A few questions for Councillor Calver

(From Letters to the Editor, Tenby Observer 27/01/06)

Sir,

We would like to clarify some points contained in the letter from Mr. Calver as printed in the Observer on January 20. The MOD'S application is, in theory, as Mr. Calver stated, namely to move 20 day-time firings to after dark, finishing by 11 pm. However, what Mr. Calver's letter did not include was the full text of the application that goes on to state, 'unless operational needs dictate a change of these times and the amount of firing that will take place'. This clause is very often used already by the MoD, to cover the various activities at the base that occur at times outside of those advertised. When enquiries are made as to the time limits for these activities, we are advised by the MoD that they are acting 'within their bylaws of dawn to dusk'.

Major Warburton stated publicly at the meeting on January 5 that, if needed, firing may well take place later than 11 pm and/or may have to take place on extra nights. Similarly, when questioned about the 20 days vacated by firing. Major Warburton stated that he 'could not exclude these training slots being used for other activities, including low flying exercises'!

If this application were to be approved, the MoD, who presently operate from dawn to dusk, will be in a position to carry on 24 hours a day. There are no guarantees that the amount of firing will not increase, and there are no guarantees that other intrusive operations will not increase either. In short, there is every chance that the price to be paid by the local community on behalf of the rest of the UK will be larger rather than smaller. And all of this when there is another suitable UK site that can already accommodate night firing, but apparently the price for the MoD - as opposed to the one to be paid by this community - is too high.

Mr. and Mrs. G. Armstrong,
Slade Farm,
Manorbier.

---

Sir,
Clr. Calver's lengthy and misleading letter regarding the MoD proposal to introduce firing after dark at the Manorbier range (in your edition of January 20) would be laughable were it not addressing such a serious issue: The balance needs to be redressed as your readers need to be made aware of the following points.

1) The proposal is entirely unacceptable for a number of reasons, including the fact that it will have a very serious effect on the health of the local population, particularly children and the elderly; it will exacerbate the existing noise and other pollution problems; it will adversely affect the local economy, particularly tourism; and it further endangers the declared policy of improving the tourist economy.

2) The background to the existing situation is that in recent years the activity at the range has escalated with the introduction of extremely noisy low-flying aircraft targeted on the range which make life in its environs unbearable. It is noteworthy and perhaps typical that Defence Estates, have changed, surreptitiously, the designation of the range from RAR to Air Defence Range. These developments have taken place without any local consultation or permission being sought from the local authority. The current proposal is the last straw. What next?

3) The concept of allowing firing after dark for an experimental period is nonsensical as we already have vast experience of what the firing is like, on 100 days per year, with the noise levels reaching unacceptable levels. Another problem with a trial period is that once permission is given, it is unlikely to be rescinded.

4) It is clear that while there are other possibilities, the MoD's main reason for using Manorbier is that it is the cheapest option. These operations have been privatised with the defence group QinetiQ responsible for running the firing ranges. According to the business pages, parts of QinetiQ are now up for sale and its directors and backers now stand to make huge profits from its deals with the MoD. The Government will reduce its holding to below 30 per cent and Carlyle, the US private-equity firm, who have a 34 per cent stake in QinetiQ, is looking to make an 800 per cent profit on its original investment. So, of course, to QinetiQ cost is a very important factor. However, the exploitation of the goodwill of loyal citizens by the obfuscation of the commercial nature of the range operation is insulting. Profits will be made at the expense of the peace, health and wellbeing of the Manorbier community.

5) Clr. Calver's support of the Armed Services would have been laudable in 1939, but today it is misguided. Pembrokeshire is not an uninhabited Welsh wilderness, which appears to be the view from Whitehall, but a beautiful landscape peopled with vibrant communities very dependent on the tourist economy. Manorbier is a place where people choose to live, bringing up their families and running businesses, thereby contributing to the wealth and future well-being of the county. Others decide to here retire seeking peace, quiet and safety. These are the people who are now extremely worried by the latest development. They are meeting, talking and raising questions in a combined effort to safeguard their future. The levels of 'pollution' at Pendine and Castlemartin, both at sea and on what was once good agricultural land, are example; to all. Residents here do no want further developments which might turn this area of outstanding natural beauty into a wasteland.

6) It is interesting for locals to note that Clr. Calver wrote to the National Park on November 2005, supporting the proposal without consulting the local community, prior to the public meeting on the matter held on January 5, 2006, and well before the Community Council meeting on January 10. This begs the question, 'on whose behalf did our County Councillor write to the National Part and on whose authority?'.

There are many other reason why the application should be refused, such as its implicit contravention of human rights, but the above will suffice at this stage. My neighbours and I simply wish to live here in peace which surely is not to ask when we reside in a conservation area within a National Park. Or do we?

Pearl and Andrew McCabe
Fernley Lodge,
Manorbier.

