Could this be the end of flying at Duxford?

Are the old buildings at Duxford Listed and the Airfield a Conservation Area

Regarding getting old Aerodrome buildings listed with English Heritage and ‘Conservation Area’ status with the Local Authority see

Is Duxford and other Buildings of Aviation Interest Listed? on this forum

Mark

a chap on another forum contacted the local MP, and as you can see his reply is looking quite favourable…..

——————————————————————————–
A reply from Timothy,

“Dear Mr Best,

The story is quite complicated, so please bear with me while I explain.

South Cambridgeshire District Council is preparing its Local Development Framework, which essentially sets the parameters for permitted development within South Cambridgeshire until 2021. The Council has produced a draft plan which was published last year. Objectors then had the right to propose further sites on which they which they thought building should be allowed. A Document including these “Objection Sites” was published in June. People had the opportunity to comment on the Objection Sites proposals until 28th July.

One of the Objection Sites was the area next to the M11 which Grosvenor Estates think would be a good place for a Motorway Service Area.

Many people have written in about these proposals. They can be viewed on the District Council’s website. I have ensured that the County Council has opposed the proposal, as have the parish councils of Duxford, Hinxton, Whittlesford and Ickleton. So has the Imperial War Museum, where I am on the Executive panel and I have registered my opposition in a personal capacity. All in all I count one person having supported the proposal and over 160 against.

In my view there is very little chance of the objection site being included in the Local Development Framework. Two previous proposals for this site have been rejected in the last 15 years, the latest in 2001 on appeal. It is now up to an Inspector to conduct an Examination in Public and his or her decision will be binding. I cannot see that any Inspector would want to overrule a predecessor, as all the previous points remain as valid today as they were then.

Even in the unlikely event of the Inspector agreeing that the site should be included in the Local Development Framework we are still a long way from a formal planning application. Any planning application coming forward would be subject to all the normal rules for such things, which would permit people once again to register their objections. At that stage the outcry would be even louder than this time.

I am quite sure that Andrew Lansley knows about this proposal, though I have not seen any written opposition from him. This is, after all, a District Council matter and there is little he can do at this stage in an official capacity.”

I have tried but cannot add an objection…has the time limit ended? Already contacted MPs etc!!

email addy for the loal MP if anyone fancies a chat with him

[email]timothy.stone@cambridgeshire.gov.uk[/email]

The presenter said that because the nearest service station was 40 miles? away that motorists will need somewhere to stop?
:

What aload of cods…….southbound by 18 miles you have the STN turnoff with a full Motorway facility @ jct 8 and theres one northbound @ the M11/A14 intersection

A225HVY

Guys,
The way things are going there is a shadow being cast here, It is complete stupidity. This is not the first time proposals from South Cambridgeshire CC have been some what flawed according to residents who I have spoken to. Many residents of the surrounding area like the aircraft there are of course those who dont but a strong majority who do. the council needs to review this ‘threat’. If the scheme goes ahead it is going to benefit few in the long run and damage an important museums future causing job loss and many other financial problems.
My objection is officially LOGGED.

They could always become a Friend of Duxford. Toilets are a lot better and the food is cheaper. And you are less likely to get your car nicked or damaged.

Excellent!!!

Although not sure I’d like the Cafe to become overun with Laptops, Cappuchino and loud mobile phone conversations! 🙁

They could always become a Friend of Duxford. Toilets are a lot better and the food is cheaper. And you are less likely to get your car nicked or damaged.

The presenter said that because the nearest service station was 40 miles? away that motorists will need somewhere to stop?

Well if they get off at the Duxford turning there is a petrol station in both directions less than a couple of miles away? Are we really that incapeable of planning a journey and looking after oursleves???? :confused:

I just caught the end of a report on BBC Look East last night, I didn’t see much, but I got the impression that everyone, including the planners, were totally opposed to any scheme that would affect the operation of the airfield.
No planning application has yet been submitted by the developers, who interestingly enough, declined to make a statement on the programme.

Local news has just run an article about the ‘threat’ to Duxford… 🙁

Are planners really this stupid???

Cambridge Evening News – Aug 28

Well the good old Cambridge Evening News has caught up with the Duxford news at last.

