Eco Towns; Govt got it in for airfields

[Sir George Cayley]

Is it me or is there a preponderance of airfields both civil and military in todays announcement-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7328138.stm

And adding up the numbers it comes to a huge amount of new houses:eek:

Wouldn't mind so much if the odd space and portion of runway could be set aside for a flying homestead USA stylee:ok:

Anyone else feel a bit miffed?

Sir George Cayley

[Avitor]

I don't know what it is but, "The barstards are up to something" :cool:

[Pitts2112]

Pembury.

That's Leicestershire Airfield gone, if this actually goes through. B*astards.

[A and C]

Just as I suspected the New Labour facists used the change in the planning laws to include all of an airfield site as "brown field" land (and not just the technical site) was just the start of this "eco-town" thing.

I bet a lot of people are going become very keen on airfields when the results of having an eco-town dropped on there doorstep dawns on then!

[Pudnucker]

Sir George & Others,

This is an absolute outrage and the labour government have again done things by stealth.

I strongly supported the AOPA and PFA campaigns against the reclassification of airfields as brownfield sites. We even managed to get ITV South to run a feature based around what it could mean to places like Old Sarum and Tarrant Rushton. The news feature created a lot of noise and eventually the goverment planners put the reclassification of airfields as a misprint and said it would be amended.

I will phone the ITV presenter tomorrow. This needs a stink to be caused in my opinion. Labour is now so powerful and so sneaky we need a change in government - no one seems to ever want to stand up against what appears to be consistant abuses of democracy. They simply don't listen to anyone anymore... Look at the European Referendum that got buried.

Sorry if I sound p*ssed off, but I am.

Disgusting behaviour. Robbing Socialist B*stards.

:*

[Pudnucker]

Oh and by the way, before anyone comments on the "eco" town bit... My company specialises in alternative energies and power systems. You can't make a town "ecological" by adding a few solar panels and small wind turbines... THEY DON'T WORK in this type of application PERIOD... Eco towns are not "green", it's simply a shoddy excuse for mass home building when, if they got the immigration policies right we wouldn't need half of them in the first place...

Normally very very level headed and calm..... Sorry to rant...:{

[David Roberts]

I think Weston on the Green (by M40, Oxfordshire) may be affected, judging by the description on the BBC website of the site '3 miles SW of Bicester, which incudes an 'airstrip'. Some airstrip! Can't see another 'airstrip' that fits that parameter, between WOTG and Bicester.

[niknak]

Well do something about it:rolleyes:.

All you have to do is put your money where your mouths are.

Go ahead and buy the relavant sites which are so dear to your hearts, provide the investment which the developers of such sites do and provide the boost to the local economy which such developments will.

Even better, ask for local opinion, who would prefer the local ex MOD base to be a piddly little G/A facility providing one or two jobs, or develop it into a thriving community which would develop and provide a massive boost to the local economy?

Sadly, opponents of Eco Towns are for the most part out of touch with the realities of living in the real world. :ugh::rolleyes:

[IO540]

On that basis Niknak, GA is finished and we may as well pack it in right now.

You need to be a bit more constructive.

If everything was done according to your rules, more or less every airfield in the UK would have houses on it. Houses will always make more money for a landowner, so why don't we just build houses EVERYWHERE?

[Pudnucker]

Nik Nak - despite my comments above, the country does need more housing.. I think that what we are hacked off about is that this requirement has been packaged up as an "ecologically viable development" so the thick general public sees it fitting in with their "green" sentiments when actually its been done by stealth with no proper consultation and despite a huge amount of opinion about reclassifcation of airfields as brownfield sites.

The UK's green spaces are under threat from more and more development. The right way of increasing the housing stock is through proper consultation and by more effecient use of areas within town boundaries before destroying our beautiful country side. I also heard an interesting discussion on Radio 4, essentially if immigration was properly managed, population over the next 25 years would actually reduce thus alleviating the pressure on the UK's resources of which housing stock is one of them.

Drop the word "Eco" its total b:mad:cks

[Mikehotel152]

As usual, we need both approaches: The outraged to provide the energy and the constructive to provide the direction. My thread on Standing up for GA displays the ignorance of some people (or is it just me?:() within GA as to what is being done on our behalf. IMHO we can't just rant, we need to come up with something constructive.

This government is appalling in its behaviour. We all know that; that's why I imagine the majority will be voting Tory next time round. Whatever we do, the government will probably not listen, just as it didn't really listen to the AOPA and PFA.

