News: Observatory: comprehensive objection to the 75-home plan

The Science and Technology Facilities Council, on behalf of Chilbolton Observatory, have lodged their long-awaited, comprehensive objection to James Painter’s planning application for 75-homes.

On this page:

Significant objection

Keith Zimmerman, Chief Operating officer of STFC, presents an 18-page critique of the effect of a 75-home development on the Observatory’s operations, supported by three annexes. Its three main points are:

  • Electromagnetic noise from the development would cause significant interference with the highly sensitive scientific instruments on site, specifically the Low Frequency Array radio telescope and the radars on the 25m antenna. This interference would have far greater effect than Mr Painter’s consultants, Pager Power, have estimated
  • The physical presence of structures on the development site would generate unwanted reflections known as “clutter” which would affect the faint signals the radar systems aim to detect
  • The proximity of 75 new homes and their occupants would “elevate the level of security threat” to the Observatory. How and why cannot be revealed publicly, but were the plan to be reviewed in an enquiry this could be presented in a private session

Detailed annexes

The annexes cover:

Annex A. A summary of the work done at the Observatory, with clear explanations of how the various radars work and how they are affected by clutter and electromagnetic interference

Annex B. A technical report on measurements of existing electromagnetic emissions around the Observatory site, which concludes that more residential property built around it “is highly likely to reduce the sensitivity of the radio receivers within the current site”

Annex C. An opinion from Richard Moules KC which concludes that the adverse impacts of a 75-home development on the Observatory are a “material planning consideration” and that TVBC should “give substantial weight” to those impacts

Highlights

  • Confirmation that a new X-band radar system is “currently being installed”. It will be eight times more sensitive than the existing S-band radar and will be more badly affected by clutter
  • Pager Power’s report on behalf of James Painter “contains significant flaws which mean it fails accurately to assess the true impact of the proposed development on the Observatory.” In particular they have used industry interference thresholds which are inappropriate for the sensitive Observatory equipment
  • Pager Power misunderstood how LOFAR works and how badly it would be affected by increased interference
  • In satellite tracking, they also failed to take into account how weak the returned radar signals from tracked objects are. The document says “This fundamental lack of understanding of radar systems casts doubts on Pager Power’s capabilities to comment in this area.”
  • At a meeting with James Painter and his team, the document says that it “quickly became apparent” that “the applicant was taking an adversarial stance, not seeking to genuinely understand STFC’s position, but seeking to dismiss the concerns and demanding strict parameters to be defined to which STFC were not in a position to immediately respond.”
  • Producing the STFC’s objection required “liaison up through the management layers of STFC, UKRI and the sponsoring government Department to enable ministerial involvement if necessary and to ensure all were in agreement on the objecting position.”
  • Southern Planning Practice’s document on the planning portal “dismisses the security concerns raised by STFC, without having been briefed. This is extremely irresponsible and dangerous and their comments should not be taken into consideration.”
  • An analogy which will resonate with Chilbolton residents is provided: “Degradation of the operating environment at the Observatory with respect to either [electromagnetic interference] or clutter might be reasonably compared to asking an ecology site to state a tolerable limit to overflow sewage – the tolerable limit is zero addition to the baseline.”

Summary

STFC have clearly taken time and expended effort in compiling their objection. They also imply the involvement of government in its production. The technical detail supporting their case is significant, and is based on expert analysis.

Most interesting is how the document skirts around any details of defence-related systems or the security issues of the Observatory site. Mr Zimmerman addresses this is their closing remarks:

I trust you appreciate that around matters of security, we cannot fully disclose all our concerns in a public forum. This includes details of the security threat that the development proposal represents, but also the precise details of our capabilities where these have defence and military implications. We are advised that an inquiry would provide the means for open discussion under [section 321 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990] and this may be the only means by which they can be properly taken into account.

The discussion to which he alludes would be an option in the event that government steps in and takes decision-making for the 75-home application away from TVBC planners. The Secretary of State would “call it in” for review by the Planning Inspectorate.

An inspector would normally run an inquiry in public, but if the Secretary of State agrees that “public disclosure of that information would be contrary to the national interest”, the inquiry can be held behind closed doors.