Gatwick collection may be scrapped - Council decides

[Peter Mills]

To update anyone who has an interest in this subject, the decision was deferred on the 9th of June to enable a site visit by councillors. This duly took place and the new date for consideration is next week on the 6th of July. In advance of the first meeting (9/6/2011) the planning officer recommended refusal. Since then, what can only be described as a "hate campaign" has been launched by the local NIMBY groupies. If it wasn't so serious it would be hilarious. The quality and content of the objection letters is just so bad, as well as being so inaccurate. We live in hope....

It's altogether possible that if the application fails the enforcement order will be carried out. This will almost certainly result in the majority of the airframes being destroyed, certainly the larger ones. A sad end to many old warriors, for many years they kept the councillors safe, you'd think they would have the good grace to reciprocate!

Anyway, if you want to help, or read some really crass letters (follow the links) please visit the web site where we are at least trying to keep a sense of perspective.

It incomprehensible that in todays tough fiscal climate anyone would reject the investment of 8-10 million pounds of PRIVATE money into what is effectively a public facility. Replacing eight old, dirty, dilapidated chicken sheds with a new, ecologically sound museum building. A new woodland etc etc. I won't go on.

Thank you from the engineering team, we will continue to care for the airframes for as long as they exist!

Just one more request; anyone got a engine lifting beam for a Gyron Junior?
Tried the FAA museum, didn't get a reply, shame they seemed the best bet.
Thanks

Gatwick Aviation Museum - Planning application information

[Bruce]

A difficult situation, but one that has been ongoing for a long, long time.

I hope it can be resolved, but having read through the correspondence, I have to say I am not hopeful. Retrospective planning is always difficult to achieve - without considering the proposals for the new buildings.

GAM are, in my opinion, one of the premier organisations for active restoration of such aircraft, to keep them in as good a condition (and operable) as possible. It would be a serious loss to aviation preservation if it were lost.


Bruce

[TwinOtter23]

Very sorry to hear the news – is there any further lobbying or letter writing that can be done from the ‘pro-museum’ side?

Also I thought from PV’s last ‘email circular’ that there was some hope after the 'off-record comments’ noted from some of the councillors – again anyone in particular that needs to be sent letters etc?

[avion ancien]

Is my memory correct when I say that I think that this issue came up in the form of an earlier thread on this forum, when a planning application had not been submitted and the initiator of the thread was encouraging people to write to the planning authority in support of the then unsubmitted application? Sadly the search engine does not enable one to go back far enough to find this thread - if my memory of it is correct. But if it is correct, much seems to have happened in the meantime. Assuming that there are others like me, who were unaware of what has happened in the intervening period of time, might it be useful, Peter, to post a synopsis of this so that the present situation can be viewed in context?

[XF828]

Reading some of the documentation has resulted in damage to my desk as I have chewed the edge off of it. The utter insanity of the current planning process is depressing. For instance, Gatwick Airport are more or less happy with the plans as long as trees are chosen that are not attractive to birdlife so that the bird strike risk doesn't go up... but "Natural England" (who the ... are they) want nesting boxes and bat roosts!! I fear with all the talk of "strategic gaps" and "coalescence" that Peter's chances of fulfilling his dream here will be lost in a soup of PC bull****. Perhaps the Sewerage Coalition (there's bound to be one) may comment on such.

[TwinOtter23]

Having recently fought and 'partially lost' a Planning Appeal against a soil storage scheme on land adjacent to Newark Air Museum; as a minimum I would suggest that you appeal any decision – in the soil storage case it was originally refused permission by the District Council but granted (conditionally) by the Planning Inspector on Appeal.

[avion ancien]

That's sensible advice, TwinOtter23. But one shouldn't lose sight of the cost of a planning appeal. The applicant/appellant won't have the council tax payers to fund his/her costs of representation, expert evidence and suchlike!

[Dr Strangelove]

Well, I just fired an email to the planners, doubt it'll do much good, but gives one a feel good factor.

You know there is a certain newspaper (some on here would dispute it being called that) that loves stories such as these,I might just bring it to their attention. Hopefully they'll dispatch a stormtroope...sorry reporter, to boot MV Planning right in the nads.

[TwinOtter23]

From what bit’s of information I’ve seen from GAM they’ve already covered a lot of the bases with their application and seem to have a good set of advisors on board – go for it GAM, don’t let them win!

Are there any specific councillors supporting the application?

If so they need letters and / or emails of encouragement – also are the contacts for the original ‘support letters’ still valid?

Also where does the local MP stand in this?

[mjr]

Very sorry to hear the news – is there any further lobbying or letter writing that can be done from the ‘pro-museum’ side?

Also I thought from PV’s last ‘email circular’ that there was some hope after the 'off-record comments’ noted from some of the councillors – again anyone in particular that needs to be sent letters etc?

