On Thursday 18 April, 2024, the Chairman of the charity Friends of Loch Lomond & The Trossachs, John Urquhart, expressed his lack of surprise at The Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park’s objection to Coriolis’s Vale of Leven Wind farm proposal. In a statement, Urquhart stated, “The National Park Authority is, after all, supposed to be the guardians of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs, so it is to be expected that they would come out fighting against anything that might damage the area. It is worth noting that even eco warrior Nick Kemp, who often criticizes the National Park on his ParkWatch blog, supported their objection.”
According to Urquhart, the National Park’s arguments against the wind farm proposal are typical “NIMBY” (Not In My Backyard) rhetoric. He stated, “Their arguments are of the all too familiar NIMBY variety – of course wind turbines are essential, but can you please put them somewhere else because we don’t like the look of them.” He also criticized the “survey” conducted by the Balloch and Haldane Community Council, stating that “self-elected community councils are infamous for their ‘opinion surveys’, which have all the reliability of a Russian election.” In Urquhart’s opinion, the National Park should be utilizing their resources to gather more accurate and comprehensive data.
Urquhart also disputed the notion that wind turbines spoil views or are unpopular. He pointed out that there are numerous wind farms across the country, and there has been no significant outcry from the public. He stated, “There is plenty of evidence of course of the activities of a few NIMBY zealots, writing letters to the press claiming their house prices are falling, the turbines are noisy, and the turning blades cause ‘flicker’ which can damage your mental health.” Urquhart dismissed these claims as “vacuous bumkum.”
Furthermore, Urquhart emphasized the importance of land-based wind turbines in achieving the rapid decarbonizing of energy production and combating global warming. He stated, “If, as they say in their ‘Partnership Plan’, the National Park is serious about maximizing ‘benefits that can be provided for nature, climate and people’, they need to think again.” In his opinion, if global warming is not addressed, there may not be much of a National Park environment left to protect. He concluded his statement by reminding the National Park of their own mantra, “a truly effective response to global warming requires action ‘HERE, NOW and from ALL OF US’.”
