[Gertie]

Potentially dodgy, Article 4 Directions.

Took me years, and the support of a government minister, before officers would let me issue some, the problem they saw being the risks of having to pay compensation.

[johnm]

I would start by doing some high input agriculture that really will do for the birds! These people are ignorant cretins exercising powers they should not have and you can quote me on that

Edited to add

National Park planning committee refused planning permission again today on the grounds that protected bird species MIGHT be affected.

There's no might about it, the birds will benefit from aviation activities as any fule who' s been to an airfield know

[flybymike]

Absolutely infuriating.

[rf3flyer]

[rant]I haven't read all the background to this but I expect the 'birds' issue will be yet another example of the interference of the RSPB, that arrogant, guilt driven, self satisfied, unelected organisation, always going on about some avian species or other being close to extinction in a particular postcode all the while ignoring that it may be at 'vermin' levels in the next county![/rant]
p.s. I like birds, though the Swallows that nest in my hangar can be a messy nuisance and the swans and geese that arrive twice a year can make movements interesting.

[Flyin'Dutch']

I feel for your plight but think that the Farmer was probably right and that operating it under the 28 day rule for 10 years might have been less stressful and more successful.

[r_w_walker]

I agree with Flying Dutch and Farmer but I intend to pursue this has far as possible. Anyone with enough space can start an airfield under the 28 day rule, but you face being closed down if a bird watcher, horse rider or neighbour complains. Unfortunately my location has all three categories of complainers. If I eventually succeed it might help other air strips.