Letters Page

Published:

Restoration after windfarms

SIR, – Mark Ruskell, of Scottish Renewables stated in his letter (the Press and Journal, April 25) that “the renewables industry, by law, has to assess the environmental impact of any windfarm application and design the scheme appropriately to minimise environmental damage, including by restoring habitats".

I wonder what his response was to the beautifully-glossy environmental statement made by the promoters of the Loch Luichart windfarm proposal a year or two back? On the subject of restoration, they stated that, at the end of the proposed 25-year run of the windfarm, they would remove the turbines, but would cover up the bases and the five miles of roadway as “to remove them would cause too much disturbance".

It didn't take more than two brain cells to interpret this as meaning it would be far too expensive. Forty lumps of reinforced concrete weighing about 750 tons and buried in the peat (never mind the five miles of 18ft-wide roadway) would make removing skyscrapers mere child’s play. So much for “restoration”.

Ike Gibson,

1a Pulteney Street,

Ullapool.

Lewis project decision

SIR, – I find it unbelievable that the people of Lewis failed to grasp the opportunity of the windfarm project that would have breathed new life and prosperity into their island.

The people of Lewis seem to dismiss the importance of such windfarms to Scotland’s future prosperity.

If Shetland had taken a similar view on oil, in the 1970s, its economy and prosperity would have been a shadow of what it is today.

The people of Lewis who celebrate this backward and destructive decision no doubt use the heavily-subsidised ferry services powered by oil made in refineries on the mainland.

They no doubt use electricity generated from power stations using gas, oil and coal on the mainland.

It seems many in Lewis wish to enjoy the high standard of living that we enjoy in mainland Scotland and use all our infrastructure services, yet wish to hide when they have a chance to contribute to its future prosperity.

I am saddened by their selfish inward attitude. If everyone in Scotland was to behave like they have, our economy would be at rock bottom and backward.

Andrew Charles,

19 Crombie Road,

Torry, Aberdeen.

Sea wall at Rosehearty

SIR, – Sea walls on this northern, fiercely-blasted coast are necessary protection, such as those at Pennan, Rosehearty and Gardenstown.

This area should be freed from the damaging authority of Aberdeenshire Council, the worst council we have experienced at Rosehearty.

The souter's dyke was extended out to the present point of what later became Port Rae. However, it was built as a protection for the town as the breakers formerly rolled up the streets, driving small businesses out of their premises.

The majority were souters (shoemakers) and pressure was applied to extend this dyke out to the wreckers’ rock.

All necessary surveys were carried out by the former, and more intelligent, Grampian Regional Council, which saw the necessity of the wall’s retention.

Why spend thousands of pounds on more surveys when the money spent on them could have saved the situation?

Grampian Regional Council carried out maintenance on the wall until Aberdeenshire Council inherited responsibility.

Two years ago, Aberdeenshire Council planted a steel construction on the dyke, saying it was not safe. Now the council repairs that regularly, but not the much more needed corroding dyke.

Aberdeenshire Council is now trying to disclaim the area that is in need of repair, saying it is not of any justifiable use for storm protection.

Don't you believe it.

It is about time the council got its act together.

James Taylor,

19 The Square,

Rosehearty.

Allied forces at Gallipoli

SIR, – I refer to your report (April 26) on the annual commemoration of the initial Allied landings of April 25, 1915, on the Gallipoli peninsula during World War I, with April 25 since known as Anzac (Australia and New Zealand Army Corps) Day.

My late father, who served with the 5th Royal Scots during the Gallipoli campaign until he was severely wounded on June 25, 1915, always thought that it should be better appreciated that the Allied Mediterranean Expeditionary Force did not consist (almost) entirely of Australians and New Zealanders.

At the time of the initial landings, there were around 30,000 Australians and New Zealanders, around 29,000 from the UK and around 6,000 from France, in opposition to nearly 84,000 armed Turks.

Allowing for subsequent reinforcements and replacements, it was officially estimated that 489,000 Allied and 500,000 Turkish soldiers fought in the peninsula until the final Allied evacuations on January 9, 1916.

The official estimates of casualties throughout the Gallipoli campaign were 32,500 (including 11,000 killed) Australians and New Zealanders, 124,500 (including 32,000 killed) from the UK (Army and Royal Navy) and India, 47,000 (including 5,000 killed) from France, and 185,000 (including 65,000 killed) Turks.

Alexander Waugh,

1 Pantoch Gardens,

Banchory.

Call for dispute intervention

SIR, – I find it astounding that Malcolm Webb, chief executive of Oil & Gas UK, wants government ministers to intervene in the dispute at Grangemouth, as the “poor" oil companies are missing out on their $120 per barrel.

Maybe Mr Webb and the companies would like to tell us why they have not suggested getting government ministers involved in the Working Time Directive fiasco (which they have appealed against yet again), in favour of the catering and drilling contractor staff?

Jimmy Laing,

40 Dean Terrace,

Lossiemouth.