Scout Moor 2 Wind Farm Consultation.

If you are going to any of the Cubico “In-Person” consultation events the following link has some helpful ideas for questions you might want to ask Cubico to answer.

https://saynotoscoutmoor2.org.uk/questions-for-cubico/

Please share this post.

Scout Moor II Wind Farm – Stage 2 Consultation

Cubico has launched the second stage of their consultation – you can find out more HERE.

This includes the following “In-Person” consultation events:

• • Tuesday, 1st April – Bacup Cricket Club: 1:30pm – 7pm
  • Wednesday, 2nd April – Norden Methodist Church: 1:00pm – 6:30pm
  • Thursday, 3rd April – The Ashcroft, Whitworth – 1:30pm – 7pm
  • Wednesday, 23rd April – Cowpe Community Hall: 1:30pm – 7pm
  • Thursday, 24th April – Edenfield Community Centre: 1:30pm – 7pm

We encourage you to attend, ask questions and make your views known.

RMNF supports the “Say No To Scout Moor 2” campaign who have studied the glossy claims from Cubico and made a series of observations which you might want to talk to them about. Please click on the following link for more information – We Challenge Claims in Cubico’s Stage 2 Consultation – Say No to Scout Moor 2

Cubico consultation proposals for a wind farm at Scout Moor and Rooley Moor.

Please click here to see FINAL Cubico – Consultation Approach Note March 2025

The RMNF Trustees have sent the following letter to all our Rochdale Councillors in response to the consultation approach detailed by Cubico that can be seen by clicking on the link above.

STARTS

Dear Councillors

The Rooley Moor Neighbourhood Forum (RMNF) trustees are concerned with the proposal from Cubico in the attached document for school engagement.

We believe it is important that children are not exploited for commercial or political gain. With this in mind, we suggest any Cubico engagement with schools should only happen after the planning application for Scout Moor II Wind Farm has been determined.

However, if you decide to allow Cubico to expand its educational outreach before any planning application or planning decision is made, we suggest it is important this does not bias the planning process. The educational packs Cubico propose to provide must inform children and their parents they are only receiving this information because there happens to be a planning application to build a wind farm on Scout and Rooley Moor. Incorrect messaging could confuse children, especially if Cubico only extol the virtues of wind farms and the planning application is refused. It therefore seems appropriate to explain to the children that Government policy on this matter is not a “one size fits all” solution and that the Local Planning Authority officers must consider the pros and cons of each planning application. It would be helpful to explain to the children all the planning issues that must be considered, for example environment, visual impact, noise, heritage etc. There might even be an opportunity within certain age groups for children to debate moral issues concerned with the application of Government policy and if it is right commercial organisations will only consider saving the planet for profit.

We invite the councillor with portfolio for education to work with RMNF, Rossendale Civic Trust (copied) and any other appropriate organisation to ensure the Cubico educational packs contain the appropriate information to best inform children about this planning application and all the issues that must be considered. In doing so you might inspire interest in politics and planning as well as renewable energy.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

RMNF Trustees

ENDS

England’s Cotton Famine, John Bright, and Lincoln

The RMNF trustees are grateful to the Abraham Lincoln Association (ALA) for making their members aware of the plight concerning an aggressive application to build a wind farm on Rooley Moor that will destroy the tranquil and historic landscape of the Cotton Famine Road. Please see page 2 of the newsletter below.

The RMNF trustees are concerned any application to further industrialise our moorland is in direct conflict with our charitable objects. We believe the benefits of the Cubico proposal do not outweigh the negative impacts, which go beyond the obvious loss of amenity, environmental and visual impacts 21 wind turbines each 180m high would bring.

RMNF members have consulted with our local Labour MPs who seem intent on toeing the party line despite the negative impacts on the very poorest in society this development would bring.

There is a stealth tax on all domestic energy bills. It accounts for 16% of the final price of electricity and 5.5% of the final price of gas. It is a government policy that doesn’t discriminate and penalises the poorest in society. We suggest winter fuel payments are simply a way for the government to further subsidise the energy market.

Cubico will not share their numbers, we have asked but they hide behind commercial sensitivities, so we’ve looked at similar windfarm operations whose accounts are available to the public and the profits are frankly obscene.

We invite Cubico to refute our calculations that suggest over a 40-year period Cubico’s Canadian Pension Fund Owners will make £4.5 billion profit after tax in return for £56 million business rates and a £20m community “wealth” fund. Not a bad return on a £200m investment that will ultimately be paid for through the price we pay for energy (the UK is in the top 10 of countries in the world for the most expensive electricity).

The RMNF trustees will be inviting all our local Labour MPs and Labour Councillors to meet with RMNF members so they can explain their reasoning for openly supporting the Cubico proposal for a wind farm.

We expect RMNF will have to seek legal advice to put up a defence to protect our moorland, so if you are able please give a donation by clicking HERE.

In the meantime, we hope you enjoy the Abraham Lincoln Association newsletter.

Click HERE to see the ALA 2025 Spring Newsletter

Manchester, cotton and transatlantic slavery.

