Applicants withdraw wind turbine bid on moor due to public pressure

Apology after plan for turbine on Denholme moor defeated

Apology after plan for turbine on Denholme moor defeated

First published in News Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , Aire/Worth Valley Reporter

Public pressure and town council opposition has defeated plans for a 45-metre turbine on the moors at Denholme.

The owners of Denholme Business Centre in Halifax Road have officially withdrawn the proposal and openly apologised for any distress caused by the scheme to local folk.

The site already has approval for a 1,000-panel solar farm, but town councillors felt this high-profile attempt to make the site 100 per cent “green” was a step too far.

Airedale anti-windfarm activists also campaigned strongly against the idea as it was for an unspoilt area of moorland.

Yesterday one of the business centre’s owners, Simi Sekhon attended Denholme Town Council and issued a full apology for the turbine proposal, which has now been cancelled.

Speaking before the meeting he explained how the U-turn was out of respect for popular opinion and due to an initial misunderstanding of the town council’s stance.

“Following more discussions with the town council and mayor we have decided to withdraw the application,” Mr Sekhon said.

“We have absolute respect for the council and people of Denholme and if it would damage the views where they live so significantly then we have to respect that too.

“We would sincerely apologise for any stress or upset the proposal may have caused people,” Mr Sekhon said.

Many of the 40 firms which operate from Denholme Business Centre were keen on the turbine which would have let them market products as made with 100 per cent green energy.

“That is something we still aim to achieve and will be in consultation with the town council regarding our renewable energy strategy,” Mr Sekhon added.

Denholme mayor Councillor Steve Nunn said he was most impressed by Mr Sekhon’s attitude.

“It takes some strength to accept they have upset people and then to come and listen to those people and the town council,” Coun Nunn said. “We can only solve issues by talking. It’s no good hiding behind letters and documents.

“The council is keen for Denholme Business Centre to thrive and we will continue to support anything that gives local employment.”

Coun Nunn added this was the third wind turbine scheme which the council had successfully opposed.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:04am Wed 19 Mar 14

Albion. says...

Why apologise?
Why apologise? Albion.
  • Score: 0

7:57am Wed 19 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

In my opinion, the council should support any scheme would make somewhere 100% green.

I'd much prefer wind turbines to further green belt housing development. Especially the cheap, fake stone boxes that people seem to like nowadays.
In my opinion, the council should support any scheme would make somewhere 100% green. I'd much prefer wind turbines to further green belt housing development. Especially the cheap, fake stone boxes that people seem to like nowadays. Bone_idle18
  • Score: -1

8:41am Wed 19 Mar 14

36a says...

Keelham Farm Shop....... Take Note

There are uggins of these all around the district with NO benefit to the community at all. They simply enable the land owner to have free energy

What has happened to our Pennine landscape

I agree with the Councillor (for once)
Keelham Farm Shop....... Take Note There are uggins of these all around the district with NO benefit to the community at all. They simply enable the land owner to have free energy What has happened to our Pennine landscape I agree with the Councillor (for once) 36a
  • Score: 0

8:42am Wed 19 Mar 14

bd7 helper says...

Is that the first and the last Apology
Is that the first and the last Apology bd7 helper
  • Score: 0

8:55am Wed 19 Mar 14

porkfat says...

All these people objecting to this will be the first people moaning about increasing energy bills due to carbon taxes due under agreements signed by the previous Labour government.

I sell property, you all need to understand one important point you don't own the view.

This is progress, would these buffoons prefer coal and gas fired power stations spewing out greenhouse gases? Get ready for your energy bills doubling in the next five years to pay the fines for missing our carbon emissions reduction targets.
All these people objecting to this will be the first people moaning about increasing energy bills due to carbon taxes due under agreements signed by the previous Labour government. I sell property, you all need to understand one important point you don't own the view. This is progress, would these buffoons prefer coal and gas fired power stations spewing out greenhouse gases? Get ready for your energy bills doubling in the next five years to pay the fines for missing our carbon emissions reduction targets. porkfat
  • Score: 0

11:11am Wed 19 Mar 14

collos25 says...

