19th November 2018
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Industrial waste site (Kathy Greaves)

It seems clear that councillors, collectively, do not intend to support the Shetland public’s democratic right to a referendum on Viking Energy’s giant windfarm. Nor do we hear the same councillor/trustees of Shetland Charitable Trust voicing their misgivings, their doubts or fears about the security of the investments from our oil funds to this project; can they say the financial investment is totally risk free? And as the council is also the planning authority there is no independent body here to say nay or stay the project.

With the prospect of more windfarm applications from energy companies looming over us, surely we have the right to be heard, for a public inquiry to take place, before forests of turbines cover these islands. If allowed, they could be here for many years as we become an industrial waste site for Britain, out of sight, not blighting their landscape.

Without a public inquiry and no referendum, and if councillors do not heed our views – for or against – why should the Viking Energy project be allowed to go ahead?

Kathy Greaves
3 Anderson Road,
Lerwick.

40 comments

  1. ian tinkler

    Very soon to become history, good bye Viking Energy. A matter or human rights. Turbines of 195 m high (Viking) must be 2000m from homes. First reading. House of Lords Session 2010 – 11 Second reading 2011-6
    Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill [HL]
    A Bill to make provision for a minimum distance between wind turbines and residential premises according to the size of the wind turbine; and for connected purposes. This Bill states, no relevant authority may grant planning permission for the construction of a wind turbine generator unless it meets the minimum distance requirement “Relevant authority” means the local authority or government department
    Requirements for minimum distance) “Residential premises” means any premises the main purpose of which is to provide residential accommodation, including farmhouses.
    A turbine greater than 150m, but does not exceed 200m; the minimum distance requirement is 2000m. Although the above is not Scottish Law, The Human rights issue comes under The Supreme Court (UK). This is the Highest UK court and has jurisdiction in Scotland. No wonder Salmond and the SNP hate it. I for one will appeal to this court to fight the Viking Energy cash cow and protect the Shetland environment from the greedy few, I am sure many others will also.
    – Ian Tinkler
    June 5, 2011

    Reply
  2. Gordon Harmer

    Come on now Ian you’v been watching that comedy show Boston Legal haven’t you, you really should go to bed earlier.

    Reply
  3. Paula Goddard

    I shouldn’t worry to much ,when all the rural schools have gone allong with the jobs and communitys, you will have loads of places for your tourists to go to for peace and quiet.
    You could then have them coming to the mainland to stay and have their cappacinos and theatres and Jaz and Folk festivals.
    You would then have loads of places for you to argue about were to put a windfarm.
    Im sure you would be able to get some summer volunteers to come up and work on the outer isles to keep them ‘authentic’ looking .
    Children ?Well they could either leave with their parents too far off places were the Jobs are ,or,they could all sqeeze into the mainland schools were they will have the opportunity for seamless transition,and obviously a better education.
    Sorry what was that i heard ? History,Museum,Clearances?

    Reply
  4. Ian Tinkler

    Gordon, you may wish to see the Bill before The Lords Please view:
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/017/11017.1-i.html .
    The UK Supreme Court will utilize this Bill in the event of any court challenge against the Viking, if the Shetland Island Council or possibly the Scottish government, persist in pursuing a project that flies in the face of international scientific opinion and UK Law. I have no detailed knowledge of Human Rights Law but I am quite expert in Medico-legal matters. If any resident within a 2000m radius of any Viking turbine develops any illness that can be shown to be caused by that turbine, for example Photo sensitive epilepsy, or stress related illness and undertook litigation for compensation, and the position of Viking Energy would be indefensible in law. I can see where much of Viking’s speculated profit may go! Incidentally, under Scottish Law the 2000m rule applies but the law is vague and ambiguous. The Lords Bill is very precise and the meaning obvious, even to one such as myself, who does no watch “Boston Legal”.

    Reply
  5. Colin Hunter

    Having followed this thread with interest, I have read the relavant document as indicated by Mr Tinkler and the very last section is as follows.

    4 Short title and extent

    (1) This Act shall be known as the Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Act 2010.
    (2) This Act extends to England and Wales.

    Patently obvious who needs to read it I would have thought!

