Majority support community turbine

Bryan Copland • Published 9 Feb 2012 09:19 29 Comments

Share this

A PROPOSED community wind turbine for Dunbar has gained majority support from residents, despite some online dissent.

Nearly two-thirds of the 500-plus households in the Dunbar ward which took part in a consultation exercise said they supported the idea of a community turbine being erected on Cocklaw Hill.

Dunbar Community Energy Company (DCEco) - the trading subsidiary of Sustaining Dunbar which is behind the green energy proposal - believes such a turbine could generate up to £250,000 a year which would be invested back into the community.

It comes as Sustaining Dunbar defends its spending activities in the wake of some public criticism on the Courier website's comments section.

Of all 5,560 households in the Dunbar ward, about 10 per cent completed questionnaires in which they were asked if they supported the idea of a wind turbine on Cocklaw Hill.

Sixty-one per cent said 'yes', 21 per cent said 'no', and 18 per cent said they were 'not bothered'.Locals were also asked their views on turbines which are privately or community-owned.

The survey found that 67.6 per cent of people 'like' community turbines; 12.5 per cent are 'not bothered' about them and 19.8 per cent 'don't like' them.

While 46.4 per cent 'like' private turbines; 21.1 per cent are 'not bothered' and 32.4 per cent 'don't like' them.

Malcolm Sayers, DCEco volunteer, said: "While several people were vociferously against our proposals, more than 300 of the 500 responses we received on the doorsteps supported the idea.

"We are still analysing the results but will publish them in full on our website as soon as possible.

We will also post the many ideas for using the money and use these to draw up plans to spend profits which we will also consult upon."

When asked what consultees would want the money spent on, 'support for new local businesses' was the top response.

The turbine would be funded through a commercial loan, with money being set aside outwith the £250,000 to maintain and eventually decommission it 20 years on. Money would be raised by selling electricity to the National Grid.

DCEco's consultants will now speak to East Lothian Council with a view to submitting a planning application.

But some comments made on the Courier website were less than supportive towards DCEco.

One user, 'Chucklebunny', said: "Sustaining Dunbar do not represent the community. Like many organisations fed by generous amounts of taxpayers' money, they have little accountability to those taxpayers.

"What has Dunbar seen for the money lavished on them? A leaflet about bus and train routes, some information about cycle paths and information about energy use that is readily available from other sources.

"When, as a society, we are cutting back on essential services it's time for this group to be given their marching orders."

Sustaining Dunbar is wholly reliant on grant funding - mostly from the Scottish Government - and in the year ended November 30, 2010 had a total income of £248,183.

Of that, £245,410 was various grants - while just £25 came from 'memberships and other income'. The organisation spent £115,504 on staff costs - more than double the cost of the previous year.

Philip Revell, project co-ordinator for Sustaining Dunbar, told the Courier: "Funding was spent on projects agreed in advance by the Scottish Government's Climate Challenge Fund - a very competitive fund open to all communities in Scotland.

"It is for others to judge whether this has been money well spent but the feedback we have received from those who have received one of our free 'energy audits', for example, has been overwhelmingly positive and has resulted in an average energy - and hence bill saving - of 18 per cent.

"The Climate Challenge Fund has been extremely positive about the projects we have delivered to date and we are often cited as an example of a community successfully helping to meet the Scottish carbon reduction targets."

Funded projects include Dunbar 2025 - a vision for the area's future - and transport initiative Connecting Dunbar.

Sustaining Dunbar - a charity and company limited by guarantee - is run by a board of volunteers, to which staff are accountable.

Members of the public can put themselves forward for election to the board.

Membership of the organisation is free but its constitution does not allow staff to become members. The group says all staff have been appointed after an "open and transparent recruitment process".

Have your say. Post a comment on this article.

Chucklebunny
Unregistered User
Feb 9, 11:48
Report comment

Well done Bryan - glad to see you've brought some facts about this group into the public domain. It says it all really when the best that Mr Revell can come up with when challenged about the group's spending is that the Climate Challenge Fund has been extremely positive. Of course they will be - do you really think they want to tell their political masters how so much of this money has been frittered away? Remember, they are passengers on the gravy train as well! If some of the spending information had been included in what was a clearly biased survey would the results have been as positive as Sustaining Dunbar are portraying them?

Recommend? Yes 13 No 5
steve
Unregistered User
Feb 9, 12:49
Report comment

'gained majority support from residents'

That is surely not true if only 10% completed the survey.

