Guest blog – Walshaw Turbine 8 by Nick MacKinnon

Nick MacKinnon is a freelance teacher of Maths, English and Medieval History, and lives above Haworth, in the last inhabited house before Top Withens = Wuthering Heights. In 1992 he founded the successful Campaign to Save Radio 4 Long Wave while in plaster following a rock-climbing accident on Skye. His poem ‘The metric system’ won the 2013 Forward Prize. His topical verse and satire appears in the Spectator, and his puzzles and problems in the Sunday Times and American Mathematical Monthly. Email: nipmackinnon@gmail.com 

Turbine 8 Jackson’s Ridge Compound  SD 94936 35658 ///nametag.measure.locals

The Walshaw Turbine Research Group exchange of letters with the Calderdale  Energy Park (CEP) lawyers on the status of the “public consultation” has moved on. We thought they might ignore us completely, but our first letter was sufficiently provocative to force a reply. The CEP legal team has made no attempt to show that their consultation met the Gunning Principles. They must now find arguments to show that it either did meet them or didn’t have to or accept our position that it did not meet them and did have to. The letters can be read here. The matter is now on record with the Planning Inspectorate.

10 June 2025 This blog series has already proved that there was no economically viable subset of the previous 65-turbine Calderdale Wind Farm (CWF) at 4.6 MW per turbine. Is this true of CEP?

I think all my readers will be surprised by the following information. The NESO TEC register is a list of every energy generating project currently being considered. It was last updated on 27 June 2025 and here are two old friends.

Neither of these projects are CEP. The project names relate to the previous CWF project. What is remarkable are the connection dates: 30 October 2035 or 2037. With such a long delay, why is CEP is being hustled through so quickly that the company has already broken the rules for a public consultation by offering such a flaky proposal that nobody could give it ‘intelligent consideration’?

The reason for the rush is that CWF Ltd is not a wind farm company. It is a planning start-up, founded by Christopher ‘440 Kelvin-Volts’ Wilson. Like all start-ups it has a pot of funding; judging by the “burn rate” (£2.4 million per year in 2023-24) it is of the order of £10 million; and a “runway”, a period before the money runs out. They have to land the plane before the end of the runway or raise more money; a successful landing is planning consent for a wind farm of sufficient size that a new investment round will raise enough money to exercise the option and buy Walshaw Moor, managing it according to the 2018-2042 agreement with Natural England until perhaps September 2033 when the birds have flown. Civil engineering might then begin with a view to a connection on 30 October 2035 or 2037.

Almost half the burn rate is the annual option payments to Richard Bannister, now stated explicitly in the latest CWF accounts; they were previously opaquer. The total paid to Mr Bannister is now £3,646,750, an increase of £1,014, 600 on the previous total. It will be an option to purchase the land at a range of prices that depend on how many turbines are consented.

The investors have already had to extend the runway. The original CWF proposal was described by consultant Donald Mackay as “worse than useless”. Its publications were full of the most amateur errors (440 Kelvin-Volts; Padiham not Rochdale; quarries east of the site). The plan was to submit the proposal to Calderdale Council in Summer 2024; it would have been roundly rejected by the council planning department and called in by Ed Miliband. Although Christopher Wilson might have hoped for a fair wind at that point in the political cycle, the technical faults in the proposal would have been excoriated by Calderdale planners and the Planning Inspectorate would have concurred, and found a load more, no doubt adding their own trenchant observations. When the campaigners know more about your site geology and electrical connection than your Executive Chairman does and your own consultants call a proposal “worse than useless” with “the potential to cause international, long term, irreversible habitat loss and degradation” then the landing has to be aborted and the pilot does a “go-round.”

Ideally the 312 MW and 170 MW projects in the TEC register above would have been removed and replaced by new proposals. They will presumably be renamed when someone gets round to it. We shall work on the assumption that 300 MW heading for the National Grid and 170 MW heading for local consumption at Rochdale represent the limits of the proposal.

The 300 MW must have a new 275 kV substation far away, stepping up the 133 kV buried cable voltage coming out of the on-site substation whose last published location was a farmhouse in Shackleton. The location of the 275 kV substation is not known. We used to call it “Narnia” before this blog became so serious. The developers call it “Calderdale Wind Farm 275 kV substation” because it has no location. In fact, the one place it won’t be is in Calderdale.

