|
MINISTRY
OF DEFENCE
OLD WAR OFFICE BUILDING WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2EU
D/Min(AF)/AI
3569/02/P
Dear Robert
Thank you
for your letter of 22 July (reference: RK/SJA/Dean Hill/lngram)
in which you raise concerns about proposals to close the Defence
Munitions (DM) site at Dean Hill near to West Dean village in
south Wiltshire.
I much appreciate
your kind words about the professional and courteous manner in
which you have been treated by the Defence Munitions staff with
whom you have had contact, under what are difficult circumstances
for all concerned. I am also grateful for the opportunity afforded
to representatives of Defence Munitions to attend, and participate
in, the local public meeting arranged by you and Sandra Gidley
MP on 19 July.
In your letter
you raise a number of questions and concerns held by you and your
constituents regarding the proposal to close DM Dean Hill. I do
understand the strength of local feeling that has been aroused
by the proposed closure and for that ,reason I have sought to
ensure that this response addresses thoroughly and comprehensively
each of the points raised by you personally, and also those raised
by your constituent, Mr. Cole. I know you will appreciate that
the munitions business is quite a complex area of operation and
it has been necessary therefore to say rather more about the context
of the questions you raise, and the answers given, than would
usually be the case. I do hope that you find this helpful on this
occasion. For clarity and ease of reference I have addressed the
individual points raised in the order in which they have been
made, dealing first, in paragraphs 4 to 12 incrusive, with Mr.
Cole's letter.
To begin with
the issue raised in his first bullet point it is true to say that,
should DM Dean Hill close as proposed, the principal stock holding
and maintenance facility for 1 ,0001b and 2,0001b bombs would
be located on the west coast of Scotland. This facility (a site
which has a dedicated integral deep-water jetty) already stores
part of the overall bomb stockpile. By also locating most of the
remaining stocks there DM would be well placed to meet future
Service requirements for bulk shipments overseas, whether in support
of exercises/training or, more importantly, in the supply of follow-on
stocks to support large scale operations. Routine supplies to
RAF stations in Scotland would also take place from that facility.
For routine peace time Service requirements in the south of the
UK a proportion of the bomb stocks will be held forward at a central
location in England. This central site benefits from excellent
rail and road links and, having provided the bulk of general munitions
for UK mounted operations in recent years, has significant experience
of satisfying customer requirements in all situations. This same
location would service the requirements of RAF stations in the
east of England, would top up those RAF units where front line
stocks are held for air operations, and is equally well placed
to service ports in the south of England for sea operations. Good
rail links between the two DM Depots would permit ease of transfer
of stocks between the two sites. In essence then, the immediate
use stocks would be held at operational bases, the bulk of second
line stocks in middle England near good infrastructure with the
balance available on the west coast of Scotland for outload to
theatre by sea, rail or road as required. One final point of relevance
when considering the disposition of bomb stocks across the UK
is that of the location of the main stockholding points for other
aircraft munitions. With minor exceptions, munitions payloads
for Fixed Wing Aircraft are already successfully maintained and
stored at DM Depots in the north. What is being proposed now in
relation to bomb stocks simply mirrors that position.
Be assured
that, having been involved throughout the conduct of the Rationalisation
Study, the Front Line Commands and Service customers are satisfied
that the proposed disposition of stocks and arrangements for their
maintenance and supply to Service Units would meet their requirements.
Ongoing negotiations between DM and Service customers would address
the detailed arrangements for these stocks and would establish
precise numbers to be held at each site.
Mr. Cole comments
on the relationship that exists between, and the relative size
and merits of, DM Dean Hill and DM Gosport. In earlier years,
when Portsmouth Naval Base supported submarines and had more ships
armed with large quantities of conventional gun ammunition, Dean
Hill's primary role was indeed in support of the Portsmouth based
Fleet. More recently however that direct support role has diminished
with the removal of submarines from Portsmouth Naval Base, a reduction
in the size of the Surface Fleet base-ported there, and the introduction
to the Fleet of sophisticated guided weapons not maintained at
Dean Hill. As a consequence Dean Hill was re-tasked to its current
role to undertake deep storage and routine maintenance of conventional
Naval munitions and, latterly, storage and routine maintenance
of RAF munitions, particularly bombs. Although the Depot is still
regarded by some as an "overflow" for Gosport activities
the reality is that the changing volumes of business at Gosport
no longer requires the support of any additional storage capacity
available at DM Dean Hill. This is evidenced by the fact that
Gosport operates, at all times, within its licensed explosives
capacity limit.
