Onsite field work, research and legal action against CEP

Campaigning against Calderdale Energy Park

Walshaw Turbines Research Group studies the proposal to build England's largest wind farm on Walshaw Moor between Haworth, Hebden Bridge, Burnley and Colne.  

Index

CWF Ltd have stated that CEP is "within Brontë Country". This section discusses what Brontë Country is, maps it, and asks what it means for CEP. As it develops it will publish papers by experts on various aspects of Brontë Country as it relates to CEP, 

Our blogs are the record of our fieldwork and research. No WTRG author writes about a turbine site without visiting it on foot, photographing it, and researching it. Some of our blogs are here. They can all be read on our publisher Mark Avery's pages. 

On June 1 WTRG sent Christian Egal, Project Director a legal letter requiring the postponement of the Public Consultation into CEP. Copies have been sent to Dr Ghazi Osman (Director), The Planning Inspectorate and Robbie Moore M.P. 

Lawyers working for WTRG have written a legal letter  to CWF Ltd requiring a postponement to the sham "public consultation".

Option B is so poorly mapped by CWF Ltd that many people think the route is impossible. This section gives clear maps showing that Option B will be the preferred access. 

We do not collect any information on you and this website does not have an option for you to give us information. We do not collect or process your cookies. Our privacy policy is here. 

Our blogs                                                                            

Our blogs are published by Dr Mark Avery, prominent conservationist and former Conservation Director of the RSPB

Grinnel Stones

Crown Point Flat

Cock Hill Swamp

T1 to Bedlam

White Swamp 

Walshaw Dean

Middle Moor

Phantom turbine

Field of the Mosses

Bedlam Knoll

Slack Stones

Jackson's Ridge

Lower Stones

Hoar Nib

The Sod

Foul Sike

Fox Hole Top

Oxenhope Stoop

Navvy Head

Round Hill

CEP will destroy Brontë Country                          

The brochure for Calderdale Energy Park states that “CEP is located within the Brontë Country, which is an area of historical and cultural importance. Given the site’s heritage value, we are committed to respecting the local historical and cultural features throughout the planning and developing process. “

The published plans exhibit the developer’s profound disrespect for the legacy and power of the Brontë heritage.

In the Guardian’s list of the greatest novels of all time, Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë is at no 6, and Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë is at no 10. The highest-placed novel by a Nobel Prize winner is Lord of the Flies at no 14. The Brontë sisters are titans of British soft power: they are three of the most famous women in the history of the world. 

The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien is at no. 3 in the list. New Zealand had no connection with it until Peter Jackson’s films were shot there. New Zealand regard the Middle Earth landscapes as a national asset.  The CEP developers intend to destroy Brontë Country, and they expect the Government to help them.

Eighty-five thousand people visit Haworth Parsonage every year, and thousands of them walk the same paths that Emily took when she walked to Wuthering Heights at Top Withins. Wuthering Heights lives vividly in the minds of Japanese women for whom the story must have a special resonance, and the signposts that guide them there read ARASHI GA OKA: Wuthering Heights. If Calderdale Energy Park is allowed to destroy Brontë Country,  all these visitors will be astonished at the contempt the planners and developers have shown to these brilliant women, to an emblem of British soft power, and to a national asset.

People will ask: “Why was Brontë Country destroyed? Was there absolutely nowhere else to build this wind farm but on top of a national asset and the inspiration to three of the most famous women in the history of the world?”

Thousands come from all over the world to visit Top Withins, the inspiration for Wuthering Heights. Almost all of turbine 20  will be visible directly above Wuthering Heights. On the approach from Hawoth the Brontë skyline will be dominated by T29 on Limers Gate, T30 above Stairs and T34 on Yeoman Hill. These turbines will have a tip height of 200 metres and must be lit at night, each with two red lights. Those walking to Brontë Country from Hebden Bridge on the Pennine Way (which was a major path for the Brontës too) must pass directly under the blades of T21 on Dean Stones Edge, and all of the wildness that Emily knew will have been removed. The CEP site is rich in placenames, and all the turbine sites have a placename that the sisters would have known, for the whole site is visible from Alcomden Stones just ten minutes walk above Top Withens, and one of the most atmospheric places on the moor. 

The most important Brontë site for the engineers of CEP to consider is the Crow Hill bog burst of 2 September 1824, a vast peat slide which exploded while  Anne (4) and Emily (6) were in its path, sheltering from the storm in a farm porch.  The boom of the exploding bog was heard in Leeds, but also in Haworth, where Patrick Brontë had to wait anxiously for the return of his children. Peat, water and huge boulders poured past the children in a torrent seven feet deep. The bog burst is very well descibed by Anne Dinsdale, Senior Curator at the Haworth Parsonage in this short video. The north apex of CEP is Option B for the site entrance. If it is chosen, then  the construction workers must build a zig zag track up to Crow Hill and then cross  a huge area of deep and unstable peat, by far the most complex ground on the site. This crushed rock track must then carry the 45000 lorry-loads of rock that will be used to build CEP, for the local rock, though strong in a block, is too weak, porous and susceptible to frost to make a roadstone or concrete. Local builders use limestone from North Yorkshire to build tracks, but limestone will not be permitted on the acid bog, so the developers may have to bring their aggregates from beyond Yorkshire. 

The junction of the Pennine Way and the Brontë Way. Ponden Hall is one inspiration for Thrushcross Grange in Emily’s Wuthering Heights, and the location  in Anne’s novel The Teanant of Wildfell Hall. 

Wycoller Hall is Ferndean Manor in Charlotte’s Jane Eyre. Uphill is Top Withins, whose location inspires Wuthering Heights itself. Emily’s novel is hugely popular in Japan and Arashi Ga Oka is Japanese for Wuthering Heights. 

The dog is local too, an Airedale called Teddy. 

Letter to the TLS

OPEN LETTER TO THE TLS, FEBRUARY 2024

Dear Martin Ivens,

 

Thirty years ago, Ted Hughes, Jeanette Winterson and 62 other signatories stood against an “assault on our literary and artistic heritage”: a proposal to build 44 wind turbines on the moors above Haworth, the West Yorkshire home of the Brontës.  