Recommend? Yes 21 No 4
Chucklebunny
Unregistered User
Feb 9, 17:37
Report comment

"The group says all staff have been appointed after an "open and transparent recruitment process". Really - no doubt Mr Revell, former Trustee and now employee had just the right qualifications.

Recommend? Yes 15 No 6
Chucklebunny
Unregistered User
Feb 9, 17:57
Report comment

From their own report:

"In the short term, our project will have the following legacy:

We are confident that the walking maps and public transport information we have produced will provide a model for other towns. In addition, East Lothian Council is developing a ‘Sustainable Travel Town’ initiative and it is hoped that Dunbar will set a standard to which other towns will aspire.

A clear set of sustainable travel requirements for the project area has been established for input to the planning process when required.

An increasing reduction in carbon emissions from travel.

An improved understanding within the community about the impact which our travel choices have.

An established volunteer led community car club in Dunbar with increasing membership working to reduce local car miles.

An established cycling group working (among other things) to encourage people to use their bikes as everyday transport."

Now, is there anyone who thinks this set of outcomes justifies over quarter of a million of taxpayer cash? Just think what groups such as the day centre and youth groups could have done with it.

Recommend? Yes 10 No 5
Birniebob
Unregistered User
Feb 9, 21:24
Report comment

The 'survey' was designed by an idiot - mainly free form answers were required. And if I lived in the Dunbar housing schemes why should I care about a turbine 5 miles away? It is the residents near to the turbine who should be surveyed.

Recommend? Yes 13 No 3
walker
Unregistered User
Feb 10, 13:54
Report comment

Repeated from the thread, associated with the article from 19 Jan 2012, as questions remain unanswered.

The public consultation did not answer questions posed in questionnaires, such as...

- it creates jobs for whom?

- who exactly will this benefit, including any staff/directors of a subsidary organisation whose funding has ended?

- who will be in charge of the spend?

- it's a loan which pays for the turbine, this needs to be paid back so when do the benefits start?

- who are the people involved/have an interest? Directors? Who are they accountable to?

- is there a neutral body overseeing?

- have displacement issues been considered?

- what is Cambium Advocacy's involvement and how are they benefiting?

- where is the transparent and clear business plan?

- what are projected figures based on?

- will The Grid purchase?

- exactly which homes and businesses will benefit from any surplus sold to The Grid?

- what does the landowner gain?

- should it be sited at Innerwick when they gain no benefit?

Re article published 9 Feb 2012, some additional points to consider;

- not only online but dissent took place at the open day

- a small proportion of the community may say they 'like' community wind turbines but will they 'like' some of the facts about the company who is behind it? Transparency is called for again. If there is no secrecy to the information then it should be in the public domain.

- is the total number of people surveyed from online questionnaires, doorstep or a mixture of? This is unclear.

- the commercial loan is provided by taxpayers

- Mr Sayers is titled a Volunteer, he is a Director of DCEco along with 3 others. Cambium Advocacy's involvement?

Brings a whole new perspective to volunteering, it used to be defined by people who sought no personal financial gain, short or long term.

Recommend? Yes 18 No 6
Chucklebunny
Unregistered User
Feb 10, 14:09
Report comment

Excellent comment Walker. The pressure needs to be kept up on Sustaining Dunbar if we are to get the answers to your very pertinent questions.

Recommend? Yes 11 No 6
concerned resident
Unregistered User
Feb 10, 18:59
Report comment

300 in favour out of 5000 :

Apparently this is a two thirds majority.

Not only do the subsidy junkies at Sustaining dunbar still believe in

Man Made Global Warming, which has been totally discredited ;

( they were formed on the back of a couple of showings of Al,seven houses,

Gore Hollywood fiction blockbuster, An Incovenient Truth ( the actual inconvenient truth is that NONE of the predictions made in the movie have come anywhere near being reality )) , They now appear to be happy to adopte Stalinist style self deception in order to justify their follies. Why can they not just go back to where they came from

and ruin ther own back yard.

This is the behaviour of a bunch of white settlers at it's worst.

Recommend? Yes 7 No 10
Sickened
Unregistered User
Feb 10, 19:46
Report comment

I have been reading the comments posted here and on the related article published 19th Jan.

I have to say, that as an observing bystander, I have been increasingly worried that Sustaining Dunbar (while probably founded with the best of intentions) is indeed turning into a slow-moving Gravy Train, and is not serving the interests of the wider Dunbar Community.

