Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Brownfield planning permission to be fast tracked. Doesn't that mean that Wellesbourne is going to be 2 up 2 downs quicker than we thought?
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
rob68 wrote:Brownfield planning permission to be fast tracked. Doesn't that mean that Wellesbourne is going to be 2 up 2 downs quicker than we thought?
Lets hope not Rob, there are many reasons why it should or should not go ahead but its down to the council to decide I suppose. I would hate to see 655 either stood in a corner or chopped up for scrap as I spent over 15 years working on her and indeed I was present for the first engine run we did after she had been abandoned, which was carried out using the rapid start system on No 4 engine. Of all the running Vulcans 655 is probably the most accessible and it should remain that way in my view. I know the airfields owners and can see were their coming from as regards to the sale but the airfield should be sold as a going concern and remain operational.
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
At the end of the day it's all down to the money. When Filton airfield was sold for housing it sold for £100 million plus.
-
Ray Purchase
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat 19 Apr 2014, 12:14 pm
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Marka1967 wrote:rob68 wrote:Brownfield planning permission to be fast tracked. Doesn't that mean that Wellesbourne is going to be 2 up 2 downs quicker than we thought?
Lets hope not Rob, there are many reasons why it should or should not go ahead but its down to the council to decide I suppose. I would hate to see 655 either stood in a corner or chopped up for scrap as I spent over 15 years working on her and indeed I was present for the first engine run we did after she had been abandoned, which was carried out using the rapid start system on No 4 engine. Of all the running Vulcans 655 is probably the most accessible and it should remain that way in my view. I know the airfields owners and can see were their coming from as regards to the sale but the airfield should be sold as a going concern and remain operational.
You've got to forget your nostalgic outlook. It's called progress.
Property developers aren't plane spotters so they don't give a stuff about keeping it as an airfield.
Any metal left over is a nice extra income to sell off.
That was the best full English breakfast I've had since Gary Wilmot's wedding.
-
speedbird2639
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:35 am
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Marka
Its all well and good saying the field should be sold as a going concern by I was told the developers have offered the owners £100m to buy the airfield. I can't see there is a business case for what must be an under used airfield (whose only USP is they have a taxi-able Vulcan) on site to continue in the face of an offer like that.
I understand that the people involved in 655 are forming a pressure/ lobbying group called Wellesboure Matters to campaign again the sale and development of the airfield. Given the recent announcements re: brownfield sites and the current housing shortage then IMHO their time, efforts and money would be better spent liaising with the developers re the feasibility of moving 655 to another location (Baginton wld seem to be the most obvious). If they use the money the raise to fund a legal team to fight the development it will just be money down the toilet as I cannot see this development not proceeding - the developer involved is rumoured to have never lost a planning application to date.
They are already building housing on the Long Marsden MoD site just up the road and I would expect the former Long Marsden airfield to be next. Network Rail have in the past been mulling over the idea of reinstating the railway on what is currently the Stratford Greenway down to Honeybourne - this would given 'non-car' connectivity to the area if a new station was included at Long Marsden.
As there isn't any plan to attempt to fly 655 ever again then surely they could remove sufficient of the wings and fin to enable road transport to Baginton and trailer her up the A46. In the worst case scenario this may mean she is no longer taxiable when reassembled but it is surely preferable to her being reduced to scrap in 15 mins by an giant excavator. As the the VTTS team are going to have time on their hands after this season maybe they could assist in any transfer.
http://www.xm655.com/news.php#WM You can read details of the proposal here
Just so you don't get the wrong idea I'm a member of 655MaPS and the last thing I would want to see is her destruction but the current stance seems to have more than a little King Canute about it - I cant see this development not proceeding.
Its all well and good saying the field should be sold as a going concern by I was told the developers have offered the owners £100m to buy the airfield. I can't see there is a business case for what must be an under used airfield (whose only USP is they have a taxi-able Vulcan) on site to continue in the face of an offer like that.
