The Cold Ashby Rambler

Thanks for this, Alison, and your continued interest in this website. I regularly visit your blog which I would recommend to all who like a good walk in interesting surroundings.
There is a link to your blog on my 'Useful Links' page.
Happy Rambling to you and your companions!

Thanks for your comment, Patsy - pleased you liked my review and hope you enjoy this book as much as I did!

So pleased you find 'The Rambler' of interest, Ruth.
I also use a hard copy of ' Round and About Cold Ashby' (which is now looking a bit dog-eared and worn!) and if an online copy existed, it would be great to link to it on this site.
Unfortunately, I don't think it does - though I will enquire locally and post any further information on this page.
Thanks, again, for your interest and the feedback.

Many thanks for your response to my walking guides.
Re. Wind Farms - If you read my article carefully you will appreciate that it is INLAND wind farms to which I object -particularly those which threaten unspoilt areas of countryside enjoyed by walkers and riders.
I therefore fail to see how my concerns are other than appropriate.

I note your objection to inland wind farms but fail to see why you are not also objecting to electricity plans which are equally ugly! Unfortunately, both are necessary unless you prefer to advocate we stop using electricity altogether?
My original comment is still valid though, this is a good guide for local walks which should not be used for personal views .

I have to agree with 'Rambler'. The recent flurry of applications in Daventry District for wind farms has to be a concern for those of us that value the beautiful open countryside we have been blessed with in this area. The area proposed for the Winwick Warren Wind Farm is a Special Landscape Area and is the least suitable of any of the proposed Wind Farm applications in the area. There are still people who do not realise what a blot wind turbines will be to the landscape, how much noise they make and how inefficient they are. The developers are not farming wind - they are farming very large subsidies. Increasingly astute local campaigners around the country are able to demonstrate how misleading the applicants are in their 'Environmental Statements'. Photomontages under estimate the impact on landscape. Noise calculations are usually made to a discredited model. The net result for many people unfortunate to find themselves living near these developments is often described by them as a 'living hell'. Planning permissions are usually given for 25 years. Once a site is 'industrialised' it will be there for ever and probably expanded within a few years of initial construction.

So go go go Rambler. Keep the topic alive.

Please do not confuse a windfarm with a power station. You need to completely cover about 500 sq miles of countryside with wall to wall turbines to generate the same amount of electricity as a single power station. However, the big difference is that the power station generates electricity when it is wanted and not just when it is windy.

Oh dear, I seem to have touched a raw nerve in you all! Please note spelling error in last msg, I was asking if you think pylons are ugly too and should also be considered a blot? Or are they ok by virtue of having been there so long?
However my main point is that Rambler has detailed walks and it is a shame to ruin this purpose with such necessary rhetoric of personal bias.
I would like though to ask, as I have started this debate, on what factual studies the information being quoted by others joining this thread are baseing their information on? My belief is that wind farm technology has improved dramatically so that many of the 'facts' now quoted by objectors are out of date, and the only people I have ever met who have actually stood directly underneath a turbine (myself included but not including promoters of windfarms) have commented just how quiet they are (i am talking about modern turbines as I do agree the old style ones could be very noisy). As for the comments on other statistics for costs, benefits etc, I do wonder if objectors 'facts' are equally based on the old turbines rather than the new technology? In other words, are the objectors twisting facts as much as they claim the promoters are?
Finally, it is a common misconception that one planning consent 'opens the door' for more turbines in the future at one location. It does not automatically follow as 1 if the location was considered suitable for more, they would apply for more in the first place and 2 a new consent would need to be sort at which time we locals can have our say again about whether it is appropriate.
Does anyone out there have an alternative? Coal, gas, oil and nuclear are all finite sources of raw materials that will run out in our children's lifetimes, if not in our own. We all use electricity in our homes and offices and petrol in our cars. We have no choice but to find alternative fuel sources. No one is suggesting ALL electricity can or should come from inland windfarms, but it is right that all sources should be explored and utilised where possible and I am certain that the big corporations will constantly seek new and more cost effective solution as we move forward.
Thoughts please and relevant references to technical studies that back up your objections as I am very interested in this topic and am trying very hard to understand the objections being made on any grounds other than visual.