We were recently reminded by an observant supporter that the grounds for dismissing the previous Coronation Power application in the same area were rejected by Rossendale Council for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the landscape character of the area, from both short range and longer distance views and both individually and cumulatively when viewed with existing and proposed wind farm developments in the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies AVP1, AVP2, Policies 18, 19, and 20 of the adopted Rossendale Core Strategy and the NPPF.
2. The proposed development would have a harmful impact on the setting of various designated and non-designated heritage assets, including listed buildings, conservation areas, and Rooley Moor Road. The benefits of the scheme, including the provision of renewable energy, are not considered to outweigh the harm to designated heritage assets. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 16 and 19 of the adopted Rossendale Core Strategy and the
   NPPF.
3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that adequate and successful peat restoration measures could be carried out in order to mitigate against the acknowledged loss of peat habitat that would result from the proposals. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 18, 19 and 20 of the adopted Rossendale Core Strategy and the NPPF.
4. The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of users of public rights of way, in particular users of the Pennine Bridleway along Rooley Moor Road. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies AVP1, 15, 17, and 21 of the adopted Rossendale Core Strategy and the NPPF.

The obvious question therefore, is why should Scout Moor 2, a much larger development in the same area, be approved? For one thing Rossendale Council now have ENV7 which profits wind farm development on peat of a depth greater than 40cm. Therefore, there are now more, not less, grounds for rejection.

The full refusal notice can be found here:

2014_0388-REFUSAL_NOTICE-20542