Brownfield Sites - Automatic Planning Permission

A number of heritage railways and railway centres are seeking to expand through track extensions and through the acquisition, where possible, of original structures which may be available. Many of these sites are "Brownfield" in nature. However, the proposals, to be found via the attached link, may mean that the abandoned track bed or railway yard that your Railway has its eye on for the longer term becomes covered with houses long before the Railway has found the money to buy the land. This has already happened in several cases (sometimes years ago when BR sold off railway land - Bishops Cleeve Station Yard being just one that I can name) but could speed up if this proposal becomes law. Might be worth some discussion. At present, these are just proposals of course and there is already much pressure on brownfield sites for development.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33472405

 

Sadly even the old planning rules failed to save many. Too many have disappeared under industrial/residential development as it is. Have you any in mind that are in danger?

 

I think Manston was pretty much doomed once Gloag got involved and sadly I don't think it will survive even if these proposals are rejected.
As for the "less used"ones, if they're active airfields then maybe they'll survive but difficult to make a case for an empty field to remain empty.

 

North Weald? Or has the immediate threat subsided now?

 

Don't believe any of today's alarmist headlines. You will find that the outcome is a tiny adjustment in what might be able to get through the system.

 

Not sure but if it's council owned then I'd say there is always a threat.

 

A lot of Old Sarum is likely to be built on, although currently it is planned to remain as n active airfield. Once the NIMBYs move in you wonder how long they'll wait before complaining about aircraft noise, though.

 

Wellesbourne airfield?

 

Sounds like another reason for removal of "linear scrapyards" but as a matter of real urgency.

PH

 

Thanks PH, I knew I could rely on you!

 

Don't worry, it will be treated differently. In general this is yet another great Ministerial announcement that will turn out to produce minor changes in emphasis in terms of decisions. I've seen it all before.

 

I reckon you are are absolutely right.
However I think railways need to have a care not to give substance to the argument "Any housing estate will be better to look at than the mess you have now."

Paul H

 

Where I live in the south-west midlands, brownfield sites are left undeveloped, and vast new housing estates go on productive farm land. Land mainly owned by the Church Commissioners who allegedly string up cosy deals with the council and developers.....Like a levy on each plot sold going towards the oft talked about bypass.
Any chance of said council refusing planning consent? No way...!!

 

The government doesn't do emotion when it comes to historical military sites. The MoD threatened to withdraw funding for the Battle of Britain Memorial Chapel at Biggin Hill until there was an outcry from many serving and former members of the RAF. Bawdsey, another historical site where Watson-Watt developed Radar, was sold off years ago. Shame really, as it was one of the best postings going.

 

Exactly, brownfield land has for a number of years been an area which was exception upon the normal Green Belt rules assuming that the proposal does't have a greater impact upon the openness of the area - this is just another example of an in-coming government making big eye catching statements regarding the planning system when actually you consider the substance it means little change.

 

Although this does seem to have sneaked under the radar (pun intended!) a little http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...control-room-that-foiled-hitler-10381355.html