Dear Mr. Prescott,
I have received your letter about the 'virtual quarry' on Hinksey Sidings
from the Government Office for the South East. It is an insult to the intelligence
of residents of South Oxford and shows complete contempt for local democracy.
To force us to wait for eight months in order to arrive at a dubious legal
opinion in favour of Railtrack is quite despicable. Why should the government
be pandering to this company, which is flouting public opinion in so many
ways, leeching money from the taxpayer at an ever increasing rate, and unable
even to provide a decent rail service? We can only conclude that there is
a hidden and cynical political motive for the judgement that you as minister
are 'minded' to make.
As to the claim that the environmental impact is not significant, this
is laughable, in view of the fact that County and City councillors unanimously
decided otherwise, and applied for the Article 4 Direction because of that,
and those who live in South Oxford and South Hinksey village know already
to their cost that it is otherwise. Why does the government fear the results
of an environmental impact assessment? If they are so confident that the
environmental damage is negligible they would rush to have a survey made
in the sure knowledge that it would prove that all our fears are groundless.
Instead of which they try to hide behind a subterfuge of legal arguments,
so that they do not have to deal with the substantive issues raised. For
what sane or rational person could make the judgement that what is effectively
a working quarry, shifting 200,000 tonnes of ballast per year, and situated
only 200 metres from a large Nursery School, a health centre, and other
facilities and residences, and on former green belt land, is 'not likely
to have significant effects on the environment'?
In a recent circular from our local MP you make the claim that 'This
government is leading by example. All government policies are now assessed
by their impact on the environment…'. Having a quarry sited in a residential
area close to the heart of one of Britain's finest cities is clearly an
example we could do without. If this is the sort of policy you give your
approval to, why should we believe that your stated policies on the environment
are anything more than window dressing without any substance?
Finally, as you must know, Railtrack are to receive £1.6 billion
of taxpayers' money this year. By comparison Oxfordshire County Council
receives £380 million, or less than a quarter of Railtrack's annual
income from the governement. Yet, in one of the previous reviews, you found
it necessary to cap the OCC budget. There seems to be a stark contrast between
the punitive and stringent attitude which you adopt towards Oxfordshire
County Council, and the meek and humble submissions which you make to Railtrack.
What advantage is it to us, who live in Oxford, to support a system which
pays out money to companies which hasten to wreck our environment while
pretending that they are serving the community? The proposal you put forward
to support Railtrack on this contentious issue is deeply disturbing, unjustifiable
on ecological, moral and financial grounds, and will do lasting damage to
the reputation of the Labour Party.
Yours sincerely,
<HR>
The following letter was sent by a local resident.
To The Rt Hon John Prescott MP.,
15 June 1999
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter of 27 May 1999 regarding Railtrack and the
exploitation of Hinksey sidings. There are many unanswered questions arising
from that letter and the more detailed letter you sent to Oxford County
Council.
1. The phrase 'virtual quarry' which was coined by Railtrack as a euphemism
to mis-describe their operations on the site was unfortunately adopted by
the people who first organised objections to the new type of work to be
carried out there. It would more accurately be called a dump. The nature
of the new work requires the use of heavy machinery. The noises and pollution
coming from the site are those normally associated with heavy industry.
Whilst this activity may not technically be 'mining', the site is certainly
being used for work which has many of its characteristics. In any case,
it involves the introduction of industry in a green belt, which at this
point comes very close to the centre of our beautiful and historic city.
2. We understand that on the 16th Dec. 1998, Mr. Raynsford told the House
of Commons that the fact that Railtrack had already started work on the
site would not influence the decision on the Article 4 Direction. Your letter
states quite the reverse. Did Mr. Raynsford deliberately mislead the House,
or has the Government made a U turn - and if so, why? Was the Minister properly
appraised of the facts?or was he overruled?
3. Regarding the technicality of which planning office should have submitted the request for Article 4 direction, we would like to know:
a) why did it take the Department so long to point this out and
b) why is it relevant: surely any authority can represent people affected
by pollution - of any sort?
4. To refuse to confirm the direction, as the Minister says he is minded
to do, will be both to give free rein to Railtrack and other companies with
permitted development rights to exploit green belt land even further and
to keep the public helpless - without even the protection of existing environmental
law. We question whether supporting big business in this way at the expense
of a community is consistent with the claimed ethos of the Labour party.
5. There is absolutely no doubt that the industrial usage of the site
is having a detrimental impact on the local environment. To claim otherwise
would be to ignore the truth. The site is bounded by a public park, schools,
a health centre and housing, all of which are adversely affected by the
operations at the site.
