APPG urge Sec of State to extend aerodrome safeguarding

[PB]

All Party Parliamentary Group urges Secretary of State to extend aerodrome safeguarding


Latest release from the All Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation.


16 October 2018:

The All Party Parliamentary Group for General Aviation (APP-GA) has written to the Secretary of State for Transport urging him to reconsider the safeguarding obligations invested in the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in order to improve protection for the UK’s vital network of airfields.

Currently, all airfields licenced by the CAA are required to safeguard their own operations from planning developments in their area. This is achieved through controlling the land surrounding aerodromes to protect vital safety infrastructure like navigational aids and approach and departure routes. However, only a small proportion of UK airfields are protected in this way by statute, meaning many are not properly consulted when developments are approved on their doorsteps.

In their letter the APPG-GA calls on the Government to extend the safeguarding responsibility for airfields to the CAA. This relatively modest measure would pass the role of statutory consultee to the CAA when plans are submitted that might impact flight safety in the vicinity of an aerodrome. Even if this measure was only enacted for licenced aerodromes, some of the nation’s most important general aviation hubs would be better protected from hostile developments.

One example of the problem is the recent approval given by Adur District Council to a major housing development to the west and north east of the main runway at Brighton International Airport (Shoreham). Shoreham is one of the busiest aerodromes in the country and is a popular spot for training aircraft on the south coast. Yet, incredibly, the decision to locate a significant development next to the airport involved minimal consultation with the CAA and no technical advice on the potential impact created by its proximity to the runways. In the APPG’s view, this case clearly illustrates the urgent need to reconsider the CAA’s safeguarding obligations.

In the letter, Chair of the APPG-GA, Grant Shapps MP said:

“We appreciate the Department for Transport is carrying out important reviews of aviation policy but, the delay in enacting these relatively simple changes leave our GA airfield infrastructure open to a continued battering by misinformed planning authorities, resulting in erratic and inconsistent planning decisions. Meanwhile, the irreplaceable damage to the General Aviation network, STEM-related jobs and technical training continues to harm Britain’s economy as we prepare to exit the EU. Along with a large number of independently minded parliamentarians we are clear that urgent practical steps are now required in order to help ensure that the nation’s relatively few remaining training airfields are far better protected.”

[simond]

Apologies for the slow response, Peter; I'm just catching up after the last few weeks which have been very busy, which in turn has meant I've not been visiting every day!

Safeguarding is an interesting subject - back in the 80s I spent a couple of years working for Aerodrome Standards at the CAA. Mine was only an admin role, but safeguarding was exactly wha we were tasked with; we looked after liscensed airfields, navaids (VORs, at any rate), and radar sites. It did seem generally effective, though it did depend on staff in the local authority planning departments sending copies of planning applications to our office for assessment by the Ops Officers (who, by the way, were a very interesting bunch of ex-military aircrew - all with stories to tell!). Whilst we generally got the impression that the system worked it would, by its very nature, be impossible to tell if it hadn't worked until it was too late.

I would imagine that, in part at least, that effectiveness of the system was down to the consistency achieved through having knowledgeable and long serving staff at the local authorities. After years of cost saving, one wonders if that consistency - and the knowledgable staff - is still there. To be fair, it was evident even then that the level of understanding of the task varied between the different authorities. The larger airfields (possibly those with scheduled pax services, I can't remember) had colour coded safegurading maps which showed the authority which applications would need to be referred to us for consideration. This was based on the height above ground level of the proposed development. Naturally this depended very much on the topography. For example, there were situations at Glasgow where any application on the high ground of the fells even several miles from the airport would have to be referred, even if it was for a single storey building, whilst around Heathrow, only developments over 300' AGL at the extremity of the maps' area would need to be referred. Some authorities interpreted the maps correctly, others would send us every single application theyreceived, even for a house extension in an area where we were not interested in anything under 200' AGL, if I remember correctly!

I'm sure the system has been updated now, but in the end its correct application will presumably still rely on a certain amount of knowledge and trust, so lets hope there is still some of that around. Hart DC were always very good when it came to passing on applications relevant to Blackbushe, if I remember correctly, so I'd be interested to know if that's still teh case.