SITE FACTS

THE 'MOORSYDE' SITE.

The twee name, dreamt up by developers, is intended to suggest moorland. The 'Moorsyde' site is actually 300 acres of predominantly arable fields on a low-lying plateau of gently rolling farmland about six miles to the south west of Berwick-upon-Tweed.

This small plateau is less than 8 miles wide from east to west and barely 5 miles deep from north to south. It can be seen from the map that we have 3 proposals within a 10 km. grid square. The question we have repeatedly asked the developers, the planners and everybody else is - how, in this small area, can large arrays of massive turbines be accommodated without severely impacting on communities and on tourist businesses which underpin the local economy. Note that 36% of the Berwick Borough’s economy is tourism related, only 7% is agricultural.

Click for a Microsoft Virtual Earth map of the site area. This clearly shows the character of the landscape and the settlements surrounding the site. You can zoom in to an astonishing 50 yd scale.

The site is surrounded by small villages and hamlets, including Shoreswood, Shoresdean, Thornton, East and West Allerdean, North and South Ancroft Moor, Duddo, Felkington, Grievestead, Grindon and Grindon Rigg. Within 2.5 km there are 219 houses, 197 in full-time occupation, the nearest, according to Your Energy's own documents, being ca. 650 metres from turbines. There are also 2 inns and three campsites within 2.5 km.

Your Energy's [YEL's] map clearly illustrates why the twice amended scheme should be re-submitted. The whole balance of the scheme has now shifted to the east, but YEL's map does not show major settlements close to the north, east and south of the site such as East Allerdean, with 18 households.

Nor does it show Duddo Five Stones and Duddo Tower, Scheduled Ancient Monuments that would have their settings seriously affected by the scheme.

Their photomontages are equally uninformative.

Untruths and 'inaccuracies'

The company persist in demonstrably inaccurate claims that, "It can be seen that the Moorsyde site is not compromised by scattered settlements and farm dwellings found throughout the Region." (Addendum, 6.3.13).

Your Energy's MD, Mr Richard Mardon, has stated on BBC Radio Newcastle that there would be no tubines within 1 km. of houses. This is not true: see the company's own map above.

This untruth has been repeated by the gentleman in Darlington who was hired to write the Officer's Report to the Planning Committee in December 2006. He wrote:

"The distance between neighbouring residential properties and the nearest turbine varies between 1km (The Lodge, Felkington and turbine 6) and 1.7km (West Allerdean and turbine 8) with other turbines being an increasing distance further away."

Check the distance to Ancroft South Moor for yourself.

YEL also persist in trying to compare the 'Moorsyde' site area with that of their scheme at Burton Wold in North Northamptonshire, where the local Planning Officer states: "The site does not lie within an area defined as having particular landscape quality." Even though they have repeatedly shown their ignorance of the area, YEL are not totally ignorant of our landscape and its value which finds expression in the Local Plan. However, they persist in misrepresenting planning guidance at regional, county and local levels in their planning application (see our Planning Response page).

The proposed array of 7 turbines would dominate this plateau and views both to the Cheviots and from the National Park as well as skylining views from the Tweed Valley and the Heritage Coast.

No wonder that Scottish Borders Council said of 'Moorsyde': "this site would not be supported were the proposal to be located within the Scottish Borders, primarily by virtue of its landscape character".
(Alistair Lorimer, Assistant Head of Development Control, Scottish Borders Council. Consultation response, 22 February 2005).

The proposed Toft Hill site, which would have 7 x 112 metre (367 ft.) turbines is within 3 km. of the 'Moorsyde' site and, in terms of separation distance, visual and other impacts, amounts to 'Moorsyde II' - an extension of Your Energy's proposal. That is not the end of it. A further proposal at Barmoor, within 4 km. of 'Moorsyde', envisages six 110.5 metre (362 ft.) turbines marching NNW to SSE on the Barmoor ridge.

RES are scoping another 10 x 125m. turbines at Murton and 7 just to the north of Halidon Hill; both are close to Berwick. E.On.UK/Powergen have recently been discovered to be scoping a scheme for 10 turbines ('West Ancroft') close to the eastern boundary of the 'Moorsyde' site.

