Birmingham Friends of the Earth Action Briefing June /July 1999

BNRR corridor of movement
or corridor of growth?

On May 5th the eight applicants in the legal challenge to the massively destructive proposed Birmingham Northern Relief Road settled out of court. It was becoming evident that there was little further to be gained in pursuit of the case and that the costs were spiralling upwards for all sides. The court case had already established many facts:

• there is a secret concession agreement between the government and MEL
• the government has acted illegally in its progression of the BNRR
• other organisations will be able to see details of contracts between central and or local government and private developers in the interest of public information (DETR PR #619 23 July 1998)
• there is no reason in law why the entire concession agreement cannot be made public
• the court quashed the decision by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Environment refusing to make the concession agreement public, and told the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision
• the definition of commercial confidentiality as argued by Midlands Expressway was too wide
• the Department of Transport should have disclosed the secret Concession Agreement at the Public Inquiry and
• John Prescott would have acted illegally in approving the road last year if he had considered cancellation charges.

This all said, we still have not seen the whole of the concession agreement and the government is hiding behind commercial confidentiality clauses on certain parts of the document. This is where the legal case became bogged down. The Alliance essentially won the right to see the concession agreement but not the bits they really wanted to see, i.e. the sections which detailed how MEL would be compensated if the road did not get approved. On this issue the gates of power are firmly closed.

The eight people who had put their names to the case met to assess their situation, shortly after the recent decision by the Appeal Court. It was becoming clear that the judges had little sympathy for the applicants as not only did they reject the appeal but also awarded MEL and the governments costs against them. With the prospect of escalating costs the Alliance were advised by their lawyers to settle out of court. This amounted to each side paying their own costs and the eight agreeing not to take any further legal action and not to take part in any direct action campaigns against the road.

As one door closes another one opens, and the campaign against this road continues: MEL still haven't raised a penny. Investors will be targeted. The compulsory purchase of land upon which the road will be built has not started. There are protest camps along the route. The AGM of the Alliance against the BNRR took place on 18th May and as well as electing a new chair there was a strong determination to do whatever is possible to stop this destructive scheme.

On a policy note, the West Midlands Regional Sustainability Forum as the regional body for environmental organisations received a copy of the regions response to the latest round of EU structural funds know as "Objective 2". In this document, in a section called "outside but serving," there was reference to development sites just outside the core industrial/urban area which have the potential to participate in the regeneration of the region by providing employment opportunities for residents of the Regions urban core. This highlights the threat to the region from the BNRR as a corridor of development. There is strong emphasis within the response on the Stoke to Coventry link which again points to the line of the BNRR north of the conurbation. We have to ensure that this development is prevented, and so all eyes will be on Peddimore and the other green belt sites along side the BNRR.

Sally Fletcher