Henstridge under threat

[poetpilot]

Any chance of this being made a sticky until March 27th please?

...from the Henstridge newsletter (via the flyerlist)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Just when we thought we were safe, read on!

The land-owner has for some time being trying to get a planning
permission to convert the north side of the airfield (just to the north of the runway) into an area where cars could be stored, auctioned and recycled according to EU guidelines.

This application has failed & he has informed me that he is left with no option but to apply for the same use for the remainder of the airfield site, which includes the runway!

Our landlord has been a good friend in the past, and makes the point that he feels that this move has been forced upon him by the planning authorities.

BUT, if it goes ahead, it will mean that the airfield will cease to
exist.

The runway will become a car park!

The agreement whereby we occupy the land would normally prohibit my objecting to any planning application submitted by the landlord, but he has agreed to waive this arrangement & permit me to arrange a protest.

PLEASE HELP.
We need as many LETTERS as possible BY 27 MARCH, to:

John Shaw
Area East Planning Manager
SSDC Area East
Council Offices
Churchfield
WINCANTON
Somerset BA9 9AG

Quote the reference: 03/00640/COU

I'll be making my own objection on my own grounds, and I leave it to you if you care to help, to state your own reasons: Flight safety, loss of a valuable recreational facility etc, but PLEASE register your protest. ...Think if we get the numbers that we have a good chance of winning through."

[Vere de fakawee]

Not wishing for one minute to spoil the protest call, but as the land owner, isnt he entitled to do as he wishes with his own land?? Henstridge is hardly a great moneymaking asset in terms of resident aircraft/movements etc but I agree it would be a great loss, yet another airfield going going gone..........but maybe he just doesn't want it anymore/has lost interest etc etc...

Just my 2p worth, but standing back, prepared and awaiting a slagging from those 'who know better'............

[2Donkeys]

With you all the way Vere. The Poet has posted this message in a couple of locations, and whilst nobody should applaud if a GA airfield is in trouble, the fact remains that by no stretch of the imagination could Henstridge be called "financially viable".

Whilst there may be more to life than profit, that is not necessarily a view shared by those that want the bills paid.

Henstridge is nowhere near anywhere that large volumes of visitors would want to come to, and the quality of the taxiways is lamentable.

Nothing short of the arrival of a large, well-financed aviation business at Henstridge will give it a real future, and writing letters of protest will not make a material impact, I fear.

[BRL]

Chaps, you are both right in what you say but this is someones home airfield about to go under here. I am pretty sure if it was your home strip then you would appreciate as much help as you could possibly get.

[2Donkeys]

"Help" is the key here BRL.

When a field is fundamentally unviable, and in a serious state of decay, like Henstridge, it will take rather more than a few letters of protest to "help" keep it as an airfield.

Nothing short of attracting serious and successful aviation-oriented businesses to the field will keep it going in the short-medium term.

Letters bemoaning the loss of a minority-interest airfield in a state of significant delapidation from pilots who have never visited are not likely to win the day, unless your objective is just to give the current tennants a warm feeling.

Harsh it's true, but realistic I hope.

[Circuit Basher]

As Henstridge used to be one of my 'local' airfields when I flew from Bournemouth, I really should have made more effort to visit. I flown past it countless times, but usually finished up at Compton Abbas / Old Sarum / Thruxton as I knew the quality of the welcome I would get there. I feel partly guilty for not having supported it as much as I could.

I'm not sure much will be possible to persuade the owner to change his plans, but support the fight. In the worst case, at least you're in an area with a fair number of options that aren't a ridiculous distance away.

[poetpilot]

2Donks & Vere, I appreciate & understand what you are saying, & obviously you are entitled to that view, but please read it carefully once more.

The implication I read from it is that the landowner is happy to allow flying to continue. It's the bureacracy of the local council (or perhaps their hidden agenda to remove GA from the area) that is demanding that the whole of the land must be turned over to business use.

The landowner obviously must make a living (and being in business myself I totally support that aim). However, the landowner doesn't NEED to close the airfield ops and doesn't really WANT to close the airfield ops.

The problem, as with most of these scenarios, is with local councils and their heavy handed attitude.

