Proof and Experimental Establishments (Hansard, 7 July 1994)

§ Mr. Ainger
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what compensation has been paid to residents living in the vicinity of the proof and experimental establishment at Shoeburyness for reasons connected with noise pollution.

§ Mr. Aitken
Between 1 January 1992 and 5 July 1994, a total of £13,393.94 has been paid in compensation as a result of damage caused by noise pollution.

§ Mr. Ainger
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work has been transferred from the proof and experimental establishment at Shoeburyness to the proof and experimental establishment at Pendine for reasons connected with noise pollution.

§ Mr. Aitken
None.

§ Mr. Ainger
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the trade associations and individual customers with whom his Department has had discussions on the implications at the current review of proof and experimental establishments in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Aitken
The review covers all test and evaluation establishments, not just the proof and experimental establishments. Discussions were held with the following organisations:

Society of British Aerospace Companies

Vickers plc

VSEL

GKN

Royal Ordnance plc

Rolls-Royce plc

Discussions were also held with a large number of internal customers such as MOD project managers and the Defence Research Agency.

§ Mr. Ainger
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about noise pollution have been received over the last three years from residents in the vicinity of(a) the proof and experimental establishment at Shoeburyness and (b) the proof and experimental establishment at Pendine.

§ Mr. Aitken
The figures are as follows:
266W

1991 1992 1993 1994 to date

Shoeburyness 47 218 420 533

Pendine 4 6 5

Shoeburyness's figures are for the calendar year,
Pendine's for the period 1 July to 30 June.

§ Mr. Ainger
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responses he has received from trade associations and individual customers following consultation on the Director General Test and Evaluation review at test and evaluation facilities.

§ Mr. Aitken
This consultation took the form of discussions. Written responses were neither received nor appropriate.