Tussle down the wind - two sides of turbine debate

Plans for turbines on Longridge Fell and Easington Fell, Ribble Valley, and on White Hill, Darwen, were shelved after rows blew up between residents and energy companies.

But while some insist the new turbines will be another blot on the landscape, green activists see the whirling blades as a shining example of power without pollution.

AMY BINNS reports from both sides of the battlefield.

Threat to wildlife, countryside and serenity

TALK to Dr Alan Heyworth about the impact of wind farms and he doesn't mince his words.

"Peat has taken four or five thousand years to form and they could destroy it in a couple of weeks. The wildlife would never recover."

Dr Heyworth, of Rose Bank, Rawtenstall, is a geologist and botanist who runs a local environmental consultancy business.

He added: "The peat acts as a huge sponge, absorbing rain and gradually releasing the water. If the peat and vegetation is stripped off the surface, the rain will run straight off and thousands and thousands of tons of peat will erode away and wash down into the streams."

Dr Heyworth also believes mine workings from more than 200 years ago are just below the surface of the Hogshead Law Hill site. He said: "No-one knows exactly where they are. If they disturb them, they will disturb the springs and we could end up with streams running orange for 30 years."

Alan Johnson, secretary of the Rossendale group of the Ramblers Association, believes more fields of turbines will discourage tourists, and that wind farms are industrial structures which shouldn't be allowed on green field sites.

Mr Johnson, of Pendle Close, Bacup, said: "They are alien to the countryside and destroy the serenity of the landscape. You couldn't get planning permission to build a garden shed where they are planning to put these wind farms, but there are fewer planning constraints for wind farms than anything else.

"The council is trying to encourage tourism as a source of employment. Walking the hills is one of the area's main attractions. People come to look at unspoilt, natural views, not industrial developments."

Mr Johnson claims windfarms can be heard up to a kilometre away and can interfere with television reception. He believes they will lead to falling house prices.

He said: "There are five applications pending in the area, including Hogshead and Great Hill, Littleborough, and if they all go through there will be eight wind farms in this part of the world. We will be surrounded by them."

Symbols of clean and renewable energy

WIND FARMS produce electricity which is sustainable, clean and even cheap, according to supporters.

Green Party candidate Robin Field is in favour of more turbines on our moorlands and believes it is vital Britain stops relying on fossil fuels

Mr Field, of Livingstone Road, Blackburn, said: "A lot of people find them attractive, they tend to become tourism sites. To me, they are symbols of clean and renewable energy.

"It's a shame we don't see more people protesting against coal, gas and nuclear power stations or car exhaust fumes. I think people protest against wind farms because you can see them but you can't see pollution. But global warming and children suffering asthma are infinitely more important."

Mr Field is also in favour of a windfarm on White Hill, Darwen. PowerGen's plans to build 15 turbines on the moorland came to nothing after local protests.

Mr Field said: "I think it's a suitable site. Any view we had up there was spoiled by the hideous television masts on Winter Hill anyway." Erica Mitchell-Packington, of Hertfordshire-based company Renewable Energy Systems, said the new Hogshead Law Hill site would produce enough energy to fuel six thousand homes every year.

This means 20,400 tonnes less carbon dioxide, which has been linked to global warming, will be released into the atmosphere. It will also save 305 tonnes of poisonous gases which cause acid rain.

She said: "The cost of wind energy has fallen dramatically in the last ten years. Although it's expensive to set up the equipment, after that it costs very little. We don't have to take fuel to the turbines, get rid of by-products or have clean-up operations."

Miss Mitchell-Packington said electricity produced by wind cost about 2.9 pence per kilowatt, compared to nuclear power at about four pence per kilowatt and coal-fired power stations which cost two pence per kilowatt. She said: "We have done very detailed investigations into the ecology and hydrology of the Hogshead Law Hill site and the consultants' reports are available at local libraries and council offices.

"We ensure that we construct to a very high environmental standard and there isn't going to be that much of an effect."

And she believes the silent majority back wind farms, according to the results of a public consultation held last summer when leaflets were sent to 22,500 local homes.

Of almost 1,500 replies, 60 per cent were in favour of turbines on one or both of the Hogshead Law Hill and Great Hill, Littleborough sites.

A spokeswoman for the North West branch of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said the group was in favour of renewable energy including wind power.

She said: "There's no evidence to suggest there's any problems with wind turbines and bird life. We are very pro renewable sources energy as long as they are not built on sites of special scientific interest."

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.