I understand that the people involved in 655 are forming a pressure/ lobbying group called Wellesboure Matters to campaign again the sale and development of the airfield. Given the recent announcements re: brownfield sites and the current housing shortage then IMHO their time, efforts and money would be better spent liaising with the developers re the feasibility of moving 655 to another location (Baginton wld seem to be the most obvious). If they use the money the raise to fund a legal team to fight the development it will just be money down the toilet as I cannot see this development not proceeding - the developer involved is rumoured to have never lost a planning application to date.
They are already building housing on the Long Marsden MoD site just up the road and I would expect the former Long Marsden airfield to be next. Network Rail have in the past been mulling over the idea of reinstating the railway on what is currently the Stratford Greenway down to Honeybourne - this would given 'non-car' connectivity to the area if a new station was included at Long Marsden.
As there isn't any plan to attempt to fly 655 ever again then surely they could remove sufficient of the wings and fin to enable road transport to Baginton and trailer her up the A46. In the worst case scenario this may mean she is no longer taxiable when reassembled but it is surely preferable to her being reduced to scrap in 15 mins by an giant excavator. As the the VTTS team are going to have time on their hands after this season maybe they could assist in any transfer.
http://www.xm655.com/news.php#WM You can read details of the proposal here
Just so you don't get the wrong idea I'm a member of 655MaPS and the last thing I would want to see is her destruction but the current stance seems to have more than a little King Canute about it - I cant see this development not proceeding.
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
rob68 wrote:Brownfield planning permission to be fast tracked.
Any builder would prefer to build on a green field site. I assume this is to try to persuade them to use available 'brown field'?
Pte. Aubrey Gerald Harmer, R. Suss. R. (att. to the Sherwood Foresters) KIA 26/9/1917 Polygon Wood, aged 19, NKG. RIP
-
speedbird2639
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:35 am
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Brownfield sites are to be offered automatic (I'm sure there will be some hoops to jump through for the developer) planning approval. Getting planning for greenfield sites is nigh on impossible esp' if its green belt etc. Birmingham City Council has published a list of brownfield sites it wants to see developed in the near future. I presume other councils will be doing the same for their areas shortly. The Govt have said that if Councils don't move the development of brownfield sites forward asap then the responsibility for it will be taken off them and it will be handled direct from Westminster.
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
speedbird2639 wrote: Given the recent announcements re: brownfield sites and the current housing shortage then IMHO their time, efforts and money would be better spent liaising with the developers re the feasibility of moving 655 to another location (Baginton wld seem to be the most obvious). If they use the money the raise to fund a legal team to fight the development it will just be money down the toilet as I cannot see this development not proceeding - the developer involved is rumoured to have never lost a planning application to date.
I agree, a fundraising drive off the back of XH558's retirement would mean a solution could possibly be found to moving her (my preference would be to Bruntingthorpe) and if nothing comes of the development then that's more money to keep XM655 running
If life gives you melons then you're probably dyslexic
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
After reading the above comments perhaps in years to come when all of our local history is covered in concrete and houses we will look back and wish we had done more to stop or reduce it happening.
-
speedbird2639
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:35 am
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Marka
What do you suggest we do? The country's population is now around 63m. It increases each year by 'x' 1000's of people and they have to have somewhere to live. The Govt's attempts at reducing immigration have proved to be futile. So the choice is either build no more/ insufficient houses and have the majority of people priced out of the housing market or build on brown field sites thereby ensuring the minimum of damage to the countryside - surely its preferable to use previously built on land than to rip up green fields?
Regarding Wellesbourne although I like it as its near to me in Brum its a small airfield with realistically only one live runway (05/23 is only 1900 feet long and I've never seen it in use other than to taxi 655). When you compare it to say Halfpenny Green it doesn't really measure up very well.
I suggested Baginton as a destination for 655 as it wld be a comparatively simple move up the A46 but obviously pairing up with the Victor at Brunty would be great if the logistics could be worked out.
I know a lot of people would like to keep Wellesbourne as it is a WW2 field but it isnt exactly pristine as it was in July 1945 - 2 of the runways are effectively gone and most of the WW2 buildings were demolished to allow the building of the trading estate to the East side of the field - there must be better candidates for preservation.
