You are on page 1of 2

Application Summary


Land 255M South Of St Edwards Centre Isle Of



Installation of 6 number 15m wind turbines (17.5m

to blade tip). Replacement of existing agricultural
shed, excavation and installation of electricity cables
in a trench from the turbines to the main power
distribution network

Comments Details

Member of Public


Customer objects to the Planning Application

I object to this application. Firstly the development of six high, wind turbines is not
appropriate within this special and internationally recognised scenic area. The site,
and indeed all of the Island of Canna, contains an intimate landscape which brings
together all the finest elements of the Inner Hebrides. With its rich and varied habitat
for otters, seals and numerous Schedule 1 birds of prey, moths and butterflies, it is
rightly a heritage site as well as an area of outstanding beauty.
Wind turbines, because of their scale, location and size, will not only subordinate
these fragile surroundings, they will be highly visible for many miles around.
Secondly the supporting documentation falls well below that of the standard required
for such an important site both in depth and detail. For example there are references
to excavation but no mention of the outstanding archaeology or the built heritage
which will be either lost or irreparably damaged without a full and proper survey.
A so-called 'cultural' map has been produced vaguely showing the location of a few
historical sites on Canna and the neighbouring islands which has obviously been
taken from an outdated data base. It completely ignores a great many recent
archaeological finds on Canna on and in close proximity to the proposed wind
turbines and associated infrastructure. Given the discovery of late Mesolithic
assemblages on Rum and now in Islay it is not unreasonable to suppose these make
Canna a prime site for the earliest settlements and later Viking remains in the UK.
I note the primary reason submitted for this development is to enable the local
community to expand and maximise the island's potential as a viable tourist
destination and as a location for educational and activity retreats. If that is the case
why, in 2010, did its residents reject Marine Harvest Scotland's plans for a large new
fish farm off its shores by eight votes to seven? Had it gone ahead it would have
provided long term, all the year round employment, kept the school open (which has
just closed for the second time in recent years) and facilitated the erection of several
new houses - all of which any other small island in Scotland would have welcomed
with open arms.
The application is flawed in its present form. It should be rejected.