|
| Newsletter | July 2000 |
Ever wished you could print and distribute your own copies of this newsletter? Well now you can. All you need is access to internet, Acrobat Reader and a printer. At the top of the web page click on PDF and you will have neatly laid out copy all ready for printing.
Having regard to the fact that the Council is both proposer and judge of the Plan's contents, together with the intrinsic importance of the issues of third party risk and noise, I think it may be perverse not to give considerable weight to fairness and to the importance of independent scrutiny of the new issues relating to those matters as a result of the Proposed Modifications. -- Michael Bedford, barrister for Rushmoor Borough Council
Monday 19 June 2000, Rushmoor Borough Council held a planning meeting. Without any debate or discussion it voted to recommend immediate adoption of the modified Local Plan. Thursday 29 June 2000, the modified Local Plan was placed before the full council where an overwhelming majority of councillors following the recommendations from committee voted for immediate adoption of the modified Local Plan. Unless there are objections and the Secretary of State calls in the modified Local Plan it will come into effect on 4 August 2000 opening the door for the TAG planning application.
A Local Plan is drawn up to reflect the needs and aspirations of a local community. It is the broad framework within which future planning decisions are made. Its contents and approval should be based on broad local consensus.
Rushmoor Borough Council have singularly failed in their Local Plan in meeting any of these objectives. In their desire to satisfy the needs of a foreign-based company they have ridden roughshod over the people of Farnborough and the surrounding areas. The officials have shown contempt in the way they have ignored every legitimate objection, the councillors have shown contempt in the way they have rubber-stamped the recommendations coming from the officials. Many councillors did not even bother to look at their bundle of official papers, though we doubt they would have understood the contents if they had done so. The consultation exercise was kept deliberately low key to ensure as few as possible of the local community heard about it and objected. Over a thousand objections to the original Local Plan, over a thousand objections to the TAG planning application, less than a hundred to the TAG-driven modifications to the Local Plan. The contempt for the local community was summed up by the comments council leader John Debenham made before the planning committee: 'I would not wish to embarrass my colleagues with a second Public Inquiry.'
Well it may come as no surprise to John Debenham but we would wish to embarrass him and his colleagues with a second Public Inquiry and we have every intention of doing so.
The advice given to Rushmoor by their own barrister Michael Bedford gave several grounds for calling a second Public Inquiry: new information, changes to the Local Plan, ignoring advice from Planning Inspector, objections from the public. In the interests of fairness all these issues have to be tested in an independent forum.
Had the councillors troubled to read their own legal advice, provided at our expense, they would be well aware of the need for a second Public Inquiry. The advice given in a presentation to Rushmoor by Sue Jenkins and the advice given by Robin Purchas QC (the authority cited by Bedford) reiterated and emphasised the need for a second Public Inquiry. Purchas went so far as to suggest that the failure to call a second Local Inquiry could be seen as unlawful.
There are many new issues which have not had the benefit of independent scrutiny. This is what Rushmoor fear and why they refuse a second Public Inquiry. Loaded as they are in favour of vested interests and big business, two-thirds of Planning Inquiries are decided in favour of local communities. Even where a development is not stopped, it can often be restrained, or its damaging effects limited. Could this be what Tory leader John Debenham was thinking of when he said 'I would not wish to embarrass my colleagues with a second Public Inquiry.'
We are now calling for a second Public Inquiry. We are urging people to write to the Government Office of the South East (with copies to John Prescott MP) asking that the Local Plan be called in and for the Secretary of State to call a second Public Inquiry. Objections must be lodged with the Secretary of State on or before 4 August 2000. What we have seen so far in Rushmoor has been a travesty of local democracy: Officials out of their depth (and failing to engage in constructive dialogue with local experts), councillors who have failed to understand the issues (and who have not troubled to find out), a complete disregard for public safety (Rushmoor have still not commissioned the promised study on safety), contempt for the local community (objections were simply ignored).
Director of Planning Hampshire & Isle of Wight Government Office for the South East Bridge House 1 Walnut Tree Close Guildford Surrey GU1 4GA tel 01483 882 300 fax 01483 882 339 cbyrne@go-regions.gov.uk www.go-se.gov.uk
In their recent advice to local authorities the government had this to say:
The Secretary of State advises authorities to hold an inquiry where objections raise matters which were not at issue in the earlier stage. This may arise, for example, if it is proposed to substitute an entirely different proposal for one which was in the plan as considered earlier ... so that the objections made to the proposed modification include new evidence ...
Commenting on this advice, Michael Bedford had this to say:
Clearly ... it is obvious that this advice also points to the holding of a new inquiry into the objections raising new issues.
We ask the Secretary of State to heed his own advice and grant a second Public Inquiry to enable all new issues to be subject to detailed independent scrutiny. To not do so would be in the words of Michael Bedford 'perverse'.
Rushmoor intend to post notice of the intent to adopt the modified Local Plan in the local press on 7 July and 14 July. This gives 28 days from the first date to lodge an objection, ie objections must be lodged with the Secretary of State on or before 4 August 2000.
A more detailed version of this article can be found on the BVEJ web site.
Just say no to TAG. You know it makes sense.
The crass decision by Rushmoor Borough Council to ignore the recommendations from the Planning Inspector and to approve changes to the Local Plan opens the door for approval of the TAG planning application. The door may be open but we do not have to let TAG through.
