Worrying Airfield Development

[chevvron]

True. As I lived in the area then, I remember them rebuilding all 4 T2 hangars at Bovingdon and closing it next year!!

[Blacksheep]

A farmer has a field in a Green Belt location that's been mown and used as an aerodrome for, say 20 years. It is still agricultural land and he'd be unlikely to get planning permission to "develop" the site.

If it is licensed as an aerodrome, then its an aerodrome not agricultural land. If its unlicensed then its agricultural land and not an aerodrome. Many farms have landing strips on them but they're for the farm's own private use and they're not licensed, ergo they are agricultural land.

Yes, I've read about the campaign to save North Weald. There are reasons other than 'development' for the closure of the old aerodrome and there are other aerodrome facilities available not far away.

Bovingdon was covered in tanks when we used to use it for practise autorotation landings. I don't suppose that HMP Service would be too happy to entertain such use now that its been 'developed' into a prison. From what I hear about prison accommodation, compared to the barracks that we had to live in and the ration allowance that the cooks struggled to feed us on, turning old RAF stations into prisons would definitely be considered as "development".

When it comes to places that used to be aerodromes and have ceased to be so because they were no longer viable as such, I'm all in favour of their being used for building. As to historical places like North Weald, its the old buildings that matter, the large empty area used for the airfiled is not too significant from a history point of view. Unfortunately, the significant old buildings were often no more than Nissen huts and are long since rotted away.

[chevvron]

Blacksheep: I can't help suspecting you are confusing Abingdon with Bovingdon; Abingdon was taken over by the pongos and used as a tank park although helicopters from Benson still use it, the pongos having built a fence round the north part of the airfield on the inside of the taxiway, thus preventing the VGS from using the taxiways! Bovingdon was taken over by the home office in the '70s and the prison was built then; it has been used since by one or two private aircraft, plus motor racing and sunday markets; oh and it has a NATS owned VOR on the old airfield too!

[TCAS FAN]

If it is licensed as an aerodrome, then its an aerodrome not agricultural land. If its unlicensed then its agricultural land and not an aerodrome.

Not totally correct. If it is a licensed aerodrome it must be classified for Town & Country Planning purposes as an aerodrome, or what some Local Planning Authorities still call an "airfield". In the case of an unlicensed aerodrome, if it is to be used in excess of 28 days in a twelve month period, a change of use has to be obtained to classify it, for Town & Country Planning purposes, as an aerodrome/airfield.

For those worried about rises in rents, I would speculate that you should in fact focus your concern on being evicted, and start looking for alternative bases. I know of a number of marginally profitable GA aerodrome operators who are anxiously waiting for the decision that could change their lives, permitting them to close up shop and sell off the land for non aviation development.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

TCAS FAN

That pretty closely follows the reply I was drafting. In my scenario, an A/D that had been used as such for that period would very likely receive T & C Planning Permission to continue. The rest would be a natural progression; unless the Planners were smart enough to see ahead. That said, it might suit their purposes as well to acquire some instant "brown field" land. The one I have in mind is unlicenced, Planning approved (except for microlights)and appears on the aeronautical charts.

All this talk of tanks and Bovingdon, people aren't confusing it with Bovington, are they?

[tmmorris]

Councils have to meet targets for brownfield site development - hence the popularity of building on gardens in leafy suburbs. So most would be delighted to kill three birds with one stone - get rid of that noisy airfield, avoid the danger of another Stansted/Luton/Hurn on their doorsteps, and meet their brownfield targets. That's why this apparently 'accidental' miswording must be corrected, or I fear the worst.

I'm not sure what good relocating will do, TCAS FAN. Surely once you've established another aerodrome elsewhere, that too becomes brownfield and can be developed, and so on ad infinitum?

Tim

[Double Zero]

Agricultural ?

GBZ,

Dunsfold has been owned by a property development co, 'Rutland Group' since 2000.

They hope to build 2,300 houses, but have so far been held off by the local council.

The film work on ' Top Gear' and the last Bond film is regarded as a stop-gap; personally I feel there may be ulterior motives at work too.

An early, time ex' 747 was flown in on its' last hours a couple of years ago; since then it has had the engines removed, and dummy B-52 style jobs put on the inner pylons ( huge 'fuel tanks' on the outer ) for the Bond job.

I can't help thinking there's an implied threat, and I believe this has been made public, that if development permission is not granted there will be an awful lot of alloy to clear up - I have heard there are 2 more airliners now but have no idea of their identity...

We were always told Dunsfold had to be returned to agriculture !

Anyone wishing to speak up for a historic and still useful airfield - what a warbird facility ! - speak up now !!!

The first thing we can do is sign the above mentioned petition...

[chevvron]

There certainly used to be a 'covenant' on Dunsfold requiring it be returned to agriculture when no longer required for aviation. A friend of mine used to work there when it was still BAe and they told me.
Looks like the present owners of Redhill wish to do the same as Rutland.