Windmills- Corrupt payment for neighbours?

Sharpshooter82 · 19-09-2013 11:50AM

reilig wrote: »

It was environmentalists who produced the studies which claimed that thousands of acres would be covered with concrete and fed these studies to the locals even though they were fake. It was the environmentalists who created reports about noise and fed them to the public - even though they were totally inaccurate. Some of the stuff spoke about at public meetings about the wind turbines in Westmeath was so far off the wall that the people who came up with it must have been on a double dose of wacky backy!!

What if the same started making up silly stuff about the everyday things that we do as farmers? If you print stuff in local media, most people will believe it whether it is true or not! I read the westmeath papers and there was a lot of fiction printed in them which lead to ordinary people putting pressure on councillors, TD's and other decision makers.

I don't give a fup about the wind turbines, but the fact that they were able to do this means that it could be done again for something which has a major impact on farmers!!

i dont really want to get into a main debate about it either as im not involved in any way to the campaign I just deal in the facts from both sides but alot of people i met and talked to about this were very educated on the subject and knew their stuff. I dont fully understand what the CO CO have done but im sure it was backward

The facts that everyone knew were 2 Ha lost, a roadway to the location and upto 1000 tonnes of concrete . it was the size that was the problem, A neighbour has a C&F turbine that is 50m high. it dont bother me in the slightest but it can be seen at least 7 miles away and the new turbines were going to be 180m that was the main issue everyone had was mainly the size and height of them. one thing i did notice tho was that any farmer that did sign up for them either felt conned afterwards or only wanted the money and the companies could build a nuclear plant for all they cared and many of these people were non farmers that only leased out what land they had

Sharpshooter82 · 19-09-2013 12:03PM

rancher wrote: »

Was really disappointed last night, put huge work into this over the last few days...... this is a huge infringement on farmers property rights, it doesn't matter if a planning application is thrown out, as long as its done by competent planners..... this is not about windmills for me, but about farmers rights,
t

Thats fair enough but not when the outcome is a stucture that is going to be 180m high 500m from a persons house.

reilig · 19-09-2013 12:56PM

The main debate is not one which effects the whole country, but the fact that the tail wagged the dog in this instance is!! We are supposed to live in a democratic country, why jump the gun like this when pressure is put on?

Sharpshooter82 wrote: »

i dont really want to get into a main debate about it either as im not involved in any way to the campaign I just deal in the facts from both sides but alot of people i met and talked to about this were very educated on the subject and knew their stuff. I dont fully understand what the CO CO have done but im sure it was backward

The facts that everyone knew were 2 Ha lost, a roadway to the location and upto 1000 tonnes of concrete . it was the size that was the problem, A neighbour has a C&F turbine that is 50m high. it dont bother me in the slightest but it can be seen at least 7 miles away and the new turbines were going to be 180m that was the main issue everyone had was mainly the size and height of them. one thing i did notice tho was that any farmer that did sign up for them either felt conned afterwards or only wanted the money and the companies could build a nuclear plant for all they cared and many of these people were non farmers that only leased out what land they had

maidhc · 19-09-2013 10:53PM

reilig wrote: »

The main debate is not one which effects the whole country, but the fact that the tail wagged the dog in this instance is!! We are supposed to live in a democratic country, why jump the gun like this when pressure is put on?

Firstly it is only from a County Council. Kerry Co Co had a similar provision in their county development plan years ago regarding mobile phone masts, and An Bord Pleanala disregarded it at will.

Secondly, An Bord Pleanala has become a bit of a clearing house for windfarms of late, and that isn't good either when individuals are being forced to leave their houses because of the aforementioned 180m high turbine with blades the lenght of Croke Park 500m away from the kitchen.

Thirdly, planning law is a serious infringment on the rights of landowners, for the common good. Farmers aren't above it (actually we are a small bit due to how easy it generally is to get planning for farm developments, but that is another story!)

Greensleeves · 20-09-2013 02:56PM

The IFA position on the midlands wind farms comes in for a pasting on the front page of the Laois Nationalist this week.

"They are not doing it for free"
By Joe Barrett

FARMERS and people opposed to wind farm developments in Laois are considering taking their campaign to next week's national ploughing championships in Ratheniska.

At a well-attended public meeting in The Swan Community Centre last Tuesday night, the IFA came under severe criticism for the position it has adopted in the current wind farm controversy.

