THERE may well be some communities around Scotland where wind turbines have been enthusiastically embraced (Leader Comment, The Herald, May 1), but for others the financial benefits have not been worth the divisions that have been caused between neighbours, friends and relatives.
Last week saw the publication of Natural Scotland's Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits for Onshore Renewable Energy Developments, which is intended to help safeguard communities against experiences such as those suffered by residents of the small village of Uplawmoor in East Renfrewshire, where a neighbouring community's wind farm was ceremoniously dumped in their backyard without any consultation by the developer or notification to their community council from the planning authority.
Against the guidance of Scottish Natural Heritage, the council waived the necessity for an environmental impact assessment, allowing approval of this wind farm without proper scrutiny. Why? Possibly because the proceeds from the wind farm would help pay for the regeneration of Neilston, letting East Renfrewshire Council off the proverbial financial hook.
Unbeknown to residents of Uplawmoor at the time of the application, they had also been precluded from receiving any benefit by way of a legal agreement drafted by the developers.
Residents now have 25 years of greater than anticipated noise, visual blight and depreciation in property prices in order to benefit another community.
It's ironic that the developers of Neilston Community Wind Farm have had awards bestowed upon them for community engagement when their only real claim to fame is their success in dividing them.
Aileen Jackson,
Knockglass,
Uplawmoor,
East Renfrewshire.
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