Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

The right hon. Member makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right, because the decommissioning costs are not necessarily built into what the impact will be on our environment, our protected peat or our wildlife. I know that because the developers themselves say that once the site finishes its usage, parts of the development will not be removed—such as the piles, the infrastructure for the road, the foundations—but simply remain in situ.

Worse than that, however, should an additional wind farm come down the line, it will use the infrastructure that is already in place, but is likely to have to be expanded. A further real live concern is because when the application came before us, the initial proposal was for 65 wind turbines, although that has been reduced to 35 wind turbines now. That creates the real worry of it potentially being only phase 1 of a much bigger wind farm coming down the line. Therefore, once the precedent is set of an application being approved by the Government —it will be the Secretary of State who determines it—stage 2 will therefore come down the line. That deeply worries me.

I am grateful that, last week, I had the opportunity to speak with peat experts, Dr Andreas Heinemeyer, Professor Richard Lindsay, Dr Emma Hinchcliffe and Jessica Fìor-Berry, all of whom pointed to the complete lack of research and evidence about the impact of wind farm development on protected peatland. I therefore ask the Labour Government why the Minister is in favour of pushing through development on protected peatland such as Walshaw moor despite the hugely damaging impacts I have outlined in this speech.

The proposals for the Calderdale wind farm demonstrate a glaringly obvious hypocrisy that this Government show when it comes to protecting our protected, precious peatland. The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to expanding nature-rich habitats such as peatlands. The Minister for Nature herself has repeatedly called our peatlands “this country’s Amazon rainforest”, so why do the Labour Government continue to support completely destroying them—when other options are available—given the scale of this development?

The development is being considered a nationally significant infrastructure project, so it will be the Secretary of State who determines the application. I ask the Minister, however, why have this Government permitted the developer to undertake its statutory consultation right now, during a period when the two local councils, Bradford council and Calderdale council, are in the middle of all-out local elections and cannot comment because of purdah? Will the Minister seek to extend the statutory consultation period, as I have requested of the Secretary of State? I ask all watching this debate who agree that this development will be catastrophic to participate in the consultation, which is open right now.

For the reasons I have set out, I am clear that this wind farm development must not be approved. My fellow Worth Valley Conservative councillors do not want it, my constituents do not want it, world-leading peat experts do not want it and I suspect the Nature Minister does not want it either, so why is the Minister enabling this proposal to continue under this Labour Government? What I am less clear on is the positions of my neighbouring Members of Parliament: the hon. Members for Halifax, for Shipley, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley. I urge them to join me in opposing this disastrous scheme.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

As the Member for Shipley and a neighbouring constituent, I want to make those listening aware that we have attended the debate and will shortly be giving our views on the proposals, as the hon. Member invited us to do, for which I thank him.

[Robbie Moore]

Perfect intervention there, but we have had an intervention from only one of the five neighbouring Labour Members of Parliament I invited to this debate, of which only two turned up. I wrote to all those Members of Parliament—crikey, it must have been about seven months ago—inviting them to join me in a cross-party consensus so that we could join forces in opposing this scheme. Despite the hon. Member for Shipley’s intervention, I am yet to hear that she is opposed to this scheme. I invite her, and the hon. Members for Halifax, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley, to join me in opposing this scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the invitation to join him in Westminster Hall today. It is always a pleasure for me to talk about the fantastic peatlands and moors in my wonderful constituency.

As we have heard, peatlands occupy about 12% of the UK land area, including many areas in my constituency: Baildon moor, Harden moor and parts of Rombalds moor. We have some wonderful upland landscapes. I recently walked up to Top Withens, which has been mentioned and has a precious place as the inspiration for “Wuthering Heights”. I took some American guests, who were very inspired by the cultural heritage in the Bradford district, which we all so enjoyed celebrating in 2025 when Bradford hosted the city of culture. I was excited to hear the first curlew of spring, one of the pleasures of walking in the upland moors, and see the lapwings doing their amazingly flamboyant mating dance.

As the hon. Member has rightly highlighted, peatlands are crucial in our fight against climate change. They store a whopping 3.2 billion tonnes of CO₂. They also reduce flood risk—something that particularly impacted constituents during the Boxing day floods over a decade ago—and support biodiversity. The Labour Government are acting to stop the decline in nature depletion.