    Reply
  6. Gordon Harmer

    Ian I understand your concerns but I think you are jumping to conclusions on every count, first as Colin says this Bill applies to England and Wales only. Secondly there would have to be a cluster of the above illness’s before an investigation was initiated and it would have to be proven with out doubt the windmills were the cause. If you take cancer clusters around nuclear power plants as an example of this you will see it is nearly impossible to attach blame to what the individual believes to be the cause.
    Any way as windmills are developed, new technology is being used to eliminate anything that could be regarded as harmful to mankind or the environment. There will be international scientific evidence / opinion that will totally contradict the international scientific opinion you quote if I knew where to find it. Ian all you seem to be doing is clutching at straws and scaremongering.
    You are right about the Lords Bill being very precise, but only if you live in England or Wales so may be it is time you started watching Boston legal you might pick up a few legal tips my learned friend.

    Reply
  7. Leslie Lowes

    What Ian Tinkler thinks is his saviour is a bill going through parliament. It is not yet an act and not yet law. However, as I understand it, the planning permission granted to Viking Energy by Shetland Islands Council has a condition that the development must comply with current windfarm regulations, including minimum distance of turbines from dwellings. Perhaps we really ought to invest in hot air technology as well, there’s an awful lot of it about.

    Reply
  8. Ian Tinkler

    Mr. Lowe, under a rather ambiguous Scottish Law the minimum distance is 2000m from houses to turbines. 74 of the Viking Turbines have occupied residences within that radius that may be why SIC planners rejected the Viking application! Recent, debated and reviewed scientific evidence has resulted in The Lords passing the first reading, of a Bill, unambiguously specifying, a 2000m safety radius being between any residence and turbines. As previously stated, the Lords Bill, is not Scottish Law, however it must be self evident to anyone, those living in Crofts and cottages close (under 2000m) from turbines are having their health put at risk and their human rights are thus threatened. If a court action is undertaken by anyone thus threatened the senior UK court would ultimately be the UK Supreme court, which has jurisdiction in Scotland. The Supreme Court would use the Lords Bill and the scientific evidence presented to make it decisions and findings. If you view the Viking web site you will see some very lame excuses why Scottish Law has been ignored, however in a court of Law I believe now Viking would lose. I leave you to make your own decision, however smaller turbines scale or greater distances from homes would be fine. Mr Hunter, I hope this is within your comprehension, as clearly, you did not understand what I wrote before. Gordon, I follow your reasoning, however, Nuclear power stations were established long before the safety risks were remotely understood. There never was any safety regulation at that time. UK law is not retrospective, negligence claims can only happen after known risks are ignored. Also Leukaemia clusters were never scientifically linked to nuclear stations. They can occur any ware. The risks from turbines are well documented and regarded as scientifically proven, for example, photo sensitive epilepsy. They are being ignored by the Viking Project planners; that may be why final approval is taking so long.

    Reply
  9. S Winks

    If representations are made – then it would not be unrealistic to expect a human rights ruling/law to be extended to Scotland as well as England and Wales. If Ian tinkler is clutching at straws then if we all join in the straws will become a rope that could eventually tell Viking to get knotted!

    Reply
  10. Gordon Harmer

    Ian I have Google’d and researched what you say about photo sensitive epilepsy and other problems and from what I read these issues are not insurmountable. I am a 100% certain that Viking are aware of their responsibilities and that they will do what ever they have to ensure no one suffers. Although I do not understand every thing I read on this subject one thing I did glean from the facts and figures is that ill effects can be overcome and I have copied and pasted what is below to show this.

    Flicker from turbines that interrupt or reflect sunlight at frequencies greater than 3 Hz poses a potential risk of inducing photosensitive seizures. At 3 Hz and below the cumulative risk of inducing a seizure should be 1.7 per100,000 of the photosensitive population. The risk is maintained over considerable distances from the turbine. It is therefore important to keep rotation speeds to a minimum,and in the case of turbines with three blades ensure that
    the maximum speed of rotation does not exceed 60 rpm,which is normal practice for large wind farms. The layout of wind farms should ensure that shadows cast by one turbine upon another should not be readily visible to the general public. The shadows should not fall upon the windows of nearby buildings. The specular reflection from turbine blades should be minimized.

    Reply
  11. Gordon Harmer

    Ian I also found this on Google which makes me think you should be looking at individual wind turbines which are sprouting up all over the place, and not so closely at the Viking proposal.

    In the UK, the flicker frequency of wind turbines on wind farms should be limited to 3 Hz. Newer wind turbines are usually built to operate at a frequency of 1 Hz or less. These flicker rates are unlikely to trigger a seizure.

    Not all wind turbines are on wind farms. Those that aren’t, are not subject to the same planning regulations as wind farms. If a turbine is in the wrong position in relation to the sun, it could create a strobe effect. This strobe effect could cause a problem for some people with photosensitive epilepsy.

