General News | Posted on November 30th, 2009
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, AberfeldyÂ
Leave a Reply
Loading ...
April 1st, 2010 at 10:00 pm
I have to answer the post made by Ken Lyall. Although I am the secretary of Aberfeldy Community Council, I write this in a personal capacity, and I will accept any consequences that arise because of it.
Since the Common Good Committee meeting on 24th Feb, there has been two meetings between Aberfeldy Community Council, Explore Aberfeldy, Donald Ogilvy Watson, Green Highland and the Highland Perthshire Councillors. In addition, ACC met with the HP councillors seperately to prepare our ground in advance. Ken Lyall attended only one of these meetings, the latest one on 30th March.
The dynamic that now exists with regards to the Birks Hydro scheme is MUCH better than it was before, which was completely shambolic, bordering on the embarrassing for all concerned. Anyone who followed this thread could come to no other conclusion.
The situation is now different. Before, the default situation was that the scheme would probably go ahead unless people made enough noise about it. Now, the default position is that this scheme will not go ahead, unless the community consents to this. This is a much more straightforward situation, and is better understood and appreciated by all parties, Donald Ogilivy Watson included.
This situation was brought about by Cllr Ian Campbell’s motion on 24th Feb, and he and Cllr Kate Howie have grasped the new opportunity and have been determined to see it through, in conjunction with ACC and Explore Aberfeldy. The final conclusion is not yet known, no-one is pre-judging the outcome. We are still trying to put things together in a logical manner.
Part of this process has involved trying to iron out some of the back-history. Part of this involves looking at why the position of the turbine house was changed from it’s original location. This is important because a change in the current location would result in a greater head of water, giving Donald Ogilvy Watson the scope to REDUCE the amount of water abstracted, leaving a significant increase in the residual flow left to go over the falls. Ian Campbell has been exploring if there might be any scope to change the position of the turbine house with PKC officials. He is right to show some leadership in pursuing this, and is not working behind anyone’s back.
During the meeting on 30th meeting, the one unelected person present indulged in a bit of “what-if” with DOW, who threw a few figures around in return. Cllrs Howie & Campbell simply sat and took this in, as did the Community Councillors present, which was exactly the right thing to do. When Ken Lyall mentioned that this sounded very like “negotiations”, the unelected person rightly pointed out his status as such. The discussion simply highlighted that there MIGHT be scope here to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of both sides, by abstracting a significantly less proportion of the water at lower flows. This has given us confidence to go ahead with a tourism impact study, which ACC and Explore Aberfeldy will be fully involved with from the outset, and we will be asking local businesses to participate in this at our next meeting on 7th April.
Now, for the serious message. As far as this process has been concerned, Ken Lyall has been AWOL for much of the last 5 weeks, for reasons completely of his own making. The other two HP councillors have stepped into the breach to take over, and we appreciate their efforts in doing this. Ken Lyall has not been fulfilling his function as Convenor of Aberfeldy Common Good Fund since 24th February. In the circumstances, it is understandable if he wanted to take some time out. We dont hold this against him.
What we cannot accept, and will not accept, are his apparent efforts to undermine his fellow HP councillors, and fellow Common Good Committee members.
Ken Lyall has been told often enough, by all sorts of people, to refrain from spouting rubbish on this website. If he chooses to undermine himself, that is one thing. If he chooses to undermine others, that is another thing entirely.
I am asking Cllr Ken Lyall to step back and take stock of what he is doing at present. If he does not change his ways, and participate in a more positive manner, then his position as Convenor of Aberfeldy Common Good Fund is going to become untenable, and if that unravels, then other aspects of his role will start to unravel as well.
It is not too late to stop. Things are never so bad that they cannot be made worse by continuing to dig. Stop digging Ken. You are compromising yourself, your political party, and ultimately, the people of Aberfeldy.
The Common Good Fund is central to many of the things ACC would like to see forwarded in the next year or so.
We need a Convenor who is functioning properly, and who can exercise good judgement in these matters. At the moment, you are simply not doing that.
Take stock Ken, please.
VC
March 31st, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I find this absolutely incredible, really. I was suspended for a number of things, but one of which was that there may have been a perseption that I supported the hydro scheme befoe it went to the Common Good Fund Committee. It is now the case that the other two highland councillors are actively negotiating with the applicant, with disregard for the council officials in respect to water over the falls, the location of the turbine house etc….
This is shear hypocricy. I never negotiated with the applicant, but I did keep in close contact with them and the objectors.
I am insulted by this change of action. I am the only councillor that lives in Aberfeldy, yet I have been snubbed and suspended for doing far less than the other two councillors.
If this is politics, then stiop the bus, I want to get off!
March 14th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
ABERFELDY COMMUNITY COUNCIL minutes of the meeting held in Aberfeldy Town Hall on 3 March 2010, 7.30pm
WELCOME
In the absence of the Chairman, vice-chair Eric Slorance took the Chair.
The meeting opened with a one minute silence in honour of Mr Ian Wilson, a long-time Chairman of the Community Council, and who had contributed greatly to community life in the town over many years. His funeral was to take place on Saturday 6th March at 11am at the Parish church.
Present: Eric Slorance(Vice- Chair), Victor Clements (Secretary), Jean Duff (Treasurer), Ron Young, Peter Scott, Ian Menzies, Cllrs Ian Campbell and Kate Howie, Donald Ogilvie –Watson (Urlar Farm), Peter Lyburn (Conservative Westminster election candidate)
38 members of the public also attended.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mike Williamson (Chair), Richard Langrish, Cllr Ken Lyall.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes were taken as read.
MATTERS ARISING
There were no matters arising.
COMMUNITY ASSETS AUDIT
Aberfeldy Town Hall Business Plan Update
ACC had provided funding to forward this, and the process had already started. There was no specific brief at this meeting, but an undertaking that there would be regular updates had been given.
Local Facilities & Groups
We had now received all the funding that was required to run this exercise and tenders had now been sent out, with a cut-off date of 12th March. We would have to be careful not to duplicate questions with the profiling exercise associated with the Griffin Windfarm benefit fund. The exercise would then run April- June, and ACC will be looking for some volunteers to help us with running structured questionnaires about each of the facilities in the town.
Griffin Windfarm Benefit Fund
The Scottish Communities Foundation who are running this have organized a meeting on 18th March, at 7.30pm in the Town Hall, to explain the fund and learn a bit more about some of the local groups who might be interested. All are welcome to attend. We will also be looking for 2 X volunteers to sit on an advisory panel who will be administering grant payments. We are interested in hearing from anyone who might be interested, and will be circulating this request more widely through March in order to generate a number of potential candidates.
BIRKS HYDRO UPDATE
At the Aberfeldy Common Good Committee meeting on 24th February, the principle of awarding a lease in relation to this scheme was discussed, with all proceedings taking place in public. A number of deputations had been received, including from ACC.
The leader of the Council Ian Miller backed a motion by Deputy leader Cllr George Hayton to reject such a scheme outright. The 3 x Highland ward councillors backed a motion asking for greater cooperation between the parties, including greater communication with ACC, and for other essential background research to be undertaken, and it was this motion which gained support, being backed 3:2. Cllr Ken Lyall had been personally in favour of the scheme, but did not have a seconder to propose a motion in favour.
Cllr Ian Campbell, who proposed the motion, outlined his doubts about the proposed scheme:
• There had been a lack of prior negotiation
• The proposed lease at 99 years was simply too long
• There had been a lack of independent evaluation
• Would the effects on the Birks be minimal?
• What would be the effect on tourism?
• Did the Birks title deeds allow such a venture?
• Did the people of Aberfeldy want it?
His motion required that proper research was conducted, especially in relation to the effects of tourism in the town, and that a more inclusive approach be taken. Simply rejecting the scheme outright would have allowed it to be re-submitted in 6 months time.
Prior to this ACC meeting, ES and VC had met with Cllrs Campbell & Howie, and then subsequently all four with Donald Ogilvy Watson and Green Highland, along also with Peter Guthrie, Chair of Explore Aberfeldy.
It had been agreed that ACC would take a co-ordinating role in the process, with the first task being to devise the methodology for a new tourism impact assessment. The PKC officers would deal with the fine details of any negotiations.
There was some discussion at this ACC meeting whether this represented the essential interests and range of views within the town. After some discussion, it was agreed that we would go forward on this basis.
Additional comments from the floor:
• There were ecological issues as well, with the small cow-wheat issue yet to be properly addressed
• This should not be allowed to become a political issue, it must be a community effort.
• While Explore Aberfeldy represented an important sector, they also had members outwith the town, and it was people within the town boundaries who should have the strongest say.
• The £42,000 offered was substantially greater than what was originally on the table
• There was the suggestion of a 50:50 venture with the community
• There would need to be a vote, or other means of community endorsement of any new package.
REPORTS
Chair: No report.; ES reported under Crime Prevention & Community Safety (below)
Secretary
We had been contacted by Vicky Gibson, one of the Community Liaison managers working with the Beauly- Denny line, and have her contact should anyone want it.
Contact had also been made in relation to a suggestion that Aberfeldy could possibly share a Farmers’ Market with Pitlochry on a regular basis.
Markets in the past had been gradually taken over by other traders, and there was a lack of local produce. The logistics of managing such an enterprise were also significant, the period between markets would be important, and Logierait was well attended and we might be competing with that.
VC to write to Andrew Holmes of the Pitlochry Partnership to get some more information.
Heartland FM were running the Radio & Community Awards 2010 with a ceremony in the Criagvrack Hotel at 7.30 pm on April 27th.
There were a number of award categories including: Individual presenter, avourite programme, community event, shop of the year, postie of the year, venue of the year, pub or restaurant of the year, sports person of the year, community group of the year, individual of the year.
Forms/ voting boxes were located at the post office or Wades Newsagents.
The suggestion was made that Aberfeldy Town Hall should be put forward as the Venue of the Year, in the light of all the recent ACC debates which were very well attended, and all the other activities that had taken place there since the building re-opened in June last year.
Treasurer
There was currently approx £300 in the bank account. A top-up of £100 had been received from PKC.
CRIME PREVENTION & COMMUNITY SAFETY
There had been two break-ins in Aberfeldy, including one serious incident, when access to a gun cabinet was attempted.
Mention was made of the Schoolwatch scheme currently in operation.
Signs for the roundabout on Kenmore road were yet to appear. IC would pursue, and ES would speak to Pitlochry Police about this.
There was still concern about children having to use the narrow pavement along Kenmore Street, a road often used by heavy traffic. A fence had been rejected on safety grounds.
£500 had been awarding from the Community Safety Group to an initiative called “Safe Drive- Stay Alive”, which was aimed at 5th year pupils prior to learning to drive.
There would be a series of Fire Safety visits in Aberfeldy, 1st March- 5th April, by Fire Brigade. All necessary ID etc would be presented.
Ron Young commended all the local emergency services when he had been ill the previous week, in relation to an incident at his home and also in helping him deal with a water leak at the Birks cinema. He contrasted this experience with the USA where such help would simply not be available.
PLANNING
There were no planning matters. A list of planning applications is forwarded on a weekly basis.
COUNCILLORS REPORTS
There were no additional reports from the councillors.
AOCB
ES updated the meeting that minutes of meetings were now being more widely distributed at more venues throughout the town.
HPCP were upgrading their website, and providing training in inputting to this.
There was some discussion about notice boards, and which were most useful to ACC.
Willie Leszke, Chair of Move2Improve, offered his support for Cllr Ken Lyall, currently suspended from his party, and the work he had done over the years for Aberfeldy.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING Wed 7 April
Aberfeldy Community Council AGM
Colin Liddell would be giving a presentation on community groups in Highland Perthshire, and all are encouraged to come along for what should be an interesting evening.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Mr Baxter. You are upset by the comment I made about Cllr Lyall making derisory comments against “ALL” the people of Aberfeldy in emails sent to me. I have saved all these emails but the reason I have not made them public is because they were sent directly to me and only me. As such I have respected Cllr Lyalls right to privacy and that is the reason for my confidentiality regarding these emails. I have no intention of putting any of this correspondence in the public domain but should you wish to view them, in private, I would welcome you to my home and I would show all of them to you as long as Cllr Lyall gave his permission. Should you wish to take up my offer you can talk to me at the ACC meeting on Wednesday.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
I fully support and applaud Ken Lyall’s position and the efforts he has made to ensure all the evidence and opinions were considered in the process of coming to his own conclusion as a representative. Given that some of the concerns over length of lease, potential impact on tourism, etc are to be further explored before the Common Good Fund Committee can make a more informed decision - then that can only be a good thing? Since when did greater understanding, compromise and more informed decision-making become a bad thing? Mr Manning is entitled to his opinion to completely reject the hydro proposal - that is his right - but he also has a responsibility to speak for himself and not attempt to assume he has the support of everyone in Aberfeldy. He doesn’t have my support that’s for sure. One particular comment he makes to Ken says it all for me: “…all the derisory emails you sent me and aimed at all the people of Aberfeldy.” Aimed at ALL the people? I don’t think so. Ken may be getting more than just a little frustrated by Mr Manning, and I don’t blame for that - but I think Ken has done a great job in his efforts to gain as broad an understanding as he can based on evidence and the broadest base of information he can. He wants more analysis, so does the Common Good Fund Committee - I prefer that route and think that Ken has steered a good way through all of the differing viewpoints. Neither supporters nor opponents of the scheme got their way - and a more informed decision will be made in due course. I suspect anyone who has a go at Ken for his stewardship of this issue, may be just going for the ‘man’ rather than ‘the ball’. That is very unfair - and I’m not surprised that Ken has vented his frustration in response to Mr Manning in the way that he has. At one public meeting I was I found Mr Manning’s approach one that could easily drive someone to exasperation very quickly indeed!
February 25th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I was very pleased to read the paper today and find out that Councillor Lyall voted to keep the Birks scheme afloat. Perhaps the length of the lease could have been reduced and the payback to the community increased. However all is not lost and I am sure the scheme will go ahead in due course as Neil Fraser is willing to work alongside the Common Good Fund Committee and Aberfeldy Community Council for a positive outcome.
I also read a couple of days ago that vey few if any had taken up ex Provost Alex Murray’s invitation to view his scheme for themselves. I am surprised that the people against the proposal were not flocking to see it. Why?
No doubt the answer on this blog will be that the Birks scheme is totally different than the others.
Aberfeldy Community Council stated that they would not support the Hydro scheme as it stands. What does this really mean? More money - change of heart? Could they explain!
No doubt the decisions made were very difficult and more so for Ken Lyall. He has made the correct decision and in doing so has left himself wide open to criticism. I admire the way he has represented the town for all these years even although I too have had differences of oponiion with him. That does not mean I do not respect him!
