Seeing the exhibition/open day for the Birks Hydro scheme confirmed my doubts about the proposal. When the photos for 1m3/sec and 0.24m3/sec (very close to ‘before’ and ‘after’ at maximum abstraction) were put side by side, it was an overwhelming demonstration of the negative effect the scheme will have on the visual impact (and no doubt the ecology) of the Birks.

While the top falls may still be impressive ‘after’, it is beyond doubt that less visitors will come to the town to see the Birks over a period of time with a serious negative impact on our already very fragile economy. Those who see a diminished Birks will be less likely to come back and less likely to tell others how impressive it was.I understand that the photographs we saw have only recently been taken - I cannot understand how the scheme was approved by Planning without the committee demanding/seeing similar evidence. Was any independent professional report prepared before the planning approval?Another factor came to my attention on Friday. Until now all the photographs and a lot of the discussion has centred on the top falls. On Friday I visited the Birks with family members and one of them said to me that what made the Birks special wasn’t just the (impressive) top falls but the whole experience of an hour long walk up alongside a series of smaller falls and caterracts leading to the top falls. I think that if water levels are cut in the manner allowed for in the CAR licence, the visual impact will be even more damaging in the lower sections.

I have recently seen the SEPA methodology and I believe the approach of this to be flawed - to say in effect that there are other ‘similar’ sights around and then use a comparison of visitor numbers between the Birks and The Hermitage or Falls of Bruar to say the Birks is of ‘low’ importance is totally spurious. 1) The Birks is not on the A9 - it doesn’t even have a ‘brown sign’ 2) The other sights are simply not in AberfeldyWe all want to see more renewable energy but that should not mean ‘carte blanche’ to devastate every natural jewel in our countryside. Especially when the scheme is such a small one in the scheme of things. I understand the total of approved renewables in Perthshire is some 700mw, whereas the Birks is around 1mw - just over 0.1%.The proposed ‘rent’ money - £10,000, £20,000 or £50,000 or whatever is offered to the community - should not be the issue. The Birks was gifted to the community and should not be treated as an asset to be negotiated with a developer, and certainly not one offering sums that are tiny (‘glass beads for the natives’) compared with the huge profits to be made.As the owner of a local business who has invested heavily in the local economy and now employs 15 full-time staff in a business that draws heavily on visitors, both tourists and more local ‘visitors’ I strongly urge the  Common Good Fund councillors to act for the ‘Common Good’ of the people of Aberfeldy on and reject the scheme by whatever means is appropriate at this stage - ie refusing to grant a lease.  Kevin RamageEast Cottage, Tullicrow, Aberfeldy 

I read the article “Pitlochry Community Council:  A Failure of Duty” on page 8 of your November edition, which contains such inaccuracies and defamatory comments that I feel compelled to reply on behalf of the Pitlochry and Moulin Community Council and set the record straight.

 

The person referred to as having a personal interest in the Curling Rink has never ever been asked to step aside, and has always declared an interest where appropriate, until at the August 19th meeting it was declared that the directorship and shareholding had been relinquished. Much to the dismay of the members of RAID who came to the meeting, and yes they did walk out after the official stance of the Community Council was read out, a fact that was best left out of the minutes so their unreasonable behaviour went unrecorded.

 

The development has always been placed in the Planning report, which is nearly always around the middle of the agenda. I put the development at the end of my report so that any pertinent matter could be raised and discussed properly. What is meant by interruption to Mr Bean’s visit I am at a loss to fathom, the Community Council visited Perth to put forward the case for him to visit, he considered our request and accepted. We shall be ever grateful to him for doing so, and the minute of his discussions took up a whole page in the August edition of News Round North!

 

To make comparison with other work the Community Council carries out, and say that “serious concerns that affect so many” are not as important, is cheap. What is important to one person may be far less important to another, and the Community Council has to represent 100% of the community of Pitlochry not just the 7% or so members of a local pressure group.

 

Affordable housing is important for the town. There is government policy laid down, fully supported by P&K Council as to the quantity, design and build quality of this type of housing, the Community Council can do nothing to change that, what it can do, and has been doing is to see that what is proposed for the town is fair and equitable and that local people get priority to what is available.

 This squabbling however must stop, as we have a far, far bigger battle to face, which will take a united Pitlochry to win.    J R PearsonPitlochry & Moulin Community Council