Society for the Protection of Aviation History

Misha – I know you are right. But if you never try…

Michelf – Thanks for that, all very interesting and very useful info.

I’ve spoken to just about every aero-nut I know in the last few days and without exception they are all in favour of getting us all organised in some way. Whether it is to put pressure on councils or other bodies or simply to help guide wannabe volunteers to something useful in their area – they can’t (yet) see a down side to the idea.

Just to try to shed a little light on the issue of writing into Councils to support or to object to planning issues.

Councils are obliged to take into account any and all comments received during the consultation period for an application only to the extent that it is relevant to planning policy and aims…so writing to them to say an XYZ should be allowed to happen for Historical/ Heritage etc reasons is not going to be considered.

So for example if you wanted to support an Application for a museum building at say GAM then the best time to write in support is during the consultation period of the Revised Local Plan… this is were the Council redefines its overall strategic objectives for all the land in its area….if the Local Plan is adopted with the GAM land noted as farm land or open land them no end of support during a planning application will make any difference…. the Local Plan takes precedence in legal primacy….to award a Planning Consent would be contrary to the Local Plan and hence the Council can be challenged. So whilst the individual planning Officers and Members may agree, if they go against the Local Plan the Council could be taken to court for ignoring its own Local Plan…which is not a path Councillors are ever keen to explore..its just not worht their while.

Local Plans tend to be revised every 3-5 years and it takes a good couple of years to get a draft out, consulted on and adopted by the Councillors…so in effect there is always a window of opportunity to engage Councillors and Officers on this issue…If the Council Officers and Members recieved those hundreds of letters at that time then there is a greater chance of them being taken into account.

If the GAM site were to be relisted in the local plan; due to pressure from a large and well organised number of supporters; as a in an area or an area of cultural or educational use (unlikely but you never know) then building on it becomes a normal extension of the land use class… and therefore entirely appropriate…thus any application to build can be supported with a heritage preservation justification. (Note I have not researched the GAM situation in detail.. this is more a generic example; it may be that there are other reasons, but this one springs to mind…)

Whilst this seems asinine it is a system that actually works after a fashion and its better than many as it is relatively open, all you need to do is know where and when to look.

This ties in neatly with the proposed PPS 3 provisions that define airfields as ‘brownfield sites’ and therefore potentially redevelopable as opposed to developable green belt land.

In essence the time to get involved in this is to keep a watching brief on local plans and overall planning policy, as by the time applications are in and made public it’s already very late and quite difficult to alter the course embarked upon.

Also to those who think that developers are being ‘sharp’ with Councillors there is really no need for them to do so… its all above board and legal, for large projects at least…..its called a Section 106 Agreement or ‘Planning Gain’ and is effectively a sum of money or of the development that the Council ‘get’ in a legal agreement contained within the consent for the overall development. In the case of Dunsfold of the 1000 homes proposed there will be a good percentage (30-35%) in the ‘Affordable Homes’ category that have to be made available (usually the HA purchase a long lease) to a Housing Association the sell on in either a part ownership scheme or for them to rent at Council approved rates for low income families. On top of this there will be sums for local Health Care, Education, infrastructure improvements etc. So whilst not saying the developer will not make millions on the deal, the Council will also get a net increase in its asset base as well as millions of pounds in cash to spend on services to the wider community. And that means happy voters, who re-elect those who provide good service at minimal tax rates……. 😉

Sorry it’s all slightly off topic but one of the prime aims of any Society whose aim is to support aviation heritage could be as a knowledge base and pressure group to encourage the building of relevant buildings for collections.

In a recent communuication to Gatwick Aviation Museum the council admitted to having received “hundreds of letters from all around the world” in support of the museum. This made little or no impression.

From my limited experience of planning matters I believe (though do stand to be corrected!) the local councils only have to take note of objections to planning matters from local people affected by the proposals put forward. I do know that a lot of councils are very supportive of aviation matters but I think that at the moment there are a lot more priorities that the electorate see as more important – sad tho it is.