There's an excellent paper on how airfields, both used and disused, can contribute positively to the environment and to local economies, which should be required reading for local planning officers.

It's entitled “Re-use of small airfields: a planning perspective” . It contains some fascinating statistics and examples showing the decline of UK airfields post-1945 and examines the ways in which re-use has been regulated by the UK planning system.

The rights of aviation groups are noted as a specific factor that must be taken into account. It’s published by Elsevier Science Publishers and summarised at

www.elsevier.nl/locate/pplann

under “Progress in Planning 55 (2001) Issue 4, Pages 195-262 (May 2001)”.

[2Donkeys]

It seems to me that those who are pushing this protest currently have no understanding of why the original planning request failed, and in particular, why expanding the application to cover the rest of the field will be any more or less successful.

Once again, rather than blindly firing of letters, you might find that a little research would be worth your while.

[Martinburney]

Hi All

Some time ago I spoke to the owner of Henstridge, who was trying to get planning permission, to turn Henstridge into what is known as an Air Park.

This is where the Airfield is retained, with a few houses built, to included the owners own hanger or parking space, adjacent to the house. It's popular in the USA.

His application was eventually turned down, by the local planning authorities.

Many Planning Authorities, just want to close flying facilities, to suit their own interests.

Regards Martin

[aiglon]

2 Donkeys, perhaps you could share some of your great wisdom and enlighten us as to why the original planning application failed.

If you don't want to support this issue, fine, go away and continue flying from your super efficient "big" airfields but let those who care do something about it. I have flown into Henstridge a couple of times and, no, it isn't the smartest of airfields but it is well run and the welcome is always friendly so don't knock it.

[newswatcher]

Interesting why the owner feels that he can get a larger area of the site turned over to his car recycling business. The objections to the recent planning refusal said - The proposed development is within an area of open countryside readily visible from a wide area. The extensive area of vehicle storage proposed would be harmful to the appearance of the area, seriously detrimental to visual amenity and contrary to Policy P2 in the adopted Wincanton Local Plan, Policy STR6 in the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan Review and Policy ST3 in the South Somerset Local Plan Deposit Draft.

I can't see why the same reasons would not apply for the whole site!

[2Donkeys]

Aiglon wrote:

2 Donkeys, perhaps you could share some of your great wisdom and enlighten us as to why the original planning application failed.

You make my point for me. I have no idea why the planning permission failed, nor why the proposal to dig up the runway would succeed. I know from correspondance with PoetPilot away from this forum that he doesn't know either.

I hope it is obvious to you that writing in support of/or against a planning process that you have not even a basic knowledge of is a pretty futile exercise. I have suggested to the Poet that he posts what details he is able to lay his hands on, so that any letters of protest or other actions at least sound like they come from people who know what they are talking about, rather than rentamob protesters who have little understanding of the situation in hand.

Do you want to win or do you just want to drop somebody a line for the hell of it Aiglon?

[aiglon]

I may well have made your point for you (though, not convinced)but you seem to have completely missed mine.

In your first post, you say:

whilst nobody should applaud if a GA airfield is in trouble, the fact remains that by no stretch of the imagination could Henstridge be called "financially viable".

Sounds to me like you are not too sad to see this particular GA field in trouble.

Again:

and the quality of the taxiways is lamentable

Well, I've seen worse but so what. If you want all the comforts of home, stick to your big slick fields - or, alternatively, visit Henstridge a view times, encourage others to do the same and maybe they'll be able to resurface the taxiways for you one day :D .

Then, in your second post, you say:

When a field is fundamentally unviable, and in a serious state of decay, like Henstridge, it will take rather more than a few letters of protest to "help" keep it as an airfield

The issue here doesn't seem to be about the viability of the airfield from a financial perspective but about a planning application that could see a change of use.

Again:

Nothing short of attracting serious and successful aviation-oriented businesses to the field will keep it going in the short-medium term.

Fine words but the point is surely one of priorities. How are you going to attract such businesses to Henstridge if it is closed down. This threat appears to be immediate, so deal with this first then you can lend your support to attracting "successful aviation-oriented businesses" to the airfield :D .

And again:

Letters bemoaning the loss of a minority-interest airfield in a state of significant delapidation from pilots who have never visited are not likely to win the day, unless your objective is just to give the current tennants a warm feeling.

