Downing street petition (not the roads one)
Thread Starter
Downing street petition (not the roads one)
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Airfields/
PLEASE SIGN THE ABOVE 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These were previously included in the superceded Planning Policy Guidance PPG3 – Housing.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.
PLEASE SIGN THE ABOVE 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These were previously included in the superceded Planning Policy Guidance PPG3 – Housing.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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have now had a reply from the PM's office:
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11194.asp
Clearly written by a civil servant. It doesn't help me at all. Can anyone explain it in English.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11194.asp
Clearly written by a civil servant. It doesn't help me at all. Can anyone explain it in English.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northampton UK
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that it means that:
RC
- airfields were mentioned in the old text as an example of things that could sometimes be deemed unsuitable for redevelopment, but that never implied that airfields were specifically protected.
- airfields are not mentioned in the new text, but the position hasn't actually changed, on a case by case basis an airfield may sometimes (and conversely may not) be deemed unsuitable for redevelopment.
RC
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fareham
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have taken a different tack on this problem and written direct to the Chairman of the Transport Committee. Their response in scanned form is attached.
The answer, whilst similar does seem to be slightly more positive from the standpoint of protecting airfields.
The answer, whilst similar does seem to be slightly more positive from the standpoint of protecting airfields.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's interesting in that letter is PPG13 - that local authorities 'should consider identifying and, where appropriate, protecting existing and potential airfield sites (including disused sites)', as parts of the transport infrastructure. I see absolutely no sign of any local authorities enlightened enough to take that view, sadly.
Tim
Tim
