Future redevelopment of Norton Aerodrome

[ken1 10]

I can't understand any objection to building on the 'bownfield' part of it. There are some woods behind the aerodrome, those should be kept, but the aerodrome itself isn't exactly a pleasant wilderness area. There are houses, buildings & roads right next to it, on 3 sides too. imo the brownfield part should never have been classed as greenbelt land.

[KenH 10]

I can't understand any objection to building on the 'bownfield' part of it. There are some woods behind the aerodrome, those should be kept, but the aerodrome itself isn't exactly a pleasant wilderness area. There are houses, buildings & roads right next to it, on 3 sides too. imo the brownfield part should never have been classed as greenbelt land.

 

I agree, and think that you are technically right. I thought that you were able to build in greenbelt where there were already buildings. So, for example, if a large house if demolished then it can be replaced by another house without there being a fuss. In the case of the aerodrome I can't see why they can't build on the substantial areas that are currently concrete or shich already have buildings on them. We should also remember that this site already has a hospital on it, although it is tucked in the corner and might not technically be greenbelt it was certainly part of the original site.

 

I don't think that the hangars are originals, although feel free to contradict me, as they just don't look right for the age. My wife seems to recall older larger hangars in the distant past. I suspect that these hangars are either modified versions of the original hangars or new buildings put up after the war. If they are the latter then this means there has already been a sequence of building on the concreted areas.

[tonkatoy 10]

I agree, and think that you are technically right. I thought that you were able to build in greenbelt where there were already buildings. So, for example, if a large house if demolished then it can be replaced by another house without there being a fuss. In the case of the aerodrome I can't see why they can't build on the substantial areas that are currently concrete or shich already have buildings on them. We should also remember that this site already has a hospital on it, although it is tucked in the corner and might not technically be greenbelt it was certainly part of the original site.

 

I don't think that the hangars are originals, although feel free to contradict me, as they just don't look right for the age. My wife seems to recall older larger hangars in the distant past. I suspect that these hangars are either modified versions of the original hangars or new buildings put up after the war. If they are the latter then this means there has already been a sequence of building on the concreted areas.

 

There is a major difference between military buildings errected in wartime and any obligation to grant planning permission today. Otherwise folk would be able to stick houses all along the coast where ever a pill box stood.

 

Also regarding the hospital. It is not on the available site. It is next to it. So again there is no infered right to build.

 

I agree that the place is a tip, but again that does not convey the right to build. WW2 military airfields scatter the countryside and connot be built on.

 

Regardless on any other considerations this remains green belt. As such planning permission will be tricky. It is also going to face opposition as it will open the floodgates for appeals where similar sites have been turned down eg Oakes Park.

 

In a nut shell building a conventional development won't be easy. I presume that is why this eco friendly housing is being discussed. I also understand that this does not offer value to buyers and might be forgotten about.

 

I still maintain that any development will require a hook to get it around the problems outlined above.

 

We will see. I suspect without the hospice, a hospital or nursing home as a major part of the proposed development plan, this will remain green belt for many years.

[cgksheff 44]

English Partnerships have confirmed that the minimum option is to decontaminate the site and return it to wildlife.

They claim that a reasonable quote for this would be in the order of £6 million? and that they should get this money from selling some of the brownfield ('- within the greenbelt')for development.

 

When questioned about why we should "pay" with our land for the MOD contaminating our green belt, they did confirm that they were persuing the possibility of central government paying for the clean-up.

 

When questioned about individual sites having to 'break even' as opposed to English Partnerships, as a whole, or regionally the answers seemed to become somewhat unclear.

[Vulcan B2 10]

This 'middle of nowhere' tag really p***es me off - the aerodrome is RIGHT NEXT to the ring road, and literally 3 minutes walk from the supertram. However, St Lukes keep churning out blarney, accusing detractors of wanting to stick dying people in the middle of nowhere. They also keep saying that the Norton Nurseries site is "within walking distance of supertram" Yes, maybe if you're Seb Coe! If you are a poor old lady visiting her husband, it certainly is NOT within walking distance. I'm also suspicious of the new head honcho at St Lukes - didn't he 'run' a hospice before which was then relocated, with the original site being sold for large amounts of dosh? Maybe i'm sceptical, but imagine the value of the land at Whirlow:suspect: Also, wasn't the land at Whirlow 'gifted' to St Lukes by British Steel?

[anarchist 10]

English Partnerships have confirmed that the minimum option is to decontaminate the site and return it to wildlife.

They claim that a reasonable quote for this would be in the order of £6 million? and that they should get this money from selling some of the brownfield ('- within the greenbelt')for development.

 

When questioned about why we should "pay" with our land for the MOD contaminating our green belt, they did confirm that they were persuing the possibility of central government paying for the clean-up.

 

When questioned about individual sites having to 'break even' as opposed to English Partnerships, as a whole, or regionally the answers seemed to become somewhat unclear.

 

I really don't see why we should concern ourselves about how much it would cost to clean up the site and somehow put that forward as an excuse to put houses on greenbelt.

 

If the site has a minimum requirement to be decontaminated then that is English Parnerships problem as they own the site. This has nothing to do with any consideration about the sites future.

 

I am firmly of the opinion that this site was poluted by the MOD and that they should contribute towards its decontamination. However that is between the MOD and English Partnerships to sort out. Regardless of the outcome of that debate the site should be cleaned up.

 

After this has happened we can have fresh discussion about its future. I was in favour of the hospice option and would have accepted that as part of the site was to be developed for that a degree of housing would perhaps be acceptable as long as alternative green belt land was provided. However it is difficult to see where this would be sourced as the surrounding farmland would be protected anyhow.

 

Now that St Lukes have indicated they have no interest in the site I think the sensible option is to have a clean up and for the site to remain as greenbelt. We shouldn't allow site opperators to polute a site and use it as an excuse for development.

 

The poluter should be responsible for restoring the site to a standard acceptable to its green belt status. If the poluter won't pay the onus is on the site owner. Let's not forget they got it for a quid, unless I am very much mistaken.

[1024x768 10]

There is a website with the aim to stop St Luke's hospice from moving to the Norton nurseries. I think that they would be much better suited at the aerodrome with proper access.

 

You can see it here: GravesPark.info

 

Sign the petition and write a letter to the council (the comments box sends it to them.)

 

Cheers,

[cgksheff 44]

........

 

You can see it here: GravesPark.info

 

Sign the petition and write a letter to the council (the comments box sends it to them.)

 

 

Can you identify the creators of that website?

Why have they not identified themselves on the website?

 

e-mails to the Council without an identifying name and address will just get binned.

 

The Friends of Graves Park and other supporters have specifically recommended against such a petition.

 

If you are connected with it, you may wish to contact FOGP before continuing with it.

[maggi 10]

There's an article in this week's Telegraph about this, where it quotes 'Local MP Clive Betts', 'Heeley MP Meg Munn' and 'Housing minister and Don Valley MP Caroline Flint'.

 

The land is in the green belt, and Mr Betts said, as the local MP, he wanted to see the retention of as much open space as possible. At present, part of the site was an "eyesore".

Telegraph journalists, please do your geography homework!

[wolfstalin 10]

Betts is amazing, when asked for a comment on the SLH fiasco and did he think the aerodrome a suitable place he said "that's not my constituency and I prefer not to comment on matters not in my constituency"

 

Now he's suddenly the local MP, I wonder what Meg Munn feels about that and his blatant hypocrisy.

[Tony 10]

Would YOU trust Mr Betts?

[chem1st 10]

let the remaining structures be pilfored for scrap value and make a country park + houses