OK all, given the 400+ ‘views’ of this thread, and the numerous views expressed here and in other threads, I think there is some mileage in the possible formation of such a group as long as it was complementary to the work that is already being done and provides an ‘in’ to preservation to the mass of casually interested enthusiasts who, like me, might not know where to start when it comes to the nuts and bolts of saving our aviation heritage for posterity. It would probably be web based and a loose confederation of enthusiast members working on projects of their own (a la Dave T’s Shackleton) or helping a museum out, contributing either time or money, in however small amounts, to individual projects or the overall scheme as they see fit.

I am going to leave the threads for a while and draw up some aims and objectives to the group before putting them to all and sundry. If anyone would like to chip in at this stage, feel very free to PM me. Thanks for support so far…

Sadly, it is often the case that councils are ‘encouraged’ by potential developers and we’d best not delve too deeply into that worm-pot. I know of two developments on conservation sites that should never have happened – but the developers had enough ‘sway’ to get what they want. (Holiday in the sun while you consider our proposal sir?).

So, hundreds of letter have been received about GAM and it hasn’t helped. There are no guarantees but the more you can send, the more chance you have. If those enthusiasts and more had been organised, the council may have needed a larger mail room. If you never try – you’ll never know.

If the councillors are making planning decisions on anything other than planning issues they should be dismissed from the committee.

Sadly, in the real world this isn’t always the case.

The way forward is to describe the role & aims your society is to have and how best it can relate to existing bodies. Figure out how to fund it. How to spend those funds and then poll for membership everywhere you can. We all have precious spare time so keep it simple, take advantage of technologies such as the ‘net and forums such as this. And then let those voices be heard!

In a recent communuication to Gatwick Aviation Museum the council admitted to having received “hundreds of letters from all around the world” in support of the museum. This made little or no impression. In the GAM case it is naive to believe that it is a simple matter of the council being obstructive. As always, there are other vested interests at work here, some who clearly have more political sway with the local authorites. I suspect this is more often the case where there is a problem being granted planning permission. Do not be misled into believing a few letters from a number of disparate people will achieve anything. It may, but.

Political clout is the only real way to produce results, stand for your local council, county councils and then use your influence. Lobby politicians, local and national, hassle them enough, with enough people and they’ll take action just to get rid of you! Use the system like all well orgaised, loud voiced minority groups do, there are plenty of examples of a small group getting results when they “shout” loud enough. If you can change the system even slightly in favor of aviation preservation your efforts may be worth a whole museums contents of airframes.

Thanks for this Pete. So what do you see as the bar to progress with planning permission? Council planning departments are bound to only make planning decisions on planning grounds. There may be complaints about the proposals but I struggle to see on what grounds they could be upheld. If the councillors are making planning decisions on anything other than planning issues they should be dismissed from the committee.

In short, your point about letters from disparate people is entirely consistent with what I’m (in a vague, roundabout way) proposing. I suppose the message is ‘don’t get mad, get influential’. Question is, how?

In a recent communuication to Gatwick Aviation Museum the council admitted to having received “hundreds of letters from all around the world” in support of the museum. This made little or no impression. In the GAM case it is naive to believe that it is a simple matter of the council being obstructive. As always, there are other vested interests at work here, some who clearly have more political sway with the local authorites. I suspect this is more often the case where there is a problem being granted planning permission. Do not be misled into believing a few letters from a number of disparate people will achieve anything. It may, but.

Political clout is the only real way to produce results, stand for your local council, county councils and then use your influence. Lobby politicians, local and national, hassle them enough, with enough people and they’ll take action just to get rid of you! Use the system like all well orgaised, loud voiced minority groups do, there are plenty of examples of a small group getting results when they “shout” loud enough. If you can change the system even slightly in favor of aviation preservation your efforts may be worth a whole museums contents of airframes.

The question cannot be asked until the aims of such a society have been better forumulated.

I see it this way. Say a decision is made to enforce the eviction order on Gatwick. The local Aviation Society cries “NO!” and the local council say “tough”. However, if the council received a few thousand letters from enthusiasts around the country – they cannot ignore it. This is the premise behind the simple petition. If enough voices are heard, things have to happen. We are the people that put councils in office. They really don’t want to upset us too much do they?

While we continue to be just individuals the aircraft and airfields we love will continue to disappear. Unless we do something collectively to stop the rot, we lose the right to complain when it happens. It will get worse too. With more and more council funding coming from Europe we are rapidly losing the right to heritage (and common sense).

