UKH

Highland Council have a planning application for installation of a new telecommunications base station comprising of a proposed 20m height Swann lattice tower complete with 3No new antennas, 4 no. 600mm diameter dishes and ancillary ground based equipment cabinets and generator other ancillary development with a new compound enclosed by a 1.2m high timber stock proof fence | Land 825M NW Of Lagangarbh Glencoe. There is also expected to be a 2 km access road.

This is at the foot of the Buchaille, at the iconic entrance to Glencoe and also in the Ben Nevis and Glen Coe National Scenic Area. It would be a terrible eyesore to climbers, walkers and all tourists.

Please get on the Highland Council website and raise your objections.

In reply to PW:

. It would be a terrible eyesore to climbers, walkers and all tourists.

So the locals , emergency services and anybody needing to carry out essential works can go f)£k themselves ?

In reply to PW:

825m NW of Lagangarbh would put it somewhere on the hillside below the Devil's Staircase (on the West Highland Way), across the road from the Buachaille rather than at its foot, wouldn't it? Or is that not what 825M means here?

In reply to skog:

I'm also a bit confused about the location. As cited, there would be no need for a 2km access road (unless it took a very round-about route from the A82). I've had a look on the Highland Council planning portal and can't find a reference to this particular application (although I did only look at August's applications), although there is one for a comms tower on land  2450M SW Of White Corries Ski Centre. 

In reply to PW:

It's to the north of the A82, more WNW rather than NW of Lagangarbh. So,  hardly "at the foot of the Buachaille"

Map here https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/files/8A09B804C4FAEBAC60DFB731D4D64873/pdf/...

Full application here

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&a...

In reply to skog:

Its here on the councils site

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&...

Reference 23/03215/FUL if the link doesn't work

In reply to PW:

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/files/8A09B804C4FAEBAC60DFB731D4D64873/pdf/...

In reply to climberclimber321:

Unfortunately leads to

Document Unavailable

This document is unavailable for viewing at this time.

In reply to Doug:

Go to the link I gave above and it’s in the supporting documents.

In reply to PW:

This looks like one of the many (perhaps hundreds, I hear) new phone masts planned for the Highlands by the Shared Rural Networks scheme, under which the UK Government is seeking to get coverage to 95% of the country by 2025 in a deal with 4 big providers. Sounds a worthwhile goal until you look at the detail.

Planning authorities are too stretched to properly consider each application, so there's no guarantee things will be done sensitively. Meanwhile rural communities are not being consulted to see what they actually need by way of improved coverage, and where best to site things. Some reportedly have said they don't want or need what's on offer via this scheme. 

That 95% is an arbitrary target, and to achieve it will mean a whole lot of new and obtrusive track and mast development, and other ancillary gubbins, in some of Scotland's last remaining non-mucked-up places. I'm not clear this is a price worth paying for the advance on offer. Is it even an advance? (I quite like going places with no signal, personally).

Are remote rural communities in the hills nowadays best served by terrestrial networks, or satellites? Masts seem pretty old school. What is the technology of the near future actually going to be? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm a tech-knownothing and genuinely wondering. 

Much like renewable energy and transmission infrastructure, this looks like a government policy dreamed up at a far remove from the places it affects, and which the particular businesses that stand to gain have very clearly had a hand in shaping. Lobbying will get you a long way it seems, unless you're a remote rural community. Things generally seem to be done to highland residents, not with us or genuinely for us. I remain to be convinced that the phone thing is not just another example.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

The 4G network will also be needed for the Emergency Services Network (if it ever comes into service).

I take your point regarding needing to consult with local communities, but speaking as someone who lives in an area with no viable wire/fibre broadband, and often sketchy 4G, I and the other locals here would be more than happy to have a mast (England not Scotland).

The decision should rest with the local community, not tourists and visitors.

In reply to PW:

It's not at the foot of the Buchaille and from most angles it's going to be seen against the backdrop of a non descript bit of brown hillside. Frankly, I'm not too troubled by this. 

In reply to PW:

And given the national scenic area is rammed full of lines of cosches blocking lay bys…. 

In reply to PW:

Great, might actually be able to get a forecast from the Laggangarbh now! 

