Regarding your article ("Mountaineers to oppose new wind-farm bid, September 6), we are not surprised the developer would wish to downplay the impact of such a visually intrusive development and claim that the proposed site is not part of the Ben Wyvis massif.
While the proposed site is to the west of the summit of Ben Wyvis, the topography of the mountain is such that it is clearly located on the massif. The col (depression) between Ben Wyvis and Little Wyvis is at a relatively high altitude and, when viewed from the west, there is a very obvious continuous escarpment which makes the two hills one distinct mass. We believe that any reasonable definition of the Ben Wyvis massif would include the site location.
The Mountaineering Council of Scotland is not alone in voicing its concerns about the visual impact of this development.
On November 12, 2012, Scottish Natural Heritage stated in its response to the developer's Request for Scoping Opinion: "We advise that the acceptability of this proposal in terms of its scale and design and the capacity of the site and surrounding landscape character and visual amenity to accommodate this development; and the potential for significant cumulative impacts in relation to neighbouring proposed and operational renewable energy developments within the wider study area give us concern and may result in an objection should this proposal progress to an application."
Given the size, location and intrusive nature of the proposed development, we are surprised the developer has yet to publish details that would enable a wider public to decide for themselves about the merits of the proposed development.
Neil Reid,
Mountaineering Council of Scotland,
Perth.
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