6. Railtrack's strategy is clear - sell off industrial sites at a large
profit (this they have done very successfully, leaving themselves very little
industrial land they can use) and then use green-belt sites for industrial
purposes, using the umbrella protection the Minister seems minded to uphold
and tacitly reinforce. Green-belt land has little value on the open market,
because other potential users would be subject to green-belt planning restrictions,
but thanks to the Government, this does not apply to Railtrack. To support
Railtrack's exploitation of the green belt in the light of its strategy,
its high profits and its huge tax payers' subsidy strikes us as being morally
wrong.
7. Like many other statements coming out of Railtrack, we do not believe
its repeated assertion that it cannot afford to relocate the site of the
quarry. Of course it can. However, it is clearly increasing its investment
in the site as quickly as possible so as to be in a position to put in a
big claim when its operations are finally stopped.
8. We recognise that one of the Minister's many responsibilities is to
improve the appalling rail service in this country, but we question whether
he has given environmental matters their due consideration in this case.
We earnestly hope that the Minister will look again at this case and
decide after all that the rights of communities to a clean environment must
come before the convenience of big business and in doing so, support the
Article 4 direction. If the Minister confirms his "mindedness"
to support Railtrack at the expense of our community and if other local
residents were then to pursue the matter through the relevant Institutions
of the European Union, we would give them our wholehearted support. If our
own Government won't look after us, we will have to look for justice elsewhere.
Yours faithfully,
<HR>
The following letter, also from a local resident, was sent
recently to the Govt. Office for the S. E. and received a reply, which is
printed below it.
Dear Sir,
1. I write concerning your letter of 27 May 1999 regarding Railtrack
and the exploitation of Hinksey sidings.
2. The phrase 'virtual quarry' was coined by Railtrack to describe their
operations on the site. The nature of the work requires use of excavation
machinery. The noises and pollution coming from the site are those associated
with heavy industry. Whilst this may not be 'mining' the site is being used
as a quarry or 'ballast dump'. Either way it is industry in the green belt
which comes in very close to the very centre of our ancient and historic
city.
3. I was in the House of Commons when, on the 16th Dec. 1998
Mar Raynsford dtated that the fact that Railtrack had started work on the
site would not influence the decision on the Article 4 Direction. Your letter
states the contrary. Was the Minister not properly appraised of the facts
or was he overruled?
4. On the technicality of which planning office should have submitted
the Article 4 direction, I should like to know why it has taken the Department
so long to point this out.
5. The industrial usage of the site is having an impact on the local
environment. How could it not when it is bounded on one side by a busy public
park, schools, a health centre, and housing, and on the other side by ancient
water meadows, (which form part of Oxford's flood plain), and farm land.
6. Railtrack, having sold many of its industrial sites for profit, is
exploiting green-belt sites for its own essential (due to government pressure)
work; land that no one else would want or which would attract only a low
priceas it would be subject to green-belt planning restrictions. To support
Railtrack in the exploitation of the green belt in the light of its high
profits and huge tax payers' subsidy appears to me erroneous.
6. Railtrack has repeatedly asserted it cannot afford to relocate the
site of the quarry. This clearly cannot be true. To refuse to confirm the
direction is to give free rein to companies with permitted development rights
to exploit green belt land and to render the public helpless, without even
the protection of existing environmental law.
7. The Minister wears two hats. I question whether he has been able to
give environmental matters their due consideration given the appalling state
of our railways under Railtrack.
However that may be, I earnestly hope that he will look again at this
case and judge to support the Article 4 direction. I feel that this is an
issue that it would be valid to pursue through the mechanisms of the European
Union.
Yours faithfully,
XXXXXXXX
The reply.
Dear Madam,
Thank you for your letter of 29 May to Mr. Prescott concerning Railtrack's
development at Hinksey sidings, in response to my letter of 27 May. I note
the comments made in your letter (paragraphs 2 to 7).
I enclose a copy of the letter to Oxfordshire County Council which sets
out more fully the Secretary of State's view as to why Environmental Assessment
is not required in this case.
It will be apparent from that letter that the case raises a number of
complex issues and these have required legal advice. Some of these issues
did not emerge until after the House of Commons debate in December.
Yours faithfully,
The following reply was sent.
15 June 1999
Dear Mr. Prescott,
Re: Hinksey Sidings, Oxford..
1. I am shocked the government is 'minded' to give the benefit of legal
opinion to a private monopoly company, known for its exploitative
practices. Both OCC and local European legal specialists interpret the legislation
and case law differently.
2. The OCC and the public (the OCC receiving three times LESS money a
year in public funding than Railtrack (profit £1 million a day) are
to be left to bear the financial and emotional burden of a legal challenge.
