Rural Airfields: National Survey Data and Technical Report

Rural Airfields: National Survey Data and Technical Report

Document 3 Grant Number: R000222539

Technical Report: April 1999 Nick Gallent, Joe Howe and Philip Bell

Department of Planning and Landscape University of Manchester Submitted to ESRC: 30.04.99

UK Data Archive Study Number 3994

Local Planning on Rural Airfields, 1998

2

Contents

1

Introduction

3

2 Project Description 4

3 Application of Methodology

7

Annex A: Data Variable Listing 11

Annex B: Questionnaire 25

Annex C: Project Bibliography 34

3

1. Introduction

Technical Report Structure 1.1 This report accompanies the data set deposited with the ESRC Data Archive and relates to the national survey of planning authorities in England and Wales, undertaken as a core element of the wider Airfields project. 1.2 The report has two parts; the first provides a general description of the project, paying particular attention to the focus of the national survey. The second part explores the issue of data collection, relating the rationale of particular methods to the nature of the data collected during the course of the survey. In this overview, we are particularly concerned with issues of data quality, inputting and management.

1.3 A full listing of data set variables, along with a copy of the survey questionnaire and a complete project bibliography are appended to this report.

4

2. Project Description

Project Aims 2.1 The broader aims of this project have been outlined in the Final Report. For the sake of brevity, they are merely summarised at this point: Phase 1: Background

To locate airfield development within a broader context of development concerns;

To explore historical patterns before considering contemporary concerns;

To highlight the national and regional frameworks governing airfield re-use;

To explore existing data sets. Phase 2: Local Planning

To consider the pressures facing airfields as potential centres of development opportunity:

1. A review of the extent and

nature of airfield re-use; 2. An assessment of the number

of sites where new uses and flying co-exist.

To examine how planning – within local frameworks – regulates new development pressures and flying activity on rural airfields; this was to be achieved via:

1. An assessment of local

planning practice (relating to new uses) on airfields;

2. A review of local planning’s treatment of aviation and an assessment of the role that

land-use planning plays in relation to local flying;

To assess the compatibility of different uses on airfields.

Phase 3: Community and Wider Concerns

To consider wider community-based concerns:

1. Contact with national agencies

with experience in dealing with airfield issues;

2. Local case studies, involving semi-structured interviews with local groups.

Phase 4: Synthesis and Dissemination

To bring together the various findings within a coherent structure.

The National Survey 2.2 Again, the rationale of this particular approach and focus is outlined in the Final Report. In this Technical Report, we are concerned with the data set created during Phase 2 of the project, which is now to be deposited with the ESRC Data Archive. 2.3 The data set discussed here was created following a postal survey of local planning authorities [LPAs] across England and Wales: 284 in England, 22 in Wales and 11 National Park Authorities [NPAs].

5

Entities Studied 2.4 The national postal survey of LPAs and NPAs across England and Wales was concerned with the technical knowledge and views of local authority planning officers, irrespective of professional grade. Officers responding within particular authorities tended to be those with a particular responsibility either for airfields or for the areas in which airfields were located. 2.5 The following grades of planning officers responded to the postal survey: Grade % Head/Manager/Director 14 Principal/Leader 36 Senior 20 Officer 15 Assistant 15 Questionnaire Foci 2.6 The design of the questionnaire and its various component parts is considered in the Final Report. Here, we simply list the main sections and relate these to the operational objectives for Phase 2 of the project (noted above). (NB: P=Phase; OB=Objective) 1. Personal Details: general respondent contact details for response referencing; 2. Airfields in District: details of airfields within the district by type (used or disused); 3. Regulation of Flying Activity (P2: OB2.2): details of the way in which the LPA seeks to control flying on the district’s airfields. The structure of this section was informed by an analysis of Supplementary Planning Guidance [SPG] from various local authorities, and in particular, from South Cambridgeshire District Council;

4. Other activities/land-uses on the district's airfields (P2: OB1.1-1.2): details of other activities (shows, festivals etc) or land uses (housing, industry etc) present on airfields within the district. The likely categories of re-use were discerned from existing data-sets (i.e., Willis and Holliss, 1987) and preliminary site visits (to Stratford on Avon District); 5. Regulation of other activities/land-uses on the district's airfields (P2: OB2.1): details of how the LPA sought to regulate land-use on airfields – in particular, an assessment of special considerations or any presumptions in favour of specific development types on airfields; 6. Planning applications, approvals and dismissals: an optional section where LPAs were given the opportunity to list recent planning applications; 7. Impacts – real and perceived (P2: OB3): details of the respondent’s (i.e. a planning professional’s) views on the compatibility of flying and new land uses. Details were also requested on the involvement of local people with airfield planning applications (e.g., public inquiries) whilst the respondent was asked to respond to pre-prepared statements on the suitability/merits/drawbacks of development on airfields; 8. Further information required (for case study selection): finally, other relevant material was also requested. A full copy of the questionnaire can be found in Annex B of this report. Geographical Coverage 2.7 As already indicated, the project was concerned with LPAs within England and Wales. More specifically, it had a rural focus, being principally concerned with those airfields that could be used as barometers of broader “countryside planning” issues.

