KEEP AIRFIELDS GREENFIELDS - Review Airfield Classification as Brownfield Sites

[Baikonour]

In 2003 an ‘administrative oversight’ led to the deletion of planning protection from airfields being classified as brownfield sites. As a result, airfields are being closed by developers, breaking transport links and destroying significant areas of natural habitat within airfield boundaries.


Petition to sign here - and to spread on facebook, twitter etc. if possible.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106779

B.

[Mach Jump]

Done.


MJ:ok:

[Solar]

Done in despair I feel

[uniandpilot]

I've signed the petition.


I think It will be very hard to get 100,000 signatures needed to debate this in parliament.

good luck. hopefully we can get the 100,000

[riverrock83]

Every contact you make with your MP is worth many many signatures on these things, as MPs are the ones who make the decisions.
So contact them!

[HAL-26]

A number of MPs are aware and they are watching the progress of this with interest....

Getting 10,000 signatures to trigger a formal parliamentary response is a realistic expectation and will give the GAAC and others a strong mandate to push the Department for Communities and Local Government to make a change in policy.

700+ signatories in the first six hours is looking pretty good so far, and flying organisations including the GAAC, AOPA, BGA, BMAA and LAA are all combining forces to contact their members and suggest signing.

Link to petition is here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106779 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106779)
It only takes a moment.

If you have a moment longer to spare, you could also drop your MP an e-mail, tell them you have signed and explain why.

Steve S.

[HAL-26]

As the online petition is limited to something like just over 100 words, here is a longer version of our case and concerns:

KEEP AIRFIELDS GREEN FIELDS.

Review Airfield Classification as Brownfield Sites.


In 2003 an ‘administrative oversight’ led to the deletion of a footnote in PPG3, noting that airfields and hospital grounds should not be considered as appropriate brownfield sites. Current definitions of previously developed land make no reference to airfields or flying sites. As a result, developers and local planning authorities are increasingly and inappropriately treating airfields as brownfield sites for land redevelopment, leading both to the loss of an important part of national transport infrastructure and the destruction of significant areas of natural habitat within airfield boundaries.


The UK network of GA aerodromes is regarded by DfT as an important part of the national transport infrastructure. While Commercial Air Transport or airline operations are focussed on scheduled flights from just 25 airports around the UK, General Aviation with smaller aircraft types uses more than 120 aerodromes licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority for non-scheduled passenger carrying and between 350 and 500 unlicensed flying sites.


This network of GA aerodromes around the UK has been recognised by DfT as providing vital amenities for sport flying, connectivity for business travellers and acting as an important part of the national transport infrastructure; providing economic benefits and ‘point to point’ access. This allows passengers and cargoes to be delivered closer to their ultimate destination, reducing time, cost, fuel use and emissions.



They also provide important infrastructure and support for activities such as police and pollution patrols, medical flights, aerial surveys, and search and rescue operations. In recent years however a significant number of airfields have closed and others have been threatened as a result of owners seeking to release the value of their land and local planning authorities prioritising housing and other development on the land they occupy.


It is noteworthy that the curtilage of many airfields is now being recognised as an important ‘open green space’ by many Local Planning Authorities and there is increasing evidence from local nature and environmental surveys that airfields are increasingly important as a low-insecticide, low-herbicide, sanctuary for plants, insects and associated wildlife.


In July 2015, organisations involved in every spectrum of aviation were shocked by the proposal in the Chancellor’s summer budget statement to allow automatic planning permission to be granted for housing developments on designated brownfield sites. This unintended consequence of wider policy on the development of redundant industrial sites was described by ‘Pilot’ magazine as “the darkest news to face General Aviation for some time”.


We demand a review of the brownfield designation of airfields in recognition of the role that they play both as an important part of our national transport infrastructure and as an important yet often overlooked environmental “green space”.

ENDS

[N707ZS]

Some ex military airfields are definitely brown field sites. Some having all sorts of stuff buried within the airfield perimeter.

[The Flying Pram]

Some ex military airfields are definitely brown field sites. Some having all sorts of stuff buried within the airfield perimeterAnd on top of them....

RAF Coltishall £50m solar farm begins power generation - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-32353870)

I've signed the petition.

[Curlytips]

Petition signed.

[STATSMAN]

I have signed, but it was to late for Woodford. They have starting to build 900 plus homes on the site.

[Mach Jump]

I asked this question on another thread, but no takers, yet.

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know if all airfields, active or not, are, by definition, 'brownfield sites', or do they have to be disused?

If they have to be disused, is there a minimum time between their last use, and becoming 'brownfield sites'?

Anyone know the answer?


MJ:ok:

[The Ancient Geek]

By the current rules all airfields containing a structure such as a hanger, tower, clubhouse etc are brownfield sites and can be developed.
This means that an airfield in current use can be instantly confirmed as being brownfield for planning purposes. OTOH a field which was used in WW1, returned to agricultural use and later converted to a nature reserve can still be a brownfield site if the remains of a structure can be found.
The law is an ass.

[Mach Jump]

So, If a farmer gets Planning Permission for an Airfield on his land, and changes a barn into a 'hangar', that immediately becomes a 'brownfield' site, with no further Planning Permission needed for a housing estate?:eek:


MJ:ok:

[BWSBoy6]

Old Sarum Airfield is actually classified as a greenfield site, except the runway which is brownfield. Bizarrely, the agents for the the proposed development actually have this fact in their report! :bored:

Mrs BWS


http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/524652-old-sarum-airfield-development-proposal-2.html

[Mach Jump]

I'm confused.:confused:

I thought that the 'Brownfield Site' classification covered all the built up, and agricultural land land included within the original airfield site.


MJ:ok:

[KayKay]

Petition signed. As a matter of interest, does anyone know if the situation is the same throughout the UK ? e.g. does it apply Scotland which I believe has its own Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act ?

[TrueFlyer]

Petition signed.

[John R81]

Signed. 7,618 so far

[TRPGpilot]

Signed the petition. 8,053 signatures so far.

[Sam Rutherford]

Signed - we're getting there!

[John R81]

9,254 as of 06:55Z today

[Utterly]

9,475 signatures as of 11.12am. Got my family to add theirs too! Nearly there!!