Plans submitted for England’s largest onshore wind farm in a decade
Cubico Sustainable Investments’ £200m Scout Moor Two comprises 17 turbines and could power 77% of homes across Rochdale and Rossendale.
Cubico has submitted its plans for the project, the first onshore wind scheme to come forward in England since the government’s de facto ban on the technology was lifted, to both Rochdale and Rossendale councils.
At full capacity, the wind farm could generate 100MW of clean electricity, capable of powering 100,000 homes every year from the southern Pennines – the largest of any such facility in England.
Cubico has stated that a large-scale moorland restoration programme, covering 10 times the area used for turbines, is part of the project, aiming to mitigate biodiversity loss and environmental damage.
The restoration programme will also reduce flood risk and help the land store more carbon, Cubico has said.
Cubico has also backed a community wealth fund, which would deliver £20m to the local area over the windfarm’s lifespan. It is expected that this figure will equate to £600,000 a year.
The fund is to be managed by the newly created and independent Scout Moor Development Trust.
Peter Rowe, development manager at Cubico, said: “Scout Moor Two is a chance for Rossendale and Rochdale to lead the UK into a clean energy future – creating jobs, supporting the local economy, and backing Britain by producing more secure, homegrown energy.
“We’ve been listening closely to what people have told us during the consultation process, and we’re grateful to everyone who has taken the time to engage with us.”
He continued: “We understand that new developments like Scout Moor Two raise important questions, and that local communities must see real and lasting benefits. We’re committed to working closely with the councils, community groups, and residents as the process moves forward.”
- BOOK NOW: Energy & Power 2025
Henri Murison, chief executive of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, added: “Research by Cambridge Econometrics has shown we need around £7bn a year of private sector investment in energy generation technologies across the North to meet future energy demand, create skilled jobs in supply chains, and fulfil our net zero commitments.
“This project will help meet the growing electricity needs of both Lancashire and Greater Manchester over the coming decades to charge electric vehicles, power heat pumps, and support industry.
“Onshore wind will help cut bills by reducing our reliance on gas, which, as the war in Ukraine demonstrated, leaves families and businesses vulnerable to global price shocks.
“It is possible to strike the right balance between the concerns of local communities and protecting nature while delivering the energy infrastructure we all depend on.”
The existing Scout Moor comprises 26 wind turbines at a height of 100 metres from the ground to the blade tip.
Scout Moor Two will be located next to the existing facility to take advantage of established infrastructure and grid connectivity.
The project team includes Turley, Fluid, Dulas, Stephenson Halliday, Pell Frischmann, AOC Archaeology, Air Quality Consultants, Atmos, TNEI, Virtual Planit, EGIS, Lexington, and Charlotte Leach Communications.
Completely irrelevant numbers. It will never operate at full capacity as sometimes the wind doesn’t blow and other times it blows too much and they have to be turned off
By Eco Realist
We overlook Scout moor , there were promises made re various restoration projects last time round , none of which were ever done .
By Wislon
….and we’re supposed to be grateful?
By Anonymous
Two fingers to Donald Trump and his Reform mates in the UK. Good stuff
By Anonymous
The numbers are not ‘completely irrelevant’. The calculations of how many homes equivalent are powered by the wind farm factors in the amount of time it doesn’t operate at max capacity (if you actually read the assessment). Wind farm sites of this scale are rarer in England than they are in Scotland and Wales, so it’s important this gets approved.
By Anonymous
Brilliant news, the country needs many more wind turbine projects. The sooner we’re not reliant on the likes of Russia for our power the better.
By Anonymous
What a waste of time and space
By Anonymous
God bless Trump
By Anonymous
Shove these bird killers up ur backsides
By A nature lover
Bad idea. Wind power is just hot air.
By #Realist
This has to be good news, hopefully it will be given consent and construction can begin soon. Over the last twelve months wind power has been the biggest generator in the UK, bring it on 😁
By Jonathan Lincoln
Not very pretty, but we need to get energy prices down, so the UK can start to be competitive in manufacturing and people can afford to be warm in winter – Get it built!
By GetItBuilt!
More More More. The sooner we’re self-sufficient the better.
There should be a blanket temporary approval for all green infrastructure until we’re self-sufficient and off fossil fuels. Once we’re passed that then we can look at efficiency, then remediation.
By Anonymous
What is wrong with some of the people commenting on here. These things will totally ruin the area. Would be much cheaper to be investing in oil gas and coal for cheaper energy prices and not spoiling the nice countryside
By James
People in the uk are starting to wake up to the lies about renewable energy bringing bills down, in fact, its just the opposite renewable energy causes bills to rise exponentially because we pay for the freebies given to energy companies by the this government and the one before to encourage them to invest on renewable resources, without the taxpayer subsidies it would not be viable.
This is also just the start we will continue to pay through the nose for so called renewable cheap (that’s a laugh) energy for the next 30 years and bills will not go down they will continue to rise fortunately the next government is most likely to be reform and they will stop this ridiculous net zero rubbish that has been peddled throughout this country for the last 10 years.
By Mf
No to wind farms.. I totally agree with Donald Trump.. They look awful, cost a lot of money, kill wildlife
By Paul rogers
I hope they are planning to upgrade the grid infrastructure in and around that area as well, as currently they are having to pay the wind farms off due to lack of grid capacity, demand and energy storage.
By Daniel Carter
It will be a blot on the landscape .Should not go ahead .Spoiling the countryside for neglible energy .
By Anonymous
A few things. How much land is required to produce the equivalent fossil fuel energy output? The blight on the landscape for miles around. 100 metres, what an eyesore. Destruction of the land and nature.
True carbon cost, manufacturing, shipping of infrastructure, concrete requirements and of course the total inconsistent nature of the weather and the absolute necessity of backup energy because of the frequency, latency and reliability of the energy source. Don’t believe that fossil fuels require backup? This isn’t the answer for future energy, pointless.
By KA
People who believe that energy prices will come down as a result of onshore wind and solar must still believe in the tooth fairy!
By Anonymous
Turbines and solar farms will not make any difference to energy price. Price is governed by lucrative feed in tarifs which are linked to the highest priced energy input to the grid. The whole issue of energy generation and pricing needs to be re written to favour the people and not just the suppliers. All in favour of green energy, but not greed energy. Also, why is the north always favoured by wind and solar energy investors? Surely the nations energy should be overseen by the government, which is accountable, and not just investors, who are driven by profit alone.
By Anonymous
This will help fight climate change and improve energy security.
By Susan
Complete waste of money
Not the answer to our future energy needs
Expensive, unsightly and not recyclable.
Very bad mistake
By Anonymous
Should be nuclear wind farms old hat not economical only last25 yrs nuclear works 24hts a day not just when wind blows
By Phil hancock
This is the reason our bills are the most expensive in the world wind is so useless you need gas back up and huge subsidies they kill birds destroy trees can’t be recycled for the biggest con in. History
By Anonymous
Firstly scout moor infrastructure was built with the intention of adding more. So why the £12 million per turbine price tag.
Is this another HS2 con trick?
By Wind martin
Readers may notice that government and energy companies have now dropped the phrase cheaper energy. Anybody thinking in terms of lower bills is living in cuckoo land. Ed Miliband has taken a decision against zonal energy bills for those people living near wind farms which would have resulted in lower bills. The only real winners are developer’s and energy companies subsidised by the bill paying public.
By Andy B
Every single thing the Labour Party has done since they came into power has been idiotic and based on flawed ideology. Every one of their front bench is a dangerous Idiot. Milaband needs a strait jacket!
They are driving Britain into ruination. It breaks my heart.