The reason for the rush, and the refusal to hold a second Public Inquiry, is that Rushmoor and TAG want to be in a position to announce the Business Airport at the Farnborough International Airshow (24-30 July 2000).
Once the dust has settled on the Local Plan the TAG application will be taken down of the shelf and dusted down. The TAG application is expected to be placed before the planing committee for approval some time in the near future.
Approval of the TAG application will lead to a deteriorating quality of life, increased air pollution, noise, traffic congestion, damage to the environment, threats to endangered species, danger to the lives of local residents. On a global level the airport as a business airport will be one of the engines of globalisation. The increase in aviation traffic will lead to an increase in greenhouse gases and global warming.
The future level of flying is likely to be 100-150,000 movements. TAG have asked for an initial level of 25,000 movements (more than double the existing level) with no limit on movements or weight. The current weight limit (under licence agreement with MoD) is 35 tonnes, which TAG regularly flout.
The alternative is not 10,000 houses on the site. There are no plans for housing. Housing is not part of either the Local Plan or the Hampshire Structure Plan. Both the Hampshire Structure Plan and the Rushmoor Local Plan clearly state that the site has to be maintained as a strategic gap, ie open space. 10,000 houses is a rumour spread by TAG, repeated by their lackeys.
Rushmoor are putting private profit before public safety, corporate profit before the environment.
Lobby your councillors hard to say no to TAG. Tell them to put people before profit.
Just say no to TAG. You know it makes sense.
The earliest the TAG application can be considered is August 2000, and that assumes no challenges to the adoption of the modified Local Plan.
BVFoE are a bunch of fairly innocuous, well-meaning, middle-class activists who are doing their bit to help save the planet. Not the stereotypical terrorists. Soon they could be classed as terrorists. Anyone who supports them, shares the same platform at a meeting, even speaks at the same meeting as a BVFoE member, could also be classed as terrorists. The normal protection of a civil society will not apply to the 'terrorists', they will be deemed to have foregone such rights by dint of their actions.
BVFoE are not about to take up an armed struggle, or at least not that we are aware of. Their possible classification as terrorists is as a result of draconian legislation that New Labour are strong-arming through Parliament.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act is currently temporary legislation that applies to Northern Island only. It is soon to apply to the whole of the UK and be made permanent. Terrorism is to be redefined as 'the use of serious violence against persons or property, or the threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, the public, or any section of the public for political, religious or ideological ends.' The term serious violence would be redefined to include 'serious disruption'.
In the good old days of Tory misrule we had Public Order legislation. Too many people were on the streets demonstrating, youngsters were having the cheek to enjoy themselves at impromptu rave parties. The legislation was designed, if not to push them off the streets, then at the very least to drive them underground. At a stroke activists and party-goers were turned into criminals. Activists were forced to regroup as small informal non-membership groups, often coming together for a specific purpose, sometimes a single event. They found this to be a far more effective way of organisation, rapid response and reaction was possible (something the old 70s environmental groups with their top heavy over-centralised control are no longer capable of). This is one reason why, contrary to the garbage written in The Sunday Times, the police have not been able to find the Mister Big, the Master Mind, behind many of today's street actions. There is no such person.
Never to be wrong footed for long, governments of Left and Right (and it would be a slight exaggeration to call New Labour Left), dream up ever more draconian legislation. Politicos of all flavours and colours abhor people power, public participation in decision making, people thinking for themselves. The current solution is to fast-track legislation to turn activists and protesters into terrorists. Anyone with a conscience, a sense of social justice, who is prepared to attack Big Business and government, to attempt to right the many injustices of this world, will be targeted.
Had this legislation been enacted then, the Greenpeace activists who last year destroyed a field of GM crops would have found themselves being charged not as criminals (for which they were not found guilty) but as terrorists. The leader of the action could have faced life imprisonment if found guilty.
The Home Secretary will be granted the powers to proscribe, ie ban, any group promoting or engaging in 'terrorism' and seize their funds and assets, fund raising for such groups would be illegal. The police would be granted new powers of stop and search and of arrest, normal civil rights would not apply. It would be an offence to collect, record or possess any information which might be of use to 'terrorists'. Possession of this newsletter could soon be a terrorist offence.
Anyone campaigning against injustices in our society will be placed at a serious disadvantage by this legislation.
Planning approval has been granted for a waste incinerator to be built near Basingstoke. One of 112 such incinerators the government has plans for across the country. In Hampshire, further incinerators are planned for Portsmouth and Southampton. In Surrey, Slyfield, near Guildford, Redhill and south of Dorking. Promise of Local Inquiries for every incinerator where there are objections is being ignored. But as we have seen with the Rushmoor Local Plan Inquiry, rotten boroughs have a nasty habit of ignoring planning inquiries too. The planning inquiry into Surrey's waste disposal plan was attacked by the Inspector for being badly drawn up (it was incomplete, disposal sites were not identified). Surrey has granted a contract with a private contractor for waste disposal, Surrey will then receive a planning application from the same contractor for the building of incinerators!
Locally the predominant winds are westerly. Blackwater Valley is downwind of the Basingstoke incinerator. The output of the chimney will contain dioxins and heavy metals.