Narnia corresponds to a possible new substation described as “North of Leeds” in the Consultation Brochure. The connection date is 30-10-2035, as it happens my 73^rd birthday. There is no reason to anticipate an earlier connection date for CEP than 30 October 2035. The National Grid has laid out a five-year plan called Green Yorkshire. Narnia is not among its projects. NG cannot take the TEC register too seriously as a guide to planning. Most of the projects on it are speculative startups like CEP. Grid planning must get ahead of the swarm of startups so that they respond to it, not it to them. If Narnia is being considered, it is not because of a controversial 200 MW wind farm being scoped in Brontë Country. The questions for NG planners until 2035 are: “How do we get the offshore generation into the grid?” and “How do we get the Scottish onshore generation into England?”

Understanding CEP’s chances of ever being built requires a clear sense of how big it can be given the terrain and significant flood risk; the international nature designations and UK nature diplomacy, whose greatest achievement is the Kunming-Montreal Protocol; and the international interest (fascination at Hollywood level) with Brontë Country.

It simplifies our analysis a lot to say at the start that the 300 MW CEP connected at Narnia 275 kV on 30 October 2035 is a fiction. Nobody believes in it, least of all the consultants. It exists only to bring the glamour of 300 MW. The analysis in this blog will dispose of a 300 MW windfarm as a by-product of the argument about flooding.

Capital has got more expensive since December 2023 when the minimum size of CWF was put at 200 MW even though 170 MW was the plan. The Cavendish consultant admitted to John Page that “high twenties” 200 MW was what they hoped to land, so our problem can be well-defined. Does Layout 210225-41t, presented to the public for consultation, have inside it a viable 200 MW wind farm?

At 200 MW the NG connection in Narnia simply becomes another option that might be earlier than Rochdale. They couldn’t connect 300 MW at Rochdale, but they don’t have 300 MW to connect anyway. Bradford West and Elland DNO substations, mentioned in the Consultation Brochure, have similar connection dates to Rochdale.

Option B access

To assess the flood risk and peat damage, we need to draw a track network. That in turn requires a Site Entrance. Two are now given. We ran Option A at Cock Hill to ground before it was published. Option B escaped everybody because it seems so implausible. In this blog we check everything they say, so we now check Option B.

I have redrawn the useless map of Access Option B. Everyone I have spoken to thinks the route is impossible, yet it was signed off by Donald “Transparent” Mackay. Those see-through Hebridean shoulders loyally carry the greedy burden of Dr O, Richard Bannister and Christopher ‘440 Kelvin Volts’ Wilson, but the consulted public needed to see some proper maps, Donald!  As at Bannockburn, MacKinnon must finish what Mackay started.

Option B has three sections: from the M65 at Richard Bannister’s Boundary Mill factory outlet to Laneshaw Bridge; the Two Laws Road to Watersheddles Reservoir; and steeply up the moor on an aggregate track to a future Jackson’s Ridge Compound. All three sections might seem to offer impossible engineering difficulties for the delivery of 85-metre turbine blades and a 200-tonne nacelle. For an idea of what Collet of Halifax can accomplish with an 80-metre blade and what they are allowed to do to roundabouts, look here. We will start with the Two Laws Road, where local scepticism is concentrated.

Two Laws Road

Our first map shows the turn at Laneshaw Bridge onto a Lancashire-Yorkshire rat run called the Two Laws Road, one of the oldest turnpikes in England. The printed version of Mackay’s map was so bad that many of the consulted public squinting at their “Consultations Brochures” thought the route went over the impossible Laneshaw Bridge and dismissed the whole thing as a developer’s scam. As always with CWF Ltd, we must check everything. The two bridge bypasses (only one is needed) are shown below.

I have spoken to one of the farmers whose land is crossed. He had no communication from CWF Ltd, had to work it out for himself and was still unsure until I sent him the OS map above. If CEP is given planning permission via Option B, his land will be compulsorily purchased if he won’t sell. In that situation, all anyone can do is get the best deal under the cosh.

We can immediately rule out the lower bypass. It may only be there to create some competition between the two owners, but farmers know about turning a trailer.

There is always a raised blades option, but this would be overkill here, for there is no problem with the other bypass if the splay is wide enough. After crossing a stream, two fields and a second stream, we return to the public highway.

In today’s wide cars, few enjoy driving the Two Laws Road. The real difficulties are at the Yorkshire end, but that is not at stake, because Option B leaves the road before Watersheddles reservoir. The road was more fun in the 1950s when two cars could pass at speed. While my father-in-law made sedate progress across Lancashire, his friend could get airborne in a Ford Prefect. The width of the Prefect was 154 cm; the width of a Mondeo is 212 cm.

