Airfield regulation continued
Not having access to the internet I could not post.
I am still being buzzed at 100 feet over the roof of my house - twice in a week- so the problem from Redlands Airfield continues. The last incident was at 3.10 p.m. today when a white light aircraft with a blue stripe and what looked like G-CVBV turned in a fast bank over me on my driveway...probably a Cessna....So I am afraid airing problems about selfish and dangerous pilots here has not had much effect. Well, CVBV isn't listed but I've encountered this problem before. Have also heard of people flying without a pilot's licence from airfields in Wiltshire so nothing would surprise anymore.
I would have thought that those of you on this forum might use your peer pressure to do something about the horrendous noise and overflying at low height from Redlands. Many of us who live here have been subjected to appalling behaviour since 1998. I am very much afraid that many aviation enthuasists may suffer the consequences of actions brought about by one small former farm airfield.
There has been skydiving here, over Swindon, since 10 am today and it continues still with no abatement...we have had a plane circling overhead now for 8 hours. The take off noise is just dreadful and the circling drone can be heard inside our houses and causes us headaches..
As to the problems with Redlands in Wanborough - only microlights and one skydiving plane can operate at Redands. This plane has to be of similar or reduced noise output to an ANTONOV AN2. As far as I am aware Swindon Borough Council has not conducted any noise tests on the two light aircraft currently using Redlands. The council has not measured the noise levels of any of the aircraft flying from this airfield and tests on the Antonov prior too planning permission for skydiving consisted on a simulated take off! Skydiving planes did not take off or land at Redlands prior to granting permission - they flew from other airfields - Lower Upham or Draycott and dropped over Redlands...hardly indicate of actual use. Oh, and the temporary planning period was cut short so that some of us lost our right to object...dirty tricks or what? There was a problem with foot and mouth so that the airfield could not be used....
Why do we need regulation?
Point 1. If the Council will not enforce the only recourse is to go to the Local Government Ombudsman. The decisions of the LGO are not legally enforceable. This is why there must be greater regulation. There needs to be a law to allow councils to be sued for failure to enforce.
Point 2. There needs to be legal provision to ensure that airfields are inspected once a year and that planning rules are complied with. This must be by an independent body not regulated by the CAA or BMAA. Local councils do not have the specialist expertise to do this and an independent inspectorate would be best.
Point 3. All planning decisions can only be undone by a discontinuance notice. I know of only one discontinuance on an airfield has occured and only after a lengthy battle. Councils are unwilling to do discontinuance as they fear compensation demands. The law needs to be changed so that this fear can be allayed.
Point 4. It is imperative that one can sue for damages and compensation for blight using the civil law for nuisance caused by aviation. Being barred from doing so by the 1988 aviation act is unjust. The law must be brought into line with environmental health law governing other noise nuisances. The regulations for regulated airfields such as Heathrow or military bases are fairer than those for private airfields.
Point 5. There needs to be provision for noise insulation to be provided free by those creating the noise, just as at the large commercial airfields like Heathrow.
Point 6. Aircraft should pay an air tax each year in the way vehicles do - this would defray expenses incurred by emergency call out in times of accidents and would also help to fund the independent inspectorate.
My encounters with injustice and abject selfishness from those flying at this small airfield led me to investigate aviation law. I and others living in Swindon have found it wanting. I have been contacted by people from all over the UK who have had problems with microlights, skydiving or gliding. Ours is not an isolated problem. My solicitor believes that the best way to get redress is to sue the UK Government in the European court for failure to regulate private aviation. This has come about because two people, William Joseph Smith and Sarah Smith (to whom I am related) decided to give up dairy farming and open an airfield instead. As a farmer myself, I know times are hard, but causing noise and mayhem, denigrating people in public and resorting to often dubious if not downright underhand behaviour, is not doing the private aviation industry any good. Moreover, the Smiths, having gained aviation planning permission for themselves, have now sold their business aviation interests to other people. When the last planning application was submitted the applicants did not submit their application correctly in their own sole name but submitted it as a corporte body. The council either ignored this or colluded in it. Even with two very good legal firms representing the objectors it took a considerable amount of persuasion to get the council to alter the name in the application. As this had been a variation of condition the application should not have been accepted by the council in the first place. It is because of such deficiences in the planning process that more regualtion is necessary.
K.Lacey