We, the undersigned, are standing again – this time, against an impending planning application for  England’s largest onshore wind farm on this area of international literary significance and ecological importance. At 200 metres tall, the 65 proposed turbines would be two-thirds the height of the Eiffel Tower. They would be visible for 40 kilometres, would be served by miles of access roads across fragile peat.

These are not just the wuthering heights written into immortality by the Brontës, Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath, or the wily, windy moors sung about by Kate Bush - they are a unique, highly protected, priority habitat. The turbines would occupy 11 Site of Special Scientific Interest land units which also have European Natura 2000 status (now transferred into UK law post-Brexit.) The area is also home to protected, endangered  birds like breeding merlin, golden plover, and other breeding bird assemblages, including curlews.  The peat moors include significant areas of blanket bog – as the biggest natural storers of carbon in the UK, blanket bogs are known as the UK’s Amazon rainforest. Their unique hydrology offers a protective barrier during extreme rainfall which reduces peak flow during repeated floods in the Calder Valley and other areas. And they are loved, as a vital green resource for mental and physical health by inhabitants and visitors from Burnley, Bradford, Leeds, and the industrial North, and by literary pilgrims from across the world.

Along with the RSPB, the Brontë Society, Lancashire and Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and multiple other organisations,  we oppose this proposal on the grounds of the profound ecological  and cultural harm it would cause. In the movement towards net zero carbon, we need long-term  solutions which restore habitat and biodiversity; which are alert to the value of culture and community, and which enhance natural carbon storage in oceans, forests, peat, and other soils.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Ayckbourn, Frieda Hughes, Robert Macfarlane, Sally Wainwright, Jeanette Winterson

and 351 signatories:

 

 

 

 

 

Option B: proper maps

These maps of Option B will clarify the position for land-owners and members of the public. In the opinion of WTRG, Option B will allow the delivery of 85-metre blades lying flat. It requires third-party land and some widenings that will also require temporary use of third party land. Tracks would be built across the Colne roundabouts and street furniture removed. These are all normal in turbine deliveries. 

The maps only show the most difficult section of the Two Laws Road from Laneshaw Bridge to Watersheddles Reservoir. To straighten this section will require third-party land around Far Laith. A full analysis will appear in the Blog on "Jackson's Ridge Compound" by Nick MacKinnon which will be published on 4 July 2025 by Mark Avery. 

The first map shows the bypasses of Laneshaw Bridge. Only one of these is needed, and the southerly one does not allow an 85-metre blade to turn. 

The second map shows the Colne bypass. Temporary tracks will be built across the roundabouts and all signage and public art removed. This is routine in turbine delivery. The link shows Collets negotiating a roundabout with an 80-metre blade. 

The last roundabout needs a closer look. The diagram shows an 85-metre blade with a 10-metre tail in red that can oversail low walls with third-party permission. Signage would be removed and a track built across the roundabout. 

The Two Laws Road is usually wide enough and straight enough. The bends round Far Laith will need third-party land. This will probably be a widening before the bends and an intrusion into Far Laith yard. WTRG does not expect that the fine trees will be cut down, which is the other option here. Other bends on the road will require similar temporary widening.

This diagram shows one way of negotiating the Far Laith chicane. WTRG does not approve of this use of third-party land and the diagram is indicative. 

The track turns onto  Richard Bannister's land at the Peat House. This moorland track has a 21% section which is much too steep for a standard delivery. Directly up the line of the grouse butts would be initially 15%, also too steep for a standard delivery.

Option A through Halifax and Wainstalls past Ovenden Moor Wind Farm uses the route proved for the delivery of the 40-metre Ovenden Moor blades. The yellow 40-metre blades making the turn. If the 85-metre blades are raise to 60 degrees, they become 42.5 metres long in plan view and the yellow path can be followed. 

In the forthcoming blog WTRG will explain why Option B is most likely to be preferred. 

 

 

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

5 The CEP proposal is too careless to be fit for  public consultation

[5] It is the purpose of this paper to show that CEP proposal is too careless to allow the public intelligent consideration of it.

[5.1] The paper will also show that crucial documents that might have allowed CWF Ltd to undertake a careful design process are wrong and that these incorrect documents also prevent the public from giving intelligent consideration to the proposals. 

[5.11] The paper will show that the results of a careless design process visible in the layout are so stark that it is almost impossible to give intelligent consideration to the deeper problems in the proposal, which are to do with the habitats, the profusion of breeding red-listed birds, the release as CO2 of oxidised peat, the flood risk, and the degradation of what the developers call “Brontë Country”.

[5.12] The paper will show that some of the documents are so faulty that CWF Ltd themselves were unable to give their own proposal “intelligent consideration” which is a test of a correct public consultation under the Gunning Principles. 

[5.13] Furthermore the paper will show that the carelessness in the documents is systemic, so that the errors generate further errors. 

[5.2] In order to give intelligent consideration to any proposal in a public consultation it has to be free of elementary mistakes so that it can be taken seriously with respect to more complex matters. If the mistakes are flagrant the public may think they have been deliberately inserted to distract attention, the ‘dead cat’ technique. 

[5.21] The documents supporting any planning proposal should be complete and accurate so that the public can see how the proposal relates to the documents and can use the documents to give intelligent consideration to the proposal. 

[5.22] CWF Ltd themselves should also have access to accurate and complete documents that will allow them to make a careful proposal. 

[5.3] In sections 6-14 we shall detail aspects of the proposal that are evidence of a careless design process and describe errors in the maps which render them inadequate for a careful design process and inadequate for a public consultation.

 

Analysis of systemic carelessness and incompetence in the CEP proposal

6 Turbine 21 is too close to the Pennine Way

[6] T21 is less than 60 metres from the Pennine Way, the most famous national trail in the UK (fig. 6). 

[Fig 6. T21 is within 60 metres of the Pennine Way and the blades are likely to be 85 metres long. [WTRG map published 9 May 2025]

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

[6.1] Since the CEP turbines will be 7 MW models, the blades will be 85 metres long, Walkers will have to pass under the rotating blades. To protect the public areas,  General Electric give a minimum set back of “topple distance plus 10%”, here 220 metres. 

