Old Sarum airfield at the crossroads

Champers,

Have a read at:

“Airfield preservation for GA” . It is under the General Aviation title.

Sounds really lovely doesn’t it? Beautifully packaged in a glossy sell.

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/archive/2015/04/16/12891960.OLD_SARUM_AIRFIELD/

There is nothing to tie in the developers, to committing some of the millions they will make from this, from just walking away and doing nothing to sustain the flying.

http://www.laverstock-ford.co.uk/news-and-events.html

If you have the time to read this link I’m sure you will get the picture. We are certainly not anti airfield, far from it. I think you will find that this is a poorly thought out proposal. There was a ‘consultation’ in December with the developers agents, Fielden and Mawson, who were unable to answer many of the public’s questions. They were unaware that Wiltshire Councils current policy is 40% social housing; that means many people will be re homed on an active airfield through need not choice, consequently there will be numerous complaints that will lead to further restrictions on flying. The developers will not reveal how much money is required to sustain flying (apparently it is none of our business) and have not shown what other avenues they have explored to raise funds. The manager of the airfield who has an interest in this as he owns part of the proposed land has made no secret of the fact (over the last 15 years!) that it was always his intention to build houses and it was his ‘pension plan’ so to wrap it up in a fluffy ‘protect and preserve’ package is a very misleading message.

I’ve copied and pasted our stance from the Facebook page:

“A few reminders of our objectives and key points:
1. The site is not identified as a strategic site. It only has ‘potential’ for development in the Core Strategy.
2. It’s not all about preserving the flying; it’s about also saving a one hundred year old airfield including all its surrounding buildings in the conservation area.
3. It’s also about preserving the green space and keeping the perimeter intact which is the only one of its kind in the whole country.
4. Current proposals represent massive over development.
5. Information given by the developer cannot substantiate the claim that there will be continuous flying for the next 100 years.
6. Area C includes land which is owned separately from the Airfield (Angus Beal) so will contribute nothing to the claim it enable continuous flying.
7. Wiltshire Councils current policy of 40% affordable housing appears to have been totally overlooked by the developer as evidenced at the consultation.
These points are key and the S106 will need to be scrutinised very carefully to see if there are any further points that need to be objected to. Mr Hodge promised an application in by the end of January, we’re still waiting and it’s mid Ferbruary now”

Milk of Magnesia is very good for bile regurgitation.

Ignore if you will the impact of the alleged 480 or so residential dwellings, thus converting a rural location into an urbanisation.

Dutifully ignored for the whiney NIMBYism it clearly is. :highly_amused:The construction of 480 houses will not bring the population of a hypothetical Old Sarum conurbation anywhere near the 10,000 residents required for an area to be reclassified as ‘urban’.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/rural-urban-definition

Given that you are within pissing distance of Salisbury, with a population of ~45,000 already, I fail to see what green and pleasant land is at stake anyway. To give you the benefit of the doubt I had a look on Google Street view to see what was at risk. Fairly disappointingly I see the usual dull, intensely managed agricultural land and small forestry stands that typifies the rural environment in Southern England. Hardly the landscape Chaucer would have seen, but whatever floats your boat. :very_drunk:

The location of an airfield within close proximity to Figsbury ring is distasteful enough. Shouldn’t this wonder of ancient Albion be enjoyed in peace without a swarm of light aircraft buzzing overhead all day long? Wind turbines are a lot quieter than aircraft, so there is my suggestion lest you need it. 😎

Champers

Would you please PM me with a contact number?

As someone who worked for many years in general aviation on aerodromes in the south of England I can say that most (if not all) airfields have those in the local community who form pressure groups to close or curtail operations. I have no reason to think Old Sarum would be different. When I was at White Waltham in the late ’70s there was a rich man who bought a house overlooking the main gate of the airfield. He got the house cheaply due to the immediate proximity of the airfield. He then started a pressure group to attempt to shut us down. He moved to the village knowing about the airfield and rumour had it he had done the same thing at a motorway (he failed in that attempt). I have come across this sort of mindset on every airport I have worked on or flown from in the west of London area. Most of these airfields now have ‘noise abatement/circuit modification routes’ due to decades of anti-aviation campaigns by these people.

I can understand it from people who live near an airport that grows up into a monster on their doorstep (eg: Stansted) but I feel the real trouble-makers are ‘move-ins’ who knew that the airport was there when the relocated near it. So forgive me if I agree with the ‘hysterical’ pilots at Old Sarum. Pressure on general aviation airports has been a huge issue since the 1960s and the next time you make a 30 degree turn to the left or right directly after takeoff remember why you are having to adhere to this routing, and that these noise-abatement routes are a fairly modern thing that came along with the residents’ pressure groups. I flew in the ’70s and ’80s and I can think of only one airfield back then that had a noise-abatement departure procedure. They are very common now.