A leaked US EPA report has reclassified dioxins as ten times more dangerous than previously thought. Cancer specialist Richard Clapp has described dioxins as 'the Darth Vader of toxic chemicals'. Dioxins are responsible for 37% of cancers in the US. The many birth defects and genetic abnormalities in Vietnam are the result of dousing the country with dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange.
The Environment Agency monitors the stacks of incinerators, it does not monitor the ash. The EU classifies the ash as non-hazardous waste. The ash contains dioxins and heavy metals.
In Newcastle incinerator ash was used to surface local paths. Tests have shown the paths to have a dioxin level many times the background level.
The government has set a target for recycling waste of better than 30%. The national average is of the order of 10%, very poor compared with our European neighbours. Switzerland exceeds 50% waste recycled.
In the North East at least one incinerator has contractual obligations with local authorities of minimum waste volumes to keep the fires burning. In effect the local authorities are encouraged to generate waste as they will be hit by penalty clauses if they fail to keep their targets of fuelling the incinerator.
The government is currently trying to cook the books on recycling. If the ash from the incinerators is returned to the area from which the waste came, and used (as in paths or road building), it is classed as recycling. Apart from the obvious toxic hazards, waste being shipped back and forth, and the damage this will cause to genuine recycling programmes, it rather misses the point. If we recycle and reuse waste paper, for example, we are reducing the demand from virgin and old growth forests.
There has to be proper recycling programmes in place, even more important we have to stop generating the waste in the first place. Bath recycles the majority of its waste, Essex has ambitious recycling plans. Rushmoor lacks the political will. The profits of big business take priority over protection of the local community and environment.
Hart and Rushmoor will be fuelling the Basingstoke incinerator. If we don't want its output, then we have a very simple choice, we don't supply its input.
Guildford & Godalming FoE and Mole Valley FoE are gearing up for a big campaign against the Surrey incinerators, they are also calling for a Public Inquiry. Nationally, FoE are campaigning against incinerators.
We will all be criminals soon just for wishing to safeguard our privacy.
Favourite bed time reading for Jack Straw seems to be George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four, though instead of seeing it as a rather depressing novel, he sees it as a manual for the running of society. Not satisfied with turning activists and protesters into terrorists he is now determined to criminalise anyone seeking privacy in cyberspace.
We all take it for granted that we are not compelled to conduct our correspondence on postcards. It is reasonable therefore to expect these same standards to apply to our electronic correspondence.
To conduct ones affairs via open e-mail is equivalent to posting it on the electronic village notice-board. Anyone who so wishes, and Big Brother so wishes, can read it. Hard encryption, such as that offered by PGP, prevents Big Brother poking his nose into our affairs.
Privacy is essential for campaigning groups otherwise the element of surprise, the ability to organise, the need to protect sources, is lost.
Panicked by the thought that the citizens of this country may take to using hard encryption thus denying government access to our affairs the government is pushing through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill.
Original devised as a trade measure, but following concerted attacks from all sectors of industry who see strong encryption and protection of keys as essential if we are to have viable e-commerce, the mask has dropped, the proposals have been taken over by Jack Straw and the emphasis is on terrorists and criminals.
RIP will criminalise the desire for privacy. Failure to provide keys could lead to two years in gaol, tipping someone off that their e-mail is being monitored five years. The proposals as they stand are a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Jack Straw is granting himself the kinds of powers Robert Mugabe could only fantasise about. No other country is granting itself these powers. Many are going the other way and legislating the right to use encryption.
Worldwide the Anglo-American ECHELON system is monitoring all electronic communication. Echelon is currently under investigation by the French State Prosecutor and the European Parliament. Within Europe an FBI-EU project known as ENFOPOL will require all ISPs to provide access to all net traffic.
We live in a society that hates children.
Parents regularly abuse their children. As the children grow older they desecrate our parks, turn them into no-go areas. They do the same to our town centres. When they in turn become parents they abuse their children.
Our children will inherit a dying planet. The oceans will be stinking toxic cesspools where no whales sing. Tropical rainforests will be a faint distant memory in the minds of the few remaining native indians. The few remaining indians who have not committed mass suicide will be reduced to a precarious intoxicated non-existence in the shanty towns that cling to all the major cities. We hate native people almost as much as we do our children. People whose inherited cultural wisdom is the closest understanding we have of the natural world. The air will be unbreathable. The skies will radiate harmful radiation making it dangerous to be outdoors. Fresh water a traded commodity over which future wars will be fought, a commodity owned by global corporations. Our children's very genes will become the property of global corporations.
Our children have no value. They have no political clout, don't vote, don't line the pockets of corrupt politicians.
Our children have been reduced to a commodity. Consumers of junk food, consumers of the junk output of a consumer society. Brainwashed into wearing the branded uniforms of the global sweatshops. As they grow older, lacking proper education and the funding to take advantage of the few educational opportunities, they became cheap labour for junk consumer outlets that are destroying the character of our town centres.
The year 2000 was declared the Year of the Child.
We work hard to save the planet, we fight hard against social injustice. We neglect our friends and those closest to us, those who care for us. We walk on by when we see our friends suffering, turn a convenient blind eye.
According to a report commissioned by Rushmoor, with increased flight movements of 28,000, the noise will decrease by 20-25%.
On behalf of Farnborough College of Technology, GVA Grimley, International Property Advisers, on 21 January 2000 lodged an objection to the TAG planning application. The objection was received by Rushmoor planning department on 24 January 2000.
