Gatwick collection may be scrapped – Council decides

Very early leaked documents suggest the new national policy statements will relax green belt protection. In what circumstances I don’t know. Whilst I wouldn’t normally support such a policy, if it can be used to benefit this case then why not use it.
New policy should be out later this year.

a change to the PPG2 policy??? where did you hear this?. first we have heard of it..

Peter, Gatwicks land surrounds almost three sides of our property. their boundary being the width of a wire fence adjacent to ours on all of those sides. in fact the taxiway to the main runway is less than probably 150 yards away from our BBQ area! we are so close that their fire training ground is less than 50 yards away from our boundary. you could stand up and hit the aircraft with a golf ball while eating a burger! the runway is probably 400 yards away from our display area. Now you see why the “greenbelt” tag is utter nonsense?, it was likely created in 1988 to try to stop gatwick expanding. according to the planners it was green belt from 1950’s but took 35 years to formalise it!…:rolleyes: yea ok..

in reality it would not make one jot of difference, if national air transport policy demanded that the airport required the space, it would be used.

Very early leaked documents suggest the new national policy statements will relax green belt protection. In what circumstances I don’t know. Whilst I wouldn’t normally support such a policy, if it can be used to benefit this case then why not use it.
New policy should be out later this year.

Bit of a setback but don’t let this get you guys down. Keep going!

Just watched the webcast so wait a minute.. Peter purchased land that was not greenbelt but now that it is listed as greenbelt they want to decline any new buildings?

Sorry Peter you and your group shouldnt have to be going through this IMHO. From the report and proposal your group presents it will clean up the site with what appears to be a bit larger building size, but you are willing to landscape the area as well thus preserving the greenbelt area..

I do have a question though, how close to the present site does the land owned by Gatwick airport reach?

Thanks for that, do keep us informed and how we might be able to help, really hope that it comes to a satisfactory ending – I bet you guys feel that you have had enough really.:(

thanks for all the info Milt, had a quick watch of the webcam, useful tool eh.
Can you put in very simple terms what the situation is now, and the next planned move?

The situation now is:- the ball is in our court. Planning application refused, so the next step is to go to appeals and an independant planning inspector with a public enquiry, which removes the district committee from the equation. following an appeal, then High court would be the next road. All the while this goes on no enforcement can take place. We are talking big big dollar however we proceed

The other road is to walk away and consider other options.

We are currently considering all options before we decide on our stratergy going forward.

thanks for all the info Milt, had a quick watch of the webcam, useful tool eh.
Can you put in very simple terms what the situation is now, and the next planned move?

it is clear that the decision was really based on the issue of green belt land.

yes, assides form the way in which the whole process was conducted, this is what we cant understand.. here are the PPG2 guidelines the officer was talking about………

We think we more than meet the requirements for special circumstances.

From wiki

The Government sets out its policies and principles towards the green belts defined by local authorities in England and Wales in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts [3]. Local Councils are strongly urged to follow PPG2’s detailed advice when considering whether to permit additional development in the green belt, or to assent to new uses being made of existing premises. In the green belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated to show that the benefits of the development will outweigh the harm caused to the green belt. PPG2 also sets out a number of examples of what would constitute appropriate or inappropriate development in the green belt.

According to PPG2, there are five stated purposes of including land within the green belt:

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Once an area of land has been defined as green belt, opportunities and benefits include:

Providing opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population
Providing opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas
The retention of attractive landscapes and the enhancement of landscapes, near to where people live
Improvement of damaged and derelict land around towns
The securing of nature conservation interests
The retention of land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.

We more than tick the above requirements and greatly improve many of them.. all aspects that were not taken into account…..

there is no damage to the Greenbelt, we have already proved that, as did a planning inspector… ho hum…………..??

Having just sat through the whole debate with interest, it is clear that the decision was really based on the issue of green belt land. The question now is when the land was purchased, was a local authority search carried out and if so did it reveal the proposal to change the site from common land to green belt land. If a search did not reveal such a proposal, then surely that is the basis for the appeal.

It was plainly obvious that a few councilors had their minds set in stone, regardless of the debate, and that reflects some of the posts in this thread before the debate.

Are there any minutes available; sometimes easier to get the gist!?

Milt; I hope you have some contingency plans for some of the aircraft; it might be worth starting to ask if any other museum could take anything in case the worst does happen. Of course, we dont want that, but it would be wise to be ready.

