View Full Version : MOD sued for £9 million over Harrier noise


ORAC
10th Mar 2003, 23:19
The Times - Neighbour in £9m attack on RAF noise

THE owners of a country estate want £9 million damages for the “shattering” din made by military aircraft, the High Court heard yesterday.

Darby Dennis, 51, and his wife Catherine, 46, are suing the Ministry of Defence, saying that the unbearable noise of Harrier aircraft has rendered their lives impossible. They first complained about the Harriers, based two miles from their 17th-century home at RAF Wittering, in 1985. The couple reluctantly began legal proceedings in 1996 after what their solicitor said was 11 years “battling against the MoD, who have done precisely nothing about it”.

The MoD receives more than 4,000 complaints a year about military aircraft and the case could set a precedent if the claim is successful.

Walcot Hall, a Grade I listed manor house in Lincolnshire, was built in 1678 by Sir Hugh Cholmondely and is part of a 1,387-acre agricultural and sporting estate. Mr Dennis moved there as a boy in 1963. He says that the property’s worth has fallen by £7.1 million, roughly half its market value, because of the noise. Like many stately homes, it is hired out for events such as fashion shoots, television filming and shooting parties to fund its upkeep.

The Dennis family wants £2.3 million for lost revenue. The MoD disputes its liability and the Dennis family’s valuations. The family refused the offer of a lower figure to settle out of court.

There has been an airfield at Wittering since 1916, and during the Second World War Walcot Hall became a US operations centre for planning bombing raids on Germany.

Harriers were first flown from RAF Wittering in 1967. The base is used mainly for training, with flights generally restricted to daytime hours on weekdays. In 1991 the MoD installed double glazing in several smaller houses on the estate but this was not a practical solution for the 17th-century mansion. Mr Dennis said: “It pains us to have had to bring this case. We want to make it clear that we support the Royal Air Force in all it does.

“We have had to live with the shattering noise caused by Harriers...and despite all efforts, the MoD has not listened. Harriers are exceptionally noisy. We are close to and in a direct line with Wittering’s runway. On flying days, normal life is impossible.

“This case is about whether the law allows the MoD to do what it likes and if so whether individuals should have to suffer the consequences.”



Jackonicko
11th Mar 2003, 09:37
In 1963 (when this c-c-c-c-clot moved to his current home), wasn't Wittering a V-bomber base? Wouldn't that have been fairly noisy?

While the Harrier is undeniably a noisy jet, doesn't the force spend a great deal of time operating elsewhere? Even when operating from Wittering, don't Harriers export most of their noise to the Lakes and Wales, etc? Hasn't Cottesmore further reduced noise at Wittering?

Has this bloke got a leg to stand on?

newswatcher
11th Mar 2003, 09:50
Great picture in the Daily Mail (yes I know!). The tree-lined drive through the landscaped gardens, almost exactly lines up with the runway!

Much the same points as the Times, but does mention that constant training circuits add to the claimed intrusion. Can't put in double-glazing since the house is Grade 1. Looks like classic case of over-claim, accept reduced amount.

Whoops, isn't this sub-judice?

Flap62
11th Mar 2003, 10:44
The large number of cross circuits because of strip use spreads the noise footprint over a much larger area than a conventional airfield. This also has the effect of diluting the noise in the undershoot of the main runway. The noise has also decreased recently with the 1(F) move to cottesmore (although the Navy are making up for that somewhat). This house is so far out that most circuits turn comfortably inside it anyway and anyone who does fly over it is flying bomber circuits and deserves to be chopped anyway. Solution - put 75' and 150' rings round it and use it as a crv7 target.

Divergent Phugoid!
11th Mar 2003, 13:25
Why do people complain when they move to an area under the flight path, of an existing airfield? Their logic escapes me!!


A previous thread said that fast jet noise was the sound of freedom! Ok it was down south where they dont usually hear or see anything interesting but they should be gratefull that there are still some of our A/C still here to protect them from the boogie man!


Can't see that they would be in residence that much though, what with all the society do's to attend, the Cruiser in the Med, villa in Tuscany........

:mad: :p

Ludwig
11th Mar 2003, 15:25
Divergent Phugoid, I would have thought that was obvious. Buy a house for a couple of million in the flight path, spend a hundred grand on lawyers and bingo, airfield closed house goes up in value by a couple of million. Good investment what?:yuk:

In the days when asylum seekers can sue for distress and burglars get compensation for having their bollocks shot off, it wouldn't surprise me if this bloke didn't win!:mad:

newswatcher
11th Mar 2003, 15:45
Point of order gents, this family have owned the house for the past 40 years.

