conservation and biodiversity.

Undecided

My view is that available resources are directed to wave energy development than

wind farms. They do not affect the environment to the same extent and are less

reliant on weather patterns.

I support the wind farm as an alternative to it will be a nuclear power station which

I'd rather avoid. My only comment would be that the attached documents create

confusion - especially the briefing papers which is heavily biased. Also many residents

may hear about this for the first time in this letter - it should send one, simple and

straightforward message, not many conflicting messages.

The reason that you have too few opinions from local people is that they are not

aware of the meetings in the village hall because the local residents do not get

notification of Kirknewton Community Council's plans until after they have passed

them.

You have very little opinions as the local community is not aware of meetings as they

are poorly advertised and most people aren't aware of times and dates of these

meetings, we only hear of KCC's plan after they have been passed.

I prefer the wave power as the tide goes out and back everyday.

Not bothered either way.

Not bothered either way.

Don't know enough about it. It does not really matter to me.

I would like to see some prove that it was going to be cost effective.

Don't know enough about it to comment.

When you count up the cost of installing and labour - don't know if it is worthwhile.

Don't know much about it.

Don't know enough about it.

EFR have made many promises and seem to be retracting on them. I contacted them

in early November 2011 and have yet to have a response. I feel that they are not

taking us and the views of local Lhang Whang community seriously.

Who is paying for this? As I said earlier, it seems like a bit of a money merry-go-round.

This money (sorry, community benefit package) isn't just invented - in this case it's

either coming from people's electricity bills, or government funding. Surely there

have to be more efficient ways for paying for community projects?

We are being offered inducements to approve the wind farm, while any impact will be

out of sight and out of mind for most residents of Kirknewton, unless you are in the

Fauchill / Colzium area frequently - is this fair and ethical?. There are financial

incentives in place for wind farm development, so how can we be sure that this

development would be effective and not just an opportunity for a private company to

exploit whatever subsidies they can for short term gain?

I don’t know enough honest facts about the whole proposal to make a fair comment.

While community engagement at publicity events has progressed, as a directly

impacted local, I am yet to see any efforts by the developer to address concerns that

were voiced at these events. I in no way support the development of Fauch Hill wind

farm.

This is a play by an overseas investor/developer which will affect our community

directly. There is clear evidence elsewhere in Europe that once these developments

are established the "Creep" into neighbouring areas is a feature and indeed an aim.

This is a risk that needs to be closely examined.