Anti Airfield letter in todays Daily Mail
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a lot of point with this sort of complainer
They are almost rabid with their hostility to aircraft. They are the sort who complain about the noise levels of gliders, the fact that their yappy little dogs get disturbed by the sight of aircraft, their sheep miscarry lambs in fear of these gigantic birds of prey (at my airfield, the sheep seem to have no problem lambing this year, however)
No, they want piece and quiet and they'd like their property values to increase.
What we need the owner to do is to suggest using the property as a travellers site or set up industrial units on the boundary
They are almost rabid with their hostility to aircraft. They are the sort who complain about the noise levels of gliders, the fact that their yappy little dogs get disturbed by the sight of aircraft, their sheep miscarry lambs in fear of these gigantic birds of prey (at my airfield, the sheep seem to have no problem lambing this year, however)
No, they want piece and quiet and they'd like their property values to increase.
What we need the owner to do is to suggest using the property as a travellers site or set up industrial units on the boundary
Can we not all do a formation fly past at 30ft on a nice quiet sunday afternoon waving at the nice lady
- It would be illegal
- It would add credence to her claims that aircraft fly at 30' over her house
- A "Lady persecuted by aircraft menace" story would soon appear in the media (probably on the front pages rather than just the letters section)
Bose's measured response is the correct line to take.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree that perhaps actually engaging with these people is a good idea.
It is always easy to criticise from a point of ignorance - and the writer of this letter shows that. Of course he/she is entitled to their opinion whether it is right or wrong, but it's now up to us to show them that they are wrong by perhaps talking with them. I agree that perhaps a trial flight would change their opinion of aviation entirely!
It is tempting to launch into slanderous remarks and insults against these sorts of people, but it doesn't really do any good at all. In fact quite often it merely strengthens the hand of those who wish to restrict our freedom to fly.
Perhaps take them on a visit to the airfield, give them a flight, I'm sure most would change their mind!
It is always easy to criticise from a point of ignorance - and the writer of this letter shows that. Of course he/she is entitled to their opinion whether it is right or wrong, but it's now up to us to show them that they are wrong by perhaps talking with them. I agree that perhaps a trial flight would change their opinion of aviation entirely!
It is tempting to launch into slanderous remarks and insults against these sorts of people, but it doesn't really do any good at all. In fact quite often it merely strengthens the hand of those who wish to restrict our freedom to fly.
Perhaps take them on a visit to the airfield, give them a flight, I'm sure most would change their mind!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All we need is........
Someone needs to get the "Daily Mail" to post a similar answer to DFC's on page 1, where he's taken her comments and answered them with "The Facts" something most British newspapers (and I use the word news loosely) have a very small grasp of!
But like has been said on here previously, she has a right to voice her opinion, it takes someone who knows the facts to counter her argument in a civilised and adult way, maybe she goes away when confronted with these facts, but somehow I doubt it!
Cheers,
Spru!
But like has been said on here previously, she has a right to voice her opinion, it takes someone who knows the facts to counter her argument in a civilised and adult way, maybe she goes away when confronted with these facts, but somehow I doubt it!
Cheers,
Spru!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir, The claim that non-commercial aircraft are “essentially unregulated” (letter, April 1) is untrue. Aircraft of the kind involved in the Biggin Hill tragedy (report, March 31) are extremely closely regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority and have an excellent safety record that will hopefully be maintained as Europe increasingly takes responsibility for regulation.
Biggin Hill exists because there is a need for aviation beyond the leisure industry exemplified by the major airports. Unlike most airline flying, general aviation is overwhelmingly business-related and receives no subsidy in the form of fuel tax or other concessions. The general aviation industry is worth £1.4 billion in the UK, employing more than 11,500 people directly and many times that number indirectly, and it operates on roughly one quarter of the fuel that evaporates from car tanks.
Its safety record is the envy of the world; tens of thousands of pilots have been trained at Biggin Hill, and I can recall no accident similar to the Farnborough Citation loss since it opened in 1916. Although general aviation aircraft outnumber airliners by more than ten to one in the UK, they are rarely seen or heard; they go about their business quietly, efficiently and, above all, safely.
Martin Robinson
Chief executive, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
London SW1
Biggin Hill exists because there is a need for aviation beyond the leisure industry exemplified by the major airports. Unlike most airline flying, general aviation is overwhelmingly business-related and receives no subsidy in the form of fuel tax or other concessions. The general aviation industry is worth £1.4 billion in the UK, employing more than 11,500 people directly and many times that number indirectly, and it operates on roughly one quarter of the fuel that evaporates from car tanks.
