Grant Shapps MP and committee defend GA
 

This is a cracking letter from Grant Shapps and the APPG in response to the pathetic Sajid Javid MP ......

All-party Group on General Aviation calls on Local Government Department to take urgent action | All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation

Worth a read through.

The UK government has seriously stated that they plan to make the UK the best country in the world for GA? Excuse me while I stop laughing... they've got a lot of work to do...

This subject is a classic case of 'peeing into the wind'. The demands of GA will always be subordinate to the demand for housing made necessary by a continually expanding population.


The image in the public mind of rich boys defending their 'hobby' will be difficult to defend and will indeed be overcome by allegations of housing shortages, overcrowding and overpricing.


I wrote to Shapps and the LAA at around the time of the Red Tape Challenge offering the opinion that there would be little dissent if, in exchange for airfield development planning consent, the proposed developers were legally obliged to provide - at their cost - alternative facilities of equal value and extent, to those being lost to GA and accessible within a ten mile radius of the original.


Alternatively, the same legal provision could apply but, space permitting, the replacement GA facility could be within the boundary of the proposed development. From what I've heard and read, the Americans and the French permit side by side development so what is the problem over here. All can benefit !

Ah, you never flew under German LBA registry? UK is multiple lightyears ahead the troglodytes.

Byron Davies appointed GA Airfield Champion.

The UK is leagues ahead of many, many countries - but still has some way before becoming the best in the world...

Equal extent anyhow - equal value would presumably mean just as plum a spot for building houses on.

In reality, most airfields will be happier away from major connurbations, for reasons of noise and safety. That could actually work quite well. Maybe 6 miles rather than 10.

G

Do the committee really have a clue as to what is going on?

Using the number of licensed airfields as a metric is not much use when - perhaps as a result of the Red Tape challenge, or perhaps more due to EASA - there is now no need for airfields to be licensed for ab initio flight training.

Interested, too, in the value of aviation to the UK economy.

My enquiry to the MSP (Scottish Parliament) and the MP (UK Parly) for here revealed that neither Holyrood nor the House of Commons library has a list of aviation companies in Scotland!

So what are the figures based on?

Sam has it; the issue isn't how far ahead of the worst we are, but how far behind the best. The typical attitude of the CAA doesn't give much confidence for any real improvement.

There is another significant strand to the assault by developers on current airfields. There is too little demand chasing too much supply.


Even in the salad days of high summer, apart from a handful, most airfields are well underused. Realistically, the only way that one can justify the considerable expense incurred in running and maintaining an airfield, is by either letting or selling chunks preferably on leasehold to generate income. A few dozen daily landing fees won't cut the mustard; neither will parking fees.


My personal preference would always lean towards mixed development. As we've witnessed and continue to witness, this in itself is not without problems, NIMBYism lurks everywhere. At the very least, mixed development secures any historical heritage eg. the airfield remains in being tho' much altered and the demand for housing is met in some measure.

There are a great many airfields being termed as "brownfield sites" with potential for development, some of which have already been partially developed and of course owners want to continue to cover the whole site. Local authorities do value existing GA airfields as an asset to business as well as recreation and development rights have been denied in several cases, much to the annoyance of the owners.
However moving a licensed airfield is a different matter, the local nimbys will fight it tooth and nail, a farm strip is straightforward if you are sensible but not a hard surface that can take a biz jet with all the facilities needed. In populated areas GA airfields are now getting thin on the ground we really don't want to loose more.

Any "mixed development" should only include business/industrial use. If you start building houses it wont be long before the complaints come flooding in to close down the airfield part - even though they bought the house knowing it was right next to an airfield!

Groundloop


I've no doubt that your view is correct. There is, as we know, considerable history attached to this point. Almost every airfield can tell many stories !


However, the crux of the matter is the provision of housing on brownfield sites and the problems for GA linked to that.


I would quite like to see a nationwide survey, data obtained and a plan prepared. A plan that both links and compares GA numbers in terms of aircraft, personnel and staffing to geographical locations of existing airfields and population centers.


From that, we should get a clearer picture of supply and demand that might be used to help to make the case for either an unconditional or conditional support or denial of planning consent.


The popularity of airfields such as White Waltham, Denham, Popham and Blackbushe speaks for itself. I can hardly believe that they would come under a planning threat which would be successful. They appear to be well used and supply a constant demand.


Fairoaks tho' is another matter. It has always seemed to be underused. A survey would tell us one way or another. If it does close, who would take up the slack? It could be either Blackbushe or Farnboro' which would perhaps entail a not insignificant increase in costs to the owners of the displaced aircraft.

Capt Kremman
 

I would argue that Fairoaks is not under used in financal terms, there is at least one quite major maintenance company that does a considerable amount of work, one movement of a top end turboprop for maintenance generates far more economic benifit for the local community in terms of employment than a hundred movements by a microlight at Popham.

One could also say argue that the Fairoaks reprisents the best noise to financal benifit trade off for the local community.

For a number of years I lived next door to Fairoaks and flew from there. Entirely subjectively, the airfield seemed to be underused. Therefore, I don't quite know how the 'local community benefited'.


It is not a large airfield so, rather than lose it entirely, it might benefit from mixed development.

The exact number of 'private strips' across the whole of the UK has never been counted and the number published.

Others conservatively estimate it's in excess of 800.

The strip I keep my Stinson on appears in no guides, receives few visitors and is not generally discussed. There are 3 more in the county too. Between us nearly 20 regularly flown a/c are housed there.

I believe the flight from licensed aerodromes results from the commercial policies adopted by said airfields, whether in terms of fees and charges or lack of provision of facilities. Apart from Kemble recently, I haven't used a licensed runway this year.

My GA exists in parallel with the likes of Fairoaks and whilst I will support its continued existence, I can't imagine a reason for visiting next year.

If local authorities gave planning permission for agricultural land as willingly as for airfields would developers still be so keen on buying the airfields. They aren't buying for the land but for the planning permission, and it's the planners decision to give permission only for airfield land that causes the problem.

And, I believe, you are the CAA's model for the future of Light GA in the UK. A bunch of old Geezers in old aeroplanes flying from grass farm strips.

Unfortunately, this model will see the demise of Light GA. For light GA to continue, we need flying schools and maintenance organisations. I know a few maintenance places that exist off the map but they are, often as not, man and boy (and dog) operations. The type of maintenance organisation at Fairoaks can't exist in a farm strip.

No, we have to have airfields.

Of course, none of us are arguing with that statement. The two questions that need an answer are;


Given the paucity of numbers involved in GA, is it possible to make airfields pay as they are without developing them as something else?


How, in view of the relentless demand for housing do you maintain a 'brownfield site' designated airfield as an airfield per se?


Your Geezers/old a/c/farm strip scenario is, for the moment, far from accurate.

Oi, less of the Geezer thank you. The rest is accurate though. :)