Keeping it in the family, Dartmouth style

The curious case of the wind farm planning application at Slaithwaite Moor, that named one of the landowners as wind-farm opposing UKIP MEP, William Dartmouth (aka The Rt Hon William Tenth Earl of Dartmouth, aka William Legge), which we have written about here and here, has taken a new twist today.

This blog’s enquiries and questions about William Dartmouth being named as an owner of the land in question has prompted further enquiries by others, which have resulted in the following statement by Lord Dartmouth. issued by the UKIP Press Office this afternoon and reported by the Huffington Post:

Statement from William Dartmouth MEP re wind turbines in Kirklees

08 April 2014

I am issuing this statement in response to [social] media interest in a planning application to Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire for three wind turbines to be built on Slaithwaite Moor.

I am not the applicant.

I do not own the land in question.

The land which is the subject of the planning application is owned by a relative.

I derive no benefit, financial or otherwise, from the land as it stands, nor would I if the planning application were successful.

An adjacent piece of land, which is owned by me, was erroneously included in the application. This strip of land would not be involved in the wind turbine application in any shape or form.

As a UK Independence Party MEP I fully endorse the party policy to oppose onshore wind turbine development.

The reason that the name Rosscroft Ltd appears on the above planning application, as well as in relation to land which I do own, is that they represent the entire extended Dartmouth family as well as many other clients.

Lord Dartmouth is clearly hoping this draws a line under the matter.  But, while there is no suggestion of any illegality, Dartmouth’s statement raises further questions given his party political policies and the information he has released:

  • This appears to be the first time that William Dartmouth has mentioned that the land in question is actually owned by a member of the Dartmouth family.  Did he not think it relevant to mention this when UKIP asked him about the matter following complaints from residents in the area?
  • The transfer of the land from William Dartmouth was to Rosscroft Limited as shown on form TP1.  Yet Dartmouth says the land is owned by a relative.  Does this  mean therefore that the offshore-run company, Rosscroft Limited, is actually a Dartmouth family-owned business?
  • Although William Dartmouth explains he will derive no benefit, financial or otherwise from the land now or if the planning application were successful, does he accept that a member(s) of the Dartmouth family would derive financial benefit if the wind farm planning application is successful?
  • As Lord Dartmouth says that land which is owned by him was erroneously included in the application, when did he (or his agents Carter Jonas) raise this serious error with Kirklees Council, as no correction has been made in the five and a half months since it was submitted?
  • Valley Wind Co-operative say on their website that after many years of searching for the best site for a wind farm in the Huddersfield area, they found a suitable location at Slaithwaite Moor, above Slaithwaite & Marsden. They say that Valley Wind Co-operative was formally created in 2009, to take the idea forward.  This was while William Dartmouth was still the owner of the land in question. Did Valley Wind and William Dartmouth therefore discuss the proposals for a wind farm while he was the land owner?
  • Is it a mere coincidence that the land transferred to William Dartmouth’s ‘relative’/Rosscroft Limited in 2011 just happened to be the parcel of land Valley Wind had identified as the best site for their wind farm, while adjacent land remained under his ownership?
  • Was Valley Wind’s interest in the land for the wind farm a consideration in the land being transferred to William Dartmouth’s ‘relative’/Rosscroft Limited?
  • Was there any political motivation on the part of William Dartmouth to distance himself from involvement with a wind farm by transferring the land to a ‘relative’/Rosscroft Limited, thus ensuring a Dartmouth family member would still stand to gain financially from a successful application?
  • Is it a mere coincidence that all the directors of Rosscroft Limited were replaced by offshore individuals and companies shortly after Valley Wind’s pre-application enquiry about the wind farm and before the formal application was made?
  • Will William Dartmouth, having influenced his ‘relative’/Rosscroft Limited over the plans for Cupwith Reservoir, now seek to influence their acceptance or rejection of a wind farm on Dartmouth family-owned land, or will he oppose the wind farm application as an adjacent land owner even though his ‘relative’ stands to benefit from financially if it was approved?

In the absence of clear responses, the public will draw their own conclusions about this matter, which seems to be far from over.


12 Responses to “Keeping it in the family, Dartmouth style”

  1. 1 cosmic 08/04/2014 at 10:17 pm

    Good questions and I have no doubt that Lord Dartmouth can provide satisfactory answers.

    In the absence of such answers one is bound to speculate whether it would be proper for prominent member of UKIP to pass title of a piece of land for zero consideration to a family member, or family trust, in what must have been the fairly certain knowledge that it would be used to generate income from an activity of which both he and his party thoroughly and rightly disapprove.

  2. 2 Geoff 09/04/2014 at 6:26 am

    If it is true that the parcel of land is now owned by a relative, surely it is not Lord Dartmouth’s business what is done with it. If that relative makes money out of the transaction, that does not necessarily mean that Lord Dartmouth will benefit. If a relative of mine made money they would not necessarily pass it to me! The rest is fantastic stuff

  3. 3 DaveC 09/04/2014 at 8:38 am

    Bloody hell!!!!! Slippery bastard. He can’t support wind farms because Ukip opposes them so he gives away a load of land to a “relative” and make the company offshore to hide who owns the land. Then they can agree to the wind farm being built and the family still gets the money even if he doesn’t get it personally!

    Best of all he can tell Ukip “nothing to do with me I don’t own the land”. Bloody aristocrats are all the same. Forget Downton Abbey, this is You Can’t Catch Me Abbey!!! It’s a policy dodge. Can’t Farage see what’s happened here? The stench of hypocrisy makes me want to puke.

  4. 4 Richard North 09/04/2014 at 12:25 pm

    Did his dog eat the deeds?

  5. 5 Dave_G 09/04/2014 at 1:17 pm

    It may be ‘dodgy’ but it isn’t illegal. Fortunately the MASS of UKIP candidates can’t compete with the likes of him – unlike the majority of our existing politicians who ALL seem to have a toe dipped in the subsidy tank.

  6. 6 cosmic 09/04/2014 at 1:45 pm

    @Richard North,

    No, his relative’s dog ate the deeds.

  7. 7 Simon 09/04/2014 at 4:10 pm

    Just means I won’t be voting UKIP as they are the same as all of the other parties. Is funny how the MSM smear UKIP with all sorts of rubbish stories but with something genuine like this they haven’t picked it up yet….usual level of research from the children in the media

  8. 8 fenbeagleblog 09/04/2014 at 4:13 pm

    Don’t bring dogs into it.

  9. 9 Bruce 11/04/2014 at 8:29 am

    Keep after these hypocritical in-breds and take ’em down!

  10. 10 Mark Wadsworth 15/04/2014 at 9:21 pm

    Good stuff, keep up the good work. From your earlier post you pointed out that he had gifted the land to the company.

    Yours truly,

    The Tenth Mr Wadsworth.

  11. 11 3x2 16/04/2014 at 6:35 pm

    The land which is the subject of the planning application is owned by a relative.

    Ah, glad that’s all cleared up then. UKIP, bullshitting the acolytes since the ‘Party’ first worked out that the acolytes would believe that they were somehow ‘different’.

    Now that the acolytes are beginning to recognise that they are not voting for something ‘new’ – we can all relax.

    UKIP – Sleaze, deception and swelling bank balances for all.

    Tut, tut … and I thought they were a ‘real alternative’ to our regular ‘politicians’. Ho hum.

  1. 1 Dartmouth: Skewed priorities and poor judgement | Autonomous Mind Trackback on 18/04/2014 at 12:40 pm
Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: