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