Neodymium - hard to find, horribly polluting, essential to wind turbines:
Thursday, 19 April 2012
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
UK in bird mortality whitewash....
The propaganda is out there - but people are beginning to do the scientific work, hopefully before it's too late:
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
Group opposes Bronte moors turbines
Group opposes Bronte moors turbines
Thornton Moor Windfarm Action Group hopes to convince councillors
to ditch plans to install four wind turbines on the Bronte landscape
Campaigners against a plan to build giant wind turbines on moors associated with the Bronte sisters are making a final attempt to convince councillors and planners to ditch the proposal.
People living close to Thornton Moor, west of Bradford, are hoping to stop the development in its tracks at a meeting next week. The moor is a couple of miles from the famous parsonage at Haworth where the Bronte sisters and their family lived, and which is now preserved as a museum.
Experts say their work - including Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights - was heavily influenced by the moorland landscape of the area. The Bronte Way footpath also runs straight across Thornton Moor.
Developers want to build four turbines next to the route of the footpath. Councillors are due to meet on Wednesday to decide whether to allow the first stage of the plan - a 200ft high wind monitoring mast.
Anthea Orchard, who lives in nearby Denholm Gate and chairs the Thornton Moor Windfarm Action Group, said the Bronte connection is only part of their objection.
She said: "It's too close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and it's too close to other important sites. It's also too close to many houses in the area. Quite simply, the site is totally inappropriate and we're determined to fight it."
Monday, 16 April 2012
And good to see that at least one of our local representatives is prepared to stand up against the 'turbanisation' of our landscape...Mike Scott-Hayward, who has represented the East Neuk area for some time, and is standing again in the forthcoming local elections, has released this video in which he outlines his position on Wind Farms and turbines.
Even the Power Industry is beginning to speak out...Sir Donald Millar was the Chairman of Scottish Power from 1982 - 92, and recently wrote to Alec Salmond about Scotland's energy policy.
09 March 2011
The Right Hon Alec Salmond
It is I believe becoming clear to a rapidly increasing number of voters in Scotland that the Scottish Government’s concentration on so called renewable energy sources to the exclusion of more reliable and economic sources, such as nuclear, is little short of disastrous. Let us look at the facts:-
1. No wind or marine energy sources can be relied on to provide power when it is needed- the only time when electricity is of any value.
2. Wind and marine need nearly 100% back up from conventional generators. Therefore any expenditure on these is additional to ‘normal’ capital required to secure our electricity supplies.
3. Output from wind turbines varies rapidly, not just locally but nationally, so that conventional back up generation is required to run inefficiently at part load, incurring further costs for the consumer.
4. Wind and wave are such extremely low density sources of energy that costs will always be high and no amount of development will alter this significantly.
5. The cost of onshore wind to the consumer is some £200/MWhr taking into account the ROC subsidy, back up generation and additional transmission costs. This is over four times the cost of energy from conventional or nuclear sources. The cost of off-shore wind is even higher at over £250/MWhr.
6. The claim that Scotland has vast resources of marine energy is based on a failure to appreciate the physics. The actual potential is readily assessed by normal engineering criteria (as in studies by Consulting Engineers Black and Veatch for The Carbon Trust and Robert Gordons University). These show that the total tidal current resource of UK waters from the Pentland Firth to the Channel Isles, neglecting costs and practical limitations such as interference with shipping and fishing and impossibility of servicing such a plethora of installations, would amount to no more than 2.5% to 5% of UK electricity requirements.
7. The costs of tidal energy to the consumer will be significantly higher than offshore wind, even after taking credit for possible developments. Wave energy will be even more costly.
8. Other low carbon technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage are unproven on the scale envisaged, requiring long term sequestration of some 200millions tons of CO2 per year from the UK alone. Taken together with the 25% loss in efficiency of generation, energy costs would more than double.
9. Ofgem has estimated that the UK Government’s energy policy will result in a doubling of electricity prices to consumers within 15 years. The much higher renewable targets of the Scottish Government would, on a stand alone basis, result in even higher prices.
10. The CEO of National Grid in a lecture to the Royal Academy of Engineering in March 2011 stated that the effect of present energy policies would be that the era of having electricity on demand in the UK was coming to an end. The UK Government estimates there is a high risk of power cuts within five years.