The report has not been heard of or seen since. Rushmoor officials have sat on it and refused to draw attention to the report or its contents to councillors. Neither councillors nor officials can see anything wrong. All objections to planning applications have to be placed in the public domain. Rushmoor are refusing public access to this objection. Were it not for a leaked copy to the press the public would not be aware of its existence or contents.
The college has objected to the TAG proposal on the grounds that students will not wish to study in a death trap or be seriously disadvantaged by a noisy environment. Student numbers spiralling downwards would affect the financial viability of the college forcing eventual closure. Should the college wish to relocate it would find its land worthless as within the public safety zone and no development would be permitted.
Since submission of this objection the college has been remarkably quiet. No fuss, no submission to the consultation process on the changes to the Local Plan, no challenges to TAG's assertions of economic benefits to the area. Loss of the college alone would lose 1200 jobs and £15 million annually.
Could it true, as we have heard, that the principal has been leant on by the college governors to remain silent? If yes, then they clearly need reminding of their legal liabilities, and who better to quote than FCoT Director Jill Small (who in turn was reiterating a statement by FCoT Principal David Kennedy):
... the College Board has a legal duty to protect the safety of students and staff and the future operations of the College and will take whatever action is considered necessary to fulfil this duty ... the college has registered its objections to the planning application on precisely these grounds.
In case the college has failed to understand its legal obligations we would remind it that it opens itself up to legal actions from staff and students if it fails to fulfil its obligations.
Why then has the college failed to push its objections? Why no objection to the Local Plan changes? In its objections to TAG the college threatened legal action against Rushmoor if Rushmoor rejected the Planning Inquiry recommendations on safety. We suggest an examination of some of the vested interests who sit on the board would shed some light on the situation, as would a scrutiny of sources of college funding. We also note that having tried to obtain MoD land for some time, post TAG objection the college is being offered MoD land.
BVFoE organised a couple of demos outside the college to highlight the dangers to the college. They were promised massive support by the students union. Support that never materialised giving rise to a misleading impression of little local opposition to airfield expansion. Who leant on the students union?
An excellent summary by Matt Burrows of the FCoT objection appeared on the front page of the Farnborough Mail (Tuesday 18 April 2000). In the interests of environmental justice the full FCoT objection has been placed on the BVEJ web site.
Pass the sick bag we want to throw up. That was our gut reaction on hearing that BAE Systems are one of the sponsors of this 'green' day. Shocked but not surprised. It was not so long ago that Rushmoor invited sponsorship from McDonald's for a youth green conference on local sustainability.
War is one of the most destructive environmental forces man has unleashed on the planet. In Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War large areas were spayed with defoliants leading to massive deforestation. In Iraq and Kosovo large areas of the countryside are now contaminated with depleted uranium from the use of depleted uranium munitions. In Africa tribal warfare using Western supplied weapons has devastated the wildlife.
Dark-skinned, slant-eyed foreigners have a lower respect for life than us superior westerners so it matters little how many we bomb and napalm into oblivion. We can congratulate ourselves for our humanitarian interventions and for persuading the savage of our superior western culture and civilisation. If they do it to themselves at little risk to ourselves and we can profit by supplying the weapons of destruction, then so much the better.
Nominated by the Telegraph as one of the least ethical companies trading in the UK, BAE Systems or Beyond All Ethics as it is known in the trade, is one of these dealers in death and destruction. It is not too fussed who it deals with or supplies arms to, some of the world's most corrupt and repressive regimes are counted as its satisfied clients.
BAE Systems makes no secret of the fact that it is one of TAG's backers. Apart from the 'green' day in Aldershot, some other events that BAE Systems has funded in Rushmoor this year include the Arts Festival and the Clown Festival. To bring the loop full circle Rushmoor has to decide on the TAG planning application for the expansion of Farnborough Airport, an expansion that will be to the direct benefit of BAE Systems. There has even been dark hints dropped that BAE Systems will pull out of Farnborough if it does not get its way.
We have not noticed the Borough Solicitor rushing to judgement about any vested interests operating in this loop, or is vested interest only applied when an honest elected representative attempts to represent the local community? A loop that excludes the local community, the people who will pay the price in wrecked lives if the airfield expansion goes ahead. But don't take our word for it, this is what Rushmoor officials recommended to the councillors when considering public safety.
The Inspector's recommendation would mean curtailing business aviation to below the level of 10,000 movements in 1997. Such a level of flying would unlikely to be economically viable ... Any exposure to the lower level of risk of 1 in 100,000 per annum will be weighed against any overriding employment and economic benefits from accommodating business aviation ... Ultimately the Council will have to decide in relation to a planning application, the weight to be given to 1 in 100,000 risk and to any economic/employment benefits from business aviation.
TAG have refused to give any financial data thus it is unknown what level of flying is economically viable. Rushmoor are willing to trade off the public's safety for intangible economic benefits. The economic benefits to the area are known to be minimal and may well be negative. TAG have given no data to the contrary (and it is for TAG to demonstrate the benefits not for opponents to demonstrate there are none). The only known economic benefits are to TAG. As part of the loop Rushmoor are thus willing to trade the safety of the local community for the private profits of a foreign owned protege of BAE Systems.