Eco-towns? We need to save a lot of airfields from being turned into a governmental experiment. I predict these places being neither eco nor towns. As Pudnucker says, it won't work, mainly because the technology is too expensive to be economic for most people. In addition, as someone pointed out on BBC Breaksfast this morning, developing Coltishall as an eco-town is senseless if everyone has to commute into Norwich for work. Instead they will become a kind of 1960s inner city housing estate for the 21st Century with no community soul.

But I think Sir George inadvertently hit on a solution. Perhaps turning airfields like Coltishall into communities based on aviation would be a constructive idea. I know things are different in the US because the general public has a more positive view of GA, but there must be scope for airfield communities over here. Perhaps such communities would be impossible due to planning constraints? I'm sure this idea has been done to death on Pprune, but it just seems to me that it might save some airfields yet still satisfy the government's housing targets. These hubs of aviation could include FTOs, maintenance facilities, and also facilities designed to introduce the public to GA. I would happily live in such a place, perhaps not for the long term, and there must be enough people out there who would do the same.

Pie in the sky I suppose...:confused:

[rogcal]

Gotta have lots of new houses just to put all the new immigrants under a roof!

Can we start with all the Eastern Europeans living in "Tent City" Peterborough.

Conington would make a good spot for the East Midlands Eco City, what with the A1M on one boundary and the East Coast Main Line on the other.

The lorries coming up from the Channel ports could drop them off at Sawtry.

Seriously though, this new concept of providing houses in bulk under the "green banner" and the Government's turn around on "not" designating airfields as brownfield sites, has got to be one of their sneaker moves!

[A and C]

A second letter to my MP on this subject, the first reply from the govermment rubbished my statement that the rule change was to enable them to build on airfields.

[airborne_artist]

Lee on Solent / HMS Daedalus was not on the list, not that it makes the airfield any safer though.

[Mikehotel152]

A and C - Let us know when you get a second reply - if any!

[A and C]

He is usualy quite good at getting back to me...... after all I am giving him amunition to fire at the govermment and opposing them is his job!

[Wessex Boy]

I am aiming to fly into Leicester tomorrow to add my name to the petition there

[FlyboyUK]

LEICESTER AIRPORT

There is an online petition against the Pennbury Eco-town at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/PennburyEcoTown/

Please get as many people as possible to sign up and save the home of what is probably the oldest aero club in the world.

Also more info http://www.save-england.net/ (although the site seems to be down at the time of writing).

[flyingfemme]

We aren't quite as short of housing as the powers would have you believe. There are plenty of empty units all over the place. New ones that aren't selling, newish ones that aren't renting and old ones that need work.

Part of the problem is that new builds are so B awful that nobody wants to stay in them for long - thus stoking the price spiral. Flats are being built, with no outside space or amenities, that don't sell or rent. Planning is not happening......... new stuff is ill-considered and old stuff is not updated because planners are a PITA to deal with.

Mass building of nasty PC boxes on green spaces won't help - they will still be awful. They will be cramped and not have adequate parking. Councils need to be proactive and actually commit to improving the lot of their voters.

Fat chance.

[Mikehotel152]

flyingfemme you've got a good point. There are plenty of brownfield sites crying out for investment, but they're regularly being ignored because of clean up costs or, when they are developed, they are improperly developed by greedy developers.

Take Ipswich as an example. In their collective wisdom, and with the Council's support, developers have built 500-1000 apartments around the historic Wet Dock. These blocks look the same as you'll find anywhere else in the UK. Dull, metallic and painted brick orange. Almost all the apartments are 2 bedroom and an average price was £200,000. The local 20-something first time buyers can't afford those prices, families can't fit into 2 bedroom apartments, and few of the apartments have car parking spaces (remember this is the centre of the town so there's nowhere to park on the street). A lot were bought by investors, but many remain unsold or empty.

The end result is a massive over-supply of inappropriate accommodation, dropping prices and very low occupancy. The papers this week are reporting that apartments that were bought for £265,000 last year are now selling at auction for £130,000. The local law firms are dealing with dozens upon dozens of repossessions as buy to let landlords can't find tenants to pay the rents they need to repay their bank loans. It's a complete :mad: of planning and development. Typical of the UK.

Incidently, my wife and I were offered a 2 bedroom apartment in one of the more upmarket blocks for £145,000. The next door apartment, identical, had been sold for £225,000 last year...We bought a cottage in the country instead.:)

[Sir George Cayley]

Talking about alternative housing, just how many flats are there above High St shops in the UK?

Sur le continent these would be updated and lived in. If the property speculators who owned the shops were required to make them available for rent to low income families, I guess there would be less of a problem.