The licences
for all DM's underground explosives storehouses (including those
at DM Plymouth) were reviewed in the early 1990s and, as a result,
the licensed explosives storage potential at DM Plymouth was reduced.
This coincided with the removal of some explosives tasks from
Plymouth and thus working within the reduced limits did not present
any practical difficulties. If and when stores are transferred
from Dean Hill to Plymouth, Plymouth (as with all other DM Depots)
will continue to operate within the authorised explosives limits.
Careful analysis of current and anticipated explosives storage
requirements overall indicates that the explosives capacity offered
by DM Dean Hill is not required. It may help to put this in context
if I say that the Dean Hill depot provides just 4% by volume of
the overall national DM explosives storage capacity.
In the matter
of the road infrastructure around Dean Hill, it is the case that
other DM Depots are, in the main, better served in that regard.
However it is also true to say that the nature of the road network
surrounding DM Dean Hill was not a significant factor in the decision
to propose closure of the site.
In so far
as the events of September 11 are concerned the Terms of Reference
for the DMRS 2 Study, written before then, had already required
the Study Team to "establish the maximum anticipated storage
liability based on the best available data. ...". They did
not need to be redrafted therefore to take into account any changed
circumstances -the need to reflect the latest position, whatever
that should be, was already extant. In any event, as is made clear
in the Strategic Defence Review: A New Chapter (Section 6 Para
93), dated July 2002, the implications for all Service equipments
following September 11 2001 is that, whilst some enhancements
to military capability are needed, only relatively small quantities
of new specialised equipments are likely to be required. Although
the precise capability options are yet to be determined a contingency
factor for unexpected increases in the volume of explosives business
was included, as part of a risk reduction strategy, when determining
the overall future DM explosives storage commitment.
Mr. Cole makes
reference to the quality of the local workforce. I agree that
the skills and enthusiasm of the workforce at Dean Hill are of
a very high quality but they are not unique within the Defence
Munitions community. In line with the common need for any Government
accountable body to operate as efficiently as possible, Defence
Munitions has done what any responsible business must do from
time to time -examine their outputs and match available capacity
to meet those outputs.
Finally in
his letter Mr Cole refers to the process of consultation. The
Study Report itself was completed and presented to the Defence
Munitions Management Board in February last. After that time there
followed an internal staffing process to make quite sure that
the recommendations of the Study Team were acceptable within the
Defence Logistics Organisation as a whole. The DMRS 2 Report produced
in excess of 120 recommendations, all of which needed to be considered
together as a single package. This activity takes time and, I
am sure you would agree, needs to be carried out properly and
comprehensively to ensure that once recommendations are made public
they are as well researched and considered as is possible. That
"in house" process was not completed until the end of
May at which time final touches could be put to the formal consultative
Document, subsequently issued in June.
Very early
in the consultation period Defence Munitions granted an extension
of ten working days in addition to the standard 30 working days
allowed by the Department for the Trades Unions to consider their
response on significant MOD proposals. From the outset of that
consultation period DM has facilitated Trades Union involvement
in DMRS 2 matters at local as well as national level. This has
included hosting a DM Trades Union Open Day at which Trades Union
representatives from each DM Depot received a presentation, given
by the Study Team Leader, on the conduct and findings of the Study.
Those DM Management Board members most directly concerned in the
Study were also present and members of the audience had, and exercised,
the opportunity to ask questions directly following the presentation.