6

2.8 For this reason, it was necessary to consider those LPAs with largely “rural” characteristics. A sub set of all LPAs in England was selected, using Cloke’s (1986) classification of rural authorities. This resulted in the selection of 284 English authorities. In Wales, it was decided that all 22 unitary authorities should be examined and, across both countries, all 11 NPAs were sent postal questionnaires.

2.9 An aggregate response rate of 47.6 per cent was achieved; almost 46 per cent of all LPAs, 27 per cent of NPAs and 2.5 per cent refusals. A description of the efforts employed to maximise the response rate is again provided within the Final Report. 2.10 The survey was essentially a full census of all rural planning authorities, rather than a limited sample of those with particular characteristics.

7

3. Application of Methodology

Data Collection 3.1 National data from LPA/NPA planning officers was collected via a postal survey. The process of executing this survey is described below. 3.2 In May 1998, questionnaires were dispatched to 284 planning departments in English District and Unitary Authorities. In July 1998, additional questionnaires were sent to the 22 Welsh unitary authorities and 11 National Park Authorities in England and Wales. A total of 317 planning authorities were contacted and 151 questionnaires were returned. 3.3 Fifty-eight per cent of all responses had been received by the end of May; this figure increased to 73 per cent by the end of June. In July reminder letters were sent to all non-responding LPAs with authorities being asked to respond by a 31st July deadline: 93 per cent of responses had been returned by this date and the final response was received at the end of October. Instructions to Respondents 3.4 Covering letters were sent out with all questionnaires, providing potential respondents with an overview of the purpose of the research and instructing them as to how the questionnaire should be completed. A copy of this covering letter is provided in Box 1. 3.5 A similar set of instructions was dispatched with the second wave of questionnaires to non-responding authorities. In both cases, authorities were provided with postage-paid return envelopes.

Data Management 3.6 One member of the research team was assigned the task of managing both the mail out of questionnaires and the filing of returned responses. 3.7 On receipt of a questionnaire, the first task was to check off the name of the respondent authority on the pre-prepared “reminder mailing list”. The questionnaire was then dated and given an identifier number within a box marked for “office use only” (see Annex B). 3.8 During the first few months following the mail out, questionnaires were being returned a rate of about 10 each week. At the end of each week, the following data quality tasks were undertaken with each batch of new questionnaires: 1. Extent of Completion: Some responses were more complete than others and, in some instances, omissions in the data had to be noted prior to data entry; 2. Logic Checking: Information was collected on both broad issues and concerns on particular airfields. It was possible that responses relating to individual sites were not then taken forward in “overview” sections – as was being requested. Any logic problems – or problems relating to “routing issues” were noted and raised during collective discussions.

8

Box 1: Letter to LPAs

1st May 1998

Dear Chief Planning Officer,

Re: Alternative land-uses on small airfields

A team of researchers from the University of Manchester are currently undertaking a research

project examining the effectiveness of planning guidance in relation to existing and new land uses on small airfields and aerodromes. This research is being funded by the Economic and

Social Research Council (ESRC) and the findings will be published in 1999.

As part of the study, we are consulting with Chief Officers from Local Planning Authorities across

England and Wales and asking them to complete a short questionnaire (enclosed) which focuses on airfields in their local district. The results from this part of the study will help us build a

clearer picture of new activities/land uses on airfields and the way in which these uses are regulated.

Your assistance with this research - which is intended to be policy-relevant - would

be much appreciated. The questionnaire is eight pages in length and designed to be as user-

friendly as possible. You will note that the final section (8) asks for additional relevant information which might include:

1. Relevant sections from your Local Plan's Written Statement;

2. Copies of any relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance produced by the LPA;

3. Copies of related policy documents; 4. Copies of any appeals/decisions letters relating to activity on the District's flying sites.

Inclusion of additional material may preclude the need to fill out some of the more time-

consuming parts of the questionnaire. However, I should add that the most detailed responses

are likely to be the most useful in terms of fulfilling the aims of our research. Finally, I should stress that we are working to an extremely tight schedule and hope that completed

questionnaires can be returned to the above address as soon as possible - stamped/addessed reply envelopes have been enclosed for this purpose.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Manchester team and the ESRC, to

thank you for your participation in this research project. Responses returned at this stage will be

used as a framework for selecting case-studies. It is therefore possible that we will be contacting you again before the end of this year.

Yours faithfully

Dr N Gallent

Lecturer in Planning

9

Data Quality and Cleaning 3.9 Stokes of good fortune are rarely the hall-mark of postal surveys – which are often plagued by poor response rates and inconsistent questionnaire completion. 3.10 That said, during the data checking, the team members encountered very few logic or consistency problems. On a few occasions, it appeared that respondents had succumbed to questionnaire fatigue and had failed to complete particular sections or had not managed to reach the end of the questionnaire. On these occasions, the only option was to leave responses blank and, during data entry, record these as “missing values”. 3.11 In other instances, single yes/no responses were missing, but logical answers could be discerned from previous responses. For instance, in reply to a previous open-ended question, the respondents may have indicated that “the LPA uses planning conditions to regulate flying activity”, but had then subsequently failed to tick a box indicating the use of conditions. In this case, a positive response to the yes/no question would have been assumed. 3.12 But to reiterate the point made above, questionnaires were – on the whole – completed with a high degree of accuracy and few response problems were encountered. Where errors did occur, these were normally registered as “missing responses” once the process of data entry began. 3.13 This report now focuses on the data base created on the basis of survey responses.