Apart from safety the proposed airfield development will not only damage the local environment it will also contribute to global warming.
In the light of the track record of BAE Systems and their promotion of the airfield expansion it would be hypocritical for any green group to take part in a green event sponsored by BAE Systems. We call upon all green groups and the public to boycott this event.
Congratulations to Iceland with their decision to go organic.
Iceland were the first supermarket to go non-GM, the first to ban GMOs from their animal feed. They have also introduced a range of low energy consumption fridges and freezers that don't uses ozone damaging or climate destabilising gases. They have now announced they will phase out non-organic vegetables.
Where Iceland leads, less environmentally conscious supermarkets follow.
Demand for organic is growing in the UK at 40% a year. Inability to meet demand means that over 70% of organics has to be imported. Iceland alone will snap up 40% of the world's organic vegetables.
3 out of 4 consumers would prefer to buy organics given an affordable choice.
A cautionary note needs to be added to the Iceland decision. The bulk of their organics will be imported, adding to food miles. Sourcing common in-season vegetables from across the world goes against the ethics of organics of not adding external costs. Supermarkets need to make greater efforts to source their produce from local sources, where necessary to put capital into organic farm conversion, and to pay farmers real prices to make the entire operation sustainable. Importing cash crops from poor Third World countries where the land should be used for local sustainable agriculture, and in the process pricing the produce out of the reach of local consumers who cannot compete with First World consumers, is not an acceptable long term solution to the supply of the UK organic market.
The UK government has to start putting real money into organics. We have a farm sector that is on its knees (apart from the big boys who receive massive subsidies to grow what no one wants), a massive demand for organics that cannot be satisfied. When will Tony and his cronies practice joined up thinking and connect the two?
Farm subsidies to grow unwanted produce, subsidies to industrial farming have to be withdrawn. The only subsidies that can be justified are subsidies that benefit society, not those that line the pockets of the rich. Subsidies to keep family farms going in poorly populated areas, subsidies for habitat management, subsidies for organic conversion. A tax has to be levied on pesticide, herbicide and other biocides and fertiliser use. Taxes should be levied to redress the balance of hidden external costs which all of society bears.
A few days before Iceland announced it was going organic, Michael Meacher gave a statement to Parliament saying that food could no longer be guaranteed GM free. We are an island. We have an opportunity to go organic, GM free. When will the government wake up to what the people want rather than listening to its paymasters in the biotech industry?
The announcement by Iceland was a marvellous precursor to Real Food Week.
The panel meets infrequently to discuss matters relating to the airfield. As the name suggests the panel exists to consult, but begs the question with who as few members of the local community are aware of its existence, let alone its deliberations.
The panel is heavily weighted in favour of vested interests, post-May local elections the imbalance has been slightly addressed. The chairman is imposed by Rushmoor, the secretariat provided by Rushmoor.
Panel member and local resident Richard Gardner has made no secret of his pro-TAG views or his support for TAG. Last year he was one of the team in the TAG shop in Farnborough town centre promoting the TAG case. He sits on the panel as a community representative. He wears at least two hats, in addition to being on the panel as a local resident he is also on the panel as a trustee of FAST. FAST is composed of flying enthusiasts, and ever mindful of sources of funding, is little more than a pro-TAG, pro-flying lobby group.
In a letter to the local press unsuccessful Tory candidate Richard Gardner acknowledged that his vested interest, had he been elected to Rushmoor Council in the May election, would have excluded him from any discussion of TAG or the airfield. 'My overt support for the 'Keep Farnborough Flying' cause ... Had I been elected, I would not have been able to vote on the aerodrome issue ...' [letters, Farnborough Mail, Tuesday 13 June 2000]
In a second letter to the local press Richard Gardner once again promulgated his gung-ho pro-TAG views on airfield expansion. [letters, Farnborough Mail, Tuesday 4 July 2000]
In the light of his affiliations and declared vested interest it is unreasonable for Richard Gardner to occupy a panel seat reserved for the local community.
Richard Gardner should stand down or be removed as a local community representative as he does not represent the local community. He should be replaced by someone prepared to act for the community, who can bring expertise to the matters under discussion.
There is no objection to FAST having a seat, or Richard Gardner occupying that seat. The FAST seat would be classed as part of the airfield vested interest. To maintain the same balance the airfield lobby would have to lose a seat. As TAG have three seats in their own name, it would be reasonable that they lose a seat.
The chairman should be chosen by the panel members not externally imposed. The panel should have an independent secretariat. The meetings and the conclusions drawn should be given wider publicity to encourage greater public participation.
A Rushmoor planning committee meeting (Planning and Transportation Committee, Monday 19 June 2000) was held to consider the TAG-driven changes to the Local Plan.
Before the meeting began Councillor John Starling was forced to leave the room. He had received a phone call at 1-30 that day from the Borough Solicitor advising that he had a vested interest. The vested interest was that as a member of the public he had had the audacity to object to the changes to the Local Plan. Like a naughty schoolboy he was forced to leave the room.
The meeting began with an address from Councillor Patrick Kirby who the meeting had condescended to allow to speak. He highlighted the legal advice that the Borough had received, how that advice was being deliberately misinterpreted by the officials. He emphasised the fact that new evidence had come to light and the advice was to call a new Planning Inquiry to consider that new evidence, particularly with respect to safety. He could have been talking to a brick wall, his comments fell on deaf ears.