One Fine Gale councillor questioned whether the IFA was acting as a paid facilitator between wind energy companies and farmers.

Cllr James Daly said that when the M7 and M8 bypasses were being laid in Laois, the IFA facilitated an arbitration process between local farmers and the NRA and "they didn't do that for free."

Full story here:
http://savethemidlands.com/theyre-not-doing-it-for-free/

rancher · 20-09-2013 08:10PM

Greensleeves wrote: »

The IFA position on the midlands wind farms comes in for a pasting on the front page of the Laois Nationalist this week.

"They are not doing it for free"
By Joe Barrett

FARMERS and people opposed to wind farm developments in Laois are considering taking their campaign to next week's national ploughing championships in Ratheniska.

At a well-attended public meeting in The Swan Community Centre last Tuesday night, the IFA came under severe criticism for the position it has adopted in the current wind farm controversy.

One Fine Gale councillor questioned whether the IFA was acting as a paid facilitator between wind energy companies and farmers.

Cllr James Daly said that when the M7 and M8 bypasses were being laid in Laois, the IFA facilitated an arbitration process between local farmers and the NRA and "they didn't do that for free."

Full story here:
http://savethemidlands.com/theyre-not-doing-it-for-free/

As Jer said ''utter rubbish''

Marooned75 · 21-09-2013 05:02PM

rancher wrote: »

Was really disappointed last night, put huge work into this over the last few days...... this is a huge infringement on farmers property rights, it doesn't matter if a planning application is thrown out, as long as its done by competent planners..... this is not about windmills for me, but about farmers rights,
t

The rules are the same for everybody the coco every six years asks for submissions from the general public about things that are relevant to be discussed and added or deleted to the county development plan.Its the system that is place for everybody to have there say over things that may affect them in the future,the IFA had the same chance as every other person to make a submission at the same time as everybody else.So do they think they can make there say after the closing date and negate anyone's else who made there submissions on time?

rancher · 21-09-2013 05:41PM

Marooned75 wrote: »

The rules are the same for everybody the coco every six years asks for submissions from the general public about things that are relevant to be discussed and added or deleted to the county development plan.Its the system that is place for everybody to have there say over things that may affect them in the future,the IFA had the same chance as every other person to make a submission at the same time as everybody else.So do they think they can make there say after the closing date and negate anyone's else who made there submissions on time?

Did W.meath not welcome wind energy in the last plan, wasn't expecting them to do an about turn.
Government referred the decision to an bord planala and we were happy with that and if its carried or rejected by them we will be happy with that too........but we have a right to go for planning if other counties have.
Have the councillors no faith in bord planala or their own government for that matter!!!!!!.
Did the govt give the windfarm developers a positive vibe....they're spending a lot of money in these counties if its on the off chance!!!!!!
Windfarm developers are strong and the planning guidelines (for that's all they are) are weak.

Marooned75 · 21-09-2013 06:05PM

rancher wrote: »

Did W.meath not welcome wind energy in the last plan, wasn't expecting them to do an about turn.
Government referred the decision to an bord planala and we were happy with that and if its carried or rejected by them we will be happy with that too........but we have a right to go for planning if other counties have.
Have the councillors no faith in bord planala or their own government for that matter!!!!!!.
Did the govt give the windfarm developers a positive vibe....they're spending a lot of money in these counties if its on the off chance!!!!!!
Windfarm developers are strong and the planning guidelines (for that's all they are) are weak.

Not on the scale proposed I think they allowed for it more so on the domestic turbines that we see.

rancher · 21-09-2013 07:08PM

Marooned75 wrote: »

Not on the scale proposed I think they allowed for it more so on the domestic turbines that we see.

They have to go back for public consultation again now, probably won't be a vote now again for 3-4 mths.....national policy will surely be decided by then....interesting times ahead

jersey101 · 22-09-2013 12:37PM

i have 14 windmills on the hill across from me. All between 4 or 5 farmers. Lads with land higher up were bypassed even though they were interested because land is so high up and not great for growing grass. Any way all the neighbours have been complaining about the noise from them since they went up 3yr ago. Now there all getting triple glazing. We live in the valley below them and the noise does get fairly head wrecking on very close days when there's lots of rain. Parents are thinking of looking for them. Would we be entitled to them?

islanderre · 23-09-2013 09:13PM

Prime Time tonight (23rd Sept) will have a segment on the wind turbines been built in Ireland.

