Not good news at all for Wellesbourne residents

Whilst not perhaps impacting on the compulsory purchase situation, sadly the tenants did lose a recent High Court Appeal; this happened in late March 2019, details in here:

http://www.stratford-herald.com/97091-wellesbourne-airfield-tenants-lose-high-court-appeal.html

Marvellous.

Hi All,
Fingers crossed looks like it’s some good news about this working airfield at last, This below from the XM655 http://www.facebook.com/avrovulcanxm655 ……:eagerness:

11 March 2019 Press Release

Stratford News

[HR][/HR] Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s Cabinet has today, Monday 11 March, approved a report giving authority to make, confirm and implement a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to acquire Wellesbourne Mountford Airfield.
Cllr Lynda Organ, Resources and Property Portfolio says: “This is the next major milestone in the Compulsory Purchase Order process. Negotiations have been ongoing with the owners, which is all part of the CPO process, for the voluntary acquisition of the Order Land.
“However after today’s decision the CPO will now run in parallel to the negotiations in order to guarantee acquisition of the land and safeguard its operational use. The Order Land is an important employment site, of which there is a shortage within the District, supporting a number of local jobs.”
The District Council has been negotiating with the landowner about the possible voluntary sale of the land – a legal requirement before any CPO can be launched.
The District Council has also investigated how the airfield would be managed in the future and consortia that could operate the airfield in partnership with the District Council – providing a financial return – have already been identified.
The District Council’s budget for the next financial year next year (2019/20) has approved funding to cover the legal costs associated with the Compulsory Purchase Order and support a key part of the District Council’s adopted Core Strategy of committing to supporting aviation activity at Wellesbourne Airfield. Also in the recent budget consultation, 61% of respondents supported the District Council’s proposals for Wellesbourne Airfield.
[HR][/HR]Contact details

Stratford-on-Avon District Council
Elizabeth House, Church Street,
Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire,
CV37 6HX
Tel: 01789 267575.

Geoff.

This is good news indeed 🙂

Meddle, going back to the land contamination, it is common practice in cases which such contaminated land that the top layers of soils are removed. The ground is then covered with a membrane and imported topsoil brought in. The dwellings will also have specialist membranes within their ground floor structure which run continuously across the wall cavities, to prevent pollutants rising through the fabric of the building. When it comes to any development, including extensions in wooded or countryside locations, a phase one environmental survey (desk top assessment and walk over survey) would be undertaken to establish the presence, or not, of any protected species on the site. With such a major development, a more extensive survey would be undertaken and any mitigation would be pretty substantial. Other considerations would be infrastructure (inc. schools, transport, roads, shops etc.), environmental impact, impact on flooding potential and so on…

It won’t just be the industrial areas that would be regarded as contaminated. The whole of the country is mapped out as a grid showing areas of contaminated ground and, the ground is often regarded as contaminated up to 400m from any industrial processes, be they current or historic.

It also doesn’t need to be a brownfield site to require such protective building measures. Areas such as parts of Devon and Cornwall have significant areas of granite, which is radioactive. Building here would require similar membranes to those above within dwellings and the probable use of a ventilation system below the ground floor slabs.

Anyway, returning from the slight drift, it looks like a definite step in the right direction from the Local Authority and, I wish all those involved in the retention of the airfield the best of luck. Hopefully progress will now continue to a positive outcome for you all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-44683762

That is good news. Thank you Moggy.

Not yet time to give up hope:

Stratford-uponAvon Herald wrote:
The District Council has written to Mr M Littler one of the owners of the site to inform him of the District Council’s intention to commence negotiations with Littler Investments Limited with a view to purchasing and protecting Wellesbourne Airfield as a working airfield.

This is the first stage of the CPO process to give Littler Investments Limited the opportunity to engage with the District Council, with a view to a voluntary sale of the site. They have until Wednesday 11 July to respond to this, following which if they do not engage with the District Council then CPO (Compulsory Purchase Order) proceedings will commence.

Cllr Tony Jefferson, Leader of Stratford-on-Avon District Council said: “Wellesbourne Airfield is an important facility within Stratford-on-Avon District. There is a clear policy position under the District Council’s adopted Core Strategy 2011-2031 that the site be preserved for aviation purposes. The actions of Littler Investments Limited in terminating the leases of businesses operating on the site; wishing to demolish existing buildings on the site and the agreements with Gladman Developments Limited are all in direct opposition to this policy position. The District Council has now decided to use its Compulsory Purchase Order powers in order to maintain the current planning use of the site.”

Moggy

I agree with the notion that airfields aren’t brownfield sites. When I think of brownfield sites I imagine areas with heavy soil contamination. The incentive for developers is to buy dirty land at a knock-down cost, and eat the cost of cleaning the place up. The Parsons Peebles site in Edinburgh was apparently badly contaminated with heavy metals, to the point that developers stripped away a foot or so of topsoil. Allegedly!

I guess that, beyond removing a few buried Spitfires, this isn’t necessary for airfields, as intense oil and metal contamination would only occur in a few locations? Maybe pay an ecologist to do a survey of the grassy areas and see if they find anything unusual and protected? Is there some other designation you could slap on airfields? Developers must love airfields as they are flat, usually near good transport infrastructure, and typically in pleasant countryside. How do you fight that?

