Error message

  • Deprecated function: Methods with the same name as their class will not be constructors in a future version of PHP; views_display has a deprecated constructor in require_once() (line 3146 of /home/aswarorg/public_html/includes/
  • Deprecated function: Methods with the same name as their class will not be constructors in a future version of PHP; views_many_to_one_helper has a deprecated constructor in require_once() (line 113 of /home/aswarorg/public_html/sites/all/modules/ctools/ctools.module).

Previous Letters of Objection Page

Letters and/or emails of objection are vitally important to winning the rejection of permission for Churchover windfarm and the precedent it will set for others. They influence the planning officers, particularly when lots of them are written individually rather than as a standard letter.

We give below

  • who to write to
  • what reference information you must give
  • some suggestions of words you may like to use

These words have been taken from Planning Inspector summaries when rejecting other windfarms up and down the country and we believe they are all relevant to Churchover.

The two areas of effective objection are:

  • A) Environmental/visual/noise/cultural heritage impacts   
  • B) windfarms are not a good way to save the environment 

Everybody, wherever they live, should write an objection either by letter or email. It can be short or long. You can write as many letters as you want on different or additional subjects. The more relevant the arguments the better.

Do pass this correspondence on to friends and your computer contact list and ask them the favour to send an objection by email or even better by letter. 

A basic standard letter is given at the end for those who do not have the time to individualise a letter.

The planners are human beings(!), and can be swayed, so be as personal and emotional as you like, while including at least one or two points which are clear grounds for objection from a planning law perspective as given below

You do not have to live locally for your objection to be relevant and helpful. The more the better from all round the country.


Who to write to/email

Nathan Lowde
Rugby Borough Council
Town Hall
CV21 2RR        

His email is

You can also write in addition to members of the planning committee:

(If you send an email objection, please 'blind copy' (bcc) so that we can monitor and make sure objections don't 'get lost'.)

You must give the following information:

  • Planning application number R12/2009
  • Your name, address and date

Suggestions for the content of objection letters

A) Environmental/ Visual / Noise / Cultural Heritage Impacts

Remember that application is not just for the wind turbines, but also for the new roads to link them together, a building to house transformers, new power line connection, a bridge over the River Swift, etc. IE an industrial site.

Here are some of the things that the Government’s planning inspectors have said about very similar windfarms too close to villages and individual houses. They may give you some useful ideas. Within planning law no-one has a “right to a view” but everyone has a right to acceptable living conditions, which include the right not to be dominated or overwhelmed by a wind power station.

  • unavoidable, unpleasantly overwhelming presence of rotating turbines spreading both horizontally and vertically across a substantial proportion of their main outward field of view
  • would feel like living in or at a wind farm, rather than simply having a turbine cluster close by…”
  • the outlook from the whole of this small community would be dominated by their unavoidable presence, whether seen as a complete cluster, individually or just in glimpses of moving blades. In this case it is the spread of the turbines rather than their height that would be so visually invasive as to make the settlement a less satisfactory place in which to live than it is now
  • a unique and particularly compelling importance attaches to maintaining the peace and tranquillity of [churches’] surrounds and the quality of views to, from and of them that are religiously, socially, architecturally, historically or visually important to the community
  • turbines could, be found so pervasive as to disrupt those seeking solace in quiet contemplation in a churchyard, particularly directly after bereavement
  • and with little or nothing by way of intervening screening, living conditions would be demonstrably harmed by significant and over-dominant visual impact
  • the low but clearly identifiable spire of the Church is a significant landmark in itself, enabling the eye to alight easily on other visible parts of the settlement and providing a clear reference for the scale of buildings within it. The turbine cluster would effectively become a broad and eye-catching backdrop to this charmingly Arcadian scene. The contrast in height, modernity and character between these very different structures in such close juxtaposition would be jarring
  • would result in the loss of prominence of the spire from the surrounding area. The proposed turbines would be dominant in views of the Church spire which would be lost behind the turbine or at least dwarfed
  • its vertical scale and blade sweep would have an harmful impact on, and fail to preserve the setting of the Church
  • I consider the panorama of tall rotating turbines would be overwhelming, obtrusive and unavoidable to the residents of these properties such that their amenities would be unacceptably impaired
  • the consequences here would amount to far more than a loss of a view; the outcome would inevitably be the creation of unacceptable living conditions

Other points that might be helpful:

