When the wind blows

Sir: Matt Ridley’s article ‘Blown apart’ (3 December) highlighting the wind-farm delusion touches only lightly on the planning process. Where he does focus on planning in England, he states that there is no ‘ban’ on onshore wind farms, only the standard planning requirements that they are confined to areas designated for that purpose, with community support a vital component. In Scotland decisions on wind-farm developments under 50 megawatts are taken by the local planning authority. Major developments over 50 megawatts are determined by Scottish ministers. 

Assessment of both scales are based on interpretation of planning regulations, which is a subjective matter. Two planning officers looking at the same document can reach opposite conclusions.  

Local opinion can be measured by the scores of letters of objection submitted by members of the public and local groups. There are usually some letters of support – mostly from vested interests or those who will receive ‘community benefit’.

In due course the application comes before the planning committee with a recommendation by the case planning officer to allow or refuse permission. The applicant has the right of appeal against refusal; objectors do not. If planning is refused, the developer usually exercises their right of appeal which will be decided by a ‘reporter’: the representative of the Scottish government. If the reporter decides to grant planning permission, the only recourse objectors have is to appeal to the court of session; a costly process which is seldom exercised. 

Of the eight major manufacturers of wind turbines worldwide, four are in China, two in Germany, one in Denmark and one with factories in France and America. The only employment provided is in batching concrete for the bases and erecting the turbines. Labour is often from overseas so no spin-off benefit there. 

Graham Lang

Scotland against Spin, Ceres, Fife

Brexit’s direction

Sir: I read ‘In defence of Brexit’ (26 November) at the same time as I read a report in the Times that Goldman Sachs was moving London-based derivatives traders to its Milan office. The movement of city employees from London might be a trickle now but it is a trickle in one direction only. If we as a country have one field where we have been pre-eminent it was in financial services. The government managed to do a deal with the EC which protected our fishing industry – an industry which is virtually irrelevant to the UK economy – but managed to ignore financial services. 

I should have known that the incompetence of the government generally would lead to a situation such as this. As stated in your editorial, it is obvious that the fact that ‘a clear course for Brexit Britain has not been charted is a failure of historic portions’. Nor does it appear that either the government or the opposition have any idea what that course should be. On the day after the Brexit vote, I met my daughter (a City lawyer) who was absolutely incandescent at my decision. She did not mince her words. Nearly seven years on she was right and I was wrong. There is no defence to Brexit. 

John Heller

Bishop Monkton, North Yorkshire

Proof required

Sir: I congratulate Ross Clark on his excellent article describing the lax registration process for companies registering in Britain and for pointing out the appalling handling of those registrations by Companies House (‘Funny business’, 19 November). My own experience confirms his findings exactly. In January I received two letters from HMRC about a limited company using my private address and giving me a Unique Taxpayer Reference (UTR) for corporation tax and a company tax return. 

I won’t dwell on the correspondence that followed between me and Companies House other than to say the problem was not resolved until nine months later, in September, after letters to my own MP and to Companies House CEO Louise Smyth. 

What is striking about the process is that registration of a company in Britain requires no verification by Companies House of the information provided. Following my initial complaint to Companies House, explaining that a bogus company was using my private address, I received a response asking me for six documents of information, among them evidence to show my rights to my address, a utility bill, a Land Registry deed dated within the last 12 months, and a written agreement allowing me the right to my address (which I have lived at freehold for 40 years). The director setting up the bogus company is not required to provide any information at all regarding the address he has provided. If they can ask me for all that information, why not ask the director applying in the first place? 

Let’s hope that the upcoming Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill gives Companies House the powers it requires to register companies and action complaints properly. It certainly is not doing so at the moment. 

Euan Black

Harpenden, Herts 

Perfect parody

Sir: Writing about ’Allo, ’Allo, Neil Clark suggests that the comedy show ‘wasn’t really taking the mickey out of the war’ (‘Divine comedy’, 26 November). In fact it was parodying another BBC offering, the drama series Secret Army, which had been screened not that long beforehand. Which made it all the funnier.

Simon Broad

Sawston, Cambs

Valiant Jeremy

Sir: The article today by Jeremy Clarke (26 November) is exceptionally poignant and well written. I do hope he knows how valiantly he is doing.

Peter Facey

Owslebury, Hants

The post Letters: Brexit is indefensible appeared first on The Spectator.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in