As negotiations are stll continuing we have to ask ourselves is it really about the water flow or is it mainly about the money?
Once the scheme is in place Aberfeldy could monopolise on it and promote the added value of the Birks through it’s green energy. Those against can certainly turn this negative into a positive with very little effort!
I will no doubt be criticised as I have been from other people who have written that any groups I am in should seek funding from other sources rather than the CGF. For anyone wishing to repeat this I can assure everyone that all the groups I am in fundraise very hard and seek funding from other sources.
It is a shame that the CGF will be in limbo until we secure other income. We need it to continue strongly. Perhaps in six months time we will have a better outcome which will benefit Aberfeldy and satisfy the majority of those against.
Finally whilst negotiations are proceeding in the future it would be good if ACC could control it by themselves and not bring in third party statistics which has not helped with the overall situation. This has only clouded the issue with personal comments. Yes I too am guilty so it is over to you ACC to do your bit for the community by yourself! This does not mean that you do not listen to the community but everyone should have an equal say! perhaps something for you all to keep in mind. As the ‘Protect the Birks’ campaign has been concluded there is no need to call on this group in the future so you can all get on with the negotiations.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
to Councillor Lyall. Dear Ken, after all the allegations you have made about me, I had to look at my birth certificate to assure myself that my name was actually John Manning and not Gordon Brown.
You have not included my reply to your email, as noted in your Blog comment below, where I suggested that we should meet up and, with all the people you had sent the email to,go through all your allegations and refute them by going into each one of them in depth. All I asked you to do was to answer the questions which would arise should I make all the derisory emails you sent me and aimed at all the people of Aberfeldy. Not just those against the Hydro Scheme.
You refused this offer and threatened me with a statement that I had better stay away from you.
You are setting me up as the town’s “Bad Guy” so that any frustration and anger can be diverted from you. The one difference, Ken, is that I don’t have a political post where I have to represent the whole of the community. You do! I have been trying to give as much information to the people of Aberfeldy regarding the Hydro Scheme and the damage it could do to the whole concept of the Birks. I have been honest in everything I have detailed to the people and all calculations were based purely on figures released by Green Highland Renewables. I asked for photographs to be made available, from GHR, to allow the people of the community to see what effect the water reduction would be. They were to be made available to you and you would forward them to us. These photographs were never made available. Why? The answer is that they would have backed up all that I had claimed.
If telling the truth makes me the “Bad Guy”, Ken, then I am proud to be that person and should you wish to dispute this claim then I am willing to have a public debate with you.
Being passionate about a unique natural entity is not a bad thing, Ken. People love fishing. Are they murderers? People love observing various bird species in bird dens. Are they unnatural? People love growing their own vegetables. Are they greedy and posessive? etc, etc, etc. If the answer to these questions is NO then why should people who love the Birks be “Extremists”.
Please give up this attack on me, Ken. It does you no favours and so, try and maintain any respect people may have for you.
February 24th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Manning,
Just a type ‘o’
£4M is still a lot of beans in anyones book.
At least the vote today opens the door for another try in 6 months time.
There is a saying about ‘battles’ and ‘wars’. Maybe you can remind me!
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:55 pm
I have just received an email from Councillor Lyall telling me that I am responsible for losing the community £40m. From simple arithmetic, I find that this would be that the suggested £40,000/annum would be paid to the CGF for 1000 years. I did not know that the vote tomorrow, by the CGF, was for a 1000 year lease. I thought it was possibly for a 40 year lease. Maybe I, and everybody else who has heard GHR’s proposals, did not understand the true duration of proposed lease. If this is the case then I apologise for not listening more closely to the debates than I did.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
To whom ever listens, especially John Manning!
John manning is full of lies and he has made wrong, incorrect, exaggerated comments, libellous comments etc to me and the public over the last year or so. I have spoken to many people who think the hydro scheme is not a good idea and they all, without question, state that John Manning has not helped them, indeed hindered then in their views.
John Manning is an extremist!! Most of the objectors are not!
I wonder if it is John who tried to spread the word that I hade been receiving favours in this! Don’t know, can’t prove it, but there you are!
This is the John Manning and his Wife that bullied the distillery here for whisky for the snp thrift shop. When they were told no, Mrs Manning apparently started to have a fit and crying episode until the whisky was handed over. I had to apologise on behalf of the branch. This is the type of person that John Manning and his wife are – Bullies. They have only been here 18 months and have alienated half the community; they are an embarrassment to the party.
The decision has already been made, as far as I have been told, and well done, the community loses £40M over the term of a possible lease. I hope you are happy when walking your dog around the birks, yet do nothing for the fragile groups in Aberfeldy.
Ken Lyall
Ps if I am accepted or rejected by the snp, I am past caring. I have done my best for the area for 11 years and will continue to do so until I am defrocked!! We are indeed fortunate to have John Swinney and Pete Wishart to represent us here.
from: JOHN MANNING [mailto:johnmanning1@btopenworld.com]
Sent: 23 February 2010 17:23
To: john.swinney.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Cc: Pete Wishart MP; Councillor Ken Lyall; Kevin Ramage; Andrew Pointer; gandcbryson@tiscali.co.uk; Bec Cameron; Rhiannon Crichton; alan drever
Subject: Fw: The Birks of Aberfeldy - Meeting on 24th Feb’ 2010
Dear Mr’ Swinney,
just to give you an example of the attitude of our local councillor, Ken Lyall, who is duty bound to be representative of the the feelings of the people of Aberfeldy, I am forwarding to you an email which gives an example of attitude which is typical of our councillor .
Referring to objectors to the Hydro Scheme as “extremists” I feel is libellous since this continuous form of abuse is one stop short of “Terrorist”. As one of Cllr Lyall’s “Extremists”, I would like you to let me know, as my Holyrood MSP, if I can sue Cllr Lyall for referring to myself and all who are deeply and passionately opposed to this scheme as “extremists”.
I have many examples of this councillor’s abusive attitude and I would make them available to you if you so required.
I have had a message left on my answer machine from Lady Noelle Sylvestor who has told me that, upon speaking to Cllr Lyall on the telephone, she was treated with contempt and told that the vote to grant a lease for the Hydro scheme would be in favour of the developers, come what may. Lady Sylvestor was extremely upset by Cllr Lyall and, as in his email below, she would also be classed as one of the “Extremists”.
This cannot go on Mr’ Swinney. It is felt throughout the town that Cllr Lyall should be brought to task. It is felt that it is now your responsibility, as our respected MSP, to have this man’s actions investigated as to whether his duties as a councillor are being fulfilled.
Yours Sincerely
John Manning
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
my nervous breakdown would not be complete without a comment on this blog - watch this space!
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Victor,
I am not from Edinburgh
I am from Bathgate, West Lothian and well proud of it!
I may well get back after tomorrows meeting with a comment ot two.
Not happy with the rubbidh in the press, hay we have a westminster election in May, pity it may be very detrimental to Aberfeldy - Bloody politicians!
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Willie,
Lets not start a debate here about whether some people have a greater right to be heard than others. I find it quite amusing your comments about “real Aberfeldy natives” and “true Aberfeldy residents”. The vast majority of people in this town have came here from some-where else at one time or another, be it somewhere else in Highland Perthshire or further afield. We all happen to be here at the moment and we all have aright to say what we think… “same destination but different boats and all that….” Ken Lyall is from Edinburgh, the developer himself has only lived here a few years, even Alex Murray who spoke so well on 3rd Feb and is considered a “local” is from some place in the back end of beyond up north. Your own surname betrays your cosmopolitan past.
Anyway, we have all had our say now, and we will find out in due course what the verdict is, and then we will all have to take the situation forward together, whatever that is and wherever we are from, because we are all here now.
VC
February 21st, 2010 at 10:18 am
Mr Manning you have now shown your true colours in your last paragraph. To save people scrolling down here it is again.
This scheme is simply about making wealthy men more wealthy with no appreciation of nature or local feelings. This cannot possibly be right Mr’ Leszke. You must agree with me on this point. All their arguments for the “goodness” of this Scheme has been shown to have no credibility. The only point which stays prominent is the money they would make. GHR will make a lot of money from this scheme and Mr’ Ogilvie Watson will have received up to an 90% grant for building the scheme and he will have an 80% tax allowance on profits made on the production of electricity. To them, this is what it is all about. Just making more money.
There seems to be a recurring feel to this from a lot of people against the scheme that a man will make a lot of money from it. I am surprised at so many jealous people in the town and I note the majority are not natives of Aberfeldy.
Do not try and tell me about the Birks. I was walking up the Birks as long ago as 1956 when I stayed with my late grandmother in the Birks cottage (but then you would not know this history) My late grandfather was the keeper of the Birks for your information.
I repeat some of the true Aberfeldy residents views that the Birks is not Aberfeldy. There is more to the surrounding area than the Birks and the people opposed to it have done more damage in the media than those who are for the scheme.
The Birks at one time served many mills on it’s course with other people making money from this source so there is nothing new about people benefitting from this burn. I urge all the councillors to vote a big yes to the scheme and most of the real local people agree with this. The biggest grudge as I said seems to be the money one individual is going to make, you cannot deny that Mr Manning.
It has to be recognised that SEPA will monitor this closely and I for one trust there judgement. Once the scheme is operational the opposers will soon disappear. I would be quite willing to cut the ribbon to open it and support the green energy produced no matter how small the contribution. The Birks will survive as it has done in the past and people in the future will still enjoy their walks.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:38 am
I appreciate that Mr’ Leszke has priorities which are different to those who value the beauty of the Birks as one of nature’s beautiful gifts which Aberfeldy has been so lucky to have on it’s doorstep. The local groups and organisations deserve to be funded by the Common Good Fund since they are indeed for Aberfeldy’s “Common Good”. However simply having one of Scotland’s most accessible and most beautiful walks, waterfall and burn running down the gorge, is also for the Common Good of Aberfeldy since it allows visitors from all over the World to want to come to the Birks and appreciate something which is very special and unique.
It also helps local businesses and shops to keep their head above water in such difficult financial times. As such, the people of Aberfeldy should have the ability to choose what is important to them. The diversity of all the communities priorities should be considered when a decision, such as deciding for the Hydro scheme, or not, is being taken. This is not happening! Why?
Due to the money for the community being made available from the “Griffin Wind Farm Benefit Fund”, there is no reason to damage the uniqueness of the Birks.
All which has been stated by Green Highland Renewables is false or purely speculative. you should read carefully what they have said regarding their offer of a rental fee. They have said that Aberfeldy Common Good Fund will receive an “expected” £42,000 on “average”. Does anybody trust businessmen who use the words”expected” and “average”. This leaves them committed to nothing definite. They also say that the water extraction will have “minimal impact” on the visitor attraction of the Birks. How can they possibly say this? I asked them for their photographs of a 1000 litres/sec flow, 500 litres/sec and 250 litres/sec. This would have shown the differences beetween the normal flow, the 50% flow and the 25% flow. People could have made up their own minds if they would have had “minimal impact” or not. GHR refused to release these photographs. Why? Do I really have to answer that question?
People come to see the Falls of Moness, the Moness Burn and the flow of water coming down the gorge. The water extraction would be 750 litres/sec which is 64,800,000 litres/day and will be equal to between 50% and 73% less water coming over the Falls. Do they think regular visitors would not notice this reduction? If Mr’ Leszke walked round the Birks today he would see a lovely water flow which wasn’t spectacular, but is truly lovely. This is the type of flow which would be reduced to 1/4 of it’s level and would be a mere trickle. Is this fair Mr’ Leszke?. We would lose the beauty for the local people who walk the Birks regularly and it would turn it into “just another walk” and not the beauty imortalised by Robert Burns nor the spectacle gifted to the people of Aberfeldy by the Marquis of Breadalbane.
The Marquis of Breadalbane and the people of Aberfeldy, who are the trustees of the Birks, are simply being dreadfully let down due to a twist of local politics. I will not go into the reasons why our local councillor Lyall is for the Scheme since everybody knows.
In the near future, there will be funds available for all local groups and organisations, all the local expenses to be funded as well as leaving the Birks to be appreciated and loved by both the locals and visitors/tourists who spend a lot of money when they visit the Birks.
This scheme is simply about making wealthy men more wealthy with no appreciation of nature or local feelings. This cannot possibly be right Mr’ Leszke. You must agree with me on this point. All their arguments for the “goodness” of this Scheme has been shown to have no credibility. The only point which stays prominent is the money they would make. GHR will make a lot of money from this scheme and Mr’ Ogilvie Watson will have received up to an 90% grant for building the scheme and he will have an 80% tax allowance on profits made on the production of electricity. To them, this is what it is all about. Just making more money.
Myself and 75% of caring people in Aberfeldy feel so let down and sold out. They are our Birks and the Beauty of them are being stolen from us.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Willie,
The Scottish Communities Foundation (SCF) will be organizing a series of open events during March to explain the community benefit package,with the Aberfeldy meeting pencilled in for 18th March, either in Town Hall or in Locus Centre.
Expect fund to open for applications by early summer, first money going out August/ Sept….2/3 of the package is is in place in advance of the windfarm actually opening……people should look out for pubicity on this, and go along and make their own minds up.
VC
February 18th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
£40,000 + for Aberfeldy as reported on BBC Scotland must not be let away. Where else would the CGF make money like this to help Aberfeldy and it’s groupa.. We need this scheme to go ahead and I am sure that Ken and the other Councillors will see sense and vote correctly. Don’t hold your breath for Griffin money yet.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
These are the minutes in full from last Aberfeldy CC meeting on 3rd February:
ABERFELDY COMMUNITY COUNCIL
Meeting held in
ABERFELDY TOWN HALL
ON WEDNESDAY 3rd FEBRUARY 2010
At 7.30pm
MINUTES
WELCOME
The Chair welcomed all those present to the meeting. As with the previous meeting, due to the size of the crowd, the meeting was moved through to the main hall.
Present: Mike Williamson (Chair), Victor Clements (Secretary), Jean Duff (Treasurer), Ron Young, Peter Scott and Eric Slorance.
In attendance: Cllr Ken Lyall, Donald Ogilivy Watson (Urlar Estate), Alastair Riddell and Neil Fraser (Green Highland), Steven Park and Neil martin (Sainsburys/ Invicta PR), Noel Cummins (SSE Renewables)
157 members of the public also attended.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Cllr Ian Campbell, Willie Leszke (Move2Improve)
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes were taken as read.
MATTERS ARISING
Recording of Information
At the previous meeting, a teacher from Breadalbane Academy had videoed the debate for a school project on the Birks. Permission had been sought, but this had not been relayed prior to the meeting taking place. There had subsequently been some discussion whether the material should be used or not. A view had been taken that the material could be utilized as intended. There was no suggestion of any alternative view from this meeting.
Other
ACC had advertised to co-opt three members.
