Worrying Airfield Development

[scientia in alto]

There is an online petition against a bill to class all airfields as Brownfield sites and therefore eligible for building houses on. The worrying factor is that small aero clubs and light aviation will be stifled by increasing rents. All these civvies that we all know and banter are after all our biggest support base! There are very few people in the world who don't complain about low flying and indeed support what we do through the grass roots of aviation. Please take a look and if you agree with the petition then sign it. I won't take you long and it is for a good cause, the notes for the petition...
"The recently published Planning Policy Statement PPS3 – Housing, despite assurances to the contrary given by the then ODPM, omits some vital words relating to airfields.
These were previously included in the superceded Planning Policy Guidance PPG3 – Housing. A footnote relating to the development of "brownfield" sites indicated that an airfield, which may only have a small area of land covered with buildings, should not all be treated as previously developed land.
This was a sensible approach. However despite all the representations made by the General Aviation community and indeed assurances from MPs that this was just a “slip of the pen”, the new statement issued on 29th November 2006. does NOT include the vital footnote. This renders airfields in which are prdominantly in rural locations, increasingly vulnerable to speculative and unsustainable property development and we urgently request that the Prime Minister requests a review of this by his Ministerial colleagues."
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Airfields/
SIA

[scientia in alto]

Guys and Gals,

I was hoping that you may have something to say about this... please make your voices heard. This is a real chance to make a difference, otherwise what do we fight for!:ugh:

SIA

[XL319]

Done with pleasure :O

[sarsteph]

sia

Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Signed.

[Almost_done]

It may help the cause if you look at it from a land remediation issue, what would be the cost of the remediation of an airfeild to facilitate the use as a housing site.

What have we spilt on the land before the COSHH and the all encompassing EA was issued, do we know what it was, where it was spilled, what will be the cost in removal and making the land good again, even for a brownfeild site.

But then again this Gov especially the office of the DPM is good at not looking at these issues and the issue would be buried beneath the carpet.

[Exrigger]

Signed. Allthough I thought that this issue had been resolved.

Almost_done: There has been the odd station that has re-opened and now a use for them is being sought. Something similar to do with what you were (I think) talking about.

[Olly O'Leg]

Yeah - the usual:

Locals: "RAF out of Newton, RAF out of Newton!!!!" (for 15 years)
RAF: "Okay, we'll leave and, incidentally, Newton's going to be filled with
Asylum-seekers".
Locals: "Bring back the RAF, bring back the RAF".

:ugh:

[Beeayeate]

Duly signed.





Was under the impression that land upon which an airfield had been built had to be returned to original owner(s) upon disposal and could not just be 'developed' as a brownfield by a gvmt agency.

.

[tmmorris]

Depends on the deal with the landowner at the time, AFAIK. After all, they sold Kemble, as far as I understand it.

Tim

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Indeed, aerodromes built on agricultural land requisitioned under the 1934 Expansion programme were supposed to be returned to "former use" upon cessation of aviation use. How this relates to Prescott's new idiocy isn't clear.

I can see the likes of BAES being very keen for this legislation. With such land assets as Samlesbury Dunsfold and Woodford on their books, the chance of a fast profit would be very welcome. Do they still own Arlington to market the development?

[Foreplane]

Signed!
Absolutely, BAES have a proven track record of the disposal for "redevelopment" whenever the annual accounts need a boost. Former Royal Ordnance site at Chorley is a good example, it's now a town:eek: I wonder what happens when the assets run out? I hope the Hawk orders keep Brough busy for a few years yet:=

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

Oh yes, signed. I got the wife, kids and their girlfriends to do it too :ok:

[moggiee]

Done, too.

[Olly O'Leg]

Is it true that if a base is closed and the site is returned to the former owners, it also has to be returned to its former state? If so that has to have an impact on future closure decisions - the cost of repairing the land on some of our bases must be astronomical (toxic clean-up, digging up the runways.....)