In reply to Ridge:

In reply to Ridge:

Be careful what you wish for! You might find it sited outside your bedroom window -

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/fast-tracked-approval-5g-m...

(as an example)

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

But think of how great the signal will be!

In reply to Ridge:

As a local, I'm unsure who this is actually supposed to service. The Mheall Mhor mast covers most of the west side of the valley. I think the application needs a lot more detail about why it's needed and what it adds to the kings house, glencoe mountain resort, glencoe farmhouse and mheall mhor existing and easily used locations.

The Black Corries complaint says the same thing. 

Tim

here are links to the views it would have

West
https://www.udeuschle.de/panoramas/pans/email/20230817_150243_855_86_164_18...

East
https:/www.udeuschle.de/panoramas/pans/email/20230817_150256_428_86_164_182_108_0001.html

In reply to timparkin:

And, as another, I just don't know enough about it to either welcome or object to it. For sure, you could say it'll be an eyesore. But also a comparatively small man-made intrusion compared to the very useful main road through the Glen and plenty else we depend on now. Do we need it and does whatever coverage it brings justify its presence? I'm just not qualified to say...

Meall Mòr, Tim. But that mast's really on the lower Am Meall.

In reply to PW:

I hope they'll paint the mast and generators etc olive green. This used to be the norm but I've seen many masts go up and last couple of years all I've seen have been white/light grey. I understand that lighter coloured paints last longer against sun and weather but for the sake of a few quid they could be a lot less obtrusive. Have planners just given up? 

In reply to PW:

Good 4g or 5g is perfect for sparsely populated areas. Yeah you can dig in fibre, but the miles of trench per household ratio starts to get a little bit silly. 

In reply to CantClimbTom:

Plant pines around it and once grown just trim when they start risking blocking any signals, which will be decades in that climate. 

In reply to Ridge:

The local community in Skye isn't too happy about the planned proliferation of 200m high wind turbines, for no community benefit, all over the place but they'll doubtless be built regardless.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

That may be nice if you are a tourist with a good connection at home but do you have any right to deprive the locals due to your inability to switch off whilst away from home?

In reply to Siward:

nimby

initialism

Not In My BackYard.

noun

Someone who objects to the building of an undesirable structure in their neighborhood, especially in public policy debate.

Or are they climate change deniers? The'community benefit' comes in the contribution those things will make to keeping the islanders' feet dry.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Most of skye is high enough above sea level they'll be fine, but poorly placed turbines might damage tourism which is a major source of local employment. As with most places it's just a lack of local engagement to reach a compromise location. 

In reply to timjones:

I'm a Highland resident with poor connectivity at home, if that makes any difference.

The places with no/poor signal that I like going tend to be uninhabited, so generally no locals to be deprived. I don't go there simply because there's no signal, but I do quite like it as one small part of the experience of being somewhere more remote.

I'd question whether we NEED a mega project to ensure coverage in uninhabited glens and corries, when a better use of resources might rather be to ensure decent 4G or 5G or fibre broadband for every Highland resident (we're on dodgy copper line, so I know whereof I speak).

The key issue with this huge mast roll-out is that locals are not being consulted. It's a UK Govt thing very obviously being steered by phone companies, and designed around an arbitrary target, and a truncated timescale which is likely to make it impossible for hard-pressed planners to have meaningful input. Scottish Government had their own more modest but better targeted 4G programme in rural Scotland which I understand involved asking people what they actually needed. Surely that's the approach to take.

In reply to mike123:

There is a perfectly good signal everywhere, except for a very small dead patch around Allt-na-Feadh. There is no communications problem in the area.

In reply to PW:

It isn't always so straight forward as putting masts exactly where you want a signal, where you could hypothetically have 2 microwave dishes on this proposed mast pointing west towards a hilltop at Ardnamurchan, relaying masses of data to a tower way off eastwards. It's not always about going from a mast to a mobile phone locally. 

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

I know what you mean. I was chatting to folk working out the back of Knoydart who were told that if they contest they'll lose, regarding plans to get phone signal right into the far end there.

As you say, surely masts will become antiquated soon? Bit like pumped hydro and batteries but that's something else again!

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

The Highland region is a huge net exporter of green energy already, with hundreds of turbines all over, and an absolute ton more in the pipeline. We already contribute much more than our fair share towards Net Zero.

