The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA) has warned that the proposed Hope Moor Wind Farm could have significant and far-reaching impacts on the landscape, wildlife and tranquillity of the area.
The authority says developer Fred. Olsen Renewables has failed to properly assess the likely effects of the development on the national park and has “unduly scoped out” several key issues from further study.
The Norwegian developer is preparing plans for 23 wind turbines on moorland between Arkengarthdale and Teesdale.
The company says the project would provide much-needed renewable electricity and contribute to the UK’s net zero ambitions.
But while the area of the proposed wind farm lies outside the northern boundary of the national park, YDNPA said in its response to the project’s environmental impact assessment scoping consultation that the proposed 20km study area was too limited.
It said it should be extended to at least 45km to capture long-distance views from iconic locations such as Whernside, Ingleborough and Great Shunner Fell, as well as cumulative impacts alongside other proposed wind farms.
It argued that the development was likely to have significant adverse effects on many of the national park’s special qualities, including its tranquillity, remoteness, solitude, expansive views and natural soundscape.
The authority said: “The experiential qualities of tranquillity, remoteness and solitude are likely to be acutely affected by the proposed development.”
YDNPA also raised concerns about the impact of turbine lighting on the Yorkshire Dales’ internationally recognised Dark Sky Reserve.
It says dark skies deserve a dedicated chapter in the environmental statement rather than being treated simply as part of the landscape assessment.
It recommends a wider assessment area of up to 45km and warns lighting could affect wildlife, visitors’ enjoyment of the night sky and the reserve’s internationally recognised status.
The authority is also critical of the treatment of archaeology and heritage.
It says the assessment should not be limited to the application site because Swaledale and Arkengarthdale contain nationally important prehistoric landscapes and historic mining remains whose settings could be significantly affected.
It also objects to plans to exclude the Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area from detailed assessment.
It says the assessment must examine potential impacts on blanket bog, birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates, including cross-boundary effects on habitats within the national park. It also calls for the cumulative impact of Hope Moor alongside other renewable energy schemes to be assessed.
The authority rejects the developer’s proposal to exclude socio-economic impacts from the assessment.
It adds in its response: “The YDNPA disagrees with the stated intention within the scoping report to scope out the socio-economic impacts of the proposed development.
“The significant effects of the proposed development on the landscape and the experiential special qualities of the national park are likely to have significant knock-on effects with regards to tourism/recreation, impacting visitor numbers and the local economy.”
Fred. Olsen has said it welcomes the feedback received through the scoping process.
The company says the development could generate enough renewable energy to power around 135,000 homes and businesses.
The Planning Inspectorate has said it rejects the developers’ requests not to include some assessments of the impact of the wind farm but has agreed with other proposals by the developer on what to include in an environmental impact assessment.
The Inspectorate also rejected the developer’s proposal to exclude assessments of some landscapes beyond 20km.
Well done the YDNP and thank you. This private company threatens to undo everything you have fought for over all these years. It’s incredible that those things should need fighting for, but fight we all must.
Scoping subjects out of investigation seems to be a very cynical by-passing method to exclude the very areas relevant to the project. How on earth does the company proposing this get to decide which areas get looked at in a scoping investigation? (Exploding head emoji!)
Is anyone also looking at: –
– the significant temperature increase caused by replacing peat with concrete?
– the loss of carbon capture commensurate with this huge loss of peat?
– the knock on effects of losing this huge reservoir of water during a drought?
– the knock on effects of losing this huge sponge of water during heavy rain?
The first Olsen consultation informed me there would be 82,000 houses powered by 23 x 206m high turbines…. But they didn’t know where the houses were. The next consultation told me it was now going to supply power EQUIVALENT to that required by 135,000 houses/businesses – but still could not say where they are or where the power would be connected to the grid. A simple search will inform you that a DATA CENTRE requires the equivalent power as 135,000 homes/businesses. After some research, am now convinced that this is what is being sneaked up on us. Along with the massive water requirement to cool these things, obviously HEATING UP that water and the area.
Could someone tell me the positive function of data centres for humanity? We seem to be blindly allowing our now global politicians to use our money to build an inescapable cage for ourselves. Is that what we want?
Thank you the YDNP for guarding our assets here. However I think we need to also become aware of the fast-tracked bigger picture too.
Well done the YDNP and thank you. This private company threatens to undo everything you have fought for over all these years. It’s incredible that those things should need fighting for, but fight we all must. Scoping subjects out of investigation seems to be a very cynical by-passing method to exclude the very areas relevant to the project. How on earth does the company proposing this get to decide which areas get looked at in a scoping investigation? Is anyone also looking at the significant temperature increase caused by replacing peat with concrete? The loss of carbon capture commensurate with this huge loss of peat? The knock on effects of losing this huge reservoir of water during a drought? The knock on effects of losing this huge sponge of water during heavy rain? The first Olsen consultation informed me there would be 82,000 houses powered by 23 x 206m high turbines, but the turbines would certainly not be beneficial to people in the surrounding area and the infrastructure needed to run the power to Newcastle would compound an already tragic loss of wildlife and peat moorland. Thank you the YDNP for guarding our assets here. However I think we need to also become aware of the fast-tracked bigger picture too.
I notice my comment has not been published, is this a more palatable version?!
Well done the YDNP and thank you. This private company threatens to undo everything you have fought for over all these years. It’s incredible that those things should need fighting for, but fight we all must.
Scoping subjects out of investigation seems to be a very cynical by-passing method to exclude the very areas relevant to the project. How on earth does the company proposing this get to decide which areas get looked at in a scoping investigation?
Is anyone also looking at: –
– the significant temperature increase caused by replacing peat with concrete?
– the loss of carbon capture commensurate with this huge loss of peat?
– the knock on effects of losing this huge reservoir of water during a drought?
– the knock on effects of losing this huge sponge of water during heavy rain?
The first Olsen consultation informed me there would be 82,000 houses powered by 23 x 206m high turbines…. But they didn’t know where the houses were. The next consultation told me it was now going to supply power EQUIVALENT to that required by 135,000 houses/businesses – but still could not say where they are or where the power would be connected to the grid.
A simple Google search will inform you that a DATA CENTRE requires the equivalent power of 135,000 homes/businesses. Along with the massive water requirement to cool these things, obviously HEATING UP that water and the area.
Why are we allowing our politicians to use our money to build these things?
Thank you the YDNP for guarding our assets here.