Size matters

Published on 21/09/2012 00:00

Karen Thorburn, of Wind Prospect Developments, calls Celia Hobbs’ view on the Mount ­Lothian wind turbine proposal “highly subjective” and goes on to quote Sir David Attenborough’s evidence in support of a proposal on the South Downs (Letters , 19 September).

Ms Thorburn’s views are highly selective since she fails to point out that the proposal referred to by Sir David Attenborough was for a single wind turbine of height 67m.

The Wind Prospect Developments’ Mount Lothian proposal is for a phalanx of 12 turbines, each at a height of 105m.

In a leaflet it distributed recently regarding this proposal, there was no mention of the heights of the proposed ­turbines.

Readers might like to know that 105m is about one and a half times the height of the Scott Monument and that the proposed site is at an elevation higher than Arthur’s Seat.

I wonder if Sir David would enjoy the view from the Pentlands Regional Park of a group of 12 stretched Scott Monuments on the skyline.

Readers who have seen the Angel of the North might like to reflect on the fact that the Mount Lothian development would present the viewer with a group of 12 turbines, each of which would be more than five times as high as the Angel at a base height above that of Arthur’s Seat. It is vital that the public is given a sense of size, number and position when coming to a judgment about turbine 
proposals.

Eric Door

Howgate

Midlothian

Karen Thorburn was keen to indicate that Wind Prospect would offer £1.2 million over 25 years as community inducement, in recompense for building Mount Lothian Wind Farm, near Penicuik, and destroying the local environment.

At a meeting with Wind Prospect and five community councils in July, to discuss its inducement, I asked two questions which representatives then ­refused to answer.

How much money will Wind Prospect make over 25 years and how much is it paying the landowner as rent?

My estimates, based on the present value of subsidies and the price of electricity, are 
about £200m and for the landowner, on current rentals, at least £6m but probably nearer £12m, for doing absolutely 
nothing.

Wind Prospect could set a precedent, be transparent and publish its own estimates.

Refusal to do so suggests it is either ashamed to admit them or has something to 
hide.

As for the community ­inducement shared among five, it works out at about 
70p per Penicuik person per year; not even enough to buy 
an ice cream, which surely says it all.

(Prof) Tony Trewavas

Croft Street

Penicuik, Midlothian