Neil Kinnock opposes wind farm 32 years after defeating an earlier application on the same site

Martin Shipton

More than 30 years on from opposing the building of a wind farm in his old constituency, Neil Kinnock is backing campaigners who are fighting a new application at the same site.

The former Labour leader – now a member of the House of Lords – was MP for Islwyn from 1970 until 1995.

In 1994, a large wind farm was proposed on Mynydd Maen, within his Islwyn constituency. Lord Kinnock strongly supported the local opposition group and successfully fought the proposal, saving the mountain from development.

In late 2024, a further series of energy developments was proposed for Mynydd Maen. Two applications – the Mynydd Maen wind farm and the Trecelyn wind farm – are currently being decided by Siân Gwenllian, Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning. The Minister is considering the two proposals together, as they are adjacent to one another on the mountain and plan to share a grid connection with a recently consented solar farm on the same ridge.

If the two windfarms are consented by the Minister, Mynydd Maen would be covered by a large, interconnected energy park comprising multiple interlinked developments.

Members of the Mynydd Maen Action Group have met Lord Kinnock at the House of Lords to discuss the current proposals. He confirmed that his opposition to industrialisation of the mountain remains as firm as it was in 1994.

On the question of how to balance the urgent need for renewable energy with the protection of landscapes, communities and habitats, Lord Kinnock said: “We will not get a successful transition, an industrial revolution, a technological gigantic leap if we haven’t got the consent of people and the understanding of people. And that doesn’t mean that we should travel as the

slowest ship in the convoy or allow people just to impede for the sake of it. But not taking people into consideration is a stupid sabotage of the progress that needs to be made.”

One of the key leaders of the opposition in 1994 was Gail Williams. Gail’s daughter Rose is a member of the present day Mynydd Maen Action Group and asked the questions during the meeting with Lord Kinnock.

Ms Williams said: “Mynydd Maen is once again the focus of a major wind farm proposal, this time on a much larger scale. You have said that the mountain is still worth protecting from industrialisation. Do the reasons that led you oppose the development in 1994 still stand today?”

Despoilation

Lord Kinnock responded: “It’s a slightly different location but it is a despoilation of the countryside. There’s no doubt at all about that. If it was going to generate 5,000 jobs, we’d have to take that into account. Obviously, if it was going to result in much lower energy costs, we’d have to look at that. Neither is going to happen. It is just a completely unsightly intrusion that’s going to be ugly from a distance and uninhabitable close up. So that means that the proposal

itself contravenes just about every Welsh law on the subject of social and environmental well-being that’s ever been introduced as well as the policy regimes of both the local councils.

“So the proposal is unsustainable in terms of legal compatibility. And completely unacceptable on the grounds of human habitation and the hundreds of people that would be directly affected from the first moment, and the thousands more who would be indirectly but seriously affected.”

Lord Kinnock added: “Obviously like the Action Group I support the pursuit of net zero. To get there is a totally practical objective and it’s absolutely necessary for ourselves, but most of all for our children and grandchildren. But there are ways of going about it and this isn’t Nimbyism. This is safeguarding the future-ism and I think we ought to safeguard the future.”

Net zero

Asked how he thought we should balance the urgent need for renewable energy with the need to protect treasured landscapes, habitats and communities, Lord Kinnock said: “We’ve got to pursue net zero and all sensible people agree upon that. I mean, there are cranks like the President of the United States and one or two others who object to it. All science is on our side and it’s grim. It’s very very grim.

“Only the present can ever protect the future. And that’s the sacred duty of the present. We can honour the past. We can respect the past. But it’s our duty to safeguard the future. And that means that while we pursue environmental security, which is vital, we’ve got to do it in a way that isn’t sacrificing the amenity of the present and the future.

“But it’s a general rule of common sense and morality to insist upon conformity to standards that safeguard the people. There’s two reasons for that – very very important reasons.

“The one is the way we help to safeguard the future. We’ve got to maintain the infrastructure that makes the future worth having. So that means we look after the assets that we’ve got. But the second reason is, we will not get a successful transition, an industrial revolution, a technological gigantic leap if we haven’t got the consent of people and the understanding of people.

“Now it’s entirely compatible to pursue net zero, to safeguard the environment, to protect the existing condition of the landscape and the people who live near and around and see to it that progress has consent. And in that sense the Mynydd Maen project and the civic widespread objections to it are a test case. They prove how you achieve those compatible objectives and do it with public assent.”

Advice

Asked what he would say to the younger generations who care deeply about both tackling climate change and protecting the landscapes they call home, Lord Kinnock said: “I offer advice warily, but I do unavoidably offer it to the young generation. Keep on insisting on both of those standards: pursuing net zero to safeguard your future and your world and your countryside and your community and your country and your family. Keep on doing it.

““But also insist on safeguarding the things that are worth keeping, because we’d be silly and shortsighted to sacrifice them – even for a decent objective which could be reached, it’s the whole point, by other totally acceptable means. So that’s what we’ve got to do.”