---

Sir,
Having read Mr. Calver's letter printed in your issue dated January 20, it would seem that the prospect of further noise pollution is an issue which continues to raise concerns with the residents of Manorbier community, and so it should continue, for this is an issue that, if given the go ahead, may have a dramatic impact on the lives of many people, not to mention businesses, tourism, wildlife and possible damage to people's health. Surely, until further independent comprehensive monitoring is carried out and all the residents' concerns have been addressed, it would be totally unfair to force this unwanted disturbance upon the good people of Manorbier, Lydstep and Jameston. Given that the people of Jameston and Lydstep were overlooked when the monitor ing was carried out, it is understandable that they now feel hard done by. Such an issue must be given serious consideration, and these people's concerns should be addressed. The Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority will soon make a decision on the planning application and, as stated, 'unless a valid reason for rejection of the application is made', then it would seem that the MOD would have the green night to carry out night-time firing. However, there are many members of the community who feel that they do indeed have valid reasons, (which contravene Tan 11) and are hoping that their perception of valid does not differ too greatly to that of the National Parks.
With regard to Mr. Calver's reference of 'doing our bit for our nation and training our service personnel', we are sure the majority would agree with this if it were for our own troops only. However, he failed to mention that this facility may also be open to the Dutch, Belgians and other European nations. To grant the application on a probationary basis would not be welcomed at all by the residents and would be an unfair intrusion to many. With regard to his comments about being saddened by the attitude of the community councillors, one would do well to remember that these community councillors are acting on behalf of the residents of the community and any decisions made should be in the best interests of the community.

Should a county councillor not do the same by his constituents?

The issue of our children's sleep patterns should not be taken lightly, as these youngsters are the nation's future, and it should be in everyone's interest to remember this. They already have to bear the noise of low flying aircraft during schooling hours, which undoubtedly has an affect on their concentration levels. Sleep deprivation will only add to the already hard job our teachers have in capturing the children's much-needed, undivided attention.

To crave further disturbance is not rational and as the night itime firing will bring no advantages with it, then I think the councillors have acted correctly. To seek further advice, reassurance and honest answers to the questions our residents have put forward, and feel so strongly about, can only be a positive step. The council should listen to the concerns of the residents with a sympathetic ear, and show their support to the residents of our community - surely that's what a community council should be doing!

There may well be hope yet for the residents, as the Pembrokeshire National Park, taking a cautious approach, have deferred the planning application until February.

Many wait in hope of a favourable outcome and that common sense and a sympathetic approach will be taken.

Peter Kidney,
Terry John,
Manorbier Community Councillors.

---

Sir,
Cir. Calver's letter (After dark firing a small price to pay, January 20 issue) infers that all the members of the Manorbier community who object to the proposed night firing, are opposed to the training of British troops. Exactly the opposite is true. Not one person, I and others have contacted about this issue, is opposed to training, and all the individuals and bodies who have sent letters to the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority opposing the application, including members of the campaign group, fully support the training needs of the British soldier.

What Cir. Calver seems to have difficulty accepting, is that Manorbier community has suffered the effects of a 'fearsome noise' emanating from the range in prolonged silence for years.

The MOD have 'put on' the people of this community for far too long without taking any measures to reduce the noise 'nuisances' generated, increas ing the range's use over the last few years to include low-flying aircraft exercises. Now the MOD plan to introduce night firing, stating it will have no impact on the local community; this is just a missile too far and the community are saying enough is enough.

The MOD do have alternative sites available for training, with no restriction on night firing or impact on a local community; they fire missiles all day and night there already. What we, as a community, are saying is: if the MOD want to fire at night, now is the time to go to these alternative sites.

Under the Human Rights Act, all members of the community have the right to peace and quite in their homes. All the monitoring appraisals by the MOD and PCC have shown all noise levels well in excess of the 65db threshold of a noise nuisance - many almost twice this, and well beyond the acceptable levels set by the World Health Organisation.

It is time to refrain from trying to use the tactic of emotional blackmail on members of our community, saying our soldiers need training and Manorbier is the only place. It won't work this time, our community now knows, despite previous denials that there was nowhere else to train, that there are alternative sites both in the UK and abroad.

C.L.Cochrane,
Dewing Avenue
Manorbier

---

Dear Sir

May I have the opportunity through your columns to correct some of the errors and omissions contained in Councillor Calver's letter concerning the Night Firing Planning Application in last week's Observer?

He says that he was asked by the PCNPA for his comments on the application. One wonders how many members of the community he was elected to serve were consulted before he made his comments?

The Community Council organised a public meeting to hear the Army's case for the application and to gauge the feelings of the community. From this meeting it became clear that there was a substantial majority opposed to night firing.

He states that 'eight out of the nine councillors eligible to vote indicated that they were opposed to the application'. Not so! I, among several councillors, stated that I was not personally opposed to the application but felt that as members of the Community Council it was our duty to reflect the majority views of the community and not make decisions based on our personal feelings or interests. This is surely what democracy means.

A request for a site visit is not at all unusual in planning applications and is a way of gathering more information and making the views of the community known to the Planning Authority.

His assertion that 'councillors have now made a judgement on the application' is not true as the vote in Council has been deferred until after the site visit, so no 'judgement' has yet been made.

Councillor Calver's point about the need for our Armed Forces to have adequate training is valid as far as it goes. As a former member of the Armed Forces who has personally served in difficult and dangerous situations, I completely agree with the need for such training and I am sure that if there were no alternative location for this training then there would be very little opposition in our community to the application. There is, however, an alternative suitable site in the Outer Hebrides but the MOD have ruled this out on the grounds of cost. An argument which is hard to take from an arm of government which sees nothing wrong in spending many millions of pounds of tax payers money on the DARA fast jet servicing facility at RAF St Athans and then moves the business back to England.

A final point on the theme of money - the planning application mentions 'overseas customers' and as anyone who has watched the low flying exercises at Manorbier will be aware, a large proportion of the aircraft using the range are foreign aircraft. Since there are no reciprocal training agreements in place with any of these foreign governments, one assumes that the MOD is selling the facilities at Manorbier and deriving an income from these sales. This poses the question, how long before foreign forces will be involved in night firing at Manorbier?

Brian Coleman

Morfa Terrace
Manorbier

---

Powered By Qumana