The title of this blog highlights a hidden cost of Fred Olsen’s proposed wind farm that is in danger of receiving no attention: the mental-health impact of industrialising one of the nation’s most restorative landscapes. The debate around wind turbines nationally usually turns on carbon, grid capacity, energy costs or planning law. In the case of Fred Olsen’s industrial-scale wind farm on Hope Moor, the developer will also examine the trade-offs with ecological and environmental concerns — for example, arguing they are outweighed by the efficiency of 200m turbines.

But in the case of the proposal for a wind farm on the edge of the Yorkshire Dales, there is another important factor that we must not overlook — the nation’s mental health. There is mounting evidence from research that unspoilt natural landscapes support the nation’s mental health. When a proposal threatens to fundamentally alter one of those landscapes, the consequences are more than aesthetic. The UK is already in a mental-health crisis, and the Fred Olsen wind farm would push us further in that direction. And this mental-health dimension is almost always overlooked.

Fred Olsen — through its renewables division — is proposing to build an industrial-scale wind farm on an ecologically sensitive high ridge on the edge of the Yorkshire Dales. Although the turbines themselves would not be located inside the National Park, their visual impact would extend deep into it, making them visible from a wide area of the Dales as well as several other protected landscapes.

Fred Olsen have also used misleading images to represent their plans, and given the project the benign-sounding name Hope Moor Wind Farm. Throughout this article, I refer to the scheme as the proposed Fred Olsen industrial-scale wind farm at Hope Moor, because this analysis concerns the reputational implications for the company, not the ecological assessment.

Given that the wider Fred Olsen Group also operates Fred Olsen Cruise Lines — which promotes sustainable and heritage-based travel — this raises questions about how consistently those values are applied across the Group’s businesses.

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.