Yes, the best bet folks is to email the chief planing officer. your input will be published within 48hrs on the council website

* The Chief Planning Officer
* Mole Valley District Council
* Pippbrook
* Dorking
* Surrey
* RH4 1SJ

or email:- planning@molevalley.gov.uk. using MO/2011/0190 as a reference..

As for appeal. We WILL definitely be going to appeal should the decision go against us next week, and if necessary Public enquiry and further. If the council thought we were going to go away without an epic fight, they are sadly mistaken..we are just getting warmed up! Of note is the fact that we only need a majority of 8 to 7 to get the decision in favour. While you may think that the letters make no difference, it may be true of next weeks decision, however every single letter of support WILL count at appeals, since they all have to be read by an independant planning inspector at public enquiry.

May I also add that Peter is not exagerating above. There is a very real possibilty that the council will enforce the notice this time, and fight to get the airframes crushed, as he has already mention, this will almost certainly spell the end for almost all of them asides from those that are straight forward to transport.

[pagen01]

Lets hope it dosn't come to the council decision going against you, it is staggering that this type of planning problem can happen on what was a ramshackle industrial unit adjacent to the country's second busiest airport.
Can I just clarify though, is this in regard to your new buildings and plans, or for your museum to remain at its current site in any form?
Personally I think the council will see the 'anti' letters for what they are, and hopefully will be more swayed by the vistors that turn up and you propsal for nicer buildings.
I would be careful about getting papers involved and what you say on forums though, certainly until the decission has been made one way or the other, and you know what you need to do next.

[mjr]

Can I just clarify though, is this in regard to your new buildings and plans, or for your museum to remain at its current site in any form?

James Both......

we will be sticking to the facts only on this thread. So please only constructive comments folks. You can say what ever you like to the council, all we ask is that you do it by email to the address provided above.

planning@molevalley.gov.uk. using MO/2011/0190 as a reference..

BTW its not "new" buildings, they are two "replacement" buildings covering the same footprint as the 8 old buildings combined. materially the new buildings condense the entire site to take up less overall site area. Ultimately the entire site ends up with more green field, since the aiframes no longer take up the large area they currently do outside.

[Peter Mills]

Thanks for the support shown here.

It all started about 18 months ago when Peter Vallance was told by the Development Control Officer that "there was a wind of change in the council" and that a planning application would most likely to be looked on favourably. Up to this point he had not considered taking such action. An experienced consultant was engaged, one with a lot of experience of "green belt" planning. It may be worth saying at this point that when the land was purchased it was NOT in the green belt, only 8 years later did the council extend the belt to include the land. In Feb this year the planning app was presented, approx 75 documents including just about every survey you could imagine. We were pleased to see that there was no need to rehome any "great crested newts", we don't have any! Just to lodge the application with the council cost almost £20,000. Total costs to date are little over £80,000.

Locally there are a number of pressure groups, oddly they all have the same address! They use misinformation and FUD to drum up local and not-so-local opposition. The planning dept don't help by biasing the report against the application, facts are sadly not admissible apparently. Unlike previous occasions’, a couple of councillors kept away from the bias and rhetoric and actually introduced some sense. It was their insistence on a site visit that made them defer the decision until this had been completed. There are inevitably a number of long standing council members who are opposed no matter what the facts are.
So, we are not out yet, just feels like the water is at chin level!

There is no doubt that over the years Peter V has "ruffled a few feathers" and there's a lot of personal animosity. Just a little insight to local events. A cafe in the village supports the application and the owner has started a petition for her customers to sign. The clerk of the Parish council and a objector, saw the petition and asked her to give him the names of those who had signed in support. Needless to say she refused, but did invite him to sign. He declined.

It has been suggested that all of this may have been orchestrated by the council to bring this whole matter to a conclusion without them having to use the enforcement order without first having tried to resolve it. Seems a little far fetched. We know that there are councillors who can see the benefits of replacing eight old, dirty, dilapidated chicken sheds with an environmentally sound new building, they even understand that the building have legal right to exist in the "green belt". They also understand that the proposal is to replace these. Not add to the site. But, boy is that difficult to get through to some people. I just hope that the decision will be based in the merits of this application without all of the previous baggage clouding the issue. A forlorn hope I'm sad to say. It has, for me, highlighted the constitution and running of local councils.

You will have seen my colleague Miltons input(s) by now, he's correct in what he says.

The major points raised by the objectors is the "development in the green belt". This is not development but replacement, the so-called Charlwood gap is actually increased and so on.

Anyway, apologies for the length of this little rantett, obviously you can see that we are passionate about preserving our airframes, not just for ourselves but for all, not just now, but for generations to come.

So, any emails/letters that you write in support will be appreciated, perhaps more than we can express. I know that since I started this a number of comments have been made. We/I will try to address these, ideally using fewer words!

[baloffski]

Chaps,

I am the first to admit that I have the attention span of a goldfish with ADHD and there are some long old explanations up ther. I wonder could some kind soul do a quick bullet brief as to what has happened and what outcome you are fighting for please.

That way I can send a concise email to the right people and say the right things rather than blunder in with my size 11s!

[Bruce]

Support email sent.

[Peter D Evans]

...and from me too...

Cheers
Pete

[Bruce]

Peter (Mills!)

Please be careful what you write about the council on this and other sites, including blogs, as it will be used against you!



Bruce

[Peter Mills]

Yes, Thank you Bruce. I am well aware of what I am saying, but I do appreciate the warning. The Blog was intended to be a lighterhearted look at the offbeat side of the issue.

I am currently writing a report about my findings (with some recommendations) about local government constitution and operation. Hence my very close interest in the way in which this application is being dealt with. I intend to send it to the relevant government department for consideration.

I recently wrote to the three local councillors that serve my ward, only one replied. Just one small example of the way in which representation is actually working (not) in the current system.

[AdlerTag]

Peter,

Before I send any support emails and so on, which I'm quite happy to do, I'd appreciate a run-down of the possible consequences of what the refusal would mean. Refusal of planning permission is different to threatening a tenant with eviction and the crushing of assets still on that patch of land. How is it that the council might have the authority to come in and crush exhibits, for example? If they are privately owned, how does the council have any say in what happens to them?

[TwinOtter23]

Email sent.

A couple of years ago I help orchestrate a similar campaign to help stop a major road development scheme from closing a Scouting Site in Nottinghamshire – in that campaign I found it very effective to target the councillors on the Borough Council Planning Committee and also the County Councillors responsible roads and transportation.

Have you done something like that? You should be able to identify their responsibilities off the Council website.

Don’t back off the publicity with the local media in advance of the meeting – it’s easier to influence the process before the decision is taken.

Also I would especially urge any forumites in the Charlwood / Gatwick area to ensure that they make contact with the council as your input could carry greater weight than those of us that are located away from the area.

[Peter Mills]

Alder Tag,

After a previous failed attempt to get permission it went to public enquiry. To cut a long story short, an enforcement notice was made on the owner to remove them from the site. Although the council did not enforce the notice. This was because of pressure from many sources modified their stance and they acted reasonably and allowed the owner to make strenuous efforts to find alternative locations for the aircraft/museum. He has been trying for nearly 20 years and has had a number of planning applications turned down, including one at Shoreham airport. I'm not sure how many sites have been approached somewhere in the region of 20. If the order is enforced and he does not comply he can be fined £10,000 per day. Clearly no-one can afford this. The cheapest alternative is to crush/break them. Moving is always touted as an alternative, that may work for the smaller airframes, still expensive, but the big ones, no chance. The original post did make the point about some airframes.
Even Duxford can't get anyone to take their MKIII Shack, they've been trying since late last year. It's just too expensive to dismantle and transport. That may well end up as saucepans.

So that's how the council has a say in what happens, if they enforce the notice.

[Ross_McNeill]

Setting up as a replacement for Manston Gents?

Seems that aviation still has a use for the collection site.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-13988862

Regards
Ross

[Peter Mills]

Thanks TO23 (Howard) for all of your input, as always drawing on some elses knowledge and experience is very valuable. Yes we did specifically address the councillors on the planning committee. A couple of them made their own site visits and as a consequence seemed able to understand the whole picture and not get bogged down in how many trees would have to be removed. In fact they spoke a lot of sense at the meeting without showing any obvious bias.

Thanks again.

[AdlerTag]

Thanks for the explanation Peter, it certainly is a very frustrating position to be in. My apologies if I'm asking a stupid question, but could you please clarify what the relationship is between the planning application and the enforcement notice? Why does the failure of the one automatically lead to the implementation of the other?

[Peter Mills]

It's not necessarily an automatic response, but is a likely consequence of the failed application. Interestingly, that very question was asked by the plannng committee chairwoman of the chief planning officer. His response was it wasn't necessarily the case. We were warned of the possiblity by a solicitor when he saw the outcome of the first planning meeting.

[pagen01]

Even Duxford can't get anyone to take their MKIII Shack, they've been trying since late last year. It's just too expensive to dismantle and transport. That may well end up as saucepans.

It is absolutely crazy that the IWM want to get rid of the only post-war maritime aircraft in their collection and the only Shackleton displayed in a national collection.
Why do they want rid of it?
It shows how precarious things are that it is possible (though very unlikely i hope) to lose three Shackleton Mk.3s in fairly short order.

[J31/32]

Could it be 4 including the Long Marston example?

[pagen01]

Good point, but I regard that one as almost a total loss anyway.
For Duxford to want to get rid of such an aircraft from its collection is just very shortsighted.

[JT442]

A decision regarding XF708 is with the IWM trustees as we speak. Have faith.

Can we get back to supporting Gatwick?....

[mjr]

thanks for all the support so far gents, keep it coming. the more emails the better and yes as interesting as the Duxford situation is, can we ask for that subject to be discussed on a diferent thread.