It’s a bit of a waste of time but in case anybody wants to have a look here it is:
“We want the UK to be the best place in the world for general aviation”
Well good luck…
In the same vein, the acting head of the GA unit of the CAA is interviewed in
Go to 30:26 timestamp.
Apparently they are reviewing the CAP1404 document. From where we start from it can only be an improvement
Completely “non answer” interview, but this is to be expected.
I was at a conference about 10 years ago where the same questions were asked and the same answers given. The only new thing mentioned here was EGNOS and we already knew the answer.
Ultimately the government can do very little to help GA. They could change planning classification – the old green versus brown debate – and they should but they probably won’t because most airfield landowners don’t want it (but of course won’t say so publicly) because it would destroy the value of their land. GA’s problem is the image: a mostly shagged fleet, disorganised schools, an utterly dreadful and inappropriate syllabus (I have been helping my son with PPL theory and I am horrified at the utter crap which is in the exams, maintained by a load of ex RAF old farts who have never been past the crease in the map, and which will make anybody with a brain wonder WTF they are doing learning this), most people dropping out right away, a near-useless social scene which has almost no women and the men are mostly cantankerous old codgers (like myself 
), etc. Most of the schools are nearly bankrupt and always have been – example. Another thread. This stuff needs to be tackled from within; the govt can do sod-all.
We have a Transport minister now who is a GA pilot, but he can’t do anything obviously proactively otherwise the trash media will dismantle him; they have already tried. I only hope that he does things perhaps more quietly, but right now his desk is full of CV19 issues, how to open up travel, how to deal with vaccine passports which are a red hot topic with the civil liberties / anti vaxxer crowds getting stuck into it, etc.
Sadly, this comes to mind, and the chap is now trying to sell own-brand t-shirts and such. I wish him luck, of course… He used to work for the BBC.
I saw both of these too – apart from the Electronic Conspicuity fund, nothing to say!
The one thing they could do which would instantly make a massive difference is to reverse the planning decision made approx 15 years ago that Airfields are zoned as brownfield sites. Or alternatively, add to the planning designation that if you destroy an airfield you have to create another within 5 miles.
The second thing would be politically easier to do but would have the same effect as there are enough NIMBY’s to stop new airfields (so hence stopping the destruction of an old one)
This would save Plymouth Airport overnight where there are willing buyers for the Council owned long lease but the present leaseholder (Sutton Harbour Holdings) just want to build a load of houses all over it.
I think the point is that airfield owners are covertly lobbying the govt against the turning of their sites to green field status, because it would destroy their land value.
Green field land is worth nothing. Typically of the order of a few k per acre; it is what a farmer might pay for it, 100s of acres at a time.
Even those who are 100% in favour of running it as an airfield until the day they die and beyond, still (mostly; I am sure this is not 100%) don’t want to make it worth nothing into the future. For a start, that kills investment, because your current income is coming from a group of often bickering pilots, slagging off your £20 landing fee all over FB…
Just a side question for someone outside the UK: What is the distinction between “green field” and “brown field” land? Is it “land for building” vs “land for farming”?
medewok.
Yes basically. Brown field traditionally was abandoned industrial / commercial. Think former docklands, mills, etc. Farmland is greenfield and is very difficult to develop upon.
It’s much easier to get permission to develop brown field sites for housing which is very profitable.
I think it was the G Brown who was to blame for the re designation of airfields, when he wasn’t busy selling off our gold reserves at bargain basement prices.
@MedEwok, it’s not about the intended use but rather the past use. Greenfield is an undeveloped or agricultural land (essentially, land with the vegetation covering most of it, no roads, no amenities, etc.), brownfield is previously developed (the vegetation stripped).
Thank you for the explanation. This distinction does not exist in German planning laws AFAIK.
The distinction is only important because the state of the housing market in the UK (vastly inflated sale prices when compared to the cost of building) means that getting permission to build houses on some land is a licence to print money.
If you are a farmer who owns some fields on the edge of a small town and can get permission for a housing estate then you’re a multi-millionaire overnight when permission is granted. Same for an airfield owner (who is one step ahead in the planning process).
