IWM Duxford and a plan for a Motor Way Service Station
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IWM Duxford and a plan for a Motor Way Service Station
Dear aviators and enthusiasts,
We all enjoy a super day out at any of the IWM Duxford events, but I fear there is a plan afoot that will severely hinder such enjoyments; a Motorway Service Station slap bang on short finals!
This snippet gives a clue of the plan:
Please check-out the proposal to build this MSA (motorway service area) within spitting distance of the venue and the magic round-a-bout we all know!
One can imagine the
folly of putting such a fuel dump so near a busy runway, never mind the chaos of show days at one of the countries best display venues!
I have had inputs which radically disapprove of the scheme such as this:
excerpt
Representation 12986 on Site Specific Policies Development Plan Document by Grosvenor Developments Ltd represented by Januarys
Support / Object: OBJECT
Document Link:
Site Specific Policies Development Plan Document - Roads, SP/16 New Road Infrastructure
Representation:
The distance between the existing MSAs on the M11 in the vicinity of Cambridge is greater than the recommeded distance. The proposed site is approximately half way between the existing faciities. It is well related to existing development and would not compromise the objectives of the Green Belt designation, especially as it could be accessed off an existing roundabout.
Change to plan:
Land east of M11, Duxford. The Inset Map for Duxford should be amended so as to allocate our client's land as a Motorway Service Area.
Soundness:
iv. Is consistent with national planning policy and in conformity with Regional Spatial Strategy
vii. The Strategies / Policies / Allocations represent the most appropriate in all circumstances, are founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and relevant alternatives were considered
ix. The Plan is reasonably flexible to enable it to deal with changing circumstances
At examination: Written representation
Site: Duxford, East of M11
Original Submission
Scanned Submission (PDF)
It is considered that there is a need for an additional Motorway Service Area(MSA) on the M11 as the distance between the existing MSAs is greater than the recommended distance.
At the present time, there are no services between the Cambridge Swavesey Services, which is approximately 16 miles distant from Duxford, and the Birchanger MSA at Bishops Stortford which is approximately 23 miles from Duxford.
There is, therefore, of approximately 39 miles between the two MSAs which is consisdered to be too great a distance. The current thinking is that there should be a greater provision so as to encourage motorists to take more breaks in the interst of safety, and to assist in relieving overcrowding within the existing MSAs.
Our client's land is considered to be ideally located to provide such a facility. It is located approximately halfway between the two exitsing MSAs.
In addition, it is in a location where access to the service area could be provided off an existing roundabout junction on the M11 with the A505. This would assist in minimising the impact of the development on the area as no new accesses wodul have to consructed onto the M11.
It would also be in close proximity to other development in the vicinity, in particular the Duxford Imperial War Museum on the other side of the M11 and the development of the north-eastern side of the roundabout junction.
As a consequence, the site does not give the appearance of being in the open countryside, but rather it is viewed against the existing development in the vicinity.
This point is most important as the site is currently within the designated Green Belt. However, it is considered to contribute little to the general objectives of the Green Belt as it is adjoined by development on most sides and so does not afford views across the countryside nor act as a Green Wedge between development. It is contended that there would be no loss to the character of the Green Belt around Cambridge if this area was to be developed.
It is significant to note that PPG 2 'Green Belts' notes that 'In line with PPG2, approval should not be given for an MSA within a Green Belt except in very special circumstances. One of the material considerations which could justify such an exception could be the lack of any signed MSAs. The greater the interval between the proposed site and any existing facility the more weight should be placed on the needs of motorway users.' (PPG2 Annex E paragraph 13).
It should be noted that, apart from the fact that our client's site is centrally situated between the existing MSAs, there are no other sites around Cambridge which would intrude less on the visual amenity of the area, and hence the Cambridge Green Belt, than the site suggested.
It should be noted that the site is of a sufficient size to facilitate structural planting around the boundary of the site so as to minimise the visual impact of the development, as required in PPG" Annex E paragraph 13.
Finally, it is pertinent that the site is well located in proximity to the Duxford Imperial War Museum which is a very attractive visitor attraction. It might be advantageous if a Travel Lodge, or other similar facility, be incorporated within the MSA so as to provide visitor accommodation in close proximity to this important attraction.
It is known that the owners of the land immediately to the north would also make available their land for develpment if it was so required.
The size of our client's site, together with that immediately adjoining, would be of a sufficient size to accommodate a MSA whilst still taking into account the particular requirements of the site.
SUMMARY
The distance between the existing MSAs on the M11 in the vicinity of Cambridge is greater than the recommeded distance. The proposed site is approximately half way between the existing faciities. It is well related to existing development and would not compromise the objectives of the Green Belt designation, especially as it could be accessed off an existing roundabout.
