Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 21
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1263135
Dave Phillips wrote:Err, not quite. there is an apparent anomaly whereby Rule 6 exemptions apply to the 500ft rule for all take-offs/landing but only apply to licensed, government or training aerodromes for the the 1000ft rule (built-up areas) rule. In other words if you are taking-off/landing at an aerodrome other than government, licensed or training you must comply with the 1000ft rule. Of course, it may not be an anomaly.

Thus (potentially) any unlicensed airfield or strip with a town, city, village or settlement on approach or climb out may not legally be used for take off or landing?
By rossi1981
#1267333
the e-petition states some incorrect information. the M40 Distribution park will not be lost as this is not part of the current submission.
By rossi1981
#1267662
i know that's not really what everyone is worried about but i just wish people would get their facts right before submitting something like.
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#1272568
Good news for runways. Not so much for drag strips......
User avatar
By kanga
#1272575
:)
Last edited by kanga on Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By jollyrog
#1272622
Mind you - if the owners still want to sell........

How much is farmland worth these days?
By dcr226
#1272626
jollyrog wrote:
Mind you - if the owners still want to sell........

How much is farmland worth these days?


Not just that, SDC's Proposed Core Strategy specifically makes a policy to retain flying activities at the airfield when considering new developments...so the question is "How much is an airfield worth these days" seeing as (should the core strategy be proposed, and accepted), thats pretty much all it could be
By rossi1981
#1273982
sorry to say but this doesn't mean the airfield is safe. to get this through planning will not be that difficult. just a matter of time really.
By rossi1981
#1280913
also, i'm not sure how the council could impose that the airfield is kept an airfield.

it is currently privately run and owned. the council could not force the business to continue if the owners no longer want to run it.

if someone wants to take it over and keep it as an airfield they will have to come up with a lot of money.
User avatar
By kanga
#1280931
rossi1981 wrote:also, i'm not sure how the council could impose that the airfield is kept an airfield.

it is currently privately run and owned. the council could not force the business to continue if the owners no longer want to run it.

if someone wants to take it over and keep it as an airfield they will have to come up with a lot of money.


er, by refusing Planning Permission for alternative uses ? Does the County's Strategic Plan specify that it should continue as an active airfield ?

But that refusal could obviously be appealed against to the SoS, and a proposal for housing on what might be regarded as a 'previously developed' ('brown field') site might be accepted by latter. Correspondence with LG Minister in previous Government made it clear that it was that Government's policy that 'previous development' on part of an airfield should not be taken as acceptance of whole airfield curtilage as 'brown field'; but that was Policy not Statute, and later Government (or individual SoS) could take a different view. .. :?

Latest threat here:

http://www.flyer.co.uk/aviation-news/ne ... rtnum=1910
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 21