Planning Dispute On Possible Aircraft Crash Site

That will make disappointing reading for some who are lurking around this thread! 🙁

Ironically I understand that one of the objectors is a former Lord Chancellor!!

All that has been done so far is for the settled community to have given Heine a list of the items to be addressed.

I’ll say here I have not read any of the planning links – just saw her name so all this is written with no specific case knowledge – If the method described below is in the case files then Heine is working to a script.

Here’s how I saw it working on a series of local cases over a few years.

Move on and see if it is a tollerated site – council planners use these to meet targets without costs to planning dept.

If not tollerated then basic retrospective application by applicant but with formulaic application statements.

Heine gives the words but her costs are kept to minimum by no real address of site specific items.

Now the application can go one of two ways – either the planners decide or if public interest then planning council decide.

If planners then usual decision is acceptance – each year a number of sites need to be accepted and usually the planners are aware of assessment deficiency and likely loss at appeal on these grounds. Job done and Heine has her basic fee for no real outlay.

If it goes to planning council then community will raise most of the valid reasons for refusal. Planning Committee is made up of elected council who rely on settled community for votes. Usual outcome is refusal but against planning officers recommendations. Job part done. Heine still has her basic fee but is now set for gravy train and settled community has given her a list of valid items to be addressed.

Now on to appeal – Heine has now dispensed with need to deal with planners or planning council – as long as she does all the tick boxes as planning conditions then everything hinges on has the council provided the number of sites listed in the GTA they agreed with previously with the central gov Department. If the answer to this is no – then game over for the refusal – the gov appointed inspector will penalise the council negligence with an appeal win for the traveller – unless some exceptional new evidence produced.

If Heine wins on appeal – and she invariably does on the unmet need – then all her costs are borne by council by order of the inspector. So the settled community has not only done all her arguments for her but is also funding all her costs after the initial planning application.

Hard facts – but look at the results – now you see why the traveller community uses her all over the country for their cases. Settled community only usually comes up against her on a once per life basis so reacts in the same predictable way.

I was too late to get a defence set up for the council(s) negligence in doing the required GTA but it’s this that needs to be addressed before the appeal – everything else – such as crash location – is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

ross

I’m under no illusions about that Ross – just trying to help where I can with the research aspects for the locals.

A good lead from Ossington has given us a wartime map reference for the Oxford crash site (since converted to a current O/S reference); we could just do with something similar for the Lancaster crash site location.

not over Howard.

Had personal experience of Heine’s methods before.

she will appeal – appeal will address and call for planning conditions to be applied on issues raised at council meeting.

Eventual argument she will use is unfulfilled need and inadequacy of council traveller assessments – 99% of councils have let these assessments slip due to cuts but Heine uses this “as get out of jail free cards”

Just do a google search on her name to see all the appeals she has done over England and the copy and paste impact statements used.

Ross

I missed this earlier in the week – refused! https://newarkadvertiser.co.uk/news/2018/03/06/travellers’-plans-for-lancaster-crash-site-are-refused

PM inbound Howard!

A brief update has been added to the local paper’s website this evening – not a great deal to add so far!

https://newarkadvertiser.co.uk/news/2018/03/03/decision-expected-soon-on-travellers-plans-for-lancaster-crash-site

This is a long-shot on behalf of someone on the local Parish Council; does anyone have access to the following?

RAF Syerston ORB – 1944
5 Lancaster Finishing School (LFS) ORB – 1944
Any aerial images of that part of wartime Nottinghamshire post 14.04.44
1521 Beam Approach Training (BAT) Flight ORB – 1944
RAF Wymeswold ORB – 1944

It’s also on a tight timescale!

Thank you for that weblink; I’ve not had the time to follow items in the Rushcliffe Planning Portal – my main focus has been trying to answer questions and give some suggested directions about which departments to contact to research / gather information about the wartime collision.

It’s in the public domain

https://planningon-line.rushcliffe.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P24E2ENLMGN00

From my understanding of the situation the only awareness of the location being an aircraft crash site came about after they purchased the land and planning objections started to be lodged. It is also now my understanding that the planning objections are now being supported / lobbied at an international level with diplomatic input.

Cynical… But probably not inaccurate…

The problem is probably over before it has properly begun; the Travellers have excavated the metal and it has already been weighed in at the local scrap yard.

Anon.

At the moment we have advised the applicants of the potential for military remains on the site and that any excavations could potentially represent a criminal offence, and that they should therefore discontinue any works in progress.”

And they pay such strict attention to the law everywhere else, don’t they?….

The incident is well documented in David Needham’s book, “Nottinghamshire Air Crashes” and by my understanding there is at least one local resident still alive who witnessed the mid-air collision.

Here’s the memorial that marks the incident and as has already been commented it raises “…. so many possibly controversial issues!”

”A site where a wartime aircraft crashed following a mid-air collision – moments after pilots saved countless lives by diverting away from a village – has now been occupied by Travellers.

The Travellers have asked for planning permission to live on the greenbelt field in Screveton where the Avro Lancaster bomber crashed in the Second World War, but have moved several caravans onto the land before the application has been determined.

Residents the Advertiser spoke to said they owed the pilots a debt for steering their crippled aircraft away from the hamlet, saving lives on the ground. They added that they will fight to preserve the site, and many of the 100 people who live in Screveton have signed a petition opposing the application.

The Travellers have also yet to apply for a licence under the 1986 Protection of Military Remains Act from the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre (JCCC) to disturb a military crash site where, although the bodies were removed at the time, there may still be human remains.”

It is a touching, but probably baseless myth that stricken aeroplanes are heroically steered clear of habitation. After this awful collision, there may well have been very little control left. Still, it is good that the crews are at least remembered.

Hmm, so many possibly controversial issues!