Representatives of both the Industrial and Non Industrial Trades
Unions were represented on the Study Team itself and TU National
Officers have been allowed working hours access to staff on site
at Dean Hill. Additionally, the local meeting held at West Dean
on 19 July, and attended by DM managers, afforded a further opportunity
for those Dean Hill staff members who attended to ask questions,
some of which have been reiterated in your letter, and are addressed
in subsequent paragraphs of this response. In all of this activity
no matters of substance have been brought forward such as would
make a further extension of the consultation period either a necessary
or sensible option at this time.
I hope that
the foregoing clarifies the points of concern raised by Mr Cole.
If I can now turn to the separate points made in your letter of
22 July, addressing them in the order raised.
To begin,
you mention "significant new arguments which have not been
aired". Beyond the matters now raised in your letter, I am
unsighted as to the precise nature of these new arguments. If
there are further issues relating to Dean Hill I would be glad
to address them once identified.
If the Depot
does close as proposed Defence Munitions has already indicated
in the Consultative Document that "every effort would be
made to find alternative employment for those in industrial and
non-mobile non-industrial grades in other MOD establishments or
Government Departments in the vicinity". Without prejudice
to the outcome of the consultation process, managers at the Depot
have already made informal contact with a number of other establishments
in the area to try and identify current and anticipated job opportunities.
If closure does proceed the services
of the MOD Outplacement Scheme will be made available to all staff
to help them identify other opportunities. This will include help
in CV preparation and, should any specific skills gaps be identified
that could make individuals more "marketable", assistance
would be given to seek appropriate training. Already, an initial,
without commitment, preference exercise is being run to help determine
how best to accommodate individual staff preferences should the
Depot close, since not all employees may opt for re-employment.
Currently, of the 29 civilian staff responding to date, 12 have
elected to seek redundancy and 17 to seek re-employment. Although
no guarantees can be given at this very early stage, if this pattern
is indicative of the responses likely to come from those other
staff yet to respond, the possibility of being able to find other
local MOD jobs for those that want them looks hopeful. The 21
Ministry of Defence Police Officers employed at the Depot will
be subject to their own redeployment procedures and no compulsory
redundancies of MDP officers are envisaged.
You raise
a number of issues relating to the disposal of housing and house
prices. Dealing first with the matter of sale to existing tenants
(22, of whom 14 are current Depot employees). No decision has
yet been made as to the value of the tenanted properties, or of
the price at which they will be offered under the MOD Discounted
Sales to Sitting Tenants Scheme. However, tenants are presently
being canvassed by Defence Estates to establish the discount for
which they may apply. I am well aware of the concerns of the tenants,
and of their desire for early resolution in this matter -we are
working to that end. So far as disposals of vacant properties
(13) is concerned Government Accounting requires the Department
to achieve open market value for property disposals. It is usual
Departmental practice to sell to Housing Associations, at open
market value, where appropriate or where their interest is known.
Turning now
to the other issues you raised in relation to possible site disposal.
The future use and development of the site will be planned in
consultation with both Hampshire County Council and Test Valley
Borough Council, together with Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury
District Council. On the basis that the site is declared surplus,
officials in Defence Estates South West (DESW) will be responsible
for the disposal. This activity will, of course, take account
of all of the Department's disposal policies and procedures. In
pursuing disposal DESW will involve both of the local planning
authorities in order to establish a co-ordinated planning approach.
They will also work with other relevant bodies such as Wiltshire
Wildlife Trust. The objective will be to promote the site for
beneficial sustainable development in accordance with both regional
and local planning policies.
At this stage
it would be premature to make decisions in respect of any particular
pieces of the site. The entire site needs to be planned in consultation
with the local planning authorities and other relevant public
bodies and interest groups. Making decisions on small parts of
the site could in fact prejudice development -the site needs to
be comprehensively planned.
Please rest
assured that the potential impact on the local economy has not!
been ignored in assessing the future defence need for Dean Hill.
Indeed, when considering a proposal either to close or to reduce
the size of any Government Establishment it is standard practice
to address the impact such change would have on the local economy.
In the case of West Dean this investigation revealed a local claimant
count of 1.7% which compares favourably against a national average
of 3.1 %. Overall, the Test Valley Local Authority district itself
is judged as being affluent with low deprivation.