The three that came forward were:
Richard Langrish
Jane McBride
Ian (Crofty) Menzies.
With no other nominations coming forward, all are now members of Aberfeldy Community Council.
Eric Slorance was nominated and accepted the position of Vice Chairman.
SAINSBURYS’ APPLICATION IN PITLOCHRY
Steven Park (Invicta Public Affairs) and Neil Martin (Turley Associates) representing Sainsburys, gave a short presentation on their proposal for a new store in Pitlochry. It was anticipated that this store would discourage many people from going to Perth to do their shopping, and would almost certainly attract custom from Aberfeldy.
Open days had attracted over 500 people, 79% of whom were in favour of the proposal. A planning application was to be submitted before the end of February, and it was hoped to start building work in September, the works being completed within 12 months. Flooding was a significant issue on the site which had to be carefully addressed. The site they are building has to be raised by 1.5 meters to avoid the 1 in 100 year flood.
Questions from the floor
It would primarily be a food store.
There would be no home deliveries from Pitlochry, the nearest current base being in Dundee. Such a service may be run from Perth if planning permission is achieved for a site there.
Supplier forums would be starting shortly.
Efforts would be made to use local contractors, although the main contractor would probably be based outside the area.
Mention was made why they did not come to Aberfeldy, where storage capacity was low, and local shops were sometimes short of essential items.
Assurance was given that the supply chain could cope with a store in Pitlochry.
There was no comment/ no commitment given over whether a petrol station might later be obtained to compliment the site.
There would be 50 full and 100 part time jobs. Opening hours would be 8am – 10pm.
COMMUNITY ASSETS AUDIT
Aberfeldy Town Hall Business Plan
Norman McCandlish, Chair of the Aberfeldy Town Hall Steering Group (ATHSG) gave a short presentation on the Town Hall business plan. This would have to be complete by June to allow a potential community run building to be operational by the end of the year. If this was not possible, the building would close and probably be sold. There was therefore a degree of urgency involved. Aberfeldy Community Council were holding £9000 of a grant to pay for external costs associated with the business plan, sourced via PKC external grants officer. A breakdown of costs had been produced for ACC. It was agreed that the ATHSG would proceed with their plan on the basis outlined.
Common Good Training
Allied to the plan above, ACC had £1000 to pay for running training days to allow local people to gain some knowledge of how to research Common Good property. The training would take place April or May, with more information in due course. PKC were devoting staff resources to undertake a review of Aberfeldy Common Good assets in 2010. This training would allow us to carry out additional research and complement this wider initiative. Anyone who might be interested in doing this is encouraged to make contact and register their interest.
Local Facilities & Groups
This audit of facilities in the town would be taking place during the spring, with the emphasis on establishing the demand for such facilities in the context of the new Breadalbane Community Campus opening up. A profiling exercise associated with Griffin windfarm would also be taking place, and we were having to be careful that these two processes complemented one another. This process will not begin until the fine details have been established and the relevant groups have been contacted.
Griffin Windfarm Benefit Fund
Noel Cummins of SSE Renewables gave a short presentation on the Community benefit Fund, due to open for applications this summer. Once fully operational, the fund would be distributing nearly £300,000 annually between five local community council areas for 25 years. Around one third of this would be dependant on actual generation. A further one off payment of £300,000 was to be allocated for improving energy efficiency locally. Events would be taking place locally in March to provide information about the scheme, and to gather information about groups and organizations who might be interested in applying.
The fund would be index-linked, was not for individuals, and was not a compensation payment as such. Any constituted group interested in community projects could apply.
Currently, there was not the provision for creating a legacy fund, but it was considered that this option will become available at some point in the near future.
Access to parts of Griffin would have to be restricted during the construction phase, but it was hoped to keep as much open as possible during that time.
BIRKS HYDRO UPDATE
Cllr Lyall updated the meeting that the Common Good Committee would be meeting on the 24th February. Negotiations were ongoing with the developer, with the likely annual rental currently being “at least £30,000”. The meeting on 24th Feb would be discussing both the principle of awarding a lease and the amount on offer at that time.
Donald Ogilivy Watson re-stated the background to his proposal given at previous meeting, with an update on proceedings also from Neil Fraser of Green Highland Renewables.
Eric Slorance of ACC reported on a meeting with the Common Good Fund, SEPA and Green Highland, where ACC concerns about the process and the scheme in general had been aired. These centred on the process followed to date, and the reasons why ACC felt that initial discussions had taken place “under the radar” of people in the town. It was also noted that on every occasion when the people of Aberfeldy have been asked to give their view at our meetings following presentations and discussions in Nov, Dec and Jan and including our own ACC Poll carried out during this period, a very clear majority of 70- 75% or greater of Aberfeldy residents have been against the Scheme going ahead with 25-27% in favour and a very small % undeclared.
Donald Ogilivy Watson denied that any strategy of keeping the project low key had been followed, and that all due processes had been observed.
ACC were still awaiting photographs of the Falls at various flows, shown previously at the Green Highland open event in November. SEPA data analysis had instead been obtained to show the abstraction rates across the full range of possible flows, which showed 50-73% abstraction for two thirds of the year.
John Manning of the “Protect the Birks” campaign reported that they had finished their petition, and had gathered 636 signatures against the hydro scheme, people from all over the world.
As per the previous meeting, a discussion ensued debating points for and against the scheme. Very few, if any, new points arose that had not been previously aired.
To conclude the discussion, the members of ACC gave their views, and a show of hands was asked for from the audience, split between those who lived in Aberfeldy, and those who resided elsewhere.
Of the Community Council - five members were against the scheme as it stands (including the Chair), one was in favour. This is now the community council’s current official position. One member was in favour of a scheme if there was a better overall package available, but he was against the current package.
Of the people from Aberfeldy - 22 were in favour (27%); 59 were against. (73%) This is almost the same as the outcome from the community council’s previously conducted poll in the town - ie 25:75.
Of the people outwith Aberfeldy - 31 were in favour (91%); 3 were against (9%)
In total: 53 were in favour, (46%), 62 against. (54%).
Three people were undecided, and a small number chose not to make their views known.
Due to the lateness of the hour (10.45 pm), the rest of the Agenda was not completed.However, the following items are reported:
There were no relevant planning applications.
The Placecheck Initiative would take place in Aberfeldy in 2011, not this year. With the number of other initiatives taking place, this is probably the best outcome.
Microphones are being sourced for subsequent meetings. The main hall has been booked for the next two meetings, with 180 chairs and the balcony being available for both dates. Provisional bookings have also been made through to the end of the year.
There was approximately £320 in bank account.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Victor
For clarification (although I am sure some will be eager to correct me anyway!) my last post which refers to OOH is of course directed primarily at the Dall development proposal. I referred to it, perhaps somewhat confusingly as OOH issue because i cintinue to believe that they should be linked, i.e. If developer wants community support, developer provides for 24 hour GP cover.
Ken, I would hardly call raising a successful petition and enduring 3 successful court cases in the face of violent intimidation, doing nothing!! It was not you who was kept awake every other night till 5 am. You will see that I have in my previous post acknowledged ACC’s initial role in the securing of the ban.
RDR
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Victor
You will be aware that new planning legislation shifts the emphasis away from local council decuisional dictatorship and requires overt evidence of adequate community engagement with regard to the developer, in which respect to be fair, prima facie at least, the developer appears to be going a certain part of the way in this direction. In theory at least, this is a positive legislative development in that it empowers communities with a view to holding Council decisions both to account and to fairly automatic appeal to the Scottish Reporter. However, as with ANY new legislation, respective parties will wish to test its resolve and to interpret it to suit their own respective ends. The Rannoch OOH topic is a case in point whereby that is destined for the Scottish Reporter, despite Cllr Lyall’s earlier “correction” of my interpretation of due process.
In some ways perhaps, irrespective of eventual outcome it is good in the respect that, if P&K have neither the wit nor the foresight to see the conflict of interest inherent in a local cllr being unfairly expected to take his seat on the Development Control Committee in relation to this SPECIFIC issue (he should be excused)then ANY member of the public can; AND WILL, inevitably challenge this, the outcome being somewhat academic; a public enquiry. At least this would expose P&K shortcomings and, as we know, would not be the first time that the Scottish Executive has stepped in to require P&K to act in the best interests of Aberfeldy community (Alcohol ban etc). I am, of course, mindful of the ACC support albeit to an extent in that venture, however, I now get the distinct feeling that everything which I predicted can come to pass courtesy of the new blood, yourself included, choosing to represent the community (in which I retain a material interest as a result of my future intended’s ill mother). My return to the community will be sweetened by the knowledge of effective dialogue!!
Anyway, to move forward, the “rights of way issue” will scupper this project if handled correctly in the legal sense. Victor, can you please outline the steps which the ACC have already taken in exploring this avenue?
Thanking you, as always, in anticipation of fair publication and of course, I remain receptive to all constructive responses.
Ron Duncan Rose
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Ron,
from my records, and I have every CGF committee papers since May 1999.
M2I have had the following grants:
September 2005; £863 for notice board in Square, £6000 for a part of the square improvements.
March 2007; £672 for the red hackle on the notice board.
November 2007; £1500 for the wooden train in Appin Place and other things.
May 2009; £1590 for the floral hanging baskets.
I would challenge you to say that any of the above was not in the common good of the town and the M2I group desrve a huge credit for all their hard work, not critisism from someone who has done nothing for the town. It was the Aberfeldy CC and myself that iniiated the alcohol ban in the streets, the one and only thing you mention et nausium.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:29 pm
To Ron and anyone else who is interested
Move 2 Improve publicly declare their funds at their AGM as other groups do. Victor is also welcome to view our funds if he desires. Move 2 Improve only get a small percent of money from the fund - the rest of the money is raised by my committee with their determination and hard work.
It’s heart warming that you still care about Aberfeldy Ron!
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:23 am
Ken,
I have just come tonight from a very positive Griffin Community Benefit meeting, with, as usual, the 5 X CC area reps working very well to make sure this fund is up and running by the summer and that it works fairly on behalf of all the people across the area. At 3.5 hours this time around, and this now being the 5th meeting at least, there has been a lot of work put in to creating the dynamic we currently have. No-one will begrudge successes by anyone else. End of story. All the necessary checks and balances are now in place, and we are all optimistic about this.
There is no need for you to try and stir up discontent within the area with your ill-judged remarks about Trochry or Dunkeld.
The Community benefit package will be a single pot, with applications being successful purely on merit. It is a fact that most of our community facilities are either in Dunkeld/ Birnam or Aberfeldy, with people in the hinterland (including the other 3 X CC areas) using these extensively. Therefore these two areas are likely to acheive a higher proportion of the total fund, but ONLY because they serve this wider purpose. The other 3 areas have a disproportionate number of members on the judging panel, so their interests will be more than adequately covered. The Fund will work well, I am quite convinced off that.
There will be open meetings taking place to explain the Griffin fund in March. If anyone, including Ken, wants to know more about these things, do please come along. There is a profiling exercise taking place, looking at who is doing what, what the various clubs are etc, and what their future needs might be. If you are in a constituted group or club of any type, and you think you might be interested in the fund, definitely come along and find out what it is about. There will be a number of well publicized meetings. The Community Councils will be at the heart of the process.
Ken, I am sure that the developer will be delighted that you are going around quoting these figures about the Birks hydro scheme. Talk about creating hostages to fortune!!
It isn’t often I shake my head in disbelief, but, hey-ho, I guess it takes all types.
Ron,
The two organisations you mention must satisfy the CGF as to why any funds might be applied for. Aberfeldy Community Council are happy to support them both, as and when required.
VC
February 1st, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Here are some facts:
To say £10,000ish for the Commmon Good Fund from thre hydro scheme is rubbish. It will be at least £23,00 to maybe £40,000pa. This pedalling of a figure quoted years ago does not assist the issue.
To say that Abefeldy will get a third of the Griffin money is also a gross assumption. The trochry and Dunkeld people will ensure that any money for here, Dull and Weem or Mid Athol and Strathtay will be grudged at best.
Lets get our fact right please.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Victor
In recognition of your unbiased approach to publication of the opinion of all, I would like to alert readers, even before my further investigation, to the following questions; do the following benefactor organisations of the CGF intend to publish legally competent accounts of their spending? Move to Improve and Friends of the Birks Cinema. This would include MovetoImprove with the result that I would ask you to postpone any further decisions until AFTER all of the benefactor organisations of CGF have been thoroughly investigated. This is ongoing
Thank you in anticipation as ever.
Ron Duncan Rose
January 31st, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Willie,
Point noted.
But the overall context has now changed. The Griffin windfarm Community benefit package will be able to distribute nearly £300,000 annually between the 5 x CC areas, with applications being possible from this summer onwards, although it will likely take two years to get up to this full amount, about 1/3 of the revenue being dependant on actual generation.
Aberfeldy will have about 1/3 of the population of that area, and probably a slightly greater % of the actual facilities.
This means that there will be scope for distributing perhaps 10 X the amount that the CGF is currently doing. Griffin is therefore an ADDITIONAL and MUCH LARGER pot from which all sorts of community projects can get funds. That will happen in 2010,with the first money going out in August, it will not be sitting until the windfarm is complete.
There will even be a provision for giving each CC an annual £2000 grant for dstribution on small projects and items as they see fit.
What this means is that we do not have to be rash and jump in to any quick decisions about the CGF, but can spend a bit of time taking in the big picture associated with that, and hopefully then we can get a CGF as well which is then in a position to play an enhanced role.
How much the CGF continues to distribute is ultimately a decision for themselves, but they are already digging in to their capital, and many people in Aberfeldy do genuinely believe that £10,000- ish from the Birks Hydro is peanuts, particularly if it harms tourist businesses in the town.
In the big picture, the Birks hydro, as it stands, is just a side-show. It needs to be addressed effectively, one way or another, so we can all then move on to other things. But we may well rue making a decision that involves signing away the rights to the Birks water for 40 years if we do not take in this bigger picture.
VC
January 30th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Vic
I take your point re the Griffin wind farm and the money which will have to be managed however I do not think it a good idea to simply shut down the CGF. Do you know how many small groups in Aberfeldy depend on this fund to help them organise events etc. Shutting it down for a while will drastically reduce many events which are held during the year which WILL damage tourism without a doubt.
We have an opportunity here to secure funds for the CGF and I am surprised that you dismiss this. ACC will not be able to support any group financially - the only way to do that is through the CGF. As you said it would take the CGF about six years to recover at the current yearly income. By that time many fo the groups will fold.
The groups I am in continually apply to the CGF along with hard work fundraising by themselves. We need the CGF to be kept open for the good of Aberfeldy.
