Ealing Council propose closure of RAF Northolt
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"HH oh what a wonderful fluffy world you live in."
I wish......... I live in the real world - where no-one gives damn about airfields, all they see is a big open space which doesn't seem to have much happening on it. And I can't see any politician standing up and saying "I think building more houeses here is a bad idea"
I wish......... I live in the real world - where no-one gives damn about airfields, all they see is a big open space which doesn't seem to have much happening on it. And I can't see any politician standing up and saying "I think building more houeses here is a bad idea"
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: farrrr east
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(RAF Uxbridge was closed for redevelopment and the last time I passed it still looks like a dogs breakfast).
A project of this size on road infrastructure and facilities which are already at breaking point, try using any road around the area.
No you don't live in the real world, you live in the world fluffy people are trying to create where everything is wonderful and the worlds nasty people all live in la la land. To be honest I don't see many politicians doing that either, until of course they are properly briefed. I'm guessing, being on a military aviation forum, you either know something, about the intricacies of getting into London, be it piloting, or air trafficking it? Then you would know, your namesake just isn't an option, nor never will be and LCA rules preclude just about everything with the exception of what they have now bouncing off those rules daily.
The precision radar head at Northolt I'm sure remains fundamental in the first rule of government and I am certainly not living in your " flying in thousands of non existent troops in case of civil unrest... Is fantasy.......... Fantasy. But I do live in the real world where sometime nasty things happen sadly more often than you'd think and not necessarily in London.
Not that I give two figs anymore about military airfields, but I'd also like to comment on your "slam dunk TBH" theory, surely if the south east needs more houses? Why not build them in the south east, not north west London! Can I suggest if Mr Whateverhescalled (London Mayor) is hell bent on an airfield, maybe Biggin Hill? I seem to remember that was south east it was only useful as a turning point to avoid another London rule.
The precision radar head at Northolt I'm sure remains fundamental in the first rule of government and I am certainly not living in your " flying in thousands of non existent troops in case of civil unrest... Is fantasy.......... Fantasy. But I do live in the real world where sometime nasty things happen sadly more often than you'd think and not necessarily in London.
Not that I give two figs anymore about military airfields, but I'd also like to comment on your "slam dunk TBH" theory, surely if the south east needs more houses? Why not build them in the south east, not north west London! Can I suggest if Mr Whateverhescalled (London Mayor) is hell bent on an airfield, maybe Biggin Hill? I seem to remember that was south east it was only useful as a turning point to avoid another London rule.
In this neck-of-the-woods it took about 15 years from the first 'Council rumblings' to the first house being built on the former RAF Oakington site. Whatever happens, it won't happen overnight.
Totally agree with Imagegear
I live in the Southeast.
The Southeast does NOT need more housing, it needs a reduction in population. Hopefully Brexit may achieve this.
The local council have agreed a plan to cut part of my local woods down and shoehorn 25 new houses into a rural area without giving a damn about the consequent strain on the roads, schools etc. 😡
The Southeast does NOT need more housing, it needs a reduction in population. Hopefully Brexit may achieve this.
The local council have agreed a plan to cut part of my local woods down and shoehorn 25 new houses into a rural area without giving a damn about the consequent strain on the roads, schools etc. 😡
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Having lived and/or worked in the area for longer than I care to recall [15+ years? *] between 1974 and 1991, I assure the proponents of this scheme that the traffic hardly worked back then. How the infrastructure would cope with this idea i a complete mystery to me.
West Drayton/Swakeleys
Uxbridge/Swakeleys
MoD/Uxbridge
11 Gp/Swakeleys
MoD/Northolt
MoD/Bracknell
Uxbridge/Bracknell
Join the RAF and see the World, eh?
West Drayton/Swakeleys
Uxbridge/Swakeleys
MoD/Uxbridge
11 Gp/Swakeleys
MoD/Northolt
MoD/Bracknell
Uxbridge/Bracknell
Join the RAF and see the World, eh?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dream on..
