YOUR article ‘Kennedy praised for support of causes’ appears to continue to promote the Times belief that if a few bob is spent on local communities all is well, regardless of the negative impacts on the communities.

This article shows a small map of what I think is intended to be the extended site. However, no reference or explanation of the map is offered to the readers.

We hear of the good but we aren’t informed of the bad. The Times should offer some explanation of what the planning proposal consists of – a balanced article is what we should be seeing. Then readers can form their own opinions.

To me, the most alarming feature of this extension is that the turbines are to be sited approximately 300 metres CLOSER to Lochgelly/Lumphinnans/Cowdenbeath than those already in position.

The extra turbines are almost touching the A92 dual carriageway. This takes the distance to housing down from 1.3 kilometres to barely 1 kilometre. The recommended ‘safe’ distance is 2.5 kilometres from housing, which is obviously advised for a reason, so we can assume that at only 40% of the ‘safe’ distance, the site must be considered (extremely) ‘unsafe’.

Perhaps this accounts for the regularly reported cases of local people suffering from noise, shadow flicker, headaches and migraine headaches. Logic says that if more turbines are installed, even closer to local communities, the incidence of health issues will multiply significantly.

Kennedy Renewables also seem to think that by donating a few sets of football strips all will be well. Try telling that to the people whose health has been affected so far. I was always told that health can’t be bought. And let’s not forget, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

People have commented that they knew very little of the planning application detail for the original site and were not fully aware of what we would end up with in our faces.

It looks like this extension application may be similar, so perhaps the Times, as the local newspaper, could alert its readership to the finer detail in the application, and offer some explanation of the small map shown in the latest edition.

In a poll, 83% of voters are opposed to the extension, but I guess that when people become fully aware of what Kennedy is trying to do here, the figure will be closer to 100%.

JOE PURVES.

McKenzie Crescent,