[6.2] T21 is so close to the Pennine Way that the cartographer of the access map (fig. 6.2) had to deviate from the OS line when tracing it in green and yellow to avoid a clash with the turbine. As well as being unsafe, T21 is not an appropriate way to mark the Diamond Jubilee of the Pennine Way. 

[6.3] We conclude that T21 is evidence of a careless design process with regard to public safety, public access, and the cultural heritage of the Pennine Way. 

[Fig 6.2. T21 and the Pennine Way as they appear on the CEP Access map.]

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

7 T22 in Black Clough is inaccessible

[7] T22 in Black Clough must be accessed from T21 by a crushed rock track down a gradient of 26% (fig 7.2) far more than what is safe for construction workers or normal. The HSE give a figure of 1:12 (9%) for HGVs on industrial sites. Scout Moor wind farm in the Pennines has one downhill delivery spur of 12%.  Abnormal Indivisible Loads will include the 300-tonne pylon sections, the 300-tonne nacelle, and a 200-tonne mobile crane. The other loads will include hundreds of HGVs bringing crushed stone, rebar steel and concrete.

[7.1] A site visit to T22 would have shown CWF Ltd that there is considerable unmapped waterflow between the Pennine Way and the track line to T22; the track and drains to T22 would accelerate this drainage in a storm. 

[7.11] A site visit would also have found that the peat is a lot deeper between T21 and T22 than the Peat Depth map shows. WTRG found some peat was 2 metres deep on the track line. 

[7.12] Where the track from T21 to T22 is on less steep terrain the ground is much wetter than the CEP hydrology map shows, and the peat is much deeper than the Peat Map shows. Where the gradient steepens to 26% the track line is on less deep peat, but the gradient is far in excess of what is safe or feasible.

[7.2] We conclude that T22 is evidence of a careless design process.

[Fig 7. Access to T22 is down a 26% edge. [WTRG map published 9 May 2025]

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

8 The cluster T21, T22, T23 and T24 are much too close together

[8] A wake of slow turbulent air forms behind a wind turbine. Correct downwind spacing of turbines allows the wake to disperse so the downwind turbine can work efficiently.

[8.1]  Standard down wind spacing is 7 Rotor Diameters (RD) in the direction of the prevailing wind. There is a compromise between inefficiency due to “wake losses” and the price of land for spacing. RenewablesUK Cymru used 5 RD when calculating the maximum availability of the wind resource in Wales, for example. The standard scientific paper on the matter gives 15 RD as an optimum spacing. 

[8.11] The authorities’ view of considered downwind spacing is between 5 RD and 15 RD.

[8.2] T21 and T22 are 2.9 RD apart in the direction of the prevailing SW wind. T23 and T4 are only 2.2 RD apart (fig. 8.2).

2] The spacing of T21, T22, T23 and T24 is evidence of a careless design process. 

[Fig 8.2. The cluster T21, T22, T23 and T24 are much too close together. WTRG map published 9 May 2025] 

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

9 The hydrology map has a fundamental error

[9] The hydrology map had a careless error at launch and still has a fundamental error.

[9.1] The CEP hydrology map was wrong in three ways on the launch day, 29 April 2025. The two simple errors was corrected at the instigation of WTRG, who were thanked in a letter from CEP Project Director Christian Egal. 

[9.11] The simple errors were that there was no T38 but there was a T42. The error was on seven maps (layout, hydrology, peat depths, access, ecological designations, cultural heritage, UK habitats) and is acknowledged on the website with a pop-up notice (fig. 9.11).

[9.12] The causes of the T38-T42 errors involved systemic carelessness and are described in section 11. 

[Fig 9.11. The pop-up notifying the public that seven maps have been corrected. CEP website from 10:30 1 May 2025]

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

[9.2] The fundamental error in the hydrology map is that it fails to show the correct water flow out of the Greave Clough catchment (fig. 9.2 left). The map shows water flowing into Graining Water directly, where in fact the water (in normal conditions) is intercepted by a sluice and sent down a tunnel to Widdop Reservoir (fig. 9.2 right). 

[Fig 9.2. The CEP hydrology map (left) does not show the correct flow from the Greave Clough catchment. A sluice and tunnel divert the flow into Widdop Reservoir. [CEP hydrology map and WTRG highlight]

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

[9.21] Thirteen turbines (T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T14, T15, T16, T37, T39) of CEP affect the hydrology in the Greave Clough catchment that is focussed at the sluice.  The tracks and associated drains will be even more important in altering runoff rates. Assessment of flood risk here is crucial to the safety of people in the Calder valley, particularly in Hebden Bridge which has been subject to multiple catastrophic floods since 2000. 

[9.22] Since all the runoff in this catchment is focussed on the Greave Clough sluice and tunnel (fig. 9.22) the point must be shown on the hydrology map. Effective site visits by the hydrology team would have discovered this crucial matter. No effective site visits to the Greave Clough catchment by the CEP hydrology team can have taken place. 

[9.23] The focused nature of the Greave Clough catchment must be constantly in mind during a careful design process and therefore must appear on the hydrology map. The absence of the sluice and tunnel on the hydrology map shows incompetence in the design process. 

[9.3] One of the most evident ways in which CEP might increase catastrophic flood risk is that the hard infrastructure and drainage for CEP in the Greave Clough catchment accelerates the runoff that arrives at the sluice. The tunnel is overwhelmed and the sluice overflows down a spillway. This water reaches Hebden Bridge directly rather than via Widdop reservoir. 

[9.4] Since the hydrology map was so deficient, we conclude that the design process with respect to the hydrology of catastrophic flooding was so careless as to be incompetent. 

[Fig 9.22. In normal conditions all the Greave Clough catchment runoff passes through this sluice and is diverted by a tunnel (on the right of the photograph to Widdop Reservoir. In extreme conditions the tunnel is overwhelmed, and the runoff goes directly to Hebden Bridge over the sluice dam. [Photo: Nigel Griffiths WTRG]

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

10 The peat depth map is incomplete

[10] The peat depth map has a large blank section in the Greave Clough catchment (fig. 10).

[10.1] The peat depth map was published on 29 April 2025 and corrected at the instigation of WTRG at 10.30 1 May 2025 (the T38-T42 error) and corrected again at the instigation of WTRG on 2 May 2025 (incorrect key). In the printed Consultation Brochure the correction was made with a printed sticker.

