Background

As its website tells us, the North Pennines National Landscape is:

…a stunning landscape of open heather moors and peatlands, attractive dales and hay meadows, tumbling upland rivers, wonderful woods, welcoming communities, intriguing imprints of a mining and industrial past, distinctive birds, animals and plants and much, much more.

[It] is also designated as a UNESCO Global Geopark, in recognition of world-class earth heritage shared through education, interpretation and visitor information….

…UNESCO Global Geoparks are places where outstanding geological heritage is used to support sustainable development, through conservation, education, interpretation and nature tourism. Within the Global Geoparks Network, Geopark staff and partners collaborate to share ideas, raise funds, promote each others’ areas and carry out projects. The North Pennines has been a Global Geopark since 2003, and the initiative became a full programme of UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) in 2015.

Hailing from the north east of England, many of my childhood summer holidays were spent in this very special area of the country, especially Weardale, Teesdale and upper South Tynedale. I still regularly go walking in the north Pennines, though having shifted my home to Cumbria, I’m now more likely to be found in the hills above the Eden Valley. Some of the last wild places in England are to be found in the north Pennines, and when walking its high land I regularly see bird life that’s under threat generally – such as curlews, lapwings, hen harriers. It’s important to me, and it should be considered very important to the nation generally. There’s more to it than that, of course – much more. As the website makes clear:

The North Pennines has 40% of the UK’s upland hay meadows; contains 30% of England’s upland heathland and 27% of its blanket bog; is home to 80% of England’s black grouse; is a place to see short-eared owl, ring ouzel, snipe and redshank; has important habitats – 36% of the AONB is designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; has red squirrels, otters and rare arctic alpine plants; is the upland England’s hotspot for breeding wading birds; enjoys peace, tranquility and fabulous night skies; boasts England’s biggest waterfall – High Force in upper Teesdale

These days it’s under threat from the (often foreign) predatory wind farm companies, of course (where isn’t?). Even the Guardian seems to doubt the wisdom of building wind farms in this wonderful landscape. An article from earlier this year was headlined “‘It makes no sense’: the battle over plans for a windfarm by the Yorkshire Dales”. This is a reference to the wind farm proposed by Fred Olsen Renewables (100% owned by the Norwegian stock listed company Bonheur ASA) at Hope Moor. It’s opposed by Ian Botham, climber Alan Hinkes, and local MPs, including Rishi Sunak. The local opposition group is doing a great job at generating publicity and opposition. Even the BBC has published several articles on its website that are much less enthusiastic than is normally the case at the BBC when it comes to renewable energy. See here, here and here for example (all from last month).

In its review of 2025 the North Pennines National Landscape says:

Locally, there are two huge wind farms being planned for our moorlands in the south of the National Landscape, Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which we believe would be in total conflict with the policies which protected this landscape, and the neighbouring Yorkshire Dales National Park. There has to be a way to address climate change, with the right technology in the right place – and this surely isn’t it.

The Haystack (the Management Plan)

That’s fairly clear, then, and it makes a refreshing change. As does its newly-published Management Plan. The section dealing with legislative and policy context notes that the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that planning policies and decisions should [inter alia] recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Paragraphs 189 & 190 refer specifically to National Landscapes and they confirm that the scale and extent of development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), (as National Landscapes were known until recently) should be limited; the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not automatically apply within AONBs (where the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, OR where any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole); and there is a presumption that planning permission should be refused for major development in AONBs other than in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

It also refers (as it must) to the Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3) and notes:

Developed under the Climate Change Act (2008) and covering 2023 to 2028, NAP3 states that all Protected Landscape must have a Climate Change Adaptation Plan by 2028. Such a plan, focused on working with nature to adapt to our changing climate, will form a formal appendix to this management plan and will be consulted on accordingly.

That’s about it so far as climate change is concerned. Happily, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act (2023) amended S.85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act (2000) to place a new duty on Relevant Authorities to seek to further the purpose of designation in National Landscapes, rather than simply having a duty of ‘regard’ as previously. This, as the Plan notes, is a significant, beneficial change. Then there’s “30 x 30”, under which governments around the world (including the UK government) have committed to protecting 30% of their land area by 2030. As the Plan says:

Protected Landscapes such as the North Pennines, and their dedicated teams and partnerships, are at the forefront of national work to conserve, protect and restore nature-rich habitats across our landscapes.

