COMMITTEE STATEMENT

We oppose the scheme because it would create an ugly scar on fine countryside between two National Parks, where the quality of the landscape is cherished and protected. The turbines, each approaching the height of Blackpool Tower, would be a visual intrusion grossly out of scale. They would create no benefit locally, their contribution to the national demand for energy would be insignificant and their cost to the UK in subsidy, huge. An unspoilt stretch of Cumbrian countryside, itself worthy of National Park Status, would be sacrificed to a politically correct fad which experience has shown gives small return for an immense cost.

It is felt that this development is totally unsuitable and will be detrimental to the area, both in visual and economic terms. The landscape has been acknowledged by central government organisations and committees as being of national significance.

The impact, visually, will be immense and destroy beautiful - and largely unspoilt - countryside. It will blight views from deep within both The Yorkshire Dales National Park, the Lake District National Park, and from the North Pennine Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The valley and fells will be desecrated by the introduction of the scheme. A rare and delicate upland habitat will be completely submerged by 5 miles of roadway, with further service roads and huge rafts of concrete needed for turbines. This area is also a bird migration route. What is ecologically friendly about this disruption?
40,000 travellers pass daily through the Lune Gorge. For many, this magnificent landscape is the gateway to Cumbria, the highlight of a long journey. The turbines would detract immeasurably from the natural impact of this impressive landscape.
Distraction caused to drivers on the M6 motorway should also be addressed as an important issue. The scheme will be visible to drivers approaching on the south-bound carriageway for up to 5 miles, and, to a lesser extent, on the north-bound carriageway. On the grounds of safety alone, this scheme should not proceed.
This is a low-flying area for R.A.F. exercises; it may necessitate the turbines being illuminated.
No scheme of this size has ever been contemplated in such a populated area and the economic impact will be severe. Tourism is vitally important, with many holidaymakers choosing this area because it is "off the beaten track". This type of tourist will certainly be deterred from visiting, to the detriment of local businesses including hotels, inns, guest houses, shops, etc. The financial benefit of the Wind Farm enjoyed by a few farmers and landowners will be more than offset by a general loss in property values and tourist based diversification.
The value of property within the two parishes will suffer significantly, particularly where close to the development. Evidence indicates that here it will become virtually unsaleable. Unfortunately, due to the size and position of the turbines, there is considerable visual impact even on the far boundaries of the Parishes. There is no compensation for loss of value. Despite this our principal argument is based on the even graver damage to irreplaceable national assets.
The possibility exists of damage to health to those living close to the development. The long term effects of exposure to different types of sound and possible strobing is not known but must be a matter for concern, particularly where there is significant population density.
The size of this scheme means that the normal planning process may well be overridden, with the ultimate decision being placed in the domain of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Can this possibly be right? Does it not make a nonsense of a planning system which would prohibit the development of farmers' barns in the neighbouring valleys, yet will be powerless to stop a development of industrial proportions? If this scheme is taken out of the normal planning process, it is essential that there is a Public Enquiry.
This is Phase 1 of a scheme which could eventually extend to 150 turbines in adjoining fells. The precedent created means future schemes will be virtually impossible to stop.
With thousands of turbines planned in coming years the apparent benefit of this type of renewable energy needs to be weighed very carefully against the cost to the economy of the areas affected and the county as a whole. It is a nonsense that the relevant Minister should largely determine the location of the majority of these. We believe that detailed investigation needs to be undertaken by local and national authorities before schemes of this nature are put into effect. At present there is no such strategic plan, with current development being on a random piecemeal basis.
This particular development is not motivated by 'green' issues, but rather the politics of greed. On the part of the wind company, this is the desire to 'sow' these turbines regardless of the suitability of the environment whilst reaping huge Government subsidies and on the part of a wealthy landowner, a willingness to exploit a distant part of the Estate.

[Top]