Donald Mackay thinks the road is mostly wide enough for his purposes and in a spirit of transparency, I agree.  At the Trawden “consultation” he told me, “Some re-alignments will be needed.” The bends round Far Laith, hemmed in by trees, are the most difficult on the route and will show how such problems are solved.

The diagram shows that an 85-metre blade cannot pass the bends as things stand. The trees are stately and should not be felled, and anyway they stand on a bank that would also have to be levelled. The swept path diagram below shows that the first bend can be taken with some widening into the field on the downhill side and some intrusion into the farmyard. It is then easy to widen the second bend of what my father-in-law would call “the Far Laith chicane”. “Sedate progress” was a joke: Robert and I went to the Monaco Grand Prix for his eightieth birthday, and he thought the cars were slower than in his prime. Lewis Hamilton led from pole to chequered flag; even now, it is easier to overtake on the Two Laws Road than at the Monaco Grand Prix.

M65 terminus at Boundary Mill to Laneshaw Bridge

The M65 ends in a roundabout at Richard Bannister’s enormous factory outlet Boundary Mill where his father wove rayon into jumpers: like Donald Trump and Brooklyn Beckham, Richard Bannister is a nepo-baby). All the roundabouts on the A6068 Colne bypass are favourable. Negotiating them is routine in wind farm deliveries and the convoys go straight over if necessary, building a temporary track through street furniture and public art alike.

Readers thinking of the roundabout with North Valley Plumbing Centre in the middle of it (second from left above) can do their own swept path analysis. The Colne bypass may frequently be jammed with traffic, because the M65 debouches into it, and not everyone is going to “Banny’s British Kitchen” (Indian-Lancashire fusion in “a quintessentially seaside setting”) but it seems purpose-built for 85-metre turbine blade deliveries. This section is much easier than Option A through Halifax.

Somebody in Trawden said to me, “I won’t be able to see it, so why should I care?” I said, “Even the developers care about you. They held a public consultation in Trawden. Why was that do you think?”

Local arguments will carry no weight whatsoever but do introduce locals to the international arguments and to the hydrology. As well as thousands of aggregate trucks passing their community-run village, Trawden residents looking at Lad Law, which looms like the Matterhorn over Zermatt, will see the Dove Stones turbine blades waggling over the summit spikes, not waving, but drowning. When they walk to Dove Stones, they will find it destroyed.

Watersheddles to Jackson’s Ridge Compound

This is prime Brontë Country. There is an existing track to the Peat House (marked Spr below) a shooting box serving ten grouse butts up Nan Hole Clough. Here, the ground-skimming grouse suddenly run out of heather and find the air is full of heavy metal. Cynics would say that while Richard Bannister is delighted to have even more money (no compulsory purchase of a family farm here) he didn’t want the turbines going up his butts, so Donald Mackay must haul the 200 tonne nacelles up the 21% gradient on Slate Pit Moor. Since the manufacturers like the maximum gradient to be 10%, and safe delivery is their responsibility, this steep edge is the crux of Option B.

I walked this moorland track with the dog, parking on the verge where the Pendle Way meets the road and taking the Brontë Way, here connecting Anne’s ‘Wildfell Hall’ and Emily’s ‘Thrushcross Grange’ at Ponden with Charlotte’s ‘Ferndean Manor’ at Wycoller.

The trouble starts beyond the Peat House. Nan Hole Clough is the significant drop shown behind the dog.

The track crosses the clough (it will need a lot of aggregate to build the viaduct, Donald). Straight up the Bannister butts is initially 15%, too steep for a normal wind farm spine road. There is no peat near Peat House; not even the ferrule went in. I couldn’t cross Nan Hole and keep the dog under control, and anyway didn’t want to plough into the stereophonic plovers. Instead, I went up the butts on a quadbike track, hoping to get a peat depth, and finding 130 cm just above Butt 10.  If that is the depth on Sandy Hill Moor, then Donald Mackay can’t go sideways. I turned back at the first plover telling the dog what it thought. An account of the almost secret ground on the CEP boundary is in an earlier blog. The indefatigable John Page got all the way, observing that the Emperor Hadrian would have had no problem going straight up the butts. John and I don’t believe in the zig-zag track as it is, but without peat depths on the traverse section over Sandy Hill Moor, it’s guesswork until September.

