Please Sign: KEEP AIRFIELDS GREENFIELDS Petition to Save Airfields from Developers

I received another letter from my MP about this I’ll scan & post it.

Done!

That is the kind of initiative that offers the best prospect.

I had a reply from my MP today and he as written to Greg Clarke the Secretary of State for Communities and Local government asking for a review of our concerns, he’ll let me know when he gets a response.

Done!

Rob

Yes, and I was responding with that firmly in mind.

I have no interest in entering into a debate.

This thread is about promoting the petition, nothing more.

Moggy

I don’t know why the heck you’re complaining. My mention of migration as a factor implicit in the loss of airfields is so obvious as to be understood by most with a stake in GA and really did not need much emphasis – which is why I didn’t.

Who do you think will occupy at least some of the dwellings allocated for social housing at my resident airfield ? Your comments would have more credibility if you turned your attention to the nub of my comment at #5 and offered some practical criticism.

John, can you leave your endless whingeing about migrants and refugees for General Discussion please? It’s getting a bit tiresome.

There really is no need to drag it in here.

Moggy

That’s a very worthwhile and adroitly phrased appeal however, with even one million signatures to the petition, I doubt there will be a change of Government policy.

The omission of protection for airfield locations was, so glaringly obvious, as to send a clear signal that it was intended.

The pressure to obtain land for housing is irresistible. The allure of airfields is obvious. With perhaps tens of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants/refugees, with England as their destination, arriving perhaps within a short period of time, decisions have to be made and they won’t be made with the interests of GA in mind.

i’d advise everyone to buy a copy of Lockyers.

What about any number of the “Green” and eco pressure groups and organisations? Or they already supportive or not…?

Thanks to everyone who has so far signed. The first goal of 10,000 signatories has been busted nicely. The ultimate goal of 1 million is still 89% distant.

We won’t get this debated by pilot pressure alone, we need non-aviation people to sign up.

Social media is a powerful tool – I posted the following on my Facebook page, feel free to borrow it or adapt it for your own use.

Moggy

A word to my non-pilot, and particularly my ‘Green’, friends and acquaintances.

It may seem pretty un-eco to be trailing around the sky burning up hydrocarbons for pleasure, and there is no way I can dispute this. But airfields are amongst the finest wildlife habitats that are around today. Kept strictly clear of human activity, that provide a sanctuary for ground-nesting birds, particularly the Skylark, and for hares, deer and many other species.

But airfields aren’t particularly profitable and ‘developers’ love to snatch them, close them, then cover them with ticky-tacky boxes to store people in. (Hello Sutton Harbour Holdings – we are talking about you.).

If you could trouble to sign this online petition I, and many others, would be grateful. If your conscience won’t let you, then I understand.

Done.

Done.

jim
Lincoln .7

Done

low n’ slow,

I’m emphatically on your side, as most here would confirm. I try never to lose an opportunity to put the case for GA but, I believe that we’re #eeing into the wind.

That was not an administrative oversight by the unlamented John Prescott. I believe it was deliberate policy. More or less empty airfields present too good an opportunity for the now – we’re told to-day – 8 million immigrants we have to accommodate somewhere. My home airfield at Old Sarum is under threat of redevelopment. Maintaining an airfield isn’t cheap and when owners are confronted with an offer of many millions to develop the land for housing who would blame them. Unfortunately we have too little GA activity chasing too much airfield supply.

I would find it extremely difficult to put up a case for preserving the status quo of an active GA airfield in the face of the pressures mentioned. I put an idea to the LAA and Grant Shapps MP. who had responsibility under a Govt. initiative called the Red Tape Challenge of which you’ve probably heard. As part of the grant of planning consent, the developer should have a legal obligation to provide an alternative airfield site with amenities similar to those that were available on the former airfield, and all within a radius of say, 10-12 miles and all paid for by the prospective developer.

If enough of us pressured our MP and either the County or Local Authority we might see some progress. This suggestion covers two aspects of this matter. It reluctantly supports the need for housing development and points to a means by which GA can continue, in that broad area, to exist.

Done

Followed the petitions suggestion and emailed my MP as well.

Done

Moggy

As the online petition is limited to something like just over 100 words, here is a longer version of our case and concerns:

KEEP AIRFIELDS GREEN FIELDS.
Review Airfield Classification as Brownfield Sites.

In 2003 an ‘administrative oversight’ led to the deletion of a footnote in PPG3, noting that airfields and hospital grounds should not be considered as appropriate brownfield sites. Current definitions of previously developed land make no reference to airfields or flying sites. As a result, developers and local planning authorities are increasingly and inappropriately treating airfields as brownfield sites for land redevelopment, leading both to the loss of an important part of national transport infrastructure and the destruction of significant areas of natural habitat within airfield boundaries.

The UK network of GA aerodromes is regarded by DfT as an important part of the national transport infrastructure. While Commercial Air Transport or airline operations are focussed on scheduled flights from just 25 airports around the UK, General Aviation with smaller aircraft types uses more than 120 aerodromes licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority for non-scheduled passenger carrying and between 350 and 500 unlicensed flying sites.

This network of GA aerodromes around the UK has been recognised by DfT as providing vital amenities for sport flying, connectivity for business travellers and acting as an important part of the national transport infrastructure; providing economic benefits and ‘point to point’ access. This allows passengers and cargoes to be delivered closer to their ultimate destination, reducing time, cost, fuel use and emissions.

They also provide important infrastructure and support for activities such as police and pollution patrols, medical flights, aerial surveys, and search and rescue operations. In recent years however a significant number of airfields have closed and others have been threatened as a result of owners seeking to release the value of their land and local planning authorities prioritising housing and other development on the land they occupy.

It is noteworthy that the curtilage of many airfields is now being recognised as an important ‘open green space’ by many Local Planning Authorities and there is increasing evidence from local nature and environmental surveys that airfields are increasingly important as a low-insecticide, low-herbicide, sanctuary for plants, insects and associated wildlife.

In July 2015, organisations involved in every spectrum of aviation were shocked by the proposal in the Chancellor’s summer budget statement to allow automatic planning permission to be granted for housing developments on designated brownfield sites. This unintended consequence of wider policy on the development of redundant industrial sites was described by ‘Pilot’ magazine as “the darkest news to face General Aviation for some time”.

We demand a review of the brownfield designation of airfields in recognition of the role that they play both as an important part of our national transport infrastructure and as an important yet often overlooked environmental “green space”.

ENDS