The Nr Fairy
11th Mar 2003, 15:59
Fair enough, newswatcher.

House has been owned by the same family for 40 years, plaintiff grew up there. Harriers have been there since 1967, the airfield extant since 1917, and he asked first asked questions in 1985. Legal action commenced in 1996. So he wasn't exactly unaware of the house's position when he first moved there.

I may feel differently if there was a sum of £2 - £3 million involved, but he's already been made an offer and turned it down.

My hope ? That he either loses or wins a lower amount than offered, in which case he'll have a large costs bill.

opso
11th Mar 2003, 18:42
“battling against the MoD, who have done precisely nothing about it” What has he wanted the MoD to do about it? They have looked at, but aren't allowed to install double glazing owing to the building being listed. They can't rotate the runway so that it points away from his house. They can't reduce the flying much without shutting down the Stn (I had a bloke in Finningley suggest that the flying there stop, but everyone hang around so that his taxi business didn't go bust!). So what precisely has he wanted the MoD to do, apart from give him a barrell load of money?

terryJones
11th Mar 2003, 19:31
And just what will 9million do towards a practical solution?

We live in North Cambs, and Harriers and Tornados overfly us regularly. I have no probs with it, except when they fly 'Directly' overhead, as opposed to off one side. (The problem then is that it frightens the ducks, who panic easily, and in fact one of the old ladies now has a twisted foot due to being trampled by other ducks)
Conversely, when the hercibirds go over, sometimes singly, sometimes in threes, unless you see them you hardly know they are there, even when they have to pull up to over fly the railway line. :rolleyes:

Divergent Phugoid!
11th Mar 2003, 21:20
Ludwig,
Point taken, One question though, any one know where I can find a Mansion near an airfield that hasnt already closed? Oh and just one more thing, Any one got a spare 3 or 4 Million they could lend me??

;)

Mr C Hinecap
12th Mar 2003, 07:11
Note to OC Ops:

Re: Mr Dennis' complaint. Please write & inc following:

Mr Dennis - we offered some of the damn fine double glazing that you didn't like - something about 17th C not looking good with white UPVC - well - you ARE fussy.

Low flying in the vicinity of the airfield assists us in the taking off and landing of our aircraft. The pilots find it useful.

Now poke off or we'll send the boys round. There's a good chap.

Gainesy
12th Mar 2003, 07:19
He could of course offer luxury B & B services to plane spotters.

contact_tower
12th Mar 2003, 11:02
Nice to work at an AB which is situated in a county completely depened on the military, we never get noise complaints! :D (Not even when the Coltishall Jags or the noisy colibris form Wittering are here on deployment.)

Guess where I work....... ;)

Lucifer
12th Mar 2003, 11:20
In most other areas of complaints, liability expires after a certain period if no action is taken. Since our Harriers have been there so long, and since V Force were there before it surely is a pretty simple case of 'it's a bit late now matey'.

Could he suggest where exactly we can place jets so no one hears them - near an estate he probably didn't pay for is better than a town filled with many more people. Or perhaps he'd rather we had no air power at all. Probably supports Helen Clark. Pratt.

G Zip
14th Mar 2003, 21:14
There would appear to be a clear task here for the 'Green Marrows' - how about some lose formation hovering over the said manse - oh yeah, since 'F' Troop are now CTM-based, better do it in the dark. As Bob Hoskins once said in 'The Long Good Friday', "Bit of respect required here!" methinks! Own the night and rule the skies in omniam principe...:cool:

814man
16th Apr 2003, 18:00
From the BBC web site:
(Alongside a nice photo of a high level formation of F3s!!)
Couple win £950,000 over jet noise.

A couple have been awarded £950,000 over noise created by RAF Harrier jets above their 17th Century listed house.

Farmer Darby Dennis, 51, and his 46-year-old wife, Catherine, said the effect of the planes flying over Walcot Hall, near Stamford, Lincolnshire, was unbearable and had affected their domestic and commercial activities.

They had claimed £9m in compensation.

Their claim was founded in common law nuisance and under the Human Rights Act.

It was aimed at securing a declaration of unlawfulness against the Crown, which would stop the flying and result in compensation.