Could be interesting to watch especially after reading this thread.

Manoffeeling · 24-09-2013 12:15AM

That ex green guy is some pain in the hole.

red bull · 24-09-2013 01:02AM

Manoffeeling wrote: »

That ex green guy is some pain in the hole.

Could not agree more, the guy promoting windfarms treated those opposing as a joke. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts comes to mind ?

Birdnuts · 24-09-2013 01:36AM

red bull wrote: »

Could not agree more, the guy promoting windfarms treated those opposing as a joke. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts comes to mind ?

He certainly didn't do anything for the wind lobby with his smugness and arrogance. The steep increase in peoples power bills on the back of subsidising wind is going to come under increasing scrutiny by the public if the experience of the likes of Denmark, Germany etc. is anything to go by.

Manoffeeling · 24-09-2013 07:18AM

It they are put up to feed the UK grid, then why not build them in Scotland or Wales? And you are 100% right about the arrogant and smug wind guy.

On the issue of health reasons. Stress is recognised as one of the biggest health conditions in Ireland at the moment. Whether its financial, work or just life, stress is and can be harmful to your health. Will these turbines inflict unnecessary stress levels on people? And don't ignore stress, it's there.

pburns · 24-09-2013 11:40PM

reilig wrote: »

Basically the CoCo are telling farmers what they can and cannot do on the land that the farmers own. ...Now, just because they have been lobbied by a small number of people, they have changed their mind. How would farmers feel if the slurry spreading period was cut in half because the councillors were lobbied against it by a number of (non farming) rural dwellers because they didn't like the smell???? It's pretty much the same thing!

A small number of people? Not in my community it's not - it's pretty much everyone apart from the cronies who signed up. Those opposing include farmers and for the most part people with deep roots in the community (not the 'blow-ins' usually cited - as if their views didn't count in any case). Even some of the farmers who signed are sorry they ever even heard of wind turbines. The opposition in Westmeath was just as strong from what I hear.

Farmers' rights? What about the rights of everyone else in the community? The 500m set back guidelines are over 20 yrs out of date and for turbines just 80m high. Spreading slurry is not the same as these 180m permanent structures - this is on a whole different level. Pat Rabbitte is on record as saying "there is no point in getting the planning right and finding no companies left". I mean seriously :eek:. After all the **** this country has had with NAMAa and ghost estates a government minister comes out with something like that? Colm McCarty has said there would be a 'NAMA for wind turbines' if this went ahead.

jersey101 wrote: »

Any way all the neighbours have been complaining about the noise from them since they went up 3yr ago. Now there all getting triple glazing. We live in the valley below them and the noise does get fairly head wrecking on very close days when there's lots of rain. Parents are thinking of looking for them. Would we be entitled to them?

I'm sorry but what?!?? You admit noise is head-wrecking (unlike the wind energy companies and some contributors on here)...but...your folks still want them??? I don't want to sound like Marie Antoinette but are ye really that hard up for a few quid??

That's what it comes down to isn't it? A small handful of landowners hold their own property rights as sacrosanct and if they can turn a greasy shilling to hell with everyone else and what they leave behind!

jersey101 · 24-09-2013 11:49PM

pburns wrote: »

A small number of people? Not in my community it's not - it's pretty much everyone apart from the cronies who signed up. Those opposing include farmers and for the most part people with deep roots in the community (not the 'blow-ins' usually cited - as if their views didn't count in any case). Even some of the farmers who signed are sorry they ever even heard of wind turbines. The opposition in Westmeath was just as strong from what I hear.

Farmers' rights? What about the rights of everyone else in the community? The 500m set back guidelines are over 20 yrs out of date and for turbines just 80m high. Spreading slurry is not the same as these 180m permanent structures - this is on a whole different level. Pat Rabbitte is on record as saying "there is no point in getting the planning right and finding no companies left". I mean seriously :eek:. After all the **** this country has had with NAMAa and ghost estates a government minister comes out with something like that? Colm McCarty has said there would be a 'NAMA for wind turbines' if this went ahead.

I'm sorry but what?!?? You admit noise is head-wrecking (unlike the wind energy companies and some contributors on here)...but...your folks still want them??? I don't want to sound like Marie Antoinette but are ye really that hard up for a few quid??

That's what it comes down to isn't it? A small handful of landowners hold their own property rights as sacrosanct and if they can turn a greasy shilling to hell with everyone else and what they leave behind!