[10.2] The peat depth map was the most important document in the CWF Ltd planning process for the CEP turbine layout.

[10.21] The original 65-turbine CWF had many of its turbines on very deep peat (up to 3 metres deep) or required tracks to pass over very deep peat to reach them. 

[10.22] The primary objective in planning the CEP layout was to put the turbine sites onto peat of less than one metre depth. In the CEP peat depth map only 6/41(15%) turbines are on peat that is shown as more than one metre deep. In the CWF peat depth map 26/65 (40%) were of that kind. None of the CEP turbines are on two-metre-deep peat but 15 of the CWF turbines were on peat of this depth or greater.

[10.23] Given that the peat depth map was so important, it is remarkable that it is so incomplete. The fact that the blank area is above the Greave Clough sluice and tunnel makes the issue systemic. 

[10.24] Since the hydrology team did not make an effective visit to the Greave Clough catchment, it may even be that the full seriousness of the blank area to hydrology and flooding was unknown by the design team who made the CEP layout. Certainly, two of the consultants involved in the layout design had never seen a photograph of the Greave Clough sluice when they were shown one. 

[Figure 10. The blank area of the peat depth map west of Greave Clough relative to the Greave Clough sluice. Red highlights added by WTRG.] 

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

[10.3] The blank area in the peat depth map is caused by CWF Ltd’s failure to complete the peat probing in 2022 and by their repeated subsequent failures to remedy the problem. The same incomplete data was used to make the Scoping Report map of 2023 and the CEP map. The probing failure is revealed in the 2023 map (fig. 10.3) because it shows the positions of each probing with a cross. The Kriging algorithm used to colour the map gives up when the data is completely insufficient and the blank area is the result.

[Fig 10.3. The 2023 Scoping Report version of the peat depth map shows the probing positions. CWF Scoping Report 2023] 

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

[10.31] The position is worse because the Kriging algorithm has coloured speculatively in areas where there is little nearby probing. In all, CWF Ltd had inadequate information about peat depths in 14% of the Greave Clough catchment (fig 10.31)

[10.32] The public are also not in possession of adequate information, and this is another reason that they cannot give the proposal intelligent consideration.

[10.32] Failing to complete the peat survey between 2022 and the CEP launch date on 29 April 2025 was extremely careless, since fieldwork undertaken by WTRG in the area shows that it could have been completed by a competent team in one day. 

[10.4] It is impossible for the public to give intelligent consideration to peat destruction by turbine placement and track building in the area west of Greave Clough because of the failure to complete the survey. 

[10.41] It is impossible to calculate the stone requirements of CEP because neither the public nor CWF Ltd can model the track network when the peat depths are so uncertain. Where the tracks go determines flood hydrology, and neither CWF Ltd nor the public can say anything about flood risk. Since CWF Ltd had also not marked the Greave Clough sluice and tunnel, the layout west of Greave Clough is wholly speculative.

[10.5] In the area west of Greave Clough the carelessness of CWF Ltd is systemic because the hydrology map is wrong and the peat survey is incomplete. The turbines T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8 and the oddly punctured sequence T37, (T38), T39 have been positioned without reference to an adequate peat map nor an adequate hydrology map. 

[10.6] The interaction of the unreliable peat depths and the wrong hydrology means that the design process of CEP west of Greave Clough is incompetent. 

[Fig 10.31. The peat depths are uncertain inside the red boundary and the area constitutes 14% of the Greave Clough catchment. [WTRG on 2023 peat survey] 

 

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

11 The phantom turbine

[11] The anomalous position of T38 now becomes further evidence of how compromised the layout design west of Greave Clough was. 

11.1 The turbine numbering is sequential. On the ‘launch day’ maps there was no T38, but there was instead a T42 on the location where T38 is now to be found (fig. 11.1).  The cause of the error can be reconstructed from the dates and codings marked on the full versions of the maps. The layout was finalised for the purpose of the launch of CEP on 21 February 2025. (Layout designation 210225-41t). 

[Fig 11.1. On the layout published on the launch day 29 April 2025 there was no T38 but there was a T42. The figure is a WTRG screenshot of the deleted layout map (preparation date 14 March 2025) with WTRG red highlights] 

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

11.11 Before the layout was finalised, T38 (then between T37 and T39 in a sequence) was deleted, and the only plausible explanation is that it was on the blank area in the peat survey (fig, 11.11), when peat depth was primary in the layout design. There were now 41 turbines but one of them was still called T42. 

11.12 The layout was given as a spreadsheet of turbines and six-figure grid references to the cartographer JWO at Natural Power who made seven faithful maps with no T38 and a T42 on 14 March 2025. The maps were checked by LF. These maps were loaded to the CEP website. 

[11.121] The helpful receptionist Emma at Natural Power did not recognise JWO and LF when WTRG rang the Castle Douglas office and could not find them in the Staff Directory. She found James Lightbody who spoke to WTRG. He had “worked with CWF Ltd some time ago” but did not know who JWO and LF were. 

[Fig 11.11 The sequential position of T38 would have been between T37 and T39 in the blank area on the peat depth map. WTRG highlight on 2025 CEP peat depth map]

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

[11.13] The T42 mistake was noticed, and a new set of maps were made by JWO on 18 April 2025 just eleven days before launch. The correct maps were not loaded to the website, and on 29 April 2025 the website maps had no T38 but a T42. WTRG pointed out the error at 09:04 1 May 2025 and the correct maps were substituted at 10:30 (fig 11.13) with T38 out of sequence on the previous site of the phantom T42.

[11.2] For some reason, somebody added the statement on the pop-up correction that “The location of T38 has not been changed.” 

[11.21] Given the sequential numbering, this is implausible, and at the Oxenhope public consultation a consultant who had been present during the layout design admitted that T38 had been moved from between T37 and T39 to the position of the phantom T42 but said, “The reason for the move was not that it had been on the blank area”. Since CEP had printed an implausible statement that the consultant had just admitted was false, there is no reason to believe the implausible statement of the consultant either, especially as it was made ad lib. 

[11.3] All this happened because of the cardinal failure of CWF Ltd to complete the peat survey before attempting a layout design, when the fieldwork would have only taken one day.