The Ministry of Defence disputed the figures claimed and its liability.

It would appear that the BBC web site developers are also avid Pruners. Ten minutes after I noticed the story and posted it here, with comment about the photo of F3s, they changed it to a low level GR4!!!

topcat450
16th Apr 2003, 19:27
Its disgusting in my book, compo for a/c noise...when you live near a bl**dy airfield! Its been an airfield since when, 1917!

Perhaps they'd prefer it if there were no airfields, we're no Air Force and we were all speaking German worshiping statues of the little Nazi with the 'tache. Flamin heck, I'm lost for words.:yuk:

sprucemoose
16th Apr 2003, 21:48
Think I'll sue my local farmer, having knowingly moved into a house that backs onto his field of very noisy sheep.
They must've had a leg to stand on though, or else MoD wouldn't have settled.

Pax Vobiscum
16th Apr 2003, 22:42
BBC Radio 4 News reported (not on the web site) that one of their objections was that they couldn't have shooting parties because of the aircraft noise. Let's hope that some friendly local will now sue them over the noise from their shooting parties!

A2QFI
16th Apr 2003, 22:47
The snivelling gits have been awarded something over £900,000. There were Harriers flying there when they moved in and have been ever since. The glide path has been raised from 2.5 to 3 degs to help the noise problem. Considering the RAF's complete Harrier force is based within 6 miles of his ancestral dump I think he has been very lucky to get anything. Perhaps the money will come from that widow who has (or hasn't) had to repay her late husband's allegedly overpaid salary! The poor lose out and the rich get richer! Nothing new there then!

sprucemoose
16th Apr 2003, 23:15
To any tabloid headline writers out there, how about using 'Jet orff moi land' to go with this one?
I'm wasted here, I tell you!

MilOps
16th Apr 2003, 23:36
You lot should listen to yourselves, you all sound like a bunch of spoilt prolls. If any of you failed to notice, that house had been there since the 17 century, a bit longer than 1917 wouldn't you all agree. Also he as an individual had been living there since 1963, how many of RAF Wittering's population can claim such longevity of occupation? For the ignorant, if a building is listed as Grade 1 it is considered to be of historical importance so merely plonking Mr Everest's finest ain't allowed-Law!
This is the correct judgement, but in my opinion does nothing to reflect the real economic damage that military aircraft can cause, when RAF Wittering first opened aviation was in it's infancy and posed few problems, today things are very different so the MoD needs to understand that it has a duty to the local population of it's airfields, or the compensation bill might start to climb.

Archimedes
16th Apr 2003, 23:50
Er... his being there since '63 is irrelevant, surely? There were V-Bombers flying from the base then. He moved in with the knowledge that there was an operational RAF airfield there, complete with jet noise. Although current Wittering inhabitants probably haven't been there since 1963, the RAF, complete with noisy things, has.

I'm sorry, but he knew what he was getting in to.

By the by - does this line:

"It was aimed at securing a declaration of unlawfulness against the Crown, which would stop the flying and result in compensation"

mean that Wittering must now stop flying ops?

Training Risky
17th Apr 2003, 00:30
For the ignorant, I believe the term is 'proles', short for proletariat.

For the record 'Milops', your name might suggest you work in mil aviation... Your post does not.

I'm not even going to repeat the argument about the necessity of low flying in this country, because this is about a person being bothered with the normal approach and departures you might expect so close to an airfield.

The only economic damage this tw*t is suffering is that he can't hold a shooting party or have musak videos shot in the grounds...

WELL BOO F***ING HOO!

I cannot believe he has taken £950 000 of taxpayers' money, when he and his family moved into the place when the V-force was still there!!

:yuk: :yuk:

And you should actually see the extreme efforts we go to, to avoid every little shi**y village with a retired Colonel who likes to read his morning Times in peace, or the ridiculously high circuit heights, or the constraints on essential night flying... so don't make wild assertions about "the duty we have to our local populations".

rant over

Downwind.Maddl-Land
17th Apr 2003, 03:00
The point that you are all missing I'm afraid is the PRECEDENT that has been set.

Every moaning little sh1t (or sh1tess - no PC bias here!) or left-wing axe grinder within X miles of any Mil airfield will be writing to their "no win no fee" compensation cowboy tonight. We taxpayers could be forking out millions over the next few years. The lunatics HAVE now taken over the asylum.

The MoD will be appealling this, right?