Many of the councillors had not read the legal opinion. Not only had they not read the legal opinion they were not even aware of where it was located in their bundle of papers.
There then followed a boring presentation by planning official Richard Short which selectively regurgitated the agenda (presumably the councillors are incapable of reading).
A Tory councillor suggested there had already been sufficient delay, they should move to immediate adoption of the Local Plan. After all there were lots of fat juicy planning applications coming up. They couldn't wait to get their snouts in the trough.
Leader of the Lib-Dem group Councillor Craig Card asked a number of intelligent questions and raised a number of valid points. He was simply rubbished by the planning officials. The same way that all the objections raised by the local community were rubbished. They even had standard responses prepared.
When it came to a vote, only Craig Card had the integrity to vote in favour of holding a second public inquiry, a handful abstained, the remainder voted to rush out the adopted Local Plan within 28 days. There was no discussion, no debate. Of the 21 members of the committee only one had the integrity to act on behalf of the local community.
The meeting was summed up by comments from Tory leader Councillor John Debenham who said 'I would not wish to embarrass my colleagues with a second Public Inquiry.' The meeting was no more than a rubbing stamping of the recommendations coming from the officials and made a mockery of local democracy. The few members of the public who attended were angered and appalled by what they saw masquerading as democracy.
The Rotary Club organised Donkey Derby on May Bank Holiday caused several thousand pounds worth of damage in King George V Park. Rushmoor, ie the local community, will be picking up the bill.
At a meeting of the Rushmoor planning committee called to rubber-stamp the TAG-driven changes to the Local Plan Councillor John Starling was forced to leave the room (19 June 2000).
At 1.30 that day John Starling received a phone call from the Borough Solicitor to tell him he could not speak at the planning meeting that evening, furthermore he had to leave the room so that he could not exert undue influence on those committee members present. According to the Borough Solicitor, John Starling has a 'vested interest', ie as a member of the public he had submitted an objection to Rushmoor ignoring the Planning Inspector's recommendations on safety.
John Starling is the second Rushmoor councillor to be gagged by the Borough Solicitor for attempting to act on behalf of the local community. Patrick Kirby has already been gagged for acting on behalf of the local community. [see BVEJ newsletter #0001 June 2000]
John Starling has also been prevented from speaking or being present at the council meeting (29 June 2000) called to rubber-stamp the recommendations coming from the planning committee.
Councillors are now afraid to speak on behalf of the local community. They fear that if they do, they too will be gagged.
Councillors should ignore the 'advice' coming from the Borough Solicitor and continue to speak out on behalf of the local community. As a matter of some urgency an investigation should be launched into the activities of the Borough Solicitor.
Please bear with us and be patient, the site is currently under construction. We thought it more important to concentrate on getting information out and into the public domain than tweaking fine details on the web site. It will, time permitting, have a more attractive, and hopefully useful, opening page.
The site is in a state of flux with new information and fancy gizmos being added all the time. Please keep checking the site out if you want to be kept informed. Tell your friends to check out the site too.
The highly successful Rio Earth Summit recognised global sustainability started with local sustainability. Local sustainability was only possible if local people were given the power to run their own affairs. Out of the Rio Earth Summit was born Local Agenda 21 (LA21), or Agenda 21 as it is known outside the UK.
Rushmoor has one officer assigned to LA21 with a minuscule budget. LA21 should have an input to every local decision, it has none.
Rushmoor engages in meaningless LA21 cosmetics with no genuine or long term commitment to either the environment or the local community. The development of a Business Airport at Farnborough (which had no LA21 input) will swamp any of the LA21 initiatives. Farnborough town centre is to be redeveloped for the financial benefit of foreign investors. There has been no consultation with local traders, the backbone of any thriving town centre.
An LA21 youth conference was sponsored by McDonald's. McDonald's is the archetypical symbol of rampant globalisation (large transnational corporation, American culture, poor wages, worker exploitation, destruction of local culture, environmental degradation, junk food), the antithesis of LA21.
Local people wanted to have a regular Farmers Market in Farnborough. It would have reconnected local consumers to local producers, recycled money within the local economy, brought much needed trade into a dying town centre. They were blocked by Rushmoor. Instead they have an imposed, unwanted French Market, that extracts money from the local economy and damages local traders. In Waverley, the LA21 officer helped organise the highly successful Farmers Market at Milford.
In Rushmoor, the green highlight of the year is to be a so-called 'fun' day held in Aldershot sponsored by BAE Systems or Beyond All Ethics as it is known in the trade. An event green groups will be boycotting because of the sponsorship by BAE Systems. Guildford last year had a green week, with talks, walks, exhibitions and the week ending with the highly successful Ambient Green Picnic on Shalford Common by the river. So popular is the Ambient Green Picnic (folk groups, debates, rock groups, stalls, real food fast food, theatre) that many people travel down from London for the day.
The attitude of Rushmoor to LA21 in particular and green issues in general is probably summed up by the snotty-nosed reply we received from Les Murrell Rushmoor LA21 officer in response to one of our newsletters: 'Rushmoor Borough Council does not send or receive e-mail with this type of content.'
LA21 was developed to counter big business and the forces of globalisation. In Rushmoor LA21 has been hijacked by big business.
