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!!
Sign In