Three points. First what has the state of the airfield got to do with this issue? Comments like that just go to emphasise the true reasons for your post - you dislike Henstridge. Second, so we should only support airfields that attract the majority of pilots - how would you define that? Third, I'm definitely no planning expert but why is it necessary to have visited the airfield in order to submit a valid objection? This does not appear to be one of those situations where it is necessary to show a certain level of usage over a certain period - in which case, having actually visited is useful :D . This is about a planning application which, if succesful, will impact GA in the South Somerset area.

In your third post:

It seems to me that those who are pushing this protest currently have no understanding of why the original planning request failed, and in particular, why expanding the application to cover the rest of the field will be any more or less successful.

Neither do you, by your own admission :D .

Then, in your last post:

I hope it is obvious to you that writing in support of/or against a planning process that you have not even a basic knowledge of is a pretty futile exercise. I have suggested to the Poet that he posts what details he is able to lay his hands on, so that any letters of protest or other actions at least sound like they come from people who know what they are talking about, rather than rentamob protesters who have little understanding of the situation in hand.

Actually, I agree with you. I am quite prepared to write letters of support/objection regarding issues which are of relevance to me. For example, I wrote to object to Surrey's original plans. However, I would always undertake research to ensure I had a reasonable understanding of the issues before I made a decision one way or the other. By your own admission, you haven't bothered to do even that much. All you seem to have done is to fire off criticism aimed at someone you appear to dislike :( .

And finally:

Do you want to win or do you just want to drop somebody a line for the hell of it Aiglon?

I don't believe my post mentioned anything about me writing a letter. My comments were aimed at your arrogant attitude.


Actually, I have done some basic research, on SSDC's web site. The original application, which was rejected (doesn't say why) was in relation to land to the north of the airfield, not actually on the airfield. Reading between the lines (and Donkey, this is just me speculating, OK) it sounds like the council said you can't do this on farm land but we don't mind you doing it on the airfield :( .

I still don't know exactly what is going on, or whether objections have any chance of helping but I am keeping an open mind.

[RW05]

And isn't Henstridge also home to the Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance....?

[2Donkeys]

Aiglon

Lots of name calling and aggression followed by smileys. That could cause confusion :D:D:D

I don't "dislike" Henstridge and there is no hidden motivation behind my postings as you seem to want to claim. As it happens, I have family living close to Henstridge, and have used it many times over the years, including a number of visits within the last 12 months. However, its gradual decay is inescapable, and its viability, in particular for larger GA is becoming more marginal. Over time, without investment, I fear that this unavailability will extend to cover other forms of GA. These are sad observations, but true nonetheless. No bias here, just the facts.

So if Henstridge is saved this time from being developed into a glorified carpark, how will this general state of decay be arrested? Writing letters and beating off the current threat is fine, providing the letters reflect some kind of knowledge of the airfield's circumstances, and don't simply resort to pro-GA invective. If successful at this hurdle though, the airfield will only remain in place if it changes direction.

The same can be said of many other lovely GA fields. Places like Bourn and Enstone come to mind.

I think that we are all on the same side in this discussion. It is too easy though for Realism to be confused with Pessimism when it comes to the field's longer term prospects and name-calling between fellow members of the GA community serves no positive purpose at all.

[aiglon]

2Donkeys wrote:

Lots of name calling and aggression

Where's the aggression?? And apart from saying your attitude was arrogant (which, in my opinion, it was), where was the "lots" of name calling??

[bcfc]

If this is so critical, why isn't there mention of it on the website? http://www.henstridge.flyer.co.uk/ :confused:

I'd miss it if it went, so my letter will be in the post tonight. When has financial viability ever been a consideration in GA? I'm skint but the divvies to my groups 172 will be one of the last things I give up.

[Thrifty van Rental]

I've been to Henstridge a few times. You have to admit, it is a bit run down isn't it. The food was fantastic though. Justification on its own for lengthening the runway.

What is the next step here? It all seems to have gone a bit quiet, and I can't see any details on their website...

[Thrifty van Rental]

I guess the problem must have gone away or does nobody care anymore?

Looks like you might have had a good point Donks