YOUR VIEWS: Putting Inverallan church’s plight in spotlight
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
Re-the excellent headline article ‘Church at risk if solar bid refused’ in the Strathy (11 April), I’m writing to encourage the community to support the planning application for solar panels on the roof of Inverallan Church.
As my report (which is quoted in the article) states, this is not just another minor application for solar panels, it is the key to the future of this church building.
No matter what your faith or non-faith beliefs are, Inverallan Church is a community asset with significant historical and cultural importance to Grantown.
No doubt many residents have fond memories of the building and its use throughout the years.
In case you have missed the news over the last couple of years, the Church of Scotland is selling off hundreds of churches.
No church building is safe from being put on the market.
If Inverallan Church can’t be found to have a viable ongoing use, then this will be its fate too. Viability includes being affordable to operate.
As well as doing the right thing in this climate crisis, Inverallan Church needs these solar panels to provide efficient and cheaper heating.
Better heating makes the building more attractive for use by the community.
The solar panels are also part of the Inverallan 20/20 project ensuring the building has a future without being sold; a future which opens the building up for community use.
The reality is if the Inverallan 20/20 project can’t go ahead, the church could be sold to a private owner.
It is then closed for community access. Worse still is Inverallan Church becoming yet another redundant historic building.
As a local resident with a passion for church buildings, I would therefore encourage our community to pull together (as it has done for the Grantown Medical Centre) and write to the Highland Council Planning Department, as soon as possible, pledging support for this proposal. The application reference numbers are 24/00482/FUL 24/0493/LBC.
Thank you.
Jane Shepherd
TheTownPlanner Ltd
Grantown.
* * *
Warming verses over wooden stoves controversy
One of burning issues this month has been the banning of stoves in new houses or conversions so I have penned this poem in the hope sense will prevail.
We're all aware of global warming,
And the problems that it's bringing,
Saving the Earth's a desperate matter,
But we need heat to keep us living.
Restricting the use of wood burners,
A sad and controversial issue,
For country dwellers a disaster,
Who really need a stove in situ.
Modern stoves are 'eco' friendly,
Their credentials very good,
If you follow the instructions,
And only burn dry, seasoned wood.
It seems that people living in the wilds,
Don't deserve consideration.
The Government has laid down the law,
Without fair explanation.
Power cuts can be a problem,
If you're living out of town,
But alas, if your electric fails,
Heating sources may close down.
A stove will keep you cosy,
No electricity is required,
You might even heat a kettle,
When you come in cold and tired.
I see that it's been mentioned,
They may alter their decision,
Let's hope the Government at last,
Has shown it can have vision
Meanwhile all our politicians,
Serving the rural population,
Perhaps could join together,
And we might be a happy nation.
Barbie Miller
Grantown.
* * *
CO₂ greening is a lucrative sector
It would appear that Dermot Williamson and Kay Caldwell have fallen hook, line and sinker for the statements issued by lucrative climate industry which warned that weather events, such as flooding, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires were increasing in frequency and severity and that this was caused by mankind burning fossil fuels ( Letters 18 April)
However many Independent scientific based reports revealed numerous examples of past extreme weather events that matched or exceeded anything experienced today.
Even the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change has admitted this.
Looks like deliberate scaremongering by the devious green brigade looking to keep their climate funding.
Michael Baird
Bonar Bridge.
* * *
Wrong correspondence
The letter, which appeared in the Strathy issue of April 18, had an incorrect heading and footer that it was signed by 96 people (93 from Badenoch and Strathspey).
They in fact had signed the following letter:
Charles Wardrop asks (Strathy letter, April 11) “Do Strathy readers support the UK and Scottish governments’ present ‘net zero’ policy …?”
“We strongly support the aim for the UK and Scotland to achieve ‘net zero’ by 2050, so as to help save us and the world, its people and ecology, from unbearable global warming.”
The signatories can be viewed at https://www.facebook.com/SustainableStrathspey/.
Dermot Williamson
Kincraig.
* * *
More wasted funds on A9 dualling investigations
Re the Strathy online article ‘Transport Scotland starts moves to dual another section of the A9 Inverness to Perth route’.
All preparatory investigation work has been carried out - in some cases more than once - so why is it necessary to repeat this expensive exercise?
Alan Walker
Calvine.
