SOS – Save Old Sarum

Why we are saying NO!
To this development

Statement of Community involvement

Policy
  • The comment under Policy statement indicates that the planning inspector confirmed that the principle of redeveloping Old Sarum Airfield was acceptable. At the same Judicial Review, Wiltshire Council also confirmed that ‘apart from the heritage issues, all other reasons for its refusal were resolved at the planning appeal’. This is Not true.
  • What the inspector actually said was, ‘I am conscious that there may not be other harms to put into the balance of this decision. The heritage harm I have identified, along with the specified harm resulting from conflict with the development plan, are sufficiently weighty to clearly out-weigh the benefits of the proposal. They are also material considerations leading to a conclusion that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not engaged. On this basis, it would not be productive in the context of this appeal to examine matters further’.
  • Note, she said in the light of the appeal failing so badly alone on heritage matters, ‘it would not be productive in the context of the appeal to examine matters further’.

Statement of Community involvement (SCI)

  • Core Policy 25 is under review in the Local Plan. Wiltshire Council have stated that any development on the conservation area will cause harm.
  • Quote, “The Airfield is considered a place of National importance and for these reasons the Core Policy 25 is to be deleted”.
  • Any weight attached to the application under CP25 should be cohesive and congruent to the new Local Plan.
Public Consultation
  • The presentation at the Skies Café can only be described as a farce, apart from the transport agent, no other agents or representatives were present for at least the first two hours. The so-called consultation consisted of displays only. Merely a piece of planning theatre.
Meetings
  • No minutes were recorded of meetings held between members of the PC and the developers in the Autumn of 2022 which would be a normal requirement and expectation.
  • At the regular parish council meeting held on the 20th February, the proposed application was listed as an ordinary agenda item. Consequently, due to time constraints, public questions were limited to two or three, with little opportunity to examine in detail the applicant’s plan. Parish Councilors were given the opportunity to speak before the public were invited to comment. The PC acknowledged that due to the complexity of the application, a separate meeting would need to be organised and held – this never happened.
  • For that very reason, concerned residents organised their own forum at the Laverstock Village Hall attended by at least 150 attendees, together with Wiltshire Councilor Andrew Oliver and some members of the Parish Council to express their concerns at the plan and the unsatisfactory handling of such a sensitive application by the PC.

Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Feedback
  • Despite fanciful wording, meaningless maps of respondent’s locations and pretty diagrams, under the paragraph referring to feedback, the Real OSAF undertook a door-to-door questionnaire of the plans in Ford. From that survey 98% of residents in Ford said no to the airfield development, 2% had not read or knew about the application.
  • There was no support within Ford for any development whatsoever. It is disingenuous to suggest that the Local community impact, accounts for 5% of comment, Evidence is quite the reverse with nearly 500 responses to the last application, along with a petition of some 1500 signatures calling for its refusal.
  • The Parish Council objected to the last Application and to suggest that as development has been reduced in numbers, it is now acceptable to residents in Ford with a reduction of 5 dwellings does not support the facts.
Summary
  • To suggest that the site proposals have been generally well received following the reduction of 5 houses in Area ‘C’ to 115, is derisible. There has been a reduction in area ‘A’ to 160 but it still would cause significant harm to the site. The inspector stated that, “development of Area A would unquestionably erode the open character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
  • That erosion would also diminish the setting of the listed Airfield buildings merely in so far as it forms part of the Airfield itself” She further mentions the potential impact any development would have on the view from the ramparts of Old Sarum Ancient Monument and “that being that much closer to the SAM than other residential development Area A would be more exposed where landscaping, in a screening capacity, would be of limited effectiveness” I would add here that it also depends on which rampart you are viewing from.
  • The photos initially supplied by the agents were taken from the middle ramparts, if you view from the upper ones, Area A and Area C are very visible. Notwithstanding visibility from the air and the country park.
  • The Viability of the site, concerns that a Conservation Management Plan has not been adopted, transport issues along Ford Road and Green Lane, Wiltshire Councils comments in the new local plan (Any development would cause harm and the identification of the airfield as a site of National importance), Core Policy 25 only identifies three areas for Potential development no numbers mentioned, Core policy 2 limits any development to infill only two or three at most, 115 houses would double the size of Ford, the failure to enhance the historic environment in Area ‘A’ and ‘C’.
  • Failure to protect the amenities of local residents in Ford, loss of views across the Conservation Area, Loss of 55% of what remains of the airfield’s perimeter, 30% of the open grass area. No need of further housing development within the parish – 2500 new homes have been built within it over the last ten years, further needs have been identified in the new Local Plan but does not include the Airfield.
  • Of the comments made at the exhibition, a few pilots have supported the plans believing the gains to general aviation can only be positive. However, and assuming these contributors are not locals, they will possibly be unaware of the bigger picture of how the development will impact the whole area generally, rather than their understandably narrower focus on just the flying.
  • The majority of residents appear to be in agreement in their concerns and terms of objection. Despite feedback, the same concerns about lack of community consultation after the previous application have again been ignored and scant attempt has been made to fully engage with local people.