  • Site selection – why here, near a village, rather than somewhere more remote?
  • It will seriously damage the landscape of the Valley below Churchover.
  • Where are the turbines going to be, exactly? The application gives the locations but allows 50m (160 feet) flexibility so they could be even closer to houses than promised.
  • Will seriously damage the setting of Churchover’s conservation area and listed buildings
  • Will seriously damage the rural cultural heritage of Churchover by imposing an industrial-scale development far too close
  • Noise likely to be unacceptable, both at the many homes within 1.5kms, and when walking and riding along foot/bridlepaths, sitting in gardens, etc and particularly at night when background noise is quiet.
  • Looming over public footpaths. The rotating blades, each 46m [150 feet] long will be less than 230ft from some footpaths and feel nearly overhead.
  • Think of walking, fishing, riding, that close to wind turbines
  • Will last for 25 years, at least. Can't be guaranteed they'll be taken away and the ground restored after that time. It will create 'brownfield' land and the rural idol of Churchover, seperating Lutterworth from Rugby, will be lost forever.
  • The beautiful, ancient ridge and furrow will be destroyed.

Loss of property value is not a planning matter, so it doesn’t help to mention it.

B) Windfarms are not a good way to save the environment

Some will feel that the UK ought to be moving towards a “low carbon” economy. Arguing that question will not be relevant. What may help though, is to ask if wind turbines are a good way, or the best way, to do that? Apart from the subsidies, which we all pay through our electricity bills, increasing fuel poverty, are there better or less damaging alternatives. What about other things that Rugby could do – geothermal, solar photo-voltaic panels (domestic or warehousing?), incineration, better building insulation, anaerobic digestion etc,?

Remember, what the Borough Council has to do in reaching its decision on whether to refuse or allow this application, is to decide if the damage to the environment is outweighed by the need for renewable energy. Daventry Council said a few weeks ago, when refusing a wind farm at Watford:

“Whilst generally the wider environmental and economic benefits of Renewable Energy projects is acknowledged as a material consideration, it is considered that the benefits of this particular scheme are outweighed by the harm done to the living conditions of occupants of these residential properties.”

So, when writing to Rugby Council, get across the idea that “saving the environment” by building windfarms that damage the environment, is NOT a good idea!

Basic standard letter

Here is a basic standard letter below and click here for a simple one for printing-off  :

Dear Mr Lowde,

Re: Churchover Wind Farm R12/2009

I am writing to express my strong opposition to RES’s application for the construction of four industrial wind turbines in excess of 125 metres in height (plus access roads, a mast and other buildings) in countryside north of Churchover. 

The application is completely unacceptable to me because:

(NOW insert the three to four bullet points from the list below that reflect your chief concerns, prioritised as you see fit)

  • The proposed turbines will have a dominant, intrusive and oppressive visual impact on the surrounding deeply rural, intimate, human-scale landscape.
  • They will ruin the setting of the 1,000 year old Church, its peaceful churchyard and the conservation village.
  • It will feel like living in or at a windfarm with low Spinney to the north and Swinford to the east.
  • there will be an unacceptable noise impact on Churchover and local area residents and consequent health problems.
  • The windfarm will overwhelm the setting of the church and its spire that have dominated the landscape for 1000 years.
  • Separation distances between turbines and residences are insufficient with some homes located less than 500 metres from turbines and a significant part of Churchover village lies within 1,000 metres.
  • The cumulative impacts with surrounding wind power schemes will result in a wind farm landscape being created.
  • The applicant has overestimated the power that is likely to be generated and the associated carbon emissions savings.
  • The vast majority of local people including local Parish Councils oppose this development.
  • The applicant has failed to address the impact on the cultural heritage aspects of Churchover conservation area, other cultural assets and risks to potential archaeological sites including Cestersover medieval site and associated ridge and furrow.  
  • The applicant has failed to address concerns regarding bird flight corridors particularly for water fowl that are abundant on the river or to provide adequate protection for bats. There is generally inadequate survey and protection of the local ecology.
  • The valley and Churchover are presently a rural buffer between Rugby and Lutterworth. A windfarm will create forever a 'brownfield' industrial sprawl across this beautiful rural idol.

Please respect the views of local people and reject this planning application when you consider the matter in due course.

Yours sincerely

Your name

Your address

Planning application and documents

The plans & associated documents can be viewed online at