* * *
Net zero polices create massive cost to society
Here are the key points re mankind's pp opportunities to attempt to influence the climate, now and in the future:
despite contrary assertions in Strathy letters of 18 April, the hypothesis is not proven that manmade greenhouse gases, CO2 etc., released from energy generation using fossil fuels is a major influence on climate.
Nor is decarbonisation supported by any evidence to influence our local or global weather and climate.
The great bulk of the planet's greenhouse gases, more than 75 per cent, are emitted from China, India and very many more nations operating policies dead set against significant decarbonisation.
Accordingly, electricity costs to domestic and industrial consumers in China are one-fifth of those we have to pay.
The monetary costs to the UK of net zero by AD2050 are not accurately quantifiable but a former PM, Theresa May, quoted a sum of at least £3 trillion to £4 trillion.
Details of the pros and cons of the climate questions are argued by distinguished scientists of world renown in the video ‘Climate-the Movie: the Cold Truth’ online. The sun's activity is the true basic controller. Mankind cannot influence that.
Our living world needs more, not less, CO2 which acts as a plant food vital for ‘greening’ the vegetation of the planet.
The physics genius Albert Einstein replied to criticisms of his scientific findings and analyses made by a hundred scientists assembled by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany that if he, Einstein, was in the wrong, the contrary opinion of only one expert would be quite sufficient to nullify his contentions.
National governments are supposed to judge and operate policies most relevant and helpful to the needs of their own nations and people.
Are the UK's present net zero climate policies appropriate for our impoverished and vastly indebted nation?
Many of our people can't afford to keep warm and adequately fed these days. UN net zero policy, of no proven benefit to us or to planet Earth, bids foul finally to ruin us unless it is very soon stopped by repealing the Climate Change Acts.
Is imminent ruination really what we should be risking for the UN-compliant world?
Charles Wardrop
Perth.
Editor’s note: The Strathy will be drawing a line under the exchanges from regular contributors on the climate emergency debate from early May.
* * *
‘No mandate for Conservative’s misery’
Through all the negative machinations emanating from Westminster, Scotland’s social democratic tradition, from 60 years since Winnie Ewing won Hamilton to 25 years of a devolved Scottish parliament, is still thriving.
Tory governments, with no Scottish mandate, have inflicted more than a decade of misery on Scotland and with no hope of change from Labour, exiting a broken Brexit Britain is the only option.
The devolved SNP Holyrood administration has tackled, to the best of its ability, poverty, child and old folks concerns, along with health, housing and education and has given hope to those who feel abandoned.
Against a hostile Unionist media, decades of Westminster lies have been exposed. Confidence has grown in believing that a well endowed Scotland could do so much better as an independent country, in control of all of its many economic assets.
Grant Frazer
Newtonmore.
* * *
Groundhog Day again when it comes to Allt Duine wind farm bid
Having had some involvement in the previous Allt Duine application I received my invitation to the public “consultation” on the proposed Windfarm above Kincraig with a sense of deja vu.
It was interesting and professional, the young staff were charming. No managers were of course present and there was no Q&A.
Hence, whether by design or default, most attendees questions were left unanswered. It was basically an albeit pleasant hearts and minds exercise.
Allt Duine was opposed by 73% of community voters and wide range of national organisations. So what has changed?
The current application involves much higher pylons in a broader and more distant area of wild land, and huge and prolonged traffic disruption for local communities.
Presumably the legal strictures which led to the previous rejection still apply. Why then do the financial beneficiaries, i.e.the estates and developers, now anticipate approval ?
The answer I suspect lies in the politics of power. Given the current absurd cultural restrictions on free speech, criticising wind power is now akin to admitting you don’t like Taylor Swift.
I note one internet warrior suggesting that critics should be regarded as terrorists. So checking for drones here goes:-
Onshore wind farms are a divisive and polarising issue. There are two standard narratives. Advocates argue they are a necessary green technology, create jobs, involve minimum disruption, benefit local communities, will save the planet etc etc.
These were indeed the key themes of the “consultation”/marketing exercise.
Opponents will point to traffic disruption, visual intrusion, increased energy charges, destruction of wild land and carbon sequestering peat bogs etc. and are often wrongly stereotyped as NIMBY’s.
Aspects of both tropes may well be partially correct, but miss the key point.