Its safety record is the envy of the world; tens of thousands of pilots have been trained at Biggin Hill, and I can recall no accident similar to the Farnborough Citation loss since it opened in 1916. Although general aviation aircraft outnumber airliners by more than ten to one in the UK, they are rarely seen or heard; they go about their business quietly, efficiently and, above all, safely.
Martin Robinson
Chief executive, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
London SW1
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I thought this letter in the Telegraph wasn't exactly helpfull, particularly with reference to City airport:
Flying over suburbia
Sir - As a private pilot, I believe the tragic crash of a Cessna jet near Biggin Hill airport (report, March 31) should be a warning to national and local government as to the lunacy of airfield development requiring a flight path over the congested suburban areas of southern England.
Biggin Hill began life 90 years ago as a Royal Flying Corps wireless testing site close to London; but almost by stealth has now transformed itself into "Biggin Hill (London) International Airport".
It is now London's fastest growing airport. This has happened with no real consultation with residents or with the private pilots, whose small and generally safer planes have been forced out to make way for fat-cat jets.
With three schools and a major hospital in Biggin Hill's immediate flight activity area, we must be thankful that there was not a much greater loss of life in Farnborough village.
In my part of south London, I look up in amazement from my garden at the ceaseless stream of aircraft approaching and landing at City Airport. Not only is dense housing at risk, but there is also the danger of an aircraft accidentally hitting the financial complex at Canary Wharf.
It may not be al-Qa'eda that next strikes a devastating blow at our financial heartland; it might happen by accident.
Now is the time for the Government and Civil Aviation Authority to reconsider the risk levels of flight patterns and airport development over southern England before it is too late.
A remote fifth London airport with excellent transportation to the centre must be the only safe answer.
David Shaw, London SE9
Sir - As a private pilot, I believe the tragic crash of a Cessna jet near Biggin Hill airport (report, March 31) should be a warning to national and local government as to the lunacy of airfield development requiring a flight path over the congested suburban areas of southern England.
Biggin Hill began life 90 years ago as a Royal Flying Corps wireless testing site close to London; but almost by stealth has now transformed itself into "Biggin Hill (London) International Airport".
It is now London's fastest growing airport. This has happened with no real consultation with residents or with the private pilots, whose small and generally safer planes have been forced out to make way for fat-cat jets.
With three schools and a major hospital in Biggin Hill's immediate flight activity area, we must be thankful that there was not a much greater loss of life in Farnborough village.
In my part of south London, I look up in amazement from my garden at the ceaseless stream of aircraft approaching and landing at City Airport. Not only is dense housing at risk, but there is also the danger of an aircraft accidentally hitting the financial complex at Canary Wharf.
It may not be al-Qa'eda that next strikes a devastating blow at our financial heartland; it might happen by accident.
Now is the time for the Government and Civil Aviation Authority to reconsider the risk levels of flight patterns and airport development over southern England before it is too late.
A remote fifth London airport with excellent transportation to the centre must be the only safe answer.
David Shaw, London SE9
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure why you don't think Mr Shaws letter does not help. There is nothing melodramatic or anti aviation in it. It is level headed and accurate and a remote airport does make more sense than another runway at Heathrow. Like it or not he has a valid point about LCY as well. It was always a strange place to build an airport.
Lets face it, the reason the airlines want another runway and not another airport is that it allows them to leverage existing facilities and resource. A much more profitable option.
Lets face it, the reason the airlines want another runway and not another airport is that it allows them to leverage existing facilities and resource. A much more profitable option.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Bose-x
Shaw wrote:
What evidence is there that single-engined aircraft are safer than executive jets? My guess is he's wrong. Per movement I'd expect an exec jet to be safer, and certainly per mile flown.
Shaw wrote:
This has happened with no real consultation with residents or with the private pilots, whose small and generally safer planes have been forced out to make way for fat-cat jets.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: EGTD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is needed is a national GA organisation which responds to the newspaper concerned, with a measured response setting out the facts. Like US AOPA does
IO540 - you are, of course, a member of AOPA ?
IO540 - you are, of course, a member of AOPA ?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A remote airport is a great idea but it won't happen.