Format and Data Structure 3.14 The database was created within SPSS for Windows (version 8.0.0). The deposited database is held in the same format. 3.15 The data matrix comprises 151 cases (rows) and 195 data variables (columns). The rows correspond directly with planning authority responses whilst the columns represent coded responses to closed-ended questions or re-coded responses to open-ended responses. Data variables are either alphanumeric (string) or numeric (numerically coded responses). Individual variables and data labels are described below. Data Variables 3.16 Using SPSS, it is possible to create a listing of all data variables. In Annex A, all 195 variables are listed and the sections to which they correspond are also noted. This listing also indicates the data coding used within the SPSS matrix. Annex A provides the variable identifier (i.e., v176.XX), a description of the variable (i.e., use of conditions?) and a listing of the coded data labels where appropriate. 3.17 The extensive listing of the 195 variables provided in Annex A answers a number of questions regarding the data matrix. It shows: 1. How data variables relate to the

primary data collected during the course of the postal survey;

2. The number of variables (relating to the 151 cases) and the way these are labelled (where there are multiple coded answers);

3. The way responses have been coded – e.g. Yes=1; No=0;

10

3.18 Annex A provides a reference listing which can act as a guide for future analysis of the Airfield survey database. 3.19 It was indicated above that the data set is now held in SPSS for Windows and can, therefore be accessed using any compatible software, though full manipulation will require the use of SPSS. Confidentiality 3.20 Questionnaires were completed under the proviso that all responses would be treated as strictly confidential. This does not preclude the publication of analyses that present responses in aggregate. However, referenced quotations from individual (named) respondents would not be acceptable.

Bibliography 3.21 A full project bibliography is appended to this report – see Annex C.

11

Annex A: Data Variable Listing

Description of 195 variables

Name Position

Office use only information:

V1.REF Reference No. (LPA, NPA or Welsh) 1

V2.DATE Date Questionnaire Received 2

Section 1: Respondent Details

V3.LOCAL Name of Local Authority or National Park 3

V4.NAME Name of Planning Officer 8

V5.POST Post Held by Respondent 11

V6.USED Number of USED flying sites 18

99 Unknown

V7.SITE1 USED Flying Site 1 19



V10.SIT4 USED Flying Site 4 31



V13.DIS Number of DISUSED flying sites 40

99 Unknown

V14.SIT1 DISUSED Flying Site 1 41






V20.MAJ Any major airports in the district? 63

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V21.MAJ1 First named major airport 64

V22.MAJ2 Second named major airport 68

V23.INFO Accurate and up-to-date information? 71

0 No

1 Yes

12

3 No response

Section 3: Regulation of Flying Activity

V24.REGU Active regulation of FLYING ACTIVITY? 72

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V25.HOW How is regulation achieved? 73

V26.CODE Regulation code (for string variable 25) 105

0 No regulation/not applicable

1 MoD/Military Aerodrome

2 Section 52/106 Agreements

3 Monitoring (of complaints/issues)

4 Not specified

5 Re-development briefs

6 Licensing

V27.COND Planning CONDITIONS for regulating flying? 106

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V28.TIME Regulation of FLYING TIMES 107

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V29.ENG Regulation of AIRCRAFT ENGINE SIZE 108

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V30.TAKE Regulation of NO. OF TAKE-OFFS/LANDINGS 109

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V31.AERO Regulation of AEROBATIC MANOEUVRES 110

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V32.PATH Regulation of FLIGHT PATHS 111

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V33.TYPE Regulation of TYPES OF AIRCRAFT USED 112

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V34.OTH Regulation of OTHER 113

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V35.DAIL Regulation of DAILY flying times 114

13

0 No

1 Yes

V36.MONT Regulation of MONTHY flying times 115

0 No

1 Yes

V37.YEAR Regulation of YEARLY flying times 116

0 No

1 Yes

V38.ASP Other aspects of flying activity regulated via the use of co 117

V39.CODE Other Aspects Code (for variable 38) 142

1 Small aircraft only

2 Full "operational code"

3 Noise

4 Number of aircraft flying at any one time

5 Other flying activities (gliding, ballooning etc)

6 Other flying related uses

7 Type of flying (e.g., leisure only or no training)

8 Prevent activities conflicting with flying

V40.SIT1 Site 1 with specific conditions 143

l: Nominal

V41.CON1 Conditions on site 1 146







V48.SAFE Safeguarding of flying sites? 183

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V49.COMM Further comments regarding regulation of flying activity? 184

