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

[RichardH]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I know, the petition site has fallen over this morning

It seems to be up again now...!

 

[Incognito]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[GAMA_at_Greenham]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Zotez]

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

 

[night crawler]

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

 

[RichardH]

Hooray!

I shall treat myself to a celebratory BLT for lunch.

 

[DigitalNoise]

Great news!

 

[Abo]

What else should they do with it?

 

[GAMA_at_Greenham]

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]

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.