11. High energy prices based on subsidies are certain to have an extremely damaging effect on the Scottish Economy as recently quantified in the Verso Economics Report using the Scottish Governments’ own economic model for the Scottish economy. The loss of jobs will far outweigh the few gains, most of which will be of low to medium quality, from renewable installations.
12. Already there has been very significant damage to Scotland’s environment- the massive installation at Doune dominating the route North from Glasgow is a case in point- with consequent loss to one of its greatest assets, the tourist industry. The value of tourism to the Scottish economy is put at £4.2bn a year, far in excess of the value of all the energy produced from wind farms even with the Scottish 80% target for renewables.
13. Prior to privatisation Scotland, with six commercial reactors, produced over 60% of its electricity from nuclear and had a thriving and profitable export trade to England. As a result Scotland benefited from having one of the lowest electricity prices in Europe and this after proper allowances for all the costs involved including waste disposal and decommissioning. Unlike the present energy regime there was no element of subsidy. As distinct from other low carbon generation, nuclear is a tried and tested technology of which we have had excellent experience now for over 50 years. Supplies of nuclear fuel are secure and the cost of energy to consumers from a new generation of reactors would be less than a quarter of that from wind and marine sources.
14. The well being of a modern economy is based on a reliable and economic supply of electricity and will be even more so in future as transport becomes increasingly electrified. If one wanted to go down in history as the politician who did most to damage Scotland’s economy it would be difficult to think of a more effective route than the present energy policy.
15. It is not too late to have a rational and balanced energy policy- but it soon will be. We have only a small window of opportunity- let us grasp it before it is too late.
Sir Donald Miller. F Eng. FRSE.
Chairman, Scottish Power 1982-92.
Is Mr Salmond listening...?
Turbine Transportation...With all the focus on the effect of the turbines once they are actually up on site, no one is really looking at the difficulties and disruption that these things might create on our roads, as the parts are transported in. They have difficulties even in those countries that have lots of space, as this video below shows, but imagine the problems that trying to get these enormous component parts through our little country roads and the medieval town of St Andrews is going to create...
Some of the problems caused by Wind Turbines...
It is very difficult to envisage the reality of living near to a Wind Turbine of any size until you actually have to do it. This short video gives an idea of some of the difficulties experienced by those that already have to endure the reality on a daily basis.
Is this what we would impose on our neighbours?
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Cameron Community Council Speaks Out...
SUBMISSION FROM CAMERON COMMUNITY COUNCIL
Cameron Community Council welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Parliamentary Inquiry. We support appropriate renewable energy and economically accessible reductions in CO2 emissions. Like the Renewable Energy Foundation we believe that, for renewable energy to continue to attract widespread public support, these targets need to be achieved without increasing fuel poverty and without creating unnecessary tensions between the several responsibilities of your committee. We also feel small community councils in wind development hotspots are ill-equipped to deal with the applications and attendant community benefit offers and fear that as they struggle to do so, community cohesion and local democracy are being damaged.
1. The main impact on Community Councils (CCs) of the 2020 Renewables Targets comes largely from the enormous increase in planning applications for onshore wind turbines of all scales from wind farm developer proposals to feed in tariff inspired proposals from landowners and other developers. They are ill served by government at both national and local levels. Training, information and support including funding for CC members are wholly inadequate to cope with the challenges which these applications present. Moreover the CC system, which does its best, is not designed to deal with the complex and contentious questions from local communities which arise from wind farm applications.
2. Rural communities divide between the agricultural industry who work the land and see renewables as an opportunity to provide additional income, local people whose families have lived there for generations and newcomers who see the landscape as a valued amenity resource to be enjoyed, and amongst these are some who have a quasi-global view and the values of these groups or factions as they sometimes become do not overlap. They cannot talk to each other in mutually comprehensible terms but understandably the values are strongly held and lead to strong reactions. The John Muir Trust has spoken of the divisive nature of the current dash for wind – and CCs are on the front line, caught between the diverse interests of these groups.