[11.31] CEP consultants have given two reasons why the fieldwork was not done between 2022 and 21 February 2025 when the CEP brochure was finalised. “The ground might be too dangerous.” “Weather”. Neither stand up to examination, and they reveal a lack of understanding of the terrain. A WTRG member has probed the peat in the blank area, and far from finding it dangerous was able to do complete the central transect in thirty minutes while also managing a research assistant. 

[11.4] T38 might have been moved because of hydrology except that CWF Ltd were ignorant of hydrology in the Greave Clough catchment.

[11.41] Since T38 was moved, the public must wonder why the pop-up correction says it was not moved.

[11.42] The contradictory statements about T38 suggest that CWF Ltd are uneasy about the matter.

[11.43] As no plausible explanation has been given by CWF Ltd, the simplest explanation is that CEP’s design process was influenced by the blank area on the peat survey, and this caused the subsequent errors in a systemic manner.

[11.5] Given the situation described, the public can have no confidence in the design process.

[11.6] This web of errors beginning in 2022, is evidence of systemic incompetence in the CEP layout design process. 

[Fig 11.13. T 38 has been moved from its original position in sequence to the position of T42. WTRG highlights on the CEP layout post 10:30 1 May 2025]

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

[12.1] A second example of systemic carelessness is found in the error in the Peat Depth Map key, corrected by sticker in the brochure and by an asterisked correction on the website map. (Fig. 12.1)

[Fig 12.1 The second correction to the Peat Depth Map as it appears on the CEP website. The same information is on a sticker in the Consultation Brochure.] 

 

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

[12.11] This “key error” is of long gestation, In Scotland the definition of “deep peat” is 0.5 m or more, In England it is presently 0.4 m, with a move to 0.3 m under discussion. Perhaps because Natural Power are Scottish-based, the 2023 Peat Depth Map used 0.5 m as the depth of the shallowest peat, an error that was commented on by many. 

[12.12] In the 2025 Peat Depth map the same 2022 data is used to recompute a 0.4 m depth contour, which the Kriging algorithm has done. A human failed to update the key, so there was now a gap between 0.4 m and 0.5 m. 

[12.13] WTRG pointed this out to CWF Ltd on 1 May 2025, and the clumsy corrections were made to the website map and the brochure. 

[12.2] Although the correction calls the error “typographic” we see that it is evidence of systemic carelessness and derives from the original failure to check the definition of deep peat in England and then to check the maps properly. 

[12.21] The correction claims that “Further peat survey is ongoing” when it cannot be because breeding red-listed birds may not be disturbed under the SPA designation. The birds are present in huge numbers, which is why Walshaw Moor is designated an SPA. (Fig 12.21) This error is systemic. It was made while explaining  the error in the key.

[Figure 12.21. A huge flock of curlews over Walshaw Moor on 29 March 2025. Photo: Kate Haslegrave.]

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

[12.22] “Ongoing peat work” would therefore be damaging to the conservation interest for which this site is designated. No peat work should be done until the chicks have fledged and left the moor for wintering grounds. Fieldwork in this area in the middle of the breeding season is potentially a plan or project which would require permission from Natural England (NE)  and WTRG have informed NE of the possibility of such work going ahead in the Walshaw Moor SPA.

[12.3] The correction also states that the Peat Depth Map is a “worst case (sic) scenario” and not a representation of peat depths inside the boundary of CEP after all. The public, trying to give intelligent consideration to CEP, do not know the direction of the axis “bad-case scenario, worse-case scenario, worst-case scenario”: is it worse for CWF Ltd or worse for the curlews? 

[12.31] In 14% of the Greave Clough catchment there is no scenario at all because neither the public nor CWF Ltd can give intelligent consideration to peat loss and degradation when the data is absent or unreliable.  

[12.4] It is not possible to model the tracks west of Greave Clough because of the unreliability of the Peat Map. 

[12.41] This means that the public cannot give intelligent consideration to loss and degradation of habitat in the SAC because most of it is caused by the drainage effect of the tracks rather than turbine foundation excavations. 

[12.5] The CEP layout was determined by the incomplete peat map and none of the consultants who used the map noticed the error in the key.

[12.6] The unreliable peat depth map shows that the design process cannot have been careful with respect to the peat aspects of the SAC because the designers did not know enough about the peat on the slope west of Greave Clough. 

13 The aggregate problem 

[13] The tracks of a wind farm and the turbine foundation use a huge amount of crushed rock, usually called aggregates. 

[13.1[ It is common in Scottish wind farms to crush rock won from onsite “borrow pits” to build the wind farm. Rock is imported to reach the first borrow pit and the rest of the wind farm is built from its internal resources of rock. 

[13.11] Borrow pits reduce haulage emissions; they avoid imposing demands on the communities along the haulage route; and they are much cheaper for the developers.

[13.2] In the notes to the relevant Geological Survey map (Sheet 77 Huddersfield) it says that West Yorkshire gritstone rock, though strong and attractive as a building stone, is “now worked for construction fill and for sand. In general, the sandstones are too weak, porous, and susceptible to frost damage for them to be used for good quality roadstone or concrete aggregate. They may be used in road construction below the level of possible frost damage and for some of the less demanding concrete applications.”

[13.21] The aggregate problem in West Yorkshire is so great that the five councils publish an annual Aggregate Assessment each December and have done so since 2012. 

[13.22] When builders use West Yorkshire aggregates to make or repair tracks and driveways, it turns to slush in a matter of days. Reputable builders use limestone imported from out-of-county quarries.

[13.3] The 2023 Scoping Report suggested that onsite borrow pits might produce suitable aggregates for CWF, or that nearby quarries “to the east” might do so. The failure to consult the BGS map and the aggregate assessments in the CWF proposal was careless.

[13.4] The CEP proposal is silent about where the aggregates will come from, and silent about the problem, which is huge because WTRG calculates that up to 900,000 tonnes of aggregate may be required. CWF Ltd have now admitted that the onsite rock is “not the best” and that all the aggregates must be imported.

[13.5] It seems likely that permeable limestone tracks will not be suitable on the acid environment of an SAC and in a drinking water catchment. This would push the search area for suitable aggregate beyond the limestone quarries in North Yorkshire. 

