Future of the Greenham Control Tower is put in doubt Options

[Phil_D11102]

“As an airbase, the Common’s functions both as a place of recreation and a refuge for wildlife was lost.


What a crock.. There were many events on the base that were opened to the public. The club was always packed on the weekends.

As for wildlife, no harm came to any animal on the base during the deployment of GLCM.

Lets face it, a few people bit off more than they could chew when the control tower was purchased.

[On the edge]

“As an airbase, the Common’s functions both as a place of recreation and a refuge for wildlife was lost.


What a crock.. There were many events on the base that were opened to the public. The club was always packed on the weekends.

As for wildlife, no harm came to any animal on the base during the deployment of GLCM.

Lets face it, a few people bit off more than they could chew when the control tower was purchased.

Your last comment says it all. The apparent issue with the Wildlife people should and could have easily been resolved much earlier in the project. It's a dreadful pity that this worthwhile organisation should be besmirched and the planning process brought into disrepute simply to cover poor project management. One could be forgiven for asking what other short cuts have been taken and issues skated over? For instance, what are the ongoing running costs and where are they coming from? Is the Council, which is even smaller than NTC adequately staffed with professional people able to manage such a venture? I'm not a Greenham precept payer, so should if worry me? I suppose that because the Unitary authority is presently claiming such poverty that even school transport costs have to be cut, their credibility gets damaged by such actions of its junior councils.

[Simon Kirby]

Lets face it, a few people bit off more than they could chew when the control tower was purchased.

Quite so.

[Andy Capp]

A vanity project. The way I see it is if a private concern were never interested, there is probably a very good reason.

[Exhausted]

A vanity project. The way I see it is if a private concern were never interested, there is probably a very good reason.

Because although it's a nice idea, the footfall through the café which presumably will in part finance the project, is going to be very limited and any sensible person can see that will be the case. That doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile as it has historical value as a visitor centre. What I find a bit difficult to understand is that in a flurry of publicity the control tower restoration project was to be progressed by a small parish council. masterminded by the leader of that council. purchased for that reason from WBC and project managed from the start. One must assume that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. But, not the case it seems. Along comes a council sponsored wildlife trust who have just woken up to the project and need to show their muscle by finding reasons for opposing a minor intrusion on our common land. Shame on WBC for not sending them packing.

[Exhausted]

When the original application was lodged it was pretty clear from the letter from BBOWT that they were making noises about the fact that the tower was adjacent to a SSSI and that they made it clear that they would only go along with the application and the works to restore a listed building within the footprint of that building.

The application by Greenham parish Council noted that the area of the tower was excluded from the area returned to common land and that the planning brief was clear that the area would be used for leisure purposes. There was also an offer to provide office accommodation for the wildlife trust. This may of course been a sweetener in case of trouble.

The application was quite clear that it included toilets, exhibition area, café and storage space. The ground plan submitted clearly shows that the whole of the gravel car park which is quite extensive and the entrance road was also included in the application.
The approval document does not put any restrictions on use as a café but does go on at great length about walls, doors and paintwork on all the floors.

The change of use application I find strange as the original planning approval made it quite clear that a café was included and that it was to be a visitor centre. I think the statement from the Newbury Society (Dr Pick) puts it in a nutshell. Dr Pick says, what is being lost in this extreme focus on the need to protect wildlife on the common is the huge potential benefit to the people of Newbury for whom the common was restored in 2011 by WBC. He goes on to say, that its restoration was to the people of Newbury and it could be said that the benefits to wildlife are secondary. The Newbury society understand that organisations whose prime function is the protection of wildlife will put people below wildlife in priority and they urge the planning authority not to overburden the applicant. Refusal will result in a slow loss of a heritage asset.

We shall see, the application is to be heard Wednesday 23rd September.

[Simon Kirby]

Because although it's a nice idea, the footfall through the café which presumably will in part finance the project, is going to be very limited and any sensible person can see that will be the case. That doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile as it has historical value as a visitor centre. What I find a bit difficult to understand is that in a flurry of publicity the control tower restoration project was to be progressed by a small parish council. masterminded by the leader of that council. purchased for that reason from WBC and project managed from the start. One must assume that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. But, not the case it seems. Along comes a council sponsored wildlife trust who have just woken up to the project and need to show their muscle by finding reasons for opposing a minor intrusion on our common land. Shame on WBC for not sending them packing.

I think tht's the spin that GPC would have you believe, but from the evidence of the planning application and particularly the agenda papers it would appear that BBOWT made their objections in the Spring and GPC have just made a very poor effort at quantifying the net environmental damage that their development will cause to the SSSI and by not agreeing with the borough ecologist on how to mitigate that damage. Instead they're now saying that it was all BBOWT and WBCs fault that they didn't know when they bought the tower that their development would require planning permission and by implication that they'd assumed they'd be able to cause whatever the heck environmental damage they liked to the surrounding SSSI because no one could do anything to stop them. It's also notable that both Natural England and the Borough Ecologist support the BBOWT objection and more. So it's really rather shame on GPC for bungling this project and trying to blame their mismanagement on the planners and environmentalists.

[Simon Kirby]

The change of use application I find strange as the original planning approval made it quite clear that a café was included and that it was to be a visitor centre. I think the statement from the Newbury Society (Dr Pick) puts it in a nutshell. Dr Pick says, what is being lost in this extreme focus on the need to protect wildlife on the common is the huge potential benefit to the people of Newbury for whom the common was restored in 2011 by WBC. He goes on to say, that its restoration was to the people of Newbury and it could be said that the benefits to wildlife are secondary. The Newbury society understand that organisations whose prime function is the protection of wildlife will put people below wildlife in priority and they urge the planning authority not to overburden the applicant. Refusal will result in a slow loss of a heritage asset.

We shall see, the application is to be heard Wednesday 23rd September.

The original planning application wasn't a planning application, it was an application for listed building consent, and it consequently had no bearing on the impact of the works on the adjacent SSSI, it was solely concerned with the affect the works would have on the structure and setting of the listed building.

And had the proposed use as cafe (use class A3), interpretation area (use class D) and offices (use class B1) not been a material change in use then there wouldn't have been a need for any kind of planning permission at all because they're not making any external changes, all the modifications are internal. GPC would appear to be arguing that WBC mislead them into believing that whatever the current use class that conversion to A3, D, and B1 would not require permission, but without some evidence to support that position I find that suggestion bizarre. I'm guessing the the current use class would be considered to be B2 industrial though GPC appear to suggest it's D2 leisure, but either way that was always going to require a planning application for change of use, and it's this planning application which is contingent on the negative impact of the development on the surrounding SSSI being mitigated.

[On the edge]

I find it frankly astounding that the Parish Council, which itself makes great play of being an important component of the planning process has so little understanding or regard for the rules.

Dr Pick's reported comment is equally strange. Particularly coming from what perports to be a society concerned with respect for the local environment. If the restoration of the common was to be without regard to the flora or fauna, it would have been better left as an airport but for civilian use. That would at least have created a large number of local jobs. Without the wildlife, it would be a pretty poor common and AstroTurf still needs maintenance.

This whole issue is storm is simply blown up to cover project management deficiencies. What else have they got wrong. If more care isn't taken, all the restoration will be in vain, not because of the planning process, but because there are no funds to pay for the ongoing maintenance.

It's a massive shame that those enthusiasts whipped into blindly supporting the political noise couldn't have been marshalled a lot earlier as this would have been a classic candidate for a real independent community trust.

[Simon Kirby]

It's a massive shame that those enthusiasts whipped into blindly supporting the political noise couldn't have been marshalled a lot earlier as this would have been a classic candidate for a real independent community trust.

Yes, absolutely. There's been some talk of this being community project, but there is no community involvement here. It's been a vanity project for Greenham Parish Council.

I'm sorry to go there, but parish council's have only one service that they are under a positive legal duty to provide, and that's allotments. They don't have a choice here, the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 says that if there is a need in the parish then the parish council absolutely must provide sufficient allotments for the parish. Greenham Parish Council doesn't do this, so it is failing in it's single duty.

Now a parish council is able to provide a cafe and interpretation space, but I believe it was entirely inappropriate for such a small parish council to take on a £500,000 development project, most especially when it isn't even capable of delivering the single most basic service which it is positively required to provide, and it's hardly surprising that the wheels have fallen off.

This whole issue is storm is simply blown up to cover project management deficiencies. What else have they got wrong. If more care isn't taken, all the restoration will be in vain, not because of the planning process, but because there are no funds to pay for the ongoing maintenance.

Indeed, and Tony Forward is quoted saying as much. The business plan for this £500,000 project would appear to have been

1. Commission the building work
2. Wing-it

Fine, I don't live in Greenham and I don't pay the GPC precept, so it's really rather a problem for the Greenham parishioners.

