|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Rudston Monolith » Wind turbines at Rudston |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Hob 4033 posts |
Edited Sep 11, 2012, 19:59
Sep 11, 2012, 19:55
|
||
|
It's a contentious issue, some love 'em, some hate 'em, some just don't want to live near them, some think they look ugly etc. I'm wondering if the arguments from non-locals in terms of ruining the setting of the monolith are as valid as usual at a site with such relatively modern interference as a church. http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Turbine-near-Rudston-monolith-lead-near/story-16775363-detail/story.html. Apologies if this has been discussed here already, I've not been paying close attention recently and a quick search seemed to indicate otherwise.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 11, 2012, 20:14
|
||
|
Good evening Your Worship, how are you? Whether the claim is justified is open to discussion but IMO it's one of the least likely ones to be upheld. EH's new Heritage Protection Glossary is the best guide http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/hpg/hpr-glossary/ as it gives the relevant definitions, but the government, like they do, has loaded the dice anyway, as we said in our piece on the definitions - "Buffer zone: “A buffer zone is an area surrounding [a] property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use constituting and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection. The area the buffer zone should be determined in each case through appropriate mechanisms.” [UNESCO 2005] Of course, that’s a UNESCO definition not a UK one and needs to be read with other entries such as Setting and Significance. What really sticks out though is how the ideal definitions expressed under those headings somehow don’t stand up very strongly in the eyes of Inspectors when considering Planning Appeals, especially ones involving wind farms. Amongst other things of course the Government has effectively said to them if its going to generate loads of juice the country needs it, so say yes!" So when can we expect that article you promised us? Eh? ;)
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Sep 11, 2012, 20:17
|
||
|
Why not stick it on Beacon hill whilst they're at it, and run the cable along one of the cursi. ? Seriously though Bridlington is only 8 miles away so why not stick it on the coast there and run a cable. Personally i hate the things but i understand they are necessary, But why do we have to spoil ritual landscapes with them when there's plenty of other places they could go. ? If this happens i'll pay one last visit beforehand then never return.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Sep 11, 2012, 20:25
|
||
|
I have no issue with wind turbines and actually think they are rather beautiful things. As long as there is no damage to the archaeology, I am absolutely in favour. The Rudston monolith is unnatural, the church is unnatural, the farmed landscape is unnatural, just as the turbines are. They do not belch smoke or harm the environment. In my view they should be embraced as a positive addition to the modern landscape. Considering the course we have taken since the first monuments went up and the first farms were created, I think the turbines represent a period of our history when we perhaps began to 'care' again, for the planet, for eachother (if it doesn't sound too wet) and I think a rural landscape which incorporates both prehistoric monuments and this beautiful machinery born of forward thinking and representing human know-how used for positive effect is a very fine thing indeed.
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Sep 11, 2012, 20:48
|
||
|
Looks sweet. : ) http://i47.tinypic.com/xx47b.jpg
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Sep 11, 2012, 21:02
|
||
|
harestonesdown wrote: You could grow to love them I reckon! :)
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Sep 11, 2012, 21:24
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: You could grow to love them I reckon! :) Yes I like them as well, more news from ITV on the subject, it really doesn't look too bad where the farmer wants to put it but there again is it necessary? Note Australian visitor comment, 'it will spoil the view'. http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2012-08-09/wind-turbine-row/
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Sep 11, 2012, 21:29
|
||
|
moss wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: You could grow to love them I reckon! :) Yes I like them as well, more news from ITV on the subject, it really doesn't look too bad where the farmer wants to put it but there again is it necessary? Note Australian visitor comment, 'it will spoil the view'. http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2012-08-09/wind-turbine-row/ Thanks Moss. I wonder if the made the turbine out of some new invisible material on the "official plan", I couldn't see it.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Sep 11, 2012, 21:48
|
||
|
moss wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: You could grow to love them I reckon! :) Yes I like them as well, more news from ITV on the subject, it really doesn't look too bad where the farmer wants to put it but there again is it necessary? Note Australian visitor comment, 'it will spoil the view'. http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2012-08-09/wind-turbine-row/ I think the farmer has it just about right in that report. It makes me wonder if people objected to having a 12ft stone erected way back when. 'Spoiling the view'. There is no point in studying the past if we are afraid to go forward. I don't know whether the turbine is absolutely necessary, or the finer detail of the proposal, so there may well be a case against it for other reasons but based upon what I have seen here it seems to me a fuss about very little. If it was genuinely detrimental to the landscape it would be glaringly obvious to all. It just doesnt bother me in the slightest but I would like to hear others views.
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Sep 11, 2012, 21:56
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: moss wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: You could grow to love them I reckon! :) Yes I like them as well, more news from ITV on the subject, it really doesn't look too bad where the farmer wants to put it but there again is it necessary? Note Australian visitor comment, 'it will spoil the view'. http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2012-08-09/wind-turbine-row/ I think the farmer has it just about right in that report. It makes me wonder if people objected to having a 12ft stone erected way back when. 'Spoiling the view'. There is no point in studying the past if we are afraid to go forward. I don't know whether the turbine is absolutely necessary, or the finer detail of the proposal, so there may well be a case against it for other reasons but based upon what I have seen here it seems to me a fuss about very little. If it was genuinely detrimental to the landscape it would be glaringly obvious to all. It just doesnt bother me in the slightest but I would like to hear others views. I see them as a necessary evil if you will. Dunno your age (i'm early 40's) but i guess there comes a point when you sorta oppose any radical change (which i do see these monstrosities as) but they are the way forwards i guess, And much better than having yet another power station thrown up somewhere. Going on the video Moss posted it doesn't seem to have too much of an impact, Much better than the photoshopped pic i posted anyway.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