Further afield, Ridge Wind recently had their application for 10 x 125 metre (410 ft.) turbines at Wandylaw refused (an appeal is expected); this is on the border with Alnwick and immediately adjacent to NPower's application for 18 x 125 metre turbines at Middlemoor. Other developers, such as Nuon Energy, have been sniffing around to the south of the Barmoor proposal (around Horton Moor/Holburn). A site that was being scoped at Moneylaws, close to Mindrum has been recently abandoned. EHN are scoping another site on Bewick Moor, above Chillingham where they have permission for 2 anemometer masts on glorious heather moorland close to ancient hill forts at Ros Castle and Old Bewick. This site is close to the walled park of Chillingham Castle where the unique herd of wild cattle roam. Developers are known to be approaching landowners between Lowick and Scremerston Hill and in the Holburn area, south of Lowick.

While going through the motions of 'consultation', most of these companies are unwilling to enter into any meaningful discussions with local people or their representatives. MAG has repeatedly, and publicly, offered to take part in discussions on siting and capacity, Your Energy Limited has repeatedly shrugged off these approaches and has even been unwilling to honour its promises to organise a visit for local residents to the Crystal Rig wind power station.

At the end of the day, the location of sites and numbers of turbines proposed for them is down to an unholy alliance of speculative developers and a small minority of landowners both of whom are looking to maximise their profits without regard to the landscape, the environment and local communities.

The planners say that all they can do is address each planning application as it happens and on its virtues.

Caught in the middle of this are local people whose businesses, homes and lives are blighted by the prospect of successive applications by developers which will go on for years to come until the politicians and the planning authorities sit down and address these issues. Meanwhile, there are fewer planning controls for huge wind turbine arrays that will scar whole landscapes than there are for Lleylandii hedges or local supermarkets.

At the same time as regional authorities have identified this area as a sacrificial zone for massive power station development, One North East [the regional tourist body] is spending millions of our money on 'raising the profile' of the region as a tourist destination.

Postscript

Everybody is talking of the proposals in this area as being part of 'Northumberland's' wind power generation targets. Of course, power production and consumption does not recognise political boundaries In reality, the power produced, whether carried over the Tweed to be fed into Scottish Power's grid system at Low Cocklaw or fed into substations at Norham or Berwick will form part of the massive over-production of intermittent wind power in the Scottish Borders. To get an idea of the scale of the Klondike windrush in the area, consult our sister site: windbyte.co.uk.

With this very large capacity of intermittent power generation in the Borders, one suspects that the last thing Scottish Power want is yet more from south of the border feeding into their network. You would think that the developers who are creating this problem would be paying for the grid strengthening necessary to handle large amounts of intermittent and unstable power, but, of course, it is the consumer who is footing the bill. Long suffering consumers are already, according to the Audit Commission, paying 33.3% more than is needed in subsidies to 'incentivise' speculative wind power developers who claim that onshore wind is a mature technology that is competitive with unsubsidised thermal generators!

OFGEM has already consented the rise in electricity tariffs necessary for the capital expenditure needed to strengthen the Scottish grid to cope with intermittent generation. Another factor in building turbines that are remote from the end user is that 10% of power per 100 km. is lost in transmission.

The 2005 TNEI Strategic Energy Review (PDF File or HTML format) noted that the Northumberland grid did not have the capacity to handle the projected wind build within the county. Although work is currently underway to upgrade the carrying capacity of the main interconnector that runs through the Milfield Plain, we have yet to see any projections for output and supply management for wind power generation in Northumberland and the Borders. No doubt we will eventually join the Germans and others in building additional conventional power stations to back up intermittent wind power generators and will be 'curtailing' (shutting off) wind power stations when they produce significant amounts of power in order to safeguard the stable operation of the supply system.

---

The Setting

This area offers dramatic views to the Cheviot Hills and the National Park and has views to - and from - the National Park, the Lammermuir Hills, the Tweed Valley, the Kyloe Hills and parts of the Heritage Coast, including Holy Island and Bamburgh.

The 'Moorsyde' array of seven 360 ft. turbines would break nearly every guideline for landscape impact, dominating views over a huge area of North Northumberland and the Borders where the main industry is tourism.

Geology/Mining History

A factor that further undermines the suitability of this site for large structures of any kind is its mining history: it is riddled with old mine workings (the site is on the Scremerston coal measures). There are four coalmines recorded on the site and evidence of much more mining activity over many hundreds of years, most of which has not been mapped or surveyed.
"The available mine abandonment plan indicates most of the site to be underlain by mine workings ..." (Environmental Statement, 8.3.17). The EIA acknowledges that, "the condition of workings and shafts are not recorded and could only be recorded through intrusive investigation" (E.S 8.3.19) Even according to the applicant's original desk study, 10 [of the original 14] turbines might have been at some risk of subsidence or instability. The applicants have not undertaken a proper survey of the ground conditions although it is recommended by the Coal Gazetteer, but propose that the eventual site builder deal with problems as they arise during construction. This might involve 'grouting' (pumping concrete slurry into workings/tunnels) or deep piling.