Consequently, the Plan says:

The approach in the North Pennines should:

• identify wildlife-rich areas, protecting them and preventing damage from drainage, pollution, pesticides, ‘nature-negative’ management, over-exploitation, invasive species, disturbance, and habitat destruction, and manage them to enhance biodiversity;
• buffer and link core sites, and manage nature, to support a connected and resilient ecological network; and
• restore wildlife richness to its pre-industrialised farming baseline across the wider landscape by, for example, fostering management of land for multiple objectives, investing in approaches that maximise nature recovery alongside food production, allowing natural processes to flourish, and creating structural diversity.

It’s difficult to imagine industrial-scale wind farms playing a part in all this. For the sake of completeness, the Plan also notes the implications of the government’s Environmental Improvement Plan and Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) in England, as established under the Environment Act 2021.

So far as I can see, the Plan contains only a single specific paragraph headed “Adapting to a changing climate” (plus one headed “Green finance aspirations”, and two short sections (see below) on climate change and climate adaptation and mitigation. In the section about implementing the previous plan, there are 19 bullet points, most dealing with nature enhancement and education. Only one (or two, at most) can be said to have anything to do with climate change – management of wildfire risk by estates and over 14,000 ha of peatland restoration. The section dealing with core principles contains 13 paragraphs, of which only one is climate change-related:

Responding to climate change through nature-based solutions
Adaptation and mitigation efforts should focus on the multiple benefits that nature-based solutions can provide (e.g. flood management, carbon sequestration and landscape resilience from things such as peatland restoration, and managing river systems to store water etc), in preference to engineering and major energy generation schemes.

Significantly, the reference to other policies in preference to engineering and major energy generation schemes will be noted. This is reinforced by two other paragraphs, representing core principles, as follows:

Managing landscape change responsibly
While change is inevitable, it must be guided carefully to avoid harming the area’s distinctive qualities. Decisions should respect and protect what makes the landscape special.

Balancing the benefits
Actions which are intended as beneficial should not have perverse consequences – they must not bring one environmental benefit at the expense of another (potentially greater) one. Examples might include not planting trees on species-rich grasslands, on peatlands or where waders would be adversely affected, or not siting climate-friendly infrastructure where it damages nature, heritage and landscape character.

And then we read the coup de grace when it comes to those who would say that the plan should be – or is – largely about the appropriate response to climate change:

Climate
The North Pennines is as prepared as possible for future climate challenges.

Habitats store and absorb carbon effectively. Despite some inevitable impacts, nature, cultural heritage and access infrastructure are in the best possible condition to withstand climate change at this point.

It could hardly be made any clearer. This lengthy plan is about nature, wildlife, and protecting what is there from depradation and despoliation. The North Pennines are well-prepared for climate change. The plan doesn’t much need to talk about what needs to be done in this respect, because there isn’t really anything that needs to be done. And keep your nature-blighting wind farms away from here please. The planning guidelines embedded within the plan aren’t exactly sympathetic to wind farms:

The NPPF encourages LPAs to promote renewable energy development and identify suitable sites to support the transition to a low-carbon future, including community-led initiatives. However, this support must be balanced with other planning considerations, particularly the need to conserve and enhance the natural and historic environment. The LPAs must also further the purpose designation of the North Pennines National Landscape.

Impacts

Negative effects

Wind turbines and associated power lines can erode the wilderness experience of moorland landscapes. Turbines and power lines may detract from clean, sweeping skylines otherwise free of vertical structures. Rotor movement and turbine noise can disrupt the tranquillity of the landscape. Sensitive habitats, archaeology, and protected species (e.g. wading birds) may be harmed by development or construction activities. Turbine and track construction can damage peatland, releasing carbon and reducing future carbon storage capacity. Watercourse quality and biodiversity may be affected by artificial river engineering, generating plant infrastructure, or associated works Large structures such as wind turbines, biomass plants, and chimneys may be out of scale with their surroundings. Industrial-style buildings and structures may conflict with the rural character of the area…. Infrastructure such as tracks, substations, fences, overhead cables, and service poles can add visual clutter and affect biodiversity and archaeology.