3. This is wrong. Where there is legal doubt, discretion should be exercised
in favour of the environment and financially disadvantaged..
4. Not to support the Article 4 Direction reflects a lack of political
will. The Minister should support the spirit of European directives, not
retreat behind circulars.
5. If it is the case that the wrong Authority applied for the Article
4 Direction I should like to know why the government has been so slow to
point this out.
6. This delay together with Mr. Raynsford's comments in the House in
December has lost us valuable time. It is a principle in equity that Raynsford's
statement should be considered in the Minister's evaluation, as it has misled
the public.
7. In addition, this line of reasoning means Railtrack has been dealing
with the incorrect authority. Should they not be made to consult with the
'correct' authority.
8. If the government wanted to cite technical argument, what about the
fiasco of public consultation, which began after (unbeknown to the public),
contracts with Midland Quarry Products had been signed. Consultations which
were then unilaterally terminated by Railtrack. It is noticeable that Railtrack
have avoided citing case law on these matters.
9. Given that the 'quarry' is next to a park, schools, swimming pool,
health centre, housing; and that the Environment Agency has stated that
there are consequences for the flood plain; and that this is heavy industry
in the green belt creating (and your department has been given the evidence)
dust, dirt, noise and fumes - it seems to me to be irrational to
say there is no environmental impact. Please give your reasons.
10. Labour's election promises to curb excesses of the more ruthless
privatised industries, to support local government, to give value to public
opinion, and to protect the environment appear to be no more than empty
rhetoric.
I have read the letter your office sent to the OCC.
Yours sincerely,
The following is a letter recently sent giving a detailed respons to the submissions made to the County Council in the letter sent to them by the Government Office for the South East.
15 June 1999
Dear Mr Prescott,
I write in response to a letter from your office concerning the proposed
and actual development by Railtrack of Hinksey Sidings in Oxford.
I have studied the detailed submission sent to Oxfordshire County Council,
and note that you propose to approve the development. I give below my comments
on the various points made in this submission. The paragraph numbers refer
to those given in your letter to OCC.
4. I note that the first application to you for an Article 4 direction
by OCC is dated 30th October 1998. As Railtrack claimed to be
in a process of consultation up to this point, and frequently asserted that
all activity on the site was unrelated to the development of the 'virtual
quarry', I think we are entitled to assume that any return to the status
quo prior to this date would involve the removal of the quarry and all
works associated with it. The proper state of the site which should be considered
in any due legal process is that which existed before any consultation process
commenced, i.e. before May 1998.
5,6,7. The terminus a quo for the Article 4 Direction is clearly
Oct 30th, as stated in para 4 above. All subsequent work should
be invalidated, and in any case work should not have started on the project
prior to the end of any necessary consultation process. OCC had clearly
stated their objections to the proposed use of the site (as also had Oxford
City Council), and any further activity by Railtrack, after initial consultations,
was clearly in danger of breaching the provisions made for such exigencies.
Submissions by both parties after this date no doubt help to advance arguments
on both sides, but the delay caused thereby should not be allowed as a period
of grace to Railtrack to advance their work still further.
9-12. It is clear that Railtrack wish to establish a change of use for
this area. In various letters they have stated that they consider it to
be the most underused facility in the South East. It is evident that their
main considerations are commercial, rather than exclusively operational,
as they frequently maintain.
15. The legal precedent cited is not comparable. It cannot be the case
that Parliament intended that Article 4 Directions should be null and void
simply because a particular public utility or private company hastened to
implement a development before it could be halted. In the case of Cole
v Somerset CC [1957] 1 QB the development had been in place for four
years before it was even noticed and no consultation had taken place or
had been deemed necessary.
16,17. The relevant act apparently does not define what a mining operation
is, so it remains unclear as to how the Secretary of State can decide how
this is not a mining operation. Be that as it may, the conclusion of the
Secretary of State that the operation on this site 'appears … to involve
the storage of minerals dug and processed elsewhere' is totally misleading.
The most environmentally damaging aspect of this operation is the continuous
shifting of the ballast from one train to another, necessitating noise,
abrasion and the creation of dust. A permanent long term storage site for
ballast, with relatively little movement, is damaging enough on a former
green belt and undeveloped site. An operational 'virtual quarry' is an entirely
different matter, and if it is not directly analogous to a mining operation,
it is identical to a noxious industrial operation involving the handling
and transhipment of material immediately after it has been mined.
18. The Secretary of State should not sanction illegal developments.
Cole v Somerset CC [1957] 1 QB is not a comparable precedent.
19. Ditto.
24.
(i). Railtrack claim that the project has more than local importance
and is a significant part of their operational upgrading of the national
network.