Or are they too embroiled in trumping up charges against ATCOs and Chinook crews to be bothered?

witchdoctor
17th Apr 2003, 04:17
Hmmmm, does this mean I can also sue the MOD for NOT flying over my house and depriving me of the pleasure I derive (sad anorak that I am) of the sound of fast jets?

Perhaps I should persuade the boss to go and take piccies of his house. How much noise do you think I can make in a C150 at 800' orbiting nice and close?;)

Scud-U-Like
17th Apr 2003, 04:24
I understand the judge in this case was careful to point out this judgment was not to be regarded as setting a legal precedent and similar cases will continue to be judged on their merits or demerits. The courts are generally dismissive of those whose complain about living near aerodromes. It appears there were exceptional circumstances in this case.

rivetjoint
17th Apr 2003, 15:57
Well we all know now which house WILL be the target of "accidental" aircraft noise now don't we.

MilOps
17th Apr 2003, 16:14
Training Risky you are a pr@<hidden>! FYI I have been working in Mil Aviation for 21 years now and understand only too well the role and need for low flying. Does being in the RAF mean that I must automatically fall into line and join the ranks of the ranting masses, if so think again! If the opener for your counter argument is to pick up on a typo then your cred is in doubt before you start, however I believe the word is a perfect description of the attitude of many who have posted so far. You rant like a small child when threatened with having your toys taken away, and to argue further that you disgree with the concept that he is denied the opportunity to hold shooting parties et al demonstrates a level of arrogance that is breathtaking. Are you trying to say that an individual's ability to make a crust is dependent on whether the MoD will actually let him? Long live democracy! Personally I regard the continued existance of a Jacobean Mansion and it's landscaped gardens more important than that of a military airfield, whether you like it or not military airfields do not enjoy an infinite life span, witness the large number that have been closed or recategorised over the recent past. The V bomber argument is specious ( how many sorties a day, how many ac in circuit, size of the circuit bearing in mind the size of the ac etc etc) and so is the argument that the the current owner moved there in 1963 and was aware of the implied ground rules. I bet in 1963 he was a very young child, also I would suggest that attitudes then were very different, that's sociological progress for you.
It appears that the Judge has decreed that this case does not imply precedence and that any subsequent case will be judged accordingly; good and quite right too, but the fact that an award of £950,000 clearly demonstrates that this particular case had merit. From now on people are going to have to pay a bit more attention to local noise abatement procedures and be a little more understanding of the local populace. And before any of you lot have a pop, I spend an awful lot of my time listening to flying complaints, and yes most deserve little sympathy but many do have a genuine grievance. Unfortunately the standard response from many aircrew in the RAF is 'tough sh!t, shouldn't live next to an airfield', nice attitude guys! The maxim here is don't generalise but take each complaint on a case by case basis.

Zoom
17th Apr 2003, 17:34
Looks like the same old story: buy cheap, complain, get compensation - just like at Nordhorn Range all those years ago. Wish I could think of something similar. Wait a minute - there's a farm across the road and the endless racket from those 2000 new-born lambs is driving me to distraction. So what if that farm has been there for 200 years and I've been here for just 10 - I have my rights, you know, and I expect everything to change to suit me!

John Nichol is right in today's DT. :ok:

Basil
17th Apr 2003, 18:01
I'll go along with the aviation masses on this one.
I can scarcely believe that someone whose family bought a house next to an operational jet station can be awarded compensation for aircraft noise.
Unfortunately we see this kind of idiocy on an all too regular basis from GA to PT to Mil. At White Waltham, for instance, there are new houses built right up to the airfield perimeter - I wonder if the owners bought in the certain knowledge that they will, one day, collect a light aircraft in their back yard. When they do they'll probably complain about it :}
Do we or do we not want to have an Air Force? If we do we must remember that the UK is a small and very densely populated country and we put up with motorway noise, PT aircraft noise, industrial noise etc., etc.
My personal opinion is that, if the Dennises do not care for the "sound of freedom", perhaps they should consider moving away from Wittering as their family made their decision to move there in the first place.

I trust that no accidents will take place as a result of RAF alterations to procedures in an attempt to reduce noise from these very effective aircraft.

topcat450
17th Apr 2003, 19:13
words fail me...

A couple of minor points though....if its been that bad for so long...why hasn't he moved? I mean if it REALLY was that distressing and upsetting...I'd have moved a long time ago. It strikes me they've the money to do such a thing if necessary.

Also, now he's got the money, whats going to happen to the aircraft noise? Not a lot as far as I can tell, he didn't like the noise...so the MOD did their best to limit it, he still didn't like it so now he's being paid. He's still got to put up with the noise, so all he's acheived is a wedge of cash..which is not to be sniffed at...but he's still got to put up with the aircraft.

Perhaps now he's got his million he can go buy a house near Cranwell...get paid again...then howabout one near Scampton...double-whammy, those Red arrows make awful colours which will spoil their view of a normally blue sky ASWELL as the noise....grrr...

<TC - going to have some camomile tea and calm down>

Perhaps the station officer could now sue them for the stress they've caused him and the RAF over the past 40 years.

gasax
17th Apr 2003, 20:27
I periodically browse this board simply out of curiousity. I never cease to be surprised and dismayed by the purile, juvenile and frankly stupid comments that are posted here.

If the RAF displayed the tiniest fraction of the attitude portrayed by the rubbish posted here, they were bound to lose.

Get real little boys and girls, WW2 was almost 60 years ago - it is totally irrelevant to any argument today. Changing an approach path from 2.5 to 3 degrees is pretty much like taking the p@<hidden> to anyone actually on it.

Unless you people start acting with some level of responsibly - and dare I say it maturity, the only remaining airfields will either be on ships or close to Cape Wrath. As some of you have noted we live in a densely populated country, which actually only because of political ambitions, needs an airforce at all. As soon as you guys are more trouble than you are worth you'll be consigned to the history books.

I have to say I'm going to look at the judgement in detail because it HAS set some sort of precedent and that will doubtless have some effect on my flying.

In GA we already have a hard enough time with noise and nuisance complaints, largely because people know they will be told to "p@<hidden> off" when they complain about military low flying but we do not have that clout, money or influence.

Well wake up and smell the coffee people - neither do you now! Milops seems to be the only poster who has the vaguest idea - the rest of you people - I'm sure you'll enjoy flaming my post - but remember what I wrote when you get posted to Sutherland!

BlueWolf
17th Apr 2003, 21:04
gasax, p*ss off and die. You are a complete t*sser.

Shelve your curiosity, keep your surprise and dismay to yourself, and don't bother to "browse" this board again. We have far better things to expend time on than perusing the infantile and uninformed rantings of a moron.

Quote:

Get real little boys and girls, WW2 was almost 60 years ago - it is totally irrelevant to any argument today. Changing an approach path from 2.5 to 3 degrees is pretty much like taking the p@<hidden> to anyone actually on it.

So, you are a little girl yourself, and an ignorant one, who knows nothing about either history, or physical sciences as they apply to acoustics and aerodynamics. By the way, 1939 was more than 60 years ago. Were you as challenged by primary school maths as you are by present day reality?

Quote:

Unless you people start acting with some level of responsibly - and dare I say it maturity, the only remaining airfields will either be on ships or close to Cape Wrath. As some of you have noted we live in a densely populated country, which actually only because of political ambitions, needs an airforce at all. As soon as you guys are more trouble than you are worth you'll be consigned to the history books.

Silly girl, the most dense thing here - unmentioned - is the grey matter within your skull. You poor sad person, political ambitions are singularly irrelevant....it is when a nation is without an Air Force that it must face the possibility of being consigned to the history books. Perhaps you belong to Helen Clark's lesbian socialist advisory group? (Lucifer - you are a light in the darkness)

Quote:

I never cease to be surprised and dismayed by the purile, juvenile and frankly stupid comments that are posted here.

Yeah, well, neither are we, sunshine. You said it. Now do be a good little fool and go away.

Training Risky
17th Apr 2003, 22:34
Oh what fantastic logic! I get slammed for starting my post with a point about basic spelling, while the slammer starts his with a personal insult:confused:

No milops you are not expected to follow the rest of us like a sheep. The RAF is proudly composed of independent thinkers who are entitled to their own point of view, and are also good team-players.

What is also expected however, is some BL**DY LOYALTY to that which has clothed and fed you for "21 years".

If you have been in for as long as you say you have, then you should know the herculean efforts we go to, to lessen noise pollution.

I think your little rant has destroyed any cred you and gasax might have had, not mine. I think I am in the majority here...

To get back to the point, and away from personal sniping.... Does anyone think we are in danger of a deluge of claims ranging from Cornwall to the Highlands? And will they get anything like Derby Dennis did?


