Windmills- Corrupt payment for neighbours?

reilig

maidhc wrote: »

I know, but the problem is there are no safeguards really.

Going back to the example of the ghost estates, the County Development Plans were the safeguards. They were developed through a consultation process which any body, councillor, individual, environmental group etc. was allowed to feed in to. By over-riding the CDP, County Councillors removed the safeguard of the knowledge and expertise of everyone who worked together to create a CDP which would be most beneficial for each local area, individuals and the environment for the sake of a minority of people.

Thus we were left with ghost estates.

Now with the wind turbine debate, a county council have changed their CDP again. Why didn't they allow it to go through the planning process and be turfed out as a result of this if there were enough objections to it? This is the safeguard. Many people would argue that by making these amendments, county councillors bought themselves a lot of votes for the local elections just around the corner. But the bigger concern lies with the precedents that the change of the CDP sets for the future. It takes the power away from the trained planners and puts it in the hands of the councillors and ultimately the people who can shout the loudest (or pay the most - as with some of the ghost estates of the building boom)

Yes - the anti wind lobbiests got what they wanted. But for people who don't have the concern of wind turbines in their locality, what precedent does allowing councillors make the decision set for future development???

Greensleeves

The County Development Plans are fairly meaningless. In many instances in the midlands people have been surprised to find that areas not zoned for wind energy in the CDPs are included in the Greenwire and Energy Bridge wind farms. Presumably the councillors decided to bypass the "trained planners" when the wind energy lads lobbied them last year; AFAIK the wind companies only started approaching farmers once the county councils had given them the nod.

What has happened in Westmeath is a response to a huge public outcry. It would be nice to be able to call it democracy but it's actually just the whole parish-pump politics thing: the councillors will get reelected and the wind farms will probably go ahead anyway because these projects are going straight to An Bord Pleanala.

Marooned75

An bird pleanala in there wisdom in a recent application allowed planning for turbines 145 mts tall to be build even though there own planners more or less stated that the building of these is detrimental to the local envoirnment.So what faith is there for these people to listen to there own experts in these matters.Dysart in Roscommon

maidhc

reilig wrote: »

Going back to the example of the ghost estates, the County Development Plans were the safeguards.

In Cork the CDP did countenance development in many places where there shouldn't be. Further Councils and An Bord are granting planning for turbines in areas not coutenanced by the CDP.

Im not sure if I would equate the religious fervour for(and against) turbines with any actual real planning issue a person is likely to face.

Farming for the most part is an accepted and respected aspect of Irish life. It is an important industry, and really I don't sense farmers have ever been impacted by the planning code. Im not sure many county councillors would want to be seen to be anti farming or anti rural development.

I think it is self evident that the wind industry is not interested in rural ireland only for what it can get, and there are tracts of land which are idea for exploitantion for its purposes.... so long as there is a reasonable set back distance from peoples dwellings!

Markcheese

I think it is self evident that the wind industry is not interested in rural ireland only for what it can get, and there are tracts of land which are idea for exploitantion for its purposes.... so long as there is a reasonable set back distance from peoples dwellings!

Aren't we all interested in our own business /area for our own reasons...
I'd be a bit disbelieving if the wind companies said they were more interested in the sustainability of rural Ireland...

Manoffeeling

Markcheese wrote: »

I think it is self evident that the wind industry is not interested in rural ireland only for what it can get, and there are tracts of land which are idea for exploitantion for its purposes.... so long as there is a reasonable set back distance from peoples dwellings!

Aren't we all interested in our own business /area for our own reasons...
I'd be a bit disbelieving if the wind companies said they were more interested in the sustainability of rural Ireland...

Wind companies don't give 2 fooks about people in rural Ireland. At the end of the day, it's return on capital invested. It's called Capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

pburns

reilig wrote: »

Yes - the anti wind lobbiests got what they wanted. But for people who don't have the concern of wind turbines in their locality, what precedent does allowing councillors make the decision set for future development???

Aye, there's the rub - it won't effect you. I'm sorry, but for those of us who are in close proximity to these planned structures concerns about what precedent a CDP alteration sets for some indeterminable point in the future is pretty academic.