[13.6] Since aggregate sources are existential to the proposal, and the documents are silent on the matter, it is impossible for the public to give intelligent consideration to the proposal without knowing even which in which county the aggregate source will be. 

[13.61] At the Oxenhope public consultation one consultant said that onsite borrow pits would be relevant; another that it was too soon to address the aggregate problem so it had no effect on the proposals; and a third said that all the aggregates would have to be imported. 

[13.7] Such a fundamental point as the source of the aggregates should at least have been acknowledged in the CEP documents for the public consultation. It is impossible to give intelligent consideration to the proposal without the information about the aggregates, or at least an indication that CWF Ltd are now as aware of the West Yorkshire aggregate problem as the local public have always been.

[13.8] The first statement from CEP acknowledging that the onsite aggregates were not suitable was made by a CEP consultant on the Public Consultation Webinar on 21 May 2023. In response to a question from WTRG the consultant said, “The onsite rock is not the best and the aggregates will have to be imported, but we don’t yet know the source.” 

[13.81] WTRG informed CWF Ltd of the problem with the onsite rock in a blog published on 2 May 2024 with full evidence from the BGS maps and the West Yorkshire Aggregate Assessments. CWF Ltd were also informed of the problem in an email, written in response to one to WTRG from CWF Ltd, a fortnight before the CWF proposal was withdrawn. In their email CWF Ltd said they would not discuss the matter with WTRG because in some of the WTRG blogs they had been compared to the self-sabotaging cartoon dog Muttley. 

[13.811] The sudden withdrawal of the CWF proposal may have been actuated by a WTRG report on the CWF website.  CWF Ltd claimed that the project was accepted to connect at Padiham substation, but WTRG had published the Embedded Capacity Register entry made by CWF Ltd showing the connection was at much more distant Rochdale. The false statement about Padiham was public from September 2023 to October 2024.

[13.812] Perhaps most damaging to public confidence in the technical competence of CWF Ltd was their website statement that the National Grid ran at 440 Kelvin Volts. The National Grid runs at 400 kilovolts. These misapprehensions about electricity transmission in the UK and the S.I. system of units went uncorrected from September 2023 to October 2024.

[13.9] The treatment of the existential aggregate problem by CWF Ltd has been incompetent and the CEP proposal was designed without an understanding of the seriousness of the aggregate problem.

 

14 The array is aerodynamically inefficient

[14] Most of the layout is aerodynamically inefficient because the turbines are much too close together.

[14.1] We described in section 8 the unusual closeness of the T21-T24 cluster and its effects on efficiency through wake losses.  

[14.2] Although all wind turbine arrays must be a compromise between wake losses and use of the site area, CEP is very overcrowded. In fig. 14.2 the standard 3 RD (across) and 7 RD (downwind) spacings are shown. In a reasonably efficient array these rectangles would not overlap, though efficiency is reduced even with a 7 RD upwind spacing. 

[Figure 14.2. Aerodynamic analysis of the CEP layout based on a standard 3 RD by 7 RD wake footprint. In a reasonably efficient layout, the rectangles would not overlap. CEP is particularly overcrowded on Heather Hill and around Black Clough. Diagram: WTRG published 22 May 2025] 

[14.3] The CEP design process has resulted in an unusually inefficient layout in its aerodynamics. This is caused by the decision to prioritise peat in the layout design while trying to fit in far too many turbines. This pushes the turbines closer together (and in the case of T22 over the edge) and causes increased wake losses. 

[14.4] The CEP design process was careless with regard to aerodynamics. 

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

 

15 There is no evidence that other sites were considered

[15] If the CEP proposal is properly framed for public consultation, CWF Ltd should have list of alternative sites not on peatland which they have sought and ruled out  under the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3). 

[15.1] Section 2.12.74 of EN-3 (April 2025) states that “Applicants should therefore seek and rule out other locations before siting developments on peatland.”

[15.2] This matter was raised in the public consultation at Oxenhope by a WTRG member. The CEP consultant was unable to indicate to ant degree of precision the location or nature of any other sites that had been sought and ruled out. 

[15.3] The public cannot give intelligent consideration to the CEP proposal if there is no evidence that CWF Ltd have sought and ruled out sites that are not on peatland. 

[15.4] Until CWF Ltd can offer a plausible alternative scenario, the public are justified in believing that the CEP proposal began with the opportunity to buy Walshaw Moor and that no other sites were sought and ruled out. 

 

16 The Gunning Principles apply

 

[16] The Gunning Principles for public consultation apply. 

[16.1] Gunning Principle 2 requires that there is sufficient information to give ‘intelligent consideration’ to the proposal. The information provided must relate to the consultation and must be available, accessible, and easily interpretable for consultees to provide an informed response. 
 

[16.11] We have seen that the information is not available or was incomplete or wrong on aggregate source, aggregate type, hydrology, and peat depth.

[16.2] Gunning Principle 3 requires there is adequate time for consideration and response. 

[16.21] Because the documents contain serious errors the public must now do substantial fieldwork to check all the documents. It is not possible to do this fieldwork until September 2025 because of the ground nesting birds and the grouse shooting season. 

 

17 In Brontë  Country

[17] The developers state in the Consultation Brochure that CEP is “in Brontë Country”. 

[17.1] Because the Brontë’s novels are such a remarkable expression of British ‘soft power’, and of the power of British women to influence the world, the location of CEP  “in Brontë Country” may be a more existential consideration for CEP even than the remoteness and geology of the aggregate quarries.

[17.2] There is no evidence that CEP being in “in Brontë Country” has been part of the design process for CEP. 

[17.3] Had the design process for CEP been careful, a preliminary account of what may prove an existential matter could have been completed in a few days since the necessary documents are in the public domain. 

[17.4] There is no evidence at all that CWF Ltd have done any research on this existential matter. 

[17.5] The reason “in Bronte Country” is an existential matter is that it is binary. The destruction of Brontë Country by Calderdale Energy Park cannot be mitigated. 

[17.51] CWF Ltd should have sought out alternative sites for CEP, though they have yet to show any evidence that they did so. 

[17.52]  CWF Ltd cannot be required to “seek and rule out” other places where Brontë Country can be relocated. 

[17.6] There is either Calderdale Energy Park or there is Brontë Country. 

