The Council for National Parks and the North Yorkshire Moors Association are interested in the future of RAF Fylingdales because of the impact it has on the special qualities and statutory purposes of the North York Moors National Park. It is beyond the remit of bodies concerned with the protection of the National Park, including the National Park Authority, to question the rights and wrongs of Missile Defence, nuclear proliferation or indeed early warning radar.

National Park purposes [1] are

• To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park; and
• To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park

The current structures at RAF Fylingdales have an adverse impact on the special qualities of the North York Moors National Park, particularly on the landscape and natural beauty of the National Park. Any further development of the site with even more intrusive buildings would perpetuate existing impacts and cause greater unacceptable damage to the National Park landscape.

The original golf ball structures were built in the early years of the National Park when the Park Authority was a sub-committee of North Yorkshire County Council and before the Parks had made their mark on the national culture. The whole culture of Government was different while Britain and the USA were involved in the Cold War. Despite the obvious negative impacts on the National Park, it was almost unthinkable to challenge an MoD decision to develop a particular site for defence reasons. Since the 1950s, attitudes have changed substantially, with increasing expectations of society on the accountability of Government and the role that National Parks play in the life of the UK.

It is clear in retrospect that technically there were other alternative places to site the structure. However, at this time the least political resistance to such a development was perceived to be away from centres of population at established, albeit disused, military sites such as at Fylingdales, hence the decision to build it there.

The first real opportunity for anyone to challenge the location of the facility within the National Park came in 1986 when the golf ball radomes were replaced. The Notice of Proposed Development put forward by the MoD to develop the site was severely deficient with no rigorous Environmental Impact Assessment or consideration of alternative ways of meeting the stated defence need. At the time CNP strongly objected to the proposals and raised its concerns with the relevant ministers of the day in both the Department of the Environment (DoE) and in the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The National Park Authority was in a difficult position because the MoD was not prepared to present information on alternatives which would satisfactorily have demonstrated the need for the development to take place at Fylingdales. The Park Authority was forced not to object to the proposals for the redevelopment of the site on the basis that the DoE Secretary of State was the only body with access to information that would enable it to satisfy itself that there were no possible alternative sites to Fylingdales.

Since the 1980s National Park legislation has changed with the creation of independent National Park Authorities, the revision of National Park purposes and the imposition of a duty on all public bodies, including the MoD, to have regard to National Park purposes in their operations and in their decision-making processes.

The MoD has historically had a poor record of properly taking into account the impact of its activities on the environment. There is an inherent conflict between military activities and National Park purposes. Until very recently it has been difficult to challenge MoD development proposals, as the culture within Government has been to accept the claimed overriding military need without questioning it too closely. The MoD is outside the formal planning process because of crown immunity and has successfully avoided having to justify the need for its developments by claiming overriding national need on the basis of very little evidence. CNP and other organisations have considered this to be unacceptable and for years have campaigned for a much more transparent decision-making process. The forthcoming Planning Green Paper offers an opportunity to revisit the principle of crown immunity and to attempt to bring the MoD within the formal planning process both for physical developments i.e. new buildings as well as potential change or intensification of use e.g. Early Warning System to NMD?

CNP recently participated in a long public inquiry involving the MoD’s proposed development of the Otterburn Training Area in the Northumberland National Park for training with heavy artillery. This was the first case where a military proposal was examined so rigorously in public and sets a useful precedent for the way that other major military proposals are to be dealt with in National Parks.

In July 2000 Geoff Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Defence, issued a policy statement committing the MoD to various things including to ‘carry out environmental policy appraisals of all new or revised policies and equipment acquisition programmes and environmental impact assessments of all new projects and training activities….'

Importantly the policy statement commits the MoD to following the planning system as closely as possible - 'Where the Ministry has been granted specific exemptions, disapplications or derogations from legislation, international treaties or protocols, Departmental standards and arrangements are to be introduced which will be, so far as is reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by the legislation. I will only invoke any powers given to me to disapply legislation on the grounds of national security when such action is absolutely essential for the maintenance of operational capability.'

A copy of the full statement is attached to this paper for information.

The MoD’s Estate Strategy 'In Trust and on Trust: the strategy for the Defence Estate' (2000) which came out of the Strategic Defence Review also has commitments to undertake Environmental Appraisal of new or renewed military activity/construction. The document marks a sea change in the MoD's attitude to its responsibility to the environment.

At this stage our main focus is to try and ensure that the right process is put in place to ensure that a full and proper assessment is made of the impact of any further development Fylingdales on National Park purposes. This process must also include a rigorous examination of alternatives.

The legal opinion referred to by Jamie Woolley was prepared for CNP by its honorary barrister David Wolfe and has been sent to DTLR and the MoD, in order to provide clarity on the expectations of the environmental voluntary sector. CNP believes that there should be a public inquiry to ensure that it is as transparent a process as possible and to enable the rigorous examination of the proposals, as required by PPG 7, to take place.

From our combined perspective the best outcome of any proposal for NMD involving Fylingdales would be the complete removal of the existing EWS from the National Park and restoration of the site.

A public inquiry based on the issues required by policy relating to development in National Parks could possibly provide a mechanism for the wider issue of the need for NMD to be explored. This would be beyond the remit of CNP or NYMA.

The inquiry would need to examine whether the proposal is in the public interest and whether there is a national need and no alternatives, as required by PPG7. Major developments such as any further development of Fylingdales are only allowed in National Parks in exceptional circumstances.

