Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
V8.SITE2 USED Flying Site 2 23
V9.SITE3 USED Flying Site 3 27
V10.SIT4 USED Flying Site 4 31
V11.SIT5 USED Flying Site 5 34
V12.SIT6 USED Flying Site 6 37
V13.DIS Number of DISUSED flying sites 40
99 Unknown
V14.SIT1 DISUSED Flying Site 1 41
V15.SIT2 DISUSED Flying Site 2 44
V16.SIT3 DISUSED Flying Site 3 47
V17.SIT4 DISUSED Flying Site 4 50
V18.SIT5 DISUSED Flying Site 5 53
V19.SIT6 DISUSED Flying Site 6 56
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
V42.SIT2 Site 2 with specific conditions 153
V43.CON2 Conditions on site 2 156
V44.SIT3 Site 3 with specific conditions 163
V45.CON3 Conditions on site 3 166
V46.SIT4 Site 4 with specific conditions 173
V47.CON4 Conditions on site 4 176
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
V84.AF2 Airfield 2 295
V85.MARK Activity on specific field: MARKETS 298
0 No
1 Yes
V86.MOTO Activity on specific field: MOTOR SPORTS 299
0 No
1 Yes
V87.MUS Activity on specific field: MUSEUMS 300
0 No
1 Yes
V88.RETA Activity on specific field: RETAIL PARKS 301
0 No
1 Yes
V89.IND Activity on specific field: INDUSTRIAL PARKS 302
0 No
1 Yes
V90.BUS Activity on specific field: BUSINESS PARKS 303
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
V94.OTH Activity on specific field: OTHER 307
0 No
1 Yes
V95.AF3 Airfield 3 308
V96.MARK Activity on specific field: MARKETS 312
0 No
1 Yes
V97.MOTO Activity on specific field: MOTOR SPORTS 313
0 No
1 Yes
V98.MUS Activity on specific field: MUSEUMS 314
17
0 No
1 Yes
V99.RETA Activity on specific field: RETAIL PARKS 315
0 No
1 Yes
V100.IND Activity on specific field: INDUSTRIAL PARKS 316
0 No
1 Yes
V101.BUS Activity on specific field: BUSINESS PARKS 317
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
V105.OTH Activity on specific field: OTHER 321
0 No
1 Yes
V106.AF4 Airfield 4 322
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
V109.MUS Activity on specific field: MUSEUMS 327
0 No
1 Yes
V110.RET Activity on specific field: RETAIL PARKS 328
0 No
1 Yes
V111.IND Activity on specific field: INDUSTRIAL PARKS 329
0 No
1 Yes
V112.BUS Activity on specific field: BUSINESS PARKS 330
0 No
1 Yes
V113.SHO Activity on specific field: SHOWS/FESTIVALS 331
18
0 No
1 Yes
V114.HOU Activity on specific field: HOUSING 332
0 No
1 Yes
V115.BOO Activity on specific field: CAR BOOT SALES 333
0 No
1 Yes
V116.OTH Activity on specific field: OTHER 334
0 No
1 Yes
V117.AF5 Airfield 5 335
V118.MAR Activity on specific field: MARKETS 338
0 No
1 Yes
V119.MOT Activity on specific field: MOTOR SPORTS 339
0 No
1 Yes
V120.MUS Activity on specific field: MUSEUMS 340
Value Label
0 No
1 Yes
V121.RET Activity on specific field: RETAIL PARKS 341
0 No
1 Yes
V122.IND Activity on specific field: INDUSTRIAL PARKS 342
0 No
1 Yes
V123.BUS Activity on specific field: BUSINESS PARKS 343
0 No
1 Yes
V124.SHO Activity on specific field: SHOWS/FESTIVALS 344
0 No
1 Yes
V125.HOU Activity on specific field: HOUSING 345
0 No
1 Yes
V126.BOO Activity on specific field: CAR BOOT SALES 346
0 No
1 Yes
V127.OTH Activity on specific field: OTHER 347
0 No
1 Yes
19
V128.AF6 Airfield 6 348
V129.MAR Activity on specific field: MARKETS 351
0 No
1 Yes
V130.MOT Activity on specific field: MOTOR SPORTS 352
0 No
1 Yes
V131.MUS Activity on specific field: MUSEUMS 353
0 No
1 Yes
V132.RET Activity on specific field: RETAIL PARKS 354
0 No
1 Yes
V133.IND Activity on specific field: INDUSTRIAL PARKS 355
0 No
1 Yes
V134.BUS Activity on specific field: BUSINESS PARKS 356
0 No
1 Yes
V135.SHO Activity on specific field: SHOWS/FESTIVALS 357
0 No
1 Yes
V136.HOU Activity on specific field: HOUSING 358
0 No
1 Yes
V137.BOO Activity on specific field: CAR BOOT SALES 359
0 No
1 Yes
V138.OTH Activity on specific field: OTHER 360
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
V153.CO2 Code for criteria 2 (from variable 152) 467
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
V155.CO3 Code for criteria 3 (from variable 154) 475
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
1 Entirely compatible
2 Usually compatible
3 Sometimes compatible/incompatible
4 Usually incompatible
5 Entirely incompatible
V182.MUS Compatibility of MUSEUMS with flying activity 674
1 Entirely compatible
2 Usually compatible
3 Sometimes compatible/incompatible
4 Usually incompatible
5 Entirely incompatible
V183.RET Compatibility of RETAIL PARKS with flying activity 675
1 Entirely compatible
2 Usually compatible
3 Sometimes compatible/incompatible
4 Usually incompatible
5 Entirely incompatible
V184.IND Compatibility of INDUSTRIAL PARKS with flying activity 676
1 Entirely compatible
2 Usually compatible
3 Sometimes compatible/incompatible
4 Usually incompatible
5 Entirely incompatible
24
V185.BUS Compatibility of BUSINESS PARKS with flying activity 677
1 Entirely compatible
2 Usually compatible
3 Sometimes compatible/incompatible
4 Usually incompatible
5 Entirely incompatible
V186.SHO Compatibility of SHOWS/FESTIVALS with flying activity 678
1 Entirely compatible
2 Usually compatible
3 Sometimes compatible/incompatible
4 Usually incompatible
5 Entirely incompatible
V187.HSG Compatibility of HOUSING with flying activity 679
1 Entirely compatible
2 Usually compatible
3 Sometimes compatible/incompatible
4 Usually incompatible
5 Entirely incompatible
V188.BOO Compatibility of CAR BOOT SALES with flying activity 680
1 Entirely compatible
2 Usually compatible
3 Sometimes compatible/incompatible
4 Usually incompatible
5 Entirely incompatible
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.