dark light

Coltishall's future looking bleak

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED08%20Aug%202005%2019%3A33%3A54%3A517

The RAF don’t want it…….

The Army don’t want it……

Another one to disappear.

It must be getting close to the number of front line RAF bases dropping into the single figure zone…. 😮

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

482

Send private message

By: pierrepjc - 9th August 2005 at 21:34

I am sure that everyone of us can think back and come up with a whole list of similar crazy spending actions.
Local school to me closed down, about 4 years after the local council had spent thousands rebuilding a small part of it, best bite was they then closed the whole site and gave it over to the WDA who turned it into a business park, they sited that the roof of the main building was in a need of a lot of work. Nothing was touched on the building and it opened shortly after as units that have had no inpact on the jobs for locals, but some very big fat pay jobs went to those who sat on the board that ran it.
Nothing to do with Airfields I know but very near to what can happen with them. Must be a far better way to prove low cost housing for locals and keep control of it.

Paul

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

273

Send private message

By: planejunky - 9th August 2005 at 21:09

As Wattisham was under threat of closure in the early 1990’s, many of the flat roof buildings such as SHQ (Station Headquarters) Guardroom, and others had nice new pointy roofs constructed. It was a very expensive undertaking at a time when the AAC had made no firm decisions of whether to move in, and it was looking like the base would close.

We still have this problem over MoD contracts, it costs more to back out of the deal than get the work completed. Sadly defence is always the kind of operation that needs a chrystal ball to see twenty or thirty years ahead.

We live in a small and increasingly overcrowded country, and housing IS a problem, especially affordable housing. I would much rather they build on Coltishall, than bulldose a 1000 year old wood land!

North Weald is still used as an airfield and houses many GA aircraft, as well as a number of the UK’s historic population. Weald IS worth fighting to save, Coltishall on the other hand will be just another few hundred acres of MoD real estate doing nothing that could help solve a shortage of affordable houses for younger people, providing that the greedy “Jack” developers don’t get there first. :rolleyes:

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

751

Send private message

By: Phillip Rhodes - 9th August 2005 at 17:45

Hit the nail on the head there. It wouldn’t be so bad if it attracted new businesses to the area and the housing was affordable, still I doubt many will care two hoots in this “I’m alright Jack” society we live in. 🙁

Welcome to my world. Yes, its that nutter 😀 who keeps going on about RAF Driffield.

The problem is that there are too many people pushing small little pieces of paper around whitehall and no one bold or brave enough to make any real decisions. Like Scampton, the MoD sold off all the houses at Driffield, and now they are thinking about bringing back the army – but what about married quarters? What will happen is that they will spend millions on rebuilding the site, just as RAF Leeming closes.

Get this, the day before RAF Driffield closed in 1996 several tons of coal were delivered to the boiler house – only for it to be shut down the following day.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

540

Send private message

By: Binbrook 01 - 9th August 2005 at 17:17

Hello All

I wonder if they will do the same to the married quarters at Coltishall as they did after Binbrook closed?

If it has not been sold off already, like Scampton and Wittering, to name but a few. I bet its on the first list of things for disposal.

That is what they did to the married quarters at Binbrook and it was than renamed Brookenby, if memory serves

Still a waste of a good airfield, I say 😡 😡

But thats a sign of the times, and I suspect there are MORE to follow it.

Tim

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

273

Send private message

By: planejunky - 9th August 2005 at 16:30

Hit the nail on the head there. It wouldn’t be so bad if it attracted new businesses to the area and the housing was affordable, still I doubt many will care two hoots in this “I’m alright Jack” society we live in. 🙁

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

888

Send private message

By: whalebone - 9th August 2005 at 15:15

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb, said: “This needs to be regarded as an opportunity. There is a threat to the local economy with the estimated loss of £20m worth of spending power, but it is an area of land with considerable potential for development and housing. It is important for progress to be made now.”

“development and housing”
They are the keywords. Another opportunity for Prescott and Co to label this a “brownfield site” i.e. build what you like and the DOE will rubber stamp it with absolutely no regard for the existing local communities and infrastructure.
I see a lot of very expensive houses on Spitfire Close and Hurricane Avenue on the horizon. :rolleyes:

Sign in to post a reply