(ii). This is a sensitive location in at least three respects, ecologically,
historically and culturally. It is bordered by SLINCs, parkland, water meadows,
schools, housing. It is part of the setting for Matthew Arnold's poem 'The
Scholar Gypsy', and the digger and ballast mound are now visible from the
Chilswell Pathway, altering the famous view of the Oxford skyline. The delicate
ecology which is rich in diverse species of flora and fauna has evolved
over the last 150 years around the large feature of Hinksey Lake, which
is the former excavation pit used to supply materials for the original construction
of the railways in this area. It supports a large population of breeding
birds. In one of their surveys of the area Railtrack found two species of
birds. There are known to be at least sixty in the area. The water meadows
on the South Hinksey side of the development are even older, and must date
back to Norman times. Since no time limit has ever been set on the proposed
development, and, once established, it is effectively beyond statutory control,
we can expect a gradual deterioration in all these areas due to a deposition
of acidic dust from the granite chippings. There will also be significant
run off of dust into the water courses.
(iii) This clause also applies to Hinksey Sidings. Surely the Minister
is capable of seeing that there is a difference between green belt land
in the open countryside, alongside the miles of railway track that cut through
the land, and one small area of green belt land in the heart of Oxford?
It is precisely because Oxford has fingers of green land reaching from the
outskirts right into its centre on all sides that its character is so different
from that of other cities. It seems to me that the wording of this clause
of Circular 15/88 precisely applies to the case in question, and I find
it incomprehensible that the Minister should choose to dismiss it, as he
does in the following section (25).
25. See the comments directly above. All three sections could be construed
as relating to Hinksey Sidings.
26. It is doubtful if the criteria set out here would be sufficient to
halt an urban development on any green belt land in any city in this country.
They are at least ten years out of date and relate to a period when there
was significantly less pressure on the green spaces in cities, and significantly
more of it available. If these criteria alone applied, almost any sensitive
location could be developed without appeal simply by:
(i) reducing its size to 4 hectares or less;
(ii) ensuring that it was sited 210 metres away from the area of densest surrounding dwellings;
(iii) restricting the area of shops, offices or other commercial uses
to less than 10,000 sq. metres (gross).
In any case, the Secretary of State has already ruled once in favour
of an Article 4 Direction applied for by Surrey County Council, against
a ballast handling depot. Since the three criteria mentioned in (i), (ii)
and (iii) above would not have halted development on that site, it is clear
that there are occasions when other standards may be applied.
27. These criteria do not apply and were probably never intended to deal
with the type of development proposed here. There are other criteria, for
example in EEC legislation, (see 33 and 34 below), and within Circular 15/88
(see 28 and 29 below), where the Minister is quite clearly given discretionary
powers to act but has deliberately chosen not to exercise his prerogative.
He is not entirely bound by the three criteria mentioned above in
26.
28. It does not matter whether or not there is an automatic presumption
that environmental assessment will be needed. It is quite clear from the
wording of the circular that the Minister has discretionary powers to decide
what constitutes a threat to the environment.
29. 30. It appears that the Minister is basing his judgement on 'the
likelihood of significant environmental effects'. Oxfordshire County Council,
Oxford City Council, The Stop the Quarry Action Group, Oxford Preservation
Trust, BBONT, Oxford residents, South Hinksey residents and many other groups
and individuals all assess that the environmental effects will be significant
and damaging. Evidently the Planning Officer from the Government Office
who visited the site has belittled the arguments set out by all these organisations
and individuals. Yet, in the end, there is no escaping the fact that the
decision that there is not likely to be a significant effect by virtue of
factors such as its nature, size or location is based on a subjective assessment
of the evidence. We believe that the two factors of the nature of the operation
and its location distinctly weight it towards being highly damaging to the
environment, and the Minister could just as easily, and with just as many
arguments, have found in favour of OCC and the residents of south Oxford
and South Hinksey village.
32. The development is not merely a ballast stockpile, but principally
a transshipment point for ballast. The Secretary of State takes the view
that nothing 'prevents him from taking the decision that he is minded to
take, not to approve the Article 4 Direction'. Since this view that he sets
forth is based entirely on interpretative opinions of various circulars
and documents, opinions which are not in any way legal facts, we may equally
conclude that there would be nothing in the legislation to prevent him from
taking the entirely contrary view, that the Article 4 Direction should be
upheld. (See inter alia, the arguments set out at 24 (i), (ii), (iii),
27, 28 above). He chooses instead to set the burden of proof on an already
cash strapped local authority, in favour of a company which proposes quite
needlessly to trash the environment.