V50.CODE Comments re. regulation (code for variable 49) 216

0 No comment

1 Noise is PRIMARY consideration

2 Conditions governing FLIGHT PROTOCOL

3 Conditions difficult to enforce/out-dated

4 Safety is PRIMARY consideration

5 Established use - difficult to regulate

Section 4: Other Activities/Land-uses on District’s Airfields

V51.MARK Activity on ACTIVE field: MARKET TRADING 217

0 No

1 Yes

V52.MOTO Activity on ACTIVE field: MOTOR SPORTS 218

0 No

14

1 Yes

V53.MUS Activity on ACTIVE field: MUSEUMS 219

0 No

1 Yes

V54.RETA Activity on ACTIVE field: RETAIL PARKS 220

0 No

1 Yes

V55.IND Activity on ACTIVE field: INDUSTRIAL PARKS 221

0 No

1 Yes

V56.BUS Activity on ACTIVE field: BUSINESS PARKS 222

0 No

1 Yes

V57.SHOW Activity on ACTIVE field: SHOWS/FESTIVALS 223

0 No

1 Yes

V58.HOUS Activity on ACTIVE field: HOUSING 224

0 No

1 Yes

V59.BOOT Activity on ACTIVE field: CAR BOOT SALES 225

0 No

1 Yes

V60.OTH Activity on ACTIVE field: OTHER 226

0 No

1 Yes

V61.MARK Activity on INACTIVE field: MARKET TRADING 227

0 No

1 Yes

V62.MOTO Activity on INACTIVE field: MOTOR SPORTS 228

0 No

1 Yes

V63.MUS Activity on INACTIVE field: MUSEUMS 229

0 No

1 Yes

V64.RETA Activity on INACTIVE field: RETAIL PARKS 230

0 No

1 Yes

V65.IND Activity on INACTIVE field: INDUSTRIAL PARKS 231

0 No

1 Yes

V66.BUS Activity on INACTIVE field: BUSINESS PARKS 232

0 No

1 Yes

15

V67.SHOW Activity on INACTIVE field: SHOWS/FESTIVALS 233

0 No

1 Yes

V68.HOUS Activity on INACTIVE field: HOUSING 234

0 No

1 Yes

V69.BOOT Activity on INACTIVE field: CAR BOOT SALES 235

0 No

1 Yes

V70.OTH Activity on INACTIVE field: OTHER 236

0 No

1 Yes

V71.ACT Other land-uses on ACTIVE fields 237

V72.INAC Other land-uses on INACTIVE fields 250

V73.AF1 Airfield 1 282

V74.MARK Activity on INACTIVE field: MARKET TRADING 285

0 No

1 Yes

V75.MOTO Activity on specific field: MOTOR SPORTS 286

0 No

1 Yes

V76.MUS Activity on specific field: MUSEUMS 287

0 No

1 Yes

V77.RETA Activity on specific field: RETAIL PARKS 288

0 No

1 Yes

V78.IND Activity on specific field: INDUSTRIAL PARKS 289

0 No

1 Yes

V79.BUS Activity on specific field: BUSINESS PARKS 290

0 No

1 Yes

V80.SHOW Activity on specific field: SHOWS/FESTIVALS 291

0 No

1 Yes

V81.HOUS Activity on specific field: HOUSING 292

0 No

1 Yes

V82.BOOT Activity on specific field: CAR BOOT SALES 293

0 No

1 Yes

16

V83.OTH Activity on specific field: OTHER 294

0 No

1 Yes


V85.MARK Activity on specific field: MARKETS 298

0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes

V91.SHOW Activity on specific field: SHOWS/FESTIVALS 304

0 No

1 Yes

V92.HOUS Activity on specific field: HOUSING 305

0 No

1 Yes

V93.BOOT Activity on specific field: CAR BOOT SALES 306

0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


V96.MARK Activity on specific field: MARKETS 312

0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


17

0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes

V102.SHO Activity on specific field: SHOWS/FESTIVALS 318

0 No

1 Yes

V103.HOU Activity on specific field: HOUSING 319

0 No

1 Yes

V104.BOO Activity on specific field: CAR BOOT SALES 320

0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


V107.MAR Activity on specific field: MARKETS 325

0 No

1 Yes

V108.MOT Activity on specific field: MOTOR SPORTS 326

0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes

V110.RET Activity on specific field: RETAIL PARKS 328

0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


18

0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes



0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


Value Label

0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes

19



0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes


0 No

1 Yes

V139.AF Name of Airfield 361

V140.TYP Type of activity/land-use 364

V141.DET Details (size of scheme etc.) 377

Section 5: Regulation of other Activities/land-uses on the district’s airfields

V142.REF Specific references in local plan re. use of airfields 402

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V143.ALL Do references cover ALL activity or FLYING only? 403

1 All

2 Flying only

20

3 No response

V144.DET Details of local plan references? 404

V145.COD Code for references (from variable 144) 429

1 Greenbelt designation affecting fields

2 Active airfield about to close

3 Seen as suitable for a variety of uses

4 Policies precluding non-flying uses

5 Detailed policies relating to particular use (e.g., m-sport)

6 Prevent intensification (of flying)

V146.PRE Presumption in favour of devt on airfield sites? 430

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V147.TYP Types of development which might be favoured? 431

V148.COD Code for favoured devt (from variable 147) 444

1 Business (employment) uses

2 Uses limited by siting (Green Belt/AONB/open c.)

3 Housing

4 Range of activities on INACTIVE sites

5 Small industrial uses

6 Agriculture

7 Aviation-related facilities/uses

8 Access for public (open space use)

9 Retain AVIATION function

10 New settlement

11 Wide range of uses

12 Impossible to be specific

V149.ENC Favoured devt actively encouraged? 445

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V150.CR1 First named criteria 446