Sir George Cayley

[Contacttower]

Even better, ask for local opinion, who would prefer the local ex MOD base to be a piddly little G/A facility providing one or two jobs, or develop it into a thriving community which would develop and provide a massive boost to the local economy?


Well perhaps, but actually despite benefits to the local economy a lot of people who are living near these proposed sites aren't particularly happy about having them built either, simply because they value their green space and are instinctively against new developments. For most an airfield is very much the lesser evil.


Sadly, opponents of Eco Towns are for the most part out of touch with the realities of living in the real world.


No one is against eco towns as such, it just seems unfair that airfields should be targeted when there are other areas which are much more 'brownfield' and more suitable for development.

[chrisN]

Mikehotel152 wrote [snip] “Perhaps turning airfields like Coltishall into communities based on aviation would be a constructive idea. I know things are different in the US because the general public has a more positive view of GA, but there must be scope for airfield communities over here. Perhaps such communities would be impossible due to planning constraints?”

Too true. It was tried at Henstridge and Telford (or near there) as I recall from GAAC deliberations at the time. Planners turned them both down. I believe there were soundings with the government who also were against such proposals.

Moreover, in our deliberations in the GAAC, we have been dismayed at the way the structure plan system has been modified to work against us. There used to be local plans (councils took the view that GA airfield provision was not their concern), county structure plans (who DID have a responsibility to mention such needs and take a regional view of the need for infrastructure) and Government policy, which the GAAC successfully lobbied to get the famous PPG 13 insertion, originally at paras. 5.32-5.36: -

“Small airports can serve local business needs especially in outlying areas, as well as recreational flying. In formulating their plan policies and proposals, authorities should take account of the contribution of this General Aviation (GA) to local and regional economies and the benefits of having suitable facilities within reasonable distance of each sizeable centre of population. As demand for commercial air transport grows, GA may find access to larger airports increasingly restricted. GA operators will therefore have to look to smaller airfields to provide facilities".

and in the latest web-based version, para. 5.2 of Annex B:-

“ 5. Planning Policy Guidance note 11 (Regional Planning) requires RPBs to consider including in their RTS a strategic steer on the role and future development of airports in the region, in the light of national policy30. Local planning authorities will need to consider: . . . .

“2. the role of small airports and airfields in serving business, recreational, training and emergency services needs. As demand for commercial air transport grows, this General Aviation (GA) may find access to larger airports increasingly restricted. GA operators will therefore have to look to smaller airfields to provide facilities. In formulating their plan policies and proposals, and in determining planning applications, local authorities should take account of the economic, environmental, and social impacts of GA on local and regional economies.”

--------------------------------
GAAC monitored every county structure plan as it came up for review, usually on 5-year cycles, and got many of them to modify their drafts from ignoring or positively against GA developments to becoming supportive. There were many such victories.

Unfortunately, Mr. Prescott destroyed it by doing away with county structure plans, setting up unelected regional government, and gradually changing local plans to unitary ones. There is now no natural place for us to get a positive mention, and government support is weak or ineffectual, it seems to me. GAAC’s planning advisor reported:

“The new two-tier planning system is now in place (with just a few Local Planning Authorities completing plans under the old system). This comprises:
• Regional Spatial Strategies – these are far reaching plans and, to date, have not addressed most General Aviation (GA) issues other than in the context of an overall aviation policy for a specific region.
• Local Development Frameworks – these are local to each individual Local Planning Authority. To date experience has shown that there is no obvious place in which GA representations are likely to fit comfortably.


- - - Results of work
There has been very little opportunity to achieve positive results as many of the above representations relate to Statements of Community Involvement, where no formal submissions can be made. However, GAAC’s future interests have been protected and there have been a couple of positive results:

• West Sussex Minerals and Waste Core Strategy: Policy introduced relating to the safeguarding of airports and aerodromes in relation to Circular 01/2003.

• City and County of Swansea Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan: Policy AS14 has included safeguarding zones on an accompanying map.”
------------------
Over a 12 year period, GAAC sent in 840 submissions including 234 to regional or county plans. Recently, however, there have been few if any successes other than the two quoted above.

If you want to know the latest, feel free to attend the GAAC AGM on April 25th, at 14.00 at 4 Hamilton Place, London (RAeS HQ).

(By the way, Mike, this work is funded by the member associations who join together to act for GA, via the GAAC, in a unified way on these issues of common concern – which addresses the point with which you started another thread.)

We battle on, but we’ve been stitched up.

Chris N.