3. In wards adjacent to Cameron, wind development and community benefit have produced so much conflict that one ward continues to lack enough volunteers to form a CC following extensive acrimony over a local turbine application. In another ward all the CC members "retired" en masse amid official complaints and allegations of backroom dealing with a wind developer. In a third the CC is also mired in official complaints to Fife Council and hopelessly split because of a significant overlap in membership between the CC and board members of a local development trust which is intent on courting wind developers for community benefit. CCs are subject to next to no monitoring or regulation by Fife Council – there is a great deal of very sensible guidance and advice in Fife Council's 'Scheme for Community Councils' but little is statutory. Fife Council officers and elected members tend to stay out of CC business, especially where it concerns controversial issues like turbine applications. There are no agreed or consistent procedures for how a CC should determine its response to a given planning application, and this can vary even within a CC according to how the majority of CC members "feels" about a particular application. Experience with wind applications shows how the operation of CCs relies too much on the good sense of its Chairman and members, and too little on properly agreed and followed procedure.
4. Small CCs have a duty to represent their residents and attend to their interests at a local level. They are remitted to discuss problems such as litter, hedgerows or potholes. They are manned by volunteers with a variety of backgrounds and qualifications and often only meet every two or even three months. They have no income to engage professional help or advice. Small CCs in hotspots for wind turbine development, as in east Fife, do their best within the human and financial resources available to them to frame considered and informed responses on behalf of their communities.
5. The great increase in smaller (up to 50 metre) turbine applications (often by farmers) has required CCs to call extra meetings to discuss these. The recently introduced system whereby (at least in Fife) CCs are no longer automatically considered to be statutory consultees on planning applications affecting their area means they must now request formally to be considered as a statutory consultee for a particular planning application. They are then constrained to respond to the application within 14 days (with extensions beyond 14 days not usually possible) and this has made it much harder for CCs to respond to planning applications. Sometimes they miss responding to important applications altogether and often there is just not enough time to gather and process the information on an application in order to hold an informed discussion with the community in a CC meeting. It seems unfair that applicants and their agents can spend years or months preparing their applications and the only organisation representing the local community has a time frame of four weeks at most for the biggest applications. The elected members who represent the community at a higher level of course have to stand on the side lines until they determine the application.
6. The complex environmental information for applications for the industrial scale wind developments run to hundreds of pages. Paper copies are only available at considerable cost so the material has to be accessed on-line. Accessing the planning application information is impossible for people who do not use the internet, and not all Members of CCs, let alone all members of a community who would like to express a view, use the internet. Given the average age profile of CC Members (and regular attendees of CC meetings), this is not surprising. It is a constant complaint that non-internet-users are discriminated against and excluded from the decision-making process by the lack of affordable paper copies.
7. The difficulties experienced by CCs in Fife appear to reflect those experienced by Fife Council where the planning department that should have the appropriate expertise is deluged by applications that are always complicated and occasionally misleading, incomplete or wrong. Applicants rarely supply all the information asked for in Fife Council's Supplementary Guidance for Wind June 2011 (SPG), particularly with regard to individual and cumulative impacts. For many months, elected members of Fife Council have been requesting an up-to- date map showing all the proposed and consented applications for turbines in Fife. This is vital in assessing cumulative impact. If elected members struggle with the lack of information when they have to make a decision, how are CCs supposed to manage, especially when they are asked for a response very early on in the application process (sometimes developers respond to requests for further information from planning officers but by then the opportunity for a CC response has passed)?
8. Policies have been set at national and local levels. However, many of these are vague and hard for ordinary voters to understand. For example, the 2km setback for turbines in Scottish Planning Policy and adopted in Fife SPG seems to be something that planners can apply or not at will. We appear to be on the brink of the same “discretionary” approach with Fife Council‟s SPG. Here policies that seem clear to the man-in-the-street can seem like just another argument to be obfuscated or discarded under pressure from applicants. This does not serve local democracy well. The policy of wind energy is perceived to be imposed from above, with local opinion as "disposable".
9. At Cameron we decided that our residents should at least have some background to the debate and arranged a series of talks about renewable and in particular wind energy. It is an example of how uncontrollable the debate is (with competing, well-resourced applicants and pressure groups of all opinions) that one of these “Is Wind the Answer?” became a national news item. At least we have been able to take a poll of an informed community in formulating our response to a local application.