The very steep section of the track is short and there are solutions for delivering the heaviest items up gradients steeper than 10%. The track might be reinforced with concrete, improving traction, or a bulldozer for extra propulsion can be used. None of this is ideal, but there are considerable advantages (laid out by Donald Mackay) to using Bannister land and there is a bonanza at the top, previously unavailable. John Page, whose reverence for the landscape is of such long duration, does not believe that Crow Hill will be levelled by Richard Bannister.

This Mackay track is “indicative”. The map is dated 10 March 2025, so the track was surveyed soon after the meeting that fixed Layout 210225-41t on 21 February 2025. One of the farmers at Laneshaw Bridge remembers a survey team about then.  The work was done before the birds arrived, and some peat depths will have been taken.

Option A

The route to Ovenden Wind Farm was proved for the 40-metre blades used there, and the same route through Halifax and Wainstalls is given for CEP Option A. There is a right-angle turn from Spring Hall Lane into Pellon Lane that was made by 40 metre blades but cannot be made by 85-metre blades carried flat.

This turn would be a standard application for raised blades but the operation is complex. Blades are unloaded from a flat trailer onto the blade raiser. The wind must be below 25 mph. At the full 60° elevation the 85-metre blade becomes a 42.5 metre blade in plan view (cos 60° = 0.5) and the yellow route in the photo can be the route of the raised 85-metre red blade. There may be other pinch points requiring raised blades between here and the motorway. I haven’t found a convincing route; Option B is much easier. These 85-metre blades are a new beast onshore in the UK but if anyone can deliver them, Collet of Halifax can. This thrilling company was started in 1928 by Richard Collett who delivered milk by horse and cart in Keighley.

Except for that 21% gradient and the Nan Hole viaduct, which will be thrashed out somehow, Option B is superior to Option A; much of the third-party land is Bannister-owned; the long hook to Cock Hill is not needed so the Brontë skyline can be conceded; the motorway is close and there is the bonus feature on top of Crow Hill that Donald Mackay won’t have missed.

Option B track network

With Option B checked as a serious contender, we can draw a network radiating from the compound on Jackson’s Ridge, where a loo block and site office will be lashed down like a beach tent at Bridlington. As soon as we put in the tracks, the flooding problem becomes clear.

We start with spines on the watershed. If a track is built parallel to, but below, the watershed ponding will occur on the uphill side whether the track is cut to boulder clay or floats. A watershed track has the least effect on drainage of all the potential parallel tracks, and the least chance of a peat slide. Track design on CEP starts with the watersheds.

The argument against anything west of Greave Clough has been made here often and no safe wind farm network can be drawn. The tracks go up the slope, perpendicular to the contours, and create inevitable storm drains. I talked this through with Donald Mackay at Trawden.

Spurs from watershed tracks go straight down. Only exceptionally do the tracks traverse across a slope or run at an acute angle to the contours. which creates “crossfall” and peat slides. In CEP there is no need to break the spine/spur rules except in the link track across Walshaw Dean where the peat may be shallow enough to cut an angled ascent like the current 9% tarmac road from the bridge to the plantation.  I don’t know a wind farm in the UK that does anything like this link.

The spine tracks to the edge on Heather Hill will all accelerate the runoff into the Walshaw Dean reservoirs. On the steeper ground below, the drainage lines are established and fast. They have names: High Black Dike, Great Floats Dike, Crumber Red Dike, Greave Stone Clough, Grey Fosse Clough, Lower Sough, Shaw Dike. The Heather Hill spurs will gather and speed what was formerly slow runoff over flattish ground into the existing steep cloughs. In a rainstorm the runoff from Heather Hill will reach the Walshaw Dean reservoirs much faster. After that it is Yorkshire Water’s problem. If their reservoirs are full, the storm water goes straight down the spillways to Hebden Bridge. Under normal conditions, the spur tracks will drain the Heather Hill peat more effectively than Bannister’s grips and destroy the SAC which elsewhere CWF Ltd are pretending to improve.

Design criteria for Layout 210225-41t

When I asked lead consultant Alison ‘Quarries East of the Site’ Sidgwick (she signed off the 2023 Scoping Report for a project described as “worse than useless” by her new colleague Donald Mackay) what the principal design criteria for Layout 210225-41t had been, she said, “Peat and hydrology, but no criterion was a trump card.”