However, some of the comments referring to "white settlers" and the like are just repulsive, and to me only serve to illustrate the kind of backward and narrow-minded attitudes that survive in many small towns.

What started off as a seemingly valid debate has quickly spiralled into a bigoted witch-hunt of (probably) well-intentioned but (possibly) misguided "incomers", led by the prehistoric blinkered ignorance of a (hopefully very)few "locals".

For Dunbars sake, get a grip and move on. If Dunbar is to succeed and prosper, then its time ALL residents got over their prejudices and arrogances alike, and started working together to make improvements.

By the way, I wasnt born here, I choose to live here, and dont plan on moving. So far, the positives of Dunbar FAR outweigh the negatives.

Recommend? Yes 6 No 2
Chucklebunny
Unregistered User
Feb 10, 20:11
Report comment

I agree that some of the comments are not acceptable. But, in my opinion, it is perfectly valid to challenge what is going on at Sustaining Dunbar. Unlike yourself, I do not see it as a "witch hunt". As far as I am concerned the nationality or any other personal attributes are irrelevant. What is relevant is that this group has spent almost £250k on salaries with very little to show for it. If they have their way, income from the proposed turbine will simply be used to replace the lost government income and the gravy train will role on.

Recommend? Yes 9 No 3
concerned resident
Unregistered User
Feb 10, 21:29
Report comment

It is the white settlers that are repulsive ; they move to a desireable part of the country, and try to impose their will on the locals , on the basis that they know best.

This ' community turbine is a perfect example.

Chuckle bunny is absolutely correct ; they are simply trying to find a new source of funding for their salaries ; these are cureently funded by the tax payers, but this gravy train will dry up soon.

If this is such a good idea, then do not accept the ROC subsidies attaching .

This turbine will only succedd in dividing the community and increasing fuel poverty.

Some community spirit that. Pure, unadulterated self interest, nothing more, nothing less, dressed up as community action. I find that repulsive.

Recommend? Yes 8 No 11
Sickened
Unregistered User
Feb 10, 22:01
Report comment

Concerned Resident

Your version of "Community Spirit" is very different to mine.

In my humble view, ALL residents are part of the Community, whether they can trace their Dunbar roots back to the beginning of time, or simply to last week. It is not a Wind Turbine that will split this Community, but perverse bloody-mindedness will.

Just for a minute TRY considering another viewpoint than your own. You might surprise yourself (and may even discover the means to argue your case without the use of prujudiced insults)

Recommend? Yes 8 No 0
Chucklebunny
Unregistered User
Feb 10, 22:45
Report comment

According to their latest Board minutes they have applied for further 3 year funding from the CCF. This is what they plan to spend it on:

Energy Auditor 1 FTE

Transport Officer 1.4 FTE

Food and Compost Worker .4 FTE

Project Coordinator .6 FTE

Neighbours Together Facilitator .7 FTE

Admin Support .1 FTE

If they don't get CCF funding what do you think the Turbine money will be spent on. This group is out of control - remember folks, some of our Councillors attend their Board meetings so get your questions ready for election time.

Recommend? Yes 10 No 4
Chucklebunny
Unregistered User
Feb 11, 09:16
Report comment

For those who don't know, Cambium Advocacy referred to by Walker is a PR company. If they are advising Sustaining Dunbar we have a right to know how much they are being paid. Another snippet suggesting this group are out of control. They are involved in promoting a community buy out of the Crunchy Carrot. I believe a co-owner of the Crunchy Carrot is Sarah Wall who happens to be a Board Member of Sustaining Dunbar. Was a conflict of interest declared? I couldn't see anything in the Board minutes. Care to comment Cllr Bell?

Recommend? Yes 8 No 5
Malcolm Sayers
Unregistered User
Feb 11, 10:35
Report comment

Chuckelbunny and walker, you asked directly about mine and cambium’s involvement in this project so I will respond.

I am indeed a volunteer, that is I do not get any financial or other benefit from my involvement. That may be hard for you to believe but it is true, and I do it because I think that of all the public subsidy that goes to wind, and other energy production by the way, some should benefit the community and not just go to private companies.

How will the community benefit, what will any profit be spent on? That was the point of the consultation, we are asking people for their ideas on how to spend it.

Cambium involvement? None, no involvement, nada, no payment, no conspiracy.