January 29th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Mr Leske
You have done two significant things for this community:
You have gloriously failed to achieve anything other than communal hatred for your sarcasm during your time of chairship of the CC, having followed a thief, and you have insulted Mr Manning by your ignorant comments which would normally beggar belief. However, in light of the racism you openly display towards me and mine, time for you to shut up I believe! Joke that you are!
January 28th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Why does John Manning not go on tour with his petition - the world’s his oyster
January 27th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Ken,
To be fair to John, he is merely saying that he has a petition with 603 names on it, and that he views this as significant enough to be registered in the overall decision making process. It certainly cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. He makes no claim that it represents a majority.
The only properly conducted poll of public opinion in Aberfeldy, ran by ACC, returned 25% in favour, 75% against. In this light, that there could also be a petition with 603 names on it should not really come as any great surprise. On the basis of the proposals that currently exist, all the evidence we have leads to a similiar conclusion.
There is no evidence to the contrary…..period.
We know there are people who do support the scheme, we have records of 55 in favour, but there were three times this agsinst…….
Apologies for continuously stating the obvious, but we have to take heed of the evidence as it is.
VC
January 27th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
From figures compiled at 1st December we have, in Aberfeldy Town only (not any outlying areas such as Weem Grandtully, Camserney, Logierait etc..)
1686 people on the electorial register, ie willing to be on the register and 18 or over, the true number would realistically be at least approx 2000.
There are 951 houses in Aberfeldy town as above.
The petition has 603 signatures from not just Aberfeldy town but from all over Highland Perthshire, Scotland, the UK, Europe and the world.
You tell me what the majority think, because I dont!
January 26th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
I would like to thank Victor for giving the minutes of the meeting on the Blog. They were fairly comprehensive and outlined the balanced view of those both for and against the argument about the construction of the Urlar Hydro Scheme.
There is one point I would like to rectify. I have been referred to as being a member of the “Save the Birks” campaign. It is, in fact, “Protect the Birks” Campaign. The Birks will always be there but we would just like them to exist as they are at present and allow them to evolve as nature intends. So we don’t want to Save the Birks we just want to “Protect” them.
The Birks are one of the most accessible beauties of nature and is appreciated by so many different groups of people. I say this with confidence since I meet these groups of people going around the Birks all year. Some of the people I refer to are :- individuals, families, photographers, school groups, visitor groups from around Scotland, visitor groups from around the world and many more. I have gained this information from the Petition that myself and my wife put into various businesses throughout Aberfeldy. We withdrew the petition the day after the last ACC meeting and I was amazed at the number of people who had signed the petition and some of the strong comments they had against the construction of the Hydro Scheme. We did not carry this out as a scientific or statistical experiment. We only wanted to find out what the public feeling was. People who saw our petition, from Aberfeldy as well as visitors, displayed their feelings against the Hydro Scheme by signing it. We received a large number of signatures. As well as people from Aberfeldy we were surprised at the number of people from around Scotland, Britain and indeed around the World who signed the petition. There were people from England, Wales, Ireland, Southern Ireland, Luxembourg, Holland, Spain, Canada and from Scotland “far & wide”. The total number of signatures we received was 603. Surely this number of people and from such varied locations must be recognised by anybody who has any concern for the benefits of Aberfeldy. Councillor Lyall - please take note.
There was one other point in the minutes which I would like to question. When the vote was taken, the developers were included in it. Surely, as those who are proposing the scheme and are likely to benefit directly from the money generated from the scheme, they should not have been included in your vote. If not then the vote would have been :-
For the Scheme = 25 = 37%
Against the scheme = 40 = 59%
Undecided = 3 = 4%
This result gives those against the Hydro Scheme a 22% majority. How much more convincing does Cllr Lyall and all other councillors on the CGF committee need when this is taken in with the other surveys and votes as well as the petition, we have had to date. The majority of people in Aberfeldy do not want this Hydro Scheme to go ahead.
As for the comment from Mr’ Riddell, the joint partner of GHR :- visitors could come to see the Hydro Scheme as a visitor attraction. I would assume that instead of travelling to see one here, they could go to one of the other 1,000 Hydro Schemes the Scottish Government wants to build and which would be much nearer their homes. After visiting a few, I feel that they might get bored whereas, since the Birks are changing constantly throughout the year, they would never get bored with our Beautiful Gift from Nature.
January 25th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Here are the minutes from ACC meeting on 13th january in their entirety:
Meeting held in ABERFELDY TOWN HALL ON WEDNESDAY 13th JANUARY 2010 At 7.30pm
MINUTES
WELCOME
The Chair welcomed those present to the first ACC meeting on 2010, on what was a very wintry night.
Present: Mike Williamson (Chair), Victor Clements (Secretary), Ron Young and Eric Slorance. Four members is the minimum required for a meeting to be quorate.
In attendance: Cllrs Ken Lyall and Ian Campbell, Donald Ogilivy Watson (Urlar Estate), Alastair Riddell and Neil Fraser (Green Highland), Chief Superintendent Craig Suttie (Tayside Police).
75-80* members of the public also attended.
* 71 members of public declared a view in the Birks Hydro debate, but we are aware that a number of people did not do so. This is our estimated attendance.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Jean Duff, Peter Scott, Cllr Kate Howie.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes were taken as read.
CRIME PREVENTION & COMMUNITY SAFETY
This item was moved up the Agenda to allow an address by Craig Suttie, Chief Superintendent of Tayside Police, Western Division, based in Perth.
Mr Suttie had been in Perth for two years, having been previously with CID in Dundee. He was focused on achieving a change of structure within his division, with a greater emphasis on community policing, and nominated officers in each area. The constable covering Aberfeldy is not yet in place, but will be based in Pitlochry and covering much of the Highland Perthshire area. The division as a whole is being split in to four main areas, reduced from six. A new Inspector will also be recruited, and the number of Sergeants will be increased from three to five.
Mr Suttie acknowledged that there had been an issue in delegating effective responsibility for community matters in the past, and the new system was being developed to deal with that.
With reference to a subsequent Agenda item, Mr Suttie emphasized that it was the local authority who had responsibility for setting speed limits, not the Police themselves.
At this point, the meeting moved through to the main hall to accommodate those who were having to stand.
MATTERS ARISING
Birks Hydro
Permission was sought prior to the meeting for Breadalbane Academy to record this session on video for a project that they were conducting on the issue. Unfortunately, in the change between rooms, this was not relayed by the Chair. It is currently being clarified whether the tape should be used or not.
Four speakers updated the meeting prior to an open discussion session.
Cllr Ken Lyall, Convenor of Common Good Committee
The next Common Good Committee meeting would be on 24th February. They would be meeting with SEPA on Tues 19th January, also now attended by reps from Green Highland and Aberfeldy Community Council. This was a difficult decision for the CGC to take.
Alastair Riddell, Green Highland
Green Highland was a new company, set up last year in Aberfeldy. It employed six people directly and provided work for many more contractors. He was surprised and shocked at the negative reactions to the scheme. The proper processes had been upheld, and Aberfeldy as a town needed a range of enterprises. There was lots of potential for tourist opportunities associated with green energy. Abereldy had been Scotland’s first fair Trade Town. It could become Scotland’s first carbon neutral town on the back of this scheme, with all the marketing benefits that would arise from that. They had very good feedback after their open day in November, and he was concerned over the dis-information about the scheme that was in circulation.
Mr Riddell updated the meeting with the news that the developer would be making an improved offer to the community, and that this was to be made known to the Common Good Committee in confidence prior to their meeting on 24th February, two months sooner than would otherwise have been the case.
Donald Ogilvy Watson, the developer, insisted that he would not want to be associated with a bad scheme. Of the 40 people who completed the polling slips at his open day a majority (24-16) had been in favour, although this had been a very small proportion of all those attending.
Eric Slorance, Aberfeldy Community Council
Between the 27th November and 18th December, ACC had conducted a ballot of views within the town. There were 221 replies representing approx 15% of the population.
166 or exactly 75% were against the proposal.
55 or 25% were in favour.
The polling paper had been carefully designed so as not to mislead, directions to further information had been provided and subsequent advice has been that the information obtained forms a valid representation of the views within the town. There was no evidence available to suggest that this was not the case.
The duties of a Community Council were to “ascertain, co-ordinate and express to the local authorities for that area and to public authorities, the views within that community……”
Aberfeldy Community Council had therefore provided the function required of them, and on this basis, they held the view that the current proposal should not be supported.
Mr Slorance restated that the poll was a fair one, the process had not been challenged, and the result was not a protest vote. Those people who did not support the scheme were not extremists, as had been suggested both in print and in private corresspondance.
John Manning, “Save the Birks Campaign”
This group had been conducting a petition since mid December and currently had 350 signatures, a proportion of which were visitors or others from outwith the town.
Mr Manning described the arguments in favour of the scheme as “comfort marketing”, designed to create a warm feeling of righteousness in people while at the same time selling them something that was a lot more unpalatable. He regarded the positive statements made about the scheme as unrealistic and misleading and went on to give several examples of what he considered as such. There would be no cheaper electricity, and the power created would be insignificant at a national level.
Very simply, the people of Aberfeldy owned the Birks, and developers should just leave it alone.
There followed a discussion about the pros and cons of the scheme. Comments are structured here as being either against or in support off the scheme, and are reported as they were given. No attempt here is made to qualify or substantiate any of the comments, for or against.
Against the Scheme
Watermill Bookshop owner Kevin Ramage, employing 18 people and heavily dependant on visitors insisted that Aberfeldy should not deplete its’ main tourist attraction and most important amenity for local people. Many local businesses needed visitors, they could not do without them and jobs were at risk should the development go ahead because the Birks of Aberfeldy were what most people associated with the town.
The PKC Ranger Service survey showing 94% of people against the proposal was disregarded, and every test of opinion to date had indicated a very strong vote against the scheme. Explore Aberfeldy had canvassed its’ members. 17/18 of those that replied would not support the scheme as it stands, but a majority might well support a negotiated package that brought more benefits to the town, and lessened the overall risk associated with the proposal.
Those people who did not agree with the scheme were not extremists or a “hardened minority”, and objected strongly to being regarded as such.
The impact of the scheme would be devastating and should not be under-estimated or be given the benefit of the doubt. The burn would be condemned to drought conditions for 10 months of the year.
A local B & B owner suggested that nearly all the main guest houses in the town were against the scheme. They too employed people and had wages to pay, and it was not just Green Highland jobs that were important. She had lived and worked in Aberfeldy for 30 years and the scheme should not be supported at any price. No-one had known about it prior to planning permission being given. It was unthinkable that anyone could even suggest this. The Birks were simply priceless.
Andrew Pointer, who ran walking and other outdoor holidays said he was supportive of renewable energy but there were some places where hydro developments should simply not be considered, and this was most definitely one of them. He also suggested that the previous Aberfeldy CC had been completely misled in the initial stages of the project development, with the scheme seemingly going to be benign, when the opposite was very definitely the case. A maximum 5% abstraction had been suggested, but 50-73% of water would now be abstracted across a wide range of flows. That would most definitely have an effect on the burn, and we should not be taking that chance.
There were 68 turbines proposed at Griffin, we were doing our bit already. There would shortly be 700MW of renewable energy arising from Highland Perthshire, more than any other region of the country. This scheme was 1 MW, a tiny proportion.
Landowners could be supporting jobs in Aberfeldy by more significant means if they chose to do so. There was a mine locally that could be employing fifty people if that could be developed. This scheme was small in comparison, and would not sustain longer term employment at any significant level.
Several people objected to the “moral blackmail” that was being used to sell the scheme, devising arguments centred on climate change that no normal person should be objecting to.
The Cllrs involved had been voted in by the people in Aberfeldy, and could be voted out just as easily.
In Support of the Scheme
George Baxter of Burnside in the town said there was tremendous power in the Urlar/ Moness Burn and it should be possible to harness this to produce clean energy in a non-damaging manner. Power for 1000 homes was no small matter, and a very significant contribution from one source in one town.
Although it was not a big scheme on a national scale, lots of little things eventually would make a difference.
A long term hydro engineer said hydro developments in Perthshire 60 years ago did not ruin the country as many feared at the time, and some indeed where very important tourist attractions today.
A global perspective was required, not a local one.
SEPA were based placed to oversee and implement appropriate safeguards, and we should trust them to do this.
The attitude of people was important. If they were positive about the scheme, this would rub off on visitors and other people in the town.
There had been a hydro scheme out at Acharn for over 30 years, another popular tourist spot, and there had been no adverse impact there.
The Urlar Burn had been dry in the past during warm summers, and that had not stopped tourists coming to the town.
The people of Aberfeldy were its’ biggest asset, not the Birks, and they could work this to their advantage.
SEPA can re-visit a scheme at any time afterwards if there are problems arising from it. The necessary procedures are in place.
Miscellaneous Comments
One member of the public stated that the petition against the scheme was very assertive in emphasizing the problems associated with it, and that a number of people had signed it not really knowing what they were signing. The petition against was irresponsible. John Manning denied that any aggressive tactics had been used.
Aberfeldy Community Council are not endorsing the petition or the Save the Birks Campaign.
As in any election or poll, or public meeting, it is those people who participate in the process who should have their views represented, not those who fail to show any interest.
Cllr Lyall insisted that he was making a point of speaking to everyone he met about the hydro scheme and all those contacting him were not objecting to the scheme in principle.
It was questioned why this was not a public scheme, ran as a community venture, and there was no reason why this should not be done.
Concluding Remarks
The Save the Birks Campaign were adamant that there would be a very significant affect, and that people in Aberfeldy should not be taking this chance.
Alastair Riddell assured the meeting that there would be no adverse effects and that visitor numbers would not be affected, He suggested and was supported in this view , that Aberfeldy needed to think in a wider manner and look for an integrated series of visitor attractions He encouraged everyone to endorse the wisdom of their local representatives to see the project through to development. He had reported that an offer was being made and some minor adjustments incorporated. The safeguards had been formally and legally processed and are the important safeguards in the process now going forwards and in the future.
Cllr Ian Campbell said that they were listening to everyone involved and would take due account of all comments received.
Cllr Ken Lyall repeated that this was a difficult subject, that he had not made his mind up, and that he would make what he considered was the best decision of behalf of the people of Aberfeldy.
To some applause, long time resident Sheila Scott suggested to Cllr Lyall that he should not be doing what he thought, but what he was told to do by the people in the town. He would have to vote with the community, not against them.
A show of hands was asked for to conclude the discussion.
28 people, including those associated with the development, were in favour.
40 were against.
3 were undecided
A small number of people are believed not to have declared any view.
ACC are opposed to the scheme as it stands, the same position as Explore Aberfeldy.
Other
No other matters arising were discussed due to lack of time. These to be taken forwards to 3rd February meeting.
