Bagby Airfield

[JTobias]

Senior Moderator - apologies I've started a new thread. (Hope you don't mind). You warned the contributors to stay on topic and stop squabbling - but then closed the thread ! (give' them a chance to behave !) Anyway, aren't they allowed to squabble ??? ;)

Nigel H - e-mail sent !

SilsoeSid - You just love controversy don't you !!!! I will take you up on the offer to visit - especially as I'm now homing in on where you work. Maybe on my next trip to PDG - if the offer is still open? (You're not based next door are you ?)

Joel :ok:

[SilsoeSid]

Let me be the first to post on this thread with something that actually covers the title;


JT, perhaps as nigelh didn't get the chance to answer my question from the other thread, you could;

Are the Bagby airfield changes and operations within the planning permissions given? In other words, will we be supporting a legal cause or are we trying to bully our way into getting the airfield as we want it and used more than the expired permission of 40 take offs/landings a week (5/day)

Just on the basic ac movements issue, nigelh tells us in the first post; "New residents who bought in the full knowledge of the airport are complaining of the noise of maybe half a dozen movements a day."

A search by the solicitors when buying a house in the area would find that aircraft were not allowed to operate from Bagby anymore as the planning permission had expired. It's quite clear that even despite the permission not existing anymore, 12 a day is more than twice the number that the airfield used to have permission for.


I am more than happy to support Bagby, but I wouldn't like to think i am having the wool pulled over my eyes. :=




In the meantime, some bedtime reading;

hambleton.gov.uk/environment_and_planning/planning/bagbyairfield/default.htm

Click the link (http://www.hambleton.gov.uk/Hambleton%20District%20Council/Planning/Bagby%20Airfield/ProofTimWoodfinal.pdf) to open the Proof of Evidence - LPA Opens in a new window for the appeal which is to commence on 22 May 2012 in the Council Chamber at the Civic Centre, Stone Cross, Northallerton.

This will take us to the 94 page pdf file entitled;

Mr M Scott, Bagby Airfield, Bagby, Thirsk, North Yorkshire, YO7 2PH
The Town and Country Planning (Inquiry Procedure)(England) Rules 2000
Appeals by Mr M Scott against the service of Enforcement Notices relating to development at Bagby Airfield

PROOF OF EVIDENCE
By
Tim Wood
Hambleton District Council
April 2012


:don'twanttoupsetanyonesmilie: Simply wishing to get the full story before putting my name to a cause.

[Senior Pilot]

Senior Moderator - apologies I've started a new thread. (Hope you don't mind). You warned the contributors to stay on topic and stop squabbling - but then closed the thread ! (give' them a chance to behave !) Anyway, aren't they allowed to squabble ??? ;)

Nigel H - e-mail sent !

SilsoeSid - You just love controversy don't you !!!! I will take you up on the offer to visit - especially as I'm now homing in on where you work. Maybe on my next trip to PDG - if the offer is still open? (You're not based next door are you ?)

Joel :ok:

Joel,

The thread was closed after another 5 posts followed mine, all of which were carrying on as before. You have now continued with an attempt to reopen a closed thread, without the courtesy of checking first.

Let's get back to rational discussion of the topic, without having a pop at another Rotorhead who has asked a very reasonable question a number of times: which so far remains unanswered.

Already this thread is on thin ice, and trying my patience :hmm:

[JTobias]

Senior Mod - It never even occurred to me that anyone had continued the thread in the same style.!!! I did re-start the thread with an apology for doing so, which was the only way I could think of contacting you and obtaining permission. (thinking about it, I suppose I could have used a PM )

Silsoe - I really don't know the answers to your questions. To be honest, I was genuineley just saying hi to you. I have sent my e-mail in support of Bagby. I'd do that with any reasonable request from the Aviation community. My support in this case is 'general' rather than specific to the issues at the airfield.

Joel :ok:

[petercharles1948]

I have read with interest the entries on this and other forums and thought I can not let it pass. SilsoeSid has obviously been doing some studying whilst waiting for those emergencies. I support little airfields but must say that a large number are closing and we should concentrate on keeping a strategical number in good locations which serve the most pilots. I have visited Bagby on many occassions and find the airfield to be poorly maintained with a port-a-cabin for refreshments. There are better amenties at others in York and Baxby which has a runway covering all aspects with free landing fees. Especially as I have also researched about the appeals. Planning permission, asking for a minimum of 10,000 flights average a year?, web site Bagby International?, having a fly in just after the inquiry? Whats the hidden agenda? Why did you not just keep quiet and move slowly I know the residents might imagine the worse but this surely can not help.
Go to Baxby.

[misterbonkers]

There aint no JetA1 at Baxby.

Bagby "International" is a play on the fact that small planes don't just stay local - some fly on trips overseas - that doesn't necessarily mean more movements or large airliners - purely one departure of a small plane that then returns several days later as opposed to one departure of a small plane that returns 30mins later from the local flying area.

One reason why Bagby appears rundown is because there's no point spending money on a building that you we're going to knock down and redevelop (which got Bagby into the mess in the first place.

Of course we could just go refuel at Teesside for JetA1 (and wait at least 1 hour for the privilege AND starve due to lack of refreshments available...)

And there's a sign in the village reading 'Bagby Airfield' so buying a house and not knowing about the places existence is a little naive (it's a small village).

[md 600 driver]

Misterbonkers,

I can understand your reference to the sign in bagby village anyone wanting to purchase a house would have had checked the planning restraints on the airfield
And bought accordingly! as these were very low movements allowed and if I remember correctly limited to the original owner only, and when he had stopped using the airfield the land was to be put back in the original condition (agrig)

I was one of the prospective purchasers of the airfield and my solicitor advised me of a very uphill battle just to legalise the existing use never mind to improve the place

Don't get me wrong I am not a objector or support the objectors but they have a right to a peaceful life too to enjoy whatever they wished to do

I am just thankful I didn't progress my investment as one of the biggest complaints the objectors seem to have is helicopters and my gazelles may have been the last straw for them and when NIGEL and graham started arriving regularly in alouettes I may have been lynched as I was going to live in the village also

[petercharles1948]

I agree but, about people moving to the village would know about the airfield, what about the 10,000 minimum flights per year surely no one would expect that from a grass track airfield, with the helecopters and not to mention the other villages. Thanks Helecopters!

[gsa]

When I moved up to Topcliffe in 84 the Vale of York was a far different place than it is today and in those days there wouldn't have been as many objectors, one of the main reasons would have been that Bagby and the West Tanfield were used as the low level routing points on the way into and out of Topcliffe so you had all the bulldogs and our gazelles round the village anytime someone was going west.

With all that gone it's the noise from MD and the Squirrel that has got everybody's backs up and brought it to a head.