PS: Back to personal sniping: gasax you are an utter, complete t*sser. Sod off back to your GA and leave proper aviation to the professionals....

...but don't hesitate to call us if you need rescuing from a cliff by a nasty low-flying SAR helicopter, supplies dropped by a low-flying Nimrod, Casevac by a low-flying Puma (happened in NI), or if you need your country defended at any time from a r*ghead attack! Or in a few months when you need the flames doused from your back by a poorly paid mechanic who maintains those nasty aggressive pointy aeroplanes.

sprucemoose
17th Apr 2003, 23:02
Look, gasax, if you can't spell a big work like PUERILE, then you shouldn't be using the internet without your mum's permission.

Yes, there is a wider issue here, as to whether we need an air force and how they should train, but the plaintiffs didn't exactly get their way in this case, did they? We don't all live in listed mansions, so this isn't going to open the floodgates for similar compensation cases. I'm getting more than a hint of sour grapes from you because mil pilots can get away with things that you can't.

If you don't like the mil pilots threat, SHOP ELSEWHERE!

Zoom
18th Apr 2003, 04:42
Good Oh! Hotting up nicely, this one. :ok: :ok: :ok:

Molesworth Hold
18th Apr 2003, 04:57
Recently received a request from one of the local gentry,
“Would you mind changing runways, we’re selling the house and we have some people coming round this afternoon.”

Of course this was politely ignored.

Archimedes
18th Apr 2003, 09:14
MilOps,

Forgive me, but I have to differ with you over the V-bomber argument. While I appreciate your point about number of sorties, etc, etc, my point was that the fellow would have known from an early stage that the airfield was a tad noisy. Again, I appreciate that different profiles, etc, etc, etc will have made a difference, but the point remains the same - he's been living by an airfield for an awfully long time. Unless there were profound changes in the operations at Wittering in the mid-1980s (when the complaint first arose, I believe) that made the area markedly more noisy than before, then I'd contend that he had some awareness of the ground 'rules'. It may be that his legal team have put his argument across rather poorly for onward transmission by the media, but the impression to date is that he decided that Ops at Wittering ought to cease entirely since this got in the way of his aims. He did, of course, attempt to bring flying ops to a close, but the judge said that this was unreasonable.

My better half once lived near to Yeovilton, and later very close to Cottesmore (experiencing Tornados and GR7s). She remarked that, after a while, the jet noise and other effects really weren't a problem: you got used to them. Perhaps this has coloured my view - it seems that the chap was able to get used to the noise, but as soon as it became clear that the birds wouldn't.... Probably most unfair, but there you go.

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this, but I can see your point nonetheless.

MilOps
18th Apr 2003, 16:52
Archimedes, at last a rational response, thank you. I take what you say but I feel that this case is unusual because of the type and age of property involved. Also consider if the owners did decide to leave because of the noise, would this be ethically right to force somebody from their home and would they realistically find a buyer at the market rate?
However I do not disagree with many sentiments posted here regarding people who buy newly built properties adjacent to existing airfields, RAF Benson being a case in point.

Training Risky, as ever a mature and measured response from an individual who really should know better. I feel that the considerable time I have devoted loyal service to the RAF ensures that I am able to air my views with integrity and a modicum of authority. Your earlier comments about the UKLFS do not apply to this case as the argument is based on the disruption created by an airfield, not multitudes of LF FJ using this building as a TP or IP to Tgt. If however we were to consider your implied argument, does that mean that Lambourne Gallops, Newmarket or even Balmoral and Sandringham can be overflown with impunity simply because you're in the RAF and that makes it alright then? Think again sonny!

Lou Scannon
18th Apr 2003, 17:38
Methinks that some contributors, particularly milops and gasex, are missing the point here.

If some individual can buy or inherit a house that happens to be on an approach path, then sue the MOD for millions, this will have repercussions to the whole aviation business.

Take Aunty Betty for example. She has a "grade one" at either end of the approach path to LHR. Any competent QC could put up a case that if an operational RAF station can be sued, the BAA at Heathrow could certainly be made to pay up for mere commercial flights.

Now take a look round at every other airport and airfield in the country. I doubt that any one of them is totally free from whingers who, unlike HM, will have already approached their solicitors in the hope of making a quick million out of their hovels. If a case cannot be made for military training, then private flying and general aviation can certainly be discontinued.