What one could push for is a change in the general planning presumption, to enable development of a "GA" airport in open countryside (though obnviously close to a road). This would be a huge help to GA. It doesn't take much money to build an airport for GA up to bizjets. A million or two for a runway and some huts; you can raise that with a syndicate.
The difficulty with such a planning change is that, once granted, the planning permission could hardly prevent a later change of use to some industrial estate and later to housing. And the airport will need some on-site business anyway (ideally maintenance or flight training) to generate revenue. So this would be resisted fiercely, in the same way you need planning for a horse stable if you live in certain areas - not because they care about the stable but because they know that 10 years later you can use that as a wedge to build something better.
The comment
is unfortunately indicative of much of UK GA. "If I cannot have it, nobody else should have it either". There is NO PLACE for language like "fat cats". A "fat cat" pays an awful lot of income tax, CGT, VAT, corp tax, and finally IHT, and all this finances the hordes earning nothing and living off the DSS. It also finances State education and much of what we take for granted. There is no mileage in screwing "fat cats". If I was developing a new airport I would go all out for bizjets; they pay fat landing fees, fat handling fees, and there are relatively very few of them so they don't affect other GA traffic.
p.s. has anyone noticed the clock on the server has slipped?
What one could push for is a change in the general planning presumption, to enable development of a "GA" airport in open countryside (though obnviously close to a road). This would be a huge help to GA. It doesn't take much money to build an airport for GA up to bizjets. A million or two for a runway and some huts; you can raise that with a syndicate.
The difficulty with such a planning change is that, once granted, the planning permission could hardly prevent a later change of use to some industrial estate and later to housing. And the airport will need some on-site business anyway (ideally maintenance or flight training) to generate revenue. So this would be resisted fiercely, in the same way you need planning for a horse stable if you live in certain areas - not because they care about the stable but because they know that 10 years later you can use that as a wedge to build something better.
The comment
It is now London's fastest growing airport. This has happened with no real consultation with residents or with the private pilots, whose small and generally safer planes have been forced out to make way for fat-cat jets.
p.s. has anyone noticed the clock on the server has slipped?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was developing a new airport I would go all out for bizjets; they pay fat landing fees, fat handling fees, and there are relatively very few of them so they don't affect other GA traffic.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cranfield UK
Age: 70
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, apparently in other threads Sheffield was only ever temporary but also alleged to be a land grab and Euro grant grab by a well known developer when they acquired it from Budge Bros..... it seems very complicated but I suspect there is some truth in there somewhere. Ref Peel Holdings.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What evidence is there that single-engined aircraft are safer than executive jets? My guess is he's wrong. Per movement I'd expect an exec jet to be safer, and certainly per mile flown.
He may have a point about City, it's only been open since 1987 and there is a obviously more risk to third parties than at airports that are away from houses. On balance though it was supported by most in that area of London, has never had a major accident and the risk of it ever having one is probably outweighed by the convenience of having an airport in that location.
I thought this letter in the Telegraph wasn't exactly helpfull, particularly with reference to City airport:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Over there
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NIMBY trouble
I posted this last week on a similar thread on the Military Aircrew forum.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=318993
There is an interesting and similar debate going on there. Well worth a look and perhaps a line of support or a new thread to pull all of these issues into on debate?
And take a look at this, it is the airfield at Branscombe refered to in the article below
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=301253
I do however agree with Bose - X, everyone in entitled to their opinion, as am i and my opinion is that is don't like them
If this rot is not stopped, it affect all in aviation and not just in the UK
More NIMBY
Here is another one to have a look at!!!
Located next to Branscombe Airfield, East Devon. Lat and Long please
I was considering putting this up for debate and then discovered this delightful thread!!!
Aircraft noise: Life beneath the blight path (From The Sunday Telegraph, March 2, 2008)
Plans to cut aircraft noise are good news for some. For others, it will only get worse, says Graham Norwood
·Have your say: Has your home been affected by aircraft noise?
Life may be about to become much more peaceful in parts of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex from next year - and some lucky owners could find their homes worth 10 per cent more as a result. The windfalls would emerge from plans by National Air Traffic Services to redraw flight paths into three airports in south-east England.
NATS' proposals, out for consultation until May and likely to come into effect next year, alter routes for aircraft stacking before landing at Luton, Stansted and London City airports. The plans also try to cut noise where aircraft from several south-east airports, including Heathrow, converge and turn at the start of long-haul flights.