The National Park Authority is the planning authority and therefore is restricted in the extent to which it can comment in advance of any formal application for development. It would be beyond the remit of the Park Authority to challenge the overall need for NMD. However it is well placed to challenge the need for it to be in the National Park. The Park Authority has a crucial role to play in ensuring that a rigorous process is followed once the British Government makes clear that it wishes to accede to US requests to further develop the site for missile defence purposes.

THE MANAGEMENT OF SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE - A Policy Statement by the Secretary of State for Defence

Responsibility for all safety and environmental matters within the Ministry including health and safety at work, equipment and materiel safety, environmental protection and fire safety is vested in me by virtue of my appointment as Secretary of State for Defence. This Policy Statement, which is to be observed throughout the Ministry, reflects the importance which I attach to protecting the environment and to the health, safety and welfare of all members of HM Forces, civilian employees of the Ministry and other persons who may be affected by the Ministry’s activities.

It is my policy that, within the United Kingdom, the Ministry will:

• comply with the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) or the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 as applicable and with subordinate legislation and other relevant statutory provisions;
• comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environment Act 1995 and other relevant statutory provisions and any additional requirements arising from international treaties and protocols to which the UK is a signatory;
• comply with the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and all other applicable fire safety regulations;
• comply with the Government’s strategy for sustainable development;
• maintain a corporate Environmental Management System based on ISO 14001;
• maintain fire safety management plans and fire risk assessments;
• carry out environmental policy appraisals of all new or revised policies and equipment acquisition programmes and environmental impact assessments of all new projects and training activities;
• maintain accident prevention plans and emergency procedures on all sites presenting a risk of a major accident to individuals or the environment.

Overseas, the Ministry will apply UK standards where reasonably practicable and in addition comply with relevant host nations’ standards.

Where the Ministry has been granted specific exemptions, disapplications or derogations from legislation, international treaties or protocols, Departmental standards and arrangements are to be introduced which will be, so far as is reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by the legislation. I will only invoke any powers given to me to disapply legislation on the grounds of national security when such action is absolutely essential for the maintenance of operational capability. Where there is no relevant legislation, internal standards will aim to optimise the balance between risks and the benefit to the Ministry and employees.

I require the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State to act as the Department’s Green Minister and to chair the Defence Environment and Safety Board which will provide direction, set objectives, monitor, review and report on performance. The members of the Board will include senior representatives from each Service, the Centre, the Permanent Joint Headquarters (UK), the Defence Procurement Agency, the Defence Logistics Organisation, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. Surgeon General and, to ensure coherence with the Defence Estates Strategy, the Chief Executive of Defence Estates will be members in their own right. The Defence Environment and Safety Board will be supported by relevant functional safety boards which will develop policy, set standards, measure performance and define the extent to which independent scrutiny and regulation is to be applied in their area of interest. To ensure that an integrated approach to safety and environmental management is applied throughout the Ministry, the individuals chairing these functional safety boards will also be members of the Defence Environment and Safety Board. Additionally, the Second Permanent Under Secretary of State will be a member of the Defence Environment and Safety Board and will be responsible for establishing Departmental policy, standards and, where appropriate, regulations. This responsibility will be delegated, personally and in writing, to the post-holder chairing the relevant functional safety board.

Safety and environmental protection are line management responsibilities. I delegate the task of discharging my personal responsibilities in their management areas to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chief of Defence Procurement, the Chief of Defence Logistics, the Chiefs of the Naval, General and Air Staffs, the Chief of Joint Operations and to the Chief Executives of Defence Trading Fund Agencies. I expect them to delegate further as necessary and on a personal basis to Commanders, Directors and Chief Executives of Defence Agencies (who should also delegate as appropriate through the line management chain) the task of applying my policy in their areas. I further expect them to ensure that managers at every level receive appropriate training and have at their disposal adequate resources to discharge their health and safety at work, environmental protection and fire safety responsibilities.

Managers must ensure that adequately detailed statements laying out the organisation and arrangements for discharging their duties with respect to this Policy Statement are in place. They must also have in place procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of these arrangements. Taken together with my Policy Statement, these statements will meet the legal requirement for a health and safety policy statement to be in place in each management area. In both Service and civilian areas the relevant statement is to be brought to the attention of all employees and others to whom it applies.

I expect managers to foster by positive leadership a culture which encourages employees to take responsibility for achieving my safety objectives and to act, as far as possible, in compliance with best environmental practice. All members of the Ministry are required to take reasonable care of their own health, safety and welfare; that of others who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work; and of the environment. This includes reporting through the management chain, any work situation giving rise to serious or immediate danger to individuals or the environment or of any shortcoming in arrangements that may create danger.

In the acquisition of materiel and equipment of all kinds, safety and environmental management is to begin at the requirement definition stage and is to be carried forward through service to disposal. All aspects of maintenance and operation (including military service) are to be taken into account and particular care is to be taken in assessing risks and environmental impacts where there is no appropriate statute or equivalent civil practice.

The Second Permanent Under Secretary of State will appoint a Chief Environment and Safety Officer (MOD) who will;

• monitor and review the application of arrangements under this Policy Statement within all areas of the Ministry;
• advise the US of S on health (in conjunction with the staff of the Surgeon General) and safety, environmental protection and fire safety matters;
• report annually to the Defence Environment and Safety Board on performance and the results of audits of compliance with this Policy Statement.
• sponsor the publication of detailed health and safety at work, environmental protection and fire safety policy, standards and guidance in Joint Services Publications;
• report directly to me any evidence of significant failure in any part of the Ministry to discharge my responsibilities.

This Policy Statement will be reviewed depending on changes in legislation and within the Ministry, as should the local statements detailing organisations and arrangements.

7 July 2000

[1] Section 61, Environment Act, 1995