This judgement by Justice Buckley must be overturned as soon as possible. The law should say (and probably does) If you buy or inherit a house next to an existing airfield, motorway, railway line, noisy smelly farm etc., you cannot rely on the courts to exempt you from your own stupidity.

Mad_Mark
19th Apr 2003, 00:14
MilOps...

I take what you say but I feel that this case is unusual because of the type and age of property involved.

There are many old listed buildings near airfields, both mil and civie, where the owners seem to get on quite well with their aviating neighbours. This case seems more one of money-grabbing than anything else. Why wait so long? Are they going to move now to get away from the noise? What real good will the £9m requested / £1m given do for them, apart from swell their bank accounts?



Also consider if the owners did decide to leave because of the noise, would this be ethically right to force somebody from their home and would they realistically find a buyer at the market rate?

Is it ethically right for someone to move into a noisey location and then, many years later, demand compensation for so doing? I think you will find that the market rate for the property will, and always has to, take into account the location and environment, so the market rate will not have changed markedly, in relation to the surrounding properties, since it was purchased. You cannot compare the asking price of one property to another of similiar style in a completely different location. If you could I would be able to sell my property at jumped up London prices and make 10 times what I can here!

In summary, his family moved there when the very noisey multi-engined V-force was flying. He said he first started to complain in 1985, nearly 20 years after the Harriers moved there. He has only recently taken legal action for compensation, 35 years after the Harriers moved there! It is not his ancestoral home, his parents bought it 40 years ago. If it was that bad he could sell up and move and would still put the property on the market at the market value for that area, the same as his parents bought it at the market vaue for the area.

MadMark!!! :mad:

Woff1965
20th Apr 2003, 09:48
The logical solution to aircraft noise is to shut ALL RAF, RN FAA and AAC bases and put all the aircraft on a fleet of new shiny carriers.

The MOD can sell the old bases and build houses all over them (at a huge profit), the new "Airforce" would be readily deployable and what is more the F3 pilots would be away from home for such long periods their wives would look actually human to them when they got back.

Of course this would mean the local materity hospitals would have to take on more midwives to cope with the surge in demand 9 months after the ships got back into harbour, and it would lead to an increase in the number of ugly children but I think it is a price well worth paying!

steamchicken
22nd Apr 2003, 00:29
Ohhh the pain! We can't make millions to stack up on our other millions by having tacky adverts for sh*t that no-one needs shot in our 17th century palace! If you cared about anyone else than your pampered super-rich selves, and if the place is the architectural jewel you claim it is, you would open it to the public - or perhaps make a deal with the National Trust and move elsewhere. But apparently - you're going to find the noise much less unpleasant with £9 million more! and stay there snorting the interest up your aristocratic snouts! Pig's arsse!

Anyway, isn't the "duty" the RAF has to its local communities to go and have 3800 rounds/minute ZSUs squirted at itself for their security and prosperity?

What do you call 100 dead lawyers hanging from lampposts in Whitehall?

A start....

Rotate
22nd Apr 2003, 08:15
This post is going very well I see...and forgive me if someone else has covered this topic already...but

what about all those poor blighters who happen to live on the married patch...or even worse in a mess, or god forbid even blocks!

When is it gonna be totally acceptable for them to turn round and say..."you know this noise is kinda pi****g me off, I think I will sue for compo now!"

IT'S NOT, IS IT? IT JUST AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

But why not I hear you ask they all live near active airfields! The partners of those said people are there aswell, maybe not through choice...what if one of them lodges an action?

Now that I have well and truly put the proverbial cat in there, I will sit down and watch!

It is time for some people...those who buy property near an active airfield (By active I mean any amount of activity from gliders to 747's) must shut up and have their lot! And in my opinion anyone who gives them money for buying a property near an airfield then pressing for compo, more fool you!

This is in full my own personal opinion and in no way represents my employer's views, nor in any way should attract any negative response from any powers that be. If it does you must have run out of money!!!:E

BlueWolf
22nd Apr 2003, 14:35
Well, I don't know, maybe they're all just a wee bit sensitive. I lived quarter of a mile from Heathrow for eighteen months, at whatever height that makes directly beneath (at least!) one major approach.
It was quiet (relatively) from about four in the morning till about quarter past.
Double glazing, plenty of sponsor's anaesthetic....we got used to it.
Maybe they're trying it on, or maybe they need to harden up.