Lancashire TelegraphOutrage over bid to double East Lancashire wind farm projects (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

Outrage over bid to double East Lancashire wind farm projects

Lancashire Telegraph: Wind turbines at Scout Moor Wind turbines at Scout Moor

PROPOSALS for two separate wind farm projects in Rossendale have angered campaigners.

The Lancashire Telegraph revealed how Peel Energy wants to double the number of turbines on Edenfield’s Scout Moor to 52 while 17 more were planned by Coronation Power for Rooley Moor, near Whitworth.

But residents and community groups have vowed to oppose the schemes.

Paul Bradburn, chair of Edenfield Village Residents’ Association, said most members had expressed their disgust at a committee meeting on Wednesday.

He said: “We don’t want it. At the time it was built, everyone was against it.

“Now that it’s here, everyone is against it. We are definitely against it expanding again. It’s just too much. Another 43 turbines on the moors? Why? The whole area of land between here and Rochdale is going to be filled with them.”

Coronation Power, which is behind the Rooley Moor scheme, will begin its public consultation this week while Scout Moor Wind Farm Expansion Ltd — a tie-up between Peel Energy and United Utilities — will consult on Scout Moor in April.

Jonathan Hodgkin, of United Utilities, said: “An expansion to the windfarm provides an opportunity to improve areas of heavily degraded peat moor as well as to protect and enhance wildlife habitat areas and water quality sources on Scout Moor.”

Scout Moor has an access road to its 26 existing turbines but the Rooley Moor scheme would need a new access road.

Chris Peat, secretary of Forest of Rossendale Bridleways, said: “As I understand it, Rooley Moor Road is a listed monument. It was created during the cotton famine as relief work for the people of Rochdale and Rossendale and as such has a preservation order on it, but Coronation Power still intend to rip it up and create a wide new access road.”

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:32pm Fri 21 Feb 14

batesempire says...

It might be enouth to blow away this grim weather ... Crack on Nordex
It might be enouth to blow away this grim weather ... Crack on Nordex batesempire
  • Score: -8

1:34pm Fri 21 Feb 14

batesempire says...

Try again.. It might be enough to blow away the grim weather. crack on Nordex

tut tut my bad spelling
Try again.. It might be enough to blow away the grim weather. crack on Nordex tut tut my bad spelling batesempire
  • Score: -9

1:57pm Fri 21 Feb 14

GracesDad says...

Am I missing something here? Why such strong objections to the turbines? Clearly, we have to find a viable alternative to fossil fuels and wind turbines seem to be a viable alternative.

It seems the people objecting are doing it on aesthetic grounds....the planet will look a **** site worse when the ozone layer is destroyed!!!!!
Am I missing something here? Why such strong objections to the turbines? Clearly, we have to find a viable alternative to fossil fuels and wind turbines seem to be a viable alternative. It seems the people objecting are doing it on aesthetic grounds....the planet will look a **** site worse when the ozone layer is destroyed!!!!! GracesDad
  • Score: -4

3:16pm Fri 21 Feb 14

rudis_dad says...

GracesDad wrote:
Am I missing something here? Why such strong objections to the turbines? Clearly, we have to find a viable alternative to fossil fuels and wind turbines seem to be a viable alternative.

It seems the people objecting are doing it on aesthetic grounds....the planet will look a **** site worse when the ozone layer is destroyed!!!!!
People have very short memories and very selfish priorities. Not so very long ago there was an incident at a place called Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. The fallout from that is still affecting farmers in Cumbria now, and Chernobyl is several thousand miles from the UK. Now apparently, there's a similar facility to the one at Chernobyl not 50 miles from Rossendale at Heysham, and the prevailing wind is from the West. Hmm. Given the choice of developing various cancers, having any potential future children born without limbs (or with extra ones), and having to deal with the consequences for many years to come OR a spoiled view...I know which I'd rather have.