Manoffeeling wrote: »

Wind companies don't give 2 fooks about people in rural Ireland. At the end of the day, it's return on capital invested. It's called Capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

True enough, you don't expect big business to behave any differently. It is quite shocking however how deeply our government is mired in this. For example, Brendan Halligan, chairman of SEAI and former general secretary of the Labour Party is a director in Mainstream. Conflict of interest? Surely not:rolleyes:...

As for the IFA - who supposedly represent Irish farmers - as usual they are looking after the narrow interests of their own clique and hiding behind a whitewash of a wind energy strategy.

BTW seems Mainstream CEO Eddie O'Connor has 'apologised' for his behavior on last Monday's Prime Time:
https://twitter.com/griffinniamh/status/384265174792028160/photo/1

Manoffeeling

pburns wrote: »

BTW seems Mainstream CEO Eddie O'Connor has 'apologised' for his behavior on last Monday's Prime Time:
https://twitter.com/griffinniamh/status/384265174792028160/photo/1

The harm has been done. Arrogant beyond belief.

Conmaicne Mara

Manoffeeling wrote: »

The harm has been done. Arrogant beyond belief.

Not often I watch RTE but Jesus smug didn't describe him, sniggering at people on TV.

Sharpshooter82

http://youtu.be/3Uiww-w1_wQ
terrible man

Manoffeeling

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blow-for-council-as-wind-power-fails-to-light-up-20m-park-29709815.html

Markcheese

Manoffeeling wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blow-for-council-as-wind-power-fails-to-light-up-20m-park-29709815.html

Just proves local authorities shouldn't build energy projects...it was just a( very expensive) puff piece anyway.... Probably had an implementation group, feasibilty study,engineering oversight group, yaddy yaddy yadda.....

rancher

rancher wrote: »

They have to go back for public consultation again now, probably won't be a vote now again for 3-4 mths.....national policy will surely be decided by then....interesting times ahead

I see the co council got their knuckles rapped by both the IWEA. and the Department of the environment for what they did to the county devlopememt plan re windfarm planning.
Westmeath IFA was right.... county councillors had no right to do what they did.
We were protecting property rights, the fact that it pertained to wind turbines was just incidental.

Marooned75

rancher wrote: »

I see the co council got their knuckles rapped by both the IWEA. and the Department of the environment for what they did to the county devlopememt plan re windfarm planning.
Westmeath IFA was right.... county councillors had no right to do what they did.
We were protecting property rights, the fact that it pertained to wind turbines was just incidental.

Of course the IWEA is going to speak out and the Dept of environment because anybody that goes against their policy will get attacked,as for IFA policy and being right I doubt that,everyone has rights and are entitled to fight for them pity the IFA didn't think of that when this was first mooted might have saved a lot of stress on all sides.as for presidential candidate Jer Bergin I see no mention of his stewardship of wind energy policy for the IFA on his manifesto.

rancher

Marooned75 wrote: »

Of course the IWEA is going to speak out and the Dept of environment because anybody that goes against their policy will get attacked,as for IFA policy and being right I doubt that,everyone has rights and are entitled to fight for them pity the IFA didn't think of that when this was first mooted might have saved a lot of stress on all sides.as for presidential candidate Jer Bergin I see no mention of his stewardship of wind energy policy for the IFA on his manifesto.

All I know is that article in the Westmeath Examiner today has the same criticism of the co. council as I had of them at the time of the vote.....damn it, I could've wrote it.
There'll be egg on someones face yet over this

pburns

rancher wrote: »

There'll be egg on someones face yet over this

There already is...

rancher

pburns wrote: »

There already is...

Windfarm companies are too confident, I suspect they have been given positive vibes by the government. They have invested too much money around here. The new draft guidelines for wind energy will be out soon......
Whetever the regulation, they will have to be the same for every county,

Marooned75

In today's journal John Bryan asking for people to rally against eirgrid to put pylons underground,due to health and envoirnmental issues,yet the silence is deafening about turbines.

rancher

Marooned75 wrote: »

In today's journal John Bryan asking for people to rally against eirgrid to put pylons underground,due to health and envoirnmental issues,yet the silence is deafening about turbines.

All options have to be considered......

Marooned75

So you said the IFA is the only group lobbying for new wind energy guidelines,did they not help the horse bolt bit late closing the stable door now?