The site already has approval for a 1,000-panel solar farm, but town councillors felt this high-profile attempt to make the site 100 per cent “green” was a step too far.
This has to be the most inept statement of the year it only goes to show how easily people are conned.So it could have been 100% green so there is no payback time ,no mains power on site ,These turbines need mains power to start them they have a payback that is longer and greater in real money terms and uses more Co2 than per kw than conventional generation its the false market that makes them a money spinner.Plus of course there is no power generated when its not windy or too windy and very little power generated by the solar farm when its dark.
The site already has approval for a 1,000-panel solar farm, but town councillors felt this high-profile attempt to make the site 100 per cent “green” was a step too far. This has to be the most inept statement of the year it only goes to show how easily people are conned.So it could have been 100% green so there is no payback time ,no mains power on site ,These turbines need mains power to start them they have a payback that is longer and greater in real money terms and uses more Co2 than per kw than conventional generation its the false market that makes them a money spinner.Plus of course there is no power generated when its not windy or too windy and very little power generated by the solar farm when its dark. collos25
  • Score: -4

11:59am Wed 19 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

collos25 wrote:
The site already has approval for a 1,000-panel solar farm, but town councillors felt this high-profile attempt to make the site 100 per cent “green” was a step too far.
This has to be the most inept statement of the year it only goes to show how easily people are conned.So it could have been 100% green so there is no payback time ,no mains power on site ,These turbines need mains power to start them they have a payback that is longer and greater in real money terms and uses more Co2 than per kw than conventional generation its the false market that makes them a money spinner.Plus of course there is no power generated when its not windy or too windy and very little power generated by the solar farm when its dark.
I think that is rubbish. Recent studies show that the EROI (Energy return on investment) on a wind farm is 20-25, which means it will generate 20-25 times more energy that it took to build and run it over it's lifetime. That compares pretty well to coal (8 times what it cost to build and run, over it's lifetime) and Nuclear (9 times what it cost to build and run).

Figures show that the break even point of a wind farm is just over 6 months.

You should believe the nimby arguments on wind farms.
[quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: The site already has approval for a 1,000-panel solar farm, but town councillors felt this high-profile attempt to make the site 100 per cent “green” was a step too far. This has to be the most inept statement of the year it only goes to show how easily people are conned.So it could have been 100% green so there is no payback time ,no mains power on site ,These turbines need mains power to start them they have a payback that is longer and greater in real money terms and uses more Co2 than per kw than conventional generation its the false market that makes them a money spinner.Plus of course there is no power generated when its not windy or too windy and very little power generated by the solar farm when its dark.[/p][/quote]I think that is rubbish. Recent studies show that the EROI (Energy return on investment) on a wind farm is 20-25, which means it will generate 20-25 times more energy that it took to build and run it over it's lifetime. That compares pretty well to coal (8 times what it cost to build and run, over it's lifetime) and Nuclear (9 times what it cost to build and run). Figures show that the break even point of a wind farm is just over 6 months. You should believe the nimby arguments on wind farms. Bone_idle18
  • Score: 2

12:01pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
collos25 wrote:
The site already has approval for a 1,000-panel solar farm, but town councillors felt this high-profile attempt to make the site 100 per cent “green” was a step too far.
This has to be the most inept statement of the year it only goes to show how easily people are conned.So it could have been 100% green so there is no payback time ,no mains power on site ,These turbines need mains power to start them they have a payback that is longer and greater in real money terms and uses more Co2 than per kw than conventional generation its the false market that makes them a money spinner.Plus of course there is no power generated when its not windy or too windy and very little power generated by the solar farm when its dark.
I think that is rubbish. Recent studies show that the EROI (Energy return on investment) on a wind farm is 20-25, which means it will generate 20-25 times more energy that it took to build and run it over it's lifetime. That compares pretty well to coal (8 times what it cost to build and run, over it's lifetime) and Nuclear (9 times what it cost to build and run).

Figures show that the break even point of a wind farm is just over 6 months.