You ask about
the relative merits of the explosives licences held by the Gosport
and Marchwood sites. The tasks carried out by these two sites
are different in concept and are therefore not directly comparable.
Marchwood Military Port (which is not a DM site) is used as a
transit point for movement of munitions and other stores to overseas
theatres and, increasingly, for support to amphibious forces.
In order to assist loading and unloading operations at alongside
berths and buoys Marchwood has a large area of open hard standing
and associated rail sidings. While the site has a relatively high
quantity licence for ammunition that licence is to cater for munitions
in transit, rather than for maintenance or long term storage.
There is no useful comparison that can be made therefore with
those DM Depots having licensed facilities for the purpose of
storing munitions under cover as well as other facilities provided
for the essential and safe maintenance of munitions.
In contrast
to DM Gosport, DM Dean Hill has relatively few facilities for
servicing munitions, catering in the main for relatively straightforward
conventional processing and possessing none of the sophisticated
facilities available at Gosport. It possesses only one facility
capable of processing bombs and there is no local fall back should
a major problem arise. The Depot in Scotland to which it is planned
to transfer this task has two such facilities capable of accommodating
bomb processing tasks and has further existing capacity, beyond
that available at Dean Hill, to accommodate anticipated new generation
munitions not yet in service. The scope for development of new
facilities at Dean Hill is significantly constrained because of
the orientation of the underground explosives storehouses there
that effectively sanitise a considerable area of the Depot. The
nature of underground magazines with tunnel access means that
in the event of an explosion in a magazine the tunnel effectively
acts as a gun barrel directing energy a considerable distance
from the seat of the explosion. Large tracts of land in the immediate
environs of the tunnel entrance are thus rendered sterile on grounds
of health and safety. Lesser constraints apply in the case of
above ground explosives storage facilities.
You also ask
about the relative licensed limits at DM Dean Hill and DM Gosport.
There are two complementary means by which explosives storage
capacity is measured, the straightforward volumetric measurement
(simply how much space a munition occupies) and also the amount
of explosives "power" contained within the munition
(known as the Net Explosives Quantity or NEQ). Because of their
relative locations, one rural the other urban, DM Dean Hill has
a greater NEQ capacity to store munitions than DM Gosport, although
DM Gosport has greater volumetric capacity than Dean Hill. In
any event, as indicated in paragraph 6 above DM Gosport has sufficient
storage capacity to meet its foreseeable requirements within licensed
limits and without recourse to using DM Dean Hill facilities.
During the
conduct of DMRS 2 the Study Team took into account the continually
developing munitions requirements for all three Services. For
the new Aircraft Carriers and Type 45 Frigates the factors that
determine the Base Port arrangements are not the same as those
that dictate the munitions outload points. Whilst the latter has
yet to be determined I am satisfied that the proposal to close
DM Dean Hill is not inconsistent with developing plans in this
regard.
The proposal
to close DM Dean Hill does not indicate a "reverse by stealth
(of) the policy of dispersal of munitions stores". Munitions
will still be held at a number of DM and customer owned storage
1ocations. Strict stock segregation rules, which determine internal
Depot dispersal of munitions holdings, are also applied within
individual DM Establishments. There are no plans to change this
policy. Dean Hill is not, in every respect, the largest depot
in the south of England (the volumetric storage capacity of Gosport
is greater) and neither is it any more or less secure than any
other DM establishment.
You refer
to the fact that the Team Leader of the Integrated Project Team
from RAF Wyton has not visited Dean Hill. Whilst that is presently
the case those members of his Team who have visited on a regular
and frequent basis are fully familiar with the working of the
Depot and were involved (as was the IPT Team Leader) in DMRS 2
discussions as the work was underway. This involvement included
a visit to RAF Wyton on 4 September last by members of the Study
Team as well as other subsequent discussions, briefings and visits
-the most recent of which, involving the IPT Leader personally,
took place on 11 April 2002.