"Trump is unelectable"
"Uncontrolled immigration will never be controlled"
Recognise a trend here?
The media must be feeling somewhat dispossessed - the British People are no longer prepared to listen to their not so subtle instructional techniques.
Indeed, where the people have the will, they will find a way and it may not be as directed by our propaganda pushing liberals.
Imagegear
Even when local town councils, district councils, county councils and local people all oppose some speculator's plan to build houses in an inappropriate area, the Planning Inspectorate seems to be increasingly biased in favour of the speculator when the proposal goes to appeal.....no doubt there's some government pressure behind that 
?
Yet house prices are going up at an unsustainable rate, the mortgage mafia and estate agents are slavering over the associated increase in commission - when the new line to London opened last year, the number of London residents looking for houses near Kidlington increased dramatically. How is that of any benefit to local residents?
Oxford cannot find enough space to meet housing supply set by the government, or so they allege, so there is now increasing pressure on the 'green belt' - and local towns and villages are becoming Oxford overspill areas. But without any investment in road or rail infrastructure...
?Yet house prices are going up at an unsustainable rate, the mortgage mafia and estate agents are slavering over the associated increase in commission - when the new line to London opened last year, the number of London residents looking for houses near Kidlington increased dramatically. How is that of any benefit to local residents?
Oxford cannot find enough space to meet housing supply set by the government, or so they allege, so there is now increasing pressure on the 'green belt' - and local towns and villages are becoming Oxford overspill areas. But without any investment in road or rail infrastructure...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Around here usually part of the planning conditions is that the developer is responsible for associated improvements to the roads, electrical and water infrastructure. These need to be completed before the Council will adopt the development. - Yeah right
I can name at least 3 developments near to me that are 250 Houses plus that had that planning condition applied and yet the houses have been built, sold and the developer gone away and the planning condition has not been completed. On 2 of the 'developments' (I hesitate to use the words 'estate') the infrastructure is so bad the roads are full of potholes and major junction improvements have not been completed, it's made local and regional news and yet the council still refuse to enforce the condition through the courts, none of the properties are cheaper end of the spectrum or achieve the goal of helping locals or first time buyers - so I am at a loss as to what the overall benefits were. The Dis-benefits are obvious:
Meanwhile the Local Authority is tackling blatant illegal development by making one of my local farmers take down a barn that was 1 meter higher than the planning application he submitted and they have rejected his application for an amendment to the original planning app...........
All I can assume is that Local Councillors are either extremely naïve in what they think Developers will and won't do or they are receiving large brown envelopes to 'quieten' them down. Ultimately money talks and integrity walks.......
Finally, like you guys elsewhere I am amazed at the distances and time people spend travelling on the daily commute nowadays, many people round here do 2 hours each way, each day to work and spend in excess of £6000 for a season ticket............. just crazy !
And don't get me started on 'second' homes in Burnham Market...........
Arc
I can name at least 3 developments near to me that are 250 Houses plus that had that planning condition applied and yet the houses have been built, sold and the developer gone away and the planning condition has not been completed. On 2 of the 'developments' (I hesitate to use the words 'estate') the infrastructure is so bad the roads are full of potholes and major junction improvements have not been completed, it's made local and regional news and yet the council still refuse to enforce the condition through the courts, none of the properties are cheaper end of the spectrum or achieve the goal of helping locals or first time buyers - so I am at a loss as to what the overall benefits were. The Dis-benefits are obvious:
- We have lost local green space
- The houses are rammed together (not attractive)
- The roads are barely useable (unadopted and already damaged)
- The properties have not helped the local housing situation
- Local infrastructure overflowing (schools, doctors, sewerage, Broadband, roads etc)
- Local Authority apparently powerless (unwilling or unable ?) in the face of the developers
- Progressive downslide in overall quality of life..............
Meanwhile the Local Authority is tackling blatant illegal development by making one of my local farmers take down a barn that was 1 meter higher than the planning application he submitted and they have rejected his application for an amendment to the original planning app...........
