Another full car park, and extremely well attended public exhibition was to be found in Midmar yesterday lunchtime. The overflow carpark was full and the buzz around the hall was palpable.
Once again the RES team turned up with their information boards and a friendly demeanour to provide individuals with information about the proposed windfarm scope.
It has become clear over the two days of public exhibitions that the proposed development of 17 x 250 metre high turbines is very much an opening gambit by the developers. A “stalking horse” which is very likely to change.
Maybe the developers will decide on slightly smaller turbines?
Maybe they will reduce the number of turbines?
Maybe the locations will be changed slightly?
We will not know until the “Design, development and refinement” phase of the project is completed and submitted to planning. But it seems clear that nothing is currently set in stone and to get too focussed on the current scope would be improvident.
One area where much interest was directed on the day was the Landscape Architect table where computer based line drawings (black and white representations) of the view from specific grid references were being produced.
I took a photograph of the expected view from my living room window which I’ve included below.
The image at the top of this post is an enlargement of a section of one of the landscape representations provided by RES at the exhibition. It starts to give a feeling for the monolithic nature of this size of turbine. But as I say, it is very possible that RES will select “slightly” smaller wind turbines for the final design to take on to the planning stage.
The reason I say this again is that I felt that people were being almost encouraged by the RES representatives to return comments sheets with statements like “I feel the turbines are too big or too close together, or there are too many”.
This encouragement from RES seemed to support the stalking horse theory, i.e. that the actual expectations of the developers are already lower than the design basis of the scoping study; and if any objections could be limited to ‘size’, ‘spacing’ and ‘numbers’ then these issues could be easily addressed while staying within the original “true” design intent. But that’s just what I think. There’s a comments box below. Feel free to let us know what you think?
![[Wasted] wind power adds £40 to household energy bills, says think tank](https://hilloffare.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/131901194_gettyimages-1447440317-1.jpg-600x450.webp)
I think they’re a very good idea, should be big, and work in conjunction with geothermal energy from the granite – to power scotland into our future.
The biggest turbines would be so beautiful, and in such a beautiful location; that people would come from all over the world to see such a marvel of technology and traditional natural beauty. Just as was the Eiffel tower over a century ago.
I am restoring wildlife habitat in the area, and hope ongoing support could be given by such a project to help rebalance local wildlife diversity through restoration of habitat.
This is a real, personal story which reflects the spectrum of responses to this proposal. There are many other sites which can provide suitable renewable power, particularly offshore. Just because a developer wants to do something to their benefit (many £millions in revenue) doesn’t mean we have to accept the proposal, accommodate their wishes somehow. What is the price worth paying by the residents of Midmar, Banchory, Crathes and Durris, Echt, Aberdeenshire Council for the benefit of Dunecht and RES?
The realistic image above of photomontage turbines could be more visible on this site.