Ian Hall, NATS' director of operations, says the proposals will reduce the number of people affected by noise from departing aircraft under 4,000ft by 20 per cent.
Winners include Brookmans Park, Hatfield, Hitchin and Royston in Hertfordshire, Princes Risborough in Buckinghamshire, Southend in Essex and Sudbury in Cambridgeshire. The losers are chiefly more rural areas including villages near Bishop's Stortford in Hertfordshire, along the Blackwater Estuary, north of St Albans and in south Bedfordshire.
"The impact of aircraft noise on values is often exaggerated, but in sensitive locations, house prices are affected by 10 per cent," admits Tim Trembath of Mullucks Wells, an estate agency selling homes from the northern edge of Greater London to the east coast.
Trembath says he can routinely see 17 aircraft at a time at different heights and distances from his home in the Essex village of Great Dunmow, but says the impact of noise lessens as people live longer in an area. "We have some buyers who don't live locally wanting a home with no noise at all from aircraft and we've a few spots in that category. But others who live in the region are much more used to aircraft and they buy homes in what other people might regard as noisy locations, with no complaint at all."
The difficulty for the next year, he says, is that people wanting to buy a home in the eastern half of southeast England are likely to defer a purchase until a conclusion has been reached.
What is beyond doubt is that most airports have seen an increase in complaints from neighbouring home owners. The most recent data shows noise complaints at East Midlands airport soared from 4,500 in 2005 to 7,978 in 2006; at Luton they tripled in that period. This is no doubt due to the boom in budget airline travel, with more new routes to regional airports opening every year. But concerns over aircraft noise are not restricted to large airports. Across the UK, there are about 1,750 rural airstrips - sometimes little more than fields - and these are getting busier. Action 4 Airports, a website campaigning for small airstrips, says there are 30,000 people in the UK with private pilots' licences, and this figure is rising. A4A says this almost inevitably creates disputes such as the one raging in the east Devon village of Branscombe, where a landing strip has existed for more than 20 years.
Its new owner, David Hayman - a financial adviser who flies to and from his London office - is permitted to use it 28 days a year but has applied for consent for over 500 takeoffs or landings a year.
"That's an average of about one and a half movements a day, with the peak noise lasting eight seconds and affecting literally just one or two homes," says David. "The opposition comes from just one or two people who built their homes or moved in long after the airfield arrived, and now claim they speak for the entire village," he insists.
David claims seven village jobs, four at an aircraft restoration firm and three at a company making aircraft covers, rely on the airfield. On top of that, the previous owner raised £110,000 for charity by holding an annual summer air day and David wants to continue that tradition.
But next door neighbour Lynn Hall says most of the activity at the field occurs at weekends when people want to relax, and she fears the village has become less attractive for potential buyers.
"The number of flights has increased in the past three or four years. We also have a lot of planes practising manoeuvres. One took off and landed every few minutes for an hour, and people are beginning to be very worried about their safety," she says. "There have been two accidents in the past nine months, one with an aircraft stalling on take off and ending up in a tree on the edge of the airstrip. If you'd wanted to buy in the village, would you still do so after knowing that?" asks Lynn.
The issue of aircraft noise raises the blood pressure as well as the decibels, and the problem appears to be getting worse across the UK. Professional buying agents, who short-list suitable homes for affluent clients, say they now routinely have to check for private aircraft flights from nearby properties when looking for a country house or rural estate.
Passenger numbers from large UK airports are predicted to expand from 180 million now to 475 million by 2030. Regional airports, increasingly dominated by commercial airlines, have cut space for private planes while increasing landing and storage costs for small aircraft. The result is that private pilots increasingly use these small rural airfields. Soon, it seems, many more of us will be living under a flight path.
·For more information: www.nats.co.uk/TCNconsultation, has a video illustrating new flight paths and a postcode search to check proposed flight paths and heights over houses.
The website www.uk-airport-news.info carries news on anti-noise campaigns.
The affordability index
Average house price in each region (in descending order)
1. North England: £207,663
2. Yorkshire & Humberside: £213,877
3. East Midlands: £219,384
4. Wales: £229,136
5. West Midlands: £230,375
6. East Anglia: £260,702
7. Scotland: £263,655
8. South West: £267,475
9. South East: £316,725
10. Greater London: £411,981
Personally, speaking bring them on!!! I like nothing more than belting around at 50"
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=318993
There is an interesting and similar debate going on there. Well worth a look and perhaps a line of support or a new thread to pull all of these issues into on debate?