Bruce

Bruce I haven’t found any yet, I think those will lag back a few days, as someone will have to collate it all and type it up!…ill post em when I find them. thanks for the pod casts is what I say!!. what ever is said/done is there on film, no grey area

re contingency, there is “an” stratergy for many of the air frames, obviously can’t reveal details.. as has been pointed out though, we have time yet, we have 6 months alone to lodge an appeal. no action can be taken by MV during that time or the time frame of the appeal itself or further representation after that. It all costs a LOT of money though, the longer it goes the harder it will be.

Webcasts! However much must that be costing the taxpayer FFS! A minutes secretary must be cheaper!!

So sorry to hear about last nights vote. If you do decide to go to appeal then at least the council cannot enforce the removal or destruction of the aircraft while that procedure is ongoing and the appeal procedure can take a long time. I understand that there is a backlog in dealing with the appeals and then they need to take there due process.

At least this will give you a breathing space and an opportunity to consider your next moves.

Good luck chaps!

Are there any minutes available; sometimes easier to get the gist!?

Milt; I hope you have some contingency plans for some of the aircraft; it might be worth starting to ask if any other museum could take anything in case the worst does happen. Of course, we dont want that, but it would be wise to be ready.

Bruce

gentlemen, and ladies

http://www.molevalley.ukcouncil.net/site/player/pl_compact.php?a=59480&t=0&m=wms&l=en_GB

for your viewing pleasure, or displeasure. web cast of last nights dvelopment control committee meeting. there is about 2-3 minutes before GAM, but its about an 70 minutes for us, so get a cuppa!

thanks Bruce, you are right, and we are highlighting these things certainly. If we go to appeals which is likely, it will all come out in the wash!

Twin otter, thanks for the offer, but no, the legal issues such as that should be dealt with by lawyers, not us here. we must refrain from making any defamatory or legality type comments on this forum, as Bruce will no doubt confirm, those and forums are murky waters.

these things are best left to our appointed represensatives.

By all means email Mole Valley to express your dissapointment at last nights outcome and why you think we should be given permission, you are of course welcome to comment on anything in the podcast too, since it is uploaded for public viewing after all.

The planning pod cast should be up very soon, I will post a link,

mjr – does your consultant think that it’s worthwhile for us to comment on the voting situation and / or outcome from last night?

How quickly do the planning meeting minutes go online and can you post a link?

Nevertheless, if incorrect or misleading submissions have been made, then these must be highlighted quickly.

Keep going!

Bruce

No, its not a an issue for the Parish council to vote on. The application is handled by the District councilors, of which 16 of something like the total 22 councillors attended and voted on the 6th June. Last night 19 attended and voted. The fact is they are not doing anything wrong by drawing further councillors in from the full committee. However, the point is, It is both unfair and unconstitutional. Only the same councillors that voted on the 6th of June,to defer, should be allowed to make a final vote at the decision outcome IMO.

As I said, its like starting a football match with 11 players, going for 75 minutes, then introducing another three players to 14 at the 75th minute, neither fair or right! I might add that the 3 additional councillors whom attended and voted last night, were 1)not at the original vote on the 6th June, and 2) were not party to the proceedings in between, which were felt necessary, giving rise to a deferment in the first place. Anyway, this is the kind of system you deal with, and gives some idea of the fluid goal posts we are up against.

We are now taking stock, and formulating our next move as we speak..

Just to remind all, your support so far has been fantastic, and we are very grateful to you all. letters and emails can still be submitted and will be taken into account, despite the decision. representations will be ongoing, so keep the support coming:).. thanks again.

unfortunately not Bruce. What became evident last night is that the council can draw any of their further councillors aboard at any time during the district decision making process. It’s so unconstitutional it’s icredible. Akin to playing a match with 11 players, then at 75 minutes introducing 15 players to make sure you beat the opposition. They introduced 3 additonal new councillors last night to teh case, whom were not present or involved in the last vote on the 6th June. Goal posts are shifted. the assembly went from 16 voters, to 19 voters last night. The whole affair was eye opening last night. we expected tactics, but this was quite a breath taking display.

No doesn’t sound right at all, seems very unfair to me, sure the 6th June meeting wasn’t the Parish Council voters and last nights meeting was the County Council voters??

Am I the only one that read that headline and thought Avro York?

Me too, a WTF? moment..

Hmm – that needs to be challenged in a court of law. It cannot be right.

Bruce