# GAMA site at Greenham Common to become car park - please help!



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 17, 2011)

Please forgive me if I am posting this in the wrong forum - I need your support in trying to get a planning application refused.

As I'm sure you know, the historic GAMA site at Greenham Common is a Scheduled Monument and is a unique memorial to the Cold War.

Apart from some hangers that are due to be pulled down, it is all that remains of RAF Greenham Common– the runway was pulled up over 10 years ago, most of the site has been returned to common land,and the buildings are now an industrial park.

GAMA was sold to a private owner in 2003 when the treaty obligations expired. In 2007, the owners managed to get a temporary planning permission to store up to 6900 cars on the site. Since then, nothing significant has happened on the site, and the owners have now come back seeking a permanent planning permission.

English Heritage are opposed, the council's own planning officers are opposed, local residents in Greenham are opposed, and there is a council planning committee hearing on 25 January at which the final decision will be made.

As one of the local councillors for Greenham, which includes the common and of this site, I am campaigning on behalf of local residents to get this planning application refused. I have an online petition at http://GAMA.greenham.org.uk, where you can also find more information about what is being planned.

Please do sign the petition and add your comments, and please do share this with anyone else you know (both here and in the US) who has an interest in the protection of historic and unique sites such as this.

If you have any queries, I would be delighted to answer them – either post here, or e-mail me at [email protected]

Thank you for your support.

Cllr Julian Swift-Hook
Ward Councillor for Greenham, West Berkshire Council


----------



## krela (Jan 17, 2011)

It was in the wrong forum so I've moved it, but that's no big deal.

Wow, I'm shocked once again that things like this can happen. I shall certainly check out the page, sign the petition and write to the planning committee if necessary.


----------



## dangerous dave (Jan 17, 2011)

im not trying to be dumb but its a Scheduled Ancient Monument it should be protected by law or has that gone by the board again


----------



## LiamWg (Jan 17, 2011)

:O i'm shocked to see this! i have explored this base and live only 10 minutes away from the place! i shall be signing your petition!


----------



## night crawler (Jan 17, 2011)

http://gama.greenham.org.uk/ If you go onto the West Berks Planning you should find on there the Email of the planning officer. He's the one you email your objections too.


----------



## Tigger (Jan 17, 2011)

Ill have to get back to this place  are the fences still a mother?


----------



## Zotez (Jan 17, 2011)

Theyre easy to get into if you know how!   

However, I thought i'd add my own opinion.

I've read the newbury today article about this, the first thing that stood out to me was " permanent car storage was the only viable option to obtain income to help secure the site’s long term maintenance and preservation. " - we all know the condition of the fire plane, access to the Greenham site is _very_ easy, the site already has some graffiti that we noticed when we were inside the bunkers, something needs to be done to ensure its upkeep. Although most of the site couldnt be damaged by lowlifes, it will still fall into a state of disrepair eventually. Once you're inside the first fence there are literally *hundreds* of holes in the fence, although they are all patched up, the place is still beginning to become more and more damanged.

Another point is that the surrounding commonland should remain totally unaffected - there is already access to one of the big gates at Greenham Common & there is no reason for the cars to have to be transported over the commonland. 

You also didnt mention that *property is already stored on the site!* I know this because i've seen it. Also the things stored have actually been subject to a large amount of vandalism especially the caravan which is inside one of the buildings.

Perhaps car storage isnt the way forward but I wont be signing your petition - you can't expect someone to buy a piece of land soley with the intention of keeping it up together, perhaps if more people chip in the place can be maintained.


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 17, 2011)

dangerous dave said:


> im not trying to be dumb but its a Scheduled Ancient Monument it should be protected by law or has that gone by the board again



You would think so, wouldn't you...

As a Scheduled Monument, it is "protected" to the extent that the owner is not permitted to actively harm, demolish or destroy it - but scheduling does not in itself require the monument to be _maintained_, let alone restored. 

