North Weald money grab by the council

Question.

If the council were to sell off the airfield at market value, could it operate as an airfield AND still cover its cost? 

Thanks for the link 1batfastard. You are quite right the owners have refused to maintain the hangar(s). Despite being warned by the local authority.

When former historic airfields are developed the history can be retained the former Filton site near Bristol is a case in point. Filton has listed hangars which will feature in the development of that site.

As many of this forum readers know I’m a strong advocate of the future use of the Scampton site. Where its listed infrastructure is currently at serious risk of loss. When development has to happen, it should be done sensitively without the loss of the history itself.

At the end of the day, with ownership comes responsibility.

Hi All,

 Plenty of linked articles here it looks like the council want it restored but the task would be monumental IMPO, maybe the owners wanted it to fall down of it’s own accord ?  I imagine the land would be more valuable than the hangers.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Old+Sarum+Airfield+Hangar+Damaged&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB721GB812&oq=Old+Sarum+Airfield+Hangar+Damaged&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigAdIBCTQyNTlqMGoxNagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

IMPO People/Companies etc. etc. who own these historic sites should be forced to maintain them, not just sit on them in the hope the land will become more valuable with the hope of making a fast buck.

I suppose at the end of the day profit comes first history and common sense last sadly.

Geoff.

Having just read this thread. Old Sarum Airfield (built in 1917) in Wiltshire is another area of concern. The site owners have been trying to get planning permission to build housing on the site. Planning permission has been rejected a number of times.

At least part of the hangar complex (if not all) is Grade 2 listed. But is not maintained by the owner(s). During recent storms serious damage was caused to Hangar 3. Including almost complete roof collapse.

I don’t know why but I can’t paste a link to this forum, on the matter. But if you type into your favorite search engine – “Old Sarum Airfield Hangar Damaged” it should bring up the story.

Food for thought – here’s the main section of a letter that I sent on 19th February, 2006 to the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prestcott:

“Ref: PPG3 – The definition of ‘Brownfield’ in PPS3 Housing, Annex A [DRAFT]

I am writing to object to the apparent change to the definition of a Brownfield site in the above draft legislation, which effectively extends the definition to cover all the land of every airfield, rather than the areas on those airfields currently occupied by buildings.

Airfields are not eyesores from an industrial past, which need cleaning up. Many are grass rather than paved, and much of the land that is not runways or taxiways is used for agriculture. Airfields are also havens for wildlife that coexists happily with the operation of General Aviation.

Wholesale development of airfields would effectively be development of valuable green spaces.

The current footnote states:

“However, this does not mean that the whole area of the curtilage should therefore be redeveloped. For example, where the footprint of a building only occupies a proportion of a site of which the remainder is open land (such as an airfield or hospital) the whole site should not normally be developed to the boundary of the curtilage.”

To me the implications seem clear. An airfield, which may only have a very small area of land covered with buildings, should not all be treated as previously developed land.

I understand that the draft PPS3 does not include this important footnote. This would pose a serious and on-going risk to the future of many airfields. As a large favoured development site their land value would increase, and aviation operations could not support that increased value.

This is wholly contrary to sustainable principles. Airfield sites represent a finite resource and once they have been developed it is highly unlikely they would be replaced elsewhere given the current planning system. Airfields should be regarded as an important community asset.

Many pilots are not a rich and privileged minority. They need sites to fly to and from and every site that is lost reduces the overall value of this important part of the nation’s transport infrastructure.

Most pilots train at their own expense, with many paying with the aim of an eventual entry to a professional career in aviation. To do this they need minor airfields where this activity is not affected by incompatible airline operations and where the cost of using the airfield facilities is much lower.

Civil aviation is vital to the UK economy and this is recognised in Annex B of PPG13. The loss of airfields via this “back door” would therefore also be contrary to the Government’s own advice in PPG13….”
 

Not sure what was enacted!!

Hi All,

 I think the last sentence is very telling:-

“While we do not have a confirmed timeline for development, we want to ensure we have the option to expand our technical infrastructure, should our business demand it.”

Sounds more like they will brow beat the council and bribe the council with a promise of hundred if not thousands of jobs in the future ?   I wonder if Google intend on not paying they’re share of the tax burden again ?  Indeed did they ever cough up the last lot from owed 2019 ?   

These big companies take advantage of whatever countries tax system so they can make even more profit.  The UK was at 19% when the below article was written but changed to 23% last year.  So you have to wonder if they already have a pull the plug exit strategy already in place if the tax rates rise again?  It’s more than likely in part down to firms similar to Google not paying their fair share that the tax rises anyway IMPO.

I just don’t know why this country puts up with the Mr Bigs avoiding their share of paying tax,  yet they come down like a ton of bricks on the self employed person or small business for piddling errors, more likely fact is  they cannot afford costly legal teams.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-02/digital-giants-avoided-15-billion-in-uk-tax-in-2019

Also it smacks of hypocricy when the conservatives have been banging on about Labour councils doing exactly the same.     I can understand when they offer Airfields/Military bases that are never likely to be used again but it always seems to be active airfields that are the targets IMPO.

Geoff.

I bet its the whole of the dead side, hangars will go, there is a lot of land to the east of the tower.

It will not be long before the people in the new buildings will be moaning about the noise of the Spitfire taking off.

Bye Bye North Weald