Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1519449
jawenold wrote:It could be useful - nay important - to know on what grounds the Government denied support in this first round of Garden Villages applications. The application has been released has the Government's reply been made public?


FOIA may be your friend. Both LA and Department have obligations under it, so two Requests for Information may be made. No need to mention in either that the other is being made :) That way, one response may be more informative than the other. Some or possibly all detail may be withheld under permitted Exemption eg Commercial Confidentiality, but each may judge this differently. Furthermore, any less than complete response, eg under Exemption, can be appealed. Appeal must be considered by a different officer in the responding authority, and no new Exemptions can be cited in any Appeal response.

Used properly, FOIA is a powerful tool :thumright:

[and, at least until Brexit takes effect, quite separate applications may be made under the EU's Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) , which are (at least until then) enforceable under a UK Statutory Instrument. Under EIRs not only are all agencies of all echelons of Government required to answer questions on any activities which may have an environmental impact - as major planned changes of land use obviously would - but so are private companies and entities who are licensed by any such echelon to carry out activities which have such an impact; eg AOC holders, aerodrome operators, aviation fuel suppliers, .. Many companies affected seem unaware of this until they are asked qualifying questions. Such questions must include clarifcation that they are being made under EIRs, and addressed as with FOIA ones to the Information Rights Officer. Also as with FOIA, there is a time limit for reponses, but the limit is different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environme ... tions_2004

AIUI, thus means that if the aerodrome operator's licence is held by an organisation, that organisation may be required to disclose all internal documents which might show how they were planning n years ago for how much environmental impact their activities would have in each of future years: such as planning to close the aerodrome and so having 0 effect from Avgas/Avtur sales, before they had publicly disclosed such plans ]
#1519659
Has any of the earmarked land been available and used by the local community for any purposes (dog walking, golf, football, nature watching - anything)?

If the answer is yes - and provided that such usage was not a result of an illegal act (for example cutting down fences etc), then the Town and Village Green Act my be applicable.

In short, if any parcel of land can be proven to have been in general unrestricted use by members of the local community for 10 years or more, then the land can be designated Town and Village Green - and cannot be developed (ever). If it has been developed - then the developer will be required to pul down their development and return it to its former state.

I used to run large construction programmes for a large public transport organisation - and our plans were sometimes thwarted by this rule). Once, a piece of land 5 ft x 15ft that had been used as cut through from houses to some shops, was designated Town and Village Green - forcing a large and costly re-route of my project. It was owned by the local authority who wanted us to use it. But they had never fenced it off, the locals used it a cut through for more than 10 years - the council lost.

Suggest the locals at Fairoaks start looking at this.
:thumright:
#1519672
Lefty wrote:
WingsOff wrote:Should imagine the likes of Wycombe/Booker would welcome Fairoaks businesses with open arms, not sure about capacity and planning constraints though at the likes of Denham, Elstree etc. Forget Redhill - under the same threat of closure of course. Further north and west the likes of Oxford would build to accommodate anyone on demand, as would Gloucestershire, Coventry etc. Cranfield probably wouldn't.


You have forgotten to mention White Waltham as a possible alternative.


Is there any spare hangarage at White Waltham and is it likely to be easy to get permission to put up more? I see Blackbushe has plans to put up more on the south side, but this might continue to get mired down in planning and environmental issues.
#1519688
JSAG wrote:There is a path in common public use just short of the 24 threshold at Fairoaks.


Yes - public right of way - sometimes a PITA, but glad to see it will have a higher purpose..

One could argue the carpark to the immediate west of the café (and the al fresco area of the café) is also used by the public - many young families seen there showing young children aircraft, etc.

Only problem is, relative to the size of the land, they are both small areas and while that will entail additional costs to the developers, it is probably not of the magnitude that would be discouraging to them..

Hate to be a nay-sayer, but given it is supposed to be a "garden village", a bit of open space here and there is surely what its all about?
#1519819
Lefty wrote:If the developers commit to retaining those spaces - then there is no argument. They might also seek to negotiate by offering to provide an equivalent space. But if the affected land is slap in the middle of a critical development site - they could be dissuaded.


So all we need is a footpath along the runway and job done.