    Reply
  12. Ian Tinkler

    Very good Gordon. Information peer reviewed by The Lords. The deemed one 150m high turbine safe at 1hz at a distance over 2000m. All recent scientific evidence was taken into account and peer reviewed when establishing the safe distances in this Bill. Imagine the strobe affect of two turbines in line with the sun with the sun on the horizon, Unless rotation speed of turbine absolutely the same the frequency of strobe pulses from refracted and reflected light would be of multiple frequencies. Now imagine 100 plus turbines during a Shetland Sunset. !!!

    Reply
  13. Gordon Harmer

    Ian as a layman my understanding of photo sensitive epilepsy is you either have it or you don’t you cant catch it from a wind turbine. If that is the case a wind turbine can only trigger an attack or fit if the all the criteria are in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time. The research I did was based on information from a web site for people who suffer from photo sensitive epilepsy and they give the the impression that modern wind farms pose no significant danger of triggering a fit.
    For the sun to be in line with a sufferer of the above and in line with one wind turbine at any one moment in time is so unlikely that being in line with 100 turbines at any one time is even more unlikely than you and me sharing the Euro millions jackpot.
    There are five turbines on Burradale, two have a blade diameter of fifty two meters and turn at twenty five rpm the other three have a diameter of forty seven meters and turn at twenty nine rpm. All are separated at a distance of five times the blade diameter, all well within the sixty rpm or three Hz limits so as not to cause flicker, and neither they do. Turbines to be used on the new wind farm will have blades of aprox ninety meters diameter and will turn even slower at fifteen rpm. Therefore at nearly five hundred meters apart will pose no threat at all to any sufferer of photo sensitive epilepsy.
    Ian one of the biggest triggers to people with this debilitating problem are roads lined with thousands of trees. Because as they drive along when the sun is low and behind the trees the strobe flicker effect is overwhelming and triggers thousands more fits than wind turbines ever would. So by employing your logic shall we instigate the felling of every road side tree in Britain.

    Reply
  14. Ian Tinkler

    It is an absolute matter of fact that after a detailed peer review of all the scientific evidence, after representations by all interested parties, a totally impartial and learned bobby, The Lords, have decided the minimum safe and acceptable distance, for Viking size turbines, from any residence, is 2000m. 74 of the Viking turbines are within this radius. That is a matter of fact and cannot be disputed. The Viking project fails due to simply being too large. Smaller turbines, further from homes would be fine. The profits may be smaller, but to be blunt and somewhat rude, this something for nothing culture of endless funds to squander on stupid projects at the expense of the environment and people’s health is amoral and imposable to rationally justify. This Law may fail, but the scientific evidence and reasoning behind it are simply not questionable.

    Reply
  15. Ian Tinkler

    Gordon, in answer to your previous regarding photo sensitive epilepsy (I have personal interest); only two turbines in line are necessary create multiple frequency strobe pulses. Irrespective of RPM unless exactly synchronised in RPM. If not in line, reflection could cause the same strobe effect; irrespective of speed of rotation, but less intense. The effect is far more likely the greater the number of rotating blades and turbines. 500m apart for this size of turbine is too close 2000m will reduce the affect to almost zero? With regard to strobe affects and driving, trees, for example. The authorities have a simple solution, you’re driving license is withdrawn until drug therapy deems your epilepsy controlled. The initial ban from driving is usually about seven years! No such easy answer for someone living under a turbine.

    Reply
  16. Gordon Harmer

    Ian every thing you have said is questionable, as I said before you are clutching at straws and scaremongering. Scientific evidence what scientific evidence are you talking about, I have looked and can not find anything anyone could use as evidence, less maybe in a kangaroo court.
    Look at the Epilepsy Action web site, these people are there for sufferers of photo sensitive epilepsy and they say. In the UK, the flicker frequency of wind turbines on wind farms should be limited to 3 Hz. Newer wind turbines are usually built to operate at a frequency of 1 Hz or less. These flicker rates are unlikely to trigger a seizure. The Lords bill on wind turbine distances is a bill still before the Lords, unless it has been passed as law recently and as I have said before applies to England and Wales only. Both Colin Hunter and my self seem to have difficulty getting you to understand what we are saying, in fact Colin says its a bit like pulling teeth.

    Reply
  17. Gordon Harmer

    Ian that is no argument as surely the drugs would work for some one living under a turbine, and I was not just talking about car drivers what about passengers. I also respect your personal interest, as I also have had personal experience of this debilitating illness in the days before drugs were not as effective as they are now. That is why I used web sites set up for people with epilepsy problems to research the effects of wind turbines on sufferers.