33. 34. These paragraphs refer principally to European legislation. 97/11/EC
modifies 85/337/EEC. In the latter Directive, Annex II 10. (c) lists 'Construction
of railways and intermodal transshipment facilities..' as one of the types
of development which would require a detailed environmental assessment,
including 'A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be
significantly affected by the proposed project, including, in particular,
population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets,
including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the
inter-relationship between the above factors.' (Annex 1V, 3.) In the light
of these regulations it is doubtful if the criteria so rigidly applied in
paragraph 26 have any force whatsoever.
One is entitled to question why the Minister attaches so much importance
to the date 14 March 1999. The provisions of the Directive state that 'Member
States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with this Directive by 14 March 1999 at the latest.'
(Article 3. 1.) Perhaps the Minister could inform us precisely what laws
and regulations he has introduced up to and including 14 March 1999 to ensure
compliance with this Directive. From paras 24-29 he is evidently using outmoded
regulations which, by now, he should have amended to comply with these two
Directives.
Equally I believe it is open to question why 97/11/EC has only been implemented
on the last possible date (if indeed it has been implemented at all). The
Minister has had these regulations since 3 March 1997. Since he continuously
informs us that he is protecting the environment, why did he not implement
the Directive at an earlier date, at least to show his good will and to
demonstrate that his stewardship has some meaning and is not merely vacuous
posturing? There is nothing in the Directive which forces any member state
to delay implementation, and it is entirely within their jurisdiction whether
they are fast or slow in following up the various provisions. In a matter
such as this, which concerns the protection of the environment for everyone,
it would have been a relatively easy matter to adopt a legislative framework
which appears to present much better options for ruling against noxious
developments. The fact that he has been so tardy shows that environmental
protection comes very low on the list of his political priorities.
I note also that the Minister states that the regulations quoted in 34
'do not, however, apply to development lawfully carried out before 14 March
1999'. He appears therefore to be gratuitously ruling in favour of Railtrack
that their development is legal, even though it was undertaken while consultation
was in progress, and they unilaterally declared that the consultation process
was at an end (which they had no right to do), and even though they knew
that an Article 4 Direction was being sought, (situations which did not
apply in (Cole v Somerset CC [1957] 1 QB). It is equally permissible to
offer the alternative legal opinion that the development is illegal and
that the case should be judged on the basis of the state of the sidings
as they were prior to May 1998.
35. This matter no doubt will be dealt with adequately by the two Councils.
The appropriate course, on reaching this opinion, would probably be to notify
Railtrack that they had all along been dealing with the wrong authority
and should now start their consultation procedure again with Oxford City
Council, and revert to the status quo which existed prior to May 1998. Has
the Minister done this?
Finally, in response to this entire sorry document which your office
sees fit to send out, I would like to record the deep sense of injustice
felt by people of south Oxford at what they perceive as a cynical betrayal
for the sake of ill judged political expediency. You were presented with
a distinct opportunity to show that you do respect local democracy, that
you seriously care about the environment, and that you are prepared to point
out to companies like Railtrack that they do not have unfettered rights
to wreck the pieces of land that history has generously granted to them
at very little cost. Instead of which, the assiduity with which your officers
have pursued every least argument which might in some way be interpreted
as favourable to Railtrack, and subverted any opposing views, is glaringly
and painfully obvious.
May we put this matter in perspective? Railtrack receives a subsidy from
the government of £1.6 billion per annum. By contrast, Oxfordshire
County Council received approximately £380 million, or less than one
quarter of the money which is generously doled out to this private company.
Yet, in a recent spending review, you found it necessary to cap OCC's spending.
At least OCC provides services which are of some benefit to the community.
All we get from Railtrack are a poor rail service and misery for all those
who have the misfortune to live in any proximity to its land. It is to this
company which you now propose to adopt a meek and supine attitude, while
treating OCC and local democracy with a heavy hand.
I quote two recent pronouncements made by you and included in a leaflet
sent round to us recently by our local MP.
'Labour is putting environmental concerns at the heart of our policy making. alongside economic growth and social justice. In two years we have delivered a package of reforms to cut pollution and congestion, protect wildlife and tackle global warming.'
'This government is leading by example. All government policies are now
assessed for their impact on the environment, and an audit committee of
MPs monitors our progress.'
Now that we have a working 'virtual quarry' in our midst, in the heart
of Oxford, we know how to interpret these statements.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. G. R. Ledger.
Secretary, Grandpont Residents' Committee.
Member of Stop the Quarry.
Comments and suggestions on the web site may be sent to grledger@oxquarry.co.uk
A video of the campaign is now available from the award winning Undercurrents Alternative News Video. Please click to access their web site for details.