Their Editorial hopes that “…every effort will be made to resist the plans …”

BTW – I was in the Planning Office at Cambridge City Council a few days ago and was horrified at the proposed plan for the Marshalls airport site. For those who know and love this airfield (and I have happy memories of my first Tiger Moth solo there many years ago) the housing is proposed to run from the southern boundary (Coldhams Lane) towards the NW corner. It looks as though the north eastern corner will be left – possibly as a “public open space” – and the historic buildings on Newmarket Road will be left in situ. 🙁

I cant see a pencil…just a magnify button….is it to late too object?

I found this on the planning site ~ relating to Cambridge Airport ~
……………………………………………………………………………
The Annex to Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 1/2002, Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones requires such zones to be safeguarded and identified in Development Plans. DfT has advised that Public Safety Zones have been established for Cambridge Airport. One of these falls within South Cambridgeshire. The Circular advises that within this Zone development should be restricted in order to minimise the number of people on the ground at risk of death or injury in the event of an aircraft crash on take-off or landing. There are safety benefits from preventing any new development or change of use which would result in a significant increase in the numbers of people within such zones except for uses such as long stay surface car parking, allotments and public open space which is of low intensity use.
………………………………………………………………………………
The land at Duxford must be recognised in a similar fashion ~ as an Airport Public Saftey Zone !

Anyone out there know who to go about making this happen with the Dept of Transport ??

Blue Skies ~ Peter

Valid point.

But with todays announcement of Marshall’s relocation to either Wyton or Mildenhall one wonders what future Cambridge Airport has in terms of flying activity 😉

I found this on the planning site ~ relating to Cambridge Airport ~
……………………………………………………………………………
The Annex to Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 1/2002, Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones requires such zones to be safeguarded and identified in Development Plans. DfT has advised that Public Safety Zones have been established for Cambridge Airport. One of these falls within South Cambridgeshire. The Circular advises that within this Zone development should be restricted in order to minimise the number of people on the ground at risk of death or injury in the event of an aircraft crash on take-off or landing. There are safety benefits from preventing any new development or change of use which would result in a significant increase in the numbers of people within such zones except for uses such as long stay surface car parking, allotments and public open space which is of low intensity use.
………………………………………………………………………………
The land at Duxford must be recognised in a similar fashion ~ as an Airport Public Saftey Zone !

Anyone out there know who to go about making this happen with the Dept of Transport ??

Blue Skies ~ Peter

I believe that IWM do not see flying at Duxford as ‘core’ to its future, there is a belief that the museum would manage without it.

A question of interpretation, I think.

Of course IWM Duxford museum would survive without an active flying component, but there’s a big difference between something being possible and something being desirable. As michaelf’s just said, the realistic evaluation of a ‘plan b’ by the IWM doesn’t mean a lack of commitment to ‘plan a’.

Had the IWM desired a simpler life, the obvious plan would be to getting rid of the active flyers from the airfield, filling the now-spare hangars with the IWM’s aircraft and saving on all the costs of maintaining an active airfield, avoided fundraising for new buildings and all the complaints about how the airshows aren’t what they should be. S’funny, it’s never been on the table…

As I’ve said before, there’s another British museum running an airfield ‘outstation’ and it does the job they want – but it certainly isn’t one of the world’s great active aviation sites. It’s the Science Museum at Wroughton. Duxford was and arguably could have remained like that.

Of course the active organisations pay and contribute to be there, and from outside it looks to work very well. Gate revenue is unarguably exponentially greater by flying events. Those involved are (IMHO) often too close to the day-to-day problems and understandably over-emphasise them to greater effect than the whole story.

The IWM’s brief is preservation, education and demonstration. In the face of difficulties, their primary job is to preserve. That’s what is ‘core’ to the IWM, always has been and should remain so. Let’s hope they never have to cut that far back.

Just my opinion.

I’m sure the IWM would survive without the flying…

Whether or not their choice would be to have that asset or not is far more debatable.

Certainly the loss of the active airfiled would lead to the eventual departure of the private restoration companies with the attendant visitor attraction aspect..

The IWM not doubt have a plan A and a plan B….with airfield and without…

Realistically historic flying will become more and more restricted…thanks to increasingly stringent safety and insurance requirements..so to plan ahead without an active makes good sense…

However that does not mean we should not do all we can to prevent the premature end of the active for such a ‘crass’ reason…

A comment made about 18 months ago by a very senior individual at IWM.

I believe that IWM do not see flying at Duxford as ‘core’ to its future, there is a belief that the museum would manage without it.

Care to substantiate?

Isn’t the airfield owned/operated by the local council?

I believe that IWM do not see flying at Duxford as ‘core’ to its future, there is a belief that the museum would manage without it.