Hydrology

Nor does the Environmental Statement address the effects of such measures on the aquifer and ground water. The site is on the major source of Berwick's water supply and the Environmental Statement acknowledges that there might be moderate or substantial implications for water quality in pollution by disturbed mine waste, concrete leachates and run off from groundworks during construction using the radical measures outlined above. The ES mentions possible ameliorative measures in the event of such pollution which might involve the deployment of permeable membranes or water treatment plant.

The Tweed (including its tributaries) has been a Site of Special Scientific Interest since 1976 and was formally adopted as Special Area of Conservation on March 17, 2005. The applicants admit this watercourse is highly sensitive to possible effects of accidental pollution and run-offs during construction.

We are aware of plans to build houses near Shoresdean some years ago being abandoned because of the mine workings underlying the site. Looking at the potential problems in constructing a wind turbine array on this site and the potential legal liabilities in damaging water supplies or polluting highly protected watercourses, one wonders why anyone would even consider building massive turbines, each weighing over 200 tonnes, on this site.

Roads & Rights of Way

There are also strong local concerns that the proximity of turbines to the B6354, Berwick to Etal road, will not only be hugely destructive to views of the Cheviots on this popular tourist route and from the A1, but will also distract and endanger drivers. Turbine parks are known to affect passing traffic, with people slowing down or stopping cars to look at turbines.

(Photomontage made with single background image, taken with 6 x 7 cm SLR camera using standard 105mm f/2.4 lens with a 46° angle of view. The 110 metre (360 ft.) turbines are scaled to measured landscape features.)

The B6354 road runs from the middle left to the far ground between the 2 turbines on the right. According to the ES it would pass within 200 metres of turbine 1 [RHS] and 175 metres of turbine 2 [centre right]).

Northumberland County Council sought a discussion about the best and most useful locations for viewpoints to be included in the Environmental Statement, including close to the site where views of the development will be prominent in the view of passing motorists. Such viewpoints are noticeable by their absence in the Environmental Statement. Your Energy and their consultants have consistently sought to avoid examining the impact of the turbines straddling the B6354 on users of that road.

Birds

There are also widespread concerns that the 'moorsyde' development would impact on threatened breeding populations of skylarks, large wintering populations of geese which fly through the site area on a daily basis and which sometimes roost and graze on the site. We also have large numbers of Mute Swans which graze in fields just outside the site boundary and which fly through the proposed site to the estuary at Berwick and the National Nature Reserve at Holy Island.
[See our Birds Page for more information and for wonderful photographs by Laurie Campbell].

The bird surveys in the Environmental Statement used a flawed methodology which were described by the representative of the RSPB who was directly concerned in scoping consultations and site visits as "a snapshot, not a survey". Only 4 visits took place to conduct the Breeding Bird survey and at least 12 species known to be breeding on the site were missed. That is a 20% under-recording.

There are no records of dusk flying birds, suggesting that visits ended before dark. Tawny Owls are present across the site, but are not recorded. Barn owls are very visible on the site, but are not recorded.

Even though the local RSPB representative described the EIA surveys as "flawed", the RSPB have been reluctant to address these criticisms.

Both Northumberland County Council and Berwick Borough Council specifically stated as part of the scoping exercise that the Wintering Bird survey should comprise a number of site visits between early September and late March. In fact the visits that made up the survey took place on 13-14 November 19-20 December 16-17 January and 6-7 February.

Most striking is the gross under-recording of geese and swans. No attempts were made to consult with local organisations or observers. Had this happened, extensive evidence based on records kept over a number of years and personal evidence from a considerable number of people living close to the site indicating large flocks very frequently flying through the area at heights between 50 and 600 feet and also roosting in the area, would have been revealed.

The Environmental Statement records only two flocks of greylag geese, both at great height and the largest being 89 birds! Contemporary local records show flocks of many hundreds of birds flying across the site at varying heights depending on weather conditions at the time. Very large numbers (in the hundreds) of Greylag Geese were also roosting and grazing on the site (in a field next to the anenometer mast) during the period of the survey. They were also frequently to be heard crossing the area at night at low level, when they would be particularly at risk from collision with turbine blades. The Environmental statement admits that geese and swans are particularly vulnerable to turbine strikes.

