6 February 2018
Changes to planning policy to protect airfields from housing developers have been proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on General Aviation.
The APPG has sent a submission to the newly appointed Housing Minister, Dominic Raab MP, proposing amendments to Paragraphs 33 and 41 of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to specifically state that ports, airports and airfields should be preserved and not lost to other forms of development.
In the submission the APPG points out that once an airfield is closed, it is typically lost forever, along with the associated science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) related jobs.
The APPG believes that keeping airfields open is not incompatible with meeting housebuilding targets. And the APPG maintains that their proposed amendments would go a long way towards resolving the issue.
This is what developers want to do on the site of Plymouth Airport – all the orange areas will be houses. Top: Plymouth Airport’s future will be decided by an inquiry this year.
Chair of the all-party group, the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP said, “The fact that we are now down to the last 100 licenced airfields available to General Aviation in the UK is a national emergency for the high-tech jobs and growth we all want to see.
“That’s why we have called for protection of airfields to be strengthened in the upcoming changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.
“The group has offered to meet with the new Housing Minister and brief him on how the Government can deliver the homes we need whilst still maintaining the UK’s network of airfields available to General Aviation.”
All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation
11 comments
Perhaps we could satisfy all concerns if developers were legally compelled to offer an airfield facility more or less equal to that which is lost.
Part of the grant of planning consent for re-development should be that the developers must offer a ready made alternative within a radius of perhaps ten miles of the existing , with the cost of such borne entirely by the developer.
That way, a desirable brownfield site will be ready to provide an assortment of housing and a site, undesirable for the purpose of residential housing can be offered as an acceptable alternative.
However it is important that the local planning committee is fully aware that there is an active airfield. A while back I was attending a planning meeting for something else when the land related to my local airfield, EGSL, came up. The person wanting to sell his land for ‘development’ was assuring the planning committee that the land was of poor arable quality, that in WW2 there had been an airfield but when the Americans left all they left behind was a couple of hangars. What he omitted to say was that there is on that piece of land a very active airfield training up to CPL, also a very active bar and restaurant renowned to non-flyers as well as flyers and an active maintenance organisation. The disparaged hangar is full of active aircraft, the other is a barn on a farm. (My friend next to me was holding me down!) So if we get rid of airfields, especially those training up to CPL, from where are going to get the pilots which a recent BBC news article said were in short supply? I would suggest that the All Party MPs ensure that every local planning committee is fully aware of the aviation facilities in their areas along with the need for training pilots and hence these aviation facilities are consequently important educational establishments needed for our economy, local, national and international.
The APPG proposals should not only encompass “active” airfields, but also those which may have been closed in recent years by unscrupulous owners because house-building looks more financially attractive. I am thinking specifically about Manston in Kent, but I am sure there are other similar locations around the UK.
Thank you for bringing the case of the forced closure of Manston Airport by Mrs Gloag of Stagecoach fame. KLM were furious when the airport was closed so suddenly by Mrs Gloag in favour of housing which is so much more lucrative.As it was business people were using KLM popular flights to Schiphol to connect to the world.There is a letter published by KLM to that effect. People in Thanet voted for the airport at Manston in the General Election. . it is a disgrace that the Labour Party here would rather cow tow to Mrs Gloags massive housing scheme because of their own selfish agenda of importing votes from London without thinking about the wonderful benifits the airport would bring . They should not be supporting the change of Use for housing which will bring the land values up so much that no one would be able to buy the airport for airport use only.
I was one of the many passengers using the KLM service to Amsterdam, it was so much more time efficient that having to go all the way to Heathrow or City. I am hoping the local council are finally seeing sense by voting against change of use for Manston in the draft local plan. Maybe they could even support Riveroak’s plans for establishing a cargo hub, a roll for which Manston is well suited. With Ramsgate Harbour close by, I can see cargo being landed and then shipped into Europe very easily. Its a shame that the current owners of the Harbour cannot join the dots, …oh yes thats the local council!
The people of Thanet didn’t vote for an airport. This is typical of the misinformation of the pro airport supporters. Many voted for Labour who were against reopening the now derelict airport. Also the majority of Thanet don’t want a 24/7 cargo hub with night flights on their doorstep which is nothing like the two to three flights a week airport that was once there. RSP have said no night flights will be needed yet they’ve applied for a night time license and a noise quota higher than Heathrow. No one in all the time the airport was open could make it profitable so it’s little wonder it closed. Who would keep a failing business open -at the end it was losing thousands of £s a day: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-26940057.
Another issue is that as our roads become more congested, there will be a need in every County for an airfield to enable urgent (medical)? goods to be physically transported across country swiftly.
Once an airfield is gone, the Nimbys will never allow new ones to be built
Seriously? And how do you think the cargo from an airport gets from the airport to where it’s going? Magic carpet maybe?
Durham tees valley airport has permission given by the local councils to build 500 houses on site, near the runway. If local councils give planning permission how can you fight against it?
This might help: it’s the CAA’s advice to airfield operators to help them assess nearby developments: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=576
Panshanger airfield has deep ditches excavated across it to frustrate future reopening. Urgent action is needed.