All I can assume is that Local Councillors are either extremely naïve in what they think Developers will and won't do or they are receiving large brown envelopes to 'quieten' them down. Ultimately money talks and integrity walks.......
Finally, like you guys elsewhere I am amazed at the distances and time people spend travelling on the daily commute nowadays, many people round here do 2 hours each way, each day to work and spend in excess of £6000 for a season ticket............. just crazy !
And don't get me started on 'second' homes in Burnham Market...........
Arc
"The UK will never vote to leave the EU"
"Trump is unelectable"
"Uncontrolled immigration will never be controlled"
Recognise a trend here?
The media must be feeling somewhat dispossessed - the British People are no longer prepared to listen to their not so subtle instructional techniques.
Indeed, where the people have the will, they will find a way and it may not be as directed by our propaganda pushing liberals.
Imagegear
"Trump is unelectable"
"Uncontrolled immigration will never be controlled"
Recognise a trend here?
The media must be feeling somewhat dispossessed - the British People are no longer prepared to listen to their not so subtle instructional techniques.
Indeed, where the people have the will, they will find a way and it may not be as directed by our propaganda pushing liberals.
Imagegear
Govt can't control the immigration it is control of and that is non UK immigration but some how Brexit means it will control immigration,
Guest
Posts: n/a
Racedo
Indeed, uncontrolled migration over many decades has brought the UK to the point where every part of infrastructure is creaking at the seams, not just housing.
Wishing to keep this thread on track, having been extensively involved in trying to fight off the devious and sometimes near criminal tactics of Developers various I can tell you that they will stop at nothing to achieve their fiscal objectives.
They will say they want to build 25000 low cost houses, submit planning application, get told to go away and rethink, but they have already filed their next submission for 22000 houses, before the ink is dry on the first, followed by resubmit - reject, resubmit reject eventually reaching a figure of say 16000 houses. (Which was the original objective)
At this point planning wakes up and notices how much parking has been allocated for each house, shock horror, only one garage/off street parking per house. (and by the way, the price of each house has now risen by at least 40% because the developer cannot make enough profit off the lower number of sales.
Which means that the houses are no longer "low cost" but single family homes, which means each house is now at least a two car family.
16000 homes, at least 32000 cars half of which have nowhere to park, where do they go?, I'll tell you, up every little village street, access road, etc.
Ohh the council will need to control parking congestion, better start marking out the bays and putting up the signs, oops traffic will not assign bays or put up signs unless they can regulate the situation, parking charges anyone.
Ditto council tax, think infrastructure, sewerage, water, electricity.
This is pure and simple council revenue enhancement and developer enrichment at the cost of residents quality of life. Nothing to do with serving the "population".
Better start the fight now because it's coming.
Imagegear
Indeed, uncontrolled migration over many decades has brought the UK to the point where every part of infrastructure is creaking at the seams, not just housing.
Wishing to keep this thread on track, having been extensively involved in trying to fight off the devious and sometimes near criminal tactics of Developers various I can tell you that they will stop at nothing to achieve their fiscal objectives.
They will say they want to build 25000 low cost houses, submit planning application, get told to go away and rethink, but they have already filed their next submission for 22000 houses, before the ink is dry on the first, followed by resubmit - reject, resubmit reject eventually reaching a figure of say 16000 houses. (Which was the original objective)
At this point planning wakes up and notices how much parking has been allocated for each house, shock horror, only one garage/off street parking per house. (and by the way, the price of each house has now risen by at least 40% because the developer cannot make enough profit off the lower number of sales.
Which means that the houses are no longer "low cost" but single family homes, which means each house is now at least a two car family.
16000 homes, at least 32000 cars half of which have nowhere to park, where do they go?, I'll tell you, up every little village street, access road, etc.
Ohh the council will need to control parking congestion, better start marking out the bays and putting up the signs, oops traffic will not assign bays or put up signs unless they can regulate the situation, parking charges anyone.
Ditto council tax, think infrastructure, sewerage, water, electricity.
