[Highland Park]

I spoke to the airfield manager today and he confirms a comprehensive response to the proposal is being put together and this will be in public view at some point, so that all can see exactly what the Airfield’s concerns and objections are.

Ian

[Rob P]

Such a shame that on a decent, flyable weekend the airfield visitors were limited by the availability of parking.

Apparently the Duxford FISO were pre-warning people that even PPR online didn't guarantee that one would get in to Old Buckenham .

As explained to me, they have to take a judgement on how long visitors are likely to stay, something of which they have no prior notice.

It was good to see the aerodrome so busy

Rob P

[Sooty25]

Nobody else seems to have noted that the airfield has offered to host the structure on the airfield itself making their whole objection slightly moot in my view.

If the alternative location was offered to provide a justifiably more suitable location in relation to the runways, then it is not moot.

Any rent not received from potentially not hosting the mast on the airfield is not lost as it was never there in the first place. The cost of the site will be an expense for the Met office regardless of recipient. Offering a more suitable site, IMO, is actually a constructive act.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Nobody else seems to have noted that the airfield has offered to host the structure on the airfield itself making their whole objection slightly moot in my view.

If the alternative location was offered to provide a justifiably more suitable location in relation to the runways, then it is not moot.

Any rent not received from potentially not hosting the mast on the airfield is not lost as it was never there in the first place. The cost of the site will be an expense for the Met office regardless of recipient. Offering a more suitable site, IMO, is actually a constructive act.

The MetOffice has a suitable place nearby so why on earth would they want to place their thing on someone else's property? Even if it was offered FOC it would be a PITA for obvious reasons.

[Sooty25]

The site the Met Office are proposing is owned by Anglian Water. They won't get that rent free.

The issue is, whether the proposed location breaches airfield safeguarding requirements and CAP146.

We all have to comply with rules regardless, so if this breaches those rules, it has to be blocked. Offering a compliant location (assuming it is), is merely helping to find a solution. OB could have just said "you can't put it there, sod off completely". But they haven't.

[Joe Dell]

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/w ... -june-2019

[Flyin'Dutch']

From that site:

Why this site?

Building a radar at this site would involve the re-development of an existing brownfield site owned by Anglian Water, rather than a green field site.
A thorough investigation of possible sites across the region considered the benefits, likely costs, impact on the local environment and community and associated risks for each location.

This is the only one of the potential sites that would provide 1km resolution coverage over the whole of Norfolk, right up to the coastline. This is the finest level of detail possible, much like a large scale map. This site also offered the most cost-effective option to the UK taxpayer.

9 of the considered locations were on Anglian Water sites. Why was there was such desire to locate the tower on one of their sites?

We approached several landowners, who owned a number of brownfield sites across the region, where co-locating a radar might fit with their current use of the site, and/or where there was a natural synergy/interest in hosting a radar. These included Anglian Water, Environment Agency and MOD amongst others.

We had to be confident of how the land is likely to be used for the next 25 years, or for the life of the radar. If we considered an industrial site, we would need assurances from multiple owners as to how they all intend to use the site in the future. We would also risk a greater certainty of conflicting development, which could affect the effectiveness of the radar.

In addition, Anglian Water were very keen to have the additional data that the radar will offer and therefore helped with the process of investigating possible sites. However, upon investigation all other suggested Anglian Water sites proved to be unsuitable, had no appropriate spare land available or were already earmarked for other uses.

[AlanM]

Of all the arguments , I would imagine the 25 year assurance is a massive thing for the Met O.

How could lovely little Old Buck offer that assurance?

Let’s hope they get it resolved.

[Pilot Pete]

I accept that for normal VFR conditions there is nothing about this that would give me anything to consider.
However if the airfield were to consider a GNSS approach in the future, would this then have a significant impact on the viability?

[Lefty]

Old Buck already has an 888 ft mast on the r/w 25 extended centreline at 3nm, which would be an even bigger barrier to getting a GNSS approach.

[Sooty25]

From that site:

Why this site?

Building a radar at this site would involve the re-development of an existing brownfield site owned by Anglian Water, rather than a green field site. .......

Are they suggesting airfields are not brownfield?

[Miscellaneous]

Old Buck already has an 888 ft mast on the r/w 25 extended centreline at 3nm, which would be an even bigger barrier to getting a GNSS approach.

That's probably a good reason not to add any additional distractions for pilots on 'approach'. Looking for these things in good VFR is bad enough.

Personally I fail to see the debate, don't put it there if it doesn't have to be there. Irrespective of how low the odds of hitting it are, you won't get lower than that.

They do cause concern at least until spotted. This one just off centreline did me and I was in the back.

[patowalker]

Was that structure less than 100' high, 380m from the extended centreline, 900m from the threshold, on the deadside?

[gustav]

I don't see what the fuss is all about. At 28m and way off the extended centre line this is hardly an obstruction worth mentioning, especially on a airfield that is not licenced for night flying. Merely a self promotion opportunity of the (non-pilot) airfield manager to get a picture of himself in the local rag.

[Gertie]

If, as the articles states, it does breach the ANO I can't see how planning can be granted.

Planning permission must be given, by default, unless there is a reason in planning law for refusal. I don't know whether "breaching the ANO" is such a reason for refusal - whilst I was a planning portfolio holder this particular question never came up.

In general, if some other regulatory body has jurisdiction, it's not up to the planning authority to refuse planning permission, it's up to the other regulatory body to refuse whatever permissions they need to give.

The trouble is, some local planners are not renown for making logical decisions.

This is a wider question than just planning, usually summed up along the lines of:

"The law doesn't have to be logical, it just has to be the law."