[17.7] The public cannot give intelligent consideration to CEP if CWF Ltd have not given it such consideration first and demonstrated a seriousness of approach proportionate to the seriousness of their own statement that CEP is “in Brontë Country". 

[Fig 17.7 Bronte Country. Map: WTRG with the advice of  Brontë scholars Dr Claire O'' Callaghan and Michael Stewart (author of Walking the Invisible: following in the Brontës footsteps. They are co-directors of the Brontë Centre for Writing and Research]

The case to postpone the CEP public consultation

 

18 An incompetent design process with wrong and incomplete maps

[18] We conclude that the public consultation should not have begun on 29 April 2025 because there was no chance of the public giving “intelligent consideration” to a proposal that is the result of an incompetent design process and wrong or incomplete documents.

[18.1] The public consultation should be postponed until CWF Ltd can provide documents that permit a careful proposal and allow the public to give intelligent consideration to it. Instead the documents supplied so far have been full of errors, so the public will need to time to check the revised documents with fieldwork and detailed research before the public consultation opens.

19 A six month postponement with a one month buffer

[19] WTRG ask for a six-month postponement for the public consultation, with a one-month buffer between the publication of the corrected documents and the official opening of the public consultation so that the public can do the necessary research and fieldwork on the maps to check them. 

[19.1] This timetable would require a full suite of correct documents to be published by CWF Ltd for public consultation on 29 September 2025. 

[19.2] These documents must include an expert assessment of what CWF Ltd call “Brontë Country”. 

[19.3] These documents must include an expert assessment of the geology and source of the aggregates.

[19.4] With correct documents on what are elementary matters, the public can then do the necessary fieldwork and research during October 2025, when the weather is reasonable and the birds have flown. The public may then be ready to give intelligent consideration to the proposal when public consultation opens on 29 October 2025.  

 

20 The public cannot trust CWF Ltd's maps and all must be checked 

[20] Intelligent public consideration of CEP will eventually involve mastering a complex mix of difficult habitat research and fieldwork. Given the pattern of incompetence with respect to the documents, laid out here, everything CWF Ltd publish must always be checked by the public.

21 Government policies on peat and climate change may be in conflict

[21] The political and legal position is also complex. There is a conflict between announced government policies on peat protection to manage atmospheric CO2 and wind power to mitigate climate change. The extent of these complexities resists compact description in a document of this kind.

 

22 Planning & Infrastructure Bill v Environment Act

[22]The legal position is further complicated by uncertainty about the relationship of the Environment Act to the ongoing Planning and Infrastructure bill, pointed out by the Office of Environmental Protection and by the legal opinion obtained by Wild Justice. 

 

23  CEP carelessness obscures complex problems

[23] The public cannot be expected to give intelligent consideration to these complex aspects of the proposal while documents contain serious errors and while there is so much evidence, in simple matters, of systemic carelessness and incompetence in the design process for Calderdale Energy Park and while the legal framework is in such flux.

24 The public consultation for Calderdale Energy Park must be postponed.

[24] The public consultation for Calderdale Energy Park must be postponed.

Reply to Christian Egal's first reply

WTRG, Upper Heights, Stanbury, West Yorkshire BD22 0HH

8 June 2025

By email only

Dear Christian Egal,

Thank you for your letter of 5 June 2025.

The letter does not respond to any of the matters raised in our letter of 1 June 2025.

Instead, it claims the questions and arguments in our letter arise because of a “misunderstanding of the process” or the “incorrect assumption” on our part that what you describe as the “current non-statutory consultation” “was meant to comply with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008”.

Your explanation of the “current non-statutory consultation” (“ the NSC”)

You then explain how you see this “process” in terms of the Planning Act 2008 even though its apparently not intended to comply with its requirements. Leaving aside this fundamental contradiction, you describe the process in these terms:

“The Planning Act 2008 sets out the statutory consultation that must be undertaken prior to submitting an application for development consent. The process is designed to facilitate public participation during the pre-application stage. This includes consultation with prescribed consultees, local authorities and persons with an interest in land (section 42 of the Planning Act 2008), consultation with the local community in accordance with a Statement of Community Consultation (section 47 of the Planning Act 2008) and a duty to publicise (section 48 of the Planning Act 2008).”

This is of course a description of the Statutory Consultation period which is not current, and it is not clear how this might relate to the balance of your argument concerning the NSC.

You correctly identify that there is a statutory duty to have regard to responses to the statutory consultation under s 49 of the planning act. You say that a Consultation Report will be submitted with the DCO Application “setting out how the consultation requirements in the Planning Act 2008 have been complied with and influenced by taking into account any responses to the Statutory Consultation” and how as part of the Statutory Consultation a PEIR will be published and an Environmental Statement containing the conclusions of the EIA will be published.

Again, all of this describes the Statutory Consultation. There is once again confusion about the nature of the Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultations and their role in the overall planning process. The Statutory Consultation is broadly irrelevant and, in any event, not in issue in our letter under reply.

You go on to claim that the “current non-statutory consultation” the NSC has its role defined by the Pre-Application Guidance recently published by MHC etc citing para 20 which distinguishes between single round consultations for “straightforward and uncontroversial application[s]” and:

“For more complex proposals, an applicant may choose to conduct a non-statutory round of consultation (for example considering options) before undertaking a statutory round of consultation, or they may choose to run a multi-stage statutory consultation process.” [Paragraph 020 Reference ID 02-020-20240430]”

So, to summarise the “current NSC” is a process appropriate to complex and controversial proposals and its nature is governed by the Planning act 2008 via “Guidance” issued by the relevant Ministry.

You then claim that what you describe as the “in person events” and “webinar” constitute effectively the totality of this supposed public consultation. 

Our letter dated 1 June 2025

Our letter of 1 June 2025 sets out in detail how the “current NSC” was unlawful as a public consultation because it did not in any arguable manner comply with the relevant and well established legal principles governing all Public Consultations.

As you appear to be unfamiliar with these and in order to assist this link contains a simple account of the relevant principles sufficient for laypeople.

 https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/The%20Gunning%20Principles.pdf

The principles which derive from the common law on procedural fairness have been repeatedly upheld by the courts and impose these obligations on all those purporting to consult with the public including developers like your company.