Roy.

Well put, Mark.

If the politicians see voters from all over the country wanting better treatment for our aviation heritage rather than from a single entity like the BAPC then they may well feel more compelled to act. If I get a request from one of my students, I often dismiss it. When a whole group of them come to me – I know I need to do something.

I also think the dismissive attitude towards civil aircraft needs to change. Sure, military aircraft are a lot ‘sexier’ but aircraft like the tridents, 1-11’s and so on are icons of a lost british industry and are in my opinion extremely valuable parts of our heritage. They pose greater problems due to their sheer size and maybe it won’t be until they are gone people will really stop and think – we should have done something.

Now, where’s that poll?

What do you think the question should be wv838?

I think there are a lot of good points coming out of this discussion, not least the suggestion that putting aircraft under cover is a laudable overall aim for any more-or-less complete airframe. See the Gatwick Aviation Museum – a worthwhile collection of airframes that otherwise would quite possibly have been scrapped. However, despite the fact that this museum is adjacent to London’s second airport and in a region that owes most of its local economy to aviation, the museum has been subject to an eviction order for fifteen years. While this has not been enforced, it means that no planning permission to erect buildings that could have got the aircraft under cover can be built. Effectively, all these aircraft are at risk, certainly the two Shackletons which are probably too big to move should the eviction order ever be enforced.

A pressure group of enthusiasts, well run and funded, could help persuade the local council that such a museum is a valuable part of local and national heritage when ludicrously it seems to be regarded as an eyesore (the council insisted that trees be planted to hide the aircraft from the road… next to an airport!!!)

This is one way in which an independent society could help complement the other organisations out there.

Mark.

“For instance the answer for the BA collection at Cosford may be for a number of existing groups to form an umbrella organisation to preserve and display them on the Cosford site complementary to, but outside the RAF Museum’s responsibilities, an seek government funding for undercover display, ans support from BA in the initial phase.”

This is unlikely to happen as it is my understanding that one of the conditions of the new building being built at Cosford is that only one or two aircraft remain outside. With the Comet apparently earmarked for Hangar 1 and the Britannia more or less landscaped in its present position, room will still be required for the Nimrod, Hercules and VC10 which will eventually join the current collection at Cosford. I believe the BA aircraft will be removed one way or the other before the new building opens.

“There is an untapped resource of individuals sitting in front of PC screens and sitting inthe armchairs reading aviation magazines who are interested in helping preserve aviation heritage, harnassing their voices and pens (and even pockets) can result in increased government funding for capital infrastructure, the most important tool in preserving aircraft is a roof over their head. Aviation Museums and enthusiasts alike need to co-operate and lobby in competition with other charities like sport, perfoming or visual arts, arguing the importance of such collections on heritage, cultural, education and technology arguments.”

Possibly a couple of issues here. We all go to supermarkets and shopping centres regularly and are often confronted by collections for Cancer Research, RSPCA, Air Ambulance, NSPCC et al, and each of those organisations is going to pull at the heart strings of Joe Public much more than putting a roof over a particular aircraft.

The Lottery Grant for ‘558 is, on the face of it, a good idea. But the project remains some £350,000 short from the public (£1.4 million if you take into account the partnership aspect.) Any project such as this should have the partnership funding in place at the time of the bid and not rely on sponsorship which is not forthcoming. Should this project fail, will it have a serious negative effect on the chances of other aviation projects being given grants?

Lobby by all means. How many have written to the RAFM about Hendon or to BA about the airliner collection? It’s motivating people to do something rather than talk about it that’s the hard part. You know that yourself Mark from your Lincoln project. A lot of good will from people sat in front of PC’s does not always translate into money or practical help three months down the line.

Another issue with the title of this thread is what do we actually class as our aviation heritage? Who decides what is saving. I know little about the BAPC and less about the NAHR, but aren’t they, to an extent, doing what is suggested? And what actually comprises our aviation heritage? Are we just talking airframes or should we also consider airfields, architecture, literature, ephemera etc., etc?

A national Society is an interesting idea but it will need a lot of thinking about before anything might come to fruition.

regards,

kev35

Well put, Mark.

