Womenwith Hill Women's Peace Camp[aign]
c/o 8, Somerville Terrace,
East Busk Lane,
Otley.
LS21 1HS

1st April 2002

Thank you for your letter dated 23 February about RAF Menwith Hill and RAF Fylingdales.

While you do not seem predisposed to accept the explanation, I can only repeat that the measures taken at the two bases were designed solely  to improve the security of the bases in the light of recent events (i.e. anti-protester measures in response to Greenpeace invasion of Menwith Hill & anti-terrorist measures in response to Sept 11. AL). It seems that I must also re-emphasise the point that the UK Government has received no request from the US for the use of facilities in the UK for missile defence purposes, and nor have we indicated how we would respond to any such request if we were to receive one. (how many more times are they going to repeat this? AL)

You suggest that planning regulations have been ignored at RAF Menwith Hill. In fact, although various developments have taken place at the base, we have taken great care to ensure that when the development requires planning consultations (i.e. it is outside the boundaries of a General Permitted Development Order - GPDO) we fully consult with Harrogate Borough Council using the 18/84 procedures. On the rare occasion the 18/84 submission has been retrospective - to deal with a temporary situation which we later wished to make permanent - this also has only been done after consultation with Harrogate Borough Council. Other development has also taken place at the site which has not required formal consultation because it falls within the permitted development parameters of the relevant GPDO, but even on these occasions we have informally liaised with the Borough. (my emphasis AL)

I note that you are compiling a report about planning issues. We look forward to seeing its findings.

Finally, you ask about "oversight" at RAF Menwith Hill. I can tell you that public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the base is provided by clear lines of Ministerial responsibility. Government Ministers are briefed fully on the activities at RAF Menwith Hill as a matter of course, and visit the base as part of their normal pattern of Ministerial duties. Additionally, you will be interested to know that British staff are fully integrated at both senior and junior levels with both the operational and administrative areas of the base. (& how many more times are they going to repeat this? AL)

Yours sincerely, P L Hill

REPLY:

Your ref: D/DE(AS)5/2/0266U

Our ref: BTCOFM/com0007/MHS230202

31st March 2002

Defence Estates Agency Secretariat,
St George's House,
Blakemore Drive,
Sutton Coldfield.
B 75 7RL

Dear Philip Hill,

Re: Menwith Hill/Fylingdales: unauthorised security upgrades:

Pursuant to the information contained in the 3rd paragraph your letter of 25 March 2002, describing something called a General Permitted Development Order - GPDO , I must confess never to have heard of such, nor has anybody else to whom I have enquired. I am therefore seeking information about where I may peruse a copy of the GPDO.

I understand that the DoE Circular 18/84 procedures are designed as a safeguard for the public. I am not aware that these provisions may be sidestepped by designating unauthorised developments as 'General Permitted Development'.

I have compiled a file of information detailing occasions on which the provisions of DEO Circular 18/84 have been flagrantly contravened at Menwith Hill. I have had considerable correspondence with the Harrogate Borough Council Planning Office, but of course they are not responsible for contraventions of the 18/84 requirements. Some of the complaints I raised were rectified; to others I received no response.

In 2000 I took a case to the Local Government Ombudsman. My complaint was that there was no public authority with responsibility for oversight of unauthorised developments at Menwith Hill. I was greatly concerned with protecton of the environment, particularly in relation to a colony of rare orchids, but the arguments about scrutiny/responsbility also applied generally to the absence of control over Menwith Hill's operations and expansion.

Why should it be dependent upon me, or other members of the public, constantly to be raising these issues? It is evident that there is no official oversight at Menwith Hill. Your final paragraph is not true in practice.

The reality is that developments at Menwith Hill are decided by the United States' Department of Defense National Security Agency [NSA] and the plans are prepared by their design engineers without consultation or reference to the UK Defence Estates Agency. The plans are then conduited through the UK Defence Estates Office [North] - DEO [N] - at Catterick Garrison, which is then the ostensible applicant. Notice of Proposed Development is submitted by the UK DEO [N]. Do they look at the plans?

Unless the US NSA chooses to inform them, I suspect that your Land Agents at DEO [N] are not aware of any other developments, which you have covered with the 'catchall' phrase 'General Permitted Development'. Is anybody from DEO [N] responsible for ensuring that what is on the ground at Menwith Hill complies with the records in the Harrogate Planning Office?

How may I make objection to the new structures if the local Council does not know about them?