None of them have been complied with. The fact that your response does not engage at all with these arguments (or even mention them) is surely because you cannot do so and must therefore resort to somewhat incoherent or irrelevant arguments about the nature of the Process itself. 

Inasmuch as the arguments in your letter can be understood none of them address the fundamental issue which is that the public have not been lawfully consulted in the so called “current NSC” because of obvious and fundamental breaches of all the Sedley/Gunning Principles details of which are set out extensively in our previous letter.

In short these are:

  1. That the Scheme was first presented with some degree of detail at the Webinar on 21st May 26 days after the commencement of the NSC and 12 days before it closes.
  2. The scheme presented was admitted to be incomplete and “certain” to change no details that might enable intelligent consideration were presented at an event in which public participation was restricted and controlled.
  3. The scheme disclosed on 21st May included entirely new and major additional industrial developments including BESS and transmission sub-stations of which no details (or even locations) were disclosed.

As such it cannot possibly be argued that the public have been given either sufficient information or adequate time to consider a scheme that has not even reached a formative stage. Further, it was admitted a great deal of research and investigation into relevant issues had been undertaken none of which was disclosed; and finally, no evidence at all was presented of any alternative sites having been considered. 

It cannot be argued that these legal deficiencies will be cured during the forthcoming Statutory Process in which the public’s role will be greatly circumscribed; and the nature and means available to it for making representations will be significantly formalised and diminished; not least by what you claim will be the planning consequences of the NSC.

It is quite clear that the whole process is designed to give the appearance of holding a non-statutory consultation whilst not actually doing so in order to claim the Planning benefits of such a consultation without having any meaningful input from the public because you have not (and possibly cannot) complied with the relevant legal criteria.

Your letter under reply is a perfect illustration of this. It completely ignores the substance of our letter of 01.06.2025 and instead concentrates on irrelevant matters. It could scarcely be better evidence that the publics input will not be conscientiously taken into account. 

In conclusion we ask the following questions:

  1. Is it your position that the “current NSC” is governed by the Sedley Criteria in re Gunning? 
  2. Do you believe you have complied with the Criteria and if so, how?
  3. If not, why not; and what do you believe in the absence of compliance its legal status and effect will be both presently and in terms of the public's input in the Statutory Consultation?
  4. What are the answers to the issues set out in our letter of 1 June .2025 numbered 1 – 9 and completely unaddressed in your reply?

We attach as an appendic below a Schedule of these Unanswered Points.

We do not believe that the “current NSC” was a lawful consultation with the public. The fact that you cannot engage with our arguments in this regard reinforces our belief that the only cure to these defects at the very beginning of the Planning Process is to address our enquiries and begin again with a proper and compliant period of Non-Statutory Consultation. 

Yours,

 

Nick MacKinnon (Editor, WTRG)

This letter tells Christian Egal that his failure to address the non-compliance allegations indicates that he accepts the public consultation was indeed not compliant with the Gunning Principles and hence unlawful.

Walshaw Turbines Research Group (WTRG) Upper Heights Farm, Stanbury BD22 0HH

21 June 2025

By email only

Dear Christian Egal, 

We refer to our letter of 9 June 2025 to which we have received neither acknowledgment nor reply.

That letter responds to your letter of 5 June 2025 and explains in clear terms how your letter is completely non-responsive to our letter of 1 June 2025, which set out (with appropriate legal detail) why the supposed “non-statutory consultation” (which allegedly ran from 9 April 2025 to 10 June 2025) was both procedurally confused and in any event in significant and comprehensive breach of (or non-compliance with) the well-established principles governing public consultations.

We are entitled to conclude that your failure to address these issues in any way is because you cannot and the “NSC” was not a lawful public consultation.

Be that as it may, we are now left in some confusion about just what phase of the planning process CEP believe themselves to be in and how the public should respond. Clearly you believe the next key step should be the production of the EIA.

Your publication described as a ‘Community Newsletter’ describes this process as follows:

  1. EIA Scoping: Identifying topic areas that would be included in the EIA and providing justification for scoping out topic areas that would not result in likely significant effects.
  2. Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) The PEIR is a way of providing preliminary environmental information and the findings of the EIA undertaken to date, published alongside statutory consultation to allow consultees to develop an informed view of the project’s potential environmental effects.
  3. Environmental Statement: Detailing the findings of the EIA for Calderdale Energy Park and identifying any relevant mitigation required.

The “Energy Park” is in fact a Wind Farm with additional infrastructure, including BESS and Substation construction as defined under Schedule 2(f) of s20 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.  As such public consultation on the EIA is necessary. In order for that consultation to be lawful (as we say the NSC was not) the public must be allowed to make meaningful Representations concerning both “Scoping” and the content of any PEIR. 

For the avoidance of doubt, we deny that any of the so called consultations carried out in the so called NSC can be employed as such in the EIA or its scoping. Our reasons for this are set out in our unanswered correspondence,

Before addressing this further we require confirmation of where CEP think they are in the planning process:

  1. Have CEP requested a screening opinion for the relevant local authorities?
  2. If so can the contents of both the request and the opinion now be made public?
  3. Are CEP presently “scoping” either a PEIR or an EIA? 
  4. If “scoping”, what are the terms of the process; how long is it intended to run and what procedures are in place for consulting the public?
  5. If you are preparing an EIA how long is this process intended to run; what is its outline and scope, and what procedures are in place for consulting the public?

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. We look forward to your response at the earliest opportunity. 

Yours,
 

Nick MacKinnon (Editor WTRG)

Privacy  policy

This privacy notice for Walshaw Turbines Research Group describes how we might use your personal information. It was last updated on 27 May 2025

What personal information do we process.?

We do not process any of your information.

Do we collect any of your information? 

We do not collect your information.

Do we collect information from third parties?

We do not collect information from third parties.

Questions or concerns If you still have questions or concerns please contact us at nipmackinnon@gmail.com

©Copyright. All rights reserved.

We need your consent to load the translations

We use a third-party service to translate the website content that may collect data about your activity. Please review the details in the privacy policy and accept the service to view the translations.

Privacy Settings

Website Translator

Privacy Settings

This tool helps you to select and deactivate various tags / trackers / analytic tools used on this website.

Select all services
Website Translator
More
Save Settings