Some other Objections sent

Below is a selection of individual objections to the Swift Wind Farm planning application already sent to Rugby Borough Council.

(Note: Some phrases have been emboldened by the editor)

Visual impact on Cotesbach

I wish to register an objection to this planning application on the following grounds: 

There is no proven economic justification for wind farms especially in light of intermittent winds inland in the UK. 

There will be a profound visual impact to our village Cotesbach and the area generally. 

The Holy Trinity Church which is an economic asset to the area will be dwarfed by the huge turbines. 

There has been intense wind farm construction in the area in many different sites which is unfair on local inhabitents. 

Yours faithfully 

John McDermott


Rugby Ramblers

Rugby Ramblers oppose all Wind Farm developments.  There are numerous footpaths close to the site and the enjoyment of our members would be destroyed by this monstrous development.

Stephen Crosby,
Footpath Secretary,
Rugby Ramblers


Son of Churchover

I write with reference to the proposed wind farm developments in the vicinity of the Swift Valley at Churchover, Cotesbach and Pailton.

If these plans ever came to fruition, they would create the greatest upheaval since the enclosures of the 18th Century. Back then, these also wrecked the lives of the local inhabitants who became helpless victims of the vested interest of the day.

For there is essentially no difference between big business riding roughshod over ordinary people in the 1700s and the same greed-driven motivation of the 21st century. Onshore wind technology - much of it funded by the taxpayer - has become a gravy train for individuals who care little about the environment but a great deal about their bank balances. Despite a growing suspicion that such developments not only despoil large swathes of countryside for very little discernible environmental benefit, large companies are still pressing ahead with plans for projects across the country. It is now high time local authorities started to wake up and smell the coffee and throw these applications into the waste bin where they belong.

Regarding the Churchover application, this is what's at stake. The ruination of a beautiful valley and its wildlife; the noise and other forms of disturbance caused by turbines five times the height of Holy Trinity Church; the destruction of mediaeval ridge-and-furrow meadows; the loss of amenity value; the despoiling of a vital green lung between the M6 and Lutterworth; plummeting property values; and the desecration of land that was once home to two figures from history, the religious reformer John Wycliffe and the regicide John Dixwell, squire of Churchover and a signatory to the death warrant of Charles 1.

I was brought up in Churchover. They say that the child is father to the man - nothing could be more apt as far as I'm concerned and that is why I want to see this area of north Warwickshire preserved for future generations.

Yours sincerely,

John Phillpott
(freelance journalist and author),



There is no question this application should be refused. One of its opening statements says “The principal purpose of the Proposed Development [sic] is to produce electricity by harnessing from wind,…” This is a false and misleading statement. When refusing the application, the council could advise the applicant that making such statements is a criminal offence under the amended section 194 of the 1990 Act. The principal purpose of the turbines is to extract in excess of £million a year in subsidies from the public through their electricity bills. In order to prove this, after the applicant have given the traditional eco-warrior and saving-the-planet statement at the planning committee meeting, please ask if they would go ahead if they were paid – as the overwhelming majority of suppliers are - the market rate for electricity? The answer will of course be no, confirming the principle purpose as greed, which conflicts with public interest and the borough’s clearly stated operating principles.

The application fails more so in the second of the six key operating principles of the council’s corporate strategy. It says: The council will provide “Environmentally sustainable developments.” Given that these are the guiding principles for everything council officers and councillors do, this application falls at the first hurdle. There is nothing sustainable about the application. As structures, turbines serve virtually no purpose; they rely utterly and completely on back-up from other sources of electricity, plus they have a parasitic load. Further, they cannot function without subsidies from an already over-taxed public; and these indirect taxes will not last.

One of several actionable statements of the application is “There will be a displacement of carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of conventional fuel sources through the generation of renewable energy.” The application offers no evidence of any kind to qualify this false and misleading statement. Hardly surprising as it is not true. Peer reviewed research shows that spectacularly inefficient and uncontrollable wind turbines actually increase CO2 emissions because of their need for even more fossil fuel based back-up.

Perhaps conscious of new legislation introduced by the Eric Pickles concerning the need for community consultation, the applicant undertook a truly awful consultation process. Of 16,500 people who “..received a direct invitation to attend..” open days, just 109 or 0.6% attended. This shows a feeble attempt to communicate. Before this application goes any further, the council should ask for proper consultation and results. If for example the applicant hired a very large hall; and in the interest of balance had a speaker for and against the application, it would be standing room only.

It is hard to not laugh out loud at the planning statement. The authors have cherry-picked statements from various policies. Presumably they must think council officers are unfamiliar with the rest? The authors should learn that when they cherry-pick, they must first check that the tree it is not a lemon.

Philip Sullivan


Cumulative impact

I Maria Mousley of  Pailton,  object to

  • Planning application number R12/2009

On the grounds that turbines contribute little if anything to reduce CO2 emissions and are staggeringly poor value for money

In this particular instance they will have a negative cumulative impact on the landscape.

Please acknowledge this objection.

many thanks
Maria Mousley



I am mailing you with some views on the application for wind turbines to be erected in the Swift  Valley, surely this proposal cannot be considered worthy, it is identical to the rejected application from September 2011, what has changed?

It is to be built on agricultural farmland, at a time when the country needs to produce more food to feed a growing population.

The applicant admits on the planning application that this development will affect, in their words---protected and priority species important habitats, biodiversity features, and designated sites. Surely these are enough reasons to reject this application.

Add to that the risk of flooding, which will affect the surrounding area, the close proximity to properties, the height of these turbines, which will dwarf the local church spire, the amount of turbines already visible in the surrounding area, then the evidence for refusal of this application is overwhelming.

I hope you will consider these points  when making a decision and reject this shocking re-application.

Thank you

Regards Ruth Buswell,


Detrimental to surroundings

I am contacting you to register my opposition to the proposed mast extension application (ref. R13/1269).

I am strongly opposed to the building of on-shore wind turbines, as they are grossly inefficient, and areconsiderably detrimental to their surroundings.
Yours sincerely.
Jonathan Henson