Site visits
were a small (but nonetheless important) element of the conduct
of the DMRS 2 Study Team. I can confirm that there was a visit
by the full DMRS 2 Team to Dean Hill on 9 August 2001 and that
this was a whole day visit. Although the Team was based
in the Conference Facility some specific areas of the Depot were
toured by all of them as a party, and in the course of the day
individual Team Members visited facilities and interviewed Depot
Heads of Specialisation. Tasks were divided up in this manner
to make best use of the skills of the Study Team whilst covering
as much ground as possible in the time available. Subsequently,
several follow up visits were made to the Depot by individual
Team Members and an ongoing dialogue of "question and answer"
interviews was maintained with senior Depot Officers both by telephone
and by E-mail. This was typical of the pattern adopted by the
Team throughout the period of the Study and was applied equally
across all DM Depots. It is important to note in this context
that the members of the Study Team between them embrace in excess
of 150 years experience of working in the MOD's munitions business,
including time served in a number of the Depots. Of particular
relevance is the career background of the DMRS 2 Study Team Leader
whose enultimate appointment was as Officer in Charge of DM Dean
Hill- an appointment that she held until as recently as May 2000.
The Team was uniquely placed therefore to be aware of, and to
consider in full, the attributes of DM Dean Hill, and, indeed,
the other DM sites. Throughout the whole exercise the Team approach
was unbiased, independent and objective, neither favouring nor
prejudicing the case for any particular Establishment or geographic
location.
The Study
and Consultative Document addresses in full the proposal to close
DM Dean Hill. As indicated earlier in this response, if and when
that happens, and once the Depot has been certified free from
hazards, the whole site (including the underground storage magazines)
will be handed over to Defence Estates to market on behalf of
the Crown. They will prepare a marketing strategy in line with
the Government's disposals policies and procedures. The underground
storage magazines will be the responsibility of any new owner
but since the site is not yet on the market Defence Estates is
unable to judge the use to which they may be put in the future.
In response to your enquiry about the presence of asbestos in
the magazines, I can advise that all of them have ceilings lined
with asbestos but each has been sealed and overpainted.
Thank you
for your specific suggestion that Wiltshire Wildlife Trust would
be interested in pursuing possible purchase of that part of the
Depot that is a site of Special Scientific Interest. As already
indicated at Paragraph 17 Defence Estates will be consulting widely
to ensure adoption of a holistic approach to the future of the
site. One working assumption had been that Defence Estates would
try and reach an agreement with a body such as the Trust. They
will now make direct contact following your suggestion.
RAF Chilmark
was originally a site used for primary munitions manufacture and
it is the resultant contamination from that activity that has
lead to the decontamination exercise, over what is a much larger
site than DM Dean Hill. Dean Hill has not similarly been used
to manufacture munitions and therefore the level of any contamination
is anticipated to be of a much lower order -in all probability
limited to the type of contamination found in most brownfield
Industrial sites. Initial Land Quality Assessment work by MOD
scientists, trained to identify munitions and industrial contamination,
supports this judgement.
Finally in
your letter you ask about the application of "Critchel Down
Rules". As is normal practice, officials in Defence Estates
will investigate the position and take legal advice on this matter
if the site is declared surplus. That advice will be available
shortly after a solicitor has been instructed on the sale.
I hope the
above helps to address, and lay to rest, the concerns you have
about the proposal to close DM Dean Hill. I do understand your
disappointment at the Department's plans, and the negative impact
that these will have for specific members of your constituency.
I trust also that this response helps to explain the reasoning
behind the proposal to close DM Dean Hill, and that you will understand
the need for Defence Munitions to operate as efficiently as possible
not only for the benefit of the Armed Forces but also for the
UK taxpayers.
The current
period of consultation with the National Trades Unions is due
to complete on 16 August. In line with normal practice, until
all representations made within this period have been fully considered,
no final decision on the way ahead for the Depot and its employees
will be taken. I will of course write to you again as soon as
possible after 16 August to advise you of my final decision in
the matter.
The
Rt Hon Adam Ingram JP MP
|
Councillor
Bill Moss