The Science and Industry Museum are planning an exhibition that will open in 2027.

For more information click HERE

Here is the latest edition of the Lancashire Local History Federation newsletter for February 2025

LLHF newsletter Feb 2025

RMNF says “No” to Scout Moor 2 Wind Farm

At our Annual General Meeting (AGM) on Thursday 30^th January 2025 a proposal was put forward for Rooley Moor Neighbourhood Forum (RMNF) to be against future development of the moorland in and around our neighbourhood area. The meeting participants were unanimous in the conclusion that the Scout Moor 2 Wind Farm development as proposed will mark the permanent destruction of Rooley Moor, the Cotton Famine Road and the other heritage assets on it and at its fringe. The RMNF trustees were very clear they are NOT against appropriate green energy development but there must be a balanced consideration of the gains and losses. To us, in this case this is crystal clear. This area has contributed enough, and the size and scale of this proposed wind farm is not appropriate on Green Belt Common Land. The consensus at our AGM is that RMNFs position should be to oppose the Scout Moor 2 Wind Farm development. Everyone at the AGM unanimously supported this proposal.

England’s proposed largest onshore wind farm.

The RMNF trustees have serious concerns regarding the Cubico Scout Moor II wind farm proposal for a development of up to 21 wind turbines with a maximum blade tip height of 180m, given the likely impact (cumulative or otherwise) on the landscape, S193 common land, Green Belt, designated and undesignated heritage assets, etc.

Similar concerns to the likely impact of the Cubico Scout Moor II proposal were cited as reasons for refusal by Rochdale Council for planning application14/00877/FUL to erect twelve 125-metre-high wind turbines on Rooley Moor. The Secretary of State (on advice of the Planning Inspectorate) gave similar reasons for refusal of an application to extend Scout Moor wind farm (APPLICATION REF: 2015/0112), which proposed smaller turbines with a maximum height to the tip of the blade of 115 metres above ground level.

At this stage of the Cubico proposal it is difficult to see how the reasons for the refusal of similar applications can be mitigated through the introduction of larger turbines into an historic landscape.

Having attended one of the Cubico consultation events one of our trustees said, “Can anyone genuinely assure us that heavily subsidised onshore wind is the best way forward? The Cubico consultation left me with more questions than answers”:

• Here We Go Again: Two previous applications were refused for very good reasons. Why should it be different this time?
• Limited Consultations: Why no late evening or weekend events to include more community voices? And why so close to Christmas?
• Misleading Name: Why call it “Scout Moor II” when the development largely impacts Rooley Moor? Is it an attempt to downplay the scale of destruction?
• Community Wealth Fund: How does this fund genuinely benefit the community? Isn’t £500K annually just £1.78 per person in Greater Manchester? And is it even guaranteed or index-linked?
• Costs Passed to Us: Why is the community wealth fund expected to cover walking routes, rest areas, and countryside management? Shouldn’t these be standard responsibilities?
• Profit Concerns: Shouldn’t GB Energy be the developer and retain profits for national benefit, unlike foreign-owned operators?
• Constraint Payments: Why pay wind farms millions to stop producing energy? Could GB Energy manage this more effectively?
• Planning Policy Changes: Why weaken public input by removing crucial tests in the National Planning Policy Framework?
• Impact on Common Land: How will replacement land for farmers meet quality and quantity standards? Will public access and rights to enjoy the moor also be lost?
• Loss of Green Belt: This moorland is a vital green belt and open space. Why risk it when we already lose such spaces to housing and industry?
• Moorland & Peat Restoration: Why wait for destruction to restore moorland? How will irreplaceable peat beds, taking millennia to form, be “restored”?
• Net Zero Questions: Will this project truly offset its carbon footprint and meaningfully contribute to global Net Zero goals?
• Environmental Concerns: Could taller turbines worsen local weather patterns, like claims linking the current farm to increased rainfall in the area?
• Illegal Off-Roading: Won’t easier access attract more illegal motorised use? Can a ranger realistically stop this?
• Heritage Damage: How will 180m turbines affect sites like the Cotton Famine Road, Waugh’s Well, the two nearby conservation areas, and Healey Dell Nature Reserve?
• Visual Impact: The current wind farm is visible 30 miles away. Won’t larger turbines worsen this blight?
• Noise: Won’t a characteristic sound of a turbine, described as a regular ‘swish, whoomph or thump’, which is the excessive amplitude modulation (EAM) of wind turbine noise, cause problems? It can be heard 3.5 km and recorded up to 9km from a turbine and is known to cause sleep disturbance and annoyance.
• Unfair Process: Why must unpaid individuals sift through complex data to defend their interests while corporations hire experts?

The legacy of Scout Moor II could be an environment degraded for generations, delivering unreliable, costly energy.

Related content

RMNF response to Rochdale Council’s Regulation 18 Notice of intention to update the Rochdale Local Plan and Call for Sites:

20240805 Rooley Moor Neighbourhood Forum – Rochdale Local Plan – Comments – Final