HOUSING CONSULTATION/ SPEED LIMITS REVIEW
Cllr Ian Campbell led a discussion on these two consultations that were currently being undertaken by PKC.
Housing
PKC were revising their strategy through to 2018.
The housing need in Highland Perthshire would increase by 4% a year through to 2013, much higher than the national average, and much higher than the PKC area in general, with a further 180 HP homes/ year being required for 5 years. This would present a considerable challenge, identifying suitable sites, upgrading infra-structure and securing the necessary permissions.
At present, 7% of housing belonged to the council, 6% to housing associations, 70% was private, and 17% was privately rented.
The details of the housing consultation can be accessed through the PKC website, or by contacting one of the local councillors who will be giving this some priority.
Two points arose in relation to Aberfeldy:
1 That while only 10% of housing in HP as a whole were second homes, there were pockets within the area were this type of occupancy was much higher, possibly 30-40%, and that it would be useful to get a better breakdown for the ACC area
2 The sewage system was upgraded several years ago and still has a significant spare capacity. It was however queried if the new Breadalbane Community Campus had sufficient capacity for significant population growth within the area.
Speed Limits
PKC had a responsibility to review speed limits on A & B class roads by 2011.
Two points were forthcoming:
1 There was a great many changes with regards to speed limits within the town boundaries, creating confusion in many areas. A strong case was made for simplifying the regime.
2 Following on from this, there was some support for a 20 mph speed limit throughout the town.
COMMUNITY ASSETS AUDIT
This item will be carried forwards to 3rd February.
REPORTS
There was nothing to report from the Chair or Treasurer.
The Secretary reported that Digital UK would be present in the town square on Wed 9th June to provide information on the switch over to digital television.
There was to be an illustrated presentation by Lt Colonel Stephen Cartwright, CO of the Black Watch in Perth Concert Hall on 29th January, 7-8 pm. It was called A Soldiers’ Eye View of the Front Line. Tickets were £8.50, with proceeds going to the regiment Welfare Fund and their Heritage Appeal.
PLANNING
There were no planning matters.
COUNCILLORS REPORTS
Ken Lyall reported that the Black watch parade had been a very successful and emotional occasion in the town.
Although they had taken a bit of time to get going, PKC had done a good job on clearing the snow and all agreed the council should be congratulated for the efforts made.
AOCB
Ron Young reported as Chair of the Friends of Birks Cinema that they now held ownership of the building, and were now applying for SRDP support for funds to develop the building. An open day to clean out the building had been organized for 10am on Saturday 30th January.
It was reported that on both weekends of 12/13th and 19/ 20th December that both bank machines in the square had run out of money, and that this had created considerable difficulties for local businesses in the run-up to Xmas.
One of the banks had also been out of cash on the day of this meeting as well.
A query was made as to why the Aberfeldy Common Good Fund had agreed to give £5000 to Diabetes research. Ken Lyall replied that PKC had been asked to provide funds, and that it had been agreed that all the Common Good funds would contribute.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Wed 3rd February
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Once more I feel I have to reply to the comment made by Mr’ Leszke.
As for his “already up and running schemes have had little or indeed no impact on tourists or the countryside” quote, I have to ask, who has surveyed the effect these schemes have had? All I can say is that I have over 570 signatures and comments, not just from local people but from people around the whole of the U.K. and indeed from around the world who visit the Birks regularly because of the natural beauty which is there for all to see.
One example of visitors from outwith our area who have been visiting the Birks annually (for the last 7 years) is all the Teaching Staff and Acting Head of Muirfield Primary School, Aberdeen. The Staff and pupils stay at Dunolly and the highlight of their stay is when they walk up the Birks. They say, “this is a unique area and unlike anything our Aberdeen children have ever seen. Any reduction of the flow would be sacrilege. We cannot believe it is even being considered”. They have also noticed there are large numbers of local signatures and say that “no wonder so many people of Aberfeldy are up in arms !”.
This is one of many similar comments we have in our petition from visitors far and wide.
How can all the people of Aberfeldy and visitors, in the same frame of mind as these teachers, be ignored by our councillors and also by Mr’ Leszke. This is why I have to question him singularly hearing the people in the town being in favour of the scheme. He does not say whether he has heard the voices of those against the scheme and whether there are or more or less than those for it. I would suggest he looks at all the surveys and votes which have all been in favour of preventing the Hydro scheme from going ahead. As a fommer chairman of the ACC I feel that Mr’ Leszke would have respected the results of these surveys and votes against the scheme. i.e.
P & K survey :- over 90% against the scheme.
ACC Survey :- 71% against the scheme
ACC Vote 2/12/09 :- 96% against the scheme
ACC Vote 13/1/09 :- 58% against the scheme
These figures tell all concerned that the Hydro Scheme is neither wanted by the People of Aberfeldy nor visitors.
Let me allow you a view of who will actually benefit from the Hydro Scheme.
First :- The Aberfeldy Common Good Fund will receive a rental for use of the Water in the Birks. Nobody knows what this is, as yet, but if we assume it is £20,000/annum then the CGF would attain their bank target of £100,000 and have money left over for the local groups and organisations referred to by Mr’ Leszke. So, this is a good thing for Aberfeldy. Or is it?
The amount of money in the CGF on 30th Nov’ 2009 was £94,357.76. The income generated for the CGF is the duty of the CGF committee and with the sum they have at present(quoted above), the way the money could be used to generate more income has not been questioned. (from a sum of approx’ £100,000 they made a mere £300 in interest). It seems that the CGF committee are simply selling off part of our greatest asset, putting it at risk and taking the easy way out instead of actually working at what they were elected to do. Make more money for the CGF and distribute for the Common Good of Aberfeldy.
We have here the local groups and organisations being cared for (there should be more available to them), us having our Christmas lights (an absolute necessity) and money for the Market Day (everybody loves it). What we don’t have, however, is the businesses in Aberfeldy getting any financial help through an extremely hard recession. This means that when there is a decline in the people coming to visit the Birks then the amount of money spent in Aberfeldy by visitors will start to fall rapidly, businesses will collapse and as such we will all suffer since there will be fewer shops for the community. Result - increased prices. (very basic economics). So, once again I don’t think that the people of Aberfeldy will gain anything from this Hydro Scheme including those who, at present, are in favour of it.
Second :- Mr’ Ogilvie-Watson will receive a Scottish Government Grant of up to 90% in order to construct this Hydro Scheme. (details of this grant have not been made available to the public). Once it is built and “up and running” he will receive beetween £250,000 and £300,000 /annum in revenue generated when he sells the electricity to the National Grid. With this generated revenue he will also receive 80% tax relief on this income. When I asked an Aberfeldy Chartered Accountant what he should do when the tax relief comes to an end, he told me that if he was his accountant, at present, he would be drawing up plans for selling it off at a massive profit. Since Mr’ Ogilvie-Watson is, himself, a Chartered Accountant, I surmise that he will no doubt have seriously considered this option. So Mr’ Ogilvie-Watson will make a lot of money from this scheme.
Third :- Green Highland Renewables which is the company Mr’ Ogilvie-Watson is working with, “specialises in developing small to medium scale hydro electric schemes”. (see their web site). On their web site they quote the “UK Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy (RES)” and the Scottish Governmen’s Renewale Action Plan (RAP)”.
I therefore see it as being important that GHR gets as many sites as possible, irrespective of local opinion, and will therefore make a lot of money from these schemes. On their web site they say “Green Highland Renewables is focusing on exploiting this market”.
Fourth :- Scottish and Southern Energy is Britain’s second largest energy supplier. Recently they have bought a 33.33% holding in GHR. This means that all the energy generated by GHR’s schemes will be sold to them at a pre-set price and they will sell that energy onto the consumer at the maximum price they decide they can get away with without Government intervention.(such intervention few people are impressed by). We all know how the energy suppliers are making massive profits and no reduction in cost is ever considered. They always give a very weak answer as to why it has to be increased regularly. So, we have another source getting the benefit from our Birks.
As the story goes. “follow the money and you will get to the truth”.
As I said earlier the only people who are not benefiting from this Hydro Scheme are the People of Aberfeldy. Very sad since the Birks belong to them.
As for the Hydro Scheme. We have seen the CGF receiving money to get their £100,000 target (in the short term). Local groups being catered for. Christmas trees and Market Day being paid for.
Would these targets and grants never again be realised if we did not have the beauty of the Birks to sell off? If not, then God help us since the financial benefits of the scheme will soon be superceeded by reduced visitor spending and inflation. (again very basic economics)
We have seen Mr’ Ogilvie-Watson, Green Highland Renewables and Scottish & Southern Energy trying to make fortunes from these schemes.
What we don’t see is the people of Aberfeldy benefiting from this scheme and in fact, due to the loss of business already generated by the Birks (P & K survey states that people visiting the Birks spend £1.2 million/annum) the whole community would lose out.
The Housing Market has collapsed and now big and medium sized Business see another way to cash in on a market to make a lot of money. It is all about making money for already rich individuals and for businesses getting in to this market early.
Mr’ Leszke, you must recognise that a lot of what I have said is realistic and not just conjecture. The Birks are beautiful as they are. It has taken millions of years to create them, Robbie Burns fell in love with them over 200 years ago and many thousands, if not millions, of people have fell in love with them both before and since Burns. We can’t allow such a unique part of our world and nature be demeaned by people out simply to make money. I believe in business since I ran my own business for 17 years before I moved up here, but I always did so with a conscience. I feel this has been lost by many businesses in the present day and to lose the beauty of the Birks to men of dubious conscience is just so very, very sad.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Willie,
Just to answer some of your points here:
None of the hydro schemes instigated in recent years have involved an amenity/ tourist attraction like the Birks, or not even close.This is a whole order of magnitude higher than anything else round abouts.
The suggestion of a community scheme, while a minority suggestion, is relevant enough, and a perfectly valid point to make. Better you making the money than the other guy every time if that is possible. I doubt, though, if this is seriously on the agenda…..
I don’t think the Common Good fund will disappear. The easiest way to protect it is just to shut it down to applications for a while.
On the bigger picture, there will be £300,000 a year of a community benefit fund coming from Griffin, of which probably 1/3 on average might come to Aberfeldy. This money can be used for all sorts of community projects, including those funded by the CGF. So, we need to get the potential hydro money in perspective. We do not have to bite the developer’s hand off to get it, especially if we think there is a risk in lost tourist revenue to the town. Very simply, we can afford to be a little more hard-headed about this than maybe was the case a few years ago.
I, like the rest of the community councillors, are hearing views both for and against the proposal, in my case in the same approximate ratio as our poll suggested might be the case. There are a lot of people here who do not like this, that is a fact. People should always look to consolidate what they have got before moving forwards, but in any regards, I don’t see that Aberfeldy is stuck in a time warp. I think people here are perfectly capable of making their own decisions on these things.
I do think, however, that these things will resolve themselves in due course. People are getting a feel for the issues involved now, and that is good for everyone.
VC
January 21st, 2010 at 2:37 pm
In reply to Mr Manning I do not believe that this would harm the Birks to such a degree and as was stated on the floor at the last meeting most of the schemes already up and running have had very little or indeed no impact re the tourists or the countryside.
The suggestion that a community run scheme would be OK by one or two of the people who have signed your petition is ludicrous. Question. How can it be fine for a community scheme? Answer. It would stop a business man making money! Perhaps some of those who proposed this should think again - do they really care about the Birks.
As far as the Common Good Fund is concerned as stated the funds are being depleated and we need some injection soon or it will disappear. There are a lot of local groups and organisations who depend on these funds and without them Aberfeldy will have a lot less to offer throughout the year. I am sure that these groups would back me up with this. The Christmas lights have there allowance but if you take Aberfeldy Festive Committee, for instance, they require a lot of funds and are helped by the CGF every year. This year they have a market licence to renew at a cost of £300+ along with the cost of road closures of £450. This is before they even think about trying to attract entertainment for the market day. Where would they get the funds if not for the CGF? People do not have unlimited incomes to support all the worthwhile groups in Aberfeldy.
We need funds now and we could have an opportunity to secure them from this development.
Aberfeldy is in line to benefit from ‘Placecheck’ either this year or 2011 which could mean some money being spent to improve the Town. Councillor Ian Campbell and myself put the case forward to gain this award. This however is a one off source of money unlike the Hydro scheme which will go on for years to come.
These are valid reasons for supporting the scheme and I hear a lot of people in Town saying the same thing. I think Ken Lyall is correct in saying that most people you speak to do not have a problem with the proposal.
Let’s move on with the development and look to the future. Why not promote Aberfeldy as moving ahead rather than being stuck in a time warp!
January 20th, 2010 at 11:46 am
In reply to Mr’ Leszke. I totally agree that there are many millions of plastic bags and plastic packaging which are of great detriment to our planet. This is not just about carbon reduction but also about the amount of rubbish which is thrown onto our streets and places of beauty throughout the planet. I feel that double and triple packaging is not required and it is just another way for big businesses to make more money.
I listened to “Radio Scotland” yesterday morning and I heard a representative of the “Packaging Producers” give his argument for the plastic packaging industry. On the pnone-in there was not one person from the general public who agreed with him. So, Mr’ Leszke”, I agree with you in full on this issue. When I grew up you got one paper bag (if you were lucky) and I cannot see any justification for all this terrible packaging and plastic bags we are subjected to.
As for myself and my wife. We have canvas bags which we use to do any shopping. We also refuse to ever shop at any of the “fast food” places which pile you with polystyrene and plastic bags.
I hope this will put your mind at rest.
However, you are still avoiding the main issue which is a Hydro Scheme being built in our Birks. Irrespective of which way you look at it, it is not going to be of benefit to Aberfeldy. As I have said many times before, I cannot find any way it would benefit the Birks either aesthetically, financially, ecologically or climatically. I have tried to take an objective look at this scheme, when I have been researching the proposal, by comparing it with others as well as the benefits for those who construct them. I have come to the conclusion that anybody who thinks, objectively, about this proposal would see that it would not benefit Aberfeldy economically. In fact it would have a negative effect on our micro ecomomy and the money which the Common good Fund received would not have a “hope in hell” of being the answer to this problem.
I also believe that the CGF committee’s hearts are in the right place but I think they are hoping that this Hydro Scheme will solve all our problems. I have to say that, since there are a lot of clever people in Aberfeldy, then the understanding of the futility of this hope of solving our problems, has been displayed in all the surveys and votes which have shown that the People of Aberfeldy are not in favour of this proposed Hydro Scheme. It may bring the CGF monetary target up to the committee’s desired amount of £100,000 and that would then be left in the bank and look nice. It would not, however, solve any of our micro economic problems and it would allow our Birks to be severely degraded as well as making a lot of money for the person wishing to construct the scheme.
January 18th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
I notice from the Common Good Fund Accounts for the period to 30th November 2009, that the £5000 for Diabetes Research is currently Committed….ie promised, but still in the account, so this is not an historic application.
