[cjrpaterson]

As you said, how could any new airfield expect to make it through the planning process if these are the criteria?

[Flying_john]

Other methods for encouraging the wildlife to go elsewhere would seem to remove one of the primary objections. But how you escape from the overiding purpose of a tranquil national park that is designated in a Local Plan escapes me.

Have you explored use on a 28day rule basis, do you already have an agricultural "shed" for housing the aeroplane on the site ?

[johnm]

Tranquility needs a clear definition since the regular invasion of car carried grockles is anything but tranquil and limited light aircraft activity is less invasive than farm machinery but since when did planners make rational decisions ?

[ChampChump]

I'm so sorry to read this. Government policy in regards to airfields and GA needs to be implemented, not left as a series of strategy projects going forward, floated on a raft of measures...

[Lockhaven]

South Moor Farm Airstrip.

Update 26/05/21

The Fifth appeal as just been dismissed!

Despite every grass strip in the country having abundant birds and wildlife.

Cannot overcome the bird problem!

Unless I/we manage to change the planning system it could be impossible to ever get planning permission for new sites.

I cannot see a way forward to obtain planning permission.

I am thinking of trying to find out what the penalty will be if I start using the strip again.

Bob.

Why did you apply for planning instead of using the 28 day rule, just curious.

[r_w_walker]

Hi Lockhaven,
The strip is in Dalby Forest, a major tourist attraction, did not think the aircraft would go unnoticed by thousands of visitors, hence tried to get planning permission.
The strip was used in 2016/2017 on the 28day rule but NYMNPPA issued an article 4 directive to stop it. Hence repeated applications.
The first application was only refused because the planning inspector thought the proposed hangar was too industrial. He did not have an issue with tranquility and that application was for 250 flights per year!
Despite plenty of submitted evidence that birds thrive on airfields they will not accept it.
Still looking for a way forward preferably that does not end up in court.
Bob.

[Lockhaven]

Hi Lockhaven,
The strip is in Dalby Forest, a major tourist attraction, did not think the aircraft would go unnoticed by thousands of visitors, hence tried to get planning permission.
The strip was used in 2016/2017 on the 28day rule but NYMNPPA issued an article 4 directive to stop it. Hence repeated applications.
The first application was only refused because the planning inspector thought the proposed hangar was too industrial. He did not have an issue with tranquility and that application was for 250 flights per year!
Despite plenty of submitted evidence that birds thrive on airfields they will not accept it.
Still looking for a way forward preferably that does not end up in court.
Bob.

Interesting the planning department don't consider what effect the thousands of tourists and cars have on the tranquility or the disturbance of birds compared to one light aircraft.

[CloudHound]

Habituation. The process by which certain bird species get used to the environment and learn to tolerate disturbances is held up as important in the Inspector's eyes.

He also pointed out that reducing the number of flights to around a tenth of the numbers originally envisaged would rob the two named species of the chance to habituate to the potential disturbance.

Therefore the logic to me is to increase the planned number of movements to a level commensurate with habituation. I do wish I'd kept the photo of a corvid sat on top of a farmer's bird scaring gas cannon.

[Miscellaneous]

IMO it is clear the birds are an excuse so no number of appeals, or amount of badgering is going to convince them of something which is not the real issue to begin with. head and brick wall comes to mind.

Is there not an appeal route which goes beyond the local councillors and planners? Failing that the only solution would appear to be a court ruling.

[r_w_walker]

Hi Miscellaneous,

The only possible action seems to be a Judicial Review of the Planning Inspectors decision.

I can not afford that! Pockets not deep enough.

Tried once before to obtain funds through crowd funding.

Failed, not enough support.

Need a lottery win.

Bob.

[TheFarmer]

Mr Walker

If you win the Lottery, please don’t spend it on this project. You’ll lose it. I promise.

[Bill McCarthy]

The birdie people put up a fierce fight against wind turbine “forests” and solar arrays but those concerns are dismissed out of hand.

[kanga]

Saturday's (21 Aug) "Times" ('we only buy it for the Crossword' ) has an article about complaints about an autogyro operation (including training) at Troutbeck within the Lake District National Park. Objectors are alleging adverse effects on curlew habitats, as well as presence of an airfield within a NP at all. Operator is claiming 'established' right to continue. Behind a paywall, though:

https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Farticle%2Fgyroplanes-have-lake-district-residents-in-a-flap-cgtzbq8x8

[starts "..Gyroplanes have Lake District residents in a flap .. Lake District residents are embroiled in a row with a businessman about light aircraft ..."]

[proteus]

I have a family friend who lives near those strips. They had a knock on the door the other day from a neighbouring resident going round looking for signatures to object. They were told the reason the objection was being drummed up is that someone nearby was selling their house and the estate agent said that having an airfield nearby would decrease the value of their property. The whole selling point trying to get them to sign was " it'll hurt your property price too".

The nimby's will throw anything they can as a weapon to stop individuals doing what they want with their own land.

[kanga]

.. the objection was being drummed up is that someone nearby was selling their house and the estate agent said that having an airfield nearby would decrease the value of their property....

now, presumably, the estate agent is under a legal obligation to mention that there is an airfield nearby, to which some local residents (including, at least, the vendor) has objected .. or has obligation (under the ?former 'Home Information Packs') been rescinded ?