Greensleeves

Has the IFA thoroughly researched wind energy and concluded that there are no problems associated with it?

tabby aspreme

The reason IFA are so wound up over pylons is that the wires could be passing over land with no pylons on it, so no compo even though land may be devalued due to proximity of wires , whereas plenty of money for turbines

rancher

tabby aspreme wrote: »

The reason IFA are so wound up over pylons is that the wires could be passing over land with no pylons on it, so no compo even though land may be devalued due to proximity of wires , whereas plenty of money for turbines

marooned, we've been involved in wind turbines for the last at least ten years and have always been looking for stronger guidelines
Greensleeves We don't recommend turbines to anyone, farmers are able to get their own advice
Tabby. I wouldn't say the line of '' all options should be considered'' would label anyone as being wound up over Pylons

Marooned75

rancher wrote: »

marooned, we've been involved in wind turbines for the last at least ten years and have always been looking for stronger guidelines
Greensleeves We don't recommend turbines to anyone, farmers are able to get their own advice
Tabby. I wouldn't say the line of '' all options should be considered'' would label anyone as being wound up over Pylons

Ok great for looking for stronger guidelines would it not have been prudent to have more robust guidelines in place,before the IFA got involved promoting turbines.At least it would not look that the organisation is back tracking on them.

rancher

Marooned75 wrote: »

Ok great for looking for stronger guidelines would it not have been prudent to have more robust guidelines in place,before the IFA got involved promoting turbines.At least it would not look that the organisation is back tracking on them.

There's supposed to be draft guidelines out shortly. This is going on 2+years and public servants can't be bothered sorting it, as long as they're published before the planning application goes in. Already rather than getting their finger out , they have stalled the planning for 12 mths
IFA doesn't promote them, IFA guides farmers through CPO deals, gas line deals, and wind turblne deals, but that doesn't mean that they promote motorways, gas lines or turbines on our land. Put bluntly IFA maximise the cash, they are not solicitors or engineers, but they negotiated €1000 plus for the farmer to pay for one

Greensleeves

rancher wrote: »

marooned, we've been involved in wind turbines for the last at least ten years and have always been looking for stronger guidelines
Greensleeves We don't recommend turbines to anyone, farmers are able to get their own advice
Tabby. I wouldn't say the line of '' all options should be considered'' would label anyone as being wound up over Pylons

Fair enough, although to the man on the street it looks like the IFA have specifically endorsed Greenwire and Energy Bridge.

What stronger guidelines are the IFA looking for?

rancher

Greensleeves wrote: »

Fair enough, although to the man on the street it looks like the IFA have specifically endorsed Greenwire and Energy Bridge.

What stronger guidelines are the IFA looking for?

Proper set back distance, decent money for communities etc but mainly that it's put into legislation, not abide by if you like guidelines.
A 1000 mtr setback guideline isn't worth the paper it's written on.
These windfarm companies are too confident,

Greensleeves

rancher wrote: »

Proper set back distance, decent money for communities etc but mainly that it's put into legislation, not abide by if you like guidelines.
A 1000 mtr setback guideline isn't worth the paper it's written on.
These windfarm companies are too confident,

Is the IFA looking for a 1000 mtr setback?

rancher

Greensleeves wrote: »

Is the IFA looking for a 1000 mtr setback?

No, not our job to set the distance, but the rules have to be robust

Greensleeves

rancher wrote: »

No, not our job to set the distance, but the rules have to be robust

But I thought the IFA lobbied Westmeath Co. Council over setback distance?

rancher

Greensleeves wrote: »

But I thought the IFA lobbied Westmeath Co. Council over setback distance?

We've actually been blamed for the 500 mtr one, there's so much wrong information out there that I've given up, Dept. environment specify 500mtr but its only a guideline
Put simply, property owners should have the right to look for planning for anything they want and their neighbours should have the same right to oppose it, and a competent planning body decide.
We believe ( rightly or wrongly)that the county council leap frogged that process

Greensleeves

rancher wrote: »

We've actually been blamed for the 500 mtr one, there's so much wrong information out there that I've given up, Dept. environment specify 500mtr but its only a guideline
Put simply, property owners should have the right to look for planning for anything they want and their neighbours should have the same right to oppose it, and a competent planning body decide.
We believe ( rightly or wrongly)that the county council leap frogged that process

I understand where you're coming from and I don't envy you because there are a lot of upset people out there. I just think it is unfortunate that the wind energy group in the IFA underestimated the level of opposition to the midlands projects to such a degree.