Reasons to Object

  • The Local Plan is currently under consultation and due to complete by 22 November. It is proposed that Core Policy 25 is deleted. Included are the following comments from Wiltshire Council: – Old Sarum Airfield is not carried forward into this plan on environmental grounds. In 2019 a planning application for housing at this location between Salisbury proper and the Old Sarum neighborhood was taken to appeal by the scheme promotor. The appeal inspector concluded that harm to both the airfield conservation area (CA) and setting of Old Sarum scheduled monument could not be satisfactorily mitigated.
  • The Airfield and Old Sarum are classified as being of national heritage significance. Wiltshire Council has subsequently decided that any level of development on the Airfield will compromise the open character of the CA as well as detract from the setting of the scheduled monument. This statement alone is significant enough to refuse the planning application. The original Core policy was included to control the level of complaints. Records show that very little if any complaints have been received for several years. Appropriate records have not been kept and the old forum for complaints has now been closed. The reason for core policy 25 therefore no longer exits.
  • Housing on the Airfield would harm the openness and appearance and character of the historic environment of the airfield. Development in a conservation area can only be permitted if it preserves and enhances the conservation area. How can houses enhance the Conservation area. It would destroy 55% of what remains of the airfield’s historic perimeter. There would also be a loss of 30% of the open grass area defining the old flying airfield.
  • Heritage The owners have ‘said that they have been in consultation with Historic England and that (Historic England) have said, these proposals will cause less than substantial harm to the setting, and thus significance, of several highly graded heritage assets. In our view (Historic England) that harm could be justified in terms of heritage benefits, but it will be for the local planning authority to weigh wider public benefits against the harm we have identified. Based on the pre-application documents provided, and the commitment to include the repair of the ‘at risk’ Hanger, we would not object to the application.
  • However, this must be taken in context as outlined in the Local Plan, any level of development will cause harm, the question is at what level which is believed to be substantial. At the Parish Council meeting in February Mr Hodge said that the Airfield were not owners of the grade 2 Listed Hanger, this tantamounts to blackmail to secure planning permission. The responsibility to repair the hanger must rest with the owners by itself.
  • The master plan map shows an emergency exit along green lane which is a restricted byway. As designed it would be open access from the site from the development and totally inappropriate to an unadopted road. Transport assessment has not included schools (none of which are allocated in the site) both primary and secondary in their assessment. Safety stops for buses on Ford Lane would present a major problem for students on school buses needing to alight near the new estate as most would need to be transported to schools some distance away. Nor has any assessment of London Road been made. There is no footpath along Ford road which is used by horse riders, pedestrians, bike riders, and therefore considered unsafe.
  • Housing development in Area ’C’ cannot protect the amenities of residents. Ford has limited amenities and enjoys open spaces within the conservation area. There would be a loss of views across the Airfield. One of the reasons the conservation area status was granted included the perimeter which is largely intact the proposed development would destroy 55% of this. There would also be a loss of 30% open grassland. There is no plan for affordable housing. The new Local Plan accounts for housing in Wiltshire until 2036. There is no allocation for housing on the airfield. The Plan conflicts with core policy 2 and the neighborhood plan which limits development to infill (two/three houses) Core policy 25 is site specific, Ford should be afforded some protection under Core Policy 25.

No Management Plan has been presented

  • A Management Plan include: A business plan with regular reviews, Noise complaints, Viability assessment on income streams, Costings on capital expenditure, The flying activity levels with associated new hangarage plus viewing areas is uncertain. Need for a proper consultation to establish what is acceptable.
  • If the planning Application is refused, there is no evidence that flying activity would need to stop, the heritage connection between flying and the airfield is not development dependent.
  • Part of the plan includes the refurbishment of the Listed WW1 Hanger. As the airfield is not the owner of the Hanger it would not be appropriate to include this as part of a planning application. This should be the responsibility of the Hanger owner separately. The building has been left derelict for a considerable number of years. There is no confidence that any heritage infrastructure pursuant to core policy 25 would be kept. Professional estimates on the costing of the hanger works need to be available to establish how viable this would be.
  • Housing requirement issues have been dealt with by the new Local Plan to 2036. It does not include the airfield as part of the proposals for the overall housing allocation for Wiltshire.
  • Conservation Area Management Plan.is fundamental to determining the type and extent of a development that can be allowed within a Conservation Area. Wiltshire Council should ensure that an acceptable CAMP is finalised in conjunction with local residents before the current Application is considered. The shape of the green space which the old flying field would be grossly distorted; not only would this be apparent from the ground but, more importantly, very apparent to aviators it would no longer reflect from the air the historic airfield that it was while in military service.

SOS – Save Old Sarum

Why we are saying NO!
To this development

Heritage

  • Old Sarum airfield is older than the RAF, it has a perimeter that is largely still intact and it’s a historic site set in a conservation area. The openness of the grassed operational area, setting and historic value all making it unique. There are only two grassed airfields of this type in the whole of the country.
  • The inspector has commented that Area ‘C’ would represent an erosion of the wider Conservation Area, diminishing the openness of the grassed operational area with consequential harm to appearance and character of heritage assets and their significance. She also said that on Planning Balance, heritage harm would be enough to reject the proposals at this stage (assessment of area ‘A’). Consequently Area ‘C’ has not been evaluated in full.
  • Account must be taken of the view from the OSAM as Housing would compromise the setting and destroy the historic value of the airfield. The Country Park also has a view that needs protecting, any housing would diminish the importance of the historic setting.
  • A Grade II* Listed Hangar has been allowed to go derelict. Trust over whether the owners would resurrect the hangar is questionable, as they have had considerable time to at least make it watertight and windproof which has not happened.
  • Questions over the whereabouts of underground ops and communications room leave a lack of confidence as to the commitment to historical value of the airfield. As the airfield owners do not own the Grade II* Listed Hangar, responsibility for restoration should not rest with any enabling development. The last planning application failed on heritage issues mainly on Area ‘A’ and the vista from the ancient monument.
  • English Heritage have been asked to disclose how they have been engaging with the owner, unfortunately this has been declined. English Heritage will now have to explain how they will now be able to accept any revised proposals to the landscape other than reduced housing numbers. At minimum, the roof tops of area ‘C’ will be visible from the upper rampart of OSAM and not hidden in the contours.
  • The owners have not quantified how much development is required to deliver (number of houses) to meet the long-term viability of the airfield.

Infrastructure

  • Traffic exiting the site will inevitably cause ongoing issues along the village road with no footpath, regularly used by cyclists, dog walkers, school children and horses. There will be knock on effects to Church Road in Laverstock, Castle Road and London Road, with traffic often stationery damaging the air quality of Salisbury.
  • To control the volume of traffic, Buildouts are proposed along the route East of the site along the village. The existing buildouts have not been successful and would therefore not compliment current features.
  • The Parish is semi-rural and further development would dilute its relationship with its rural setting.
  • Area ‘A’ traffic will add to the problems along Castle Road and inevitably along the ring road around Salisbury.
  • The Neighbourhood Plan summary on traffic is as follows: Successive strategic housing developments in the parish to meet the needs of the wider Salisbury area have led to a major and continuing increase in traffic volumes within the Parish. These problems are exacerbated by the congestion on the inner ring road and its approach roads, which encourages rat running on roads through the parish.
  • Already the influx of new households, typically with younger families has increased the demand for a variety of local facilities. However, there are some major deficiencies in their provision locally. Longhedge Village and Old Sarum have the fewest facilities, including lacking both a doctors’ surgery/pharmacy and a dental practice, with only one of each located in the whole Parish. This has resulted in additional local traffic as residents are obliged to travel to other locations.
  • With the average household having 1.61 children, this would require a further 157 school places. The local schools would not be able to accommodate these extra numbers, especially since the ever growing Longhedge development has increased the need.

Enviromment & Wildlife

  • Until recent ploughing of the main area around the airfield strip, this site was a valuable nesting site for skylarks. These are a “red listed” species considered specifically under threat as those of you who walk Castle Hill Country Park will know. They are still managing to breed on the site, mainly on the headlands and ground that remains uncultivated, unfortunately development would destroy the breeding grounds that remain.
  • Despite a serious setback when the Squash Court block was sealed up, the Little Owl population has managed to hang on. There are other species of owl and woodpecker that are relying on the site. Starlings, both resident and migratory, the latter although sometimes annoying at the bird table, are able to feed on the remaining grassland. The area also has an important role to play for migratory flocks of lapwings.
  • We may be overseeing the destruction of an important environmental corridor across the north of Salisbury. The Woodford Valley is linked to open farm and “Range” ground to the east of the site, which supports a strong community of mammals and birds.
  • The hedges and perimeters support a range of flora and fauna, which again could be significantly compromised should development take place. We are all disturbed by the amount of wildlife casualties seen on our roads throughout the year. Developments such as this reduce space for breeding badgers and other wildlife forcing young into new territories that simply no longer exist. These are just the changes we can see, unseen and permanent changes are also occurring.
  • This site forms an important environment resource that everyone benefits from locally. The insects and invertebrates, that may not be considered properly in any “environmental” survey, to the sanctuary for larger mammals that we have pleasure in seeing in our gardens and parks. It is essential that pockets of undisturbed areas are preserved in order that the natural balance around us can be maintained.

Local Community

  • Ford is officially designated as a small village which means only infill allowed, outlined in Wiltshire Council Core Policy 2 and the Neighbourhood Plan.
  • Without any Conservation area management plan or management plan no consideration to any planning application can be given. How can Wiltshire Council or the community assess any proposal without a management plan to include a business plan, ongoing reviews, control of aircraft movement and Noise complaints.
  • Most importantly, without the Viability statement the whole project is in question. This will have to be consulted on in partnership with the local Community, owner, and Wiltshire Council. The concept for the development needs to clearly indicate how the outcomes of the Plan will be realised.
  • Any plan must deliver a workable management plan for the preservation and future safeguarding of heritage assets, to mitigate the impacts of existing development and to protect the amenities of residents living within the vicinity of the airfield.
  • As the Country Park is now built there is no need for extra cycleways pathways viewpoints, they already exist, little weight in planning terms should be given to any internal benefits. The site is not a strategic area, plans to double the size of the village of Ford are in contradiction of Wiltshire Councils Core Policy 2.
  • Housing numbers in Core Policy 25 have not been determined and specific policies in the Core Strategy framework indicate development should be restricted (As noted by the inspector). Furthermore, the housing needs of Ford which is summarised in the Neighbourhood Plan as’ none ‘are required, to plan for further, housing development’.
  • The consultation document states’ Safeguarding of a heritage asset for future generations to enjoy’. The flying activity levels with associated new hangarage viewing areas is uncertain as activity has not been declared. There will have to be a proper consultation to see what is acceptable if any to the community.
  • Aviation safety issues have been raised in the past and at present. With this in mind the owners must have a formalised safety assessment in place together with emergency planning.

Sign Up to Save Old Sarum

If you want to object to this development, you can add your name to the list by clicking here and completing the form.

Save Old Sarum

Save Old Sarum Airfield

Save Old Sarum Airfield

Save Old Sarum

Save Old Sarum

Save Old Sarum Airfield