G-KEST
6th Dec 2006, 15:52
The GAAC has highlighted the continued threat to airfields which might be considered "brownfield" sites for redevelopment. This brought about by a new planning policy statement from central government's Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). I have emailed my local MP asking for his help as follows -
I am disturbed by the recently published Planning Policy Statement PPS3 – Housing which, despite assurances to the contrary given by the then ODPM, omits a vital few words relating to airfields.
These were previously included in the, now superceded, Planning Policy Guidance PPG3 – Housing where a footnote relating to the development of "brownfield" sites stated -
“However, this does not mean that the whole area of the curtilage should therefore be redeveloped. For example, where the footprint of a building only occupies a proportion of a site of which the remainder is open land (such as an airfield or hospital) the whole site should not normally be developed to the boundary of the curtilage.”
This meant that an airfield, which may only have a very small area of land covered with buildings, should not all be treated as previously developed land. This was a sensible approach, especially given the Government’s stated aims that development should be sustainable. As the majority of airfields are located in relatively remote rural areas, it is highly likely that a major re-development of such a site would have poor physical and functional linkages to settlements. This would render future occupants heavily dependent upon the car and therefore be unsustainable.
The new statement PPS3 – Housing was issued on 29th November 2006. Despite all the representations made by the General Aviation community, and indeed assurances from MPs that this was just a “slip of the pen”, it does NOT include the vital footnote. This is serious.
PPS3 does contain a paragraph that states:
“There is no presumption that land previously developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed.”
However, while this reflects the gist of the previous advice, it is far less specific and makes no reference to airfields. Furthermore, it does not give any guidance on the extent or distribution of development. Given that there is a continuing emphasis upon developing brownfield, or previously developed, land (paragraphs 10, 36, 40, 41 and 44 of PPS3 refer, for example), this renders airfields increasingly vulnerable. While the isolated rural locations of some sites mean that they will fail other tests such as sustainability it leaves those sites that are closer to centres of population as clear targets.
Other Central Government advice, such as that embodied in PPG13 – Transport, does balance the case a little by emphasising the importance of GA
At the CAA General Aviation conference held on November 21, the Minister for Aviation at the Department for Transport stated:
“We (the DfT) understand the value of maintaining a network of general aviation airfields – not just to you (the GA Community) but to all of us. And I can can confirm today that we are looking at how to move this forward, including the possibility of a national policy statement.” It would seem that her welcome words might have been a little premature in view of the subsequent publication of PPS3 by the DCLG only a week or so later.
I trust you will excuse my bringing this to your attention however my concern as to the potential threat to existing and possible future airfields represented by the wording of PPS3 and its interpretation by local planning authorities is very real. Any representations you could make on behalf of myself and that of the General Aviation fraternity would be much appreciated.
Something on these lines to your own local MP might have some effect. I do hope so.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:mad:
I am disturbed by the recently published Planning Policy Statement PPS3 – Housing which, despite assurances to the contrary given by the then ODPM, omits a vital few words relating to airfields.
These were previously included in the, now superceded, Planning Policy Guidance PPG3 – Housing where a footnote relating to the development of "brownfield" sites stated -
“However, this does not mean that the whole area of the curtilage should therefore be redeveloped. For example, where the footprint of a building only occupies a proportion of a site of which the remainder is open land (such as an airfield or hospital) the whole site should not normally be developed to the boundary of the curtilage.”
This meant that an airfield, which may only have a very small area of land covered with buildings, should not all be treated as previously developed land. This was a sensible approach, especially given the Government’s stated aims that development should be sustainable. As the majority of airfields are located in relatively remote rural areas, it is highly likely that a major re-development of such a site would have poor physical and functional linkages to settlements. This would render future occupants heavily dependent upon the car and therefore be unsustainable.
The new statement PPS3 – Housing was issued on 29th November 2006. Despite all the representations made by the General Aviation community, and indeed assurances from MPs that this was just a “slip of the pen”, it does NOT include the vital footnote. This is serious.
PPS3 does contain a paragraph that states:
“There is no presumption that land previously developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed.”
However, while this reflects the gist of the previous advice, it is far less specific and makes no reference to airfields. Furthermore, it does not give any guidance on the extent or distribution of development. Given that there is a continuing emphasis upon developing brownfield, or previously developed, land (paragraphs 10, 36, 40, 41 and 44 of PPS3 refer, for example), this renders airfields increasingly vulnerable. While the isolated rural locations of some sites mean that they will fail other tests such as sustainability it leaves those sites that are closer to centres of population as clear targets.
Other Central Government advice, such as that embodied in PPG13 – Transport, does balance the case a little by emphasising the importance of GA
At the CAA General Aviation conference held on November 21, the Minister for Aviation at the Department for Transport stated:
“We (the DfT) understand the value of maintaining a network of general aviation airfields – not just to you (the GA Community) but to all of us. And I can can confirm today that we are looking at how to move this forward, including the possibility of a national policy statement.” It would seem that her welcome words might have been a little premature in view of the subsequent publication of PPS3 by the DCLG only a week or so later.
I trust you will excuse my bringing this to your attention however my concern as to the potential threat to existing and possible future airfields represented by the wording of PPS3 and its interpretation by local planning authorities is very real. Any representations you could make on behalf of myself and that of the General Aviation fraternity would be much appreciated.
Something on these lines to your own local MP might have some effect. I do hope so.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:mad: