UK Petition - Reclassify general aviation airfields as greenfield not brownfield sites

What does that mean? Green vs brown grass ?

I can’t find a legal definition, but my understanding of brownfield is land that has previously been developed (i.e. has buildings), but greenfield has not. I can’t see any difference between an airfield and a small farm, considering usage, type and number of buildings, or pollution/contamination. It’s loaded or emotive language: greenfield conjures images of virgin forest or pristine meadows, whilst brownfield paints a picture of a deprived and toxic industrial wasteland.

Of course, it would instantly devalue all airfields. They might be being run at cost on the understanding that the owners will make money when selling out to the property developers.

House building in the UK is regulated by ‘planning permission’, which in my opinion is an unacknowledged social problem. Gaining approval to build a house as an individual is near impossible. It’s done either by medium-sized local builders who play the system, usually buying plots where planning permission has failed; or big corporations who buy vast tracts of land, only to ration supply to keep prices artificially high.

Edit: I’m signature 843

The reality, which nobody will talk about openly, is that most of the airfield owners want to preserve the development value of their land, even though this exposes it to the property sharks. So pressure is being applied on the govt, under the table, to not do this.

Of course, it would instantly devalue all airfields. They might be being run at cost on the understanding that the owners will make money when selling out to the property developers.

Precisely.

@LeSving essentially what’s called ‘brownfield’ can (relatively) easily be developed into housing, whereas ‘greenfield’ cannot. IOW, classifying airfields as ‘greenfield’ gives them some protection from being turned into a housing estate.

11k votes now. The government has responded, basically saying no (see link in first post).

This is a response which someone got. I am sure it went to loads of people

We are not seeking to alter airfield classification at this current time.

The Government recognises the importance of the General Aviation (GA)
industry for supporting key services as well as training and commercial use.

Critical to GA’s success is the network of airfields which reflect the
diversity in the sector, differing in size and infrastructure capability,
ranging from smaller airfields focused on training and educational
opportunities, to larger regional and international business aviation hubs.
They all have an important role in supporting the aviation sector.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) emphasises that planning
policies should recognise the importance of maintaining a national network
of GA airfields and their need to adapt and change over time. The NPPF is a
material consideration in planning decisions, and each application is
judged on its individual merits. It is for local planning authorities to
make individual decisions based on the planning policy and guidance that
reflect the local context and engagement with local stakeholders. The
weight given to these considerations is a matter for the authority as the
decision taker in the first instance.

The NPPF encourages effective use of land in meeting development needs,
while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and
healthy living conditions. The NPPF states this should be in a way that
makes as much use as possible of brownfield land.

Brownfield land is defined in the NPPF as “land which is or was occupied by
a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land
(although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should
be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure”, with some
specific exclusions.

Airfield buildings and their curtilage are currently regarded as brownfield
land. However, as the policy above makes clear, it should not be assumed
that the whole of the curtilage of a brownfield site should be developed.

Applications for planning permission to redevelop airfields must be
determined in accordance with the development plan for the area unless
material considerations indicate otherwise.

Applications for the reuse or redevelopment of airfields must also be
considered in the context of wider national policy and account should be
taken of the Government’s General Aviation Strategy. The NPPF acknowledges
the significant contribution aviation makes to economic growth across the
country – expecting planning policies, where supported by robust evidence,
to identify and protect sites which could be critical in developing
infrastructure to widen transport choice.

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

Click this link to view the response online:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/660502?reveal_response=yes

The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response.
They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this
petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a
debate.

The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government
and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out
more about the Committee:
https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliamen

Admittedly, I know almost nothing about the planning intricacies in the UK, but I suspect there may be another way to prevent redevelopment even with the brownfield status: just because of their “near-greenfield” nature, only a relatively modest effort may be needed to boost on-site biodiversity to a level that is difficult to achieve for other types of development. Thus, Biodiversity Net Gain requirements for redevelopment can become an obstacle for the prospective developer. The most reliable (albeit the most difficult) approach would be to establish a colony of some critically endangered species that thrives in low-growing meadow environment.

Very good point

Another way is to put the land into a trust, and arrange it so that it can never be sold to a developer in the future. But no landowner wants to do that because a UK trust cannot be unilaterally voided (some offshore ones can be) so the land becomes worthless.

Funny thing – we did exactly this before

New government email: the petition will close early, on 29 May. Parliament is dissolving for the general election, so there will be no-one to consider petitions. Democracy in action