Mr T Richards,
Head of Planning Services,
Department of Technical Services,
Borough Council Offices,
Harrogate. HG1 2AU

Dear Sir,

Re: Menwith Hill US National Security Agency Station:
Harrogate Planning Department records:
possible contravention of Freedom of Information Act, 2000, section 77(1):

'77.-(1) Where-

(a) a request for information has been made to a public authority…
…any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.'

Re: Notice of Proposed Development 6.500.229CROWND:
Replacement of underground fuel storage tanks:

I called at the Harrogate Planning Office on 20th February and asked to examine the file for this undertaking. My visit arose from receipt of your department's letter, dated 13th February. That letter detailed the recommended conditions attached to your department's decision to offer no objections to these plans.

I intended to investigate whether the Environment Agency (EA) had responded to the letter I sent them on December 22nd 2002, which letter I copied to Harrogate Planning Department and to which I received your officer's response, dated January 29th 2003. I explained to your Planning Officer the reason why I had called. I was shown the 'Working File'. The 'Working File', I was informed, is the complete record of the progress of the application.

The 'Working File' did not contain a copy of my December 22nd letter to the EA; nor was there a copy of your Department's response to me arising from that letter; nor did it include a copy of any consultation your department conducted with the EA, nor the EA's Report. The EA's Report is referred to in the 'Officer Report' (top of page 2). It is not clear whether the section headed 'RECOMMENDATION' is the unaltered EA's recommendation or the conclusion of the Planning Officer.

The omissions from the file suggest that the information was excluded deliberately, to conceal the fact that WoMenwith Hill Women's Peace Camp(aign) made representation to the EA and presented the EA with evidence to justify our concerns. Were any of the elected members of the Council's Planning Committee informed that we contacted the EA? Was the information available to Councillors only the 'censored' file and the fact of our application to the EA was withheld from the Councillors?

All documents relating to the decision in planning matters, unless they violate the Official Secrets' Act, are defamatory, or infringe intellectual property rights, under the Data Protection Act, should be available for public inspection. It is not acceptable that I was presented a censored file. Is this customary practice?

I was somewhat perturbed when I examined the 'Site Plan' (date stamped '20 Nov 2002') contained in this file, to discover that it was not the same 'Site Plan' as the one which I had examined last December. I drew this to the attention of the Planning Officer and stated that I would write to you about it.

I pointed out to the Planning Officer that the observations I made in my representation dated December 19th (last four lines of paragraph two) were based on the information on the Site Plan I had examined.

I obtained a copy of that Site Plan in December. I presented it to members of the Menwith Hill Forum, at the meeting in Harrogate on January 10th. As I do not know which Site Plan is correct, was the information I conveyed to that meeting inaccurate?

It is not acceptable that members of the public be presented with inaccurate information.

Your department's reply to my December 19th letter states:
'I refer to your representations relating to the above application which were taken into account by the Borough Council when considering the proposal.'

It was evident from my letter that I had inspected an inaccurate Site Plan. How could your officers have 'taken into account' the observations I made?

Re: Notice of Proposed Development 6.90.326CROWND:
Post Exchange (PX) Facility (supermarket and restaurant):

Your department's letter of January 29th states:

'A sustainability appraisal was submitted with the post exchange application and as this forms part of the application it is available for public inspection during normal office hours.'

The 'Sustainability Appraisal', dated July 2002, was not included in the plans, when I inspected the file for this application last October. According to your officer's statement, it should have been.

I asked to inspect the PX file last week, and indeed it now includes the 'Sustainability Appraisal'.

On October 30th 2002 we submitted representation in connection with this development and called for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA). If the 'Sustainability Appraisal' had been available for examination at the time, we should have based our objections on it as much of it is relevant to our concerns.

Our submission to the EA on December 22nd, included our concern that a large-scale supermarket and restaurant development could be determined under delegated legislation, without either EIA, AIA or debate in the Council's Planning Committee meeting.

We have no wish to make formal complaint through the Borough Council's Complaints' Procedure, nor make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. Hopefully we can reach an amicable solution. We recognise that the local authority has to cope with major problems in connection with the out-of-control development of Menwith Hill Station. Crisis point would appear to have been reached.

Please put this letter on file, thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Anne Lee pp WoMenwith women