What do you suggest we do? The country's population is now around 63m. It increases each year by 'x' 1000's of people and they have to have somewhere to live. The Govt's attempts at reducing immigration have proved to be futile. So the choice is either build no more/ insufficient houses and have the majority of people priced out of the housing market or build on brown field sites thereby ensuring the minimum of damage to the countryside - surely its preferable to use previously built on land than to rip up green fields?
Regarding Wellesbourne although I like it as its near to me in Brum its a small airfield with realistically only one live runway (05/23 is only 1900 feet long and I've never seen it in use other than to taxi 655). When you compare it to say Halfpenny Green it doesn't really measure up very well.
I suggested Baginton as a destination for 655 as it wld be a comparatively simple move up the A46 but obviously pairing up with the Victor at Brunty would be great if the logistics could be worked out.
I know a lot of people would like to keep Wellesbourne as it is a WW2 field but it isnt exactly pristine as it was in July 1945 - 2 of the runways are effectively gone and most of the WW2 buildings were demolished to allow the building of the trading estate to the East side of the field - there must be better candidates for preservation.
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Is the entirety of an airfield considered to be "brownfield" or is it just the parts that have had buildings or concrete runways/roads etc?
Over 300 free things to do in London
http://www.toplondondaysout.co.uk
http://www.toplondondaysout.co.uk
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Well Speedbird Wellesbourne is quite a busy little airfield with many aviation businesses present including a number of training facilities for both fixed and rotary wing aircraft. Our immigration policy of this country should be more inline with Australia's policy in my view but as this is a aviation forum lets not get bogged down on that debate. Do the people of Wellesbourne really want this development which will almost double the size of their village I bet most don't as the village would be ruined just think of the traffic misery and the job losses at the airfield just for the sake of so called progress. As for moving 655 by road it could be done but the aircraft would only be fit for static display afterwards. Anyway enough said we will have to wait and see what happens.
-
Harlequin67
- UKAR Supporter
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 5:13 pm
- Location: Near LHR
- Contact:
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
The problem is first and foremost, people need somewhere to live. A job is secondary!
The problem is that this development will be likely to be one huge housing estate, no open/play spaces. No shops. No GP's. Possibly a school. Probably no place of worship. Dare I mention a pub....
Building homes is very important, building a social infrastructure to support those houses....not so important.
If you want really brownfield madness look at Battersea power station. Listed, why? When I went there 30 odd years ago it was a vast shell. It needed knocking down then and re-building on with something, even expensive penthouse flat type properties. Better yet housing for core workers, with social infrastructure. Even better turn it into some kind of park with leisure facilities. I know various urban sports events have been held there, skateboarding or snowboarding, etc.
The problem is that this development will be likely to be one huge housing estate, no open/play spaces. No shops. No GP's. Possibly a school. Probably no place of worship. Dare I mention a pub....
Building homes is very important, building a social infrastructure to support those houses....not so important.
If you want really brownfield madness look at Battersea power station. Listed, why? When I went there 30 odd years ago it was a vast shell. It needed knocking down then and re-building on with something, even expensive penthouse flat type properties. Better yet housing for core workers, with social infrastructure. Even better turn it into some kind of park with leisure facilities. I know various urban sports events have been held there, skateboarding or snowboarding, etc.
Aviation photographer - Achievement unlocked
-
speedbird2639
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:35 am
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
The problem is that this development will be likely to be one huge housing estate, no open/play spaces. No shops. No GP's. Possibly a school. Probably no place of worship. Dare I mention a pub....
http://www.wellesbournematters.org.uk/w ... -West1.pdf Page 15
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Building more houses has very little to do with providing cheap places to live and alot to do with propping up the economy. As a nation we're being brainwashed into believing that concreting over everything is (1) a sign of progress and (2) necessary.
As marka says only when it's too late will we ask why we did it.
As marka says only when it's too late will we ask why we did it.