The way it works is, Gladman Estates (so-called ‘land promoters’) go round the country identifying plots of land that might be built on. They approach the landowner and offer to do the leg-work to obtain planning permission for the land on the basis of a fee if it’s obtained. When planning permission is granted – as it virtually always is, after several appeals – the developers become involved, buy the land from the landowner and, the next thing you know, you’ve got God knows how many houses being built on the land.

Can you blame the landowner? Not really. They only have to sit back and wait for Gladman to do their stuff and they’re quids in.

XM655 is toast.

You could say the vampires did for the Vulcan.

The airfield is owned by the family and each member owns their own bit. Not all the family share the same views regarding selling up and indeed support the airfields activities and 655. You could move the aircraft but it wouldn’t run again.

Just to add to the planning debate. It can be argued that only the developed area of Wellesbourne is brown field.Any undeveloped areas of grassland could still be held to be greenfield,especially if They have been mown/baled for hay over the years….and there is a parliamentary group trying to argue the green field status at present.
Aahh…Gladman…know them well .Thry work on a no win no fee basis,employ young cheap undergraduates to make their planning arguments…refuse to properly consult with locals..”This is what we are going to do …like it or lump it”…and interpret the planning laws to suit their arguments ,but they can be beaten…they don’t always win,even when they do come back after a planning refusal.

How much does he want for the Vulcan? Presumably it would have to be trucked out in sections and reassembled, so would it still be able to run after that? Bruntingthorpe would be a good venue for it if that were to be the case!

Hi All,
You know it makes no sense him Owning the Vulcan/Restoring to taxiable condition/Operating it along with MAPS volunteers and wanting to put a stop to it’s activity’s on the airfield…..:confused:

I can only assume it’s for profit nothing more. My worry is that if he cannot get what he wants for the Vulcan (if he is successful with the housing when he applies) he would rather get scrap value than let it go to a new home should somebody come up with a feasible plan to save it if the unthinkable happens.

Geoff.

Come on forumites,help support the airfield and also save the Vulcan, which will be cut up if the airfield owners get there way. They do own it.
Visit this website https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/savewellesbourneairfield/

The Guy who owns the Airfield also owns the Vulcan.

Don’t want to go too far off topic here but the views of local people are being totally ignored when it comes to planning permission. The people at the top (by which I mean the Government) are in the pockets of the developers who’ve managed to sell the lie that it’s nimbys who are getting in the way of there being enough houses to go round.

Hi All,
I don’t know about anybody else and where they are living but in Leamington Spa/Warwick in actual fact across Warwickshire they are granting planning
for more and more housing despite calls for it to stop. It seems to me that councils in general are unlike S.OA. council just ignoring what the local
population think of any planning development and how it affects the populations lives or indeed if there is such a need for whatever they want to build.

One local project as an example:-A new council office block planned to be built on a site occupied by a car park block in a town that has had central parking squeezed to death, especially when the offices in use at the moment are not that old and could easily be refurbished and leave the car parking
where it is needed.

Geoff.

Once the vampires have got their teeth into the land it’s all over. Doesn’t matter how many times the local council turns down planning permission, they’ll keep coming back till the decision ends up with the Secretary of State who will, of course, grant the appeal.

Get down to Wellesbourne soonest if you want to see XM655. The guys there told me it would be cut up if they couldn’t renew the lease.

Meanwhile, google Gladman Estates if you want to find who are the real villains of the piece.

heli1 is bang on with the analysis. The designation of airfields as brownfield sites, in planning terms, in the majority of cases should, I believe, be regarded as incorrect and makes them easy targets for development proposals. In particular, smaller airfields are often grassed for the majority of the site and any industrial processes are confined to smaller areas of the land. As heli1 says, local councils are under a tremendous amount of pressure to provide housing which meet the targets set out by the government. Brownfield sites are identified as the preferred choice of site, being that it recycles previously used ground, which prevents pockets of decay and prevents urban creep in to the countryside. These sites often will have disused buildings and contaminated ground to contend with which can be expensive to deal with, which from a developers point of view, makes an airfield attractive in comparison. It could also be said that airfields provide a large site which, will provide a good percentage of the required housing, which make it attractive from a government point of view. They also allow flexibility from a community infrastructure point of view, having space to provide shops, school, doctors etc, which many smaller sites can’t offer, so there is less pressure on existing services within the community.

Discussions were supposed to be ongoing regarding the brownfield/greenfield status of airfields after the last major debate in 2015, but I have heard nothing since. If the airfield is active, I was under the impression that local councils were to support the industrial aspect, the community value, leisure value and link to other areas. Sadly as of December 2017, 15 of the 96 remaining UK airfields were under the threat of development.

Pilot magazine has a small article: http://www.pilotweb.aero/news/wellesbourne-airfield-development-threat-1-5578282

The Council can compulsory purchase the airfield but they would have to pay a fair price based on an independent valuation.That value would be based on the current planning permissions ,not on the owners hope value ,but could take some time to settle. If the owners challenge it they could in the meantime close the existing businesses down and demolish buildings. However a bigger threat is the government pressure on councils to build more houses,and the council may weaken if it can’t meet the government targets elsewhere.