Comparing the 65-turbine CWF layout with 210225-41t reveals that this was not true. The real design criteria were, in order of importance: the existing layout of CWF; the National Trust; Brontë Country; minor cosmetic peat adjustments.

Hydrology and aerodynamics had negative influence: Layout 210225-41t is worse for both than CWF. Despite Alison Sidgwick telling me, “We know where the merlins live”, Layout 210225-41t is known to be uninfluenced by merlin breeding sites. The very remarkable assemblages of red-listed waders on Walshaw Moor had no effect on Layout 210225-41t. If it were built, the assemblages would be scattered and their chicks picked off by predators.

Not aerodynamics

The turbines have got much larger. The CWF turbines had a rotor diameter (RD, the dimension used in aerodynamic analysis of a wind farm) of 120 metres. The CEP turbines will have an RD of 170 metres. We would expect the CEP turbines to be further apart than the CWF layout. They are often closer together, especially in the T21-T24 cluster, where the desperation is clearest. Aerodynamics was not a design pressure on the layout. CWF was better laid out for aerodynamics than CEP.

Wuthering Heights

CWF T44, T45, T46 on the northern edge have been deleted because they imposed so grossly on Wuthering Heights. The developers have yet to understand the full force of the statement “There is only one Brontë Country” but there is no doubt they have already had “bad dreams in the night”. T20 may think it is hiding from Wuthering Heights behind Withins Height, but similar triangles show that the top 60% is still showing.

Of course, this “mitigation at receptors” way of thinking of Brontë Country is that of a wind farm consultant like Alison Sidgwick or Donald Mackay. The pilgrims to Top Withins only have to walk five minutes up the hill on the desire path that Emily Brontë may herself have started to find that her moor has been destroyed.

National Trust

The influence of the Trust, who were given Hardcastle Crags by Richard Bannister’s predecessor, the beloved Lord Savile, can be seen in the south of the site.

Now the visual effect of CWF on their Hardcastle Crags back yard has been mitigated, we must hope the National Trust will not sell the pass on the more serious issues of flooding, international nature designations and international cultural heritage.

Peat and hydrology

This section will show that peat’s influence on Layout 210225-41t is cosmetic, and the layout is worse hydrologically than its predecessor. It simply is not true that “Peat and Hydrology” were main criteria. As we have seen, it is Brontë Country and the National Trust that have already got the developers on the run from sites where aerodynamics, hydrology and peat depths are relatively favourable.

Cosmetic peat adjustments

The clearest example of a cosmetic peat adjustment is the fate of T38. Because the consultants had not bothered to complete their own peat survey, T38, which was on a large blank section, was deleted between tea-time and cocktails at the celebratory DCO dinner (photographs were on the Cavendish website; Christian Egal bought a big round of Dark and Stormys) on Friday 21 February 2025. With the click of a mouse 210225-42t thus became 210225-41t. With characteristic incompetence, the spreadsheet of six-figure turbine locations was not updated on Saturday morning (several hangovers, no doubt) and though there were now 41 rows there was still a T42. Maps were made of the faulty layout on 14/03/25 and these incorrect maps with T42 were loaded to the CEP website and published on Launch Day.

When I pointed out the problem, the maps were changed in 86 minutes. A pop-up correction on the CEP website says, “The location of T38 has not been changed”. This is a lie and Donald Mackay laughed it off at Trawden. “Of course we moved it. It was on the blank bit!” Donald’s “transparency” is more important to him than collegiality. The attempts of consultants Alison Sidgwick and Sue Birlin to defend this lie can be read here. Donald Mackay simply threw them under the bus. Keir Starmer’s U-turn on “island of strangers” did the same thing to Yvette Cooper.

“Peat” as a design principle seems to have meant moving a few turbines off ground where the peat was “yellow or deeper”. There may have been a memo from Natural England saying, “Don’t be so bleeding obvious about peat destruction”. We see the cosmetic effect in the movement of T42 and T34 off the wondrous intact peat mesotype of the Wadsworth Plateau to the very edge of Black Clough. CWF T42 becomes CEP T23 and CWF T34 becomes CEP T24. This put the new T23 within touching distance across Black Clough of CWF T36, like God and Adam on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, so T36 was shoved up to become the new T21, and is only 57 metres from the Pennine Way, where it is the poster child for the absurdity of Layout 210225-41t.

The old T50 was never easy to reach, but it is even harder now it is down in Black Clough (as T22) because it has to run away from the advance of T34 (now T24). There is a 26% drop down to it from T21.