The RSPB representative has stated, in a response to the ES, that its statement that "RSPB indicated ... they were content with the site being developed as a wind farm" was inaccurate. She further states that "11 of the species that are present on the site ... are on the Birds of Conservation Concern red list. They have been placed on the red list because they are considered to be of high conservation concern ... Therefore, the comments within chapter 9 ... that state that 'The species of concervation concern recorded on the site are all fairly common and widespread species ...' is misleading ...". In a paragraph on wintering birds, she observes that "the bare minimum" had been done to assess the site for the presence of geese and that "information contained in future applications needs to be much more detailed" [!]. She further observes that "This [local] information indicates that geese use the area surrounding the site of the proposed wind far more heavily than the information contained in the ES indicates."

Having mentioned some of the many and crucial inadequacies of the ES bird surveys, the RSPB requires merely that it be done properly "in future applications".

The RSPB have decided - on the basis of flawed and inadequate surveys - that they are not going to object to this application or even ask that properly conducted surveys be undertaken. Which leads us to ask: what is the point of requiring bird surveys if it is not also required that they be properly conducted according to the criteria agreed at the scoping stage? It should also be pointed out that the RSPB have not followed their own guidelines on wind farms:

Environmental assessment
The RSPB insists that wind farm proposals that may affect sensitive bird populations or their habitats are subject to rigorous environmental assessment before development is permitted and that the effects of any approved developments are monitored before and after construction.

We will, and do, object to specific wind farm proposals where there is an inadequate environmental assessment, where the assessment reveals potential environmental problems that cannot be mitigated, or where there is insufficient knowledge about the threat to sensitive bird populations or their habitats to conclude that there will not be a problem.

RSPB - Windfarms

THE STORY SO FAR

2002-2004. Canadian power company ATCO scope a windpower proposal on the 'Moorsyde' site and commission Jacobs Babtie to undertake the environmental impact work for the proposal.

July 2004. ATCO abandon the proposal after doing nearly all the assessment work. The scheme is hawked around the wind industry before being bought at a knock-down price by Your Energy Ltd., a small, struggling, speculative development company with only 1 scheme for 4 turbines on Orkney consented in 3 years of activity (and immediately sold on).

18 October 2004. A few people in the parishes of Ancroft, Duddo and Shoreswood, some 6 miles to the south of Berwick-upon-Tweed, receive a letter from Your Energy Ltd. dated 15 November, 2004. Headed 'Announcement of plans for the Moorsyde Wind Farm', this letter informs the lucky few who receive it that the company intend holding an exhibition at a local pub on 21 October, regarding their plans for the construction of 14 110 metre (360 ft.) turbines on a 300 acre site on arable farmland surrounded by the communities of Shoresdean, Shoreswood, Ancroft, Duddo, Felkington, Grindon and Grievestead. This, prior to "sharing our plans to engage the local interested parties, before submitting a planning application to Burton-Upon-Tweed Borough Council [sic]".

21 October, 2004. On the day of the exhibition, a solitary, small advertisement appears on an inside page of the Berwick Advertiser. This is the first that most local people have heard of the exhibition, the scheme or, indeed, of 'Moorsyde' or Your Energy. Happily, two of the few people who receive the letter use their three days notice to investigate some of the highly questionable statements that are contained in the company's brochure and attend the exhibition to represent the "local interested parties" that Your Energy have, ever since, done their best to sideline.

10 November 2004. Well over a hundred local people attend a public meeting at Shoresdean Village Hall to discuss the proposed 'Moorsyde' wind power station. Moorsyde Action Group established to represent local communities. Steering Committee of 10 local people formally elected.

October-December 2004. Your Energy appears to be in financial trouble; nearly all its directors "resign".

December 2004 Your Energy Ltd. announces a 'restructuring'. It is taken over by Mistral Invest, its major financial stakeholder.

January 2005. Your Energy Ltd. submit the 'Moorsyde' planning application for to Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council. It is for 14 turbines, anemometry mast, substation and infrastructure.

March 2005. MAG submits a detailed response to Your Energy's Environmental Statement, the key document in the planning application. (Available on the Planning Response page).

Spring 2005.Berwick Borough Council commission environmental consultants Ironside Farrar to undertake an independant audit of the 'Moorsyde' Environmental Statement and other documents relating to the application.