[Exhausted]

Yes, absolutely. There's been some talk of this being community project, but there is no community involvement here. It's been a vanity project for Greenham Parish Council. I'm sorry to go there, but parish council's have only one service that they are under a positive legal duty to provide, and that's allotments. They don't have a choice here, the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 says that if there is a need in the parish then the parish council absolutely must provide sufficient allotments for the parish. Greenham Parish Council doesn't do this, so it is failing in it's single duty. Now a parish council is able to provide a cafe and interpretation space, but I believe it was entirely inappropriate for such a small parish council to take on a £500,000 development project, most especially when it isn't even capable of delivering the single most basic service which it is positively required to provide, and it's hardly surprising that the wheels have fallen off. Indeed, and Tony Forward is quoted saying as much. The business plan for this £500,000 project would appear to have been

1. Commission the building work
2. Wing-it

Fine, I don't live in Greenham and I don't pay the GPC precept, so it's really rather a problem for the Greenham parishioners.

Well, you may believe it is a vanity project and that is up to you although I do see signs of your bias creeping in. This site of SSSI is already open to the public, it's a common for goodness sake which in my book equates to it being a park and as it is public land there are no 'do not walk on the grass' signs. The tower was becoming sadly derelict and WBC would have just let it rot away. I believe the parish council were brave in their decision to try to restore the building, no commercial concern would touch it with a bargepole. If they were winging it, good on them. I believe that there are too many jobsworths trying to scupper every plan that gets put forward for the benefit of the people. I know that we need to hang on to our heritage and I know wildlife needs a bit of a helping hand but in this case, a few years ago it was a strip of tarmac, gravel roads to fuel dumps and concrete areas where huge and dangerous aircraft stood, now at least the area is more open and gives us the ability to get a bit of fresh air within striking distance of the town.

The area is already well used by walkers who drive up to the common, go through the gates and walk in peace in the fresh air and this probably won't change other than they may pop in for a cup of tea. Visitors who want to see the control tower have land that they can park on without entering the SSSI and it is possible they may only want to go there once in their life to just have a look. You can bet however that they will be a sedate group of people and are hardly likely to go off roading or letting off fireworks,

I want this to succeed but unlike Simon I have no axe to grind either way. We are a bit tight for money and councils are having to pull in their reins but let's not kill every project that ordinary people want to do for the good of their community. We can say that this council is a load of uninformed amateurs but we could also say they are doing this as best as they can and not employing yard loads of consultants, planners, environmental consultants, all of whom cost and probably would double the project costs. We would have something to moan about then.

[Cognosco]

Well, you may believe it is a vanity project and that is up to you although I do see signs of your bias creeping in. This site of SSSI is already open to the public, it's a common for goodness sake which in my book equates to it being a park and as it is public land there are no 'do not walk on the grass' signs. The tower was becoming sadly derelict and WBC would have just let it rot away. I believe the parish council were brave in there decision to try to restore the building, no commercial concern would touch it with a bargepole. If they were winging it, good on them. I believe that there are too many jobsworths trying to scupper every plan that gets put forward for the benefit of the people. I know that we need to hang on to our heritage and I know wildlife needs a bit of a helping hand but in this case, a few years ago it was a strip of tarmac, gravel roads to fuel dumps and concrete areas where huge and dangerous aircraft stood, now at least the area is more open and gives us the ability to get a bit of fresh air within striking distance of the town.

The area is already well used by walkers who drive up to the common, go through the gates and walk in peace in the fresh air and this probably won't change other than they may pop in for a cup of tea. Visitors who want to see the control tower have land that they can park on without entering the SSSI and it is possible they may only want to go there once in their life to just have a look. You can bet however that they will be a sedate group of people and are hardly likely to go off roading or letting off fireworks,

I want this to succeed but unlike Simon I have no axe to grind either way. We are a bit tight for money and councils are having to pull in their reins but let's not kill every project that ordinary people want to do for the good of their community. We can say that this council is a load of uninformed amateurs but we could also say they are doing this as best as they can and not employing yard loads of consultants, planners, environmental consultants, all of whom cost and probably would double the project costs. We would have something to moan about then.

Agree with your sentiments but........... is it going to be an ongoing burden on Greenham precept payers? Has there been enough research into the future running costs and would there actually be enough custom for a cafe to actually be viable especially in the winter months etc? Agree we all like certain community projects but unfortunately these projects have to be paid for in these dire financial times and I would be wanting to have some idea of how much per year this would be going to cost me if I were a Greenham precept payer?

[Exhausted]

Agree with your sentiments but........... is it going to be an ongoing burden on Greenham precept payers? Has there been enough research into the future running costs and would there actually be enough custom for a cafe to actually be viable especially in the winter months etc? Agree we all like certain community projects but unfortunately these projects have to be paid for in these dire financial times and I would be wanting to have some idea of how much per year this would be going to cost me if I were a Greenham precept payer?