10. Beyond the planning issues that the CC is drawn into, there is also the question of community benefit. This divides individual communities as much as the principle of wind energy. As wind developments often cross CC boundaries, and community benefit is proposed by an applicant sometimes before an application is lodged, competing interests can lead to inter-CC strife where there can be an air of competition over who gets what and how much. This can set CCs against one another as approaches to both negotiating and allocating benefit differ. We believe that benefit should be negotiated, and the structures for allocating it be established, AFTER consent. Thus the „bribery‟ charge is avoided and the issues of community benefit cannot be seen to influence the planning and decision-making process. This gap in direction/support is another indicator of how local communities, left open to potential exploitation by market forces, are ill served by the political forces – which many perceive as favouring big companies over small communities. Perhaps there should be legislation at a national level to provide a detailed framework for community benefit.
11. We do not believe that the Scottish Ministers have made adequate efforts to understand the concerns of people living in rural and semi-rural communities and the CCs that represent them. Targets and subsidies drive the market and these are massive forces. By relying on the market and incentivizing those who want to erect wind turbines to force the pace, it has left local communities feeling disenfranchised and disconnected from the processes that shape their lives.
Gordon Ball Chair, Cameron Community Council 12 April 2012
The Legal Fun and Games Continue....There has been at least one prominent case of turbine developers being sued in the UK, by a couple in Lincolnshire. That was settled for an undisclosed sum out of court. But in America, the legal quagmire that wind development has brought with it has been going on for some time, and looks set to continue for many years to come...
Twenty More Clearview Neighbours Join Forces to Support Legal Action against Wind ProjectNo longer is the recent Wiggins legal action against WPD’s proposed Fairview wind development and the turbine lease holder Beattie Brothers Ltd. a David vs. Goliath challenge.
As a result of multiple meetings held in Collingwood with Eric Gillespie, lawyer for John and Sylvia Wiggins in their initial turbine lawsuit, twenty (20) more local Clearview landowners have become participants in two separate collective actions opposing the wind proposal. The claims are for alleged property devaluation and loss of use and enjoyment of the plaintiffs’ lands. (Our emphasis)
The first group is comprised of fifteen (15) additional landowners who are now also proposed plaintiffs in the Wiggins action, brought against WPD and Beattie Bros Ltd. for lands north of Highway 91, who intend to host six (6) turbines. A second action has also been started to the south, brought by five (5) more landowners in a lawsuit against WPD and another Beattie family, Ed Beattie & Son Ltd, who intend to host two (2) turbines.
According to John Wiggins, "All of these landowners near the proposed wind turbine development are clearly upset that 50 storey turbines are being foisted on them arbitrarily. These groups are establishing a model that other groups across Ontario will now be able to follow. A snowball effect that wind companies, landowners and the Ontario government should take note of."
Lawyer Eric Gillespie states, "The landowners who signed contracts to host wind turbines on their lands are being held liable, as well as the wind developers. These claims are based on established legal principles and there appears to be precedent for these claims in Ontario."
A vision of things to come...?
Published in the SUNDAY TIMES today:
Energy minister vows: ‘No more Wind Farms’
Isabel Oakeshott, Political Editor Published: 15 April 2012
BRITAIN does not need more onshore wind farms, according to the climate change minister.
In what will be seen as a shift in strategy, Greg Barker has declared there will be no significant expansion in the number of turbines on land beyond those already in the pipeline.
The move comes five months after his department unveiled plans for up to 10,000 extra onshore turbines, prompting an outcry among Tory MPs.
More than 100 Conservative backbenchers wrote to the prime minister labelling onshore wind “inefficient” and attacking the scale of government subsidies to the industry.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Barker claimed the Department of Energy and Climate Change had adopted an “unbalanced” approach to wind farms in the past and must now look at other options.
“Far from wanting thousands more, actually for most of the wind we need . . . they are either built, being developed, or in planning. The notion that there’s some spectre of a new wave of wind [farms] is somewhat exaggerated,” he said.
The former energy secretary, Chris Huhne, was an enthusiastic proponent of wind power, publishing a report last December which called for up to 32,000 new wind turbines, 10,000 of which could be onshore. There are now about 3,000 onshore turbines, with a few hundred offshore. The plan would have transformed Britain’s wildest landscapes, alarming local MPs. Huhne’s resignation in February appears to have paved the way for a retreat.
Barker dismissed the 10,000 figure, saying: “It’s about being balanced and sensible. We inherited a policy from the last government which was unbalanced in favour of onshore wind.”