Assuming that the other £1000 was granted at the 16th December meeting, then there will be £86,857.76 left in the account at the year end.
ie £13,000 below the target £100,000.
With £4500 caravan park income and £300 interest a year in income, and £2500 expenses annually to the Festive Committee, even if frozen at that, the fund would take nearly 6 years to come back up to £100k again.
This then emphasises two things.
Firstly, we do indeed need more income coming in to the Common Good Fund.
Secondly, the £5000 to Diabetes UK does look a bit on the charitable side, bearing in mind that it is a significant proportion of the capital remaining.
In that regard, it is probably a valid enough point to make.
January 18th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
I am in two committees who have benefitted from the Community Fund. People sometimes discredit the fund but groups have to put a valid application in to benefit. Not everyone is successful but I do not think their is anything underhand by the way it is managed.
One of the groups I Chair has improved areas of Aberfeldy through hard work and determination and yes we are seeing a difference. It may be slow but we are looking better now than we did 4/5 years ago. My terminology of kick starting Aberfeldy must surely be taken in it’s widest context and not blinkered.
In his reply Mr Manning chose to rule out wheather he is trying to save the planet by refusing to take plastic bags to cut down on his own carbon footprint and he also failed to declare how many 4 x 4 vehicles were sitting outside the previous CC meeting or how many people were from outside the area! Very clever to chose what to reply to and how it is delivered.
Perhaps Mr manning sees the plastic bag as insignificant as he cared to ignore the comment! After all 1 plastic bag must be millions below 9.5 thousands of 1% yet most retail stores think it is worth saving!
January 18th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
this is what I said the CGF in the next Quair.
I would like to comment on the Common Good Fund as there appears to be some criticism of it as a committee with the suggestion that it is either not democratic nor makes decisions in the common good of Aberfeldy. The CGF was built up by my predecessor Alex Murray who formalised an agreed rent from the Aberfeldy Caravan Park and when I was first elected and chaired the committee there was approx £90,000 in the fund. One thing that Alex asked me to do was to carefully look after the fund and to try to build it up to £100,000 and keep that minimum amount there as half the income comes from the caravan park and the other from interest on the money in the account (less money in the account, less interest). By June 2008 the fund had reached the high of approx £107,000 but since has reduced due to more requests for funding and due to the credit crunch the annual interest has fallen from £4500 to £300, with the fund now at £90,000 and falling. It is becoming imperative to try to look for more income to the fund without which may mean that the fund is frozen apart from the Xmas lights (£2500) for the next year or so to try to build it back up to the £100,000 mark. I am proud to have chaired this committee for 11 years; the committee is made up from the three elected councillors for the area, the leader and deputy leader of the administration in the council. We are all elected and accountable to represent the best interests of the town and can be unelected every council election (next May 2012). In the last four years there have been around 20 local groups and organisations that have benefited once or more from funding totalling over £43,000.
January 18th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
John,
I wasn’t questioned about how much was in the fund (this is easy to find out as all documentation is in the public domain, incidently it is approx £90,000). I have clarified the CGF in the next Quair!
I was asked by Mr Pointer about one grant application from NHS Tayside re a Diabetes Research Campaign (this was on 1st October 2008) and I responded that a grant was agreed as it was considered and deemed to be in the common good of the town. (I assume that is because this application is the only one that he could find that could maybe be argued was not in the best interest of the town). Maybe you could tell me what is vague about that?
It would be easy to conclude that this is just a red herring thrown to try to back up an argument, maybe just a thought that you had, to try to rubbish what Mr Leszke said in his post. Mr Leszke was the chair of the CC for a good while and more than likely knows much more than you re anything to do with the community here and P&K. (you should note that he is not ‘in my back pocket’ neither am I in his, we have had many a dissagrement in the past, but I do like to think that we have a mutual respect.)
January 18th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Dear Cllr Lyall,
at the ACC meeting on 13th, Jan’, you were questioned about how much was in the the Common Good Fund and how it was being used. It appeared to several people that you were being quite vague about this but it was not pursued.
The point I was making to Mr’ Leszke was that this was not the way to give the local economy a “kick start” because of the way any money is currently being used and given to any groups in Aberfeldy. The sums we are talking about were very small and no businesses were given money to help them expand or even to help them survive the economic recession.
Should you wish me to make this information, regarding the CGF, available to the public, I will be happy to do so. With the people of Aberfeldy having this information I think this is an issue which can be discussed in more detail in the not too distant future.
However, this is not the issue we have being discussing to date. The real issue is that neither aesthetically, financially, ecologically nor climatically is the proposed Hydro Scheme of benefit to Aberfeldy.
January 17th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Does Mr’ Leszke know how the money from the CGF is distributed?….From the information I obtained, I assure Mr’ Leszke that it makes his argument an embarrasment to himself.
Mr Manning, can you please elabrorate this? I have chaired this fund for 11 years and the fact is that bar once in my recollection I have agreed with all grants and I cant think of any which were not within its remit of anything to the common good of the town.
January 16th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I feel I have to reply to both Ms Mackie and Mr’ Leszke. As for Ms Mackie, I think her terminology such as “crazy woman”, “waving a clipboard”, “Pressured” etc seems a bit over exaggerated to say the least. We have over 500 signatures on the petition myself and my wife made available to the public and gave explanations of the campaign when requested. Since the vast majority of these signatures were given on petition forms found in a variety of businesses throughout Aberfeldy, then I hardly think that these can be given the heading of “pressure by a crazy woman” as suggested by Ms Mackie. we have signatures from people totally spanning the ages of our community and visitors. From pupils at Breadalbane Acadamy to the oldest members of our community. Her interpretation of our petition and how signatures were accumulated seems a bit extreme, don’t you think?
For the details of all who read this reply I would just like to give a quick summary of why I disagree with the Hydro Scheme.
The Falls of Moness and the Gorge where the Moness Burn runs down is Aberfeldy’s greatest tourist attraction. I walk round the Birks 365 days per annum and I see the beauty of it, in all it’s forms, during all the seasons. It is a magnificant gift from nature and it was gifted to the people of Aberfeldy by the Marquis of Breadalbane. All year I meet visitors, not just from Scotland, but from all around the world who have made a point of coming to Aberfeldy to see this beautiful asset. I talk to many of them and they all agree that their visit has been well worth the time taken to be allowed to see and experience something so unique. The majority of visitors and tourists carry a camera to photograph the Birks, the Falls and the Gorge and many ask me to take photographs of their groups with various parts of the Birks as a backdrop. I have also photographed people with my own professional camera and emailed the images to them. People have fun, they smile, they laugh, they show all the various aspects of the Birks to their kids and do this throughout the year irrespective of the weather. This is what I want left untouched by human beings. Nature is constantly changing our ecology and it is much better at it than man will ever be. Irrespective of what the people who want to construct the Hydro Scheme say, they will change the ecology of the Birks forever and as such this ecology will never be returned to it’s original form irrespective of what is said by the developers. It is our Beautiful Gift from Nature and our most important tourist attraction. This is my one and only reason for opposing the Hydro Scheme and wishing to “Protect the Birks”.
In reply to Mr’ Leszke. He suggests that public opinion is changing in favour of the Hydro Scheme. Even ignoring the fact that there were many people at the ACC meeting, on 13th, Jan’, who did not come from Aberfeldy and that Creiff Road had a large number of 4 x 4 vehicles parked all the way along it outside the town hall, the vote was 25 for the scheme; 40 against the scheme; 4 undecided :- This gives the people against the scheme - a 21% majority against construction of the Hydro Scheme. Would Mr’ Leszke like to ask any political party at the next General Election, possibly in May, if they would consider this as being an “Overwhelming Majority” or really a vote for the opposition? Need I say more on this subject? Oh! maybe 1 other point. When it was mentioned, by the chairman of the ACC that we were having a vote, why did Mr’ Leszke, who was sitting directly behind me, suggest that we did not need a vote? If he was so sure that the opinion was shifting then I would have thought that he would have welcomed such a vote.
Mr’ Leszke suggests that Aberfeldy needs an injection of money to stop the decline in the town and to do this the money from the Hydro Scheme into the Abefeldy Common Good Fund is the best way to do this. Does Mr’ Leszke know how the money from the CGF is distributed? Before he made this statement then I think he should have asked the councillors to give details of how this “distribution” is put into affect. I have actually asked for this information and should Mr’ Leszke wish a copy of the details I received then I would gladly forward them to him. From the information I obtained, I assure Mr’ Leszke that it makes his argument an embarrasment to himself.
Mr’ Leszke suggests that the people of Aberfeldy who disagree with the Hydro Scheme would be “better putting their energy into attracting tourists all year round”. As I have previously stated, The Birks is the greatest tourist attraction. It also generates the most money spent by tourists and visitors. (of £1.9m spent by tourists to Aberfeldy, £1.2m is spent by those coming to see the Birks, Falls, Gorge - see P & K survey available in the public domain on P & K website). We are in an economic recession at the moment and I tend to disagree with Mr’ Leszke’s suggestion that the people who disagree with the Hydro Scheme can rectify this problem for Aberfeldy. Since the world economists are having a good bit of bother reversing this situation then I don’t think that Mr’ Leszke has a grip on Aberfeldy’s economic decline.
As stated by Mr’ Leszke, we could lead the way with renewable energy. He does not voice the fact that I gave details of how much energy the scheme would produce when viewed nationally. I told the meeting that the energy produced by the scheme would amount to 2/100ths of 1% (1/5000th) of the renewable energy already being produced in Scotland.
Mr’ Leszke also states that “protestors” (a very calculated form of terminology) dismiss the saving on the carbon footprint as being insignificant. Once again, he does not voice the details of carbon emissions I gave to the meeting. The actual reduction of carbon emission from the scheme would amount to 9.5 thousandths of 1% of the carbon emission already being producd by Scotland and 8.5 ten thousandths of 1% of Britain’s carbon emission. I will let you decide for yourself whether you consider this as being insignificant or not.
Mr’ Leszke refers to the “Protect the Birks” campaign as being “scaremongering”. Where do you get this scaremongering from Mr’ Leszke? All information given to the people of Aberfeldy have been based on facts and if you considered that as scaremongering, then why did you not vioce this opinion at the ACC meeting after I had spoken? I tend to think that you may be trying to use this actual method of scaremongering in your blog reply. It’s such an old technique scare people into agreeing with you and it is below any level I would like to sink to.
As for the other points you have made, Mr’ Leszke, I don’t feel I have to comment on them since it seems obvious that you are very misinformed and trying to be extremely misleading. This should be apparrent to all who read your blog.
I would also like to ask Mr’ Leszke how often he walks around the Birks and allows himself to appreciate the beauty of this gift from nature which is on his doorstep? Does he think that visitors to our town will be there to take photographs of a lump of concrete which the Hydro scheme will produce?
I am in total favour of renewable energy but only when it is done for the right reasons. I assume that very few people in Aberfeldy appreciate the “Big Business” which is involved in this scheme. Their approach to renewable energy is to “exploit” (a quote from one of the businesses involved in renewable energy) all possible sites irrespective of the wishes of the people or the damage it may cause. I use the word “damage” carefully since the damage would be to our beautiful part of the world as well as to our local economy. The amount of water running over the Falls and down the Gorge will be reduced to beetween 27% and 50% of the existing water (Figures form Green Highland Renewables). This will greatly reduce the attraction of these exhibitions of nature at it’s most beautiful and the reduction of this attraction will most certainly reduce the visitors wishing to visit Aberfeldy. Although the visitors are extremely important to the local economy, The Birks belong to us and the People of Abefeldy should have the right to decide about this scheme through Councillor Lyall. All surveys and votes have told Cllr Lyall that the People of Aberfeldy are against the Hydro Scheme and as such, he should vote against the scheme at the ACGF committee meeting of 24th Feb’, on our behalf.
January 15th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I do not agree with the tactics adopted by the protesters. During my walk to work in rush… this crazy woman approached me and started waving a clipboard in my face, and rambling on about something which i didnt understand at all she made no sense and i felt like i had been pressured into signing something which i didnt know anything about, it wasnt untill i spoke to few local people when i discovered i wasnt the only one this had happened. Im not impressd and i think all this faffing about should be stopped!
January 15th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Public opinion is now shifting in the debate with 40 people against and 28 people in favour at the last Community Council meeting. This compares to approx 52/2 at the previous meeting. Arguements are getting a bit thin and the latest from one of the objectors is to have a community Hydro scheme instead. Obviously the main concern is NOT the Birks but who is going to make the money. (Ken Lyall take note)
Aberfeldy needs an injection of money to stop the decline in the town. The best way to get this is through the Hydro scheme with money being paid to the Common Good Fund. There is no Community Trust at the moment so it must go via the Common Good Fund. The would be protesters would be better putting their energy into attracting more tourists to the town all year round (as mentioned from the floor during the meeting). I am sure there are a lot of local groups trying to make a difference but struggling to get people on board to help. There is more to Aberfeldy than the Birks.
As was said at the meeting we could lead the way with renewable energy for the town and bring it in to the 21st Century. What better way of promoting the Birks in the future than turning a negative feeling into a positive with the green energy produced from a natural source. The protesters dismiss the saving on the Carbon Footprint as being insignificant. These are probably the same people who will not take carrier bags at the Co-op to save the planet! Does the government not say that every little saving on the carbon footprint is worth while.
Comments were also made at the meeting regarding some local schemes already up and running with no detrimental effect to the surrounding countryside or indeed the water courses they are drawn from. A lot of hype for this campaign has been built on scaremongering. The campaign as I see it has turned into a personal vendetta against one man for being bold enough to think of the idea and applying for planning permission to make it happen.
It is now time for all the protesters to turn their energy to giving Aberfeldy a kick start to get it going once more. After all what good will the Birks be if Aberfeldy has nothing to offer or are we only interested in getting people to walk round the Birks and to heck with the town itself!
No doubt my comments will keep this thread going for another month or two until the decision is made.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
To try to make things balanced here, I know it is difficult but not impossible. The extreamists are just aguing themselves out of what they want. Lies, missinformation and exaduration may win people over in the short term but not for the long run.
I have made a point of speaking to everyone I meet about the Urlar Scheme and the majority is that there is NO objection to the scheme. There is objection to the flows over the falls and also the community benefit and that are two issues that have to be negotiated.
Lets face it, 80% of the people in Aberfeldy do not have any concern re the hydro scheme (or do they), certainly not by the polls and the people that I have spoken to.
9 out of 45 of the tourist buisinesses in Explore Aberfeldy do not have a problem with the scheme, YES out of the poll voters just under the replies were not in favour.