Summer 2005. NPower Renewables announce a proposal for an array of twelve 125 metre (410 ft.) turbines on the Toft Hill site which is within 3 km (2 miles) of 'Moorsyde' in April 2005. This is so close to the 'Moorsyde' site that it has to be regarded as an extension of Your Energy's flawed proposal.

October, 2005. Catamount Energy/Force 9 Energy announced a proposal for an array of ten 110.5 metre (362 ft.) turbines on the Barmoor/Brackenside site which is within 4 km (2.5 miles) of 'Moorsyde'. As with Toft Hill, this is so close to the 'Moorsyde' site that it has to be regarded as an extension of Your Energy's proposal.

November 2005. Ironside Farrar produce their independent Audit Report on the 'Moorsyde' Environmental Statement. This report repeats nearly all the criticisms levelled at the ES by MAG. (Audit Report is available as a download from the Downloads Page).

March 2006. Your Energy Ltd. submit an 'Addendum Report', responding to the many criticisms of the 'Moorsyde' Environmental Statement in the Ironside Farrar Audit Report. It offers some additional suvey work on Bats and Newts that had been recommended by the county Ecologist in the original scoping documents. It also provides a few additional photomontages, though still avoids providing any that show key views to the Cheviots or from the settlements to the north of the site.

March 2006. Catamount/Force 9 Energy submits a planning application for the Barmoor proposal.

May 2006. MAG submits a response to Your Energy's Addendum Report. (see our Planning Response page).

Summer 2006. Berwick Borough Council commission consultants Ferguson McIlveen to undertake an independent visual impact appraisal of the 'Moorsyde' proposal, as the applicants had clearly failed to address many of the key points raised in the Ironside Farrar Audit report. This is expected to be delivered by November 2006.

July 2006. Your Energy undertake a Borough-wide mailshot (8,300 leaflets) with a 'Community Update' and freepost card with a 3-step questionnaire designed to elicit overwhelming support from the 'silent majority' for their scheme (they do the same on the Isle of Wight).
This dodge misfires badly when they are discovered by MAG to have simultaneously prepared a revision of the proposal that isn't mentioned in the flier. Mysteriously, there is no press announcement regarding 'overwhelming support' (as on the Isle of Wight).

31 July 2006. Your Energy announce that they are cutting 4 turbines from the proposal and relocating another. This is in response to criticism from the County Archeologist regarding the impact of the scheme on Duddo Five Stones a Scheduled Ancient Monument. YEL continue to ignore the impacts of their scheme on Duddo Tower, another SAM.

October, 2006. The North East Assembly report that Berwick Borough Council have signed up to the wind capacity study by Ove Arup in the Alnwick and Berwick 'W' areas of 'least constraint' identified in the Regional Spatial Strategy. This study was originally commissioned by the North East Regional Assembly to refine issues of carrying capacity and cumulation by intensive GIS and landscape assessment techniques.
This study is expected to report in February 2006 and is expected to become a major element in informing decisions on wind proposals.

November 2006. NPower submit a planning application for seven 112 metre turbines on the Toft Hill site

December 2006. Borough announces that the 'Moorsyde' application will be determined on 12 December 2006. The Darlington consultant who authors the outsourced Officer's Report recommends approval. Most people who are familiar with the application are hugely surprised at this recommendation, especially in the light of the many and serious criticisms of the 'Moorsyde' Environmental Statement made by independent auditors, Ironside Farrar, and the failure of the applicants to address these issues in their Addendum. There is also a justified concern that the scheme would be decided without the benefit of the Arup Report and without adequate information on visual impacts, capacity and cumulation. This is subsequently shown to be the case, as the applicants are forced to further reduce their scheme (see September 13 2007) post Arup.
There is considerable suspicion that this recommendation is not unconnected with the Borough's financial problems, its failure to meet planning targets and the knowledge that the developer could take the application to appeal for non determination and seek costs.

12 December 2006. Borough defers decision on the 'Moorsyde' application for one month. Responding to representations made by MAG and our lawyers regarding the adequacy of the information provided to councillors and the correctness of the procedure being followed.

21 December 2006. Your Energy announce a consultation on 'supplementary information' provided in connection with a revision of the application in July 2006. Contrary to assertions by YEL, most of this information has not been made available to statutory consultees or the public until this time.