He wants a focus on offshore farms and admitted some onshore locations had been misguided. “There have been some installations in insensitive or unsuitable locations — too close to houses, or in an area of outstanding natural beauty.”
Last week Barker announced new details of the government’s “green deal”, a scheme to make homes more energy efficient. Under the programme, householders will be able to invest in energy-efficient installations, such as double glazing and underfloor heating, without having to pay upfront.
Barker said the economic downturn had forced the government to change its approach to green issues to deliver better value for money.
“There is a requirement to rethink the economics of green. We have to have a more nuanced and sophisticated policy. Basically, that means reducing costs quicker, looking to commercialise sooner, and thinking more carefully about the use of public subsidy."
Can we regard this as the beginning of a new policy from the government with regard to on-shore wind turbines? Or is this just to try and quieten the opposition before the local elections?
Friday, 13 April 2012
Others Voices in the Wind....
A humorous but deadly serious post from an award winning - and challenging - science blog:
...and the beautifully designed and thought-provoking site of a group trying to protect the Shotteswell/Hanwell Valley - we wish them luck in their action to preserve their environment from the kind of ill-considered plans with which we are only too familiar:
Community Benefit - The New Going Rate?
West Coast Energy, the developer at Lingo Wind Farm on the East Neuk Coastal Ridge, have significantly upped the amount of Community Benefit they are prepared to pay to the Strathairn and Strathdean communities, along with the new University of the Highlands and Islands, in order to try and gain community approval for their plans for yet another wind farm at Daviot.
The 'going rate' for Community Benefit used to be £5,000 per megawatt of installed power, but in the Highlands, WCE have agreed to pay twice that - £10,000 per megawatt of installed power. Why? Could it be that WCE know that the end is in sight for the installation of large-scale wind, and that communities are not prepared to be bought off so cheaply? Or are they just feeling very generous...? And, will they be increasing their Community Benefit offer here in North East Fife in order to try and 'sweeten' the deal at Lingo?
The next meeting of the Lingo Community Benefit Forum is on April 25th - we'll bring you news of any developments as they come in.
Thursday, 12 April 2012
Fife Wind Targets Now Fulfilled?
This article, in the Courier at the beginning of March, concerns the targets in Fife. According to this report, Fife have already hit the mark with regards to wind. Robin Presswood, the Business & Strategy Manager at Fife Council, says that by 2014, all the projects that currently have planning permission will produce enough electricity to power all the homes in Fife. It begs the question, 'Why do we need any more wind turbines here when we have been able to hit the targets through biomass and other means?'
Surely it's time for the politicians to call a halt?
Wednesday, 11 April 2012
Unscheduled Meetings...Fife council has scheduled an extra planning meeting for the North East Fife Planning Committee next Wednesday 18th April, 9.30am at Elmwood College in Cupar. There will be two turbine applications considered at this meeting that we have been concerned about at SCALE -
Higham Farm - 2 turbines of 112ft (Planning Ref. 11/05331/FULL)
North Cassingray Farm - 1 turbine of 112ft (Planning Ref. 11/06388/FULL)Further details on these proposals are on Fife Council web site (see details below), and if you want to object to either, you can still do so, as Fife Council will accept objections up until the day before the proposals go to the committee for decision. However, if you are unable to submit your objection via the website, then you can e-mail them directly to the Committee Councillors as follows:-
email@example.com. and firstname.lastname@example.org
You must write your letter of objection and save it as a PDF before sending it as an attachment to the above e-mail addresses...
Send a copy of it to the following Councillors...
...and it's always useful to send a copy to the following politicians while you're at it!
We'll let you know the outcome as soon as we know the result...
When returning from holiday it's always good to find mail in your in-box, and we found a couple of interesting mails from members of the local community that, in the interests of openess, we thought we ought to share....
When returning from holiday it's always good to find mail in your in-box, and we found a couple of interesting mails from members of the local community that, in the interests of openess, we thought we ought to share....
Firstly, from Mr Rogers, Chair of the CDT
Some members of the CDT would like an oportunity to meet with members of SCALE. If you would like to let me have some dates, I shall see if I can set up the meeting
Dear Mr Rogers,
Thank you for your email.
We can see no reason to comply with the request you make on behalf of some of your members for a meeting.
