Millemium dome,scottish parliment building,dare i say ,,concorde? TSR2, blue water/streak,etc etc, all these were projects started,and eventually proved to have had money thrown at them with only concorde possibly successful in a small way, had that financial prowess been put into preserving these airfields it would have proved a much better inveatment not to mention the jobs the scheme would have created mostly long term ,plus numerous preservation groups/ societies to administer said airfields, the ones who didnt come home deserve this.

erm…. yup, the scottish parliment building did cost rather a lot of money, but to say it isn’t a success and will not be as beneficial as perserving a few airfields is a bit short sighted. Perhaps that is not what you meant, but it is certainly the way I have taken it…

The money to preserve airfields would be an infinite black hole, and who would you be preserving them for? I applaud the sentiment that you are remembering those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country, but to preserve everything is a definite non-starter, with cost implications which would easily outstrip the embarrassing £400m our parliment building cost… And who would truly benefit from preserved airfields?

As much as it pains me to say it, maybe development of airfields is inevitable. It may affect us more as WWII is still within living memory, and the military operation of some of these airfields is perhaps still within recent memory (i.e Coltishall), but how will future generations react? Will they see it as relevant as we do? Perhaps there are some airfields better candidates for perservation, but maybe some are going to have to succumb to the inevitable, in particular those near major population centres. I am not saying this is right, or I agree with it, only taking a realistic approach…

Would it be an idea as a condition of planning permission to force developers to at least make a memorial for bases where people lost their life in conflict?

Regards,
Scotty