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
[quote="Marka1967"] Do the people of Wellesbourne really want this development which will almost double the size of their village I bet most don't as the village would be ruined just think of the traffic misery and the job losses at the airfield just for the sake of so called progress. As for moving 655 by road it could be done but the aircraft would only be fit for static display afterwards. quote]
Exclude for the moment the 655 element. Your post wreaks of 'NIMBYism' as all Developments are not welcome anywhere by those that already have a bed there to lie upon. That's why there is such a shortage of 'affordable housing' & why so many people are homeless per se. Add to that situation the wide-open immigration Policy / 'Streets paved in Gold' legendary welfare hand-outs that attracts hordes of people from the extended EU to the likes of Eritrea & you have a situation that will never be solved by the loss of 1000 x Wellesbourne, much less one!
Thank-you Speedbird 2639 for the link to the Proposal Document. This is a coherent proposal that allows for the 'Mandatory' School, Community Centre, etc requirements Harlequin67 noted as missing & one must remember this is ONLY the Developers' opening gambit. By the time the Development is at Detailed Planning stage there will be a minimum 10% more Housing, a Doctors Surgery & small Medical Centre, a Pharmacy, a Skate Park & Play Park Equipment (possibly a Pub?) all funded by the Developer on the back of more Units.
Re-introduce the '655 element'....this aircraft must be saved in it's current condition & relocated to Bruntingthorpe. In the sad but likely event XH558 is interred at Robins' Hood (sic), 655 must be accessible to all at Brunty. This calls for a radical change in your approach Marka 1967!! You will never defeat the Developers Application, so, instead of fighting them consider supporting them?? Let the Nimbys & other businesses control their own destiny.
My estimated timescale for due process is 2 years, depending on the Council definition of 'fast-track'. You need to move quickly to arrange a meeting with the team from Gladman Developments & David Lock Associates to agree terms for your co-operation ( ie:- actively support the scheme!) in return for them funding the 'proper' dismantling, transport & rebuild to current status of 655 at your selected destination (Brunty??) Do your homework properly, get contractual quotes for the work, transport including craneage, fluids, access equipment & all support relocation. You will get one-shot at this, aim to secure a 100% contribution as it would be a pittance in the Grand Scheme of the Developers' project. This Planning Application will proceed...guaranteed! Spend your time /money wisely by joining sides with the winners!
PS:- I am not involved with any Party interested in this Development, but I have limited experience of 'how they roll!'
Good Luck.
Exclude for the moment the 655 element. Your post wreaks of 'NIMBYism' as all Developments are not welcome anywhere by those that already have a bed there to lie upon. That's why there is such a shortage of 'affordable housing' & why so many people are homeless per se. Add to that situation the wide-open immigration Policy / 'Streets paved in Gold' legendary welfare hand-outs that attracts hordes of people from the extended EU to the likes of Eritrea & you have a situation that will never be solved by the loss of 1000 x Wellesbourne, much less one!
Thank-you Speedbird 2639 for the link to the Proposal Document. This is a coherent proposal that allows for the 'Mandatory' School, Community Centre, etc requirements Harlequin67 noted as missing & one must remember this is ONLY the Developers' opening gambit. By the time the Development is at Detailed Planning stage there will be a minimum 10% more Housing, a Doctors Surgery & small Medical Centre, a Pharmacy, a Skate Park & Play Park Equipment (possibly a Pub?) all funded by the Developer on the back of more Units.
Re-introduce the '655 element'....this aircraft must be saved in it's current condition & relocated to Bruntingthorpe. In the sad but likely event XH558 is interred at Robins' Hood (sic), 655 must be accessible to all at Brunty. This calls for a radical change in your approach Marka 1967!! You will never defeat the Developers Application, so, instead of fighting them consider supporting them?? Let the Nimbys & other businesses control their own destiny.
My estimated timescale for due process is 2 years, depending on the Council definition of 'fast-track'. You need to move quickly to arrange a meeting with the team from Gladman Developments & David Lock Associates to agree terms for your co-operation ( ie:- actively support the scheme!) in return for them funding the 'proper' dismantling, transport & rebuild to current status of 655 at your selected destination (Brunty??) Do your homework properly, get contractual quotes for the work, transport including craneage, fluids, access equipment & all support relocation. You will get one-shot at this, aim to secure a 100% contribution as it would be a pittance in the Grand Scheme of the Developers' project. This Planning Application will proceed...guaranteed! Spend your time /money wisely by joining sides with the winners!
PS:- I am not involved with any Party interested in this Development, but I have limited experience of 'how they roll!'
Good Luck.Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
I actually live 20 miles from Wellesbourne Stagger so NIMBYism does not come into it. To move an aircraft the size of a Vulcan by road would cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds which no developer would stump up I'm sure. So lets all roll over and let the developer's cover our country in concrete and houses shall we. There has already been a housing development built in Wellesbourne so I believe so why do they think it needs more. I have not worked on 655 for a few years now but the effort to save the airfield and businesses is in my view a worthy course.
-
speedbird2639
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:35 am
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
@Stagger2 
Finally - someone posts a reasoned response.
@Marka
All of the responses reported in the media from Wellesbourne residents have just been the height of NIMBY-ism. This document has been put together http://www.xm655.com/pdfs/wm.pdf. They list all the companies that currently work out of the airfield - no reason why those companies couldn't relocate to a nearby airfield such as Baginton - indeed if you are renting/ leasing your premises then surely your company recovery plan needs to cover the eventuality that your landlord may decide to sell the premises and as you to leave.
The person who runs the market states there is no comparable site within 100 miles radius and closing will put 1500 market traders on the dole. Seriously? There are loads of other markets they could attend - go to any town or village on a Sat or Sun and there is some sort of market in the High Street. The list of moans goes on.
Stagger2 is right - you have ONE chance to engage with the airfield owners and the developers to get them to buy into the idea of moving 655 to a new location. It has been stated that if she is dismantled for the move she would no longer be able to do taxi runs - OK so thats not great but its still better than being mashed up by an excavator and taken to a furnace in a truck. Long Marston MoD site is already being developed; the airfield next door is on the list of sites to be developed and in the current climate I cannot see how this development at Wellesbourne will not go ahead. Surely the way to make the GA sector profitable and secure is to consolidate companies and resources at bigger airfields such as Baginton rather that having a dispersed ' cottage industry' scattered across the country with the outposts being picked off one at a time?
Marka - sorry if this comes across as a little personal - it is not intended to be in any way. But the Luddite attitude displayed by Wellesbourne campaigners is wrong - the jobs won't be lost - if the businesses are viable in the first place they will relocate; the sewerage won't be overwhelmed - it will be upgraded as part of the development; etc etc. They need to engage with the developers to ensure they get as much of what they want as they can - by trying to fight them the most likely outcome is they get nothing at all and the developer gets everything he wants.
Finally - someone posts a reasoned response.@Marka
- it maybe in your opinion but the family that own the field have instructed the people who control the family trust (who are also family members) to 'dispose' of the asset. http://www.stratford-herald.com/333-plan-to-build-up-to-1600-homes-on-wellesbourne-airfield.htmlthe effort to save the airfield and businesses is in my view a worthy course.
All of the responses reported in the media from Wellesbourne residents have just been the height of NIMBY-ism. This document has been put together http://www.xm655.com/pdfs/wm.pdf. They list all the companies that currently work out of the airfield - no reason why those companies couldn't relocate to a nearby airfield such as Baginton - indeed if you are renting/ leasing your premises then surely your company recovery plan needs to cover the eventuality that your landlord may decide to sell the premises and as you to leave.
The person who runs the market states there is no comparable site within 100 miles radius and closing will put 1500 market traders on the dole. Seriously? There are loads of other markets they could attend - go to any town or village on a Sat or Sun and there is some sort of market in the High Street. The list of moans goes on.
