A formal planning application for an airstrip on the land between Willow Woods Road,

Little Mongeham and Mill Lane / Coulson Grove, Northbourne has been submitted to DDC.

The application includes an airstrip, 2 hangars, 20 light aeroplanes, 10 glamping pods and helicopter access.

What do you think about it? Do you want it? Tell us here.

FORUM

Please support us at GoFundMe

To test this feature, visit your live site.

Tony Wells

Apr 22, 2021

Edited: Apr 22, 2021

Permissive footpath.

in Say no to Mongeham airfield!

I note on the plan that there's to be a permissive footpath, which is NOT a public right of way, running north east from the end of the runway to Deal Road and then onto Northbourne.

I'm puzzled as to why they should feel the need for this permissive path.

There's a well-established public footpath (EE420), forming part of the White Cliffs Country Trail, running from Northbourne to Little Mongeham across the end of the airstrip?

Are they suggesting that they don't want people to use EE420 because it's too dangerous for them with planes landing and taking off? If that's the case, then the sensible approached would be for them to have the footpath redirected.

So, why the need for the permissive path?

17 comments

17 Comments

Dennis Murphy

Jun 09, 2021

Please accept my apologies, I had no intention of inflaming your anger issues. I had thought this was a forum. Ordinarily that would be a place or mechanism where diverse views are exchanged respectfully and open minds gain insight into the perspective of others. That is different to a platform which simply acts as an echo chamber for a single point of view and I mistook this for the former.

Before I leave, please be assured that I am aware that I am not welcome in your private space and will certainly not be going there. If you see a passing airplane and choose to wave at it, please feel free to do so. If it is near the ground in a high workload phase of flight (taking off and landing) please don’t expect us to wave back. Unless of course you are standing in the middle of the runway. That is where our focus will be, we are trained.

As for your privacy, apart from being too busy to try to see into your property, we are directed to avoid overflying local habitation at low level and always endeavour to do so. As I mentioned in my post; each airfield has an information card that visiting pilots must read before landing there. It includes vital technical information needed to conduct a safe flight and always gives full details of any places we must avoid. That is done for reasons of noise abatement and privacy. Before visiting we must obtain permission to land from the airfield owner. Their primary concerns are invariably being a good neighbour and enabling safe flight. They never fail to reinforce the need to avoid overflying nearby habitation. The paths that aircraft must follow for take off, approach and landing are always carefully calculated to minimize the impact on neighbouring properties and visiting pilots are always briefed.

I assume from your concern about being choked by fumes that you do not own or ever travel in a motor vehicle. My aircraft, which is typical of the type suitable for landing at the proposed airfield, uses about the same amount of unleaded petrol as the farmer’s Land Rover. If you get less than ten car movements per day in the region, then I suppose you have a point. As for it being a self centred hobby, you can have that and I will certainly go flying in as many elsewheres as I possibly can.

Paul Osborne

Jun 15, 2021

Replying to

@Dennis Murphy unfortunately in the case of this proposal, the developers chose not to engage with the local community and their drawings showing landing and take off paths show them flying directly over properties. So no sign of prospective users of the airfield being directly not to fly over these properties. Their proposal states that the orientation of the runway has been designed to prevent overflying of properties, in direct contradiction of their drawings. I am sure there are many airfields that do the neighbourly thing, unfortunately this doesn't appear to be one of them.

Dennis Murphy

Jun 16, 2021

Replying to

@Paul Osborne Thanks Paul. If the proposal does not optimize the flight paths to minimize the impact on neighbouring properties, then it deserves to fail on that basis. It will be for the planning authority, in consultation with relevant expertise, to determine if that is the case. I would not presume to make a judgement without a lot more local knowledge. However, please bear in mind that straight line paths are not necessarily evidence of such a failure. I would add that there are a number of airfields I am aware of, including my own, that ask us to make a tight right angle turn directly on to the threshold of a runway in order to minimise any noise issues with neighbours.

Hunsdon Lodge Farm is a 15th century barn not used as habitation. The directions for visiting pilots will be on the airfield information card and not necessarily the planning proposal.

My point was that the proposal should not fail on the basis of adverse impact on wildlife, as there are many examples of small airfields being a positive asset in this regard. Also, it certainly should not fail on the basis of the innate antipathy of a section every community to any form of change.

Tony Wells

Apr 22, 2021

I'm not a member but I've walked the path from Northbourne to Little Mongeham a few times on the way over to the Plough Inn at Ripple.

Jelly tots

Jun 08, 2021

Replying to

@Dennis Murphy good for you Dennis...so while you're looking out for the footpaths, what about all our houses you're flying over??? Shall we give you a wave whilst you're spoiling our privacy and chocking us with your fumes oh, every half hour of every sunny day....well guess what Dennis...YOU ARE NOT WELCOME AND NOT INVITED INTO OUR PRIVATE SPACE...so go fly somewhere else with your jolly self centred hobby...

Tony Wells

Jun 08, 2021

Replying to

@Dennis Murphy I'm looking at your photo and I see few uncultivated spaces. The vast majority of land in your photo is arable (which is where the proposed airfield at Little Mongeham is going to be built on), there's a couple of tracks and the rest seems to be close mown grass to create the runway.

So I'm not too sure what spaces, in your photo, have been set aside for wildlife. If the owner of the land the airfield is to built on was so concerned about wildlife why didn't they apply for a Countryside Stewardship Grant? https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants?

P.S. The Cirrus SF50 Vision Jet "the world's smallest and most affordable private jet" needs just 620m for takeoff (admittedly this wouldn't be sufficient to clear a 50ft obstacle) and 496m to land. P.P.S. Glad to see that the plane you are flying is prohibited from aerobatics and intentional spins. As flying is a recognised sport, will every pilot flying from this proposed airfield be similarly restricted?

Dennis Murphy

Jun 09, 2021

Replying to

@Tony Wells Tony, the photo was to show the proximity of the footpath to one of the runways at Hunsdon and is the example of the closest a path gets to a runway. The landlord permits the farmer to cultivate any large areas we leave unused. The uncultivated sections which provide excellent wildlife habitat are between the taxiways and the other two runways and to the side of those runways.

What provision the owner of the land where the proposed airfield is to be sited will make and their reasons for not applying for grants are not known to me. My point was simply that small airfields are not wildlife averse and can have a very positive affect. We get bird watchers at Hunsdon.

As for the Cirrus SF50 7 seater jet: it costs $2.5 M and as far as I am aware there are none in the UK. Although technically it could land in the space, it would take a very brave pilot and permission from the airfield owner which is most unlikely to be given.

Almost all the light aircraft you see are badged "unsuitable for aerobatics and intentional spins". McDonalds have to label their coffee "contents may be hot" for the same reason. It should be obvious to the pilot and the coffee drinker, but you cannot account for stupid.

Aircraft suitable for aerobatics are a specialised item. There are a few about, but their use in extreme manoeuvres is highly regulated (by the CAA). You are almost certain not to see it unless you visit an air show.

Julia Pidgeon

Apr 22, 2021

I have emailed ramblers@ramblers.org.uk about this now. If you are a member (you sound in the know) maybe you could too?