If the politicians see voters from all over the country wanting better treatment for our aviation heritage rather than from a single entity like the BAPC then they may well feel more compelled to act. If I get a request from one of my students, I often dismiss it. When a whole group of them come to me – I know I need to do something.

I also think the dismissive attitude towards civil aircraft needs to change. Sure, military aircraft are a lot ‘sexier’ but aircraft like the tridents, 1-11’s and so on are icons of a lost british industry and are in my opinion extremely valuable parts of our heritage. They pose greater problems due to their sheer size and maybe it won’t be until they are gone people will really stop and think – we should have done something.

Now, where’s that poll?

I woul echo Twin Otter’s comment, the best and simplist activity any individual can do is join and support their local independant aviation museum either through simple membership, volunteer work or financial/parts donation.

There is a need in many countries for co-ordinated National collections policy, and for those to flourish beyond government funded War Museums and Military Service Museums a strong not for profit sector is required, particularly to preserve the less marketable “Air Transport” collections where Corporate support and interest is limited, and in many cases not available due to the former operators being taken over or put out of business.

This may require some groups to pool their resources to seek Government support for shared building Infrastructure.

Unfortunately parochial or regional loyalties and individual pet interests need to be overcome for the longer term overall good.

From afar, Duxford with its co-sited IWM and Duxford Aviation Society providing a critical mass of interest to attract visitors, supporters and government money.

For instance the answer for the BA collection at Cosford may be for a number of existing groups to form an umbrella organisation to preserve and display them on the Cosford site complementary to, but outside the RAF Museum’s responsibilities, an seek government funding for undercover display, ans support from BA in the initial phase.

Again from afar the BAPC is envied as a body which does work well as an umbrella group for its independant members, but perhaps what is missing from the BAPC is the ability for individuals to join and contribute to appeals etc to save particular aircraft and see them allocated to one of he member organisations who has sought to preserve the aircraft. However as always there needs to be a collection policy to avoid resources being wasted on too many duplicate frames or items beyond economic recovery.

There is an untapped resource of individuals sitting in front of PC screens and sitting inthe armchairs reading aviation magazines who are interested in helping preserve aviation heritage, harnassing their voices and pens (and even pockets) can result in increased government funding for capital infrastructure, the most important tool in preserving aircraft is a roof over their head. Aviation Museums and enthusiasts alike need to co-operate and lobby in competition with other charities like sport, perfoming or visual arts, arguing the importance of such collections on heritage, cultural, education and technology arguments.

regards

Mark Pilkington

The infrastructure is already there and for the most part working well. With a little more assistance it can work even better.

Part of the purpose of this thread is to find out how that assistance can be rendered. Nobody is suggesting that there have been no attempts to rescue the Swift. What is the case though is that defeatism seems to have crept in and it has got difficult to separate the truth of the matter from the various stories flying around about why the owner won’t part with it. I’m not saying that another attempt won’t fail, but that’s no reason for not making it. If the slow death of another part of the nation’s heritage is what it takes for us to look at what is needed to make the system work better, then at least there will be some slight silver lining. The worst thing we can do is assume that everything is fine and that if another Swift, Vulcan or whatever gets scrapped it must have been inevitable.

I would like to use part of my comment on the State of British Aviation Heritage thread to reflect my views on this idea.

I believe the system already exists for British Aviation and although not perfect it has done a pretty good job over the last 30 years or so. This is each of the independent aviation museums across the UK, which outside of the USA is perhaps the most active aviation movement in the world.

Over the years hundreds of at risk airframes have been saved and most are now listed on the National Aviation Heritage Register [NAHR], compiled by BAPC. The NAHR has even been used as an example of good practice for other British transport Registers of significant artefacts.

As far as the Upper Hill Swift goes I think it would be naive to think that NO museums have tried to save this airframe. Perhaps previous bad experience with the Spitfire has dissuaded the owner from parting company with the airframe.

With the scope of coverage provided by Wrecks & Relics there are very few airframes not known about by the movement.

I would urge everyone to focus their efforts in supporting their local independent aviation museum.

The infrastructure is already there and for the most part working well. With a little more assistance it can work even better.

