Copy and paste the text below or download the document (readable by Word, LibreOffice etc)
Please add something of your own at the start such as "I will see these turbines from my home...." or "I have lived here for over 10 years..."
I wish to object to the Section 36 application submitted by Koehler Renewable Energy UK (KRE) for the construction of the Charleston Energy Park. As a stakeholder/resident within the affected Caithness community, I believe this development presents severe material detriments to the local infrastructure, environment, and community safety that outweigh its renewable energy contributions.
Primary Grounds for Objection
A. Severe Access and Infrastructure Constraints (Abnormal Loads)
Unviable Track Suitability: The developer intends to route heavy transport and turbine blades via narrow agricultural tracks (such as the track beside Charleston Farm).
Oversail and Overrun Violations: The developer’s "abnormal load assessment" asserts that no third-party land will be required for oversail or overrun. This is highly unrealistic. Transporting modern 180-metre-tall turbine components through tight rural corners cannot mathematically be achieved without encroaching upon or over-sailing adjacent private land boundaries.
Disruption to Local Traffic: The local road network between Thurso and John o' Groats consists of critical thoroughfares. The influx of heavy, slow-moving construction traffic will severely disrupt residents, farming logistics, and the vital tourist economy.
B. Inadequate Emergency Services and Fire Safety Risks
Battery Storage Hazards: The inclusion of a 25MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) introduces a distinct hazard profile, specifically the risk of thermal runaway and highly toxic chemical fires.
Strain on Rural Fire Capacity: The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) infrastructure in Caithness is already operating under immense pressure. The cumulative impact of multiple energy projects proposed in the region leaves local emergency services ill-equipped to manage a large-scale industrial battery or wind turbine fire.
Insufficient Mitigation: The developer's reliance on "community benefit funding" to address emergency resilience is an unacceptable displacement of their core corporate safety obligations onto the local community.
C. Landscape, Visual Impact, and Over-Saturation
Disproportionate Scale: Turbines measuring up to 180 metres in height will drastically alter the flat, open coastal landscape of northern Caithness.
Cumulative Visual Impact: The region is already heavily saturated with onshore developments, in addition to expansive offshore arrays visible from the coast (such as the Beatrice wind farm and newly approved Moray Coast developments). This project creates a compounding industrial claustrophobia for coastal communities.
D. Impact on Wildlife and Local Economy
Ecological Disruption: The northern coast of Scotland is a critical habitat for vulnerable bird species, marine wildlife, and local ecosystems that will be disrupted by the heavy civil engineering required.
Threat to Local Visual Amenities: The proliferation of industrial infrastructure threatens the region's nature-based tourism economy, offering zero long-term socio-economic return to compensating for the visual blight.
The minor structural adjustments made following the public consultations at Mey Hall do not rectify the core flaws of this site choice. The proposed access routes are physically inadequate, the local emergency infrastructure is insufficient to safely handle the BESS asset, and the visual saturation of Caithness has reached its limit.
I strongly urge the Energy Consents Unit and the Scottish Government to refuse permission for the Charleston Energy Park application.