This is pure and simple council revenue enhancement and developer enrichment at the cost of residents quality of life. Nothing to do with serving the "population".
Better start the fight now because it's coming.
Imagegear
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagegear
The parking is interesting. The roads on these developments are not triple width (often not even double width) to ensure maximum number of units on any given site. Number of parking spaces per property = 1 (so minimum number of vehicles = maximum number of units for the square footage). Problem is that because property is so expensive kids don't move out (average age is now 30 for kids leaving home in Norfolk for example). They are of working age and have cars............where do they park ? - anywhere they can. Round here they block other people's driveways, park on the pavement, block the roads - they have no choice. often the nearest space can be half a mile away............
Here's the rub. A few months ago there was a house fire on one of the developments round here. The road was blocked with cars parked either side of the road - the gap (1 car width) was not wide enough for the fire engines to get through. They refused to damage the parked cars by trying to get through and told me that if they damage their engine, the engine has to be taken off the road and the driver is either suspended or taken off driving duties until there has been an enquiry into the RTA. They ended up doing the sensible thing. Ran up to the house and made sure no-one was inside, and then left it to burn. God only knows what would have happened if there had been people inside.................. obviously the same applies to ambulances which can't get through the gap either..........
And yet no-one cares and this must have been obvious to the planners when the plans were submitted. There is an easy fix - state a minimum road width and stick to it. No road width minimum = no planning approval, and while we're at it a minimum of 3 spaces per property for car parking............
Wander
Burnham Market now known a 'Chelsea on Sea' or 'Home of the Rangerover' if you live around here......... over 60% of the houses there are owned by people from outside Norfolk. (and double parking of 4WD is rife in the village from 5 on a Friday until 8 on a Monday). You'd be sad to see it.........
Arc
The parking is interesting. The roads on these developments are not triple width (often not even double width) to ensure maximum number of units on any given site. Number of parking spaces per property = 1 (so minimum number of vehicles = maximum number of units for the square footage). Problem is that because property is so expensive kids don't move out (average age is now 30 for kids leaving home in Norfolk for example). They are of working age and have cars............where do they park ? - anywhere they can. Round here they block other people's driveways, park on the pavement, block the roads - they have no choice. often the nearest space can be half a mile away............
Here's the rub. A few months ago there was a house fire on one of the developments round here. The road was blocked with cars parked either side of the road - the gap (1 car width) was not wide enough for the fire engines to get through. They refused to damage the parked cars by trying to get through and told me that if they damage their engine, the engine has to be taken off the road and the driver is either suspended or taken off driving duties until there has been an enquiry into the RTA. They ended up doing the sensible thing. Ran up to the house and made sure no-one was inside, and then left it to burn. God only knows what would have happened if there had been people inside.................. obviously the same applies to ambulances which can't get through the gap either..........
And yet no-one cares and this must have been obvious to the planners when the plans were submitted. There is an easy fix - state a minimum road width and stick to it. No road width minimum = no planning approval, and while we're at it a minimum of 3 spaces per property for car parking............
Wander
Burnham Market now known a 'Chelsea on Sea' or 'Home of the Rangerover' if you live around here......... over 60% of the houses there are owned by people from outside Norfolk. (and double parking of 4WD is rife in the village from 5 on a Friday until 8 on a Monday). You'd be sad to see it.........
Arc
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
As an aside, Jersey Development law requires, for new-build, one off-street parking space per bedroom, and an extra one for a visitor. It makes high-densnity developments quite tricky.
That said, Developers and Planning have a 'relationship'.
That said, Developers and Planning have a 'relationship'.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why cant the RAF simply randomly deploy more aircraft to Northolt more often, and publicise that as well? "Product placement" - is it called that? If its a turf war, and the RAF wants to keep its real estate then it has to surely populate it (with people and aircraft or alternate air defences/assets.
If it cant do that, then take it the land away and use the said land more intelligently for the common good.