However, as we have heard, both here in the UK and around the world our peatlands have been degraded and, according to the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, are now estimated to be a net source of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Stopping their degradation must be a really big priority. That is why I welcome steps that Bradford council has taken to scale up peatland restoration on the district’s moorlands. In 2023, some £200,000 of additional funding was committed to rewet areas of the moorland. If someone goes to walk there, they can see blocked drainage ditches and things called leaky dams, which slow the flow of water.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. She is absolutely right that the Government are committed to helping with the rewilding and restoration of our peatland. It is probably worth noting that that is done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) was a DEFRA Minister for years, so it is somewhat of a surprise that he is a new convert to the environment.

[Anna Dixon]

These investments are critical, and it is pleasing that the Labour Government are taking nature actions so seriously. In addition to those I mentioned, there is also the planting of sphagnum moss—which is quite tricky to pronounce.

Bradford has recently published its climate action plan 2025-28, which outlines its comprehensive approach to working towards a low-carbon future. I also welcome steps taken by the Government at a national level with the environmental improvement plan, which was published just a few months ago. It says that we will—

“Restore approximately 280,000ha of peatland in England by 2050”.

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member seems to be dancing around the edges. This debate is on the matter of

“windfarm development on protected peatland”

but she has not mentioned anything to do with wind farms yet. I am keen to understand whether she is for or against the Calderdale wind farm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon]

I am just coming to that part of my speech. I will first turn to wind farms, and then I will come specifically to my views on the Calderdale wind farm, which lies largely outside of my constituency.

As well as restoring peatlands, which I have dwelled on in the first part of my speech, another key aspect of the comprehensive climate plan is ensuring that we invest in renewable energy. I am proud that this Government have pledged to make the UK a clean energy superpower, and as part of that have set up Great British Energy to produce cheaper and cleaner power for our country.

I will briefly make a political point, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also did, to remind him that his party ended a lot of the support for solar power and blocked the expansion of onshore wind. In its dying days, it seemed to attempt to create some sort of green wedge between the parties, and broke what had been a long-held consensus among at least the main political parties that we needed to tackle climate change. What I have heard from him—I will give my position shortly—is that he is opposed to the development, but he has pledged his support for clean energy, which seems at odds with some Members of his party.

I shall now discuss Calderdale wind farm. I would not say it was the most overwhelming issue in my postbag, but 22 constituents have contacted me about the proposals. They rightly believe that protected peatland should be protected. I agree with them, and I think that the Labour Government, and I hope the Minister, will give the same assurance. I believe that is why there has been a recent announcement that large infrastructure must also be covered by a biodiversity net gain. I hope the Minister will explain how that would apply to this particular project, if it were to go ahead, and how we would ensure that the peat was protected.

I urge the Government to listen to the arguments made in this debate. There could clearly be major negative impacts on our precious peatlands in this area of Yorkshire, and I ask that the Government look carefully and reconsider the proposals. I agree with the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley that it would be beneficial to extend the statutory period of consultation to allow all significant organisations that wish to feed into it to have their say. I support—as I know the Labour Government do—the protection of our special peatlands. We must tackle climate crisis, but at a local level we must balance our need to drive forward clean energy with the detrimental potential impact.

[John Lamont]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Anna Dixon]

I will give way briefly; I was about to finish.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful. As I said earlier in my short comments, in my constituency I am inundated with wind farms, solar farms, battery storage and data centres. I now formally object to each of them. Previously, in my life as an MSP and an MP, I did not formally object to such applications, but the situation has gone so far and the environment has been damaged so much that I now do so. Will the hon. Lady formally object, on the council’s website, to Calderdale wind farm?

[Anna Dixon]

I am a fairly new MP, having come in in 2024. I think that the general advice given to MPs, as to the hon. Member previously, is not to get involved in formal objections. That is the approach that I have generally taken, but I have expressed views on other planning decisions in the local area, including on some of the battery energy storage facilities. I have had significant concerns about their proximity to residential areas, not least in relation to the facility in Cullingworth. I have expressed those concerns to the Minister. The proposed location of Calderdale wind farm obviously lies outside of my constituency. I have given an impression of the number of constituents who have contacted me. I will encourage them to lodge their formal consultation responses. I reserve my right to consider whether I make a formal objection to that specific proposal.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not intend to put a time limit on, but hon. Members can see who is standing to request to speak. I ask them to be mindful that I will call the first Front-Bench contribution at 3.28 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate. Since this Labour Government came to power, they have been recklessly zealous in their commitment to net zero targets over all else, not least their willingness to trash our countryside for wind turbines, ground-mounted solar and more, when far less land-intensive energy solutions such as small modular reactors would deliver our energy needs in a much more sympathetic way to our landscape, food security and natural environment.

