Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1792976
kanga wrote:And the single (but voluble and politically influential) NIMBY at South Cerney who complained about the VGS converting from winch to Ventures. The VGS moved out to Hullavington, and the RAF started using it for low-level cargo drops from C130s :)


Ah yes South Cerney Mid 90s soldier decapitated by low flying C130.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/raf- ... 27162.html

Peter
By Pilot Pete
#1793004
If a household makes a complaint about neighbours of trouble in the area this information must be included in the sellers property information pack.
Said information could impact a sale and possibly devalue a house. (I may be concerned to find out, about
issues in a street I intended to move to)

It's unlikely that airfield objections or complaints will ever be recorded in this way.
However if someone had a directory website that recorded the details of complainers or planning objectors for anyone to search. Then anyone could conveniently find out where airfields appear to cause households an issue.

That would be very helpful to prospective buyers! They may not wish to live there, or may only consider it for a lower price. :thumleft:
Some people may not wish to appear on such a website and complaining may be less popular?
klutz liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1793006
Planning applications are freely available to the general public (as are all public comments of support or objection) and are always scrutinised by those conveyancing solicitors conducting searches prior to purchase .

The Redhill Planning application will be found .

Peter
By MikeE
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1793056
Not sure when the consultation closes. A couple of interesting later supporters, though, one from someone who overlooks the airfield who rehearses many of the previous supporting comments, including

"Finally, I too am somewhat saddened to note that many of the objectors to this application have chosen to live directly under the main take-off path, some within a few hundred metres of the airfield boundary. What were they thinking?"

and one from Henhaw Farm which is almost underneath the 08 flightpath and is mentioned in particular in noise abatement procedures. It's good to know that people who live close to the the aerodrome and who are more likely to be impacted by noise nevertheless recognise its value.

Best wishes

Mike
neilmurg liked this
By oldbiggincfi
#1793090
Bathman wrote:The've have probably visted Woodford, Hucknull, Hatfield, weston super mere......, and know what the alternative is.


And wasn't the grass at Ipswich " Air Port" stunning after lawn mower practice .
kanga liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1793115
oldbiggincfi wrote:
Bathman wrote:The've have probably visted Woodford, Hucknull, Hatfield, weston super mere......, and know what the alternative is.


And wasn't the grass at Ipswich " Air Port" stunning after lawn mower practice .


08R/26L could get a bit soggy and chewed up, though: Improved when Suckling moved on....

Peter :roll:
By Pilot Pete
#1793129
PeteSpencer wrote:Planning applications are freely available to the general public (as are all public comments of support or objection) and are always scrutinised by those conveyancing solicitors conducting searches prior to purchase .

The Redhill Planning application will be found .

Peter


Not quite. How much time do you think conveyancers have.
Anyway by the time conveyancers are involved its a moot point.
I'm refering to a website that a buyer would look at just after choosing an area on rightmove.

It's best if they don't like aircraft noise that they don't move near an airport and then decide to complain.
It's better for them and for us.
User avatar
By neilmurg
#1793283
Comments closed, thanks every one, especially @gaxor for starting the thread. Final tally was 10:1 in favour of the airfield.
IT WOULD BE GREAT to know when the public meeting for the planning application was to be held. It could be like a ground based fly-in... There may be an opportunity to speak to the committee, and to support the application
kanga, JonathanB, oldbiggincfi and 1 others liked this
By Bathman
#1816217
It's being renamed to "Merlin way" as part of the plan to build 4000 houses on the site. The application for which took 2 weeks to get approved and got full government backing.
By MikeE
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1841701
Thanks for flagging this up. I think that's right, although it seems to be a recommendation so not sure of its status. If correct it is certainly good news. I see that there is a public inquiry to take place in May. I wonder if this is going ahead now?

Regards

Mike
User avatar
By flyingearly
#1841707
Not to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory, but isn't this potentially very ambiguous and bad news?

85 movements a day is not a lot; 5 or 6 flights an hour during winter daylight hours (on the basis of 1 based aircraft = 2 movements out and in).

The restriction on 85 movements per day is not specifically related to the taxiway...if I were a NIMBY, I would argue that Redhill has been given permission to use the taxiway on a permanent basis, but that for 4 months of the year they are not allowed more than 85 movements daily on all runways.

Not trying to be pessimistic - I think this is probably good news - but what's the net effect should this edict be accepted literally?

From what I can see, there are 5 - 10 movements daily out of hours on its own, just by the air ambulance or police chopper. In 2014 (I can't find data more recently) there were 117 movements daily on average in Jan - Mar, so if this guidance is applied strictly, Redhill is going to be hitting the limit.

https://www.redhillaerodrome.com/upload ... 1.2021.pdf

http://www.redhillaerodrome.com/uploads ... 170413.pdf
Last edited by flyingearly on Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:32 pm, edited 4 times in total.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9