You should believe the nimby arguments on wind farms.
I meant Shouldn't believe!
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: The site already has approval for a 1,000-panel solar farm, but town councillors felt this high-profile attempt to make the site 100 per cent “green” was a step too far. This has to be the most inept statement of the year it only goes to show how easily people are conned.So it could have been 100% green so there is no payback time ,no mains power on site ,These turbines need mains power to start them they have a payback that is longer and greater in real money terms and uses more Co2 than per kw than conventional generation its the false market that makes them a money spinner.Plus of course there is no power generated when its not windy or too windy and very little power generated by the solar farm when its dark.[/p][/quote]I think that is rubbish. Recent studies show that the EROI (Energy return on investment) on a wind farm is 20-25, which means it will generate 20-25 times more energy that it took to build and run it over it's lifetime. That compares pretty well to coal (8 times what it cost to build and run, over it's lifetime) and Nuclear (9 times what it cost to build and run). Figures show that the break even point of a wind farm is just over 6 months. You should believe the nimby arguments on wind farms.[/p][/quote]I meant Shouldn't believe! Bone_idle18
  • Score: 2

12:52pm Wed 19 Mar 14

pjl20 says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
In my opinion, the council should support any scheme would make somewhere 100% green.

I'd much prefer wind turbines to further green belt housing development. Especially the cheap, fake stone boxes that people seem to like nowadays.
Wind Turbines are not an efficient way of generating energy, as is widely known. Their construction is also heavily subsidised by us, as domestic energy users, on our bills.

In fact in many parts of Europe wind turbines on inland sites are being dismantled, such as in the Netherlands, Denmark and even in parts of Germany.

Besides such monstrosities spoil the view in areas of outstanding natural beauty, on the moorlands on Yorkshire, for example.

Housing Minister, Kris Hopkins MP, who has responsibility in such planning matters, is resolutely against either inland wind turbines, or those sited along our coasts.

The ugly and broken wind turbines at Chelker Reservoir, near Addingham village, in Wharfedale, were recently dismantled and removed altogether by Kelda Water Services. They were defunct.
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: In my opinion, the council should support any scheme would make somewhere 100% green. I'd much prefer wind turbines to further green belt housing development. Especially the cheap, fake stone boxes that people seem to like nowadays.[/p][/quote]Wind Turbines are not an efficient way of generating energy, as is widely known. Their construction is also heavily subsidised by us, as domestic energy users, on our bills. In fact in many parts of Europe wind turbines on inland sites are being dismantled, such as in the Netherlands, Denmark and even in parts of Germany. Besides such monstrosities spoil the view in areas of outstanding natural beauty, on the moorlands on Yorkshire, for example. Housing Minister, Kris Hopkins MP, who has responsibility in such planning matters, is resolutely against either inland wind turbines, or those sited along our coasts. The ugly and broken wind turbines at Chelker Reservoir, near Addingham village, in Wharfedale, were recently dismantled and removed altogether by Kelda Water Services. They were defunct. pjl20
  • Score: 2

2:04pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

pjl20 wrote:
Bone_idle18 wrote:
In my opinion, the council should support any scheme would make somewhere 100% green.

I'd much prefer wind turbines to further green belt housing development. Especially the cheap, fake stone boxes that people seem to like nowadays.
Wind Turbines are not an efficient way of generating energy, as is widely known. Their construction is also heavily subsidised by us, as domestic energy users, on our bills.

In fact in many parts of Europe wind turbines on inland sites are being dismantled, such as in the Netherlands, Denmark and even in parts of Germany.

Besides such monstrosities spoil the view in areas of outstanding natural beauty, on the moorlands on Yorkshire, for example.

Housing Minister, Kris Hopkins MP, who has responsibility in such planning matters, is resolutely against either inland wind turbines, or those sited along our coasts.