There should not be much in ongoing costs over and above what we have today apart from heating and lighting. The café really only needs to sell tea and buns and may be it could become a volunteer service which would mean low running costs. It will never be a commercial success because there are not going to be many visitors who want to use the café, time will tell but I don't believe that even JSH in his most delusional period would have considered it a profit maker. It does need some marketing however, there must be hundreds of Americans in the States for instance who might fork out a few dollars in recognition of their time at Greenham especially if it included a stars and stripes that had been flown from the new tower. That would be 365 flags and 365 donations. They love it, we turn up our nose at recent history and patriotic fervour. The Yanks love it. Get in there boys.

[On the edge]

There should not be much in ongoing costs over and above what we have today apart from heating and lighting. The café really only needs to sell tea and buns and may be it could become a volunteer service which would mean low running costs. It will never be a commercial success because there are not going to be many visitors who want to use the café, time will tell but I don't believe that even JSH in his most delusional period would have considered it a profit maker. It does need some marketing however, there must be hundreds of Americans in the States for instance who might fork out a few dollars in recognition of their time at Greenham especially if it included a stars and stripes that had been flown from the new tower. That would be 365 flags and 365 donations. They love it, we turn up our nose at recent history and patriotic fervour. The Yanks love it. Get in there boys.

Yes, 'ongoing maintenance' adequately covered by the profit on tea and wads lovingly provided on a voluntary basis by a few locals. That should pull them in, probably have to restrict numbers because public liability insurance isn't that cheap these days. Anyway, given the limited funds, there's likely to be even less to see than in Newbury Museum.

However, it is a good idea and it may well prove popular. These things can be done, look at how old steam engines (which do cost rather more) are rescued and operated. The steam buffs might ask their local council for cash, but only in the same way as the Scouts or the kids football club. They actually get very little if any public cash. Those interested get together and use their collective skills to manage the project and cajole funds from who they can. They don't let their hard pressed local councillor try and find time to do it for them.

Yes, the Americans may well be interested, though probably no more so than our own national servicemen wanting to see their old bases, so not a strong pull. Anyway, it's strange that no offers of tangible help have come from that direction, even though there are a good few expats on Facebook etc. As for marketing, our local government skills in that direction are pretty dire. We don't even market Shaw House particularly well let alone the revamped Museum.

Don't get me wrong', it would be nice to have. A bit like buying a garden bench, nice, but not when the house roof needs major repairs, the car is on the blink and little Tommy needs more money to pay his bus fare....

[Simon Kirby]

If I can quote Tony Forward, former chair of GPC:

“The biggest hurdle which I think is a major one was the ongoing running costs. It’s going to have to be heavily subsidised or paid for through charges.”

[Phil_D11102]

If I can quote Tony Forward, former chair of GPC:

“The biggest hurdle which I think is a major one was the ongoing running costs. It’s going to have to be heavily subsidised or paid for through charges.”

The control tower has sat vacant for years, the same as the bowling alley, base theater, dining hall, commissary and several dorms.

The council didn't want to make the investment back then, what do you expect when you have a lack a vision.

Oh well, someone has got to pay the mortgage on the control tower, and it will be the taxpayer.

[Exhausted]

The control tower has sat vacant for years, the same as the bowling alley, base theater, dining hall, commissary and several dorms. The council didn't want to make the investment back then, what do you expect when you have a lack a vision. Oh well, someone has got to pay the mortgage on the control tower, and it will be the taxpayer.

How much did GPC have to pay WBC for the tower.

I'm not sure that all the other buildings you mention are vacant but they all belong to the Greenham Common Trust I believe.

[Phil_D11102]

How much did GPC have to pay WBC for the tower.

I'm not sure that all the other buildings you mention are vacant but they all belong to the Greenham Common Trust I believe.

In 1997 The GC Trust and the "Local Authority" bought the airbase. The MOD didn't want it anymore in 1993.

The facilities were there, ready. All it took was a little ingenuity and investment.. Now all you got up there is a pile of ugly rubble.

[je suis Charlie]

Its all been a shocking waste of what could have been a rather splendid faculty. Mismanaged all the way down the line. Shocking example of poor decision making in the council who are more concerned with giving off land for free to development and sprinkling parking meters around like fairy dust than they are with looking after the common.

[Andy Capp]

Its all been a shocking waste of what could have been a rather splendid faculty. Mismanaged all the way down the line. Shocking example of poor decision making in the council who are more concerned with giving off land for free to development and sprinkling parking meters around like fairy dust than they are with looking after the common.

Wasn't the management of the facility handed over to a trust?