niknak I have copied the item below from another thread which I started and so rather being rude to me perhaps you would be kind enough to answer the contents. It does seem that if the content is accurate the writer does have a few fair points about norwich and he clearly thinks, like I questioned, if there is an element of higher status being sought.
"I write as a pilot and aircraft owner who regularly visits airfields around Norwich, although I regret to say that it is some time since I have actually flown into Norwich itself, as the escalation in charges to general aviation traffic has all but prevented this.
I am puzzled by many of the claims and aspirations which you state in your consultation document, as most of them appear to be unrealistic and/or distortions of the truth.
Far from being an "increasingly busy regional airport", the numbers of movements at Norwich have actually fallen over the last 3 years by 20%. Moreover, the projection for movement numbers doubling in the near future, is willfully unrealistic. With a lack of supporting infrastructure (road links and rail services) and continuing government investment in Stansted, Luton, Heathrow and Gatwick and an ever deepening recession, these movements are likely to fall further - rather than increase.
The uncomfortable truth for Norwich is that there are actually GA fields in the south-east of England with more movements, who exist with only a modest ATZ and FIS, so I think that the demand for a massive increase in controlled airspace is unrealistic, unnecessary and tantamount to 'dog-in-the-manger' behavior, founded upon ill-conceived delusions of grandure.