16 January 2007. On legal advice, Berwick Borough's Planning Committee decide not to discuss a Councillor's motion to postpone all decisions on wind farm planning applications until the local stage of the award winning Arup 'Wind Farm Development Study' reports in February.

17 January 2007. Borough announce that 'Moorsyde' determination will go ahead at a special planning meeting on 6 February 2007, without benefit of Arup which is due to report at the end of February 2007.

26 January 2007. Borough announce that they have taken Counsel's advice and that the 'Moorsyde' determination will be deferred again for an unspecified period. They state that they will commission work on cumulation, even though Arup are understood to be covering this subject and have offered to extend their work to deal more extensively with this issue.

20 June 2007. Ove Arup and Partners Ltd. 'Wind Farm Development and Landscape Capacity Studies: South and West Berwick upon Tweed (May 2007)'. Published by the North East Assembly (download link).

August 2006. MAG submits a response to the Berwick Arup Report. (see our Planning Response page).

3 September 2007. Scott Wilson, 'Moorsyde Wind Farm - Addendum: Issue Report. (August 2007)' published by Berwick Borough Council. Scott Wilson also publish reports on Barmoor and Toft Hill. These latter reports are more coherent and of better quality than the 'Moorsyde' version.
The 'Moorsyde' report is a discursive review of Arup and other work; not a cumulative impact assessment in any known sense of the term, though that is what MAG was told that Scott Wilson were going to produce after the Borough's consultation with Counsel in January 2007. It is supposed to taken in conjunction with the Ferguson McIlveen Report ('FerMac') which in turn is supposed to build on Ironside Farrar's independent Audit Report on the Moorsyde Environmental Statement (though this vital study has been consistantly ignored by the Council's detached Case Officer while trumpeting his endorsement of 'FerMac'). The 'FerMac' report is actually in conflict with Ironside Farrar's Report, while claiming to endorse its findings and has been largely disowned by its authors in correspondence with the Borough.
All the Scott Wilson reports build substantially on Arup's work, and are the result of discussions between the developers and Berwick Borough Council's consultants.
1. Ironside Farrar. 'Moorsyde Windfarm ES Audit Report, Final Draft (November 2005)'.(Word doc.)
2. 'Fermac' Report, 'Final Report' (March 2007). (PDF file).

13 September 2007. Your Energy advertise a further reduction in the size of the scheme, to 7 turbines, though this is still at variance with Arup's findings.

10 October 2007. MAG submits an objection to Your Energy's 13 September 2007 amendment to the 'Moorsyde' proposal.(See Planning Response Page).

21 November 2007. YEL submit some supplementary information that purports to present more information on noise, power output and potential savings in climate change gases relating to the revision of the 'Moorsyde' application of 13 September 2007.

7 December 2007. MAG submits ‘Observations on the Ferguson McIlveen’s ‘Moorsyde wind farm planning and visual impact appraisal; March 2007’ and Scott Wilson’s ‘Moorsyde wind farm addendum; August 2007.’ (See Planning Response Page).

21 December 2007. MAG submits a response to the supplementary information from Your Energy Ltd. (See Planning Response Page).

13 January, 2008. An expert assessment of the ‘Moorsyde’ noise modelling and associated noise information by consultant Dick Bowdler of New Acoustics Ltd. submitted to the Borough. Commissioned on the instructions of Ms T Faiers and Mr R Watson of Ancroft Southmoor Farm,
(Available as a PDF download.)

MOORSYDE ACTION GROUP (MAG)

Is an unincorporated community group formed at a public meeting of local residents held on 10th November 2004 (See Archive page). The overall aim of MAG is to represent the local community and act as the principal community response group to wind farm development proposals in the local area.

AIMS & OBJECTIVES

MAG is not against wind power generation.  We are against the unplanned, opportunist siting of massive turbine arrays in inappropriate locations which results from the unholy alliance of speculative developers and a small minority of landowners both of whom are looking to maximise their profits without regard to the landscape, the environment and local communities.

MAG opposes any proposal to build a large wind turbine array on the so-called 'Moorsyde' site on the following grounds: landscape impact; excessive size, number and density of turbines; proximity to housing, roads and rights of way; adverse environmental impact; inadequate consultation with local communities.

MAG will call upon the competent authorities to reject any planning application by Moorsyde Wind Farm Ltd., or any other entity, to build a large turbine array on this site.

MAG will oppose any other proposal in the area that we consider has the same negative impacts as the 'Moorsyde' proposal.

OBJECTION!