    Reply
  18. Ian Tinkler

    non so blind as those who can not see

    Reply
  19. Gordon Harmer

    Ian it should be there are none so blind as those who don’t want to see, and you seem not to be able to see any thing that disproves your scaremongering theories. I know that generators can be synchronised so why not wind turbines because when the output of two (or more) alternators are electrically connected together, the alternators are said to be running in parallel. Before two alternators can be connected electrically they have to be synchronised, that is their electrical output waves must be in step, or in phase, together. The process of achieving this state is known as synchronisation.
    The sequence of events is similar for manual or automatic synchronization. The generator is brought up to approximate synchronous speed by supplying more energy to its shaft – for example, opening the valves on a steam turbine, opening the gates on a hydraulic turbine, or increasing the fuel rack setting on a diesel engine. The field of the generator is energized and the voltage at the terminals of the generator is observed and compared with the system. The voltage magnitude must be the same as the system voltage.

    Reply
  20. Ian Tinkler

    Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31st March 2011

    These accident statistics are copyright Caithness Windfarm Information Forum 2011. The data may be used or referred to by groups or individuals, provided that the source (Caithness Windfarm Information Forum) is acknowledged and our URL http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk quoted at the same time. Caithness Windfarm Information Forum is not responsible for the accuracy of Third Party material or references.

    You may link to this page from your website but please do not link to the individual files or reproduce the tables on your website as they will cease to be current.

    The summary may be downloaded in printable form here

    The detailed accident list with sources may be downloaded here

    The attached detailed table includes all documented cases of wind turbine related accidents which could be found and confirmed through press reports or official information releases up to 31 March 2011. CWIF believe that this compendium of accident information may be the most comprehensive available anywhere.

    Data in the detailed table attached is by no means fully comprehensive – CWIF believe that what is attached may only be the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of numbers of accidents and their frequency. However, the data gives an excellent cross-section of the types of accidents which can and do occur, and their consequences. With few exceptions, before about 1997 only data on fatal accidents has been found.

    The trend is as expected – as more turbines are built, more accidents occur. Numbers of recorded accidents reflect this, with an average of 16 accidents per year from 1995-99 inclusive; 48 accidents per year from 2000-04 inclusive, and 104 accidents per year from 2005-10 inclusive.

    Number of fatal accidents: 70. Good safe Green energy!!

    This general trend upward in accident numbers is predicted to continue to escalate unless HSE make some significant changes – in particular to protect the public by declaring a minimum safe distance between new turbine developments and occupied housing and buildings (currently 2km in Europe), and declaring “no-go” areas to the public, following the 500m exclusion zone around operational turbines imposed in France.
    Data attached is presented chronologically. It can be broken down as follows:

    Number of accidents

    Total number of accidents: 994

    By year:

    Year 70s 80s 90-94 95-99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11*
    No. 1 9 17 81 30 17 70 65 59 70 82 121 128 124 97 23
    * To 31 March 2011 only

    Fatal accidents

    Number of fatal accidents: 70

    By year:

    Year 70s 80s 90-94 95-99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11*
    No. 1 8 8 7 3 1 4 4 3 5 4 9 5 5 3
    * To 31 March 2011 only

    Please note: There are more fatalities than accidents as some accidents have caused multiple fatalities.

    Of the 78 fatalities:

    55 were wind industry and direct support workers (maintenance/engineers, etc), or small turbine owner/operators.
    23 were public fatalities, including workers not directly dependent on the wind industry (e.g. transport workers).
    Human injury

    79 accidents regarding human injury are documented.

    By year:

    Year 70s 80s 90-94 95-99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11*
    No. 2 3 4 1 2 2 2 6 10 14 15 7 9 2
    * To 31 March 2011 only

    66 accidents involved wind industry or construction/maintenance workers, and a further 14 involved members of the public or workers not directly dependent on the wind industry (e.g. transport workers). Five of these injuries to members of the public were in the UK.

    Blade failure

    By far the biggest number of incidents found were due to blade failure. “Blade failure” can arise from a number of possible sources, and results in either whole blades or pieces of blade being thrown from the turbine. A total of 203 separate incidences were found:

    By year:

    Year 70s 80s 90-94 95-99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11*
    No. 3 32 4 6 15 13 15 12 16 22 20 25 18 2
    * To 31 March 2011 only

    Pieces of blade are documented as travelling over 1300 metres. In Germany, blade pieces have gone through the roofs and walls of nearby buildings. This is why CWIF believe that there should be a minimum distance of at least 2km between turbines and occupied housing – in line with other European countries – in order to adequately address public safety and other issues including noise and shadow flicker.