Is it unreasonable for islanders to object to a sudden influx of plans to build several windfarms with 200m turbines (that's huge by the way) on an island that derives much of its income from tourism based around its landscape quality? These installations are extremely distruptive at the local level. The risk to local quality of life and the local economy is obvious.

If built, these projects will radically alter the character of Skye forever; and there'll be yet another mega pylon line through the Highlands to connect it all to the grid. 

Surely some places are too special to trash? And if that's true then Skye must qualify.

That seems to be the view in England at least, where no significant onshore windfarms have been built in around a decade. The Scottish Government has had no such qualms and while that's a good thing in many respects, there surely have to be limits in any one region. It doesn't seem unfair or NIMBY for people in northern Scotland to ask why we're rapidly being turned into the wind power station of the UK while other areas take none of the hit. We already have a lot in our back yards with more to come; let's see other places take some on.

In reply to ExiledScot:

This. It's not necessarily about the mobile phone signal where the mast is; it's more likely part of a much bigger picture.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Not to me. I don't have much sympathy for this. They generate shitloads of clean energy, and they just stand over there in the distance, not hurting anyone, reminding us of how much polluting we're not doing as a result. I'm ok with that. If you don't want them, then someone has to live with the air quality next door to the power station that we need instead. Which literally is hurting someone.

The alternative is trashing the planet.

You build them where it's windy.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

We have to trash the few stunning places we have left on our small archipelago, in order to save the planet? That's hysterical nonsense. That line of reasoning would mean industrialising every hill in Snowdonia or the Lakes. Clearly we don't want or need to do that. We can ringfence nationally significant landscapes and environments and still get all the wind power the grid can cope with (which is a finite amount anyway). I am simply arguing that the balance between conservation and development is off-kilter in northern Scotland, and if we allow the best places to be bulldozed then we'll all be left impoverished. None more so than the people who live there.

It's pretty windy in the Pennines, and most coastal areas of England. Better quality wind still if you're offshore (less gusty, less topography-induced turbulence). Yes it's windy up Scottish hills, but the reason we're getting so many onshore here, and England none, is political, not practical.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

I don't know.  But I note that it's apparently considered reasonable for those who object to the impact on their quality of life from the sheer scale of the tourist operation to be expected to just suck it up.  I think there will be a fair few islanders who would consider a couple of new wind farms and a 10% (say) reduction in the number of tourists to be win-win.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

No, we're not 'trashing' any of them. Were putting a few windmills up. Not opencast mining. They barely affect the landscape at all. Nobody's bulldozing the Cuillins. 

This is total crap; every hill in the south Pennines is covered in them already. I can see plenty of them from north Manchester.

And offshore wind is happening on a massive scale, and we should and will do more of that too.

In reply to PW: really ? Reliable , full strength,  4G ? ( I’ll let you off with 5 ) I d be interested to hear a locals and the emergency services  take on that .

Are you local ?

Do you think that thr opinions of climbers walkers and tourists should be taken into account over and above locals ? < if this comes across as aggressive it isn’t meant to be > 

In reply to deepsoup:

Indeed, I suspect it would be a net benefit to the ecology of the island!

However, I also suspect they will be put in places which are not very touristy, and will probably have no impact on tourism whatsoever. I'd say a huge majority of tourists go to Cuillins, Quiraing, Storr, Fairy pools and Neist point. That leaves huge amounts of the island available for turbines which tourists don't notice. 

In reply to PW:

Most of this isn't nimbyism, it's a case of not in the back yard I visit twice a year etc... the city dweller might also visit several other places once a year, in an effort to never spoil any holiday view we could end up not building anything anywhere! 

In reply to ExiledScot:

It's difficult isn't it, when it's a landscape we all love. I often feel similar when comments are made about lakeland farms etc. One person's home and/or livelihood vs another's occasional playground.

In reply to peppermill:

It is as hard as we make it, for every beautiful man made over grazed hillside in the lakes, there is a cafe, guest house and restuarant that couldn't survive without an online presence, or even a farmer whose flawed upland grazing model requires online submissions of subsidy payment requests. 