CHANGE TO PLAN
The Inset Map for Duxford should be amended so as to allocate our client's land as a Motorway Service Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This LDF system has been designed and developed by JDi Solutions for South Cambridgeshire District Council.
For more information, please visit www.jdi-solutions.co.uk
More here: http://www.cambourne.info/LDFM%20June%202006.pdf lots of huff and puff, but on Page 5/20.1/Duxford East of M11/12986 is the innocuous little bit which is so outrageous not to be true.
I move to OBJECT to this inappropriate development and hope you do too
Time is short.
Take action this day please.
TG
We all enjoy a super day out at any of the IWM Duxford events, but I fear there is a plan afoot that will severely hinder such enjoyments; a Motorway Service Station slap bang on short finals!
This snippet gives a clue of the plan:
Finally, it is pertinent that the site is well located in proximity to the Duxford Imperial War Museum which is a very attractive visitor attraction. It might be advantageous if a Travel Lodge, or other similar facility, be incorporated within the MSA so as to provide visitor accommodation in close proximity to this important attraction.
One can imagine the
folly of putting such a fuel dump so near a busy runway, never mind the chaos of show days at one of the countries best display venues! I have had inputs which radically disapprove of the scheme such as this:
excerpt
Here’s the deal – it’s so ludicrous it’s just not real. The “existing roundabout” they talk about has been in place for a couple of years now, and it’s clear that getting out of the village is a nightmare – the A505 traffic hardly slows at all as it approaches the roundabout. Rush hour? Don’t even go there!
Air show days? Ha ha ha. Gridlock is the best word I think.
These people [those puting forward the plan] haven’t got a clue. They also perhaps don’t consider that we have in the past had an aircraft crash on approach to the airfield......
That’s before we even come on to the issue of restrictions it will place on flights in and out of Duxford – not only historic aircraft but visiting pilots as well. I know the Museum are objecting strongly.........
I’ve attached the proposal copied from the South Cambs District Council site.
The Duxford Airfield Management Liaison Committee are hard against this proposal – to put a bloody great motorway service station on the land to the east of the airfield – please read the attached which will tell all.
Air show days? Ha ha ha. Gridlock is the best word I think.
These people [those puting forward the plan] haven’t got a clue. They also perhaps don’t consider that we have in the past had an aircraft crash on approach to the airfield......
That’s before we even come on to the issue of restrictions it will place on flights in and out of Duxford – not only historic aircraft but visiting pilots as well. I know the Museum are objecting strongly.........
I’ve attached the proposal copied from the South Cambs District Council site.
The Duxford Airfield Management Liaison Committee are hard against this proposal – to put a bloody great motorway service station on the land to the east of the airfield – please read the attached which will tell all.
Support / Object: OBJECT
Document Link:
Site Specific Policies Development Plan Document - Roads, SP/16 New Road Infrastructure
Representation:
The distance between the existing MSAs on the M11 in the vicinity of Cambridge is greater than the recommeded distance. The proposed site is approximately half way between the existing faciities. It is well related to existing development and would not compromise the objectives of the Green Belt designation, especially as it could be accessed off an existing roundabout.
Change to plan:
Land east of M11, Duxford. The Inset Map for Duxford should be amended so as to allocate our client's land as a Motorway Service Area.
Soundness:
iv. Is consistent with national planning policy and in conformity with Regional Spatial Strategy
vii. The Strategies / Policies / Allocations represent the most appropriate in all circumstances, are founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and relevant alternatives were considered
ix. The Plan is reasonably flexible to enable it to deal with changing circumstances
At examination: Written representation
Site: Duxford, East of M11
Original Submission
Scanned Submission (PDF)
It is considered that there is a need for an additional Motorway Service Area(MSA) on the M11 as the distance between the existing MSAs is greater than the recommended distance.
At the present time, there are no services between the Cambridge Swavesey Services, which is approximately 16 miles distant from Duxford, and the Birchanger MSA at Bishops Stortford which is approximately 23 miles from Duxford.
There is, therefore, of approximately 39 miles between the two MSAs which is consisdered to be too great a distance. The current thinking is that there should be a greater provision so as to encourage motorists to take more breaks in the interst of safety, and to assist in relieving overcrowding within the existing MSAs.
Our client's land is considered to be ideally located to provide such a facility. It is located approximately halfway between the two exitsing MSAs.
In addition, it is in a location where access to the service area could be provided off an existing roundabout junction on the M11 with the A505. This would assist in minimising the impact of the development on the area as no new accesses wodul have to consructed onto the M11.
