Old Sarum Airfield Development Proposal

[sandringham1]

Development plans for the construction of residential and commercial properties on the perimeter of Old Sarum Airfield are detailed in this presentation.
Welcome to Old Sarum Development Website - Old Sarum (http://www.old-sarum.co.uk/)
Make your own minds up but personally I cannot see how the airfield could continue to operate with that amount of grass going under bricks and tarmac.

Richard

[m.Berger]

It won't but nobody cares. The operators have for some time regarded the pesky aviators as a nuisance and the best we will get is "Hurricane drive " and "Spitfire close" in order to reflect the illustrious heritage.
Building an industrial estate around the tower ought to do the trick.
For the last year, the classic car brigade have turned up to be parked air side which would have been interesting, had an insurance claim been involved.
AFAIK, the STRIP is not owned by the airfield operator but the rest is so you can see what is going on here. The hangars are falling down around the aircraft that pay (very) good money to be hangared there and the owners are reluctant to take it up with the operators for fear that things will be made worse for them.

[Bob Upanddown]

Not one of my regular places to visit (I have been there once, almost 20 years ago) so can't comment on the current operations there.

But, as with all airfields, they cannot be replaced once lost. Looking at the plan, would this be any worse that, say, Panshanger, where the houses are very near to the runway at one end?

Has anyone shown this to AOPA??

I think there is a lot that can be done but clearly it depends on who owns the airfield, who runs the airfield and what they want from it.....

[Mike Cross]

Has anyone shown this to AOPA??

They don't need to, it's been on the front page of our website (http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=763:old-sarum-housing-plans&catid=1:latest-news) for more than a week.

AOPA cannot wave a magic wand and make this go away. It is up to the locals to object to the planning consent once an application is made. AOPA will be happy to assist, as we have done in the past. There is also scope to argue the inconsistency in the Core Strategy document pointed up in the news item on the AOPA Website.

The Document rightly points out that this is greenfield development and that any development should "Make efficient use of land, maximise brownfield use"

I was part of the team that fought the Chief Constable for Hampshire's closure plan for Lee on Solent. As a result of that team's effort Lee is now open to all and the future is looking much better. If OS is to be saved you need to get the local aviators together to lobby their local politicians and the Planning Commitee.

Mike (on the AOPA UK Executive)

[Contacttower]

I learnt to fly at Old Sarum so would be sad to see it close.

Can someone who knows more about this give a realistic assessment of what this proposal actually means for the airfield and the likely continuance of flying there? How does the airfield's conservation status relate to this?

Also who actually owns the Old Sarum now? Is it still Blanefield?

[Mike Cross]

At the moment the developers are looking to consult with interested parties. If I was in their position I would do the same. It gives you an opportunity to understand the objections that you might run into, to mitigate the causes of those objections if you can, and to mount a defence against them if you can't or don't want to. Then when you put your planning application in you can ensure that you have as far as possible got all of your ducks in a row.

The plan is to build housing in all corners of the field except one. Follow the links on the AOPA site to find the detail. The argument will no doubt be that the conservation status applies to the buildings and not to their setting, after all there have already been a shedload of sheds constructed on what was aerodrome land.

The danger is, as any fule kno, that the new residents of the Poundbury-style houses will object to the nasty noisy aircraft so close to their houses.

Yesterdays incident of a landing Cessna Bizjet which veered off the runway at Santa Monica and ended up embedded in a hanger with as yet unqantified loss of life in the ensuing fire might be used as an example to show how dangerous it is to have landing aircraft in the vicinity of houses, puppy farms, kiddies playgrounds etc.

Of course if it were turned into an Airpark that would be different, but nowhere near so profitable for the developers.

Personal views, I'm not speaking for AOPA. I too have a soft spot for OS having regained my license there after letting it lapse for 12 years.

[sunday driver]

Wiltshire Council have published their county-wide outline strategy up to 2026.