Recommend? Yes 7 No 4
Chucklebunny
Unregistered User
Feb 11, 10:49
Report comment

I'm happy to accept what you say Mr Sayers. I'm less happy with the way the CCF money has been spent by Sustaining Dunbar. I can see very little benefit for the spend so far by Sutaining Dunbar and it is my opinion that they have proved themselves entirely unsuitable to handle such large amounts of taxpayer cash. If this turbine goes ahead I would far rather see the money given o the Community Council - at least they are democratically accountable.

Recommend? Yes 11 No 5
concerned resident
Unregistered User
Feb 11, 14:00
Report comment

At a time when this country owes £1trillion ( that is , I believe one thousand billion pounds sterling ) Sustaining Dunbar want to spend taxpayers money on the following activities :

Energy Auditor , Transport Officer ,

Food and Compost Worker , Project Coordinator, Neighbours Together Facilitator

This is simply Stalinist nonsense;

The fuel poor, the disabled, the elderley and the unemployed are all facing severe cuts to their standards of living, and these jokers want to spent hard earned taxpayers money on a FOOD and COMPOST worker ?

Next proposal will be a muesli knitting suppport worker !

I thought we had moved on from the loony left of the 1980's ; not in certain parts of Dunbar , we havent.

Recommend? Yes 10 No 6
walker
Unregistered User
Feb 11, 19:49
Report comment

Thank you Mr Sayers for answering one question.

- in addition to being a Volunteer, are you not also a Director of DCEco?

- are you linked with Cambium Advocacy?

- who are the other Directors of DCEco?

Other, previous questions still remain unanswered. A response would be appreciated.

The taxpayer/community are being asked to put money in the hands of DCEco twice. Firstly from the commercial loan and secondly, the money generated from the wind turbine. The taxpayer/community needs to know that DCEco are responsible, capable, accountable and transparent.

Recommend? Yes 10 No 5
Wifey
Unregistered User
Feb 11, 21:22
Report comment

I am right with you chucklebunny! In most worlds you have to justify there is a NEED for a service before you apply for funding.

Does Dunbar need a Food and Compost worker.? A traffic worker etc. we are a town of 5000 people not Edinburgh. I can vaguely see the point here:- grow your own, allotment/ garden or otherwise, share with your neighbour, compost together - revitalise each others gardens- great, maybe attend a meeting, produce a leaflet on how easy it was..., that's great - for those who can grow their own vegetables, have the time and know how to tend their garden and hence share the wealth. I actually do share my tatties with my 2 neighbours etc but ultimately DO PEOPLE WANT ACTUALLY WANT THIS HELP?

I do feel when I have talked to a few people from sustaining Dunbar, I have been made to feel I'm not doing enough or doing my bit and I should really come to one of their many meetings, if i disagree.

I love my community and i do care. I use the library, I ride my bike sometimes, I shop in the High Street, I don't give my children sweeteners, um... my kids spend an hour outside everyday um um um- do I have solar panels??? Um um why don't I want an energy audit, "you rent? Well ask your landlord to be more responsible" .. "Leave me alone"!!!! (is what I want to say). I normally mumble and run.

Besides the Board - surely there is a commission who can review the spend of so much funding?

Recommend? Yes 10 No 3
Chucklebunny
Unregistered User
Feb 12, 09:18
Report comment

Just been spending some more time looking at their minutes and accounts. In 2010 the accounts show a grant of £10,000 for a feasibility study into a buy out of the Crunch Carrot. Sarah Wall, Board Member of Sustaining Dunbar is co-owner of the Crunch Carrott so a clear conflict of interest arises. OSCR rules make specific reference to such conflicts of interest yet I could see nothing in the minutes to suggest this concerned the Board. We really need answers from Sustaining Dunbar - I suspect their policy is to think this will go away. You must have enough for a story by now Bryan - if they won't answer here challenge them in the paper.

Recommend? Yes 11 No 4
lightyear
1 post
Feb 14, 13:02
Report comment

Why don't we put a couple of turbines in Winterfield and the Bleachingfield. How many Dunbar residents would support that! Its nothing to do with them - they won't be living it its shadow.

The residents of Innerwick & that locale already suffer Viridor, Lefarge, British Energy - whats another turbine - its already the a*hole of East Lothian.