It would also be in close proximity to other development in the vicinity, in particular the Duxford Imperial War Museum on the other side of the M11 and the development of the north-eastern side of the roundabout junction.
As a consequence, the site does not give the appearance of being in the open countryside, but rather it is viewed against the existing development in the vicinity.
This point is most important as the site is currently within the designated Green Belt. However, it is considered to contribute little to the general objectives of the Green Belt as it is adjoined by development on most sides and so does not afford views across the countryside nor act as a Green Wedge between development. It is contended that there would be no loss to the character of the Green Belt around Cambridge if this area was to be developed.
It is significant to note that PPG 2 'Green Belts' notes that 'In line with PPG2, approval should not be given for an MSA within a Green Belt except in very special circumstances. One of the material considerations which could justify such an exception could be the lack of any signed MSAs. The greater the interval between the proposed site and any existing facility the more weight should be placed on the needs of motorway users.' (PPG2 Annex E paragraph 13).
It should be noted that, apart from the fact that our client's site is centrally situated between the existing MSAs, there are no other sites around Cambridge which would intrude less on the visual amenity of the area, and hence the Cambridge Green Belt, than the site suggested.
It should be noted that the site is of a sufficient size to facilitate structural planting around the boundary of the site so as to minimise the visual impact of the development, as required in PPG" Annex E paragraph 13.
Finally, it is pertinent that the site is well located in proximity to the Duxford Imperial War Museum which is a very attractive visitor attraction. It might be advantageous if a Travel Lodge, or other similar facility, be incorporated within the MSA so as to provide visitor accommodation in close proximity to this important attraction.
It is known that the owners of the land immediately to the north would also make available their land for develpment if it was so required.
The size of our client's site, together with that immediately adjoining, would be of a sufficient size to accommodate a MSA whilst still taking into account the particular requirements of the site.
SUMMARY
The distance between the existing MSAs on the M11 in the vicinity of Cambridge is greater than the recommeded distance. The proposed site is approximately half way between the existing faciities. It is well related to existing development and would not compromise the objectives of the Green Belt designation, especially as it could be accessed off an existing roundabout.
CHANGE TO PLAN
The Inset Map for Duxford should be amended so as to allocate our client's land as a Motorway Service Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This LDF system has been designed and developed by JDi Solutions for South Cambridgeshire District Council.
For more information, please visit www.jdi-solutions.co.uk
More here: http://www.cambourne.info/LDFM%20June%202006.pdf lots of huff and puff, but on Page 5/20.1/Duxford East of M11/12986 is the innocuous little bit which is so outrageous not to be true.
I move to OBJECT to this inappropriate development and hope you do too
Time is short.Take action this day please.
TG
South Cambrigeshire council have never liked planes operating in their county; they already unnecessarily approved the route of the motorway so that it restricted the runway length at Duxford, (it could have gone 1/2 mile further east)now they're trying to restrict flying even further by their surreptitious moves.
If IWM could get a Public Safety Zone notified at either end of the runway, it would stop this development; Perhaps Peter Kember (PFA's expert) could help.
If IWM could get a Public Safety Zone notified at either end of the runway, it would stop this development; Perhaps Peter Kember (PFA's expert) could help.
Yeah that's crazy.
I've flown into Duxford many times in GA aircraft - and these statistically are probably even more of a safety issue.
An engine failure on final to R24 would land you squarely on those services, and as TG says very close to or on top of a fuel dump
.
Will the council ban GA movements at Duxford?
I've flown into Duxford many times in GA aircraft - and these statistically are probably even more of a safety issue.
An engine failure on final to R24 would land you squarely on those services, and as TG says very close to or on top of a fuel dump
.Will the council ban GA movements at Duxford?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A well known pilot sucessfully planted a Messerschmitt 109 on that very piece of land a few years ago after the engine failed during an air display.... He walked away unharmed, but at least he had a clear piece of land to aim for..
Are these planning people really barking mad or is it just an impression I get. You can bet that the present land owner is somebody who doesn't like aeroplanes and is looking to make a fast buck, and stop the flying..
Maybe I'll take up fishing instead, but even then, the huggy, fluffy lefties will try and say it's painful to the fish!
Are these planning people really barking mad or is it just an impression I get. You can bet that the present land owner is somebody who doesn't like aeroplanes and is looking to make a fast buck, and stop the flying..
Maybe I'll take up fishing instead, but even then, the huggy, fluffy lefties will try and say it's painful to the fish!
appeal to a developer ??!!
I'm not sure the developers themselves will be that interested - they just wanna build their development to make their money and they'll be happy to hide behind the council if and when the council rules it 'safe' to build there.