This includes their intentions regarding development and flying at Old Sarum. It appears to respect the future of the airfield.
I have clearly failed to post the image included in their document (but the link below will take you straight to it)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55035901@N05/13641614355/

Core Policy 23 Old Sarum Airfield
New development will only be permitted on Old Sarum Airfield if it delivers the following:
i. a long-term proactive strategy for the enhancement of the Conservation Area including management plan and public access and visitor/interpretive material on its historic relevance
i. a high quality strategic landscape improvement to mitigate impacts of existing intrusive buildings, to soften impacts when viewed both out and into the Conservation Area and from Old Sarum Scheduled Ancient Monument
ii. the completion of a legal agreement (section 106) to agree reasonable controls over flying activity in the interests of the amenity of local residents
iii. submission, agreement and implementation of a development master plan, which delivers a high quality development that takes opportunities to enhance the historic environment and protects the amenity of existing residents
iv. retains and safeguards flying activity from the airfield
v. provides community benefit for the Old Sarum residents.

Targets: Agreement of a management plan for Old Sarum conservation area and enhancements to the area. The retention of flying activity of the airfield with a reasonable degree of control in the interests of local amenity.

Monitoring and Review: AMR.
Delivery Responsibility: Wiltshire Council.


This is a large document - http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/wiltshire-core-strategy-pre-submission-document-with-bookmarks-february-2012
Page 122 and following are relevant.

SD

[BWSBoy6]

How does 480 houses sound? That's how many are on the wish list by certain interested parties. Apparently they're needed to fund and sustain the airfield. Interestingly, on the VERY rare occasions there are fun days and charity events, OSAF is very well supported and makes a very good return. If they're running at such a loss, time for the owners to review the efficiency and cost effectiveness of some of the management maybe?

[BWSBoy6]

http://www.laverstock-ford.co.uk/files/Grenville-Hodge-Letter-170914.pdf

Interesting reading if you're concerned about the development of OSAF.

[BWSBoy6]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/830667850298585?message_id=871630982868938&ref=m_notif&notif_t=like&actorid=699191574

Looks like OS airfields days are numbered :*

[FleetFlyer]

For those of us that aren't on the Facebook, can we have a little more detail please?

[Flockmaster]

Hi Guys-I have been directed to your thread as I'm a local resident at Old Sarum. We want you lot to stay very badly and are what might be called "airfield groupies"! So we are trying to organize local opposition to the development. The Parish Council are against it and we need your support as well. Firstly there is a Facebook page at SOS Save Old Sarum, if you could follow that it would be helpful. But most of all there is a petition and more information at: https://www.change.org/p/john-glen-mp-stop-the-proposed-housing-development-on-old-sarum-airfield: PLEASE SIGN- it's for everyone.
it has over 500 signatures already.
You know I think there is a "consultation day" tomorrow. I know you will probably be elsewhere but you can email you comments to [email protected] and I will print them off and deliver them on your behalf.
If you have any news or information that you think might be helpful please get in touch. There are many different reasons why this airfield is special to you and many others, we won't all agree on the reasons why, but one thing is for sure it means a lot to many, many, different people and we have to let Wiltshire Council and the owners know that this sort of development is not wanted on such an historic site. Thanks for your time

[BWSBoy6]

Hi Fleetflyer, a link from Laverstock and Ford Parsh Council which details the opposition to the development and correspondence from the PC to the owner and the agents appointed.

News and Events - Laverstock & Ford Parish Council (http://www.laverstock-ford.co.uk/news-and-events.html)

And:

http://www.laverstock-ford.co.uk/files/old-sarum-airfield-statement.pdf

The development is apparently required to sustain the airfield but no figures have been supplied and to date, no one appears to know what other avenues have been explored to raise funds. There is a public presentation at the cafe tomorrow (12 December) from 11:30 to 20:30

Please let me know if you require any further info.

[Flockmaster]

Wiltshire Council have yet to approve a Conservation area management plan. With out this and the the reference to public consultation made in Core Policy 9, the planning application should technically be invalid. There are some significant inconstancies in the procedure.

