Windfarms threat to 
East Riding

THE Campaign to Protect Rural England has been increasingly concerned about the targeting of the East Riding of Yorkshire by wind turbine developers. This particular form of renewable energy is blighting the landscape, despite the best efforts of ERYC.

Government policy confusion encourages wind developers to make applications almost regardless of landscape impact or the suitability of the site.

The East Riding has been overwhelmed by the number of applications and CPRE Yorkshire and Humber is seeking support from local MPs to lobby the Government to develop a strategic plan-led approach which recognises landscape capacity, including the cumulative impact of onshore wind turbines.

We also want to see more power given to local authorities seeking to protect the landscape character through their local plans and in planning decisions and we will fully support ERYC in any efforts it makes to wrest back some control over local planning decisions on wind turbines. Were we all being naïve when we thought the Localism Act was intended to give local people more say over local planning decisions?

The proliferation of wind turbines across the region have increased calls by CPRE members for a major re-think by the Government on this particular form of renewable energy, which we all pay for in inflated energy bills, and has such a huge impact on the visual landscape.

From: Michael Green, Baghill Green Tingley, Wakefield.

YOUR correspondent Ron Firth (Yorkshire Post, April 1) asks that the extremely important subject of global warming should be publicly aired with equal time being given to both sides of the argument.

Not a chance, I am afraid. The one thing that marks out those who believe that mankind is solely to blame for climate change and should be penalised for it, is their determination to prevent the contrary argument from being heard.

If they were so convinced that the evidence is consistent only with their own viewpoint, than I would have thought that they would be only too willing to participate in a proper debate and show the rest of us up for the fools they believe us to be. Instead, they dismiss every opposing opinion as not worth wasting time on.

Which makes one wonder whether they are really as confident as they claim to be.

From: David T Craggs, Tunstall, East Yorkshire.

some days ago, in my role as a local parish councillor, I received my complementary booklet from Dong Energy, the contractor for the Westermost Rough offshore wind farm, to be constructed eight kilometres off the Holderness coast of Yorkshire.

The booklet states that the 35 turbine farm will generate up 
to 210MW, enough to power some 210,000 homes. The investment will be in the region of £800m.

As I studied the figures, I got to thinking. If 210,000 homes (including all those in my and adjoining parishes) could be identified and the residents persuaded to contribute just under £4,000 from each household, what they would probably pay for their electricity over roughly four years, they would in effect own the entire wind farm.

From that point on their bills would be zero over the 25 year life of the wind farm, apart from possibly a small maintenance charge.

So why isn’t such a scheme encouraged? Isn’t wind 
free? We’re always being 
told so. Or am I missing something?

At last, tribute to Prince

From: Ivy Good, Long Street, Thirsk, North Yorkshire.

YOUR Editorial (Yorkshire Post, March 11) was headed “Prince 
of the Countryside” and, 
at last, paid tribute to the 
Prince of Wales, and others, 
who try to promote the countryside, environment and the farmers. I obtained from 
the public library a CD 
prepared by the Prince and 
a collaborator.

Dictated by the Prince, it is enlightening and superb. Can 
this be made essential listening for every school pupil in the country?

That, and more competitive sport, would counteract the unhealthy obsession of a whole generation to stare at TV and computer screens, bewitched by modern technology, causing obesity, eye strain, lack of health and individual character.

Injured denied representation

From: Simon Wilson, Coordinator for the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), Yorkshire, Slater & Gordon, Charlotte Street, Manchester.

I AM appalled by Government plans to force hundreds of thousands of injury victims to argue their cases in court without a lawyer.

The Government wants to increase the number of road traffic accident cases heard in the small claims court. But this court is designed for people to represent themselves, rather than have legal assistance.

This means if someone crashes into your car, injuring you or your family, you will have to go to court with no legal advice and argue against fully qualified lawyers defending the person whose negligence caused the injuries.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) knows from experience that people can be seriously under-compensated in these circumstances as, of course, any insurance company’s first duty is to its shareholders.

It is completely unfair and makes a mockery of justice.

It’s a classic David and Goliath situation with people unable to recover the money they need to get their lives back on track.