Just checking Google Earth - admittedly these images are a couple of years old, but there seem to be plenty of other land/fields suitable for such a development - perhaps just to the south west of Duxford village, or just to the North of the IWM roundabout - both within 1/2 mile of the proposed site.
The choice of this particular proposed site is clearly financial. Either that land is cheap (perhaps for the very reason that the airfield's directly opposite) or perhaps the developers already have it. Another site would possibly cost much more. Perhaps these issues of the precise siting need more airing.
The choice of this particular proposed site is clearly financial. Either that land is cheap (perhaps for the very reason that the airfield's directly opposite) or perhaps the developers already have it. Another site would possibly cost much more. Perhaps these issues of the precise siting need more airing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assumed land value of £0
Hi DH106
I can see how they can 'adjust' land values around that neck of the woods to suit their purposes!
What are these folk like?
TG
I can see how they can 'adjust' land values around that neck of the woods to suit their purposes!
http://213.210.33.5/ieListDocuments....3129&Ver=4&J=4
Minutes:
Approval was sought for the disposal of Council land at Oakington Road, Cottenham, to Nene Housing Society in order to provide six affordable homes to meet identified local housing needs. Two different schemes had been referred to in the report and it was clarified that the original scheme as submitted to the Housing Corporation, of four rented and two shared ownership units, had assumed a land value of £0.
If the Council wished to achieve land value, then the latter scheme of three rented and three shared ownership units must be used. Achieving land value was in the best financial interests of the Council and the Resources, Staffing, Information & Customer Services Portfolio Holder advised that the funds be ring-fenced to prevent them being pooled nationally.
Minutes:
Approval was sought for the disposal of Council land at Oakington Road, Cottenham, to Nene Housing Society in order to provide six affordable homes to meet identified local housing needs. Two different schemes had been referred to in the report and it was clarified that the original scheme as submitted to the Housing Corporation, of four rented and two shared ownership units, had assumed a land value of £0.
If the Council wished to achieve land value, then the latter scheme of three rented and three shared ownership units must be used. Achieving land value was in the best financial interests of the Council and the Resources, Staffing, Information & Customer Services Portfolio Holder advised that the funds be ring-fenced to prevent them being pooled nationally.
TG
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A previous application for a development on the A505/M11 "corner" failed in 1999 as it was considered to be an inappropriate urban form of development, would be visually inappropriate in the setting, was not proven to be a necessary amenity and fell outside the S Cmabs structure plan requirements.
http://egov.scambs.gov.uk/decisions/...-0385-99-O.pdf
http://egov.scambs.gov.uk/decisions/...-0385-99-O.pdf
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst South Cambridgeshire no doubt deserve criticism for some aspects of past and proposed policy, it should be noted that the proposal is actually one being made by a company called Grosvenor Developments Ltd in response to the council, rather than by the council.
Still worth objecting to however
Still worth objecting to however
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks WEB PILOT
Hi WebPilot
Many thanks for that very important 'link'. 
I am sure that nothing significant has changed in relation to the development, so if common sense prevails, this latest plan should be REFUSED too.
Thanks again, it is a very important lever you have provided.
Cheers
TG
Many thanks for that very important 'link'.
I am sure that nothing significant has changed in relation to the development, so if common sense prevails, this latest plan should be REFUSED too.
Thanks again, it is a very important lever you have provided.
Cheers
TG
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common sense or not, get your objections in 
With thanks to a poster on another site dedicated to GA activities, here is what to do:
Click on http://scambs.jdi-consult.net/ldf/vi...hp?repid=12986
Register and Log in
Click on LDF Home (it will remember who you are)
Scroll down that page and click on ''Objection sites : site specific policies DPD''.
Then click on ''Ojection site list''. (near the top)
Go down that list to No20 "Duxford east of M11": you'll see the map
Scroll down and click on pencil Icon bottom left and fill in the form making sure you don't forget to specify 'Object'
Fill in your rationale and summary and then send
Cheers
PR
With thanks to a poster on another site dedicated to GA activities, here is what to do:
Click on http://scambs.jdi-consult.net/ldf/vi...hp?repid=12986
Register and Log in
Click on LDF Home (it will remember who you are)
Scroll down that page and click on ''Objection sites : site specific policies DPD''.
Then click on ''Ojection site list''. (near the top)
Go down that list to No20 "Duxford east of M11": you'll see the map
Scroll down and click on pencil Icon bottom left and fill in the form making sure you don't forget to specify 'Object'
Fill in your rationale and summary and then send
Cheers
PR
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is also a useful point, from S Cmabs own guidelines:
CAMBRIDGE AIRPORT
6.7 The Structure Plan proposes redevelopment of Cambridge Airport for housing if the existing occupier, Marshall's, were to relocate. Until such development opportunities may arise, the following policy applies. Detailed proposals for this area are in Cambridge East Area Action Plan.
POLICY SP/20 Cambridge Airport Safety Zone
Within the Cambridge Airport Public Safety Zone identified on the Proposals Map, there is a general presumption against new development or changes of use except for a change of use which could not reasonably be expected to increase the numbers of people living, working or congregating on the land.
6.8 The Annex to Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 1/2002, Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones requires such zones to be safeguarded and identified in Development Plans. DfT has advised that Public Safety Zones have been established for Cambridge Airport. One of these falls within South Cambridgeshire. The Circular advises that within this Zone development should be restricted in order to minimise the number of people on the ground at risk of death or injury in the event of an aircraft crash on take-off or landing. There are safety benefits from preventing any new development or change of use which would result in a significant increase in the numbers of people within such zones except for uses such as long stay surface car parking, allotments and public open space which is of low intensity use.
CAMBRIDGE AIRPORT
6.7 The Structure Plan proposes redevelopment of Cambridge Airport for housing if the existing occupier, Marshall's, were to relocate. Until such development opportunities may arise, the following policy applies. Detailed proposals for this area are in Cambridge East Area Action Plan.
POLICY SP/20 Cambridge Airport Safety Zone
Within the Cambridge Airport Public Safety Zone identified on the Proposals Map, there is a general presumption against new development or changes of use except for a change of use which could not reasonably be expected to increase the numbers of people living, working or congregating on the land.
6.8 The Annex to Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 1/2002, Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones requires such zones to be safeguarded and identified in Development Plans. DfT has advised that Public Safety Zones have been established for Cambridge Airport. One of these falls within South Cambridgeshire. The Circular advises that within this Zone development should be restricted in order to minimise the number of people on the ground at risk of death or injury in the event of an aircraft crash on take-off or landing. There are safety benefits from preventing any new development or change of use which would result in a significant increase in the numbers of people within such zones except for uses such as long stay surface car parking, allotments and public open space which is of low intensity use.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
An L39 ended up on the M-way after brake failure when landing on 06 in June 2002. My good and old friend Gary Clarke pulled the black and yellow on a seat not designed for zero/zero operation, but did not walk away. The QFI stayed with the aircraft which skipped over the central reservation and he survived relatively unharmed.
BBC report.
The runway was shortened in August 1977, and the Concorde came in days/hours before the excavations started.
BBC report.
The runway was shortened in August 1977, and the Concorde came in days/hours before the excavations started.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navigating through South Cambs website is a nightmare
, indeed it is a disgrace. Walking through drying concrete would be easier.
http://scambs.jdi-consult.net/ldf/vi...3397&docid=142
Anyway, having lodged an OBJECTION days ago along with many here, despite being an electronic form, no sight of my filed OBJECT has appeared
Tch Tch South Cambs.
TG
, indeed it is a disgrace. Walking through drying concrete would be easier.http://scambs.jdi-consult.net/ldf/vi...3397&docid=142
Anyway, having lodged an OBJECTION days ago along with many here, despite being an electronic form, no sight of my filed OBJECT has appeared
Tch Tch South Cambs.
TG
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not a Planning Application...its a change of use application...which if granted will amke a planning appllciation for an MSA impossible to refuse.
We must object to this change of use....as if it gets through its too late....If the land is reclassed as suitable for an MSA when the application to build one is lodged (the day after the change of use is granted) then it will be impossible for the Council to refuse it...there would be no material grounds for doing so...
So object now to the change in use...
And do NOT mention 109s or L39s ending up in the field..as that will force a curtailment of flight operations a Duxford....
There are real land use and UDP objections which can be mentioned.. or merely the subjective effect of curtailment of flight operations at Duxford, a world class and leading entity which generates a decent financial benefit to the local community....
The MSA will also generate money but at the cost of the loss of fyling at Duxford....not a good return.
We must object to this change of use....as if it gets through its too late....If the land is reclassed as suitable for an MSA when the application to build one is lodged (the day after the change of use is granted) then it will be impossible for the Council to refuse it...there would be no material grounds for doing so...
So object now to the change in use...
And do NOT mention 109s or L39s ending up in the field..as that will force a curtailment of flight operations a Duxford....
There are real land use and UDP objections which can be mentioned.. or merely the subjective effect of curtailment of flight operations at Duxford, a world class and leading entity which generates a decent financial benefit to the local community....
The MSA will also generate money but at the cost of the loss of fyling at Duxford....not a good return.