Request about future plans to restrict public access to defence training estate south and west of Deepcut and Long Valley

Sean House made this Freedom of Information request to Defence Infrastructure Organisation

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Defence Infrastructure Organisation should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Defence Infrastructure Organisation,

Following the erection of fences around the defence training estate to the south and west of Deepcut, and the Long Valley area, I am interested in any other plans for similar work in the future.

Specifically, I would like to know details of any fencing / barrier / or other method proposed to restrict or remove public access to the lands referred to in the Aldershot and District Military Lands Byelaws 1976 that is to be implemented on behalf of DIO, MoD, Landmarc, or any other party.

In this context details means any information that would be useful in a layperson gaining a detailed understanding of said plans including but not limited to:

* Maps of areas impacted
* Dates when any work is to take place or enclosure to be enacted or access to be restricted
* Type of enclosure / restriction
* Whether there is to be a public consultation
* Dates of any public consultation
* Whether planning permission will be sought
* A copy of any cost benefit analysis that has been completed (for the avoidance of doubt this is any analysis that discusses the potential benefits of a removal of public access and / or the associated social or financial cost)
* Details of communications or plans for communications with local councils and / or local access forums and / or local MPs
* Unredacted (minus any names but including positions of each attendee and information on other items discussed at the meeting) minutes of any Military Liaison Meeting where such plans have been discussed
* The cost of each proposed fence/enclosure, broken down into the cost to DIO/MoD and any funding received or to be received from other parties (e.g. housing developer). For the purposes of this request, in this context funding means either monetary contribution or the estimated value of any material contribution (e.g. manpower, fencing supplies, etc)
* Where a restriction of public access is expected or possible, please provide information on the nature of the restriction (e.g. allowing public use when training is not in place, opening gates at xmas, etc.) together with an estimated proportion of time that public access will be restricted

For the avoidance of doubt this should include (but not be limited to) any enclosure of any lands that would allow restriction of public use under the existing 1976 byelaws.

In order to narrow the scope of this enquiry, please restrict your search to plans that are to be implemented from the 1st January 2019 – note that if information exists that was created prior to this date that relates to plans implemented after this date, such information would still fall within the scope of this enquiry. In this context implemented means actions that would result in the public becoming aware of the plans such as the erection of a fence, restriction of access, signs, or other method of enclosure.

Yours faithfully,
Sean House

DIO Sec-Parli (MULTIUSER), Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Dear Mr House,

Your request has been logged under our reference 2019/00631 and the target date for response is 11/02/2019.

Yours sincerely

DIO Secretariat

show quoted sections

DIO Sec-Parli (MULTIUSER), Defence Infrastructure Organisation

1 Attachment

Dear Mr House,

Further to your recent request for information dated 14 January 2019, please find enclosed a response.

Kind Regards

DIO Secretariat |
Corporate Governance | Defence Infrastructure Organisation | Kingston Road | Sutton Coldfield | W Mids | B75 7RL |

Sean House,

1 Attachment

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your response to my FOI request, however please can you
provide the requested information (as per the bulleted list in my query)
on the sections of fencing that you mention. 

I note, firstly, that both areas you mention are within the areas marked
as falling into the scope of the byelaws on the on map titled “Plan of
Aldershot Military Lands” contained on page 11 of the Aldershot and
District Byelaws 1976. Secondly, I note that section 2 of the bye laws
states:

“….the public are permitted to use all parts of the Military Land not
specially enclosed...”

Thirdly I note that enclosed is defined as “surrounded or closed off on
all sides” by the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as numerous Acts of
Parliament.

Therefore any additional fencing in the G2 area would be included in the
scope of the enquiry as despite the fencing having been erected around the
majority of the area, it is by no means enclosed as access is possible
from a number of locations along the canal (presumably why the fence is
planned to be further extended).

Similarly the second area of the fence is also within the scope of the
enquiry as this area is neither fully enclosed, and also MoD has confirmed
continued public access to Long Valley multiple times in a variety of
forms (including signs by entrances).

Finally, the scope requested in my enquiry is for all areas of land that
fall under the jurisdiction of the Aldershot and District Byelaws 1976
and, since you have mentioned just two plans to erect barriers please
could you confirm that you have no plans to enclose any other parts of the
land referred to by those Byelaws.

Thank you for your assistance with this and please don’t hesitate to
contact me if further clarification is required. 

Sincerely,
Sean House
Hampshire resident