    Reply
  21. Ian Tinkler

    Does SIC really want to deal with this company. Good bye Viking energy
    Scottish and Southern Electricity of Viking fame
    Last wk
    THE LOCAL authority has forced to shut down a Sutherland wind farm after the company breached planning controls by failing to deal with excessive noise from the development.
    People living close to the Achany wind farm near Rosehall are claiming their lives are being made a misery by the constant noise, and are angry that their complaints are being ignored.
    In an unprecedented move, Highland Council issued a temporary stop notice on the 23-turbine wind farm at 3pm on Monday.
    The turbine blades at the £55 million, 40MW windfarm, which came on stream in July last year, stopped turning that night.
    The stop notice will remain in place for a month, until July 4, with the shut down representing a huge financial loss to the power company.
    Highland Council’s principal planner Gordon Moonie confirmed yesterday (Thursday) that it was the first time the authority had issued a notice of this type.
    He said he was unaware of any other council taking similar action.
    “This temporary stop notice was introduced under a 2006 Act and it hasn’t been used very often, but it is quite an effective way of dealing with a breach of planning control. In a sense it affects the company where it hurts – in their pocket,” he said.
    Mr Moonie revealed that the problems with Achany had been ongoing for about a year, with constant complaints to planners about noise.
    “We were getting complaints from the local people and the community and we weren’t getting any action from SSE, so we decided that the best way forward was to serve this temporary stop notice,” he said.
    “It means that the windfarm has to cease operating and we can then get round the table and agree a way forward that is in everyone’s interest.”
    According to the stop notice, SSE breached planning controls by failing to provide a scheme for mitigating noise levels prior to the development coming on stream.
    They also failed to comply with a request to measure noise levels at two local properties – Rosehall Cottage and a home at Durcha – when specifically asked to do so following complaints from the householders.
    The Durcha property is just 2km away from some of the turbines.
    The company has further breached planning controls by failing to notify the local authority of the date the development first supplied electricity to the National Grid.
    Local resident Andy Simpson is the chairman of Kyle of Sutherland Against Braemore (KoSAB), the group protesting against a proposed wind farm at Braemore, near Lairg.
    He told the Northern Times:”The householder at Durcha has been complaining bitterly about the noise in certain weather conditions and said it has made life unbearable at times.
    “Therefore, I’m really pleased that Highland Council have done the right thing.
    “However, it gives me grave concern that a developer appears to have dismissed a genuine noise complaint once a wind farm has been constructed.
    “This surely shows scant care or empathy for local communities from these large corporates.”
    He added: “An even greater cause for concern is the proposal for Braemore windfarm which KoSAB estimate is within 2km of 83 houses.”
    Rosehall resident Colin Gilmour, who chaired the Achany Windfarm Liaison Group said: “When Achany became operational in July 2010, we closed the liaison group down because in effect we did not really have any more to do with the development and we were not aware at the time that SSE had not met these conditions.
    “However, the issue of noise from Achany has come up at the liaison group set up for the Rosehall Hill wind farm which is being constructed by E.ON.
    “There is now a worry that houses at Durcha could be affected by noise from both wind farms and that one operator will blame the other.
    “They need to sort out the Achany issue before Rosehall Hill wind farm becomes operational.”
    Mr Gilmour continued: “The householder at Durcha is particularly affected when the wind is coming from the north-east or in certain weather conditions. But he will be even closer to some of the Rosehall Hill turbines.
    “Highland Council became a bit exasperated in the end with SSE over Achany because they just didn’t meet the conditions..”
    l When asked for a comment, a spokesman for SSE yesterday (Thursday) responded: “Following a request from the Higland Council, we have temporarily suspended generation at our Achany wind farm, near Lairg. We are working closely with council officials and will be meeting representatives later today. We are confident that we can reach an agreement with the council very quickly.”