Les Murrell, Rushmoor LA21 officer, would be only too happy to hear your views, 01252 398538 lmurrell@rushmoor.gov.uk
In the circumstances, where there is acknowledged to be new evidence such that new issues have arisen in respect of this discrete but publicly important consideration of public safety and the airfield, it is difficult to see why there should not properly be a further inquiry ... The failure of the Committee to consider these material considerations was in my opinion unlawful and as such open to challenge. -- Robin Purchas QC
Ten days after the rubber-stamping by the planning committee the council met to consider the recommendations coming from the planning committee.
The meeting commenced with two excellent presentations from Sue Jenkins and Gwilym Anthony. Sue concentrated on the advice given to the council by their barrister Michael Bedford. She emphasised and reiterated the grounds and his reasoning for calling a second public inquiry. Gwilym concentrated on the safety aspect. What did a small delay matter, a matter of months, when the safety of local residents was at stake? Both speakers were cut short by the Mayor. When they were invited to speak Councillor John Mathews voted against allowing them to speak. An indication of how seriously our councillors take their responsibilities and the contempt in which they hold the local community is that during these presentations several were observed reading newspapers.
Patrick Kirby referred to new advice that had been received that day from Robin Purchas QC, the authority that Rushmoor's own barrister cited. The advice was that Rushmoor should call a second Public Inquiry. To not do so could be seen as unlawful.
The three may have been talking to a brick wall. The crass comments that came from councillors only served to illustrate their level of ignorance. One could not understand where economic viability came from. Maybe if he had referred to his own agenda he would have seen that the Inspector's recommendations on safety were being disregarded in favour of the economic viability of the airfield. Not that we know at what level the airfield would be economically viable as TAG are still refusing to release economic data despite promises to do so.
Only Patrick Kirby and Craig Card spoke on behalf of the local community. Mike Roberts, who should know better, waffled, but appeared to be saying as there was no government policy on airports the decision should be delayed. John Starling, 'gagged' by the Borough Solicitor, did not, unlike Patrick Kirby, find the courage to speak.
The behaviour of Councillor Mathews was a disgrace. The Lib-Dems should deselect him. He deserves to be kicked out at the next election, as does Councillor Roland Dibbs.
The chairman of the planning committee in his summing up showed his complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Throughout there was a lively public response. Several times the Mayor threatened to have the public gallery cleared, each time was forced to back down. The public showed their contempt for the councillors, especially when the vote was taken.
To the shouts of shame, bloody disgrace, traitors, the cheques will be in the post, the vast majority of councillors voted for immediate adoption of the Modified Local Plan, ignoring safety, the local community and their own legal advice.
What took place in the council chamber on Thursday 29 June 2000 was a sad day for democracy. Local democracy in Rushmoor is dead.
The fight goes on. The local community are now demanding a Public Inquiry.
One of the most repugnant corporate practices of recent years has been the patenting of genes, or biopiracy or bioprospecting as it is more commonly known. Global corporations are scouring the world, extracting genetic material, then patenting these finds as 'their discoveries'. It is not only plant material that is being taken, tribal people are having their blood sampled. Varieties that may have been cultivated over generations or plants with health properties are being patented. One of the worse cases was the patent granted to W R Grace for the Neem tree.
Endangered indigenous people are having their genes sampled and stored in gene banks against the day when their race becomes extinct. If they are lucky they receive a token payment. UNESCO's international bioethics committee has endorsed the criticisms raised by indigenous peoples.
The Human Genome Diversity Project aims to collect blood, hair and cell samples from up to 700 indigenous peoples throughout the world. The stated goal is to gather genetic information from 'vanishing' indigenous communities before these people disappear as a result of increasing industrialisation and political repression.
Historically, patents were granted to protect innovation and invention, not discovery.
No intellectual endeavour is involved in the automated (or soon to be) cataloguing of genes. In Cambridge a bank of automated DNA sequencers have been busy sequencing human DNA as part of the Human Genome Project. But even if intellectual effort were involved, it is not intellectual invention, it is basic research, the results of which have always been shared to the benefit of all. The discovery of genetic links to diseases are being patented. This means that anyone offering a diagnosis or cure based upon the link will be obliged to pay royalties.
Biocyte has been granted patents in the US and Europe that grant it rights to the blood cells extracted from the umbilical cords of new-born babies.
Gardeners and farmers traditionally buy in seed, save from previous crops or swap and share with their neighbours. The saving of seed, sharing of seed, has helped to promote genetic diversity. Plants become adapted to unique local conditions. In the past if farmers or growers bought in seed they were free to do as they wished with their harvested seed. Now, with patented seeds, they will be obliged to pay a royalty, or forbidden to save seeds.
Many of the basic food plants grown in the West, potatoes, tomatoes, soybeans, wheat, rye and barley, have their origins in developing countries. The source countries have not patented these food crops, are not demanding royalty payments (though maybe they should). These basic crops are regarded as a common good for all mankind. The Indians of the Americas had learnt how to cultivate maize long before they felt the sharp cut of the European sword, they also developed a variety of other crops including peanuts, rubber, chocolate, tobacco and coca.
Patents on life are not only a gross abuse of the patent system, they are ethically and morally wrong as they treat life as no more than a commodity, humans and other species as machines.
