MOD sued for £9 million over Harrier noise
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MilOps...
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?
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!!!
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?
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!!!
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!
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!
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....
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....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Undecided!
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is wrong woth the world?
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!!!
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!!!
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