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Re politics, yes it’s been stupidly hard to get onshore wind in England for the last few years, but my valley is filling up with Solar farms and we have a rather lovely new set of pylons across it for the quite large new nuclear power station so some things are happening down this way still.

In reply to petestack:

I keep forgetting, Mheall Mhor is our address and it spits off my fingers

In reply to ExiledScot:

It doesn't have line of site anywhere that can't be serviced by existing built up areas

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Also on the East coast

https://sases.org.uk/suffolk-energy-proposals/

In reply to timparkin:

But signals have to go somewhere else once they've linked to the nearest mast.I think it's a relay, only it sits on a 90 degree turn between a western signal and off to the south towards Bridge of Orchy. The ground is too high to relay directly eastwards towards Perth. There are few low bealachs but nothing straight or low enough.

It's not just about a phone signal for hills walker, there might even be a link to something train related. 

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Pretty big projects, fold in Hinckley C to the ones there and you get about 10-15% of the current electricity consumption, plus the wind and whatever comes across the inter connector’s. Top stuff.

In reply to ExiledScot:

Good point. A mast has to connect to the wider telecomms network to connect to the servers used for cellular call routing and then to the relevant mast for mobile to mobile calls (or to the landline network).

The OP mentioned “4 no. 600mm diameter dishes” in the original application. That sounds like a microwave link(s) to other masts.

It'd be even more intrusive to dig several miles of trench to run fibre links

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Terrestrial and satellite have very different bandwidth and capacity capabilities and very different cost structures.   The correct answer for decent rural coverage is almost certainly terrestrial.  Then it comes down to cost and speed of roll out versus aesthetics and cost.

In reply to mike123:

I've lived here over 50 years. Communications for emergency services, and everybody else are OK. It hard to see any benefit to us locals from this mast or the other one they've just proposed at White Corries.

In reply to PW: in which case I think you should have said so in your OP as I think this is relevant . I think I can be forgiven for assuming otherwise . Is there really good mobile signal all over glencoe ? Why do you think this mast is being built ?

In reply to mike123: I’ve visited glen Coe lots of times . Mainly in winter for climbing and walking  but also for skiing . I’m the last ten years I ve had several days a year ( snow permitting ) sking we can make it there and back in a day . I think  it’s a stunningly beautiful place . I m not particularly fond of phone masts . However I think that as a visitor my opinion carries has no value . Would I reduce or curtail visiting ( thereby having a very very small impact on tourism ) absolutely not . 

In reply to mike123:

Standard tactics. When people object to something they often seek to widen the circle of objectors in this case by trying to elicit an emotional response from visitors to the area.

Something similar happened near me. There was a street with expensive houses down one side and a planning application went in for houses on the other side. Obviously you'd object as a resident and that's understandable. However, to get others behind their objections they circulated the message that these houses would be built on the iconic and historically important Culloden Battlefield. It created a massive shooshie but in reality it was just a load of emotive nonsense.

In reply to DaveHK: when my kids were little we lived in a village on the very edge of the lakes park boundary , largly occupied by retired gp s . One such character successfully objected to any attempt to put in a couple of swings and a slide ( or whatever ) on all sorts of spurious BS regarding spoiling the view .I was told last week that Said woman now looks after her young grand kids most of the time . Guess what has just got approval ?

In reply to mike123: i ve just remembered a council meeting where lots of very good arguments were made for a very small play park . Said woman basically said very dismissively works to the effect “you can make all the reasonably arguments you like but I don’t want it near my house so it’s not happening “ . It didn’t .  

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan, you're using a lot of emotive language there - I guess it is an emotive issue. There are quite a few points you've made that are either assumptions, or disputed.

This should probably be a different topic / real pub chat!  But anyway...

1. The scale of what needs done to tackle climate change is enormous. It's likely going to radically affect our landscape in any case. The idea that the landscape "as it stands" is some perfect ideal that we must preserve is one rooted in the people of our time. If you'd asked those who lived on the islands 200 year ago if they wanted pushed to the fringes and replaced with sheep, they'd have strongly disagreed. Rightly so. There is obviously the risk of this happening again, as large landowners are usually the ones pushing for wind farms as they're profitable. I generally think that local communities should be much more radically involved* in the full process but that's a different topic and would also take thousands of words to discuss and I'm also probably not the best person to argue it. *something like compulsory local owenwship of a goodly portion of the land if a wind farm is to be built or something radical like that...