Windmills here have been up for 3 years now i never wanted them !!!!
if all the other neighbours are getting them to keeo out the noise why shouldn't? All the neighbours didnt know what tgey we're letting them selves in for. It seems like the land owners that have the windmill are creaming it and dont care about much else. Alot of ppl built houses in the country for peace and queit not to be kept up by babies because of tge noise from these and to have a wind turbine a few hundred metres away. Why couldn't they put them on one of our many mountains not on the small hills????

maidhc · 25-09-2013 12:05AM

pburns wrote: »

I'm sorry but what?!?? You admit noise is head-wrecking (unlike the wind energy companies and some contributors on here)...but...your folks still want them??? I don't want to sound like Marie Antoinette but are ye really that hard up for a few quid??

I though jersey101 wanted triple glazing!

reilig · 25-09-2013 09:18AM

Everyone has rights.

How would you feel if, when you applied for planning to build your house that the CoCo turned around and told you that you cannot build in a rural area because you are not a farmer and that you should live in a town or a city.

As I said, it's not about the Wind Turbines. It's about the way that the CoCo handled it which will impact rural dwellers into the future - both you and me!

pburns wrote: »

A small number of people? Not in my community it's not - it's pretty much everyone apart from the cronies who signed up. Those opposing include farmers and for the most part people with deep roots in the community (not the 'blow-ins' usually cited - as if their views didn't count in any case). Even some of the farmers who signed are sorry they ever even heard of wind turbines. The opposition in Westmeath was just as strong from what I hear.

Farmers' rights? What about the rights of everyone else in the community? The 500m set back guidelines are over 20 yrs out of date and for turbines just 80m high. Spreading slurry is not the same as these 180m permanent structures - this is on a whole different level. Pat Rabbitte is on record as saying "there is no point in getting the planning right and finding no companies left". I mean seriously :eek:. After all the **** this country has had with NAMAa and ghost estates a government minister comes out with something like that? Colm McCarty has said there would be a 'NAMA for wind turbines' if this went ahead.

I'm sorry but what?!?? You admit noise is head-wrecking (unlike the wind energy companies and some contributors on here)...but...your folks still want them??? I don't want to sound like Marie Antoinette but are ye really that hard up for a few quid??

That's what it comes down to isn't it? A small handful of landowners hold their own property rights as sacrosanct and if they can turn a greasy shilling to hell with everyone else and what they leave behind!

pburns · 25-09-2013 09:27AM

rancher wrote: »

Have the councillors no faith in bord planala or their own government for that matter!!!!!!.

Eh, no... Not much faith in certain councillors either. But worry not, they'll follow the votes (apart from the FG/IFA diehards caught between a rock & a hard place).

rancher wrote: »

Windfarm developers are strong and the planning guidelines (for that's all they are) are weak

You say that almost gleefully like it's a good thing:eek:! Guidelines not as good as the robust legislation that is needed 'tis true. The real scandal though is that these 'guidelines' are for 80m turbines, not the monstrosities currently proposed!

maidhc wrote: »

I though jersey101 wanted triple glazing!

Fair dues, sorry jersey101, it was late and I misread your post. For rancher and all the other wind hawks - does a contribution like jersey101's not make you think? Is it all about taking advantage of the lax legislation in place to make a few greasy euro (like the property developers a few short years ago)?

rancher · 25-09-2013 09:49AM

pburns wrote: »

You say that almost gleefully like it's a good thing:eek:! Guidelines not as good as the robust legislation that is needed 'tis true. The real scandal though is that these 'guidelines' are for 80m turbines, not the monstrosities currently proposed!

No, the complete opposite, I said that as a warning. Some people are so intent on opposition that they neglect to ensure that proper rules are put in place if it goes ahead, These ''guidelines'' have to be put into legislation and setback distances have to be reconsidered.
This is all in our IFA wind policy

yellow50HX · 25-09-2013 09:52AM

pburns wrote: »

Eh, no... Not much faith in certain councillors either. But worry not, they'll follow the votes (apart from the FG/IFA diehards caught between a rock & a hard place).

You say that almost gleefully like it's a good thing:eek:! Guidelines not as good as the robust legislation that is needed 'tis true. The real scandal though is that these 'guidelines' are for 80m turbines, not the monstrosities currently proposed!