Recommend? Yes 5 No 5
Stickler
Unregistered User
Feb 14, 14:46
Report comment

This blatant misrepresentation of statistics undermines the whole project: it beggars belief that any responsible (?) organisation or individual has the nerve to write that a majority emerged in favour of the project when the reality is that 5.5% of all Dunbar households have evidently indicated that they favour it. This is reminiscent of the sort of spurious claims that cosmetics manufacturers frequently make in their television advertisements, claiming that majorities of people surveyed approve of a given product, but cover themselves by ensuring that in very small and often virtually illegible text at the bottom of our screens the true statistics to which they have applied their "spin" are quoted, eg. 279 out of 350 people surveyed agreed that...

I vote for "Chucklebunny" ! Good ID too.

Recommend? Yes 4 No 5
Sandy Mitchell
Unregistered User
Feb 14, 18:44
Report comment

Why not join in the debate on the forums at www.dunbar.org.uk. We, as a community, need answers from Sustaining Dunbar.

Recommend? Yes 5 No 3
walker
Unregistered User
Feb 17, 09:25
Report comment

Agree. Very valid queries in your letter this week.

Interestingly, another funding source is Transition Support Scotland and a Director/Trustee/Volunteer/Co-ordinator (there are many hats interchanged to suit) of Sustaining Dunbar is also a Director of Transition Support Scotland.

As part of the new FAQs on the Sustaining Dunbar website it is stated in the same article "As a small, volunteer run charity" and "In the 2009/10 financial year a total of £115,504 was spent on employment costs" ??

Meanwhile, I am still waiting on a response. Here is a repeat of my previous post.

"Thank you Mr Sayers for answering one question.

- in addition to being a Volunteer, are you not also a Director of DCEco?

- are you linked with Cambium Advocacy?

- who are the other Directors of DCEco?

Other, previous questions still remain unanswered, see post no.6 on this thread. A response would be appreciated.

The taxpayer/community are being asked to put money in the hands of DCEco twice. Firstly from the commercial loan and secondly, the money generated from the wind turbine. The taxpayer/community needs to know that DCEco are responsible, capable, accountable and transparent".

Ultimately previous, present and potentially future activities of this group of intertwined companies and individuals is highly questionable.

Recommend? Yes 8 No 4
walker
Unregistered User
Feb 17, 10:36
Report comment

Sadly, the website www.dunbar.org.uk has been closed this morning after 10 years of 'true' volunteer work.

This seems a questionable, timely demise given the public's cry for answers from Sustaining Dunbar, their related companies and activities on the website.

Recommend? Yes 11 No 5
Local
Unregistered User
Feb 18, 00:26
Report comment

A new community forum for Dunbar can be found at www.voiceofdunbar.co.uk

Recommend? Yes 5 No 1
Alfraedin
Unregistered User
Feb 22, 12:29
Report comment

I have been following this with interest and somewhat dismayed at the level of vitriol that is happening here.

I would be the first to support transparent dealings at every level of society where public money is concerned. However the time and efforts that have gone into what seems to me to be some kind of Sustaining Dunbar witch hunt does not seem to be over productive.

The comments made seem have an arguement that is saying monies spent could have gone to ..... Thats true, whatever money is spent could have gone somewhere else but what seems to be missing here is that Sustaining Dunbar is employing people, hopefully at a local level. This surely has to have some good?

If the efforts by all the conributors were soent trying to create some emplyment instaed of sitting down looking for something to criticise then we as a society may well have been in a better place.

Yes there is a debate about whether or not a local wind turbine is a good or bad thing but why is this turning into a a campaign against an organisation that is at least trying to do something positive in their view.

It mades me laugh to see the words 'we as a community...' from Sandy Mitchell. I have no idea who he is and I certainly don't remember voting for him however he seems to think that he is the community and will fly the flag for 'us' the community. Whoever you are I suggest you actualy join an organisation and do something that is at least accountable to others. You don't represent me thats for sure.

Recommend? Yes 7 No 7
Sandy Mitchell
Unregistered User
Feb 22, 12:36
Report comment

Hi Alfraedin, at least I'm prepared to name myself publicly - what about you?

Recommend? Yes 9 No 3
Alfraedin
Unregistered User
Feb 24, 15:01
Report comment

So whats in a name?

Go get into an elected position and show your true colours.

My point is that you are merely a citizen along with myself, I do not represent the community as I do not hold office. That is to say you are not 'we' you are merely you with your own opinions and as such you should express them in such a way. I am unsure as to why you would consider your own personal views to represent 'the community'.

The fact is you dont represent anyone.

Recommend? Yes 5 No 6

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.

Follow @elcourier