Yours sincerelySCALE blog editor
And secondly, from Mr Anstruther, the owner of North Baldutho Farm, where there is currently an application for two 95 ft turbines to be considered by Fife Council.
Good morning S.C.A.L.E,
two things: firstly, can I join? I recognise the importance of the landscape around Carnbee & Arncroach and I am always keen to engage with residents (I assume you are a resident of the Community Council area) about it. I assume your group is open to all and I would be very grateful if you could let me know how I can become a member.
Secondly, glad to see you championing democracy. one of the key foundations for it is transparency. Please could you let me know your thinking behind anonymity? It doesn’t seem to fit with your principled stance on local democracy ... or have I got that wrong? It would be good to ensure that your views are reflected in the discussions at the Community Council. It will be entirely up to the Council, but I can see fairly fundamental difficulties with the principle of reflecting the views of an anonymous group of unknown size or provenance? Do you agree?
Dear Mr Anstruther,
Thank you for your email.
We are a group of volunteers, trying to protect the landscape and environment we love.
Members have every right to remain anonymous if they wish and they do not have to give a reason to do so. Given the tight nexus of family, business, landlord-tenant and social relationships which connect people in this area, and the conflict which wind has already caused in the community, it does not take a great leap of imagination to understand why individuals might wish to remain anonymous.
We appreciate your concern for democracy and transparency, but suggest that it would be better directed at the CDT - which is lacking in both these qualities, and which through your factor you are in a position to influence. Similarly the overlap between the CDT and the CC has consistently compromised the latter’s ability to function as a fair and neutral conduit for community views.
While membership of SCALE is open to all, members are expected genuinely to want to preserve and enhance the landscape and environment.You may of course write to us with your reasons why industrial wind development is landscape enhancing and we will consider these reasons.
Yours sincerelySCALE blog editor
We will of course, keep you up to date with any further correspondence we receive from these sources...
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
Turbine Objections Update...
How to Object:
After the Easter break, here is an update on the number of objections that each application on the East Neuk Ridge currently has on record at Fife Council.
Higham Farm - 2 turbines of 112ft (Planning Ref. 11/05331/FULL)16 Objections
North Cassingray Farm - 1 turbine of 112ft (Planning Ref. 11/06388/FULL)16 Objections
South Cassingray Farm - 2 turbines of 325ft (Planning Ref. 10/02616/FULL)Appeal being considered by Scottish Executive
North Baldutho Farm - 2 turbines of 95ft (Planning Ref. 11/01314/FULL)7 Objections
South Baldutho Farm - 2 turbines of 150ft and 152ft (Planning Refs. 11/04749/FULL &11/04748/FULL)128 and 131 Objections respectively
Belliston Quarry - 1 turbine of 304ft (Planning Ref. 11/01449/SCR & 11/03580/SCO)Full Application not yet submitted to Fife Council
Lingo & South Kinaldy Farms - 5 turbines of 325ft (Planning Ref. 12/00129/EIA)219 Objections
Pittarthie Farm - 2 turbines of 286ft (Planning Ref, 11/00135/SCR & 11/00180/SCR)Full Application not yet submitted to Fife Council
Balhouffie Farm - 1 turbine of 112ftApplication Granted
Drumrack, Bonerbo and Balmonth Farms - 3 turbines of 218ft (Planning Ref. 12/00482/FULL)22 Objections
Kenly Farm (University Site) - 6 turbines of 325ft (Planning Ref. 11/0279/EIA)368 Objections
Muirhead Farm Livery Stables - 1 turbine 112ftApplication Refused by FC Planning 21.3.12 (8 Objections)
If you want to object to any or indeed, all of these applications and help to save the East Neuk Coastal Ridge from descending into industrialised ruin, here's how you can do it...
1. On-line at www.planning.fife.gov.uk/online/
You can lodge your objection to any, or all of the above planning applications at the Council's planning web site. Simply put the name or reference number into the search engine, to bring up the application, and type away....
2. By e-mail to email@example.com.
You must write your letter of objection and save it as a PDF before sending it as an attachment to the above e-mail address. It's always useful to send a copy of it to the following individuals as well while you're at it....!
3. Or you can simply send a letter by traditional post to
Enterprise, Planning and Protective Services
Please put your Objections in to the Council and let them know that NE Fife is not the place for large-scale Turbine Developments.