V151.CO1 Code for criteria 1 (from variable 150) 459

1 Limited development area

2 Requires AIRPORT location

3 Scale

4 Visual Impact

5 Type of development

6 Local amenity impact

7 Site in open countryside/designated area?

8 National guidance

9 Is it essential for aviation?

10 Development plan policies

11 Brownfield location

12 Viability of development

13 Interests of agriculture

V152.CR2 Second named criteria 460


1 Limited development area

2 Requires AIRPORT location

3 Scale

4 Re-use of existing buildings

5 Noise

6 Preserve local amenity

7 Proximity to settlements

21

8 Sustainable location

9 traffic generation

10 Positive benefits (economic, social, etc)

V154.CR3 Third named criteria 468


1 Positive benefits (economic, social etc)

2 Avoid traffic generation

3 Essential uses (for flying)?

4 Good design standards

5 No retailing on site

V156.SUI Are airfield sites MORE or LESS suitable for devt? 476

1 More

2 Less

3 No response

V157.EXP Explanation as to why sites are more or less suited to devel 477

V158.COD Explanation code (from variable 157) 509

1 Open or designated countryside

2 Airfields are BROWNFIELD sites

3 Need to redevelop military sites

4 Depends on type of development

5 Depends on location and availability of other sites

6 Sites not suitably located

7 Key growth locations

8 Site situated above valuable mineral reserves

V159.SPE Imposition of special planning conditions 510

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V160.WHY Why is it necessary to impose special conditions? 511

V161.COD Special conditions code (from variable 160) 536

1 Limit to aviation function

2 Promote aviation function

3 Physical development safety considerations

4 Green belt/AONB location or open countryside

5 Secure infrastructure improvements

6 Only grant temporary permissions

7 No applications

8 Conditions governing industrial use

9 Protect local environment/amenity

10 Key growth centres

11 Secure interests of quarrying

12 "Safeguarding" conditions

V162.PER Do airfields play host to periodic events? 537

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V163.LIC Licensing difficulties for periodic events? 538

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V164.EXP Why there were licensing difficulties 539

V165.COD Code for difficulties (for variable 164) 564

22

1 Noise/disturbance

2 Traffic/visual impact from MARKET

3 No licensing difficulties

4 Problem with rave

5 Traffic/disturbance problems at Rock festival

6 Breaking of condition

Section 6: Planning applications, approvals and dismissals

V166.APP Applications information provided? 565

0 Not given

1 Given in questionnaire

2 Given separately

Section 7: Impacts – Real and Perceived

V167.COM New uses on ACTIVE fields are compatible with flying? 566

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V168.EXP Explain opinion on compatibility 567

