18 December 2002
Letters on US Request to use Fylingdales for Missile Defense 
 
 WOMENWITH HILL WOMEN'S PEACE CAMP(AIGN)
P.O. BOX 105, HARROGATE HG3 2FE

18th December 2002

Mrs V Dilcock,
Chief Planning Officer,
North York Moors National Park Authority,
Old Vicarage,
Helmsley YO62 5BP

Mr CJ Duke,
Senior Adviser,
Defence Estates Office,
Catterick Garrison,
North Yorkshire DL9 3EJ

Dear Mrs Dilcock and Mr Duke,

Re: RAF Fylingdales:
US Federal Government's request for development for USA's National Missile Defense:

Prior to the anticipated permission of the UK Government in compliance with this request, we should appreciate your consideration of, and comments in response to, the following points of concern:

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter written to Alice Mahon MP.

We have asked that she raise with the Secretary of State for Defence the question of the legality of use of UK Defence Lands by a foreign power, namely the US Government, to establish its unilateral National Missile Defense (NMD) system. We believe that the UK Government does not have the authority to grant such use of the UK Defence Lands, which it holds in its trust for the nation. To comply with the USA's request could require a new Act of Parliament.

Were the UK Government, nevertheless, to grant permission for the use of RAF Fylingdales for USA's NMD, the Defence Estates' Organisation and the North York Moors National Park Planning Authority would then be placed in a uniquely anomalous position.

Currently, developments at RAF Fylingdales are governed by the provisions of Department of the Environment Circular 18/84, 'Crown Land and Crown Development Part IV' and Circular 12/96, 'Development in a National Park'.

In this unique case, the DoE Circular 18/84 would not be applicable to the USA's NMD development, because the required X-Band Radar system cannot be defined as a 'Crown Development'. It would neither be a development on behalf of the Royal Air Force nor be required for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), of which the UK is a member, but is for the unilateral defence interest of a foreign State.

It would be improper misuse of (and possibly unlawful for) the office of the UK Ministry of Defence Estates' Organisation (which functions on behalf of the nation and is funded by UK taxpayers) to prepare development plans for a foreign State and submit 'Notice of Proposed Development' for the plans, under the cover of the UK's DoE Circular 18/84. There is no legislation, we believe, which would allow this.

We should like an assurance that paragraph 56 of Circular 12/96 would be applied were any plans for NMD developments to be submitted to the North York Moors Planning Office. This states:
'…new, renewed or intensified use of land in the National Parks for defence purposes should be subject to formal consultation with the National Park Authorities and the Countryside Commission and to an environmental impact assessment, and should be tested against any provisions set out in planning policy guidance.'

We are also concerned that the UK taxpayers are expected to subsidise the USA's NMD developments. Which nation has provided funds for the current and future upgrading of the security and for expansion and refurbishment of the infrastructure at RAF Fylingdales? Which nation would be responsible for services, such as Police, Fire Brigade, sewage disposal, highways maintenance, etc, provided to USA nationals, employed at Fylingdales, but engaged in their unilateral sovereign interests? The current legislation governing the hosting and status of visiting forces is under the auspices of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, 1951, which is not applicable in this case.

Also to be taken into consideration is the possibility that large-scale protests will result from the USA's NMD developments. This begs the question of which nation would be responsible for funding police operations to 'control' protest demonstrations. For example, a huge police operation was mounted in order to ensure that Lt Gen Kadish, Head of the USA's Missile Defense Agency, managed to visit RAF Fylingdales on November 21st. Who paid the cost?

We are researching further the public rights, which exist at RAF Fylingdales. We should appreciate your assistance if you have any records of the same

Yours sincerely,

Anne Lee

pp WoMenwith Hill women

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------