I have concerns about the scheme and I have asked the applicant to really consider what, as a last resort, how much he can give back to the community and also how much he can agee that the falls are not affected for 1) the minimum fall and 2) the maximum fall).
I await his repy.
Until that I will remain open to opinion and take everything on board.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
I hardly see the so called factual errors as being material. Yes I did miss state the time of the ACC presentation, but the reality is that it was even long ago, so what does this prove? Absolutely nothing other than time flies whebn you are having fun!!
As for comment in minutes, maybe I did say around £10,000 pa, that was at the earliest stage in this but as I am not the applicant or work for him I dont see the point you are trying to make. The sum has not been agreed nor the length of lease, this would be decided if at the next Common Good Fund Committee it is decided to ask the Council officers to negotiate these things.
This continual nit picking does nothing for the arguments for or against and I for one am getting a bit fed up with it.
Lastly it may be useful or not for the ‘readers’ to know that because of comments made my you, the previous ACC stood down on mass, which I am afraid showed a great deal of disrespect to them. They may have been a bit ‘bogged down’ re toilets in the town, but genuinly cared about the town and always acted in a community spirited way.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:54 am
I am posting an update here on our poll and the Explore Aberfeldy membership survey. In addition, I will refer to some points made by Ken Lyall in the Quair this month, and to the orignal presentation made to Aberfeldy Community Council on this subject.
ACC POLL
There is no minimum turnout required to make a poll viable, be that a poll like this or a local council or Holyrood election. A poll is most commonly invalidated through improper procedures. In this case, we did go to considerable lengths to ensure that the procedure could not be challenged. If this was a scientific experiment, a minimum 10% sample would be considered to be adequate.
So, as a representative sample of public opinion in Aberfeldy, the ACC poll cannot be challenged. If people choose to disregard it, that is up to them, but there are no clear grounds for doing so.
A poll is different from a petition. A petition with 49% of the population signed up can accurately be described as a minority view.
The message here is quite clear. If you are interested in measuring public opinion about a local subject, organise a poll that allows people to express their opinion without being led to a particluar view, and make sure they know where to access further information if they want to see that. DO NOT organize petitions which are much easier to disregard, unless you know that you can achieve more than 50% of your total target audience.
EXPLORE ABERFELDY MEMBERSHIP SURVEY
Explore Aberfeldy has asked the views of its members, all of whom have tourist related businesses in or around the town. They have 60 members. 18, or 30%, responded.
1 was in favour of the proposal.
8 were aginst the proposal
9 were against the proposal, but considered that a better overall arrangement should be negotiated.
Explore Aberfeldy is therefore not willing to support the proposal AS IT STANDS, with 17/ 18 members against. It may be willing to give consent to an alternative arangement.
This is the same view taken by Aberfeldy Community Council.
QUAIR ARTICLE & ORIGINAL ACC PRESENTATION
There are a number of factual errors in Ken Lyall’s article in the Quair this month.
The presentation to Aberfeldy Community Council was not this time last year, but on 7 March 2007.
Ken rightly points out that the £10k rental and potential 40 year lease have not been agreed. However, it should be noted where these figures come from. The potential £10k rental was mentioned and minuted at the presentation by the developer in March 2007.
At our ACC meeting in November 2009, in setting out the background, Ken himself said that a lease “would probably last for 40 years”, and has been minuted as such. As always, the option to make changes to draft minutes was available at the time.
This, then, is why these two figures are in circulation.
Ken mentions the petition going around might well be useful. While respecting that people can do their own thing as they see fit, Aberfeldy Community Council does not feel the current petition adds to the overall argument. We believe the numbers on that have not yet been collated, but there may well be up to 300 at present, a proportion of which are visitors to the town. How many might also have particpiated in our ballot is not clear.
I have a copy of the presentation given to ACC on 7 March 2007, and there are a number of things in there which can help explain why the current situation has came about.
Firstly, the presentation was not actually an Agenda item, it was made under AOCB. While this might just appear to be a minor point of procedure it is important in two regards. Firstly, the presentation will not have appeared on the Agenda for the meeting, and hence anyone interested could not have come along. Secondly, Community Councillors, the Chair excepted, will not have had any notice, or may not have had time, to do any preparations. The issue was simply added on at the end of a normal meeting.
Eight members of the public attended. Five community councillors and Ken Lyall were also present.
More significant are the figures presented. The document states that there would be no abstraction at the bottom 20% of flows and “would be at full power for 20% of the year when the water was very high when it would typically take 5% of the water going down the river and a decreasing amount in between”. The concluding paragraph states “It was basically concluded that the downsides of the scheme are not material and are outweighed by the renewable energy benefits”
The document very clearly then states that the maximum abstraction would be 5% at the highest flows, and less at other times. This is very clearly misleading, and this is the information on which ACC, at that point, was presented with, the ONLY information it had prior to being asked by PKC for its views on the subject.
There are two other related points from the presentation:
The document suggests that a minimum level of water is required to acheive generation, and the impression is given is that is all that is required, and that additional water serves no additional purpose. We know, of course, that a run-of-river scheme will take all the water you are prepared to run through it, and will generate income in proportion to that total. The document clearly states that it will take “the minimum amount of water needed to achieve generation.”
Finally, there is this matter of Q levels. The planning consent allows the developer to abstract at Q90, meaning that the flow left in the stream is the level surpassed for 90% of the year. ie very low.
The initial Environmental Statement produced by Shawater assumed abstraction at Q80. ie leaving a higher flow in the river. The PKC ranger service had wanted Q70, a still higher residual flow.
Significantly, the ONLY photograph shown to ACC at that point was what the falls would look like at Q73, a much higher flow than the Q90 that would now be applied.
So, in March 2007, Aberfeldy CC was shown a photo of the falls at Q73 and waas assured that a maximum of 5% of the water would be abstracted, and only then at the very highest flows.
ACC formed a view that the scheme would be relatively benign on this basis.
Victor Clements
Secretary, Aberfeldy Community Council
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Ken,
Two serious points here:
The ACC poll as reported is a representative sample of the views in the town…..everyone having an equal opportunity to participate, and the poll paper not leading people to a view one way or the other. For the record, we consciously even put the option to vote for the scheme down first, so that there could be no suggestion that the subliminal message was for people to vote against.
The polling paper directed people to appropriate sources of information, namely on the Comment website, or the ACC minutes in the library, which were passed as an accurate account of the meetings and situation, including input from the developer & local Councillors (including yourself) before they were published. Most people also had the opportunity to attend the open day before they cast their vote, and look for appropriate background documents as they see fit. Over and above all this, people know the pluses and minuses involved with this scheme in their own minds anyway, it is not rocket science, and they can talk to their neighbours and friends about it if they want to kick the arguments around a bit. This issue is now on the radar where it was not before, and people have access to whatever information they want to allow them to make a decision. And it is not a one-way process…..the developer has been making himself available to answer questions as well, and not turning anyone away, and is showing a fair degree of patience with the whole situation.
People are therefore getting a good feel for the arguments, for and against.
Everyone on Aberfeldy CC, including myself, are against the proposal AS IT STANDS. The Chair has not declared a view, and we have not taken a binding vote on the matter, in order to leave the matter open. We have made a conscious decision to do this, and that is fair to everyone, the developer included. It is right that people know where we stand, and we have documented this view as such. If we, or any of us, change our minds, we will report that and the reasons why as well.
The view of Explore Aberfeldy will be crucially important, as they represent the people in the town with most to lose. If they are happy with it, then that will influence our thinking.
There is a bigger issue here though. Aberfeldy CC put in a lot of effort to gather the views of the town in an open and transparent manner, and no-one yet has been able to criticise the PROCESS. If those views are disregarded, then that has implications for how we quantify or measure support for any number of other issues.
I have asked for some independant advice on the validity or otherwise of the poll that we ran, and will report on that in due course.
My persistance on this subject simply reflects my concern that our efforts to inform people fairly on this issue and to gather views will be too easily dismissed. If that is the case, then that has longer term consequences for how we deal with other issues in future. If the poll results are to be disregarded or downplayed, we need to be clear of the basis on which that has been done. We will do our own homework on this…..
The Birks hydro issue will resolve itself in due course, I am sure.
VC
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:20 am
It is a nonsence to argue figures, does that mean that under 12% of the town therefore are against the hydro scheme. (3/4 of 15%).
Much more importantly, did the people have all the relevent information to make a proper decision? To make the stupid comparison re council elections, at least all cnadidates standing had a manifesto and election statement. Incidently, as one of two snp candidates, I was not allowed to canvass or electioneer in over half of Highland Perthshire and I would be confident that my support in Aberfeldy Town was considerably more than the 25% over Highland (I go by my well over 50% support at the 2003 elections).
I think that as I am still listening and speaking to people about the proposal and am neutral I may be in a better position than Victor whio has clearly stated that he is agaionst the proposal, and this MAY bias his scribblinjgs on this subject.
I will be interested in the local tourism groups poll (Explore Aberfeldy), the results of which will be known soon.
December 28th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
FIGURES
The 221 returned ballots in the ACC poll represented about 15% of the electorate in the town, which on a single-issue subject in a very narrow time period is fairly respectable.
In a local council election, would the result be anulled if it fell below a certain % turnout figure, and, if so, what % would that be? If councillors are returned whatever the turnout, what then would be the basis for disregarding our poll result? People were given a fair choice, were not led in to giving a particluar answer, the papers could be completed in secret and the poll was conducted by a recognized local body. The ballot paper was also approved by Cllr Lyall, PKC staff and also the developer, and other members of the Common Good committee also had the opportunity to contribute.
To disregard this result, it is surely necessary to demonstrate that the result is not representative of the views of the town. If there is any evidence that suggests that the views of the town are actually different to those portrayed here, it would be very interesting to see that. As a Community Council, we ultimately have to go with the information available to us, and we cannot second-guess the views of those who do not wish to particpiate, for whatever reason.
On the subect of 15%, a quick calculation shows that Ken Lyall got 25% of the vote cast, but….that’s right….only 15% of the HP electorate in 2007. Funny how figures repeat themselves……!!
VC
December 26th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Ken Lyall says: December 24th, 2009 at 11:11 pm: ‘you are open to correction. The meeting was not the poll, it was 50ish in the 2000 population.’
Ken, I am not sure what exactly you feel that you have corrected. I am fully aware that your previous posting which I quoted from was not from the poll but, rather, from a previous meeting vote. I was using it purely in an illustrative context the rationale which you had applied in THAT situation and to extrapolate from that earlier situation how the SAME rationale might be applied by yourself in relation to the actual poll, as evidenced by your own posting.
I acknowledge your agreement with my analysis of the election figures (more or less); You polled 15.7% of the electorate (1,150 out of 7,312)- it is THIS figure to which my previous posting referred to correctly portray the analogy with your “40 or so” out of a total population of approx 2000.
Anyway, as you say, times change but I am sure you would wish to agree that accurate portrayal throughout is very much in the public interest.
Ron Duncan Rose
December 24th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Ron,
you are open to correction
The meeting was not the poll, it was 50ish in the 2000 population.
I did poll around the 25% mark in Highand Perthshire, that is the flaw of P.R. elections. The previous election in Breadalabne I recieved more than 50% of the vote. Times change though and I will be voted for or not, by my actions now, and that is fine and fair by me. I will do my best for the area as I have alsways done and see what happens. If I stand or not, or stand and am elected or not, so be it, life is too short to get hung up on this sort of argument.
Best wishes and a happy 2010 to everyone.
ken
December 19th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Well Victor, that in my interpretation is what one calls a clear majority.
However, sadly, in my humble opinion, and on the evidence of a previous posting in particular, at least one member of the Development Control Committee is likely to take the view that this is not a majority in the “real” sense as it does not include the opinions of a majority of the whole population, merely the ones who took the trouble to participate!
Ken Lyall Says:
December 5th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
“…The population of the town is approx 2000. 40 or so members of the public attend and object. Do you think I should stand up and support them without knowing the true feelings in the town? Of course not.”
I would submit that this thinking is flawed for the simple reason that presumably (and I am open to correction)the poll was freely available to everybody and therefore it is those who took the trouble to “get off their backsides” and contribute their views that SHOULD be supported.
Or should a local councillor who polled less than 25 per cent of the population of Highland Ward have applied his own rationale and declined to accept re-election since he had neither the views nor the support of THE TOTAL POPULATION.
It must surely be frustrating for the good people of the Community Council to have to contend with such interpretational diversity!
Best of luck in your sterling efforts to see common sense prevail.
Ron Duncan Rose
December 18th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
We took in the boxes from our ACC poll today. This poll has no connection with the current petition, and was not leading people in to a view one way or another. All returns made were confidential, and we have retained the ballot papers for now.
In total, 221 forms were returned. This represents approx 15% of the adult population of the town.
166, or exactly 75% were against the proposal.
55, or 25% were in favour.
VC
December 17th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
A message of support to the petition organisers
Firstly, please utilise the medium of Aberfeldy Community Council to voice your genuine concerns, they appear to be going from strength to strength.
Second, I urge you not to be put off by local councillor comments regarding the manner in which you seek signatures as mentioned by Cllr Lyall recently. He claimed to have had EXACTLY the same sort of feedback when I was gathering signatures on my successful Scottish Parliament petition (”a problem with the way in which you canvass public opinion”, copy held) - he posted his comments on this VERY forum!! Make of that what you will! Short of taking sides, I wish you luck in obtaining the fair hearing that members of the community from whichever camp deserve. Once again, i will remind everyone that P&K can (and in the case of the alcohol ban, WERE) held to account by higher authority. The community council has exactly the same right as I utilised to successfully lobby the Scottish Ministers regarding any local council conduct which raises community concern - more power to their elbow!
As always, I speak how I genuinely find, any perceived criticism of a personal nature is nothing more than co-incidental to public accountability.
Onwards and upwards
Ron Duncan Rose
December 15th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Ron,
I missed my chance not asking what the dog thought…..I suspect it might be above all this sort of stuff.
Ken, In both March and July this year, we had the right number of candidates for the number of places…therefore, no election required. However, there will an election process again in due course, at the end of our term, at which we will all have to stand. If we make a hash of things, or if we create interest in the positions & possibilities of the role, then we might well have a contested election next time around. So we are accountable really…..and we do have to make ourselves available at open meetings, in our case, 10 times a year.
There will be a number of important issues arising in Abereldy over the next year or so……and if ACC can make a useful contribution in shaping events then I would think that we will then see more people wanting to become involved.
VC
December 15th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Victor
I appreciate being able to access the minutes online, thank you.
As a matter of passing interest, did the dog vote too?!!
December 12th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Victor,
The term you use is ‘re election’, please tell me what that means in terms of the exisiting Aberfeldy CC members, and also how many people voted for each person?
To answer this, there was no election, apart from within the cc’s own committee.
