New Otterburn evidence: Military Proposals Unsafe and Unnecessary
25 September 2000
Opponents1 of the Ministry of Defence major development plan for the Northumberland National Park have submitted new evidence that the proposals are unsafe and unnecessary.
Ministers have invited further submissions, following calls by the Council for National Parks2 and others, that new information meant a need for further public scrutiny. The proposals, for roads and other development to accommodate artillery and rocket training, were subject to two Public Inquiry sessions in 1997 and 1993.
CNP's Director, Vicki Elcoate, said: "The Ministry of Defence told the Inquiry it was safe to fire its rockets in the Otterburn Training Area and we now learn that they do not safely fit within the danger area. This puts people on the Pennine Way in potential danger. The MoD must come clean on its safety record, particularly when comparisons are being made with the US Army whose safety rules are much stricter, yet whose training areas are much bigger and don't affect the public.
"The development is also now unnecessary because the rockets will be obsolete by the time it is built, even if it gets permission in the near future".
CNP is also calling for rigorous scrutiny of how the MoD's new environmental assessment procedures affect the Otterburn proposals.
"The MoD has consulted widely in drawing up detailed documents on how it can minimise its environmental impacts, including by more training overseas and different ways of training. It deliberately left Otterburn out of this process, even though we believe ways of avoiding damage to the Northumberland National Park could have been found", said Vicki Elcoate.
"Ministers must now look very closely at how the MoD has conducted itself throughout its long-running campaign to secure a major development in one of England's last wild areas. Whilst the MoD needs to train effectively, CNP and others have never believed that the AS90 45 tonne gun and the Multi-Launch Rocket System have to train in a National Park, which is designated for conservation and quiet enjoyment. Additionally, If the development goes ahead, the new infrastructure will open the floodgates to a host of other damaging activities that will follow closely behind".
Notes to Editors
1 The Council for National Parks is part of the National Park Consortium, a grouping of voluntary sector organisations whose position is that the proposed MoD development would have a major adverse impact upon the Northumberland National Park, would be incompatible with National Park purposes and should therefore be refused. Its members are: Council for National Parks; the Ramblers' Association; the Youth Hostels Association; the Natural History Society of Northumbria; the Council for the Protection of Rural England; the Open Spaces Society; the Northumberland Archaeological Group; the Association of Countryside Voluntary Wardens; the Northumberland and Newcastle Society and WWF-UK
2 The Council for National Parks (CNP) is the national charity that works to protect and enhance the National Parks of England and Wales and areas that merit National Park status, and promote understanding and quiet enjoyment of them for the benefit of all.
3 There have been two Public Inquiry sessions, lasting a total of nine months, into the proposals which involve the loss of 25 hectares of wildlife habitat and damage to a beautiful landscape, plus noisy firing and disruptive convoys on public roads. The Government Office for the North East recently invited further submissions, with a deadline of 25th September 2000.
For press queries please contact:
Ruth Chambers, Head of Policy on
020 7924 4077 ext. 222