Quietlife, that is exactly the same thing that the locals said when the government airfield shut. The problem is farming is not economic so farmers have to look for other income streams. My guess is the next place for the farmer of this land would be a big solar panel installation and three of four large wind turbines . These days you can get practically anything past planning if it is green energy. But I guess this would be preferable to a green field and a few light aircraft In the eyes of those currently who object to the very low key tourist based developments.

Yes Geoffrey, that is exactly what the locals who opposed the airfield continuing as an airfield said before the earth moving lorries showed up. Now they are fighting a company that has one foot in the door of expansion.

Geoffrey, the reason farmers diversify is because farming alone is not economically viable, it is sad but true that farmers need to find other ways on making ends meet and a few light aircraft is a low impact way of doing things. Local to me most of the residents rejoiced as a government airfield that had a maintenance facility working 9-5 weekdays was shut, they are now facing the prospect of a 24 hour earth moving business with hundreds of large trucks traveling through the local villages . I would be very careful about shutting down the airfield plan as the alternative may be far worse.

Geoffrey, no matter what the development for some people it is always the wrong place. Without moving forward the we would still be living in caves. This progress has to be one of balanced decisions and without such balance airfields, railways and roads would never get built . For me is that most important thing is that the evidence that is put before the planning enquiry is credible and factual, some of what I see on this forum is emotional rhetoric with next to no basis in fact. You may not like the idea of a few small aircraft landing in a local field but I have seen a number of airfields closed by local pressure groups who have bitterly regretted their actions when industrial development followed and rather than a field with biodiversity and a few light aircraft they got an industrial estate and huge amounts of road traffic. Stop this development and who knows what the land owner will be forced to turn to in order to make a living.

There you go again, exaggerating. Please tel me how you justify the statement “ 20 aircraft every minute of the day 365 days a year “ there is not an airfield in the world that could maintain that flow rate. Such Wild exaggeration just undermines your case and makes you look foolish. The aviation community is very willing to engage with those who have educated and factual points to make . You can continue with your unfounded rant, look foolish at a planing enquiry and be dismissed because of the implausibility of your arguments or you can start using fact that you can substantiate as evidence to influence planning restrictions.

The issue of fumes from aircraft operations of this magnitude is simply just another red herring from the objectors who use environmental reasons mercilessly to further their objections but conveniently ignore any harm emissions due to their own lifestyle. To put general aviation emissions into perspective the annual fuel burn of the entire U.K. general aviation fleet is the equivalent of the fuel burnt on the M25 over a two hour busy period. The local emissions of this small airfield are insignificant to all but local protestors who seek to frighten the uninformed into supporting their agenda.

I think it is most likely but in a quantity that is far less than the average petrol station. The storage of fuel is strictly regulated and all storage must be bundded ( in effect one tank inside a second tank to prevent fuel leaking from the fuel unit )

@Nomad this weekend I spoke to a local resident who knows some of the local people involved and those objecting to the airfield, it was his opinion that finally tipped the balance for me to make the effort to formally support this planning application, with luck and a sensible decision from the planners I will soon be visiting him by air........... much better than the drive around the M25.

@Paul Osborne it is very difficult to take off and land without leaving the normal cruising altitude. looking at the departure routes the departing aircraft will be well above the minimum 500 ft protection that you have at the moment. The arriving aircraft will probably be a little lower when over the nearest properties but at a low power setting resulting in minimal noise disturbance. The one big advantage is having a small airfield locally will prevent military low flying in your area............ if you think these aircraft are noisy try a four ship military fast jet formation at 500 Kt & 200 ft or two military helicopters at 100 ft, that is my areas aircraft noise.

@Tony Wells Question 4. What is called by the authorities “pilot maintenance “ is part of the mandated maintenance program and there is a list of non- safety critical tasks that pilot owners can carry out without oversight from an approved inspector. Experience over many years has shown this to be a very robust system in terms of safety. It must be remembered that in terms of mechanical sophistication these aircraft are way behind modern cars, with this simplicity comes reliability. The Rotax engine is in car terms very simple and because it has been widely used in military drones has amassed a huge number of flying hours, with knowledge gained from all this flying time the manufacturer has long ago got all the bugs out of the engine, it now being standard practice amongst the military to send these engines on flights lasting 24 hours or more. It will take most private owners over a year to amass the flying time that the military will do in a long weekend.

