Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

‘True village people’ angered by anti-turbine group’s ‘nasty’ comments

‘True village people’ angered by anti-turbine group’s ‘nasty’ comments

A war of words has broken out in an Angus community over a proposed windfarm application.

Lunanhead councillor Ken Stewart has reacted strongly to a claim from the Stop Turbines at Lunanhead (STAL) group, which said there is an “overwhelming” objection to the plans for a five-turbine site at St Mary’s Well, near Forfar.

The comments from STAL came in the wake of an independent poll carried out by developers Element Power last week.

This appeared to show 75% of households in the Lunanhead area who responded to the developer’s questions “considered windfarms an important part of the energy mix” and 63% of respondents favoured the proposals.

STAL spokeswoman Susan Oliphant said the survey was a PR stunt and there was, in fact, an “overwhelming” objection to the plans within the community.

However, Lunanhead and District Community Council member Ken Stewart has disputed the claim and said there is “little or no objection” from the people he has spoken to.

“As a member of Lunanhead Community Council, I am somewhat dismayed by the statement from STAL, who have only showed an interest in the community since the windfarms were spoken about,” Mr Stewart said.

“I have lived in Lunanhead for 20 years and served on most village committees and I have never met or seen any of them in the village or help with any of our events or activities.

“I would like to point out the village people I have spoken to have little or no objections to the turbines and these are true village people not a mob drafted in from God knows where with the sole intention of holding back progress.

“The people I have spoken to don’t seem to have any objection to it. They seem to be reasonably happy about it.

“Yes you will be able to see them (the turbines) but I have never known anyone dying from looking at them. They (STAL) were rather nasty about the poll which was done too. I would like to ask them to do a poll and see what they come up with.”

STAL have defended their claims in the wake of the debate and a spokesman said all available facts “point the other way” to what Mr Stewart has said.

The spokesman added: “STAL has already had more than 100 names that pledge support from individual objectors and there is a petition now circulating and will run into hundreds of objections.

“The community council did their own survey and only had 18 returns and the majority of the people who made a return were opposed to the scheme.

“Everyone is entitled to their own personal opinion but it is clear the overwhelming feeling is anti-windfarm and I’m quite confident the council will reject the application when it goes in.

“It is a fair comment from Mr Stewart that this controversial project has raised the profile of the whole issue and it is true it has increased interest in the area.

“There should be an open discussion but all of the facts point the other way (to objections).

“The test will be the objections that are lodged when the plan goes in. It’s only a month or so since the Scottish Government turned down another scheme, 200 yards away with only three turbines.

“It would be bizarre if they rejected that but passed this one. Of course, every planning application must be treated on its own merits but one must take note of the refusal of the other, less offensive scheme.”