The owner says that the site maintenance costs are the reason why he needs an income from car storage - but the only maintenance he seems interested in carrying out is to the concrete pan (so he can store the cars, presumably). And by the way, a few more acres of concrete will be laid inside the fence if the planning permission is granted, as the car storage will extend across the land that is currently grass.


----------



## Zotez (Jan 17, 2011)

GAMA_at_Greenham said:


> You would think so, wouldn't you...
> 
> As a Scheduled Monument, it is "protected" to the extent that the owner is not permitted to actively harm, demolish or destroy it - but scheduling does not in itself require the monument to be _maintained_, let alone restored.
> 
> The owner says that the site maintenance costs are the reason why he needs an income from car storage - but the only maintenance he seems interested in carrying out is to the concrete pan (so he can store the cars, presumably). And by the way, a few more acres of concrete will be laid inside the fence if the planning permission is granted, as the car storage will extend across the land that is currently grass.



Now this I dont agree with - the grassland is rather overgrown and quite pretty to look at - this shouldnt be destroyed.


----------



## dangerous dave (Jan 17, 2011)

dont the doors to the bunkers have to be left open in a manner set down by the disarmament treaty


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 17, 2011)

dangerous dave said:


> dont the doors to the bunkers have to be left open in a manner set down by the disarmament treaty


The treaty expired in 2003.


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 17, 2011)

@Zotez: Thank you for your thoughts. 

I'm guessing that this is the article you mean: http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=15593. As the article makes clear, the only person who thinks that "long-term car storage is the only viable option" is the current owner. That is not the view of the planning officers, English Heritage, Greenham Parish Council, or anyone else who has given their view. 

What the NewburyToday (the local paper's online news service) article DOESN'T mention is that when the MoD put the site up for sale in 2003, English Heritage explicitly stated to all potential purchasers that permanent car storage is NOT an acceptable option - yet the present owners bought the site in full knowledge of this. 

An indication of just how seriously English Heritage are taking this is that their Regional Director will be attending the District Planning Meeting at West Berks to speak against the application - EH don't normally attend Council planning meetings. A copy of the English Heritage response to the GAMA planning applications is here: http://GAMA.greenham.org.uk/files/2010_English_Heritage.pdf

The surrounding Common will be affected - the car storage will be vcisible from many parts of the common, and there is considerable concern about the possible damage to wildlife - wildlife that has only recently returned to the Common. Greenham Common is now protected in perpituity under the Greenham & Crookham Commons Act 2002, and the Commissioners (appointed under the Act) and the Commoners are all objecting.

Yes, there is property on the site, but nothing as significant as 6,900 cars! I visited the site today with Committee Members, and there was a caravan next to a building that had a wingless Seafire in it, a few containers in some of the bunkers, and about 10 military vehicles lined up on the concrete outside the bunkers. 

The access to the site is along Brackenhurst Lane. If you visit Google Maps and use Google Street View you can see just how narrow this lane is. You can see the turning into Brackenhurst Lane from the A339 here: http://goo.gl/maps/f5jI. You can just see the cattle grid. Imagine, if you will, ten articulated car transporters turning in/out of this lane every day.... If you follow the Google Street View links up the lane, you can get about half way to the GAMA gates - you can see how narrow it is, with Common on either side.

This link shows the site and its relationship to the main road: http://goo.gl/maps/ioQe

You're quite right to point out that one doesn't expect an individual/business to buy a piece of land with the sole intention of maintaining it and doing nothing else - but that doesn't mean the said individual/business should then be allowed to drive a coach and horses through local, regional and national planning policy just so they aren't out of pocket.

The truth is, IMHO, the owner bought the site expecting to be able to do things that they have since discovered they can't. They therefore paid too much for it, and have now discovered that unless they can get permission for a non-conforming commercial use (permanent car storage on the site), they can't afford to keep it. This is what ALL prospective purchasers were told in 2003: http://GAMA.greenham.org.uk/files/2003_English_Heritage.pdf 

So rather than granting them planning permission that is so blatantly contrary to policy, the Council should be saying "no". And then the owner will have to take a view and either find the funds to maintain the site from elsewhere, or sell the site to someone who CAN look after it - for example, the Greenham Common Trust, who own the land to the east. The Trust knows the site (and its limitations) well. It tried to buy the site from the MoD in 2003 at a realistic price, but the MoD wanted to maximise its capital receipt, showing little interest in the long-term future of the site. 

Forgive the lengthy post, but as you can no doubt tell, this is something that I (and the local residents of Greenham) feel very strongly about. I hope this helps to explain a little more of the background to the issue.


----------



## smileysal (Jan 18, 2011)

Signed the petition last night GAMA.  In my opinion, as it is a scheduled momument, and listed, it should be turned into a cold war museum, so people, especially children can learn about part of our history. But that's just my opinion. 

Cheers,

 Sal


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 18, 2011)

smileysal said:


> Signed the petition last night GAMA.  In my opinion, as it is a scheduled momument, and listed, it should be turned into a cold war museum, so people, especially children can learn about part of our history. But that's just my opinion.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Sal


Thanks Sal - your opinion is as important as anyone else's!


----------



## RichardH (Jan 18, 2011)

In my insignificant experience of fighting planning applications, I seem to recall learning the hard way that petitions including people who live a long way from the planning site are easier to dismiss than those which contain the signatures of locals only.

I fully concur with your assessment of the importance of the site, and your anger at the proposal. But emotions aside, are you certain that a national (international?) petition will have a material effect on the process? I would hate to see the application granted because "of all the objections, only 1.3% came from the local area", or something similarly Sir-Humphreyesque.


----------



## krela (Jan 18, 2011)

RichardH said:


> In my insignificant experience of fighting planning applications, I seem to recall learning the hard way that petitions including people who live a long way from the planning site are easier to dismiss than those which contain the signatures of locals only.
> 
> I fully concur with your assessment of the importance of the site, and your anger at the proposal. But emotions aside, are you certain that a national (international?) petition will have a material effect on the process? I would hate to see the application granted because "of all the objections, only 1.3% came from the local area", or something similarly Sir-Humphreyesque.



It's a site of national importance, thus of national interest.

You are right though, national objections do not carry much weight at a local level, but its better than doing nothing surely?

Chances are the planning application will be passed on to national level anyway.


----------



## RichardH (Jan 18, 2011)

krela said:


> It's a site of national importance, thus of national interest.
> 
> You are right though, national objections do not carry much weight at a local level, but its better than doing nothing surely?
> 
> Chances are the planning application will be passed on to national level anyway.



I know it's a site of national importance. And logic would dictate that it national outcry would result in the planning application being rejected. But logic would also suggest that its Scheduled status demands a modicum of attention to upkeep, rather than just forbidding the owner to go at it with a hammer.

I am worried that it might actually do more harm than good, along the lines of "evidence has been submitted which indicates that there is relatively little local opposition to the application". But then, I have a nasty suspicious mind.

How does an application get kicked up to national level? Is there an automatic right of appeal to a higher authority if the application doesn't go the right way? I'm hazy on this.

Can't sign at the moment, because the website has been swamped. Fear the power of Derelict Places!


----------



## krela (Jan 18, 2011)

RichardH said:


> I know it's a site of national importance. And logic would dictate that it national outcry would result in the planning application being rejected. But logic would also suggest that its Scheduled status demands a modicum of attention to upkeep, rather than just forbidding the owner to go at it with a hammer.
> 
> I am worried that it might actually do more harm than good, along the lines of "evidence has been submitted which indicates that there is relatively little local opposition to the application". But then, I have a nasty suspicious mind.
> 
> ...



I fail to see how extra support could detract from the opposition, the only thing they would do is discount it.

I'm not sure exactly how things get referred to a national level, I just know they do.


----------



## RichardH (Jan 18, 2011)

krela said:


> I fail to see how extra support could detract from the opposition, the only thing they would do is discount it.
> 
> I'm not sure exactly how things get referred to a national level, I just know they do.



I'm thinking about how I would argue for the applicant in an enquiry.


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 18, 2011)

RichardH said:


> ...petitions including people who live a long way from the planning site are easier to dismiss than those which contain the signatures of locals only.
> 
> [snip] I would hate to see the application granted because "of all the objections, only 1.3% came from the local area", or something similarly Sir-Humphreyesque.


A very fair and vaild point. 

But so far most of the 200-odd signatories are local to Greenham/Newbury - my hope in broadening the publicity and therefore the reach of the petition is to reflect the national and international importance as well as the local importance. I'd be more than happy to be able to collect another 200 signatures from people elsewhere in the UK and internationally!


----------



## RichardH (Jan 18, 2011)

GAMA_at_Greenham said:


> But so far most of the 200-odd signatories are local to Greenham/Newbury - my hope in broadening the publicity and therefore the reach of the petition is to reflect the national and international importance as well as the local importance. I'd be more than happy to be able to collect another 200 signatures from people elsewhere in the UK and internationally!



I'll go and sign as soon as the website is working again. 

Might I suggest that when you submit the petition, you separate it into two sections, one for local opposition and one for non-local (or perhaps three: local, national and international)? That way, it will be hard for anyone to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it would be too difficult to determine from it the strength of local feeling.


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 18, 2011)

RichardH said:


> I'm thinking about how I would argue for the applicant in an enquiry.


The applicant's main argument appears to be that they are having to spend a fortune (£300k or more per year, apparently - I'd love to see some evidence of that!) on maintaining the site, and the only way they can pay for it is via a commercial use such as this - "and we all want the site maintained, don't we, Mr Planning Inspector?"

But HE11.1 of PPS5 (here, if you want to look: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1514132.pdf) makes it absolutely clear that the commercial needs/interests of an owner are not a reason to grant a planning consent in the face of other policy disbenefits.


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 18, 2011)

RichardH said:


> I'll go and sign as soon as the website is working again.


I know, the petition site has fallen over this morning - the second time in a week... I'm really frustrated right now! I'm hoping it's because of the huge number of people trying to access it...! 

I've sent some messages and phonecalls in the direction of the tech guys, and hopefully it'll be resolved soon... but meanwhile thanks for your patience.


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 18, 2011)

RichardH said:


> Might I suggest that when you submit the petition, you separate it into two sections, one for local opposition and one for non-local (or perhaps three: local, national and international)? That way, it will be hard for anyone to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it would be too difficult to determine from it the strength of local feeling.


Thank you, that's a really helpful suggestion - I will do that.


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 18, 2011)

GAMA_at_Greenham said:


> I know, the petition site has fallen over this morning


It seems to be up again now...!


----------



## Incognito (Jan 18, 2011)

RichardH said:


> I'll go and sign as soon as the website is working again.
> 
> Might I suggest that when you submit the petition, you separate it into two sections, one for local opposition and one for non-local (or perhaps three: local, national and international)? That way, it will be hard for anyone to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it would be too difficult to determine from it the strength of local feeling.



I think that is a very good idea, atleast at the hearing you can present it with x amount within the local area, x amount from within the UK plus a further X amount from outside of the UK see this as an important historical site.

Good luck.


----------



## Zotez (Jan 18, 2011)

GAMA_at_Greenham said:


> The applicant's main argument appears to be that they are having to spend a fortune (£300k or more per year, apparently - I'd love to see some evidence of that!) on maintaining the site, and the only way they can pay for it is via a commercial use such as this - "and we all want the site maintained, don't we, Mr Planning Inspector?"
> 
> But HE11.1 of PPS5 (here, if you want to look: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1514132.pdf) makes it absolutely clear that the commercial needs/interests of an owner are not a reason to grant a planning consent in the face of other policy disbenefits.



It doesnt cost £300k to maintain greenham - i've walked round inside the whole thing, it looks pretty much untouched although the access points do get patched up quite often.


----------



## Alansworld (Jan 18, 2011)

As a very local resident, and frequent visitor to Greenham Common, which I've also documented in photographs extensively in the past, I would be very sad to see this happen. 

Notwithstanding whether we want to see 6900 cars lined up on the common or not, I don't see why they have to destroy this piece of history to create a car park - there's a fair amount of other space along that side of the base which could be used - the old derelict hangar and surrounding empty space, for example. 

Also, as a bit of an urban explorer - not as fully fledged as most of the members here - I'd be extremely p'ed off if the GAMA area was to be demolished without me ever having got in there!

But they certainly ain't gonna demolish that lot with a pneumatic drill and half a dozen labourers with pickaxes! The demo process I would be *most *interested to observe.

Finally, in response to another poster, I suspect the so-called upkeep expense is largely for security personnel - drive around the site on that side on a Sunday afternoon and you'll soon get the very chatty man in a little van asking if he can help.

Petition signed.

AD-W


----------



## krela (Jan 18, 2011)

I think you misunderstand. They have no intention of demolishing them, just surrounding them with cars.


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 18, 2011)

krela said:


> I think you misunderstand. They have no intention of demolishing them, just surrounding them with cars.


This is right - their plan is to store cars on the concrete apron (and to concrete over a lot of the grass to make more hard-standing, incidentally), but there is no plan to demolish the bunkers.


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 18, 2011)

Zotez said:


> It doesnt cost £300k to maintain greenham - i've walked round inside the whole thing, it looks pretty much untouched although the access points do get patched up quite often.


Quite! The gentleman who patrols the site is a security guard who also does some night patrols. There are also fence repairs to be done where kids and vandals break in, but no-where near £300k per annum's worth.


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 19, 2011)

Apologies to anyone who has tried unsuccessfully to sign the petition in the last 18-24 hours - a database on the server fell over. Apparently all is now well so please try again!


----------



## DigitalNoise (Jan 19, 2011)

Nothing short of shocking. I couild understand using some other areas of the site, but why the bunkers?
Good work  Petition signed.


----------



## Zotez (Jan 19, 2011)

Any more information on the patrols? You could always PM me them.


----------



## night crawler (Jan 26, 2011)

Just to let you know that on the news this morning the Application was turned down.


----------



## RichardH (Jan 26, 2011)

Hooray!

I shall treat myself to a celebratory BLT for lunch.


----------



## DigitalNoise (Jan 26, 2011)

Great news!


----------



## Abo (Jan 26, 2011)

What else should they do with it?


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 26, 2011)

Thanks for your support - the planning application was refused last night, much to the relief of all of us here in Greenham.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=15725


----------



## GAMA_at_Greenham (Jan 26, 2011)

Abo said:


> What else should they do with it?



Dr Andrew Brown, the Regional Director of English Heritage, was at the meeting last night - unprecedented in itself! - where he made a number of interesting points during a very eloquent presentation:

1. The GAMA site is the single most important heritage site in the stewardship of West Berkshire Council.

2. It has the potential to be the flagship Cold War site heritage in the UK. 

3. If the site was in public ownership, many funding streams would be unlocked (needless to say, the owners were not interested in considering that - maybe they will reconsider when they find that commercial uses are just not going to happen).

The future of the control tower (currently owned by the Council) is also being considered - I am much more hopeful of a good outcome for it.


----------



## -harleyd- (Jan 27, 2011)

As a Newbury local I am very happy at this outcome. Maybe the owner should now think about his losses and consider selling to a party that understands the sensitive nature of the site (English Heritage for example) or better still DONATING the land to such a worthy cause 

Thanks to all who signed the petition


----------



## Foxylady (Jan 27, 2011)

Fantastic news, guys.  Thanks for giving us the chance to participate too.
Cheers.


----------