* Brexit will mean you come here to work on a Visa. No designated job/company sponsorship = no working Visa. Just like the two non EU countries I recently worked in-this system generally worked well because the host nation applied the rules fully. We all know the present set up here in the UK right now and what that has meant- I could now see through recent experience and observation that many non essential EU people are already leaving UK even pre Brexit. It could be we will see a fall in working youthful population - heaven knows demand for housing of the types being speculated for Northolt may even fall.
Not wanting to get into a Brexit argument but destiny is in our own horny hands....
If it cant do that, then take it the land away and use the said land more intelligently for the common good.
* Brexit will mean you come here to work on a Visa. No designated job/company sponsorship = no working Visa. Just like the two non EU countries I recently worked in-this system generally worked well because the host nation applied the rules fully. We all know the present set up here in the UK right now and what that has meant- I could now see through recent experience and observation that many non essential EU people are already leaving UK even pre Brexit. It could be we will see a fall in working youthful population - heaven knows demand for housing of the types being speculated for Northolt may even fall.
Not wanting to get into a Brexit argument but destiny is in our own horny hands....
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why cant the RAF simply randomly deploy more aircraft to Northolt more often, and publicise that as well? "Product placement" - is it called that? If its a turf war, and the RAF wants to keep its real estate then it has to surely populate it (with people and aircraft or alternate air defences/assets.
If it cant do that, then take it the land away and use the said land more intelligently for the common good.
* Brexit will mean you come here to work on a Visa. No designated job/company sponsorship = no working Visa. Just like the two non EU countries I recently worked in-this system generally worked well because the host nation applied the rules fully. We all know the present set up here in the UK right now and what that has meant- I could now see through recent experience and observation that many non essential EU people are already leaving UK even pre Brexit. It could be we will see a fall in working youthful population - heaven knows demand for housing of the types being speculated for Northolt may even fall.
Not wanting to get into a Brexit argument but destiny is in our own horny hands....
If it cant do that, then take it the land away and use the said land more intelligently for the common good.
* Brexit will mean you come here to work on a Visa. No designated job/company sponsorship = no working Visa. Just like the two non EU countries I recently worked in-this system generally worked well because the host nation applied the rules fully. We all know the present set up here in the UK right now and what that has meant- I could now see through recent experience and observation that many non essential EU people are already leaving UK even pre Brexit. It could be we will see a fall in working youthful population - heaven knows demand for housing of the types being speculated for Northolt may even fall.
Not wanting to get into a Brexit argument but destiny is in our own horny hands....
If it's anything like the plan to develop Wyton, I wouldn't hold your breath. Talking to a friend based there, the MOD flogged half the base / airfield to developers who are now stuck in arguments with the council over planning permission. The Council insists that 15,000+ new homes (I suspect very tiny homes) need the infrastructure in place before the building starts; funnily enough, the developers just want to get houses up and sold and will think about the supporting infrastructure - roads, water, power, comms, minor points - at some time in the future. The Council are sensibly suggesting this isn't the best of plans.
What is worrying is that with pound signs flickering in front of their eyes, the local council might just end up persuading the MOD to flog Northolt and then end up being left with empty land for ages, a sort of lose lose all round.
What is worrying is that with pound signs flickering in front of their eyes, the local council might just end up persuading the MOD to flog Northolt and then end up being left with empty land for ages, a sort of lose lose all round.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mustafa
I 've spent a very large (too large) part of life on the M40, the A40, the M4 and the railways of NW London.
What I am saying is that military considerations are very very low on the political radar - especially when they are not a front line station.
If we started now, with the size of the RAF as it is how many airfields would we build to defend the UK? Germany manages with 11 - we probably have over 40. They are a relic of WW2 and TBH are not really necessary
I 've spent a very large (too large) part of life on the M40, the A40, the M4 and the railways of NW London.
What I am saying is that military considerations are very very low on the political radar - especially when they are not a front line station.
If we started now, with the size of the RAF as it is how many airfields would we build to defend the UK? Germany manages with 11 - we probably have over 40. They are a relic of WW2 and TBH are not really necessary