By Anonymous
Last year I walked through dozens of these monster turbines, accidentally, to walk through some woodland. They make a non stop droning noise.! Remember No birds or wildlife can exist around them I heard not a single birdsong
The wood around these monsters was deathly silent. How sad! I’m shocked that the British are totally ignoring the I.minent destruction of our beautiful magical landscape and all that exists on it. GOD HELP US.
turbines on the edge of a wood in Cumbria.
By Fran Frankland
Domestic cats kill way more birds than wind turbines.
By Anonymous
Good news, another step in the right direction, reducing carbon emissions.
By Anonymous
Don’t tell Donald Trump
By Catherine Foster
Wind turbines produce cheaper energy than gas and oil. Don’t believe the nonsense from Reform UK who haven’t got a clue.
By Anonymous
Get fracking. It’s safe, proven and secures our energy mix whilst renewable technologies are improved.
By More Anonymous than the others
Another blot on the landscape, the blades on these are not recyclable, so what do we do with them
By G Taylor
There is no shortage of offshore wind sites around the UK. This article fails to mention the size of the proposed turbines, but if they are anything like the 600ft latest generation of offshore turbines the impact will be massive. If they are smaller they are much less efficient. Either way they should go offshore.
By J Fisher
This article has clearly been shared on some anti-wind turbine forum somewhere. Wildly uninformed comments. We need more projects like this as quickly as possible. I agree we should be cutting the red tape and granting automatic consent for developments like this. There must be a presumption in favour of sustainable development that addresses the climate emergency and provides energy security.
By Anonymous
Wind farms are the modern Middle Ages. Everyone is abandoning this technology. In the English climate, these farms are useless. It’s the last country in the world to waste money on these windmills.
By James
This should never be allowed….. The current turbines are already an eyesore, and additional infrastructure will damage vulnerable peat bogs which are a CO2 sponge…..
By Mark Storer
The life expectancy of these turbines is limited and removal when they no longer function will leave problems with disposal of the towers and turbine blades which cannot be recycled. The land on which they are built will be left with the massive concrete bases leaving the land unusable and a further eyesore.
By Anonymous
A hideous blot on the landscape and an unreliable and intermittent source of Electricity etc.As you can be sure this won’t be cheap if anthing the complete opposite but all those involved in the project will be making loads of money paid for by the taxpayers and in our electricity bills
By Anonymous
There is an argument that offshore wind is better than onshore but wind is better than coal and gas when it comes down to the environment. The British Isles are some of the windiest places on earth, so using what providence has given us is wise. Battery storage for energy for this intermittent source is good (we need more of it). And all energy sources have some wasteful byproduct.
There is one source we should pursue even more strongly. And it’s always on. Nuclear.
For sovereign energy, its nuclear plus renewables for me.
By Anonymous
Fact is renewables are quick to scale up and legacy energy plants etc are expensive and can take decades to build. This is a good start. Need to follow in the footsteps of Spain which has far cheaper electricity due to the use of renewables.
By Anonymous
Get them built, then build more! Until we are off fossil fuels, we need more not fewer of these.
By NIMBYs
I did not realise that the production and installation of wind turbines had such a massive environmental impact until recently. It will take over 30 years to off set the greenhouse gases produced during production and installation and these turbines only have a 20-25 year life span. How is this green technology?
By Graeme
@Graeme – that’s objectively false. A complete fabrication.
By Anonymous
Installing solar and wind can be a great idea but only if pumped storage, hydrogen generation, or as a last resort , batteries, are constructed at the same time. THINK!
By David Butler
Do we need any more ? The country is regularly paying vast sums of money to the generating company’s to turn them off, as we are often producing too much energy. It’s just crazy “Ed’s dream that’s costing us billions and keeping you energy bill high.
By Mike Ashworth
Sorry Graeme, but you have either read incorrect information or you are making it up, either way you are talking nonsense.
By Anonymous
Could power.
By Neil
Mike Ashworth , it’s not Ed’s dream costing us billions it’s our reliance on dwindling oil and gas reserves. Renewable energy is efficient and cheaper than fossil fuel.
By Anonymous