V169.COD Code compatibility explanation (for variable 168) 599

1 Dependant on use type

2 Site is in designated landscape area/ open countryside

3 As long as they do not conflict with flying (safety)

4 Dependant on SCALE of development

5 Excellent for a range of uses

6 Noise, safety, traffic

7 Possible incompatibility

8 Crown controlled sites only

9 No "alternative uses"

V170.RES Involvement of residents in airfield enquires 600

0 No

1 Yes

3 No response

V171.FLY Resident's views of FLYING 601

V172.COD Code FLYING VIEWS (from variable 171) 633

1 Concern for noise/safety/intensification

2 Variety of views (positive and negative)

3 Positive towards MODEST flying activity

4 18/84 consultations only

5 Prefer RAF flying to commercial flying

6 Military flying is in national interest

7 General opposition

8 Generally tolerant

V173.NEW Resident's views of OTHER USES 634

V174.COD Code OTHER USES VIEWS (from variable 173) 666

1 Depends on TYPE of development

2 Variety of views (positive and negative)

3 Against INTENSIFICATION

4 18/84 Consultations

5 Generally positive

6 Against unauthorised uses

7 Views currently unknown

8 periodic noise problems

9 Against additional TRAFFIC generation

10 Problems caused by MARKET/ other periodic event

23

11 General opposition

V175.RED Redundant land on airfield sites can play an important role 667

1 Agree

2 Disagree

3 No response

V176.HOU Sites may be suitable for new housing development 668

1 Agree

2 Disagree

3 No response

V177.TRA New uses (inc hsg development) may generate unacceptable tra 669

1 Agree

2 Disagree

3 No response

V178.SOC Flying activity and general aviation plays a vital economic 670

1 Agree

2 Disagree

3 No response

V179.SAF Airfields and other flying sites should be safeguarded from 671

1 Agree

2 Disagree

3 No response

V180.MAR Compatibility of MARKET TRADING with flying activity 672

1 Entirely compatible

2 Usually compatible

3 Sometimes compatible/incompatible

4 Usually incompatible

5 Entirely incompatible

V181.MOT Compatibility of MOTOR SPORTS with flying activity 673






V182.MUS Compatibility of MUSEUMS with flying activity 674






V183.RET Compatibility of RETAIL PARKS with flying activity 675






V184.IND Compatibility of INDUSTRIAL PARKS with flying activity 676






24

V185.BUS Compatibility of BUSINESS PARKS with flying activity 677






V186.SHO Compatibility of SHOWS/FESTIVALS with flying activity 678






V187.HSG Compatibility of HOUSING with flying activity 679






V188.BOO Compatibility of CAR BOOT SALES with flying activity 680






V189.COM Any further comments? 681

Section 8: Further Information Required

V190.IN1 Local Plan's Written Statement 713

0 No

1 Yes

V191.IN2 Supplementary Planning Guidance 714

0 No

1 Yes

V192.IN3 Related Policy Documents 715

0 No

1 Yes

V193.IN4 Appeals/decisions information 716

0 No

1 Yes

V194.IN5 Other printed material 717

0 No

1 Yes

Re-code of Questionnaire Category

V195.REF LPA refusal or other LPA type 718

77 National Park Authority

88 Welsh Unitary Authority

99 Refusal

25

Annex B: Questionnaire Survey Questionnaire A complete copy of postal survey questionnaire is provided overleaf. The eight sections (described in paragraph 2.6 of this report) relate to the 195 data variables listed in Annex A.

26

ALTERNATIVE LAND USES ON SMALL AIRFIELDS

GRANT No. R 000 22 2539

Department of Planning and Landscape

University of Manchester Oxford Road

MANCHESTER M13 9PL

OFFICE USE ONLY Date: Acknowledged:

Reference No.

1. Respondent Details

Name of Local Authority

Title Initials Surname

Post Held

2. Airfields in the district

Please state the number of flying sites in your local district falling into the following categories:

NB: "flying sites" cover airfields/strips & aerodromes Used Disused

Where possible, please provide the names of the used and disused sites in your local district. Enter

1 1

these in the boxes provided - used sites in the left column and unused sites in the right column:

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

Used sites Disused sites

Are there any major regional or international airports in your district?

Yes No

Please list these major or international sites: 1

2

Does the Local Planning Authority hold accurate and up-to-date information on used and disused flying sites in

the district? Yes No

Cont'd

27

3. Regulation of flying activity

Does the local authority actively regulate flying activity on the district's airfields?

Yes No Please comment on how this is achieved

Has the local authority sought to regulate flying activity through the use of planning conditions?

Yes No

If conditions have been used, what is the scope of the restrictions applied? (please tick appropriate boxes)

Flying times

Aircraft engine size No. takeoffs/landings

Aerobatic manoeuvres

Flight paths Types of aircraft used

Other

Are flying times regulated on a daily, monthly or yearly basis?

Daily Monthly Yearly Please detail other aspects of flying activity regulated via the use of conditions

Please give details of particular conditions applying to flying activity at individual sites (if applicable)

Site Name: Site Name:

Site Name: Site Name:

DoE Circular 2/92 details how airfield owners/operators should safeguard aviation activity by indicating to the local authority which types of new devt

might be prejudicial: have any operators taken such "safeguarding" action?

Yes No

Cont'd

28

3. Regulation of flying activity - continued Have you any further comments regarding the regulation of flying activity on the district's small airfields (including the reasons why such regulation is deemed necessary)?

4. Other activities/land-uses on the district's airfields This section focuses on non-flying related activity on airfields/strips and aerodromes

Can any of the following categories of activity or land-uses be found on ACTIVE airfields in your district

Market trading A

Motor sports B Museums C Retail parks D

Industrial parks (Storage/manufact.) E Business parks

(Office developments) F Shows/festivals G

Housing H Car boot sales I Other J

Can any of the following categories of activity or land-uses be found on INACTIVE airfields in your district

Market trading A

Motor sports B Museums C Retail parks D

Industrial parks (Storage/manufact.) E

Business parks (Office developments) F Shows/festivals G

Housing H Car boot sales I Other J

What other land-uses/activities can be found on the district's ACTIVE airfields? (please specify)

What other land-uses/activities can be found on the district's INACTIVE airfields? (please specify)

Cont'd

29

4. Other activities/land-uses on the district's airfields - continued Using the LETTER CATEGORIES from the previous page, please indicate which activities are located on particular airfields in your district by placing ticks in the appropriate boxes.

Airfield: A B C D E F G H I J Airfield: A B C D E F G H I J Airfield: A B C D E F G H I J Airfield: A B C D E F G H I J Airfield: A B C D E F G H I J Airfield: A B C D E F G H I J Please give details of any new activities or land-uses which you feel are particularly noteworthy (also providing the name(s) of the airfields affected) Name of airfield Type of activity/land-use Details (size of scheme etc)

5. Regulation of other activities/land-uses on the district's airfields NB: "new uses" in this section describes developments/activities which are not directly flying-related

Are specific references made to the use of the district's airfields within the local plan?

Yes No

Do these references cover all activity or only flying activity?

All Flying only

Please provide details of these references and/or photocopies of relevant policy documents:

A. Permanent development (fixed structures - permanent new uses)

Is there any presumption in favour of new development on airfield sites?

Yes No

Cont'd

30

5. Regulation of other activities/land-uses on the district's airfields - continued [Permanent new uses - continued] Please indicate which types of developments might be favoured or seen as appropriate on airfield sites:

Is such development actively encouraged?

Yes No What types of criteria are used to judge the suitability of new development on airfield sites in your district? Please provide a brief description

Do you consider airfield sites to be more or less suitable for development than other sites in the district?

More Less Please provide a brief explanation for your answer to the above question

Where development does occur on airfield sites, are any special planning conditions imposed?

Yes No Why is this necessary?

B. Periodic activities (markets, motor-sports, or shows/festivals)

Do any of the district's airfield's play host to periodic activities?

Yes No

Have there been any difficulties with the licensing arrangements for such period events?

Yes No Cont'd

31

5. Regulation of other activities/land-uses on the district's airfields - continued [Periodic uses - continued] Please provide a brief explanation for your answer to the above question

6. Planning applications, approvals and dismissals If possible, please provide the following summary information relating to planning applications on the district's active and inactive airfields:

Airfield Date Type of proposed development Decision/Reason

Cont'd

32

7. Impacts - real and perceived

Do you consider that new uses on active airfields are generally compatible with existing flying activity?

Yes No Please provide a brief explanation for your answer

Have local residents become involved in planning enquiries into dev't proposals on the district's airfields?

Yes No How would you summarise local resident's views towards: A Flying activity on the district's airfields?

B New development/periodic activities on the district's airfields?

Please indicate whether you (as a officer representative of the local authority) agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

Redundant land on airfield sites can play an important role in local development strategies

Agree Disagree

These sites may be suitable for new housing development

Agree Disagree

New uses (including housing development) may generate unacceptable traffic problems

Agree Disagree

Flying activity and general aviation plays a vital economic and social role in the local area

Agree Disagree

Cont'd

33

7. Impacts - real and perceived - continued

Airfields and other flying sites should be safeguarded from new forms of development

Agree Disagree Finally, please rate the suitability of the following activities on flying sites: 1 indicates that you feel that the activity is entirely compatible with flying and suited to this type of location: 5 indicates that you feel that the activity/development type is wholly unsuitable on airfields. You are asked to bear in mind that only a small portion of the flying site may be taken up with this new land-use: (Please tick the appropriate box for each activity)

Market Trading 1 2 3 4 5

Motor Sports 1 2 3 4 5

Museums 1 2 3 4 5

Retail parks 1 2 3 4 5

Industrial Parks (manufacturing) 1 2 3 4 5

Business Parks (office development) 1 2 3 4 5

Shows/festivals 1 2 3 4 5

Housing 1 2 3 4 5

Car boot sales 1 2 3 4 5

Have you any further comments about any of the issues raised in the questionnaire?

8. Further information required If possible, please return this questionnaire with the following printed information: 1. Relevant sections from your Local Plan's Written Statement; 2. Copies of any relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance produced by the LPA; 3. Copies of related policy documents; 4. Copies of any appeals/decisions letters relating to activity on the District's flying sites.

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE - ALL RESPONSES WILL BE TREATED AS

CONFIDENTIAL. PLEASE USE THE PRE-PAID ENVELOPE PROVIDED OR RETURN BOTH THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO:

Dr N Gallent

Department of Planning and Landscape University of Manchester

Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL

Tel: 0161 275 6882 / Fax: 0161 275 6893 / E-mail: [email protected]

34

Annex C: Project Bibliography Adams, D (1994) Urban Planning and

the Development Process (UCL Press, London)

Barlow, J., Cocks, R. & Parker, M. (1994) Planning for Affordable Housing (HMSO, London)

Bloomfield, A. (1995) Cornwall case raises profile of aviation issue in planning, in Planning, 1136, p28.

Breheny, M. & Hall, P. (1996) The People - Where Will They Go? (TCPA, London)

Byrant, C.R. (1995) The role of local actors in transforming the urban fringe, Journal of Rural Studies, 11, 4, 255-267

Cloke, P. (1979) Key Settlements in Rural Areas (Methuen, London).

Cloke, P & Edwards, G. (1986) Rurality in England and Wales 1981: a replication of the 1971 index. Regional Studies, 20 (*) 289-306

Cloke, P. & Goodwin, M. (1992) Conceptualising countryside change: from post-Fordism to rural structured coherence. Transactions of the Institute of British geographers NS 17 (3), 321-336

Cloke, P. and Little, J. (eds) (1997) Contesting Countryside Cultutres, (Routledge, London)

Cox, G., Hallet, J. & Winter, M. (1994) Hunting the wild red deer: the social organisation and ritual of a ‘rural’ institution. Sociologial Ruralis XXXIV (2-3), 190-205.

Cosgrove, D. and Daniels, S. (1988) The Iconography of Landscape (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

Council for British Archaeology (1995) Twentieth Century Defences in Britain (CBA, London).

Cullingworth, J.B. & Nadin, V. (1994) Town and Country Planning in Britain (Routledge, London).

Cullingworth, J.B. & Nadin, V. (1997) Town and Country Planning in the UK (Routledge, London).

Department of the Environment (1992) Circular 2/92: Safeguarding of Flying Sites (DoE, London).

Department of the Environment (1996) Household Growth: Where Shall We Live? (Cm 3471), HMSO, London.

Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998) Planning for Communities of the Future (DETR, London).

Doxford, D. and Hill, A (1998) Land use for military training in the UK: The current situation, likely developments and possible alternatives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Mangement 41, 279-297.

Elliot, H. (1996) Take off for the runway of the future, in The Times, 29 March, no page reference.

Franks, A. (1996) Field of combat, in The Times, 17 August 1996, no page reference.

Gray, C. (1994) Government Beyond the Centre: Sub-national Politics in Britain. (Macmillan, Basingstoke).

General Aviation Awareness Council (1996) Information for Local Authorities - Aerodromes, Airstrips and other Flying Sites (GAAC, London).

Gallent, N. & Howe, J. (1998) Planning for aviation and diversification on small airfields, in Regional Studies, 32, 4, pp375-381.

Goodwin, M. (1998) The governance of rural areas: some emerging research issues and agendas, in Journal of Rural Studies 14, 1, 5-12

Halfacre, K. (1996) Out of place in the country: Travelers and the rural idyll, Antipode, 28, 42-72

Howe, J. Gallent, N. & Bell, P. (1998) Happy landings? Re-use of redundant airfields, in Journal of the

35

Town and Country Planning Association 67, 1, pp32-33.

Hoggart, K., Buller, H. & Black, R. (1995) Rural Europe: Identity and Change (Arnold, London).

House of commons Defence Committee (1994) Defence Committee First Report on the Defence estate (HMSO, London).

Jenkins, R. (1996) Airport expansion threatens ruin of Domesday villages, in The Times, 17 July, no page reference.

Jenkins, S. (1996) Harvest of bricks and mortar, in The Times, 24 February, no page reference.

Kivell, P. (1993) Land and the City: patterns and processes of urban change (Routledge, London)

Latour, B. (1986) The powers of association, in Law, J. (ed) Power action and belief, (Routledge, and Keegan Paul, London)

Latour, B. (1991) Technology is society made durable, in Law, J. (ed) A sociology of monsters: Essays on power and domination, (Routledge, London)

Lloyd, C. (1994) Disused airfield points the way to the future, in The Sunday Times, 4 November, p8.

Lawrence, M. (1997) Heartlands or neglected geographies? Liminality, power, and the hyperreal rural, Journal of Rural Studies 13, 1, 1-18.

Massey, D. (1984) Spatial Divisions of Labour: social structures and the geography of production (Macmillan, Basingstoke)

Murdoch, J. (1995) Actor networks and the evolution of economic forms: Combining description and explanation in theories of regulation, flexible specialization and networks, Environment and Planning A 27, 731-754

Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R. and Flynn, A. (ed) (1993) Constructing the Countryside, (London, UCL Press)

Murdoch, J. and Marsden, T. (1994) Reconstitutiong Rurality (UCL Press, London)

Murdoch, J and Pratt, A. (1993) Rural studies: modernism, postmodernism and the ‘post-rural’. Journal of Rural Studies 9, 411-428.

Nuttall, N. (1995) Expansion devours England’s unspoilt havens, in The Times, 1 December, p8.

Philips, M. (1998) Investigations of the British rural middle classes – Part 1: from legislation to interpretation, Journal of Rural Studies, 14,4, 411-426

Philo, C. (1992) Neglected rural geographies: a review, Journal of Rural studies, 8, 193-207

Planning (1995) Flying in the face of reason, in Planning, 1138, p2.

Prentice, E-A. (1997) The new battle of Britain, in The Times, 14 June, no page reference.

Pooley, R., Ryall, W. & Patel, R. (1996) Pooleys Flight Guide: United Kingdom 1996 (Pooleys Flight Guides Limited, Elstree).

Rydin, Y. (1998) Urban Environmental Planning in the UK (Macmillan, Basingstoke).

Savege, J. (1997) Soldiers, stone curlews and SSSI’s: Maintaining the balance. ECOS 18, 68-74.

Short, J. R. (1991) Imagined Country: Society, culture and environment, (Routledge, London)

Shucksmith, M. (19810 No Homes for Locals (Avebury, Aldershot).

Shucksmith, M., Chapman, P., Clark, G. & Black, S. (1994) Social welfare in rural Europe, in Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 4, pp343-356.

South Cambridgeshire District Council (1997) Small Airfields - Supplementary Planning Guidance (SCDC, Cambridge).

Spaling, I. & Wood, S. (1998) Greed need or creed? Farmland ethics in the urban rural fringe, in Land Use Policy 15, 2, 105-118.

Symes, D. (1992) Agriculture, the state and rural society in Europe - trends

36

and issues, in Sociologia Ruralis, 32, 2-3, pp198-208.

Tewdwr-Jones, M. (ed) (1996) The British Planning System in Transition (UCL Press, London).

Warman, C. (1992) Green views from office in the park, in The Times, 20 May, p12.

Williams, G., Russell, L. & Bell, P. (1991) Evaluating the Low Cost Rural Housing Initiative (HMSO, London).

Willis, S. & Holliss, B. (1987) Military Airfields in the British Isles 1939-45 (Enthusiasts Publications, Newport Pagnell).

Winter, M. (1996) Rural Politics. (Routledge, London)

Woods, M. (1998) Advocating rurality? The repositioning of rural local government, in Journal of Rural Studies 14, 1, 13-26

Woods, M. (1998) Researching rural conflicts; hunting local politics and actor-networks, Journal of Rural Studies, 14, 3, 321-340

Wooward, R. (1999) Gunning for rural England: the politics of the promotion of military land use in the Northumberland National Park, Journal of Rural Studies 15, 1, 17-35.

Rural Airfields: National Survey Data and Technical Report

Documents

Transcript of Rural Airfields: National Survey Data and Technical Report