I have no problem with the committee, I actually think it is a very good one, but where is the accountability?
You could state that the comminuty is to blame for not enough people puting their names forward to force an election. This is true to an extent, next though you could balme the council, as the blame game is the easiest in town and the counil is the biggest target. I do not agree with this though.
The cc’s are a valuable link that is definately true, and so are elected council members.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
These are the minutes of ACC meeting on 2nd Dec, with matters not relating to Urlar Burn taken out. Our next meeting will be on Wed 13th January. All interested are encouraged to attend, whether from Aberfeldy or not. There will of course be other Agenda items, with other issues now competing for time as well. Anyone who has not yet filled in a ballot paper can find one either at the Locus Centre, or in Wade’s Newsagents.
ABERFELDY COMMUNITY COUNCIL
Meeting held in
ABERFELDY TOWN HALL
ON WEDNESDAY 2nd DECEMBER 2009
At 7.30pm
MINUTES
WELCOME
Present:
Mike Williamson (Chair), Victor Clements (Secretary), Jean Duff (Treasurer), Eric Slorance, Ron Young & Peter Scott (ACC members), Cllrs Ken Lyall & Ian Campbell, Neil Fraser(Green Highland Renewables), Donald Ogilvy-Watson (Urlar Estate). 56 members of public and one dog also attended.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
There were no apologies.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes were taken as read.
URLAR BURN HYDRO
Update
Any decision on awarding a lease on the Lower Birks has now been deferred to 24th February, to allow council officials to properly review the information available to them.
The developer and Green Highland Renewables had organized an open day at Aberfeldy Town Hall on Saturday 28th November, which had been very well attended, potentially with 2-300 people passing through during the morning (Donald O-W).
Donald Ogilivy Watson again gave some background to his application. He had met with little comment when he first suggested the scheme in 2007, including from the then Aberfeldy CC. He had been advised to seek planning permission first, and then to negotiate a lease over the Lower Birks. He had followed the procedures as advised throughout, and his motivations were to diversify his estate business and deliver renewal energy capacity in line with government recommendations.
Aberfeldy CC had organized a ballot to collect views on the Birks hydro scheme, which had now been open for 5 days. In that time there had been 182 forms returned, with 71% aginst the scheme and 29% in favour. The ballot would be kept open for another few weeks, possibly through to the New Year.
Comments from the floor
It became clear very quickly that opinion against the scheme was very strong. The reasons could be grouped in to the following categories:
• Very few people had known about the scheme until now, it had slipped completely under the radar. Leaflets had been aimed at visitors only, and only at the site itself. Tourist businesses had not been consulted.
• The scale of abstraction was much greater than many had anticipated, 50-73% over a wide range of flows, and up to 64 million litres per day, many times greater than the old town water supply was taking. The open day had made this more obvious to many people.
• There had been no discussions regarding joint ownership of the project, with the result that many people felt the likely rent to the town was derisory. The developer added that the process of negotiation had yet to take place.
• Environmental issues had not properly been considered, with the necessary information not available for the planning meeting, and yet the application had been given planning permission anyway.
• The economic impact in the town could be potentially very significant.
• Many people who saw the initial leaflets asking for comments ignored them as they felt that the project could never possibly be granted permission to go ahead. It had just seemed a fanciful idea that would surely fail.
• The economy of the town was based on tourism, with over 50,000 visitors a year to the Birks alone. Other towns would not tolerate this. Why should Aberfeldy?
The advice that had been given to councillors was questioned, and many felt that the developer had been badly advised as well.
There was over 700 MW of renewable energy projects in the surrounding area, either in operation or awaiting permission. The Urlar Burn scheme was 0.1% of this total, a tiny contribution which did not justify the sacrifice of an important amenity. Highland Perthshire was already doing its bit, and Aberfeldy should resist the emotional blackmail that was being applied with regards to renewable energy schemes.
The point was again made that the developer had objected to the windfarm at Calliacher on the grounds that it would detract from the amenity of his own property, despite that too being a renewable energy scheme.
Cllr Ken Lyall, Convenor of the Common Good Scheme, insisted that he had an open mind on the matter, and that rumours to the contrary were untrue. He would await further information coming forwards. Comment was made that only one of the Common Good Committee members was from Aberfeldy, although the three Highland Ward councillors will all have received votes from the town.
All views on the scheme, for or against, should be directed to the local councillors or ACC. Green Highland Renewables were happy to host queries on the technicalities of the scheme.
Off the 56 people present unconnected with the scheme, 54 were against, with two in favour. On ACC, five members were against. The Chair did not declare, keeping the matter open for a subsequent meeting.
At the end of the meeting, when asked if a better financial package would change opinions, it was clear that people were not interested in the scheme at any price. There would be two more ACC meeting before the next Common Good Committee meeting on 24th February.
ACC COMMUNICATIONS
The issue above highlighted the issue of communications, and how best they were achieved in the town.
ACC Agendas and minutes were posted on the board in the Square, with copies available in the Locus Centre and library. Minutes were sent to Comment, Quair and local Press. However, our meetings were out of sync with publication dates, with the result that information was often out of date by the time it was published.
It was agreed that minutes would be made available in a greater range of outlets in the town, and that consideration would be given to getting dedicated notice-board space in the square.
Comment was made that many people in Aberfeldy have been very slow to support the Community Council in the past, and that this then created difficulties like that above, where important issues could go unaddressed due to apparent apathy. All agreed that efforts should be made to change this.
ACC were currently looking to co-opt up to three new members, and greater capacity itself would allow us to reach more people. A website would be developed in due course, but it was suggested that we should not rely on this alone.
ACC will take these issues forward as a matter of priority.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Wed 13th January
December 10th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
A further point on accountability, one current P&K councillor only remains in office despite transgressing criminal law (as notified to you before but “moderated” because the challenging candidate took a gentleman’s approach in not prosecuting (yours truly).
Worth printing here Victor, as perhaps it is time to give it wider exposure so that such conduct does not go unpunished in future P&K elections. Your responsible inclusion of articles thus far will hopefully preclude a requirement to report elsewhere.
Without prejudice
Ron Duncan Rose.
December 10th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Interesting point Victor and, of course, entirely correct. however accountability seems somewhat flawed as demonstrated in the case of Aberfeldy Community Council in particular (before your time in office) whereby “accountability” rules allowed a chairman convicted of theft from the very community which he purported to serve, to remain in the Chair as he received a sentence of less than 3 months imprisonment!!
I am sure you will agree that this hardly amounts tothe most efficient form of accountability. No reflection, of course, on current membership who appear to be doing the town proud; great to see.
Ron Duncan Rose
December 10th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
To clarify another point, anyone joining a Community Council is accountable in that they have to stand for re-election, they have to make themselves available for public scrutiny up to ten times a year in our case, and we can have our arses kicked up and down the road or ridiculed through the Press or in the street if we get things wrong.
And, of course, local authorities and agencies of the State must take due account of our deliberations as long as they are conducted in a fair and transparent fashion.
Community Councils are actually a very valuable link in the chain of local democracy and must be heard, whether that is convienient or not for others at higher levels is immaterial. Our local councillors know that they can work with us…..but it is a two-way process.
December 10th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Just to answer the point raised by William Darling, as the Lower Birks is Common Good, the people of Aberfeldy effectively own the area….and therefore have a say in how it is managed. It is therefore not NIMBY at all, which is objecting to something that some-one is doing NEAR your back yard….this is effectively right in our own back yard, and therefore people should have a right to veto or approve as they see fit.
The point has already been made that the proposal will provide 0.1% of the renewal energy likely to come from Highland Perthshire…..ie not enough of a difference to risk an important amenity, if it is indeed shown that the risk involved is high. That risk has yet to be properly quantified….
This actually is the same scenario at Dall Estate, where 1000 acres of Forestry Commission land is required for development of the super-resort. That is not NIMBY either, because we all, the nation, own it, and we should be treated as equal partners and respected for our views, whichever way people decide.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Good point William
A forward thinking approach is all too rare and these issues should be given an equal “place at the table”. I rather feel that the danger lies not with the issues themselves, rather with the political approach to them and that requires an enforced attitude change by Local Council in Perth.
The NIMBY issue is certainly a hard nut to crack. Even the local elected councillor seemed prepared to turn a blind eye to several issues (mainly the street drinking) so long as they weren’t in his back yard.
Anyway, perhaps you can develop your points as they are constructive and important food for thought.
Anyone else thinking in the longer term context?
Ron Duncan Rose
December 9th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Urlar Hydro: Missing question
I have to ask if all the discussions on the scenery before, after and down-stream etc are really pertinent What is not being mentioned is the effect of the future rainfall levels when the forecast Climate Change reaches us. There is no doubt that the effect will be dramatic and very different from anything seen to-date.
Another ignored point is the effect of increasing atmospheric pollution on the vegetation. We have to encourage any and every ‘clean’ supply. Who will accept a reduced supply of electricity?
The NIMBY effect has to be overcome.
William Darling, PH15 2BZ
December 8th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
As for the comment by the Aberfeldy Community Council secretary I would say that I would stand by all my comments on this blog. I do think that the questions were ‘loaded’, it is up to the public to determine if that is correct or not. I hope I dont sound like a cracked record, but I (Ian Campbell and Kate Howie) are elected and accountable to represent the community here, no one else is, not the objectors of the hydro sceme, not the community council, they can all make their decision and not be held to account, I will, and that is what I will take into account.
It is not correct, and not fair, for Ken to say that “the countryside ranger did a loaded questionnaire ……. So, if it ws badly flawed, then these three organisations are all in it together, and should all be held responsible. It is simply too easy to try and single out a single employee as a scapegoat.. well! Personally, I think this survey was very flawed, and I would like to table some questions to get to the bottom of some aspects of this.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Victor
I wonder whether the ACC minutes could be copied onto this site in the interests of even wider accessibility? This would serve to counter any inaccurate claims made by contributors to the site for whatever reason(s); it would also serve to reinforce publicity of the good work now being done by ACC.
It is a shame that Cllr Lyall describes my postings as “taunting” him. Whilst I may be somewhat direct in my writings at times, I am only interested in expressing my views on topics about which I feel strongly, which more people should feel free to do if accountability of ANY elected office-bearer is to remain effective. Indeed, my recent post did nothing more than reflect positively on the work of ACC and to agree with the need for accountability.
Many thanks for considering this request.
Ron Duncan Rose
December 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I am going to try to moderate this thread a little bit:
The minutes of ACC meeting on 2nd Dec will not be available for another 2-3 days, and I will post the section relating to the Birks hydro scheme on here when they are ready. However, the figures have already been put in the public domain by Comment.
There were 54 members of public at meeting (not 40) against the proposal, with 2 in favour.
All the ACC members were against, although the Chair did not declare so as not to create a binding vote and keep the matter open. This we think was the right thing to do, although it then became apparent that people were not really interested in the scheme at any price.
Of the 182 votes cast in our ACC ballot in the first five days, 71% were against, 29% for. This ballot was properly constructed, did not lead people in to giving a particular view, and we have names and addresses to verify all votes cast. That ballot is still running….if people want to contribute, there are boxes/ ballot papers in Wade’s Newsagents and in the Locus Centre. You do not need to be from Aberfeldy to participate, but your name and address is required, which will be kept confidential.
It is not correct, and not fair, for Ken to say that “the countryside ranger did a loaded questionnaire”, and he could easily leave himself open to sanction by declaring this view so openly. The questionnaire that he refers to was asked for by SEPA, and devised by SEPA, SNH and PKC Ranger Service together. So, if it ws badly flawed, then these three organisations are all in it together, and should all be held responsible. It is simply too easy to try and single out a single employee as a scapegoat. If little Aberfeldy Community Council knew to validate their poll results by asking for names/ addresses, you might have thought that the agencies of the state would know this as well! Personally, I think this survey was very flawed, and I would like to table some questions to get to the bottom of some aspects of this.
We are not aware of any petition going around. If there is, that is someone acting on their own, similiar to the poster campaign last week. I would ask people to cease these activities on the grounds that they can only detract from our own poll, which is being more transparently constructed. If people want to write to their local councillors, letters in papers etc, that is acceptable…..but private campaigns with no backing from community organisations are not. If you want your voice heard on this issue, please work either through ACC, your local councillors or other elected politicians, or make any other communications identifibale to yourself.
All 5 current members of the Common Good Committee are accessible to us, and ACC does not have a problem with that. However, we have asked for representation on the Committee, and this request will be taken forward in early 2010. There are legal issues surrounding this, and it is not straightforward, but we are hopeful that we will come to some arrangement on this.
Finally, I hope that Ken keeps his word and stays off this blog, as he is only creating difficulties for himself in participating in this manner.
Victor Clememts
Secretary
Aberfeldy Community Council
December 5th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Well Ron, and this is the one and only time I will reply to your taunts.
The population of the town is approx 2000. 40 or so members of the public attend and object. Do you think I should stand up and support them without knowing the true feelings in the town? Of course not.
One lady at the meeting said that she filled in 4 questionaires about the birks, when the countryside ranger did a loaded questionairee, does this not maybe skew the results. How many others also did this? I dont know.
The is a petition on the go and it was in the square today. I have had a few people approach me and say that they were intimidated by the approach and some of them sighned it to get the person to “shut up†so they could enjoy the day and see the x-mas lights turned on.
Anyhow, I have not made up my mind, I will look and listen over the next couple of months. Is that not what I was elected to do?.
And by the way, two councillors on the committee, maybe do not live here, but the people here voted them in to represent here, namely Kate Howie and Ian Campbell.
December 5th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Further Public Meetings
The community council secretary, Victor Clements, told Comment: “The meeting was the best attended for several years, illustrating the depth of feeling that there obviously is about this issue in and around Aberfeldy.
The above statement is music to my ears; at last, the community speaks with bums on seats, excellent! There was certainly sufficiently strong feeling during 2006 re the alcohol ban which precipitated a good turnout (approx 42) but this latest turnout is hopefully the beginnings of a trend of community empowerment (with or despite adequate consideration from Perth). It is also an obvious reflection upon the efforts of the Community Council reaping the benefits of fresh memberships.
C’llr Lyall, who lives in the town and chairs the CGF committee which is made up of P&K councillors from elsewhere, was asked at the end of the meeting how it could be right that the views of five members of the CGF committee could, if he was minded, over-rule the views of the people of Aberfeldy. He replied: “I have not made up my mind yet.â€
The above quote, taken from comentonline website, accessed online 5th december 2009, is arguably the best example of P&K indecision I have read so far! It may also just waken the community up in time for the next Local Council elections, although the signs of them gradually rousing into an appreciation of the importance of collective participation is most encouraging. Let us hope that prospectivbe candidates abide by the criminal law next time.
Onwards and upwards,
Ron Duncan Rose
Strathtay