Fair dues, sorry jersey101, it was late and I misread your post. For rancher and all the other wind hawks - does a contribution like jersey101's not make you think? Is it all about taking advantage of the lax legislation in place to make a few greasy euro (like the property developers a few short years ago)?

was driving up to a friends place last weekend and the area is covered in "too close for comfort" posters as there is a wind farm palnned for the area. dispite what many poeple say most of the peole i know in the parish's effected actually have no issue and it is just the noisey minority that are objecting. now wheather in the long run the minority is right and the windfarms are more harmful then good is a different issue. sad to say it but the majoirty of the protesters are actually more concerend with the potenial fianical loss they may incurr if they decide to sell their house and not by any pontenial health issues.

most of the very same people were looking at protesting to a new devalopment being built by the distillry in the same area over the last few years. they were cribing about all the extra traffic and noise that was going to created by lorrys and work in the area and so on. they have gone all quite on that now and its all about windmills.

pburns · 25-09-2013 01:00PM

rancher wrote: »

No, the complete opposite, I said that as a warning. Some people are so intent on opposition that they neglect to ensure that proper rules are put in place if it goes ahead, These ''guidelines'' have to be put into legislation and setback distances have to be reconsidered.
This is all in our IFA wind policy

From the latest IFA wind resource policy doc (shoe-horned into the last paragraph of the last page - after all the money stuff):

The current Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland study which was commissioned by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources regarding this issue must be completed urgently. In its absence the 500m setback distance from all sensitive properties including houses, which is referred to in the Department of Environment wind planning guidelines must be applied to all current wind energy proposals.

How can the IFA honestly say they are paying anything more than lip service to the set-back issue when they have been instrumental in advising farmers under the current guidelines? If setback distance increases it would exclude a hell of a lot of those same farmers and possibly undermine the viability of the projects. I can't see that being the intention.

If I was a cynic I'd interpret the above paragraph more along the lines of:

'Jaysus lads, we have to pay lip service to these whingers. Get the plannin' through quick before the goalposts change!'

Good job I'm not a cynic:D!

The IFA's role in all this has come under intense scrutiny from the ITBA amongst others re tax and legal implications. I wasn't at the meeting in Tullamore a few weeks back but I can find out more. If you are an IFA head though a question: who is responsible if a local resident decides to take an action in the future for noise pollution, damage to property etc? The wind energy company or the landowner?

yellow50HX wrote: »

I was driving up to a friends place last weekend and the area is covered in "too close for comfort" posters as there is a wind farm palnned for the area. dispite what many poeple say most of the peole i know in the parish's effected actually have no issue and it is just the noisey minority that are objecting. now wheather in the long run the minority is right and the windfarms are more harmful then good is a different issue. sad to say it but the majoirty of the protesters are actually more concerend with the potenial fianical loss they may incurr if they decide to sell their house and not by any pontenial health issues.

most of the very same people were looking at protesting to a new devalopment being built by the distillry in the same area over the last few years. they were cribing about all the extra traffic and noise that was going to created by lorrys and work in the area and so on. they have gone all quite on that now and its all about windmills.

Maybe it's early days for that particular community or maybe you are talking to the wrong people. I've never objected to anything in my life, nor have any of my neighbours who oppose this. This is more than a 'noisey minority' - this is the community en mass. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Isn't it gas all the same - who ever thought these farmers - however small the percentage - would be on the same page ideologically as Eamon Ryan or Pat Rabbitte:eek:?

Not that any of this is about ideology mind!

grazeaway · 25-09-2013 02:19PM

pburns wrote: »

From the latest IFA wind resource policy doc (shoe-horned into the last paragraph of the last page - after all the money stuff):

The current Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland study which was commissioned by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources regarding this issue must be completed urgently. In its absence the 500m setback distance from all sensitive properties including houses, which is referred to in the Department of Environment wind planning guidelines must be applied to all current wind energy proposals.

How can the IFA honestly say they are paying anything more than lip service to the set-back issue when they have been instrumental in advising farmers under the current guidelines? If setback distance increases it would exclude a hell of a lot of those same farmers and possibly undermine the viability of the projects. I can't see that being the intention.

If I was a cynic I'd interpret the above paragraph more along the lines of:

'Jaysus lads, we have to pay lip service to these whingers. Get the plannin' through quick before the goalposts change!'

Good job I'm not a cynic:D!

The IFA's role in all this has come under intense scrutiny from the ITBA amongst others re tax and legal implications. I wasn't at the meeting in Tullamore a few weeks back but I can find out more. If you are an IFA head though a question: who is responsible if a local resident decides to take an action in the future for noise pollution, damage to property etc? The wind energy company or the landowner?

Maybe it's early days for that particular community or maybe you are talking to the wrong people. I've never objected to anything in my life, nor have any of my neighbours who oppose this. This is more than a 'noisey minority' - this is the community en mass. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Isn't it gas all the same - who ever thought these farmers - however small the percentage - would be on the same page ideologically as Eamon Ryan or Pat Rabbitte:eek:?

Not that any of this is about ideology mind!

perhaps they do share the same ideal's as politicains, out to make sure that they geat as much as they can for them selves.

i know of that crowd near midleton too, they called to the house looking for support one night. i asked them what type of alternatives they had and it was basiclly "not by my house". i was dissapointed as i was hoping that anyone that opposed to something would be able to propose a viable alternative or at least have taught one thorugh

maidhc · 25-09-2013 04:01PM

yellow50HX wrote: »

was driving up to a friends place last weekend and the area is covered in "too close for comfort" posters as there is a wind farm palnned for the area. dispite what many poeple say most of the peole i know in the parish's effected actually have no issue and it is just the noisey minority that are objecting.

E.g. The people within 2k of the turbines.....

QED.

rancher · 25-09-2013 10:50PM

pburns wrote: »

From the latest IFA wind resource policy doc (shoe-horned into the last paragraph of the last page - after all the money stuff):

The current Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland study which was commissioned by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources regarding this issue must be completed urgently. In its absence the 500m setback distance from all sensitive properties including houses, which is referred to in the Department of Environment wind planning guidelines must be applied to all current wind energy proposals.

How can the IFA honestly say they are paying anything more than lip service to the set-back issue when they have been instrumental in advising farmers under the current guidelines? If setback distance increases it would exclude a hell of a lot of those same farmers and possibly undermine the viability of the projects. I can't see that being the intention.

If I was a cynic I'd interpret the above paragraph more along the lines of:

'Jaysus lads, we have to pay lip service to these whingers. Get the plannin' through quick before the goalposts change!'

Good job I'm not a cynic:D!

The IFA's role in all this has come under intense scrutiny from the ITBA amongst others re tax and legal implications. I wasn't at the meeting in Tullamore a few weeks back but I can find out more. If you are an IFA head though a question: who is responsible if a local resident decides to take an action in the future for noise pollution, damage to property etc? The wind energy company or the landowner?

Maybe it's early days for that particular community or maybe you are talking to the wrong people. I've never objected to anything in my life, nor have any of my neighbours who oppose this. This is more than a 'noisey minority' - this is the community en mass. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Isn't it gas all the same - who ever thought these farmers - however small the percentage - would be on the same page ideologically as Eamon Ryan or Pat Rabbitte:eek:?

Not that any of this is about ideology mind!

I don't care whether they're built or not but my aim is to ensure that our farmers have the same rights to planning as other counties, we need a national policy published immediately. Everything has to be allowed go to an bord planala. The government took it out of the hands of local county councillors for a reason.
On the agreement, I don't think it's our place to discuss it

Markcheese · 26-09-2013 06:58AM

Is distance such a big deal ?? 500meters set back is half a km away( yes I know they're tall )
Should Any restriction be on decibels 500meters away ... it's fine for the wind farm company to say you'll be grand it's only a bit of noise,but if their planning conditions stipulate no more than x decibels at the nearest house 500 meters away or shutdown wouldnt that take a lot of the risk from the homeowner nearby and pass it to the wind farm developer ... ?

JustAThought · 26-09-2013 07:04AM

reilig wrote: »

Compensation aside, what's wrong with having a windmill 1/2 a mile from your house?

The noise.

Didn't a few houses slide away into the bog from them when first built ( where was it again - remember seeing the half a house on RTE news) ; pressure & subsidence. We have a few out here & while I don't mind the concept or look of them the noise would wreck my head. Has to be heard to be believed.

Manoffeeling · 26-09-2013 08:44AM

These turbines are being forced upon us because that is what other powers do to us. They are dependent upon subsidies from the tax payer to exist. The fact that they are to feed the uk grid and not ours speaks volumes. Why can't this farmerette erect them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmoral_Castle

Windmills- Corrupt payment for neighbours?

Comments