Norwegians expect wild landscapes to remain wild. Fred Olsen is a Norwegian company. But they are planning to build an industrial-scale wind farm on a narrow corridor of land between the North Pennines National Landscape and the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Although it technically sits on the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales, it imposes its presence up to 30 kilometres into the National Park.
Such a development could not be built in their home country of Norway because Norway’s national parks — and the wilderness zones that surround them — are governed by one of the strongest conservation frameworks in Europe. Under the Norwegian Nature Diversity Act:
- industrial infrastructure is prohibited,
- road-building is tightly restricted,
- the overriding aim is to preserve wilderness character.
To my knowledge, there are no industrial-scale wind farms inside any Norwegian national park, nor in immediate areas adjacent to them. The idea of placing 200-metre industrial structures within sight of Hardangervidda, Jotunheimen, or Rondane would be regarded as politically unviable and subject to overwhelming opposition.
This is not just a legal matter; it reflects a deep cultural value — friluftsliv — the belief that access to unspoilt nature is essential to national identity, psychological wellbeing, and collective heritage.
The UK’s most culturally significant uplands carry similar expectations
Just as Norwegian culture does not accept industrial intrusion into their valued landscapes, nor do most people in the UK. There are many cultural similarities between our countries, including our ecological and environmental values. Whilst UK National Parks operate under a slightly more flexible planning system than their Norwegian counterparts, the cultural expectation is remarkably similar. The Yorkshire Dales, the North Pennines, and the high moors between them form part of Britain’s national identity in much the same way as Norway’s high plateaus.
Most UK residents and international visitors assume these landscapes will remain largely unchanged. They are places where horizons stay open, skylines remain unindustrialised, and the visual integrity of the land is preserved. This is why people visit them: these uplands are the physical expression of a national landscape tradition.
In this respect, the UK and Norway share the same cultural instinct, even if the regulatory tools differ.
Fred Olsen’s different standards across borders
Fred Olsen could not build the Hope Moor scheme in Norway — because of its scale, proximity to a national park, the sensitivity of the upland environment, and the sheer dominance of 200-metre turbines on the skyline. Such a proposal would fall far outside what Norwegian regulators or the Norwegian public would accept near their protected landscapes.
Yet the company is proposing exactly this scale of development in the UK’s most culturally important upland setting. For a developer that emphasises environmental responsibility and respect for local landscapes, the inconsistency is difficult to ignore. The natural question then arises:
Why do Fred Olsen apply different landscape standards in the UK than in their home country, Norway?
Once that question is visible, the issue is no longer about local opposition. It becomes a matter of cross-border principle.
A widening gap between stated values and proposed actions
There is a misalignment between Fred Olsen’s declared values and their operational behaviour in the UK. Their values are reflected in their behaviour in Norway, where industrial structures of this scale would never be placed within the setting of a national park or protected wilderness area. But it is such a development that they are proposing for the UK.
Fred Olsen’s attempt to build an industrial-scale wind farm at Hope Moor does not fit the values they adopt for their home country. The proposal reflects an assumption that the UK uplands are more permissive, or carry less cultural significance, than Norway’s — an assumption that is supported neither by UK planning principles nor by public values.
The most straightforward explanation is that Fred Olsen has misread the UK’s cultural relationship to its upland landscapes. The relaxation of onshore wind policy does not mean “anything goes”. The values that protect Norway’s landscapes exist here too.
A coherent path forward
The UK and Norway share the same landscape values. Fred Olsen is likely misreading the UK by assuming it is more permissive. Therefore, their proposal will probably fail — due to a combination of planning law and public opinion — once people realise the scale and consequences of the plan. But it need not get that far, if Fred Olsen recognise that the UK’s upland landscapes express the same cultural values as those they uphold in Norway. Then, the most coherent course of action is to withdraw.
This would not be a retreat. It would be an affirmation that the company applies the same landscape principles abroad as it does at home — a demonstration of consistency, respect, and responsible stewardship. Ultimately, the decision to reject this proposal will be made by the UK public and government. But Fred Olsen could save a lot of time, money, and stress by recognising the mismatch between this proposal and their own values.
Over to you, Fred Olsen.