https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106779

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”.

‘We demand’

I’m out.

Plant trees on all these aerodromes, and I’ll back ye bruv.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against the principal but, wtf, having worked with contaminated land guys airfields have some spectacular hydrocarbon contamination. Greenfield designation seems unreasonable.

And why would their usefulness be in anyway related to their green/brownfield designation. Open greenspace =/= greenfield. A bit of understanding of planning would help.

Because they are designated “Brownfield” ( a “mistake” by John Prescott ) they are open to being closed down by greedy developers and built on .
Transport infrastructure lost , never to be regained.

Greenfield designation does not mean un-contaminated, merely a planning instrument.

But they’ve been developed, they’re not greenfield. And the owners don’t need to sell them.

Obtaining planning permission =/= right to develop. I could obtain planning permission on your house but that doesn’t mean you need to sell it to me to do that.

In the last couple of years both Manston and Plymouth bought up by developers…….. who then quickly closed them down despite intense local opposition.

Panshanger ( near Welwyn Garden City)

Kemble

Wellesbourne

Bourn

All under threat

From my reading, they’re not specifically trying to have them made into greenfield sites; they’re trying to have them not listed as brownfield, largely to get away from the automatic planning permission thing. Is that not the case?

PPG3 was replaced by the NPPF in 2012.

That is really poorly written and lacks details. Plus, airfields seem like a great place to build new houses which we desperately need.

Greedy developers only respond to the demands of greedy consumers like you and I. Or should we just deny the expanding population a place to live? Redeveloping an airfield is no different to redeveloping an old industrial estate. It’s brownfield land which no longer has a use.

40mpg – Member

Redeveloping an airfield is no different to redeveloping an old industrial estate. It’s brownfield land which no longer has a use.

They’re not talking about abandoned sites! Or at least, not in all cases.

We need houses more now than ever, where are we going to put all the immigrants/asylum seekers otherwise?

There is a disused airfield at Wisley. Frankly the land would be better used for housing and it’s near the A3/M25 so decent transport. Right now it’s just scrub, it will never be an active airfield again. There is also an old grass airstrip at Hamble which I flew from 35 years ago with the ATC, it’s been closed for years. It needs to be used for something.

We need houses more now than ever, where are we going to put all the immigrants/asylum seekers otherwise?

Send them back from whence they came?

jambalaya – Member

There is a disused airfield at Wisley. Frankly the land would be better used for housing and it’s near the A3/M25 so decent transport. Right now it’s just scrub, it will never be an active airfield again. There is also an old grass airstrip at Hamble which I flew from 35 years ago with the ATC, it’s been closed for years. It needs to be used for something.

But again- the argument doesn’t seem to be that closed airfields can’t be built on. I think it’s poorly worded to be fair but it seems pretty clear that they’re focusing on active airfields?

jambalaya – Member
There is a disused airfield at Wisley. Frankly the land would be better used for housing and it’s near the A3/M25 so decent transport. Right now it’s just scrub, it will never be an active airfield again. There is also an old grass airstrip at Hamble which I flew from 35 years ago with the ATC, it’s been closed for years. It needs to be used for something.

FFS, do you want to build on EVERY green space this country has to off?

And HTF would all that extra traffic get in and out of Hamble? It’s bad enough as it is.

I’m ceasing to care what happens in this ****hole of a country as more and more people want to build on more and more of it. You are all welcome to the cesspit of a place that you would make it – not that it isn’t already…

It really isn’t. It’s chuffing great, mate.

Yeah well ok, bits of it are good, but it’s not going to stay that way for long at this rate…

At what rate?

The rate at which ***holes want to build on it…

So, is this just the perfect amount of developed land at this very moment in time?

No, this place is way too built up as it is.

Maybe where you live it is. I’d suggest you move from there, as you’re obviously not a happy bunny.

Plenty of areas are having more housing than they need forced on them by the Tories.

A misguided attempt to jump start the economy or a brazen attempt to line their backers’ pockets?

You decide!

Because they are designated “Brownfield” ( a “mistake” by John Prescott ) they are open to being closed down by greedy developers and built on

As much as I hate tony Blair, Prescott is well up there. Is there a bigger hypocrite in the country?

You are all welcome to the cesspit of a place that you would make it – not that it isn’t already…

Cheerio, then!

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.

this point seems overblown. the number of passengers and volume of cargo carried to and from these airfields must be statistically insignificant as part of the national transport infrastructure.

Indeed it is. But how come so few of these “much needed new homes” for “hard working families” ever turn out to be affordable for those on an average wage?

Is there really a desperate shortage of overpriced executive homes?

@JulianA – I appreciate your coments and as a Hamble resident I am well aware of the traffic, I’d rather see houses there and some road improvements than a gravel pit. We have a chronic housing shortage with developers eager to build on greenfield sites, an airfield is a mix of true brownfield/ex-industrial site and countryside. I don’t know exactly how long the airfield has been shut but it could be 20 years ? It’s hardly an aminity is it, yes it’s used by dog walkers and a few horses are kept there but it’s mostly just scrub and being un maintained its hard to walk or ride over. The Wisley site was proposed to be a rubbish incinerator ! My point is a blanket ban makes no sense and I’d rather see houses or other social facilities than a gravel pit of industrial use, just imagine at Hamble you could build houses, park, pump, track, nursery school etc ? When they developed the old oil terminal site they out up houses and industrial units without improving the road, now it’s time to do both ?

chakaping – Member

Plenty of areas are having more housing than they need forced on them by the Tories.

Yeah, lots of housing developments being built around here (on old industrial sites mainly), but also they don’t seem to be selling very quickly. One set of apartments near me is almost empty having been finished a few years ago but they are still pushing ahead to build more alongside them.

Transport infrastructure lost , never to be regained.

Hmm, are small airfields really that important in the grand scheme of practical transport infrastructure? Its hardly a transport option for the masses is it? Let alone if we talk about the sustainability and pollution effects of air travel, especially for domestic journeys.

No, this place is way too built up as it is.

Really?

the proportion of England’s landscape which is built on is 2.27%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Plenty of space left. We could double housing and still be less than 5%.

Plenty of space left. We could double housing and still be less than 5%.

And that’s good?

Someone pointed out on another forum that the current net migration of 300,000 is only 0.5% of total population, so quite a small number.
That’s a city the size of Coventry needing to be built every year.
We’ve already got one Coventry, I don’t want an extra one every 12 months. year.

Let’s look longterm and turn them into spaceports.