Page 12 of 12

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Thu Jun 03, 2021 6:26 pm
by Paul_Sengupta
Same with Bourne Park, over the 19 years I was flying there, we didn't fly circuits, we approached and departed across farmland rather than towns. It was just the neighbourly thing to do.

In fact, by a strange coincidence, I once met a lady at a family wedding (in Wales!) who lived in the nearest village, Hurstbourne Tarrant. I said, "Oh! I keep my aeroplane there." She looked puzzled. Where? I said Bourne Park, up the top of the hill. She said she knew Bourne Park, but never realised there was an airfield there.

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Thu Jun 03, 2021 7:12 pm
by gregorp
I understand that planners do not take any notice of petitions. I was told that when we objected to a nearby development. And they also don't take "standard " (copied) letters into account.
Politicians, however, appear to be much influenced by them.

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:04 am
by Cessna571
I’ve been reading the clocks away forum, which is “interesting”.

So, it actually centres around planning permission being turned down for 2 bungalows in the field next door.

“Double standards” one of the main nimby agitators calls it.

“”if I can’t build, why should they have an a airstrip” is the tone.

to put that the other way round

“I don’t mind destroying the habitat if it’s because I’m building bungalows” !

Doesn’t understand an airfield doesn’t destroy the habitat.

Anyway, 1400 signatures they say they have, and they are going further afield for there next high street petition days.

Clearly a “local issue”.

The new placards are being printed apparently.

They are still saying 30+ aircraft.
(That’s more flying aircraft than Duxford!)

7500 movements !
(I think they are beginning to believe that)

It’s all about disinformation isn’t it.

there’s not going to be any 747’s are there? They are just to reel people in.

If they had any sense, it’s the F4’s they’d go for, objecting to those being based there will stop it dead in the water.

30+ GA may be a joke, but 2 x F4 Phantoms is no joke.

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:05 am
by eltonioni
gregorp wrote:I understand that planners do not take any notice of petitions. I was told that when we objected to a nearby development. And they also don't take "standard " (copied) letters into account.
Politicians, however, appear to be much influenced by them.

But just like planners, politicians are obliged to comply with planning law and precedents. Letting their emotions and political egos get the better of them has been the subject of many successful planning appeals.

Petitions, even massive ones, fall into the category of 'generally interesting but generally irrelevant. The bigger they are, the more irrelevant signatures they will have and perversely (for objectors) the less weight they carry. I'm not aware that planning inspectors take a blind bit of notice of silly petitions which is why planners tend not to either. Template objections fall into the same category.

One or two neighbours with a genuine complaint that a planning consent will have a seriously deleterious effect on their life have much more impact, even if it isn't directly contravening planning law.

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:11 pm
by trevs99uk
Looking through some of the objection comments is saw this one. Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:Hand written Signatures for a petition objecting to the proposals have been collected.
These total 943 to date.
Copies of the petition will be forwarded separately via email.
In addition Dover and Deal Green Party started a petition on Change.org, and have collected 993
signatures to date electronically. These can be found on the website Change.org

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:59 am
by eltonioni
Must admit, you don’t often see objections on the grounds of objections. :lol:

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:34 am
by trevs99uk
I see you can still enter supporting comments.
https://publicaccess.dover.gov.uk/onlin ... F3EFZHSU00
i also note that some of the objectors have made more than one objection and i bet they also signed the petition aswell..

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:48 am
by ChampChump
The Planning Officer decided to leave the comments open. Decision day should be 7thAugust. This may be extended if the applicants agree to such a request.

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:31 pm
by stickandrudderman
I recently reconnected with a very good friend who I'd lost touch with some 15 years ago.
Last time I knew him he lived very near White Waltham. Turn out he's now one of the complainants at Mongeham.
Our scheduled first meeting for 15 years could turn out to be interesting!
Funny old world!

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Tue Jul 27, 2021 3:43 pm
by Flying_john
The "Chocs Go Away Community Response" is a wordy document full of outdated information , but written in a persuasive way that indicates to me that it is a "paid for" type report. So it shows that their money collecting activities have been enough to employ a wordsmith.

I wonder if the applicant intends to challenge the half truths and the many wrong assertions contained within their submission ?

I mean, where did they get the idea that 6 seat PA28's from abroad were regular traffic at Maypole and what gave them the idea that we HAVE to run our aircraft on Avgas. That's so outdated now with UL91 and so many LAA types running on petrol from the forecourt and where do they get the idea that us professionally trained and licenced pilots cannot turn away from an SSI or other sensitive areas within 2miles of takeoff.

It really is a load of drivel.

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Tue Jul 27, 2021 3:48 pm
by Cessna571
They have cited things such a “Ripple Airfield (Deal)” existing just down the road.

A 350m private strip, what is making it in or out of there?!

By claiming lots and lots of falsehoods, they’ve surely made it harder for the planning committee to stop it without the integrity of the planning committee being called into question.

“We’ve submitted 3500 signatures we’ve collected which are against it”

Planning Committee: “oh, wow, how many people live in Little Mongeham?”

“80”

Surely that’s going to make it harder to throw out?

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Tue Jul 27, 2021 3:49 pm
by ChampChump
Responses to such matters have been made, although one might remember Chocks Go Away is not in charge of the planning process, nor is the planning committee being asked to rule on flying in general.

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Tue Jul 27, 2021 3:52 pm
by Cessna571
stickandrudderman wrote:I recently reconnected with a very good friend who I'd lost touch with some 15 years ago.
Last time I knew him he lived very near White Waltham. Turn out he's now one of the complainants at Mongeham.
Our scheduled first meeting for 15 years could turn out to be interesting!
Funny old world!


I’m presuming he won’t be interested in going flying with you then!

Re: A new airfield? Surely not.

PostPosted:Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:45 pm
by mcdonaldn507
Protesting based on incorrect information happens all the time and for all applications.