    Reply
  22. Gordon Harmer

    Ian is it not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them, does the SIC and Viking want to deal with SSE. What you have published above is exactly why we need the SIC and Viking at the helm of this development, to stamp local governance over what is to be developed.
    Do you really think that directors of Viking Energy some of which will live in the shadow of their own creation want to subject themselves their families and neighbours to the like of what is printed above. I think not that is why we need some local control over this project, but all you see is them stuffing their wallets full of fiver’s which proves your ignorance to be encyclopaedic.
    I would like to take your accident statistics seriously but to do so would be an affront to your intelligence. Tell me how many fatalities and serious injuries have occurred during the construction and operation of oil installations such as Sullom Voe, Grangemouth, Killingholme, Milford Haven, and Bunsfield or anywhere else in the world.
    How many people who live next to these installations are bothered by the flare stacks, noise, traffic and putrid smell of gas which are given off constantly. Taking all this in to consideration why are you not objecting to the Total gas plant. How on earth do you expect a turbine which is turning at fifteen rpm in the unlikely event of of a blade failure to send fragments any further than a couple of meters it is physical impossible, you are using non compatible figures once again to scaremonger.
    You can only quote facts and figures from turbines of equal capacity and construction to those proposed for use here, not any old turbine in any old situation in any old country. You seem to be getting your facts first then distorting them as you please or to put it even simpler you are clutching at ever shrinking straws.
    Ian if you find it hard to laugh at the arguments you are presenting, I would be happy to do it for you.

    Reply
  23. Ian Tinkler

    Mr Gordon Harmer, I find it difficult to laugh at a report of the 78 fatalities and of 994 accidents: But that is your choice, laugh if you wish. I however do find it very amusing that a £55 million, 40MW wind farm, which came on stream in July last year, was so noisy it had to be stopped. Nice one for Scottish and Southern Electricity, great piece of design work. Exactly the same as the Viking project only smaller and further from people’s homes, never mind, Viking will be overseen by the SIC, that is a huge relief. When Viking is stopped it will our Charitable Trust money which will be lost not just Scottish and Southern Electricity’s funds, also the SIC cash cow will die with the Viking project, no more free champagne and condoms all round for SIC junkets. Will you find that so very funny? You must be really short of logical argument if you need to site the Total gas plant as justification for Viking that I do find funny, but funny stupid. With regard to blade failure, as a spokes person for Viking (self appointed?), I am most surprised you can be so utterly ignorant, I refer you to Catcliffe, Sheffield ” 12 May 2008 When a Wind turbine was smashed… by wind” I Quote from a local paper “A giant wind turbine sparked major safety fears yesterday when it was smashed by . . . the WIND. A huge propeller broke off the 190ft turbine close to a busy motorway link road. The 30ft blade cracked when the turbine was hit by strong gusts just two months after it began operating.” Shetland wind gust are many times higher, are you still l laughing Gordon? Like to move to Voe to get a grand stand view when a blade failure occurs, better take a tin hat. You could actually move to Voe as the house prices around the Viking project will soon fall. A recent Court judgment as just awarded considerable damages to a couple who successfully sued for compensation.
    http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/447706.print/
    One claim in court at present is for £380K for a couple driven out of their house is noise; I bet they are not laughing. So enjoy your laugh Gordon, I think you laugh alone. That is apart from the people laughing at you.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267250/Couple-sue-380k-driven-home-noise-wind-turbines.html

    Reply
  24. Gordon Harmer

    Ian I am still laughing not at the content but the fact you are actually presenting such a facile argument. You are gathering anything and everything you can off the internet and none of it is relevant or similar to what we have in Shetland. You even blow one of your own arguments (if you can call it that) clean out of the water. Yes Ian the Shetland winds do blow many times harder than winds around Sheffield and the five Turbines at Burradale prove that good research and planning make a safe and productive wind farm.
    If you had only researched what happened at Catcliffe you would know the three turbines there are owned by the university and are built next to large buildings not on top of a hill. The effect of this is that the wind is channelled in different directions by the buildings hitting the blades from different directions at one time. Once again this incident is not relevant to any thing that will be built up here.
    By the way Ian I am not a self appointed spokes person for any one, I am an individual with an opinion having a debate with some one who gathers facts and then distorts them to produce rhetoric and fiction to make political compost.

    Reply
  25. Ian Tinkler

    All these events only a few days old. GOOD BYE VIKING
    A recent Court judgement as just awarded considerable damages to a couple who successfully sued for compensation.
    http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/447706.print/
    One claim in court at present is for £380K for a couple driven out of their house is noise; I bet they are not laughing.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267250/Couple-sue-380k-driven-home-noise-wind-turbines.html
    Catcliffe, Sheffield ” 12 May 2008 When a Wind turbine was smashed… by wind” I Quote from a local paper “A giant wind turbine sparked major safety fears yesterday when it was smashed by . . . the WIND. Gordon, are you really trying to say No wind gusts in Shetland will match the events you list above! 190 MPH winds. Jan 1. 1992. What do you thing would happen to Viking project if history repeats!! Watch this space, No wonder delay in approval for this project. Just wait for legal challenges if any one stupid enough tp proceed. Scottish and Southern Electricity just lost a £55 million, 40MW wind farm. I wonder how keen they are to proceed?. I doubt they will risk much more, nor for that matter their insurers.. Have a good laugh Gordon, or watch and weep.