The Needle (climate change)

The Plan runs to well over 80 pages, and it includes planning and design guidelines which themselves run to 170 pages. It includes significant sections dealing with a host of complex issues, such as planning and design, landscape character, geodiversity, nature enhancement and recovery, dark night skies, cultural heritage, access and engagement, and yes, climate adaptation and mitigation. It’s fair, I think, to say, that the latter represents a small (arguably a vanishingly small) part of the Plan. A couple of sections, here and here deal with climate change generally (8 short paragraphs, including recognition that “Climate change is accelerating many of these [environmental processes] impacts (and perhaps retarding others)”; and climate adaptation and mitigation (also running to no more than 8 paragraphs). The authors of the Plan had no choice in this respect, because as one of the latter paragraphs states:

The Third National Climate Change Adaptation Plan (NAP3), 2021, requires there to be a Climate Change Adaptation Plan for all National Landscapes and National Parks, by 2028. This is still in development but in the meantime the Management Plan brings forward a series of suggested measures that are known to be beneficial for climate adaptation without compromising the area’s natural beauty in its different forms.

The fact that the Climate Change Adaptation Plan is still in development might suggest that the authors have not considered it to be at the top of their list of priorities.

Yet a recent report on the BBC website, about the introduction of the plan, is headlined “Countryside managers prepare for climate change”. It truly is extraordinary how the BBC can manage to ensure that climate change is the core of stories that have very little, if anything, to do with it. According to the BBC report:

Climate change readiness and helping people access the countryside are among priorities in a five-year plan for a national landscape.

I suggest that’sclose to misinformation. They are both mentioned (the latter probably more than the former), but as we have seen, climate change readiness is hardly a priority within the plan. And the BBC compounds this misinformation with a twist on what the plan actually says:

Work to ensure the North Pennines was “as prepared as possible for future climate challenges” included restoring peatland to help reduce flooding and equipping farmers with wildfire fighting equipment such as drones.

This turns on its head the way the plan is worded and prioritised. The plan doesn’t talk about “Work to ensure the North Pennines was “as prepared as possible for future climate challenges”” but instead says “The North Pennines is as prepared as possible for future climate challenges.” [my emphasis]. There’s quite a difference – all the difference in the world, in fact. I encourage all readers to read the BBC report and then read the plan, and to consider whether the BBC report represents a fair summary of the plan. In my submission it most certainly doesn’t. It ignores huge swathes of valuable and interesting work about safeguarding nature, and doubles down on the BBC’s obsession instead, an obsession which does not appear to be shared by the authors of the plan. The authors of the plan are, however, painfully aware of the damage that can be caused to nature by well-intentioned but problematic attempts to “deal with” climate change:

However, there are also risks of harm to nature from well-intentioned action on climate. For example – planting a bioenergy crop or coniferous woodland where broadleaf woodland or natural colonization by scrub might have been a viable alternative. So, alongside and integrated with urgent action to tackle climate change, more action is needed to allow nature and natural processes to recover.

Nature-based solutions such as peatland restoration are applicable to climate change adaptation (and through their sequestration benefits, mitigation) as well as to the delivery of other public goods such as nature restoration, but they are not a substitute for absolute cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and there is concern that long-term greenhouse gas removal projects can and do deter short term emissions reductions. Even so, locally such initiatives should not be at the expense of the quality and character of this nationally protected landscape and its biodiversity.

Conclusion

Needless to say, these caveats are not mentioned by the BBC report. Also not mentioned are the numerous references to the need to avoid siting wind farms in the area covered by the Plan (“Avoid the siting of tall structures such as masts, pylons and wind turbines in the [particular] landscape generally.”). The authors of the report are also anxious to discuss the nature crisis, and they point out repeatedly that “…the urgency of nature recovery is not so widely acknowledged as the need to address climate change.” This, needless to say, was omitted from the BBC report, as were the contents of upwards of 95% of the Plan. Of course, the BBC couldn’t, in a short article, sensibly summarise the whole plan. But it could have focused on the parts of the Plan that were given priority by its authors. Instead, as inevitably as night follows day, it chose to emphasise only those topics which fall within its proselytising agenda. How many more reasons can the BBC give us for not trusting its reportage?