I know the IFA sees it's role as focussing only on the money/planning/legal aspects but that has given rise to a situation where some of the members are furious because they object to the wind farms and don't want to live anywhere near a turbine come hell or high water, and some of the members find themselves in an unpleasant situation vis a vis their neighbours and the wider community because they signed up for turbines and were very surprised to find that there was so much opposition to them.

rancher

Greensleeves wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from and I don't envy you because there are a lot of upset people out there. I just think it is unfortunate that the wind energy group in the IFA underestimated the level of opposition to the midlands projects to such a degree.

I know the IFA sees it's role as focussing only on the money/planning/legal aspects but that has given rise to a situation where some of the members are furious because they object to the wind farms and don't want to live anywhere near a turbine come hell or high water, and some of the members find themselves in an unpleasant situation vis a vis their neighbours and the wider community because they signed up for turbines and were very surprised to find that there was so much opposition to them.

The organisation doesn't oppose infrastructural development....If they did there'd be no roads built or gas line,
I've been involved one way or another since 2000 and have never seen such trouble. There's 2400 mw generated in this country from wind turbines, if they average 2mw, that mean 1200 turbine some where, so they're not new,
There always would be hassle but it'd die down when they are built, but when the first farmer came to me in this area...well here we go again
My line has always been
1 if in doubt don't sign
2 get a good solicitor

Birdnuts

rancher wrote: »

The organisation doesn't oppose infrastructural development....If they did there'd be no roads built or gas line,
I've been involved one way or another since 2000 and have never seen such trouble. There's 2400 mw generated in this country from wind turbines, if they average 2mw, that mean 1200 turbine some where, so they're not new,

The Turbines planned for the midlands are far bigger than anything thats been seen in the country so far. The density of them will also be on another scale too if all the current plans go ahead. As for generating 2400mw - Eirgrids own figures from 2012 show that wind turbines generated less than 30% of their installed capacity last year so that figure is very misleading. Since the existing turbines are in higher wind speed areas like Donegal it makes Colm McCarthy's recent article entitled "NAMA for Windturbines" all the more chilling and concerning.

PS: Given the number of major wind projects being cancelled on costs in the UK at the moment and the fact that major utilities are losing a fortune from being forced to accommodate wind on the grid there, I think landowners who signed up to these projects in the midlands shouldn't be splashing the cash just yet in the absence of any agreement on tariffs for wind energy export from Ireland to the UK. In addition the UK has recently announced a major new spend on Nuclear power facilities which adds further uncertainty to the situation

pburns

rancher wrote: »

Windfarm companies are too confident, I suspect they have been given positive vibes by the government. They have invested too much money around here.

No **** Sherlock...I wonder who boosted their confidence and helped them 'invest' that money 'locally'...

rancher wrote: »

Put bluntly IFA maximise the cash...they negotiated €1000 plus for the farmer

rancher wrote: »

marooned, we've been involved in wind turbines for the last at least ten years and have always been looking for stronger guidelines

Aye ye have alright. I refer you (not for the first time) to the IFA wind resource policy doc which baldly states the 500m setback guideline "must be applied to all current wind energy proposals".

rancher wrote: »

There's supposed to be draft guidelines out shortly. This is going on 2+years and public servants can't be bothered sorting it

I don't think the token gesture of a 700m guideline is going to make much difference but it'll suit the boys at the big table. At least it'll give you someone else to deflect blame onto - so far we have the county councils, the farmers, the solicitors, the public servants....

rancher wrote: »

A 1000 mtr setback guideline isn't worth the paper it's written on

At last something we agree on.

Greensleeves wrote: »

Is the IFA looking for a 1000 mtr setback?

rancher wrote: »

No...

rancher

pburns wrote: »

...




Aye ye have alright. I refer you (not for the first time) to the IFA wind resource policy doc which baldly states the 500m setback guideline "must be applied to all current wind energy proposals".