And take a look at this, it is the airfield at Branscombe refered to in the article below
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=301253
I do however agree with Bose - X, everyone in entitled to their opinion, as am i and my opinion is that is don't like them
If this rot is not stopped, it affect all in aviation and not just in the UK
More NIMBY
Here is another one to have a look at!!!
Located next to Branscombe Airfield, East Devon. Lat and Long please
I was considering putting this up for debate and then discovered this delightful thread!!!
Aircraft noise: Life beneath the blight path (From The Sunday Telegraph, March 2, 2008)
Plans to cut aircraft noise are good news for some. For others, it will only get worse, says Graham Norwood
·Have your say: Has your home been affected by aircraft noise?
Life may be about to become much more peaceful in parts of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex from next year - and some lucky owners could find their homes worth 10 per cent more as a result. The windfalls would emerge from plans by National Air Traffic Services to redraw flight paths into three airports in south-east England.
NATS' proposals, out for consultation until May and likely to come into effect next year, alter routes for aircraft stacking before landing at Luton, Stansted and London City airports. The plans also try to cut noise where aircraft from several south-east airports, including Heathrow, converge and turn at the start of long-haul flights.
Ian Hall, NATS' director of operations, says the proposals will reduce the number of people affected by noise from departing aircraft under 4,000ft by 20 per cent.
Winners include Brookmans Park, Hatfield, Hitchin and Royston in Hertfordshire, Princes Risborough in Buckinghamshire, Southend in Essex and Sudbury in Cambridgeshire. The losers are chiefly more rural areas including villages near Bishop's Stortford in Hertfordshire, along the Blackwater Estuary, north of St Albans and in south Bedfordshire.
"The impact of aircraft noise on values is often exaggerated, but in sensitive locations, house prices are affected by 10 per cent," admits Tim Trembath of Mullucks Wells, an estate agency selling homes from the northern edge of Greater London to the east coast.
Trembath says he can routinely see 17 aircraft at a time at different heights and distances from his home in the Essex village of Great Dunmow, but says the impact of noise lessens as people live longer in an area. "We have some buyers who don't live locally wanting a home with no noise at all from aircraft and we've a few spots in that category. But others who live in the region are much more used to aircraft and they buy homes in what other people might regard as noisy locations, with no complaint at all."
The difficulty for the next year, he says, is that people wanting to buy a home in the eastern half of southeast England are likely to defer a purchase until a conclusion has been reached.
What is beyond doubt is that most airports have seen an increase in complaints from neighbouring home owners. The most recent data shows noise complaints at East Midlands airport soared from 4,500 in 2005 to 7,978 in 2006; at Luton they tripled in that period. This is no doubt due to the boom in budget airline travel, with more new routes to regional airports opening every year. But concerns over aircraft noise are not restricted to large airports. Across the UK, there are about 1,750 rural airstrips - sometimes little more than fields - and these are getting busier. Action 4 Airports, a website campaigning for small airstrips, says there are 30,000 people in the UK with private pilots' licences, and this figure is rising. A4A says this almost inevitably creates disputes such as the one raging in the east Devon village of Branscombe, where a landing strip has existed for more than 20 years.
Its new owner, David Hayman - a financial adviser who flies to and from his London office - is permitted to use it 28 days a year but has applied for consent for over 500 takeoffs or landings a year.
"That's an average of about one and a half movements a day, with the peak noise lasting eight seconds and affecting literally just one or two homes," says David. "The opposition comes from just one or two people who built their homes or moved in long after the airfield arrived, and now claim they speak for the entire village," he insists.
David claims seven village jobs, four at an aircraft restoration firm and three at a company making aircraft covers, rely on the airfield. On top of that, the previous owner raised £110,000 for charity by holding an annual summer air day and David wants to continue that tradition.
But next door neighbour Lynn Hall says most of the activity at the field occurs at weekends when people want to relax, and she fears the village has become less attractive for potential buyers.
"The number of flights has increased in the past three or four years. We also have a lot of planes practising manoeuvres. One took off and landed every few minutes for an hour, and people are beginning to be very worried about their safety," she says. "There have been two accidents in the past nine months, one with an aircraft stalling on take off and ending up in a tree on the edge of the airstrip. If you'd wanted to buy in the village, would you still do so after knowing that?" asks Lynn.