[Almost_done]

Is it true that if a base is closed and the site is returned to the former owners, it also has to be returned to its former state? If so that has to have an impact on future closure decisions - the cost of repairing the land on some of our bases must be astronomical (toxic clean-up, digging up the runways.....)
The problem is as I stated in post #5, you have to remember that if YOU buy land and a contamination problem is found on that land YOU are the one responsible for the clean up, NOT the former owner. You own it, you clean it principle.
What developer is willing to pay those costs, unless they get the land at tuppence an acre.....................oh I think I answered my own problem.........
Just an addition here is the EA Act 1995 Pt II (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950025_en_5.htm#mdiv57) As all MoD sites are classed as special sites due to the nature of the hazard of previous use prior to the Act, therefore Section 78(e) is the part that could be of interest for any buyer of the MoD land.

[Blacksheep]

Airfields? There are no such places in the civilian world. The Air Navigation Order defines the places upon which aeroplanes may alight or from which they may take off as aerodromes. :hmm:

The term 'brown field sites' suggest they are referring to derelict airfields (or aerodromes) within London's green belt area - and there are plenty. You can easily find five to the west of London with a quick shufty on Google Earth. Then there are more old Battle of Britain stations dotted around to the north and east of London that the RAF abandoned without a thought and which no longer serve any useful purpose. It isn't simply a matter of losing the airfields that remain in use for aviation, its making use of derelict sites within the green belt.

British Aerospace left Hatfield derelict and the loss of jobs devastated the town. The old aerodrome has now been developed nicely with the DeHavilland Campus of the University of Hertfordshire, a light industrial park, lots of new housing, and the HQ offices of a major cellphone company. I'd rather we still had an aircraft manufacturing industry, but if we had to lose the factory that gave birth to the Comet, I'd rather it was put to good use than left derelict - as it was. The town is slowly coming back to life now.

Other derelict properties within the green belt include Leavesden and Radlett and the army's eyesore tank park at Bovingdon, where the RAF buildings have already been bulldozed into oblivion by the boys in brown. I'm all in favour of building on them.

We still have Northolt and Biggin for memorabilia.

[tmmorris]

Can I suggest you look at the campaign to save North Weald (http://www.northwealdairfield.org/Campaign/campaign.html) and think again?

It's not disused aerodromes which are at risk of development - I don't really think many of us object to that. It's small (often ex-RAF, but not always) aerodromes which struggle to make ends meet, and which will close in the blink of an eye if the landowner discovers he can build a housing estate there. Marshall's would be a good case in point, too.

Tim

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Here's a puzzle to think about. A farmer has a field in a Green Belt location that's been mown and used as an aerodrome for, say 20 years. It is still agricultural land and he'd be unlikely to get planning permission to "develop" the site. If he argues that it's an aerodrome, though, it's now "Brown Field" and prime for planning permission. So a field that might be worth around £4K an acre may suddenly be worth £20K an acre.

[chevvron]

Thought Bovingdon was a prison called 'The Mount'; as far as I know the army never had any interest. Many ex RAF stations have become prisons eg Stradishall, Lindholme.

[ZH875]

Many ex RAF stations have become prisons eg Stradishall, Lindholme.Only the ones where improvements have been carried out have become Prisons. The tatty RAF Stations are still RAF Stations.

[chevvron]

True. As I lived in the area then, I remember them rebuilding all 4 T2 hangars at Bovingdon and closing it next year!!

[Blacksheep]

A farmer has a field in a Green Belt location that's been mown and used as an aerodrome for, say 20 years. It is still agricultural land and he'd be unlikely to get planning permission to "develop" the site. If it is licensed as an aerodrome, then its an aerodrome not agricultural land. If its unlicensed then its agricultural land and not an aerodrome. Many farms have landing strips on them but they're for the farm's own private use and they're not licensed, ergo they are agricultural land.

Yes, I've read about the campaign to save North Weald. There are reasons other than 'development' for the closure of the old aerodrome and there are other aerodrome facilities available not far away.