I don't think the token gesture of a 700m guideline is going to make much difference but it'll suit the boys at the big table. At least it'll give you someone else to deflect blame onto - so far we have the county councils, the farmers, the solicitors, the public servants.... ) QUOTE



There is no compulsion at the moment to observe any setback distance, at least we are looking for legislation in place, and when the draft guidelines come out we will drive those until they're in legislation, as usual you have tried to be smart and twist everything as all you anti turbine crowd do and that's a sad way to argue anything. Heres our policy on set back and it clearly states that in the absence of set back distance use the dept evironments recommendation and when they change that, that'll be grand too. I see there is no set back distance specified in the new guidelines, you might be glad to have someone trying to get something into legislation, but I'm afraid its not our job to set the distance so can't help you



''Legislate for distance from sensitive properties, including houses:




[FONT=Arial,Arial Narrow][FONT=Arial,Arial Narrow]There are currently no specific conditions in legislation covering the distance that a wind turbine should be sited from sensitive properties, including houses. This omission is a cause of considerable concern for rural communities. The current Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland study which was commissioned by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources regarding this issue must be completed urgently. In its absence the 500m setback distance from all sensitive properties including houses, which is referred to in the Department of Environment wind planning guidelines must be applied to all current wind energy proposals'' [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial Narrow][FONT=Arial,Arial Narrow][/FONT][/FONT]

Greensleeves

There is a good article by the economist Colm McCarthy in the Independent today questioning the rationale for these wind farms. He concludes that there should be no further government support for wind generation until a full technical and economic analysis of costs and subsidies is available.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/colm-mccarthy-case-for-wind-must-be-proven-on-costs-29798897.html

pburns

rancher wrote: »

Heres our policy on set back and it clearly states that in the absence of set back distance use the dept evironments recommendation and when they change that, that'll be grand too.

Niiiiiiice....

rancher wrote: »

In its absence the 500m setback distance from all sensitive properties including houses, which is referred to in the Department of Environment wind planning guidelines must be applied to all current wind energy proposals''

"We're really, really, REALLY concerned about re-looking at set-back...at some time in the indeterminable future...after all turbines are up;). In the meantime, let's just press on before the goalposts change:D..."

Greensleeves wrote: »

There is a good article by the economist Colm McCarthy in the Independent today questioning the rationale for these wind farms. He concludes that there should be no further government support for wind generation until a full technical and economic analysis of costs and subsidies is available.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/colm-mccarthy-case-for-wind-must-be-proven-on-costs-29798897.html

Colm McCarthy has written 3 or 4 articles in the IFJ on this so there's nothing new here but he ties it together nicely and it's brilliant that this message is finally getting into the major papers.

Greensleeves

I see that Ruby Walsh and the horse-breeding industry are opposing the turbines.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/wind-farms-could-be-a-massive-problem-for-horses-ruby-walsh-29803441.html

Markcheese

I'm sitting in the van with window open listening to wind turbines ,between a house and the nearest turbine..about 150 meters from house ,a couple of hundred meters from the turbine....
There's not a puff of wind here, but the blades are doing 30/40 rpm
And there is a steady swoosh , not loud, not intrusive , but there, (can't hear it with window closed) ...
Now, they're relatively small turbines (couldn't tell you the size but about 3 years old) ,but you'd be hard pushed to hear them over background noise,

Round Bale

Greensleeves wrote: »

There is a good article by the economist Colm McCarthy in the Independent today questioning the rationale for these wind farms. He concludes that there should be no further government support for wind generation until a full technical and economic analysis of costs and subsidies is available.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/colm-mccarthy-case-for-wind-must-be-proven-on-costs-29798897.html

No doubt the bold McCarthy, would be willing to do the economic analysis, on behalf of the government, for a suitable "stipend", of course:D

Greensleeves

Round Bale wrote: »

No doubt the bold McCarthy, would be willing to do the economic analysis, on behalf of the government, for a suitable "stipend", of course:D

Who knows, maybe he is one of the experts that did the cost benefit analysis for the Dept. of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources. It looks like it is not going to be published anytime soon.

Minister Rabbitte came under huge pressure from members of the committee to publish a cost-benefit analysis to justify why the Government was promoting the UK export deal.

Minister Rabbitte said the cost benefit analysis completed by experts for his department “shows significant economic value rebounding to Ireland”.

“We won’t publish the cost benefit analysis now for reasons of commercial sensitivity as we don’t want to show our hand to prospective partners... When talks conclude, we will be happy to put it in the public domain… We will be willing to show afterwards but if there is an agreement we will still have to be careful,” he said.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/rabbitte-energy-export-target-very-difficult-to-achieve-626679.html

Greensleeves

From the Independent yesterday...

Storm brewing on wind contracts

Contracts signed by more than 1,000 farmers for the collapsed midlands' wind energy projects should be reviewed as a matter of urgency, a legal expert has warned.

While the midlands wind energy plans are in limbo following the failed energy export negotiations between the Irish and British governments, Nora Fagan – a member of the Law Society's commercial business panel – says the lease options negotiated by energy companies could still have serious long-term consequences for farming families.

"While the wind turbine companies may only be leasing a hectare of land from a contracting farmer to construct the wind turbine, the option is placed as a burden on the entire farm," she said.

Full story...

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/storm-brewing-on-wind-contracts-30204552.html

yellow50HX

Greensleeves wrote: »

From the Independent yesterday...

Storm brewing on wind contracts

Contracts signed by more than 1,000 farmers for the collapsed midlands' wind energy projects should be reviewed as a matter of urgency, a legal expert has warned.

While the midlands wind energy plans are in limbo following the failed energy export negotiations between the Irish and British governments, Nora Fagan – a member of the Law Society's commercial business panel – says the lease options negotiated by energy companies could still have serious long-term consequences for farming families.

"While the wind turbine companies may only be leasing a hectare of land from a contracting farmer to construct the wind turbine, the option is placed as a burden on the entire farm," she said.

Full story...


http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/storm-brewing-on-wind-contracts-30204552.html

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

More negative claptrap, seriously do you have anything positive to add? Anytime there is any negative publicity on wind mills this thread gets dug up.

Like much of these nay Sayers I hear very little alternative options. These would be the same lot stamping their feet and cribing if new coal powered station was planned, if a nuclear plant was put forward or a river was dammed for hydro power.

_Brian

Well said.
And surely these farmers would have read all sections of the contract before signing and maybe even saught legal advice.
We have ten turbines near us. Yes we can hear them on a still night if the wind is directly from them.

They cast shadows on a few houses but there wee the ones paid by the companies so I doubt they have an argument.

We need a number of alternatives regarding power generation. Win is part of the equation.

rangler1

Greensleeves wrote: »

From the Independent yesterday...

Storm brewing on wind contracts

Contracts signed by more than 1,000 farmers for the collapsed midlands' wind energy projects should be reviewed as a matter of urgency, a legal expert has warned.

While the midlands wind energy plans are in limbo following the failed energy export negotiations between the Irish and British governments, Nora Fagan – a member of the Law Society's commercial business panel – says the lease options negotiated by energy companies could still have serious long-term consequences for farming families.

"While the wind turbine companies may only be leasing a hectare of land from a contracting farmer to construct the wind turbine, the option is placed as a burden on the entire farm," she said.

Full story...

This woman works for the Law society ( I don't think she's a solicitor), yet she claims that farmers weren't properly advised by their own solicitors.....should the law society not be intervening here???

I said

rangler1 wrote: »

This woman works for the Law society ( I don't think she's a solicitor), yet she claims that farmers weren't properly advised by their own solicitors.....should the law society not be intervening here???

Interesting times ahead know a few that signed and are in limbo over what's happening a €1000 for 30 years is not looking good for them now with all the hassle with it

epfff

I said wrote: »

Interesting times ahead know a few that signed and are in limbo over what's happening a €1000 for 30 years is not looking good for them now with all the hassle with it

What hassle is with those contracts
I didn't think their were any

I said

epfff wrote: »

What hassle is with those contracts
I didn't think their were any

Read the report above has to do with signing over sites and the such basically

rangler1

I said wrote: »

Interesting times ahead know a few that signed and are in limbo over what's happening a €1000 for 30 years is not looking good for them now with all the hassle with it

You mean €20,000 for 30 yrs if they go ahead, they have only a 5 yr option signed yet and if windmills are deemed 'dead in the water' they have to be released from the option.