The ugly and broken wind turbines at Chelker Reservoir, near Addingham village, in Wharfedale, were recently dismantled and removed altogether by Kelda Water Services. They were defunct.
Please see the FACTS in one of my previous replies! Thanks :)
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: In my opinion, the council should support any scheme would make somewhere 100% green. I'd much prefer wind turbines to further green belt housing development. Especially the cheap, fake stone boxes that people seem to like nowadays.[/p][/quote]Wind Turbines are not an efficient way of generating energy, as is widely known. Their construction is also heavily subsidised by us, as domestic energy users, on our bills. In fact in many parts of Europe wind turbines on inland sites are being dismantled, such as in the Netherlands, Denmark and even in parts of Germany. Besides such monstrosities spoil the view in areas of outstanding natural beauty, on the moorlands on Yorkshire, for example. Housing Minister, Kris Hopkins MP, who has responsibility in such planning matters, is resolutely against either inland wind turbines, or those sited along our coasts. The ugly and broken wind turbines at Chelker Reservoir, near Addingham village, in Wharfedale, were recently dismantled and removed altogether by Kelda Water Services. They were defunct.[/p][/quote]Please see the FACTS in one of my previous replies! Thanks :) Bone_idle18
  • Score: -1

2:17pm Wed 19 Mar 14

pjl20 says...

Bone_idle18

I know the fats only too well.

Wind Turbines do not work.

As far as siting a turbine adjacent to a farm. Why does this have to be all of 45metres high?

This is still of a height where it will be visible for a substantial distance.

I agree with this withdrawal at Denholme. Aren't the 1000 solar panels on this site sufficient to meet local needs, or what?
Bone_idle18 I know the fats only too well. Wind Turbines do not work. As far as siting a turbine adjacent to a farm. Why does this have to be all of 45metres high? This is still of a height where it will be visible for a substantial distance. I agree with this withdrawal at Denholme. Aren't the 1000 solar panels on this site sufficient to meet local needs, or what? pjl20
  • Score: -4

2:23pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

I'm quite happy to support sustainable energy to preserve out future. Nuclear and coal are not the answer, and money should not even be a consideration when it comes to the welfare of the planet. The EROI for wind and solar shows the benefits, at the moment some people might benefit more (a sticking point for some) but in the long term we all benefit!
I'm quite happy to support sustainable energy to preserve out future. Nuclear and coal are not the answer, and money should not even be a consideration when it comes to the welfare of the planet. The EROI for wind and solar shows the benefits, at the moment some people might benefit more (a sticking point for some) but in the long term we all benefit! Bone_idle18
  • Score: 1

4:12pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Mike Strutter says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
I'm quite happy to support sustainable energy to preserve out future. Nuclear and coal are not the answer, and money should not even be a consideration when it comes to the welfare of the planet. The EROI for wind and solar shows the benefits, at the moment some people might benefit more (a sticking point for some) but in the long term we all benefit!
What's your position on the scenario of shipping in wood pellets from Canada to Immingham to be burnt at Drax and the fact the whole process uses 30% more CO2 than burning coal ?
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: I'm quite happy to support sustainable energy to preserve out future. Nuclear and coal are not the answer, and money should not even be a consideration when it comes to the welfare of the planet. The EROI for wind and solar shows the benefits, at the moment some people might benefit more (a sticking point for some) but in the long term we all benefit![/p][/quote]What's your position on the scenario of shipping in wood pellets from Canada to Immingham to be burnt at Drax and the fact the whole process uses 30% more CO2 than burning coal ? Mike Strutter
  • Score: 1

4:43pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

Mike Strutter wrote:
Bone_idle18 wrote:
I'm quite happy to support sustainable energy to preserve out future. Nuclear and coal are not the answer, and money should not even be a consideration when it comes to the welfare of the planet. The EROI for wind and solar shows the benefits, at the moment some people might benefit more (a sticking point for some) but in the long term we all benefit!
What's your position on the scenario of shipping in wood pellets from Canada to Immingham to be burnt at Drax and the fact the whole process uses 30% more CO2 than burning coal ?
That is ridiculous. that's where I stand - better knocking ti down and replacing with turbines!
[quote][p][bold]Mike Strutter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: I'm quite happy to support sustainable energy to preserve out future. Nuclear and coal are not the answer, and money should not even be a consideration when it comes to the welfare of the planet. The EROI for wind and solar shows the benefits, at the moment some people might benefit more (a sticking point for some) but in the long term we all benefit![/p][/quote]What's your position on the scenario of shipping in wood pellets from Canada to Immingham to be burnt at Drax and the fact the whole process uses 30% more CO2 than burning coal ?[/p][/quote]That is ridiculous. that's where I stand - better knocking ti down and replacing with turbines! Bone_idle18
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree