Worrying Airfield Development
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: wilderness
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worrying Airfield Development
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These were previously included in the superceded Planning Policy Guidance PPG3 – Housing.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
"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These were previously included in the superceded Planning Policy Guidance PPG3 – Housing.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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: wilderness
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get those names down
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!
SIA
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!
SIA
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Far from the madding crowd
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land Remediation
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Over there, behind that tree.
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GBZ
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
I wonder what happens when the assets run out? I hope the Hawk orders keep Brough busy for a few years yet
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
I wonder what happens when the assets run out? I hope the Hawk orders keep Brough busy for a few years yet
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Far from the madding crowd
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....)
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 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.
Last edited by Almost_done; 27th Dec 2006 at 22:15. Reason: Additional Info
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think Again. We're short of building land around the capital...
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. 
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I suggest you look at the campaign to save North Weald (http://www.northwealdairfield.org/Ca.../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
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
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.