    Reply
  26. Gordon Harmer

    I see you have finally lost it Ian, you obviously don’t read what is written. What I said was look at Burradale, it is still standing and has been battered with much stronger winds than they get in Sheffield. Not only that the turbines in Sheffield where two bladed, as I keep telling you totally different to what will be up here. You have to compare like with like if you are going to use comparisons as an argument.
    This is part of the repost in a national news paper of the Catcliffe incident, not quite the dramatic catastrophe you would have us believe it to be. The wrecked turbine, costing tens of thousands of pounds, is one of two at a Sheffield University research unit near the city?s Parkway link to the M1.
    The university said a failsafe device shut down the turbine as soon as the crack developed.
    A spokeswoman said: ?On-site security identified this via monitoring systems. The turbine providers and police were informed immediately, allowing the area to be made safe.
    ?A blade was allowed to fall to the ground in a controlled manner, supervised by engineers. Experts are now deciding what action needs to be taken.”We apologise for any disruption. Safety is always paramount.
    As for the rest of what you have used as a non argument, do you really think any one would build a wind farm if they knew it was going to be noisy and what the consequences were for that, wise up man.

    Reply
  27. Ian Tinkler

    Scottish and Southern Electricity just lost a £55 million on a modern wind farm
    of theirs. (Closed due to noise) Do you really think any one would build a wind farm if they knew it was going to be noisy. Well they just did. Good bye Viking, use Scottish and
    Southern Electricity overseen by SIC. What a receipt for disaster, SIC who’s
    councillors disregarded their own planers about the VE project. Wise up, Gordon
    and get rational, do not make yourself look more foolish. Here is a good Vester
    turbine, Same make as Burradale .
    Just imagine 150mph wind dropping this on your house! 25 Feb 2008 … This
    video depicts the catastrophic failure of a wind turbine in Denmark in
    mid-February. Press coverage of the event, one of two turbines …
    , No wonder Denmark allows no more on shore wind farm developement!
    (www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o) Note the controlled way the blade was allowed to fall to the ground. Gordon that was a bit of a porky you just wrote. Many more such charming Turbine failures recorded and filmed. (www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk)
    Tin hat time Gordon. Have a good laugh. Try and explain why Viking is so much better than the above.

    Reply
  28. Gordon Harmer

    Ian you obviously don’t read any thing properly or you think that the rest of us are stupid because the Westmorland Gazette story is not about a wind farm operator paying compensation. It is in fact about the people who sold the house being sued for not telling the buyer that the construction of the wind farm was imminent. Your vitriolic campaign against Viking Energy and the SIC is sinking to even lower levels misinformation and fiction than I thought possible.

    Reply
  29. Gordon Harmer

    Ian Having a debate with you is hard work as you are such a stranger to the truth and you make porky’s out of facts you find in the internet. The blade being lowered to the ground in a controlled manner was the incident you used in Sheffield not the american incident on U Tube. SSE have not lost a wind farm in Caithness they have been issued with a one month temporary stop notice for breaching planning regulations.
    Every fact you have used, you have twisted and or miss quoted any thing you say about Viking Energy or the Sic is full of venom and false accusations, its like debating with a Pit Bull with behavioural problems. Ian my father had a saying “never argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience” so before I get dragged down this is my last comment to you on this forum.

    Reply
  30. Ian Tinkler

    Gordon, It’s about noise pollution. Something wind farm developers call a myth and disinformation. First time in court and judge finds for the litigants. There is noise pollution, now proven in a court of law.

    Reply
  31. Leslie Lowes

    When Viking is built it will be subject to the rules and regulations in force at the time, including noise regulations. It is almost certain though, that any noise pollution would be considerably less than that emanating gleefully from Clousta just now.

    Reply
  32. Ian Tinkler

    Les, there is nothing gleeful about the VE project and the division it has caused. I have always advocated Green Energy and even advocated at length for small scale turbines 5kilowatt. For the cost of The Viking Project, every Croft on Shetland could have its own turbine. Free electricity for all crofters and profit from the subsidies, to The Charitable Trust. Far more employment created and all funds staying in Shetland. SSE paying us,for once, no money to greedy buisiness people and big merchant banks out of the loop. Think about it.