On the one hand, the Government promise to restore our natural environment, while on the other, they open England’s protected peatlands to industrial wind farm development such as Calderdale, which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech. I wish him luck, and I support him, in his fight against that monstrosity as he sets out to protect his constituents and iconic Brontë country.

The consequence is that habitats storing more than 3 billion tonnes of carbon, formed over centuries and millennia, are now exposed to excavation, road building and the foundations of turbines. What do people get in return? They get not a ban, not a firm line, but guidance from the Government that says that deep peat should be “avoided”—a word that is not a prohibition, merely a suggestion. That will create irreparable damage to irreplaceable habitats, and it has been reduced to a footnote in a planning document.

In January 2026, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero published guidance permitting wind farm development on peatland. The national planning policy framework states that development on irreplaceable habitats, which includes a quarter of England’s peatland, should be refused, yet the Government have chosen just guidance over prohibition. It is shocking but unsurprising of this Labour Government—we find contradictions in their policymaking at every corner. Crucially, the new guidance on construction practices for wind farms on peatland has not even been published yet—the bulldozers may arrive before the policy framework lands.

That failure extends beyond one habitat. Peatlands supply more than a quarter of the UK’s drinking water and provide fertile agricultural land and habitats for rare wildlife. The Government’s secondary legislation, which came into effect in December 2025, removed the de facto ban on onshore wind, handing planning consent back to the corridors of Whitehall, rather than local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said, that bypasses the consent of local people and empowers the Secretary of State to impose infrastructure irrespective of their concerns. Given that Labour controls the levers of national Government, energy policy and planning guidance simultaneously, that should give us pause for thought: what are they trying to achieve?

The Government hold a statutory responsibility to protect irreplaceable habitats, which makes it even more important that they demonstrate visible leadership on this issue, rather than convenient ambiguity. Instead, Energy Ministers tell us that existing protections are sufficient, yet those existing protections have not prevented the guidance from being issued. The Government cannot have it both ways. Over recent years, costs imposed on rural communities by energy infrastructure decisions have grown significantly. With the expansion of the NSIP regime, increases in centrally directed planning consent and innovations in bypassing local democratic oversight, the least that those communities could expect is that their most precious landscapes would be protected.

In addition, when the science itself warns against development on peatland, the Government should be able to point to a clear policy to reflect that. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has been unambiguous, stating that “modelling…suggests” that

“emissions from the windfarm development on undamaged peatlands…will not”—

I repeat, “will not”—

“be offset by…the green energy generated.”

That is not a fringe position, but the conclusion of the body dedicated to this very question.

As ever, I would like to be charitable, but it is hardly surprising that the Government have been slow to draw a firm line when their approach to net zero treats all means as justified by the end.

[Anna Dixon]

Will the shadow Minister clarify his own party’s position? Does it remain committed to net zero, and does it acknowledge there will be a lot of nature damage if we do not make the transition swiftly to generating clean and renewable energy by 2030?

[Greg Smith]

The Conservative party has been very, very clear on that. We believe in decarbonisation, but we need to do it in a way that people can afford and that does not trash our country in the process, in the way that ground-mounted solar and these wind farms do. The points I am making in arguing that damaging untouched peatland ends up causing more environmental damage than the supposed benefits of the wind farms that those who argue for them want to put there should make every Member of the House pause. They should think whether, in getting to decarbonisation, we are not creating more problems than we are solving by simply taking the first technology off the shelf or going for the convenient bit of land that might be available to build this on. It is a totally false economy to go down the rabbit warren of saying, “It looks green, so we must do it,” rather than doing a whole-system analysis, from the manufacture of parts to the destruction of habitat, land and place across our country. That may actually reveal that the results are not as green as they look on the metaphorical packaging.

The guidance does little to help the communities living along these landscapes, the wildlife that depends on them, or indeed the climate if carbon storing habitats are destroyed in the name of carbon reduction. In contrast to that inaction, there is a straightforward solution: prohibit wind farm development on protected peatland across our country—full stop. Despite the Secretary of State holding responsibility for both energy and net zero, it is preposterous that no such ban has been enacted. It is either that the Government do not wish to constrain their ambitions or are displaying sheer negligence towards the natural environment they claim to champion.

The reality is that this is not an abstract problem. These are living landscapes that once destroyed cannot be recovered on any human timescale. We need the Government to bring forward a clear prohibition—not guidance, balance or nuance deployed as a smokescreen, but a complete ban. Without the will to protect these habitats absolutely, the peatlands will be lost, and with them 3 billion tonnes of stored carbon, a quarter of our drinking water supply and the quiet, irreplaceable richness of the United Kingdom’s upland landscape.