Tell me what you don’t understand but I will try to make the explanation clearer. But the Civil Aviation Authority mandates how and by who maintenance on aircraft can be carried out. For the larger and more complicated aircraft the CAA takes direct oversight of the companies and people who are authorised to do this. For the smaller and less complicated aircraft the CAA delegates organisations to do this task, The Light Aircraft Association is such an organisation, they appoint inspectors to do the day to day inspection of aircraft. The system works very well and has produced a would class safely system that has a very good safety record.

@geoffrey.937 normally 1000 to 2000 LTS, depending on how you intend to fill the unit, up to 1000LTS only requires the person towing the unit onthe public roads to have a one day safety course, so if you intend to get your fuel from another airfield that is the way to go. If you intend to get your fuel delivered then you get a 2000 LTR unit as anything bigger is impractical on a grass surface.

I will try to answer your questions but as I am not directly connected with the airfield development There are some questions others are in a better position to answer. question 1 is best answered by those directly involved in the development. As is question 2. Question 3 is about aircraft that are based on an airfield but not kept in a hangar, this is common practice as some people don’t want the expense of Hangarage and think it is saving them money ( but it usually results in extra maintenance costs and saves them nothing ). question 4, aircraft maintenance has to be carried out to a program mandated by the aviation authorities, usually they mandate the program published by the aircraft manufacturer but can add additional items. Usually maintenance is carried out by companies who specialise in that type of aircraft but for some of the smaller types the owner can do the maintenance and have in certified by an approved inspector. question 5 it is common for small airfields to have a small fuel trailer unit , expect something the of the size that could be towed by a Land Rover. The smaller Rotax powered aircraft use normal car petrol and so little of it that the owners are likely to re-fuel from Jerry cans. I hope this helps answer a few of your questions.

@Paul Osborne clearly there are a very few properties that the departure route covers but the height that the vast majority of the aircraft will achieve as they overfly is likely to make the noise nuisance very low, however a slightly earlier turn could reduce the noise further but this has to be balanced against the reduction in aircraft climb performance in the turn as it is the distance from the aircraft that determines the noise level not the track over the ground.

@Paul Osborne I was trying to find out exactly how far the aircraft on the designated flight path would be from a houses in terms of horizontal and vertical displacement, only then can the level of any disturbance be assessed. clearly you have not understood the planning application because the approach and departure routes are not along the runway centreline but displaced to the north to avoid overflying houses.

Would that be 350m displaced from the flight path or the runway threshold ?

@Jelly tots there are not lots of houses, on the approach paths to the proposed airfield, the path has been designed to avoid houses as far as posable . I am not here to cause trouble, just to provide some balance especially as some are prone to exaggerated or uninformed comments about aircraft operations and noise levels. Just because someone’s views differ from yours telling them to “just do one “ rather suggests that you can’t back your opinions with hard fact.

@Jelly tots thank you for advice to keep my eye on the planning application, I have noted that some of the objections are to say the least mis-Informed. Three issues seem to be the most miss-understood, the first that aircraft will fly around the airfield at less than 500 ft, the law only allows this when taking off & landing Not at any other time ( most of the time aircraft will be at 1000 ft+ ) . Secondly that there is a hard runway being constructed, it is not, the runway is just an area of grass marked out for taking off and landing. And finally the effect on wildlife will be minimal as the area of grass that is free of human activity encourages some species.

@Jelly tots I am doing my best to keep an open mind but telling people to “ keep up” and insinuating that they are stupid is not going to win any friends. Having seen the antics of the NIBYS at a number of other airfield planning enquiries I don’t trust anyone and look to confirm the truth of the matter for myself. If what you say is true it will be apparent at the planning enquiry. What I would say is that I have seen several airfields shut down by local protest groups, including one very near to me and what replaced the airfield was far worse with industrial development and vastly increased HGV traffic.

@geoffrey.937 yes I have and on the face of it a reasonable project, however there are claims that at lease one property is missing from the chart depicting the arrival & departure routes. I have yet to establish the truth of this matter.