Cue torrent of flaming from NIMBYs...
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: Am I missing something here? Why such strong objections to the turbines? Clearly, we have to find a viable alternative to fossil fuels and wind turbines seem to be a viable alternative. It seems the people objecting are doing it on aesthetic grounds....the planet will look a **** site worse when the ozone layer is destroyed!!!!![/p][/quote]People have very short memories and very selfish priorities. Not so very long ago there was an incident at a place called Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. The fallout from that is still affecting farmers in Cumbria now, and Chernobyl is several thousand miles from the UK. Now apparently, there's a similar facility to the one at Chernobyl not 50 miles from Rossendale at Heysham, and the prevailing wind is from the West. Hmm. Given the choice of developing various cancers, having any potential future children born without limbs (or with extra ones), and having to deal with the consequences for many years to come OR a spoiled view...I know which I'd rather have. Cue torrent of flaming from NIMBYs... rudis_dad
  • Score: -11

3:17pm Fri 21 Feb 14

rudis_dad says...

GracesDad wrote:
Am I missing something here? Why such strong objections to the turbines? Clearly, we have to find a viable alternative to fossil fuels and wind turbines seem to be a viable alternative.

It seems the people objecting are doing it on aesthetic grounds....the planet will look a **** site worse when the ozone layer is destroyed!!!!!
People have very short memories and very selfish priorities. Not so very long ago there was an incident at a place called Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. The fallout from that is still affecting farmers in Cumbria now, and Chernobyl is several thousand miles from the UK. Now apparently, there's a similar facility to the one at Chernobyl not 50 miles from Rossendale at Heysham, and the prevailing wind is from the West. Hmm. Given the choice of developing various cancers, having any potential future children born without limbs (or with extra ones), and having to deal with the consequences for many years to come OR a spoiled view...I know which I'd rather have.

Cue torrent of flaming from NIMBYs...
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: Am I missing something here? Why such strong objections to the turbines? Clearly, we have to find a viable alternative to fossil fuels and wind turbines seem to be a viable alternative. It seems the people objecting are doing it on aesthetic grounds....the planet will look a **** site worse when the ozone layer is destroyed!!!!![/p][/quote]People have very short memories and very selfish priorities. Not so very long ago there was an incident at a place called Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. The fallout from that is still affecting farmers in Cumbria now, and Chernobyl is several thousand miles from the UK. Now apparently, there's a similar facility to the one at Chernobyl not 50 miles from Rossendale at Heysham, and the prevailing wind is from the West. Hmm. Given the choice of developing various cancers, having any potential future children born without limbs (or with extra ones), and having to deal with the consequences for many years to come OR a spoiled view...I know which I'd rather have. Cue torrent of flaming from NIMBYs... rudis_dad
  • Score: -6

4:25pm Fri 21 Feb 14

happycyclist says...

I'd prefer our moorlands to be free of wind turbines, but the bottom line is that we have a resource on our doorstep which makes more sense to me to use instead of being held to ransom by foreign powers for oil and gas. Up here in the north we have lots of containable rain (because of the geography) and lots of wind. We should use both to our advantage.
I'd prefer our moorlands to be free of wind turbines, but the bottom line is that we have a resource on our doorstep which makes more sense to me to use instead of being held to ransom by foreign powers for oil and gas. Up here in the north we have lots of containable rain (because of the geography) and lots of wind. We should use both to our advantage. happycyclist
  • Score: 3

4:39pm Fri 21 Feb 14

burner says...

I sort af agree, happyc, but I fear the cost is prohibitive and the gains are minimal.
I sort af agree, happyc, but I fear the cost is prohibitive and the gains are minimal. burner
  • Score: 3

6:50pm Fri 21 Feb 14

phil kernot says...

We're all being lied to on a massive scale there's renewal able energy out the and in abundance scale its fact you can spilt water into oxygen and hydrogen that we can use for fuel , but the goverment won't let it be rolled out for various tax reasons as how would you tax water , wind farms are ugly and if that's the best we can do , we're in big trouble
We're all being lied to on a massive scale there's renewal able energy out the and in abundance scale its fact you can spilt water into oxygen and hydrogen that we can use for fuel , but the goverment won't let it be rolled out for various tax reasons as how would you tax water , wind farms are ugly and if that's the best we can do , we're in big trouble phil kernot
  • Score: 2

11:48pm Fri 21 Feb 14

save energy says...

