Letters to the editor – May 7, 2021

Letters. LettersPage.jpg

Want to read more?

We value our content, so access to our full site is only available on subscription.

Your subscription entitles you to 7-day-a-week access to our website, plus a full digital copy of that week’s paper to read on your pc/mac or mobile device.

And there’s more – your subscription includes access to digital archive copies from 2006 onwards.

Already a subscriber?
Problems logging in and require
technical support? Click here
Subscribe Now
Turbines ‘annihilating’ Scotland

Sir,

I write with regard to the article in the April 30 edition of the Argyllshire Advertiser – ‘”Ignored” communities call for pause to windfarms’.

In the article, Claire Mack, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, is quoted as saying: ‘The latest UK Government figures show that only 10 per cent of Scots are opposed to the development of onshore wind. That data is supported by further research, carried out specifically in rural Scotland, which additionally showed higher support for onshore wind power among young people.’

The question posed by the surveyor should, of course, have been: ‘Are you opposed to further development of onshore wind?’

In Scotland today we have 4,394 operational turbines (over 100KW) – that’s more than the rest of the UK put together.

We also have 1,234 consented; 316 under construction and a further 1,722 in the planning system according to an FOI response from the Scottish Government.

These figures change on an almost daily basis as applications continue to pile in unabated.

How many people are going to continue to support onshore wind when they witness the total annihilation of this country?

It would also be interesting to know exactly where the data from ‘rural Scotland’ was collected. Was it perhaps in an area where there were no wind farms in sight of  the local communities which were questioned but where they were still able to take advantage of any community benefit on offer?

If successful, the public petition recently submitted to the Scottish Parliament by campaign group Scotland Against Spin should help to clarify exactly how much support there really is for further onshore wind development in Scotland.

Aileen Jackson, Knockglass, Uplawmoor

Fit for purpose

Sir,

I have been contacted by a number of my justifiably concerned constituents about the recent removal of a cattle grid on the Isle of Gigha from the road between the ferry jetty and the village.

The space has been tarred over but I have been informed by residents that unfortunately the sub surface area was just grit and so the tar has subsided due to traffic including tractors and lorries. The dip now is actually worse than when the cattle grid was in place.

To make matters worse, the damaged cattle grid which is now mangled metal has been left on the adjacent roadside verge.

It is my strong belief that if cattle grids are damaged the roads department should replace them with new, fit-for-propose cattle grids, not get rid of them all together.

Not only should road repairs be made to last, but at the very least the roads department should clean up after itself and remove old damaged materials – such as this – left behind. If a private company or an individual member of the public left a large amount of scrap metal at the side of the road they would be in trouble.

I have contacted our roads’ management through member services and asked them to rectify this matter as soon as possible.

Councillor Alastair Redman, Kintyre and the Islands ward 

Electric vehicle warning

Sir,

I am a GP in one of Argyll’s rural practices. Last week I was having a busy morning so was a little later than usual getting back to my car, which I had left charging at an electric charge point.

That evening I was surprised to see that I’d been charged £30 over and above the normal charging rate per KwH. I checked through the Argyll and Bute website and discovered that there is now an overstay charge – hence the surcharge.

I had had an email back in April saying that Argyll and Bute Council would now be charging users at its charge points – the cost being 25p per KwH. Fair enough.

However, there was no mention of a penalty for overstaying. Nor is there any notice at the charge points themselves, save a tiny notice stating ‘charges apply’.

Those seeking to charge in Argyll and Bute are additionally confused by the lack of clarity over what type of charge point is being used: is it a 50 Kw, 22Kw or a 7 Kw. There is no notice on the chargers. This is important because the overstay timings vary according to the differing units.

When I buy petrol at a filling station I clearly know what the charges are; when I buy a ticket at a parking meter, I buy a ticket and know exactly how long I am able to park there.

But it seems that for electric vehicles you have to search the internet to find out the rules – and in my village there is no local wifi and  I cannot get 4G on my phone.

Dr Carina Spink, Muasdale

Sun danger to cats

Sir,

Cats Protection would like to advise cat owners to be aware of the risks posed to their cat by the sun.

Pale-coloured cats, or those with unpigmented white noses or ears, are particularly at risk from the sun’s rays which can cause sunburn and skin cancer.

Those affected can suffer long term damage including, in severe cases, having to have their ear tips removed to prevent the cancer from spreading.

Following a few simple tips, owners can help to protect their cat from the harmful effects of the sun.

These include keeping them indoors on sunny days between 10am and 3pm, asking your vet for advice about suitable sunscreen and ensuring you provide plenty of shade to enable your cat to shelter from the sun’s rays.

Dr Sarah Elliott, Central Veterinary Officer, Cats Protection