Over past years the notoriously opaque Scottish Government has promoted and subsidised a wind based energy monoculture which a leading energy academic has described as “one of the greatest follies of our time”.
To my knowledge they have never published a rigorous, independent cost/benefit analysis confirming whether wind farms are actually beneficial to communities, the country, or indeed the planet.
The debate remains political and adverserial. Wind however is a variable resource with many complex downstream consequences, invariably obscured.
All the non controversial locations having been taken, developers are now focusing on highly sensitive and inappropriate sites, of which this application is an example.
Space prevents a fully evidenced argument but the following conclusions on key points are drawn from open source data and referenced submissions to Government Committees.
• Jobs - claims that new jobs are created are overstated. Some short term jobs maybe, but conversley an overall loss across the wider economy.
• Local benefit - again overstated. 80% of developers are foreign based hence a very small contribution to UK GDP.
Local wind farms do not increase local household incomes, are aversive to tourists and damage the tourist economy and reduce house prices.
Community payments are based on output. (i.e 150 MW). Actual output can fall to 10% of potential capacity for prolonged periods. Community payments tend to be around 2% of profit.
• Green credentials - complex due to outsourced or hidden carbon debt. UK carbon emissions have periodically increased since wind power dominance.
Every wind farm requires back up conventional generation, usually gas, (and ocassionally deisel) and substantial carbon releasing infrastructure.
Some analysts assert that onshore farms never pay off their carbon debt. If approved much of the required concrete infrastructure will remain on site in perpetuity.
• Need - the UK produces 1% of global carbon emissions. Current wind capacity provides double the Scottish demand.
Most energy is sold to England. Onshore wind farms increase energy prices for consumers (wind currently rated third out of four on price).
The price of alternative technologies is however on a downward trajectory. Priority given to wind hampers R&D funding of alternative low carbon technologies.
The wind industry continuously overstates power generation levels. Highland Council state that the area is “saturated” by wind farms. There are more in Highland than in England.
There is growing hostility to new wind farms. Scottish Local Authority planning departments are inundated by applications despite a 20% reduction in planning staff since 2011.
The case for the beneficial effects of onshore wind farms seems to be, at the very best, unproven, and can only be robustly evidenced by a systematic independent, analysis, but good luck with that one.
However even a cursory scanning of the news will reveal communities across the Highlands blighted by existing wind farms with others resisting the tide of applications which will transform their rural communities into industrial sites.
Unlike England, the scales are heavily weighted in favour of the resource rich developers and landowners.
We, however, live in what has been described as a virtual “dictatorship”. Having imposed a wind dominated energy monoculture the Scottish Government reserves the final decision (developments over 50 MW) to itself. This is not a level playing field.
Opposing communities cannot fund the legal or technical resources to oppose wholly inappropriate developments.
Other low carbon technologies are available, including offshore wind which is less intrusive but currently more expensive. So why the gold rush onshore?
The answer is of course the vast profits available to landowners and speculative developers, in this case a Dutch pension fund.
Given onshore wind is subsidised by consumers, public money and local communities it is effectively a mechanism by which money can be transferred from the least to the most wealthy sectors of society.
Despite the eco friendly rhetoric, which I am sure is sincere, onshore wind farms are now about profit, not need.
This is not to imply criticism of the four applicant estates or the developers, they are commercial businesses. It is a critique of a bankrupt and dysfunctional planning system.
Only an incurable optimist would believe that this development will not impose a considerable burden and loss of amenity on local communities over an extended time frame.
Construction will require many thousand of journeys by heavy lorries and major remodelling of the M9 and local roads.
It was also openly acknowledged that further developments will follow. It is the thin end of a very large wedge.
The question we all face is do the benefits outweigh the costs? Paradoxically I am not against wind farms per se, only in inappropriate locations, of which this is most certainly one.
We live in a tourist dependent economy already ringed and saturated to the north and west by highly visible windfarm developments.
This further encroachment southwards will ensure that the lodestone, the sense of wildness, which is the principal draw for many visitors and residents, and an income source for local communities is further diminished.
We are killing the Golden Goose.
To sum up. If this proposal sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Now where are my Taylor Swift tickets ?
David Leadbetter
Kincraig.
NOTE: An editing error meant that Mr Leadbetter’s name and address did not appear at the end of this correspondence in thel atest Strathy.
