Ten years ago, there was a planning application for a single wind turbine that would have been closer to my home than the proposed Hope Moor Wind Farm. I remember seeing the notice on the lane and feeling a flicker of concern. But on reflection, I chose not to object. It was small-scale, sensitively placed, and part of what most of us would recognise as sensible progress towards renewables.

When I first heard of the Hope Moor proposal, I assumed it was something similar — akin to the spread of windmills in Holland between the 12th and 16th century. But the more I looked into the proposal, the more my concern deepened.

To support Fred Olsen Renewables’ proposed wind farm in North Yorkshire, they have produced a website with images that make the turbines look as little as 30 metres high. However, buried in the detail it says the real ones would be 200 metres.  Yet developers are required to make accurate images, to give communities an honest sense of scale and prominence.

Nothing on Fred Olsen Renewables’ Hope Moor webpage appears to meet those standards. Why has the company got their images so wrong — and why does it matter?

There are two possibilities. Either the Hope Moor images are inaccurate by accident or by design, but both possibilities raise serious concerns. If it is by accident, it raises questions about Fred Olsen Renewables’ competence. If they’re misleading by design, it raises questions about their integrity. This article investigates these two options in detail and evaluates the implications for democratic decision making.