Go to “post reply”, I think there is a option for posting a “poll” in there….

I actually used the text below on another thread – but it seems to suit this one too.

I’ve only found time to properly read this forum over the last few weeks and the same complaints come up time and again about how ‘WE’ aren’t preserving or saving things.

There are groups like the BAPC who say they’ll help but I don’t think it is working. The BAPC seems to have become mostly a policy making group (please prove me wrong!) and it’s the like of the LPG, FAST and others who are actively doing things.

I wonder if the way forward would be for US to form a society of enthusiasts which would give us a louder voice to help sway the mainly political arguments that have lost us so many treasures.

Big question is, how many of US are there? How many would sign up to such a society to give it credibility? How many would happily donate £xx per month to fund it?

As a mass of lone voices – we as enthusiasts don’t stand a chance of changing things.
United… who knows?

I’d love to be involved with the kind of thing XN923 is suggesting and I think the first step would be to find out how many people are interested. Maybe a web page with a “yes, I’m interested” button on it?

Thanks wv838 – I suppose what I wanted was to gauge opinion, get an idea of how many people would be interested etc. If there is an organisation set up to do the kinds of things we are proposing then fine, let’s support that instead, but at the moment I think there is potential for the idea. SUre, you won’t save everything, and there will always be some unfortunate cases that slip through the net – what I want to do is try and make the holes in the net a bit smaller.

How do we go about getting a poll set up?

I actually used the text below on another thread – but it seems to suit this one too.

I’ve only found time to properly read this forum over the last few weeks and the same complaints come up time and again about how ‘WE’ aren’t preserving or saving things.

There are groups like the BAPC who say they’ll help but I don’t think it is working. The BAPC seems to have become mostly a policy making group (please prove me wrong!) and it’s the like of the LPG, FAST and others who are actively doing things.

I wonder if the way forward would be for US to form a society of enthusiasts which would give us a louder voice to help sway the mainly political arguments that have lost us so many treasures.

Big question is, how many of US are there? How many would sign up to such a society to give it credibility? How many would happily donate £xx per month to fund it?

As a mass of lone voices – we as enthusiasts don’t stand a chance of changing things.
United… who knows?

I’d love to be involved with the kind of thing XN923 is suggesting and I think the first step would be to find out how many people are interested. Maybe a web page with a “yes, I’m interested” button on it?

In principle this seems a good idea, however there is one fundamental problem concerning some of the artefacts that need rescuing. These artefacts are often owned by individuals that have little or no knowledge of their potential historical importance. As far as I understand it is not possible to compel private owners to part with their artefacts however neglected they may be.

The BAPC tried many years ago to provide a systematic process to highlight those airframes of significance. This has been used to good effect by a number of individual museums to gain funding for the conservation or restoration of a few airframes.

Unfortunately the disposals branch of the MOD has a mandate to seek maximum return for the taxpayer in disposing of surplus airframes. Often this means that private individuals or companies outbid the preservation movement.

These individuals on occasion have little knowledge of how to provide for the long term future of these airframes, thus the situation we see today with the Swift at Upper Hill and the Shackleton etc at Long Marston.

Personally I would recommended that those with a concern for the future of some of our neglected airframes should try to assist their independent museums. As a collective body they have a greater resource to look after such exhibits

Air Britain

If you look into the many departments of Air Britain you will see they have already been active in this area.Why invent a new group support the premier Uk aviation historical group.

Generally a good idea.
It’s aims would need to be thrashed out and would need to be mainly complementary to and not to clash with/upset existing bodies (eg BAPC). It would be different to BAPC in that BAPC is, largely, made up of “corporate” members (museums/groups/collections) – such a new organisation would I imagine be made up mainly of individuals.
One advantage of such a body could be in situations where there is a single negotiator discussing the purchase of a relic with it’s owner rather than an auction scenario because several different people are talking to him/her.
I am currently working up a letter I hope to get published in one of the mags about our National Collections and HM Government’s responsibilities to preservation of our aeronautical heritage. There appears to be an “arms race” between RAF Museum and IWM each trying to get the biggest pieces of the pie – where the baker is the Heritage Lottery Fund. A few crumbs have fallen to other museums, a small few!

Roger Smith.