GracesDad says... “Am I missing something here?”
YES, as your belief is CO2 is destroying the ozone layer.
Do some basic research before sounding off (it’s only 1st year stuff, so not too taxing, try Google).
According to a study published in the March 2002 Journal of Geographical Research by a joint research team from the University of Maryland and NASA, overall, the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is speeding up the recovery of the ozone layer

Nb: wind turbines have little effect on CO2 levels, no room here to elucidate.
GracesDad says... “Am I missing something here?” YES, as your belief is CO2 is destroying the ozone layer. Do some basic research before sounding off (it’s only 1st year stuff, so not too taxing, try Google). According to a study published in the March 2002 Journal of Geographical Research by a joint research team from the University of Maryland and NASA, overall, the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is speeding up the recovery of the ozone layer Nb: wind turbines have little effect on CO2 levels, no room here to elucidate. save energy
  • Score: -4

10:48am Sat 22 Feb 14

pdb951 says...

phil kernot wrote:
We're all being lied to on a massive scale there's renewal able energy out the and in abundance scale its fact you can spilt water into oxygen and hydrogen that we can use for fuel , but the goverment won't let it be rolled out for various tax reasons as how would you tax water , wind farms are ugly and if that's the best we can do , we're in big trouble
I am sick and tired of being fed bulls*it.
Look below!
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--
Jonathan Hodgkin, of United Utilities, said: “An expansion to the wind farm provides an opportunity to improve areas of heavily degraded peat moor as well as to protect and enhance wildlife habitat areas and water quality sources on Scout Moor.”
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--
Cr*p. Leave the moor alone. How the hell does digging it up help to improve the degraded peat? Who says its degraded? Why is it degraded? What are you talking about?
These wind farms are a waste of time and space.

Get the mines open again. We have loads of coal which can be clean burned these days. Tell Europe where to get off and lets run our own affairs.
We do not need wind farms!
[quote][p][bold]phil kernot[/bold] wrote: We're all being lied to on a massive scale there's renewal able energy out the and in abundance scale its fact you can spilt water into oxygen and hydrogen that we can use for fuel , but the goverment won't let it be rolled out for various tax reasons as how would you tax water , wind farms are ugly and if that's the best we can do , we're in big trouble[/p][/quote]I am sick and tired of being fed bulls*it. Look below! -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -- Jonathan Hodgkin, of United Utilities, said: “An expansion to the wind farm provides an opportunity to improve areas of heavily degraded peat moor as well as to protect and enhance wildlife habitat areas and water quality sources on Scout Moor.” -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -- Cr*p. Leave the moor alone. How the hell does digging it up help to improve the degraded peat? Who says its degraded? Why is it degraded? What are you talking about? These wind farms are a waste of time and space. Get the mines open again. We have loads of coal which can be clean burned these days. Tell Europe where to get off and lets run our own affairs. We do not need wind farms! pdb951
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Sat 22 Feb 14

vicn1956 says...

The fact that every £1 of electricity produced needs £2 subsidy doesn't make sense to me. There are lots of other non-polluting sources of energy out there but we are shackled to the green religion and people making lots of money who brook no other opinion!
The fact that every £1 of electricity produced needs £2 subsidy doesn't make sense to me. There are lots of other non-polluting sources of energy out there but we are shackled to the green religion and people making lots of money who brook no other opinion! vicn1956
  • Score: 2

8:36pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Excluded again says...

Demand for electricity in Britain is growing and will continue to grow.

There are only three real options for meeting this demand: fracking, nuclear or renewables. If you take one of these out you have to want more of the others - or be prepared to not have electricity on a regular basis.
Demand for electricity in Britain is growing and will continue to grow. There are only three real options for meeting this demand: fracking, nuclear or renewables. If you take one of these out you have to want more of the others - or be prepared to not have electricity on a regular basis. Excluded again
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree