Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1674052
rikur_ wrote:I suspect a lot depends upon the location and scope for redevelopment - e.g. at the time the District Council covering Church Fenton had a statement in their local plan stating that the site was not suitable for housing or redevelopment, and the bit of the site that was suitable for housing had been carved out into a separate sale.



Aha!! Then in the future, the occupants of the new houses can complain about aircraft noise, get the airfield shut down and turn it into a skateboard park :mrgreen:
chevvron liked this
User avatar
By rikur_
#1674067
Korenwolf wrote:Aha!! Then in the future, the occupants of the new houses can complain about aircraft noise, get the airfield shut down and turn it into a skateboard park :mrgreen:

In recent weeks we've had the local Parish Council's phoning around to rally-up objections to Leeds East GNSS approach proposals ... mostly because they don't like Sherburn's VFR traffic or RAF hercs / A400s in the low level corridor :roll:
Korenwolf liked this
User avatar
By mattmoxon
#1674175
Topcliffe is an interesting one as it is a satelite airfield to Linton, there are (according to Wikipedia) no RAF personel based there permanantly and as far as the RAF are concerned only has a single VGS squadron (grounded) and serves as a reserve landing site to the training activities at Linton. Logic therefore dictates that with Linton earmarked for closure that Topcliffe will be surplus to requirements and the RAF will want to dispose of the airfield (the British Army have a barracks there) portion.

Quite a few RAF airbases have "return to their original state" (i.e. farmland) caveats on them when the land was originally requisitioned during WW2, so sadly they could be broken up.
User avatar
By rikur_
#1674199
mattmoxon wrote:Quite a few RAF airbases have "return to their original state" (i.e. farmland) caveats on them when the land was originally requisitioned during WW2, so sadly they could be broken up.

I've been involved as a Councillor in a few planning 'issues' around such sites. Whilst the conditions around each site will be different, for those I've had dealings with we've never found a planning officer or planning consultant that believes such conditions are enforceable (an action group took one site all the way to high court, who also confirmed it was not enforceable).
A key problem we have at the moment with several of the long-since decommissioned Yorkshire/North Lincs sites is 'waste sorting companies'. These businesses set-up and apply for planning permission to sort waste. They get paid to take waste, and build huge mountains of waste ready for sorting (and a nice wad of cash in the bank). Then they put the company into administration, and leave the local authority to sort out the mountain of waste.

Interestingly one site I'm aware of is shortly about to be broken up, because of the value in the concrete as hardcore. So perhaps that will end-up like the former RAF Riccall which now has runway shaped ponds where the concrete was removed, and allowed to flood.
#1674234
rikur_ wrote:
mattmoxon wrote:Quite a few RAF airbases have "return to their original state" (i.e. farmland) caveats on them when the land was originally requisitioned during WW2, so sadly they could be broken up.

I've been involved as a Councillor in a few planning 'issues' around such sites. Whilst the conditions around each site will be different, for those I've had dealings with we've never found a planning officer or planning consultant that believes such conditions are enforceable (an action group took one site all the way to high court, who also confirmed it was not enforceable).

Those conditions would be on the title so wouldn't be a planning matter in any case. There generally needs to be a beneficial interest in the condition, but after such a long period it's a risk that can likely be insured against for a very modest sum since the beneficiary would be long lost in the past.
#1674244
eltonioni wrote:
Those conditions would be on the title so wouldn't be a planning matter in any case. There generally needs to be a beneficial interest in the condition, but after such a long period it's a risk that can likely be insured against for a very modest sum since the beneficiary would be long lost in the past.


The 'promises' in whatever form they take - tend to end-up being asserted as a planning issue as soon as someone applies for planning permission to do something with the site. Even not physically changing the site, but e.g. storing vehicles on the runway, it becomes a planning matter
From the couple of cases of war time requisitions I've had dealings with, it's a fascinating and complex history:
a) various legislation from 1940s regarding land requisition and restoration
b) often several decades of more conventional planning applications and undertakings since. For one of the sites I was involved in, it was possible to get the buildings from 1970s onwards removed, but nothing prior to that. This was planning enforcement that dealt with these on the basis of planning obligations for restoration.

In the context of @mattmoxon's original point - it seems unlikely that restoration to agriculture could be enforced - but there is a small risk that useful amenities such as hangars and buildings might have to be demolished, depending when they were put-up and what restrictions were associated with them.
mattmoxon liked this
#1674247
It's not a planning issue though, no matter what anyone might try to make it, and obviously as a planning committee, your officers will advise you that it's none of the committee's business what 'promises' were made 80 years ago. Such emotional errors of judgement make for successful planning appeals and claims of extensive costs against the authority.

If a planning authority saw value in an airfield / runway they could declare it a conservation area. This is likely a relatively trivial matter on many wartime airfields but planning authorities don't seem keen, since airfields are easy targets for housing consents that doesn't lose them votes.
User avatar
By rikur_
#1674259
@eltonioni I think we're largely saying the same thing - but somehow you're presenting as an argument???
Change of use will normally be a planning matter.
It is quite possible that there are planning restrictions on structures on the site from the past ~50 years that require their removal and restoration - these may or may not be a planning enforcement matter depending how they were done.
Whatever promises were made in the 1940s are almost certainly not enforceable.
However in one case, the Home Office had made new restoration promises in the 1960s when getting planning application for a change of use of the site - so I suspect in practice you have to go through the full history of the site to see who has made what commitments and to whom, and whether they can still be enforced (and by whom).
This usually falls to planning officers, along with explaining to Councillors why what residents believe was promised, is not applicable.

ps: I've never sat on a planning committee
they could declare it a conservation area

Quite a few old airfields are IIRC
These sort of things usually need someone to champion making them happen - otherwise the Council will be accused of dreaming up work generation schemes to keep planning officers busy.
#1674284
@rikur_ I think we probably are :) One small point is that (as a developer) I wouldn't search records for anything that wasn't on title since it would make any title quirks uninsurable. Planning is a separate matter to be is determined through existing uses / application / appeal.

CloudHound wrote:This may be germane to the subject.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-47163903

That's interesting. Scotland has different land laws to England & Wales which I only have a very sketchy knowledge of, but in essence I think the main difference is that E&W common land needs to be registered, and as such it will have rights and responsibilities transcribed into the title.

I'm not certain that the same requirement holds in Scotland so there's probably greater scope for challenge in a particular instance. One of our Scottish contingent probably has a much better knowledge of Scottish land law.
#1674408
I guess we will just have to wait and see, sadly I can't see me coming into the money I'd need to buy any of these stations from the RAF and turn them into a thriving GA hub.
#1674776
IMHO

Almost certainly I would expect Linton and Dishforth to become housing sites :(

Topcliffe will possibly also go that way with the Army retaining the domestic site but the airfield likely to be sold. :(

Leeming will remain as it is but from what I remember there is limited potential for expansion there if needed in the future.

What I find odd is that the RAF has a requirement for these sites in the 'big picture' of the defence estate but shows no interest in retaining them or maintaining them. Quicker, easier and cheaper to flog them off and then spend time moaning about their loss for the next 40 years. Government policy for the last 30 years has been to sell the 'family silver' for short term cash without looking at longer term planning.

Arc
By chevvron
#1675011
Arclite01 wrote:IMHO

Almost certainly I would expect Linton and Dishforth to become housing sites :(

Topcliffe will possibly also go that way with the Army retaining the domestic site but the airfield likely to be sold. :(

Leeming will remain as it is but from what I remember there is limited potential for expansion there if needed in the future.

What I find odd is that the RAF has a requirement for these sites in the 'big picture' of the defence estate but shows no interest in retaining them or maintaining them. Quicker, easier and cheaper to flog them off and then spend time moaning about their loss for the next 40 years. Government policy for the last 30 years has been to sell the 'family silver' for short term cash without looking at longer term planning.

Arc

Any site vacated by any of the services has to be offered to other government departments before being released to the open market, which is why there are so many prisons on old military airfields because the Home Office are always looking for new sites for prisons.
The army also like ex RAF airfields because the living accomodation is always superior to that on old army camps.
User avatar
By rikur_
#1675028
Arclite01 wrote:Almost certainly I would expect Linton and Dishforth to become housing sites :(

I'm perhaps more sceptical that Linton will end up as housing - there's loads of similar disused brownfield sites locally being used for little more than low value storage. It's not well connected to anywhere, and getting connectivity to the A1 would be costly because of floodplains. It would be an ideal location for a prison! Within the region there are far more desirable MoD sites being made available which are already pencilled into the local plans as potential future housing sites.

Dishforth seems more attractive, given it's effectively on the A1 with its own junction. Perhaps a distribution centre rather than housing.