The issue of aircraft noise raises the blood pressure as well as the decibels, and the problem appears to be getting worse across the UK. Professional buying agents, who short-list suitable homes for affluent clients, say they now routinely have to check for private aircraft flights from nearby properties when looking for a country house or rural estate.
Passenger numbers from large UK airports are predicted to expand from 180 million now to 475 million by 2030. Regional airports, increasingly dominated by commercial airlines, have cut space for private planes while increasing landing and storage costs for small aircraft. The result is that private pilots increasingly use these small rural airfields. Soon, it seems, many more of us will be living under a flight path.
·For more information: www.nats.co.uk/TCNconsultation, has a video illustrating new flight paths and a postcode search to check proposed flight paths and heights over houses.
The website www.uk-airport-news.info carries news on anti-noise campaigns.
The affordability index
Average house price in each region (in descending order)
1. North England: £207,663
2. Yorkshire & Humberside: £213,877
3. East Midlands: £219,384
4. Wales: £229,136
5. West Midlands: £230,375
6. East Anglia: £260,702
7. Scotland: £263,655
8. South West: £267,475
9. South East: £316,725
10. Greater London: £411,981
Personally, speaking bring them on!!! I like nothing more than belting around at 50"
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest can anyone actually name an established airfield (leaving aside Branscombe which I understand the owner has withdrawn the planning application for) that has been forced to close due to complaints?
My impression is that often the people who complain are very vocal, more often than not are in a minority and rarely succeed.
My impression is that often the people who complain are very vocal, more often than not are in a minority and rarely succeed.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you've got planning then you are pretty safe provided you stay within the terms of the planning permission.
If I ever got my own strip somewhere, I would go for full planning from day 1. It might take a couple of years (planning officer approving it, committee chucking it out, inspector approving it) and would cost 4 or even 5 digits in noise surveys etc, but then one is safe and doesn't have to worry about whether somebody is counting the active days.
Nobody should withdraw a planning application simply because somebody doesn't like it. I know many people do exactly that but that's because they don't know that every village has at least a dozen people who object to everything.
The local planning system (the planning committee system in particular, with the dozen councillors who usually vote without ever even seeing the site) is set up to make the applicant (whose beloved application has just been viciously torn to pieces with barely a few minutes' discussion) really despondent and to make him withdraw it.
Applicants who are smarter will go to the inspector (the appeal) at least, as a matter of principle, every time, because this bypasses the local issues.
Makes me sad to see people withdraw planning applications due to local objections... it's the 'bully' winning without moving a finger.
There may be exceptions e.g. a pub with mostly local clientele where not p***ing off the locals is a sensible move. But an individual who just lives in a village should never withdraw an application at this stage and should always proceed to appeal.
If I ever got my own strip somewhere, I would go for full planning from day 1. It might take a couple of years (planning officer approving it, committee chucking it out, inspector approving it) and would cost 4 or even 5 digits in noise surveys etc, but then one is safe and doesn't have to worry about whether somebody is counting the active days.
Nobody should withdraw a planning application simply because somebody doesn't like it. I know many people do exactly that but that's because they don't know that every village has at least a dozen people who object to everything.
The local planning system (the planning committee system in particular, with the dozen councillors who usually vote without ever even seeing the site) is set up to make the applicant (whose beloved application has just been viciously torn to pieces with barely a few minutes' discussion) really despondent and to make him withdraw it.
Applicants who are smarter will go to the inspector (the appeal) at least, as a matter of principle, every time, because this bypasses the local issues.
Makes me sad to see people withdraw planning applications due to local objections... it's the 'bully' winning without moving a finger.
There may be exceptions e.g. a pub with mostly local clientele where not p***ing off the locals is a sensible move. But an individual who just lives in a village should never withdraw an application at this stage and should always proceed to appeal.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contacttower Just out of interest can anyone actually name an established airfield (leaving aside Branscombe which I understand the owner has withdrawn the planning application for) that has been forced to close due to complaints?
My impression is that often the people who complain are very vocal, more often than not are in a minority and rarely succeed.
My impression is that often the people who complain are very vocal, more often than not are in a minority and rarely succeed.
Heres is a website lisiting airfileds in USA that have been closed due to local complaints. It is not just a UK problem
http://members.tripod.com/airfields_..._Philly_NW.htm