Рет қаралды 23,692
Please object here if you agree with my video - planningapps.p...
The website is clunky and slow so please be patient and complete your objection comment
Thanks again
Crawford
My Objection (has been submitted but awaiting approval on the website)
As a Neighbouring farmer to the proposed site i formally object to the solar farm plans at Kinnon Park Farm.
The reasons for doing so are as follows;
1. Loss of over 80Ha of prime agricultural land for up to 40 years. If only another 100 sites went ahead within a few years, almost 2% of Scotlands prime agricultural land would be lost from production. This equates to 2.6million Tons of grain lost from the Scottish economy. A value of £52,000,000 at today’s market price. This does not account for all the value adding industries that rely on grain production; maltings, whisky, animal feed, spirits, baking, biodiesel, ethanol etc.
2. Loss of employment, 67,000 workers are employed in agriculture across Scotland, this land area would equate to the loss of 2 jobs based on land area/worker ratio.
3. Loss of food security, this land at current Scottish averages will produce ~650Tons of grain annually. 26,000Tons over the 40 year time period of the panels. Grain currently produced from this farm is used for cattle feed to produce scotch beef, chicken feed producing eggs, malting barley used in the whisky/beer industry and several more uses. This area majorly impacts food security.
4. This site sets a precedent for future solar farm applications, further pressurising an already under threat agricultural community.
5. The location is unjust, there are estimated to be 11,000 hectares of vacant or derelict land in Scotland which would be significantly more viable as a solar farm site, not reducing job numbers, prime agricultural land and food security.
6. A infringement of the spectacular scottish landscape, views of methven castle and beyond.
Crawford Niven
Some objections made by others
Mr Richard Dixon (Objects)
Comment submitted date: Thu 26 Sep 2024
There are numerous reasons I object to this application but main reasons listed.
1, Loss of arable land.
2, No benefit to the local community.
3, Flooding risk due to less permeable ground.
4, Devaluation of properties in the area.
5, Visual impact on the landscape.
6, Negative impact on local heritage site.
7, Loss of wildlife habitats.
8, Sound intrusion from substation and battery storage cooling fans.
9, Impact on local roads.
10, More suitable sites, ie brownfield or industrial.
I would urge Perth & Kinross council to refuse this application.
Dr Lesley Macdonald (Objects)
I am a former resident of Perth and Kinross and return to visit this beautiful area.
I object to this use of arable farmland which is needed to provide food locally. I used to pick potatoes here as child.
I object to the loss of wildlife habitat in a beautiful peaceful area which has raptors and many wild animals. This area is used by migratory geese which will not be able to rest here as they usually do.
I see no environmental advantage to the destruction of productive Land on purely commercial grounds.
I hope the council will refuse this application and take note of the many comments.
Mr Stephen Green (Objects)
I am a frequent visitor to this area (having once lived in this lovely part of Scotland). I cannot understand why, in this age of reducing land availability for farming, a proposal like this has even reached this stage of planning.
I cannot see the benefit of this proposed blot on the landscape to a community that is, to an extent, also reliant on tourism.
Mrs Kate Falconer (Objects)
Comment submitted date: Wed 25 Sep 2024
I strongly object on the following grounds:
1. This is creeping industrialisation of a rural farming area located around 4/5 miles from Perth. These types of developments should be situated on brownfield sites or adjacent to existing industrial areas and not in the middle of the countryside.
2. Impact on local houses/residents/ Out of Character with the Area. There are several houses in this area that will be affected by noise, construction nuisance, and the visual detriment. They live in this rural area precisely because it is rural, quiet and visually stunning. To have such a development built around their houses shows a complete lack of concern for people's desire to live in area such as this, and is in my opinion, utterly disgraceful. PKC Planning has a duty to ensure that any proposed development will not render existing homes unsaleable and of little value.
3. This will result in a loss of use of prime arable land for 40 years.
4. The landowner does not live in the area and does not understand Redacted about the impact on local residents. I doubt very much he would be in support of such a development if it was in a field next to his house.