Does this dancing about like a ceilidh at Donald Mackay’s croft save the intact peat mesotype of the Wadsworth Plateau where the plovers do so well?

No.

As soon as you draw a track system, you can see the problem of shoving the turbines off the deepest watershed peat onto, and sometimes over, the steep edges. It doesn’t save the peat because the spurs drain it and dry it, but it does increase the flood risk because the spurs act as storm drains.

The treatment of Wadsworth Plateau in Layout 210225-41t is desperate and the tight cluster T21-T24 is despair’s hallmark. Heather Hill is worse. What is bizarre is that this nonsense was offered for public consultation.

As soon as you put a track layout in, CEP looks doomed by flooding. The more the turbines are chased off the watershed peat, the more they create peat drains and storm drains. There are three catchments: Greave Clough, Crimsworth Dean and Walshaw Dean

Greave Clough we have solved by taking all the turbines off the west slope. There is a traverse line (T8-T5) across the top, that might eventually reach T1-T4, but I follow Donald Mackay’s own principles in track design, so I’m not going to draw it. Donald may be asked to have some other principles when his investors get restless, but I am confident in his “transparency.” Were he standing to your west at Hushinish, you could see the sun set behind St Kilda refracted through Donald Mackay’s crystalline form.

Crimsworth Dean has most of its turbines on the watershed now. Four of them loom over Wuthering Heights and are doomed even on the most simplistic idea of “within Brontë Country” as the developers themselves put it. Option B access allows these turbines to be surrendered.

Walshaw Dean is still a big problem for flooding until the spur turbines on the edges are taken out or sent back up to the watershed where there is only so much room. Heather Hill is already overcrowded for aerodynamics, but wind farmers and turbine manufacturers always collude to pack them in. In a conspiracy against the electricity bill-payers, both parties have an incentive to maximise the nameplate power by overcrowding, despite an aerodynamic cost to the power finally generated (nameplate power times capacity factor minus constraint). Overcrowding increases the nameplate power and decreases the capacity factor. Increased nameplate power increases the constraint payments. The regulators wring their hands: “If we stopped all the shenanigans foreigners won’t build us the wind farms.” Ofwat made similar statements about Thames Water. To be fair to the Australian vampire bank Macquarie, they did leave Londoners the sewage.

There might be a 110 MW wind farm that isn’t too flood-making because it is on the watersheds, but it would destroy the SAC in an obvious way by building the turbines on the deep watershed peat. No government will destroy Brontë Country and our international nature diplomacy for 110 MW maximum, which is only 40 MW averaged over a year, and that’s before constraint is knocked off. The diagram below is “indicative” but the argument that justifies the changes in slope has been set out above. What a useful word “indicative” is. No wonder the CEP consultants use it so much!

Almost all the accelerated storm runoff passes through an active Yorkshire Water asset on its way to Hebden Bridge. All Yorkshire Water have to say is “This increases flood risk unacceptably on the Calder” and the international nature designations are saved.  Yorkshire Water’s deserved unpopularity is due to filth in the rivers and sea downstream and their own vampire capitalism revealed here. Yorkshire Water’s treatment of the Pennine catchments is a developing success story. Yorkshire Water moors are being rewetted; access is well managed;  signs and stiles are maintained; they understand their obligations to wild life and are moving away from driven grouse shooting.  In PR terms this is a strong return for tiny amounts of their shareholders’ money. Every ounce of goodwill will be lost if they permit a flood-generating wind farm on their Walshaw catchment. They say, “We have to wait for the flooding impact assessment.” Nobody will be in a better position to assess the assessment. After Yorkshire Water have spoken on hydrology, Layout 210225-41t will have been shredded.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is the 39th in a series of guest blogs originally based on the 65 wind turbines which Richard Bannister planned to have erected on Walshaw Moor. Turbines 5, 6, 8, 8CEP, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 21CEP, 25, 27, 31, 32, 33, 33CEP, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 42CEP, 43, 44, 47, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64 and 65 have already been described.

The developers have canned their original 65 wind turbines, quite possibly in response to the public humiliation of having their so-called ‘plan’ publicly shown to be damaging, irrational and probably unlawful. They have come back with a plan for 42 wind turbines and the amazing Nick MacKinnon and friends have regrouped and set off on a new tack too. The series continues.

To see all the blogs – click here.

 

 

[registration_form]