    Reply
  33. John Kryton

    What a hypocrite, you have just been arguing about turbines causing fits in people with photo sensitive epilepsy. You where told small turbines are proved to be the worst at triggering fits and you want to plaster them all over Shetland. No wonder Gordon Harmer has had enough of debating with you he must have thought he was back in the school play ground.
    John Kryton,
    Aberdeen.

    Reply
  34. Ali Inkster

    “Ian you obviously don’t read any thing properly or you think that the rest of us are stupid because the Westmorland Gazette story is not about a wind farm operator paying compensation. It is in fact about the people who sold the house being sued for not telling the buyer that the construction of the wind farm was imminent.”

    gordon it makes no odds who paid compensation in this case only that comp was paid. this opens the door to anyone who believes the value of their house has been affected by windfarm construction to sue for compensation and the CT as a developer will be taken to court. Are you willing to cover the cost as well as being VE spokesperson.

    Reply
  35. Ian Tinkler

    John Kryton, People in crofts have a choice whether they want a small turbine or not. VE gives no choice whatsoever. Gordon Harmer, advises Epilin and Phenobarbes to the resident in the shadow of Viking. I guote “Ian that is no argument as surely the drugs would work for some one living under a turbine” Need I say more.

    Reply
  36. Colin Hunter

    I have also read the article in the Westmorland Gazzette and is seems strange to me that the judge found in favour of the buyers, penalising the vendors for not informing them of the Winfarm Planning Application. I would have thought it would be the responsibility of the buyers solicitor to discover such things by performing a “local search” during the period leading up to the exchange of contracts. At least that would be what would happen in Scotland. Perhaps England is different in this area of property law.
    It is also odd that they didn’t hear about the development from the local people or media before going ahead. It’s hardly the kind of thing that’s kept secret and in fact the people of Askham and Ireleth are responsible for the formation of one of the first “Anti Windfarm” pressure groups in the country.
    I wonder if anyone else has looked on Google maps to ascertain the lie of the land in this case. I had a look, and the distance to the nearest turbine is more like 800 m than 500. If you then go to “Street level” and “stand” in front of the property indicated by Google to be Poaka Beck House, the turbines are invisible, their sight being blocked by the buildings across the road. I would think that they might be visible from the upstairs windows. If you then “Walk” up the road, you have to go some distance before they become visible. They appear, on the image, to be of similar size or slightly smaller than those at Burradale. In my eyes they do not pose a blot on the landscape at all, in fact they are considerably less objectionable than the somewhat scruffy farmyard which lies just across the road from the house!
    I have friends who live at Asta, approximately 1000 m away from Burradale and the man informs me he hardly ever hears any sound at all from the turbines, and then only if he is out doors. He has never heard anything at all inside the house. I have been there on several occassions and have yet to hear anything either. I have also stopped on the road by the golf course when the turbines have been operating without hearing anything other than traffic.
    Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder and I have to admit to finding their appearance aesthetically pleasing. The design should be praised for combining grace with function. A rare thing indeed.

    Reply
  37. Ian Tinkler

    Estate agents have said no one is likely to buy the Jones’s house, which was worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built

    £170,000 home had been rendered worthless by a turbine 1,000 yards away. How long before the pro Viking lobby opens their eyes and see what is patently obvious to most.

    In a landmark case, Jane Davis was told she will get a discount on her council tax because her £170,000 home had been rendered worthless by a turbine 1,000 yards away.
    The ruling is effectively an official admission that wind farms, which are accused of spoiling countryside views and producing a deafening roar, have a negative effect on house prices.
    It means many other families living in the shadow of the giant turbines could see thousands wiped off the value of their homes, as the Government pushes ahead with plans to build 7,000 more wind farms over the next decade to meet ambitious green targets.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3348084/Homeowners-living-near-windfarms-see-property-values-plummet.html

    Reply
  38. John Kryton

    Colin maybe the buyers were represented by that infamous legal team Inkster and Tinkler.

    Reply
  39. Ian Tinkler

    What a bright and clever boy, John. Your comment says much about your intellect and strength of your argument. Very well done.

    Reply
  40. John Kryton

    What it says Ian is you have no sense of humour, and reading every thing else you put on here and on Shetland news, you are the one with no intellect or sense of reality.

    Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.