So, with all that confirmation that our hooved friends are not remotely affected by airfield activities, it’s also confirmation that our NIMBY friends are simply playing the animal welfare card misleadingly in that department.
However, being totally transparent, the biggest problem here is twofold…
1. Ignorance by non-flyers of the actual impact (minimal) on their day to day lives. This is almost impossible to sort, hence it’s always best to get on and fly from somewhere for a while first, so the headline figure of 7,500 movements is more of a ‘well we’ve been doing that for three years and you haven’t noticed’ scenario (after a gradual build-up to that level over a few years) rather than flying activities that have not yet even happened at all, and therefore impossible to defend or justify to a non-flyer.
2. An application that has slightly shot the project in its own foot with its over-transparency, (albeit best intentions) by mentioning things like electric aircraft and glamping, clearly just to get boxes ticked!
As I explained to someone recently who had his planning application for an airstrip refused, it’s a bit like two 17 year olds at boarding school. They both want to go into town on Saturday night, and they both get their stories ready for their housemaster.
The one who’s quietly been out a few times in the last few weeks (without complaints or incident) who plays down his intentions and doesn’t say too much about his plans gets to go, and the evening out develops into an epic one. In the morning, when the boy is first to breakfast with polished shoes and being helpful in the dining room, the housemaster passes him, doesn’t say anything, and they both carry on their lives. Two respecting sides, happily co-existing.
The one who’s yet to venture into town, who innocently says in absolute detail about all the really useful reasons he should be allowed to go and what his exact plans are, immediately puts the housemaster in a position where he knows exactly what the boy must/should be doing (because that’s what he promised him), and he ends up polishing shoes until 9pm and then had to go to bed, as it’s all too much risk for both parties, and has far too much scope to go too wrong.
This simple theme can be extended throughout life.
Whoever advised on this project really didn’t do a very good job of it!!
Sorry to be blunt.
Never criticise a man until you’ve flown a mile in his loafers.