@stephen.rodgers not according to the Centre for Health Services Studies at the University of Kent. Also not so laughable when you live on the take off and landing route. You obviously don't

@stephen.rodgers hi Stephen. I suggest you check out a document on the Dover District Council planning portal. It is dated 15th June 2021, under the desription chocks go away. This is a report written by Prof Stephen Peckham and Dr Ashley Mills of the University of Kent, called Lead Poisoning Risk due to proposed Little Mongeham Airfield. I'm not sure what your field of expertise is, or where you live, but i'm sure if you lived close to the airfield, this report based upon facts researched by experts would give you some cause for concern. Let me know what you think. If you let me have your email address I am happy to send you a copy

@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.

@nespor so the planes are silent and do not emit exhaust fumes?

@Keith Jones do you think it is acceptable or fair that any properties should be overflown on approach or departure, at an obvious lower level than standard causing altitude?

It's a real shame that those pilots involved in the development do not wish to respond to questions. As Tony says, people will just think the worst. Ref the fuel, would it be unusual for fuel not to be kept at an airfield such as that proposed?

@Keith Joneslook at the map......it directly overflys mulberry Lodge Little Mongeham. The caa have also given the developers advice in preplanning advice..........overflystraight over this property. As I said even some pilots on flyers forum don't think this is acceptable.......... The route dog legs after flying over this property, slightly to the north of other properties in Stoneheap Road. If you can't read a map, stay out of a

Don't forget.......the agent also said that the trees and hedges you can see don't exist

hi Keith......you need to speak in plane language to us non pilot types. ref the location of the property, it has already been pointed out by your fellow pilots on the flyers forum. to help you......draw a line along the runway continuing in a straight line in an approx southwest direction.....bingo, there you have it. if you check the planning submission, the developers helpfully provided a drawing showing proposed take off and landing alignment. To be honest I am a little concerned with you being a pilot, and not being able to spot this on a map.......please dont come flying around here......you might end up landing in someones

@andrew perhaps this persons statement comes from experience of living near an airfield. unfortunately the developers seem unwilling to undertake a noise assessment for this airfield, which would provide the science for this specific location, with specific sensitive receptors.

@Keith Jones just trying to work out if you pre part of the local community, and if you will be affected by the proposals.......or if you are one of the pilots from flyers forum encouraged by champ chump to join this forum to keep your enemies closer.

@Keith Jones and where do you fly from Kieth?

@Keith Jones the planning application has been made, and the developers have not undertaken noise assessments. Perhaps they are afraid of the results.

There are no motor gliders planned for Mongeham........there us a glider club at Waldershare 3 miles away. There is also an airstrip at Clipgate, 10 miles away. So plenty of opportunity to visit established airfields in the area, without the need to build more. Several of the planes planned for Mongeham are not the quiet planes that keep being referred to. They are old noisy polluting planes used for the enjoyment of the person piloting them. They are not a sustainable form of transport, they do not transport goods......just take off......fly around polluting the atmosphere with noise and fumes, and then land. If they are so quiet, why are the developers afraid to provide a proper noise assessment for the airstrip....???

@Rugger local issue.......local community. Fun for a few plane owners, noise and pollution for many others. Plenty of airstrips in the area already. I paid a visit to Rochester Airport to see for myself.......the planes landing were not silent. I also visited the Maypole airfield to see what it was like for them.....not silent landings, especially when some come in a little low so need to Rev up to gain a little more height. .......and this is just landings, .....don't forget take offs, circuits, touch and goes etc Oh.......just checked again 362m away in a direct line. To be honest, it's irrelevant, as currently we have birdsong, not planes

@quietflyer1907 hi Ben, I'm sorry that you have been receiving personal abuse. It certainly isn't condoned by the chocks go away committee. As you are on the fly.com forum, you will be aware of targeting individuals from the supporting side too. Not sure how people get access to your personal inbox.......but most are more IT literate than me. I'm not sure how do it, but it would be good to know where you have received this from, so we can try to stop it. It's not acceptable in either direction. Any ideas?

@Rugger if you read my other posts you will see that is what I am doing

@Keith Jones unfortunately, all we have to go on are the documents submitted by the developers to avoid the full scrutiny of an environmental assessment, plus a brief note sent to parish councils a couple of days before full planning was submitted. This said that the runway had been oriented to not overfly residences This is not correct. It also says that many residents of little mongeham are aviators who have flown over this part of kent for many years. I have lived here for 20 years, and don't know any. We might know more if the pilots making the planning application had followed the CAA recommendations to engage with the community........they chose not to. They might get less resistance if they hadn't started work without planning permission, requiring intervention from the local authority. So they want to avoid full environmental scrutiny. Statements they make are incorrect They don't engage with the local community They ignore the requirement to obtain planning consent before starting work. So would you understand why the local community are against it? You obviously are not part of this community.........so imagine if a developer close to your property behaved in the same way to construct.......say a new nightclub. Would you be rushing out in support? This is local issue affecting a local community

@Rugger OK.....half a mile is 800m. The closest house on a direct line with the runway is approx 360m from the end of the runway.........so not half a mile. If you want to criticise others ref dimensions, you should ensure you quote correct dimensions yourself. In addition, apparently a light aircraft lands at an angle of 3 degrees.The level of the end of the runway is approx the same as the roof of this house. This means if an aircraft lands at the end of the runway it would be 19m above the roof.......62ft. 45ft or 62ft..........100ft or 200ft........whatever the figure is, it is still a plane flying over the roof, making a noise, whereas, currently none. Unsurprisingly, people are not happy about it. Are you part of the local community?

@andy we would only be guessing........so are you in favour of or against the new airstrip?