80m TURBINE: LAND TO THE EAST OF WALKER FOLD ROAD, BOLTON, BL1 7PU – Bottom of th’ Moor and more “Restoration”

They keep getting bigger

This one is 79.6m to the tip ( hub height 55,.6m) Planning application 88335/12
No further information is available on line at this time.

It is however understood that the turbine is very close to livery stables.

Horwich Parkway……… .24.8m ……….. in situ
matchmoor ……….. 34.2m …………. refused – appealed
Douglas Valley ……….. 45 m ………… refused – appealed
Chadwick ……….. 3 x 66m …………. refused (appeal and re-submission expected)
Birches Farm…………. 66m ………….. being considered 19 July 2012 (public invited) – bigger turbine application expected
Walker Fold ……….. 79.6m ………….. application received

With the exception of Horwich Parkway (Which we believe fails to meet statutory guidlines due to proximity to the rail line) all these turbines are within 500m of residential property.

Meanwhile 88209/12 | RESTORATION OF LAND BY IMPORTING SUB-SOILS AND INERT MATERIALS (TO ALLOW FUTURE USE FOR AGRICULTURE AND GRAZING OF LIVESTOCK) | LAND AT HORWICH MOOR FARM, MATCHMOOR LANE, HORWICH, BOLTON, BL6 6PR

The application which would see materials being tipped onto this site of Biological Importance. It could also mean even more lorries going up and down Church Street past the school with this waste material.

The Council’s Greenspace officer and an officer from the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit have already written in to recommend refusal.

Link to application is here

6 comments to 80m TURBINE: LAND TO THE EAST OF WALKER FOLD ROAD, BOLTON, BL1 7PU – Bottom of th’ Moor and more “Restoration”

  • Inga Horwood

    But lorries have been pouring into Horwich Moor Farm for the past year or so, dumping what looks like builders’ refuse. Matchmoor Lane by the farm entrance is often deeply covered with mud. Is this a retrospective application?

  • admin

    This is a new area – all the way to the road – destroying a fragile eco system. this is the reason green space and GMEU have objected to the application.

  • Inga Horwood

    I see – thanks! Well, then we already know how much traffic it will cause, and how muddy the road surface will get.

  • renewable supporter

    why you closed the Birch farm comments page, without putting on the evidence of a call for a 400m policy I might add?

    This site is the same as all the others then I guess and despite claims is just another anti site, the truth isnt just the the truth when it comes from awind turbine objector you know! You call for debate but you arnt prepared to live with proper facts!

  • renewable supporter

    Utter joke, you adopt a position of judge and jury on things, you have closed the birch farm and havn’t put the comments on. I am not the one confused at all, you are just not prepared to live with things that dont sit with your opinion. If councillor Kell is quoted as stating an opinion it is her opinion, who are you to judge as to what she may or may not have meant?

    bet if I had put some anti stuff on the comments would not have been closed!

  • admin

    You provide two quotes
    “The nearest houses would have been less than 200 metres away. A lot of councils have set a minimum distance of 400 metres.”
    end quote. Cllr Kell has now suggested a policy development group should look at introducing similar guidelines for wind turbines in Bolton

    “Bolton Council does not yet have a policy for wind turbines. Other councils do, and most have at least a 400-metre minimum distance.
    “This application is within that distance. We are objecting because we have genuine concerns, not because we want to object.”

    Whilst to quote your full message is likely a breach of copy right – at no point does Cllr Kell call for a minimum 400m seperation distance. It is you who have put your own interpretation on the statement.
    In any event your proposed turbine is within 400m of residential property so she is fully consistent – so you are wrong on both accounts.