Stagger2 is right - you have ONE chance to engage with the airfield owners and the developers to get them to buy into the idea of moving 655 to a new location. It has been stated that if she is dismantled for the move she would no longer be able to do taxi runs - OK so thats not great but its still better than being mashed up by an excavator and taken to a furnace in a truck. Long Marston MoD site is already being developed; the airfield next door is on the list of sites to be developed and in the current climate I cannot see how this development at Wellesbourne will not go ahead. Surely the way to make the GA sector profitable and secure is to consolidate companies and resources at bigger airfields such as Baginton rather that having a dispersed ' cottage industry' scattered across the country with the outposts being picked off one at a time?
Marka - sorry if this comes across as a little personal - it is not intended to be in any way. But the Luddite attitude displayed by Wellesbourne campaigners is wrong - the jobs won't be lost - if the businesses are viable in the first place they will relocate; the sewerage won't be overwhelmed - it will be upgraded as part of the development; etc etc. They need to engage with the developers to ensure they get as much of what they want as they can - by trying to fight them the most likely outcome is they get nothing at all and the developer gets everything he wants.
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Wellesbourne is the first airfield I thought off (non active MAPS member), the concern is all the other airfields etc. (The owner of Wellesbourne is also the owner of the Vulcan and have already said it will be scrapped if they sell the land).
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Well what can I say guys it appears were doomed to be smothered in concrete and bricks. As I've said before once our local history has gone its gone. As an aviation enthusiast I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be more support for our aviation heritage. That's me done with this thread.
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Well!...that went well didn't it? I throw you a life-line & you avoid catching it, only to be swamped in a wave of apathy & drown in a sea of despondency.
IF you read my last post you will notice that I also want our aviation heritage saved. I'm sorry to break the news, but...the Vulcan is the only element to be saved. Wellesbourne airfield devoid of historic infrastructure & Listed buildings is no more part of aviation heritage than the deserted factory that made oil seals for Meteor under-carriage. It has one active runway which is too short for a Vulcan with a remotely likely 'permit to fly'. The airfield is finished!
You alluded to your wish that the 'site' be sold as a going concern, get real!
1] Nobody is going to offer c. £100 million for that site except a Housing Developer.
2] You stated "Do the people of Wellesbourne really want this development which will almost double the size of their village I bet most don't as the village would be ruined just think of the traffic misery and the job losses at the airfield " That is NIMBYism & you clearly support it from 20 miles away.
3]Try a 'weekday break' in the South-east for the definition of "traffic misery" Your dear put-upon 'Locals' are using the classic phrases of a NIMBY which have Zero affect on any planning application as they are invalid reasons for refusal.
4] The Landowners' representatives clearly recognise a good deal.
5] The Developers , who allegedly have never lost an appeal are able to recognise a deal. Their houses are to be built on piled foundations according to the proposal. This is not a speculatively pitched idea.
6] The Local Authority will back this scheme, OR risk being over-ruled by Central Government & losing Planning Control powers completely.
All I can do is appeal to you personally to acquire some cahonies OR alert your fellow Members to pursue my free advice. You state that "To move an aircraft the size of a Vulcan by road would cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds which no developer would stump up I'm sure. ".....How do you Know that, as you haven't asked them yet! That is indeed quick work on a Sunday!!! Which part of GET CONTRACTUAL QUOTES did you not understand! Please quit the guesswork & negative "Kris Kris Tofferson!" to get moving on this.
In conclusion, your best hope for Wellesbourne is that they crush the broken-up runways on-site to produce heritage aggregate for the new Roadways & the airfield lives on in spirit.
IF you read my last post you will notice that I also want our aviation heritage saved. I'm sorry to break the news, but...the Vulcan is the only element to be saved. Wellesbourne airfield devoid of historic infrastructure & Listed buildings is no more part of aviation heritage than the deserted factory that made oil seals for Meteor under-carriage. It has one active runway which is too short for a Vulcan with a remotely likely 'permit to fly'. The airfield is finished!
You alluded to your wish that the 'site' be sold as a going concern, get real!
1] Nobody is going to offer c. £100 million for that site except a Housing Developer.
2] You stated "Do the people of Wellesbourne really want this development which will almost double the size of their village I bet most don't as the village would be ruined just think of the traffic misery and the job losses at the airfield " That is NIMBYism & you clearly support it from 20 miles away.
3]Try a 'weekday break' in the South-east for the definition of "traffic misery" Your dear put-upon 'Locals' are using the classic phrases of a NIMBY which have Zero affect on any planning application as they are invalid reasons for refusal.
4] The Landowners' representatives clearly recognise a good deal.
5] The Developers , who allegedly have never lost an appeal are able to recognise a deal. Their houses are to be built on piled foundations according to the proposal. This is not a speculatively pitched idea.
6] The Local Authority will back this scheme, OR risk being over-ruled by Central Government & losing Planning Control powers completely.
All I can do is appeal to you personally to acquire some cahonies OR alert your fellow Members to pursue my free advice. You state that "To move an aircraft the size of a Vulcan by road would cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds which no developer would stump up I'm sure. ".....How do you Know that, as you haven't asked them yet! That is indeed quick work on a Sunday!!! Which part of GET CONTRACTUAL QUOTES did you not understand! Please quit the guesswork & negative "Kris Kris Tofferson!" to get moving on this.
In conclusion, your best hope for Wellesbourne is that they crush the broken-up runways on-site to produce heritage aggregate for the new Roadways & the airfield lives on in spirit.
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
couldnt be bothered to read it, too long 
Any way already signed up to Wellesbourne Matters
Any way already signed up to Wellesbourne MattersRe: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
And there you have it! Too stooopid to save yourself, let alone some dead airfield.
-
speedbird2639
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:35 am
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Stagger2 - I feel me and you may as well bail out of this thread now and leave the 'too long, didnt read' bunch to their fate. Clearly some of the people supporting Wellesbourne believe, like the ostrich, that if they pop their heads in the sand the nasty man with all his money and bulldozers will go away and they can get back to tinkering about with their (sorry, the airfield owners') Vulcan.
Between the opportunity for the owners to cash in their former farmland for £100m and the need for housing backed by a well thought out and researched pitch to the local council the writing is unfortunately on the wall for Wellesbourne. It will be a shame to see it go but there is no business case for keeping it, a business case which is further weakened by the fact that none of the business on the airfield are 'location specific' and could all be relocated to nearby airfields.
The businesses should start looking for places to relocate to and the airfields within a sensible radius should start putting together a plan to lure the businesses to relocate to their airfield. From the documents produced by Wellsbourne Matters most of them seem to be operating out of units which are little more than glorified Portakabins so the move will only need a flatbed truck, a crane and £20 of diesel!
Between the opportunity for the owners to cash in their former farmland for £100m and the need for housing backed by a well thought out and researched pitch to the local council the writing is unfortunately on the wall for Wellesbourne. It will be a shame to see it go but there is no business case for keeping it, a business case which is further weakened by the fact that none of the business on the airfield are 'location specific' and could all be relocated to nearby airfields.
The businesses should start looking for places to relocate to and the airfields within a sensible radius should start putting together a plan to lure the businesses to relocate to their airfield. From the documents produced by Wellsbourne Matters most of them seem to be operating out of units which are little more than glorified Portakabins so the move will only need a flatbed truck, a crane and £20 of diesel!
Re: Brownfield Building Permission to Build
Every unwanted airfield in the country is now a target for devlopement. Land owner wants to sell, developer wants to build, game over cos your trying to fight a losing game. Better to go for a funded move. The only safe airfield in the country would appear to be Brunti, so move it there.
When we lost Filton and Woodford we lost something far greater than just a nice couple of airfields, we lost the chance to employ thousands of people in the a/c industry for ever. RAF Sealand (east camp) building riped down all hangars cleared and as yet not one piece of development on the site, although they are going to spend £1.5 million on a road which at the the moment will go nowhere. Watching that one with interest!
Paul
When we lost Filton and Woodford we lost something far greater than just a nice couple of airfields, we lost the chance to employ thousands of people in the a/c industry for ever. RAF Sealand (east camp) building riped down all hangars cleared and as yet not one piece of development on the site, although they are going to spend £1.5 million on a road which at the the moment will go nowhere. Watching that one with interest!
Paul