MALCOLM Roughhead quite correctly points out that it is for individual local authorities to review the available evidence and determine what is right for their area (Letters, October 25).
In the recent case of the 10 wind turbines proposed for Minnygap above Moffat next to the Southern Upland Way and near Lockerbie that is exactly what the local councillors did. They decided that the cumulative impact of these turbines, their impact on walkers on the Southern Upland Way and on the Raehills Designated Landscape would be seriously detrimental to the landscape of the area and to the local tourist industry,
The second and third paragraphs of his letter are a re-iteration of a formula that all government-funded bodies appear to feel obliged to spout every time wind power is mentioned. VisitScotland is a body whose business it is to promote tourism, not to determine energy policy; why does it feel it necessary to even comment on the energy policy involved?
Mr Roughhead says that "it is well documented that the vast majority of potential visitors would not be discouraged from visiting Scotland on account of wind farm developments". Presumably the documentation he refers to is the Scottish Government's 2008 survey. The survey does make this finding, but to do so it relies on the assumption that tourists in the regions of Scotland that are affected by wind turbines will travel to less-affected areas of Scotland. In other words they will go elsewhere. This same study also makes it plain that the vast majority of tourists in Dumfries and Galloway (98%) will be impacted by wind turbines and it states that "the impacts in some areas are important enough to warrant specific consideration by the planning authorities". Well done Dumfries and Galloway councillors for doing just that.
Sarah Burchell,
Upper Minnygap Farm,
St Anns,
Lockerbie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article