[BedsFlyer]

This says "Reassess general aviation airfields as green belt not brown field sites"

Link: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/174826

Please sign it and ask all your friend to sign it. It currently has 6,269 signatures. Not even enough to get response from the government, let alone a discussion in Parlement.

The text of the petition is "Airfields around the country are categorised as brown field sites making them attractive for development of housing estates. However these airfields are 90% grass land. Reassessing them as green belt will protect our green countryside, protect local employment and protect general aviation.

General Aviation airfields are home to wild flowers, plants and grasses as well as many small animals and birds. Our future commercial pilots start their training at these airfields which provide local employment. We will miss this national resource when it's too late and they have been dug up for housing. These are green sites and must be afforded the same protection as farm land. "

[cotterpot]

This has been a topic previously.

In my view they are never going to be classified as Greenbelt, as that has a very specific meaning in relation to planning matters. Some of the airfields under threat are not near a town, where the green belt was intended to protect it from sprawling development.

That said no harm in signing but little chance of success.

[BedsFlyer]

The Petition is up to 6,849. Just over 3,000 needed to go to get a Government response!

Whilst I suspect 'cotterpot' is correct re the criteria for Greenbelt classification, I think it's still worth signing the petition if you have not already done so. Plus ask all your friends and associates to sign it!

[mo0g]

Whilst they cannot be designated 'green belt', 'greenfield' is different definition and I'm sure if this ever gets to be debated this will be the assumption.

[CloudHound]

News from GAAC Vice Chairman, John Gilder, in the February edition of Aircraft Owner & Pilot paints a more hopeful picture of the future for some aerodromes under threat.

In the article he describes how DCLG have engaged with GAAC and what they've had to say about 'Brownfield status'.
Much of what is reported has lessened my concerns and key phrases such as

..airfields are not designated but described...

and

...land must be redundant (i.e. unused)... by definition active airfields are not subject to presumption...

lead me to have hope that landowners and developers are not in so strong a position as they would have us believe.

Maybe, this news could help calm some of the fears abroad at the moment?

[Johnny]

The authors clearly have no idea what Green Belt and brownfield land is. The petition is completely ridiculous. Signing shows complete ignorance.

[mo0g]

The authors clearly have no idea what Green Belt and brownfield land is. The petition is completely ridiculous. Signing shows complete ignorance.

Substitute 'greenfield' for 'green belt', and what is the problem?

[BedsFlyer]

The authors clearly have no idea what Green Belt and brownfield land is. The petition is completely ridiculous. Signing shows complete ignorance.

Substitute 'greenfield' for 'green belt', and what is the problem?

From my point of view it's the sentiment of the petition, not the semantics. If we love GA, then let's defend our airfields otherwise there will by no flying.

[BedsFlyer]

News from GAAC Vice Chairman, John Gilder, in the February edition of Aircraft Owner & Pilot paints a more hopeful picture of the future for some aerodromes under threat.

In the article he describes how DCLG have engaged with GAAC and what they've had to say about 'Brownfield status'.
Much of what is reported has lessened my concerns and key phrases such as

..airfields are not designated but described...

and

...land must be redundant (i.e. unused)... by definition active airfields are not subject to presumption...

lead me to have hope that landowners and developers are not in so strong a position as they would have us believe.

Maybe, this news could help calm some of the fears abroad at the moment?

Hi CloudHound, this is good news. Thanks for the update.

[GAFlyer4Fun]

News from GAAC Vice Chairman, John Gilder, in the February edition of Aircraft Owner & Pilot paints a more hopeful picture of the future for some aerodromes under threat.

In the article he describes how DCLG have engaged with GAAC and what they've had to say about 'Brownfield status'.
Much of what is reported has lessened my concerns and key phrases such as

..airfields are not designated but described...

and

...land must be redundant (i.e. unused)... by definition active airfields are not subject to presumption...

lead me to have hope that landowners and developers are not in so strong a position as they would have us believe.

Part of the problem is most of the general public have no idea/interest in this sort of thing (until it is too late and their lives have been negatively affected in a number of ways), and I dare say the housing planners hope that is the case to make it easier to get what they want on or near an active airfield.

In the case of the proposed/planned Fairoaks Garden Village, it would be helpful if the GAAC reported on their DCLG progress directly to the local newspapers (town and county level publications), local radio stations (in response to other news items on the FGV), and to the local town and county councils that consider/approve planning applications.

The twist to the Fairoaks Garden Village proposal is it was quietly initiated by Surrey Heath Borough Council. This needs to be addressed quickly and publicly by GAAC etc otherwise the local people will think it is a done deal (and less likely to object) according to the clever wording of the proposal from SHBC.