Re: Menwith Hill USA National Security Agency SIGINT Station: Application for single garage at Building 111

This Planning Application for a single garage at the USA Base Commander's bungalow has been advertised, under the provisions of DoE Circular 18/84, as being of such significance that a consultation procedure has been established and representations invited from members of the public.

We are invariably informed in similar circumstances, that our 'observations will be taken into consideration by the Council, before the decision is made'. This infers that the Council is able to decide to grant or withhold consent. In fact the 18/84 procedure is a hypocritical pretence to maintain the appearance of a democracy. It allegedly exists to protect the public, but in reality it removes the power of veto from the local authority.

Recently a number of structures of far greater significance than a single garage have been erected inside Menwith Hill without any pretence of seeking planning clearance through the 18/84 consultation process. These include buildings, antenna systems, generators, security fences, security gates and sentry boxes. In addition to this is the unauthorised installation of CCTV cameras, which keep the area outside the station under surveillance, contrary to the Human Rights Act. There is also unlicensed disposal of waste on the station.

Alice Mahon MP, in support of our complaint about the unauthorised developments at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, raised the issue with the Secretary of State for Defence. She received a reply from Dr Lewis Moonie, Under Secretary of State for Defence, which states:

'…although various developments have taken place at Menwith Hill 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. Other development has also taken place within the permitted development parameters of the relevant GPDO, but even on those occasions we have informally liaised with the Borough.'

I still await a reply from my response to Lewis Moonie's letter, sent to P L Hill of the Defence Estates Agency Secretariat on 31st March, in which I queried the GPDO:

'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 protection 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?'

Representatives from the WoMenwith Hill Women's Peace Camp(aign) would welcome an opportunity to discuss the matter further. It may be that we have expended our efforts making complaints about issues over which, in practice, the United Kingdom public, local and national governments have no control.

A copy of this letter will be sent to Alice Mahon MP, requesting that she enquire why my letter of March 31st to Defence Estates remains unanswered.

Yours sincerely,


Anne Lee.  pp WoMenwith Hill.

Cc:
Alice Mahon MP
P L Hill, Defence Estates Agency Secretariat.
C Duke, Defence Estates Agency [North].
C Marling, Liaison Officer, Defence Estates, Installations Support, Building 33, Menwith Hill NSA Station.
D Myers, Directorate of Installations, USA HQ, Building 29, Menwith Hill NSA Station. Sean Morris, Secretary, Menwith Hill Forum.
N Kingsnorth, Yorkshire CND, 22 Edmund Street, Bradford.