[Vacateleft]

So if I understand it all correctly, the people wanting to develop at Old Sarum airfield are also the airfield owners. So presumably no planning permission will in the end equal no airfield.
So by signed the petition you are in fact helping in the demise of a great little place to fly in to.

[BWSBoy6]

Not quite right. The airfield has been slowly run down for years. A certain individual in the hierarchy has publicly stated that the land is his pension fund and it was always his intention to build on it. Made no secret of it. Overheard him announce at tonight's consultation that the land was "purchased to preserve and conserve the airfield" If you saw the state that he has allowed this land to fall into with dumping and storage containers scattered close to the runway, you might reconsider your opinion.
Not quite the philanthropic missives now being put out. Profit from 470 houses, possibly £20 million plus. And that's all going back into keeping the airfield alive?

Earlier quote from m.Berger:
" The hangars are falling down around the aircraft that pay (very) good money to be hangared there and the owners are reluctant to take it up with the operators for fear that things will be made worse for them"

Interesting.

[BWSBoy6]

Interesting article in local press today. Kind of sums it up nicely:


Airfield protesters need an old-fashioned hero (From Salisbury Journal) (http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/sj_opinion/11723822.Airfield_protesters_need_an_old_fashioned_hero/?ref=fbshr)


It would interesting to get a pilots that use OS to give their view.

[m.Berger]

I'm one. It blxxdy stinks.

[Johnm]

The planning system is completely broken, but no-one seems interested in fixing it, they're all too busy screwing up the NHS :ugh::mad:

[BWSBoy6]

We now have some information that could potentially blow thiswhole developement out of the water. Watch this space.

Meanwhile, this makes very interesting reading:

CPRE state that:
'The development Area B do appear to have a genuine relevance to the future heritage of the airfield. The scheme could promote a secure future of flying on the airfield and to that extent should be considered but NOT in association with development Areas A and C. It is clearly relevant to the airfield to promote new hangars with storage and maintaince facilities for aircraft and at the same time, produce onsite apartments for the flying enthusiasts and participants. This proposal is clearly an attempt to ensure the survival, at least in the short term, of the airfield as a small flying hub and other airborne activities.'
AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT:
'Areas A and C, if permitted to develop, will do nothing other than create a financial windfall bonus for the owners of the site and will create the predictable risk of actually being instrumental in closing down the flying activities from the airfield.'
'The development up to now and those that in essence have been agreed to take place, MUST be allowed to settle in and become established before further expansion takes place. It is TOTALLY wrong to suddenly propose a further 310(sic) dwellings into an embryonic and developing community with underdeveloped facilities without pausing to allow that community to gel and become an actual community.'

[BWSBoy6]

Interesting meeting earlier this week with the parish council and even more bizarre behaviour from one of the developers.

Airfield development blasted as council unanimously votes against plans (From Salisbury Journal) (http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/13417703.Airfield_development_blasted_as_council_unanimously _votes_against_plans/)

[BWSBoy6]

Now that the officers reports are coming in, it appears that they overwhelming feel that this proposal will 'substantial harm' the site and the continued flying at OS. Some modest development may be acceptable; 480 houses is not.

http://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/File/MTUvMDQwMDQvT1VULDY1NDQ3NA==

http://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/File/MTUvMDQwMDQvT1VULDY0MjMzOQ==

http://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/File/MTUvMDQwMDQvT1VULDY1MTY2MA==

This last letter will be of particular interest to aviators:



http://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/File/MTUvMDQwMDQvT1VULDY1MzkyOA==

[hangarhomes]

I suggested a mix of hangar homes with airside access, to safeguard flying operations, with conventional homes behind to partially satisfy the owners, but they're not interested and banned me from the airfield. Clearly they don't want any restrictions on development, which if allowed will close down the airfield.

[nomorecatering]

Who owns the airfield. I was having the same thoughts, would be a great opportunity to combine some new houses with ones that had access to the airfield. Britain seems to lack airparks.

[hobbit1983]

By all means, please build one! :ok:

[300hrWannaB]

In real terms, what's the current state of ...I was going to say "progress"...but "affairs" seems more apt.