I guess my point here was - the landscape has been changing for millienia through human impact and natural changes. 10,000 years ago it was all under ice....

2. No, not unreasonable but only if it's on reasonable grounds. The visual impact of the proposed Glen Ullinish II farm from any of the tourist destinations is relatively minimal. Yes, on the way to trotternish you will drive past / see it. But, on the way to Skye you will have already driven past numerous wind farms - is that already diminishing the tourist pull of Skye? At present, Skye's biggest issues with getting more tourist (not that anyone *really* wants that) is infrastructure and good quality affordable housing for the local population so that they can actually live in the area. Outsiders buying up property and land because to Londoners / SE wealthy folks it seems "cheap" is pricing locals out of the market.

Is more tourism really a good thing / sustainable? Do all locals want to grow up only with the prospect of working in a cafe / B&B etc.?  Maybe some lads and lassies wouldn't mind a job as a wind farm site manager or technician? What if tourism drops because people can't afford to travel because fuel prices go astronomical, is it such a good idea to put all your eggs in the tourism basket?

3. Really? Short term, yes, long term if they're well managed the generally result in improved roads, access tracks (one of my personal biggest bugbears is poorly sited, designed tracks) that can be used for mountainbiking etc. Does kathkin braes in Glasgow suffere form being nestled in wond farms? No, it's busy all the time!

4. Is it - care to elaborate?

5. 20-30 years, if we've found some panacea (fusion, apocalypse) then the turbine will be removed, tracks filled over and you'll not see much evidence in 15-20 years.

6. That horse has bolted. The Skye - Fort Augustus 132kV interconnector is already approved, so it's not an a valid objection to new development per say.

7. This is where it all gets a bit more nuanced. I totally agree that poorly sited wind farms can dominate landscapes, so care and consideration must be taken when doing so. I would say, that for Glen Ullinish it has - it's not an area of outstanding natural beauty itself - it's ok, but it's relatively uninteresting rolling moorland. Not too dissimilar to the Ben Aketil wind farm that you already drive past on the way to Dunvegan - has that destroyed tourism.

Interestingly, the actual negative impact on tourism seems to be something not backed up by studies. https://www.europenowjournal.org/2020/11/09/environment-landscape-and-place...

That's not to say there can't be valid local objection!  It's just that the impact on tourism potentially isn't one of them.

8. As much as I'd love to see the windier bits of England filled with them too - there are too many well heeled barristers and planning consultants down there and it becomes incredible difficult to get anything approved.

Going offshore is the "easy" answer, but going offshore only tackles the "visual" aspect of them being sited onshore, there are a raft of additional challenges and negative impacts that need managed % mitigated: surveying & installation being detrimental to marine life (whales etc.), the human impact of sending technicians out on boats for either 14 hr days, or staying offshore for 2 weeks on a service and operations vessel, the fuel use for those vessels, the additional steel/concrete for the jackets/foundations, challenges of maintenance offshore.

Offshore wind is *currently* (this is obviously being tackled as we speak) about double the Co2/kwh of onshore.

In reply to mike123:

As a case in point, I was up at Tunnel Wall yesterday and noticed a fairly new one between the kings house and Orchy. I guess I agree that maybe we should be painting them green? But otherwise I barely noticed it and would it stop me going again? Ha!

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

The main objection my family on Skye have to the new wind farm, is the 3 years of traffic chaos as the only way to get the turbine blades onto the site is from the other side of the island, by road.

They don't object to the turbines in principle....and it's not true to say there's no benefit to the locals, there are significant sums being invested in local communities by the developers, funds which aren't going to come from anywhere else and are sorely needed.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

I'm not a huge fan of giving dislikes without explanation or obvious cause, so let me explain.

Or, in other words: "let's trash your locale because no one in my locale is interested and they have the resources to object to it".

In reply to midgen:

Don't they do all of the moving of stuff at night? Tbh, it can't be any worse than being stuck behind trains of campervans! 😂

In reply to midgen:

Might bring about some maintenance of the atrocious roads up there. You can barely move a horse and cart along the A-roads as they are now.