Your Say - Monday 12 November

Haven: One reader is worried about the implication of Moor Park getting English Heritage status
Haven: One reader is worried about the implication of Moor Park getting English Heritage status
Share this article
Have your say

Special status may not help area

I attended the conservation area meeting at the Bowling Green Pavilion, Moor Park, on October 24. My main reason for attending was to clarify what changes would take place in Moor Park and how it would affect me as a dog walker.

I was told there are no changes due with regard to dog walkers.

Also there isn’t going to be any noticeable changes with regard to the terraced houses in the catchment area of Moor Park as the council already considers these homes ruined by unsympathetic renovation, namely plastic windows etc.

Giving permission to install plastic windows and build extensions sympathetically may be discretionary on the part of the council, as other houses in the area may be the deciding factor. Apparently no sympathetic renovation would be ordered by the council in an area that is already awash in plastic windows etc. as they would consider this be pointless.

There are other areas of conservation in Preston that have gone to rack and ruin due to the lack of upkeep by the council. I am not convinced that Moor Park would be any different. I did explain to the council rep that it was in my experience that once English Heritage moved into an area, things changed and not usually for the better. One of my concerns would be that house prices, rent and leases would rise, I put this thought forward and the reply I received was “That isn’t necessarily a negative thing”. I did tell her it would be a negative thing for the people who had to move out due to not being able to afford to live there any more. Silence...

S Binns, Preston

Wind farms not in line with policies

Friends of the Earth’s letter (letters October 24) is unrealistic and does not appreciate the planning criteria that has resulted in the refusal of planning permission for three wind turbines in South Ribble.

It does not matter what members of planning committee may personally feel about wind turbines, it is their responsibility to ensure each planning application complies with the Nation Planning Policy Framework, Central Lancashire Core Strategy and the Local Plan.

The three turbine applications failed to meet this requirement. The planning committee also needs to ensure the application does not present a risk to safety, or diminish the environment of nearby residents. The MOD and BAE Wharton have objected to the applications as they would affect the safety of the radar system, also no proper noise surveys had been conducted. These flawed applications had to be refused, there was no other option.

In their letter, they say Dr Benny Hill ,of the Global Warming Foundation, and John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation, are not environmentalists which is completely untrue.

They are realists who are not blind to the many problems of wind turbines. Any true environmentalist would not agree to the erection of commercialised wind turbines, close to residential properties in a green belt. To try to belittle the work of Dr Nina Pierpont is uncalled for. Her book Wind Turbine Syndrome is taken seriously by those who are concerned about people’s welfare before commercial gain and is now the subject of a number of articles in medical journals. To say the condition does not exist because it is not recognised by the NHS carries no weight, as it took them nearly 20 years to recognise the condition of ME. If all the large grants and subsidies spent on wind turbines were used to advance renewable energy projects such as tidal power then we would have a really reliable and sustainable green energy.

Mark Sutton, Walmer Bridge

Scale of turbines will harm view

We are writing to offer our support to the growing concern amongst local residents who are opposing the application of a commercial wind turbine at Handlesteads Farm, Chipping. We like many others have submitted our objections. The site of the proposed structure is surrounded by hills and viewpoints: Parlick Fell, Jeffrey Hill and Beacon Fell.

All three are vantage points that are visited for the iconic views of the Forest of Bowland and surrounding areas. We believe that a structure of the size and scale of the one proposed would have a serious impact on the beauty of the landscape and the vista which is enjoyed by so many.

Mike and Lynn Jepson, Chipping

The views from all three vantage points are often used in the support of tourism for the area. If a turbine of the size and scale proposed is erected the views of the area will be dominated by this large man-made structure detracting from the natural beauty that the Ribble Valley Council and the residents of the area are justifiably proud to promote.

By definition the area is one of outstanding natural beauty and visited by hundreds of thousands of people each year.

The iconic landscape and tranquillity of the area provides a special attraction in rural Lancashire. This will be at risk if proposals such as this are allowed to go ahead.

Whilst we aren’t against the utilisation of wind power and the need for renewable energy sources we strongly feel that the impact of commercial ventures must be balanced against the impact of the surrounding area.

We feel very privileged to live in an Area of Outstanding National Beauty and want to ensure that it’s preserved for everyone for many years to come.

Further information can be found at

Mike and Lynn Jepson, Chipping.