I can’t argue with a word of your post as I’ve seen it too often myself. The trouble is the aviation community is all to often still slated by the pressure groups in spite of making changes in an effort to be good neighbours. As you say the most vociferous protesters are ‘move-ins’ who knew very well there was an active airfield next door at the time they bought the property.
It’s about time they were told that too. Basically along the lines of ‘you knew the situation when you bought the property, if you don’t like it, sell up and move.’

Not only White Waltham but, also Denham had its near by, resident mischief maker.

I do not think that there is much that appears on these forums that will do any good. It takes organised, concerted and vigorous supportive action by as many aviation activists as possible to set at naught the actions of the anti aviation militants.

It seems to me that GA lacks the will, energy and drive to help thenselves.

As someone who worked for many years in general aviation on aerodromes in the south of England I can say that most (if not all) airfields have those in the local community who form pressure groups to close or curtail operations. I have no reason to think Old Sarum would be different. When I was at White Waltham in the late ’70s there was a rich man who bought a house overlooking the main gate of the airfield. He got the house cheaply due to the immediate proximity of the airfield. He then started a pressure group to attempt to shut us down. He moved to the village knowing about the airfield and rumour had it he had done the same thing at a motorway (he failed in that attempt). I have come across this sort of mindset on every airport I have worked on or flown from in the west of London area. Most of these airfields now have ‘noise abatement/circuit modification routes’ due to decades of anti-aviation campaigns by these people.

I can understand it from people who live near an airport that grows up into a monster on their doorstep (eg: Stansted) but I feel the real trouble-makers are ‘move-ins’ who knew that the airport was there when the relocated near it. So forgive me if I agree with the ‘hysterical’ pilots at Old Sarum. Pressure on general aviation airports has been a huge issue since the 1960s and the next time you make a 30 degree turn to the left or right directly after takeoff remember why you are having to adhere to this routing, and that these noise-abatement routes are a fairly modern thing that came along with the residents’ pressure groups. I flew in the ’70s and ’80s and I can think of only one airfield back then that had a noise-abatement departure procedure. They are very common now.

Perhaps that response of ‘hysteria’ wouldn’t seem quite so hysterical if you were a regular user of the airfield. In pursuit of what is seen as the ‘greater good’ there is perhaps on the part of the planners some willingness to cut a corner or two in favour of significantly intrusive residential developments.

There are planning rules concerning what owners can do to develop an airfield. Any development at Old Sarum will have to conform to those rules. I can’t help but wonder if the response here is a little hysterical.

Regards

Hi John and all who have signed our petition to save Old Sarum airfield from ‘development’ thank you for doing so it’s very much appreciated . We have over 1000 signatures now and growing daily .
We have no sign of the expected planning application yet thankfully.
I see that you will be travelling to visit our lovely airfield at Old Sarum soon John . Drop me a line on Messenger Trish Thomas when you do and I’ll treat you to a coffee if I’m around on the day ?
Thanks again for your support for our campaign .Save Old Sarum Facebook group
Best regards

Trish

Signed.

Ignore if you will the impact of the alleged 480 or so residential dwellings, thus converting a rural location into an urbanisation. Just consider the likely impact of Section 106. See comment at #1.

I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that investment isn’t needed. It is. Running an airfield, just from the point of care and maintenance requires much expense.

Users of the airfield and local residents are concerned and alarmed at the scale of the proposed development. The belief is that it is too vast, too extensive and therefore too concentrated. It is said that a re-appraisal of the size of the development is required.

Having read the Facebook group, building proposals, and petition, I’m a little confused; Yes the proposals do include new houses, but also a new control tower, new airfield cafe, new parachute centre, new airfield car parks, and hangers that also include accommodation.

How exactly does that translate to “could and arguably would lead to the ruination and ultimate closure of the airfield”? It seems to me like they’re investing in it?

No problem – always keen to help protect our aviation heritage.

TO23

Thank you for the correction.

Showing as a broken link in post #4 for me! 🙁

Hopefully this might work instead https://www.change.org/p/john-glen-mp-stop-the-proposed-housing-development-on-old-sarum-airfield 🙂

I’m led to believe that there are some tens of thousands of Forum members, guests and supporters who are enthusiastic about aviation in general and historic aviation in particular.

If such is the case, then the cause of supporting the opposition to the destructive vandalism that will be the inevitable outcome of the re-development of Old Sarum, will be a priority for all who value the unaltered continuity of this historic site.

Please register your support at: https://www.change.org/p/john-glen-m…sarum-airfield

Champers. Thank you for your kind words.

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/sj_opinion/11723822.Airfield_protesters_need_an_old_fashioned_hero/