Bovingdon was covered in tanks when we used to use it for practise autorotation landings. I don't suppose that HMP Service would be too happy to entertain such use now that its been 'developed' into a prison. From what I hear about prison accommodation, compared to the barracks that we had to live in and the ration allowance that the cooks struggled to feed us on, turning old RAF stations into prisons would definitely be considered as "development".

When it comes to places that used to be aerodromes and have ceased to be so because they were no longer viable as such, I'm all in favour of their being used for building. As to historical places like North Weald, its the old buildings that matter, the large empty area used for the airfiled is not too significant from a history point of view. Unfortunately, the significant old buildings were often no more than Nissen huts and are long since rotted away.

[chevvron]

Blacksheep: I can't help suspecting you are confusing Abingdon with Bovingdon; Abingdon was taken over by the pongos and used as a tank park although helicopters from Benson still use it, the pongos having built a fence round the north part of the airfield on the inside of the taxiway, thus preventing the VGS from using the taxiways! Bovingdon was taken over by the home office in the '70s and the prison was built then; it has been used since by one or two private aircraft, plus motor racing and sunday markets; oh and it has a NATS owned VOR on the old airfield too!

[TCAS FAN]

If it is licensed as an aerodrome, then its an aerodrome not agricultural land. If its unlicensed then its agricultural land and not an aerodrome.

Not totally correct. If it is a licensed aerodrome it must be classified for Town & Country Planning purposes as an aerodrome, or what some Local Planning Authorities still call an "airfield". In the case of an unlicensed aerodrome, if it is to be used in excess of 28 days in a twelve month period, a change of use has to be obtained to classify it, for Town & Country Planning purposes, as an aerodrome/airfield.

For those worried about rises in rents, I would speculate that you should in fact focus your concern on being evicted, and start looking for alternative bases. I know of a number of marginally profitable GA aerodrome operators who are anxiously waiting for the decision that could change their lives, permitting them to close up shop and sell off the land for non aviation development.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

TCAS FAN

That pretty closely follows the reply I was drafting. In my scenario, an A/D that had been used as such for that period would very likely receive T & C Planning Permission to continue. The rest would be a natural progression; unless the Planners were smart enough to see ahead. That said, it might suit their purposes as well to acquire some instant "brown field" land. The one I have in mind is unlicenced, Planning approved (except for microlights)and appears on the aeronautical charts.

All this talk of tanks and Bovingdon, people aren't confusing it with Bovington, are they?

[tmmorris]

Councils have to meet targets for brownfield site development - hence the popularity of building on gardens in leafy suburbs. So most would be delighted to kill three birds with one stone - get rid of that noisy airfield, avoid the danger of another Stansted/Luton/Hurn on their doorsteps, and meet their brownfield targets. That's why this apparently 'accidental' miswording must be corrected, or I fear the worst.

I'm not sure what good relocating will do, TCAS FAN. Surely once you've established another aerodrome elsewhere, that too becomes brownfield and can be developed, and so on ad infinitum?

Tim

[Double Zero]

GBZ,

Dunsfold has been owned by a property development co, 'Rutland Group' since 2000.

They hope to build 2,300 houses, but have so far been held off by the local council.

The film work on ' Top Gear' and the last Bond film is regarded as a stop-gap; personally I feel there may be ulterior motives at work too.

An early, time ex' 747 was flown in on its' last hours a couple of years ago; since then it has had the engines removed, and dummy B-52 style jobs put on the inner pylons ( huge 'fuel tanks' on the outer ) for the Bond job.

I can't help thinking there's an implied threat, and I believe this has been made public, that if development permission is not granted there will be an awful lot of alloy to clear up - I have heard there are 2 more airliners now but have no idea of their identity...

We were always told Dunsfold had to be returned to agriculture !

Anyone wishing to speak up for a historic and still useful airfield - what a warbird facility ! - speak up now !!!

The first thing we can do is sign the above mentioned petition...

[chevvron]

There certainly used to be a 'covenant' on Dunsfold requiring it be returned to agriculture when no longer required for aviation. A friend of mine used to work there when it was still BAe and they told me.
Looks like the present owners of Redhill wish to do the same as Rutland.