Ecoropa are currently fighting an EU Directive (98/44) that will strengthen the rights of Big Business to treat life as a commodity. They have launched an on-line petition which we urge you to sign. The deadline is 30 July 2000.
The good news is that the patent on the Neem tree granted to W R Grace has been rescinded.
Export credit guarantees are one of the ways in which the taxpayer subsidises corporate profit. The government underwrites dodgy export deals. Beneficiaries include Balfour Beatty (Ilisu Dam) and arms dealers like BAE Systems.
The UK government is currently carrying out a review of export credit guarantees. Early Day Motion 191 (EDM 191) has been launched to welcome that review and to call upon the government to negotiate a Europe wide ban on export credits for arms deals. Please check out whether your MP has signed. If not, why not?
House of Commons Information Office: 020 7219 4272
Yes, this action was illegal. Yes, this is serious, and that's why I assume full responsibility. The only regret I have now is that I wasn't able to destroy more of it. These actions will stop when this mad logic comes to a halt. -- José Bové
French peasant leader José Bové shot to fame last year when he trashed a McDonald's in France. He instantly became a national hero. Jacques Chirac and Lionel Jospin have fallen over backwards to get a photo opportunity standing alongside José Bové. BusinessWeek has elevated José Bové to one of its 50 Stars of Europe.
Over the two day period 30 June to 1 July 2000, José Bové, spokesman and founder of the French Peasant Confederation, and ten of his colleagues stand accused of trashing a McDonald's restaurant in Millau in an anti-globalisation protest. That is the 'official' trial. The reality is that McDonald's and globalisation will be trial. The prosecuting judge has agreed to extend the trial over two days to allow an international array of defence witnesses to be heard including Lori Wallach, Director of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen Global Trade Watch, Bill Christianson from the US National Family Farms Coalition, Susan George ATTAC France, Vandana Shiva from India, Rafael Alegria from the Honduras representing the global farmers coalition the Via Campesina, Paul Tran Van Tinh a former GATT negotiator for the European Union. The timing is interesting, on 1 July France takes over the EU Presidency. Major US TV networks have already booked coverage.
A taste of things to come, speaking at a crowded meeting in Marseilles one week before the trial, José Bové launched a new attack by accusing McDonald's of being the official front and main funder of the Church of Scientology in the US.
Techniques Avante Garde
Techniques Avante Garde, TAG, a foreign, Arab owned company registered in Luxembourg and Switzerland, are the leading contenders for development of Farnborough Airfield. They have put in a planning application to develop the site as a business airport, with a minimum of 25,000 movements, the automatic right of revision at 20,000 movements.
We have attempted to obtain background information on TAG, but registered as they are in Luxembourg and Switzerland we have run into a brick wall of secrecy. A business model favoured by Robert Maxwell, Nazi war criminals, Third World dictators, arms dealers, money launderers and drug dealers. A development on the scale proposed by TAG is usually accompanied by a glossy account of the company, past projects and glowing testimonials. With the TAG planning application there was nothing. Those manning the TAG information shop last year were surprisingly coy about the company. Rushmoor have tried to obtain financial data on the airfield operation but likewise have hit company confidentiality. TAG may release to Rushmoor financial data under the strictest of confidence, but this would be contrary to planning regulations which requires all information submitted for determination of the planning application to be in the public domain and open to public scrutiny.
Rushmoor should not be considering a planning application from a company about which so little is known, especially when to do so is to literally place the lives of local residents in the hands of TAG.
Too many fashion items come from global sweatshops. Workers, usually young women, work extremely long hours in dangerous and unhealthy conditions for less than a living wage.
Swiss-based Triumph-International uses sweatshops in Thailand and the Philippines. Official government statistics state that a Filipino worker needs 484 pesos a day for basic needs, the average rate in a Triumph-International sweatshop is 309 pesos a day. Workers get paid 25p for a bra that sells in Europe for more than £20. The workers went on strike for better wages, better conditions. Triumph-International refused to negotiate. Eventually government thugs were sent in to break the strike and beat up the workers using wooden clubs. Labour Behind the Label have produced a standard letter to send to the head of Triumph-International to protest at their behaviour and treatment of their workers.
Gunther Spiessshofer Labour Behind the Label President c/o NEAD Triumph-International 38 Exchange Street # 133 Hoi Bun Road Norwich NR2 1AX 7th Floor Piazza Building Kwun Tong tel 01603 610993 Kowloon, Hongkong nead@gn.apc.org fax 00 85 2234 19487
Student activism is on the rise on US campuses. The target is the global sweatshop fashion business. Nike have already struck back, cancelling grants to several universities including Oregon, Michigan and Brown Universities. Commenting on the blocked grant of $30 million to Oregon University Nike CEO Phil Knight said: '... the university inserted itself into the new global economy where I make my living. And inserted itself on on the wrong side, fumbling a teachable moment.'
Saipan is a Chinese island classed as US territory enabling the global sweatshops to attach a 'Made in USA' label. In a landmark case a suit filed by Global Exchange and others on behalf of 30,000 sweatshop workers claiming violation of US Labour Laws in connivance with Korean, Japanese and Chinese subcontractors has reached an out-of-court settlement of $8 million. The eight major brands to settle include Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Liz Claiborne. GAP, the sweatshop shop, has refused to settle.
@nti copyright - information for education and action - copy and distribute