@Lady jane Indeed probably not, at least for now... the efforts to find an alternative for 100LL are ongoing and the aim is for it to replace the existing fuel (for existing engines), rather than just be an alternative for newer aircraft. As an average, at power, many small "light single" engine aircraft will burn around 25 litres per hour. They climb out at around 70-80 knots (80-90mph) therefore they will be about 2 miles away in around a minute, so within that mile or so they'll burn around 0.4l of fuel. At most, this is about 0.2g of TEL content, so on a busy day with say eight or nine departures, <2g of TEL burned close to the airfield. I expect, averaged out over the year, the agricultural fuel burn will be far more significant.

@Lady Jane I can't speak for David's aircraft. But I fly several that run on "MOGAS" which is Motor Gasoline or, basically, Unleaded Petrol. i.e. the same premium unleaded you buy for your car so there's no lead in that fuel. Some aircraft do still run on AVGAS 100LL which typically contains around 0.4g TEL per litre, although research is continuing to provide an unleaded alternative. It is accepted that those that live with 500m of an *airport* (these studies have all been in the US, where General Aviation is far more popular and all of the FAA Airports in the study have a volume of traffic considerably greater than what is proposed here, and with much larger engined aircraft) exhibit slightly elevated lead levels in blood tests. However, it's also worth noting that agricultural equipment can also still use TEL both here and in the US, and as many airports are also in rural farming communities over there it's recognised that other sources of TEL exist. I expect the days of AVGAS 100LL are numbered

@Lady jane "i didnt even bother ready all that" ... says all that's needed really doesn't it. You make an impassioned plea for people to consider your viewpoint, I take the time to produce a carefully considered counterpoint, you "didn't even bother (reading?) all that" So much for mutual respect.

It's interesting to see the parallels between the horse riding community and aviation. We're both just groups trying to enjoy a hobby safely and with consideration for others. Some thought needs to be given to proposed flight paths and roads linking to bridleways - however, ultimately, I'd have hoped the horse riding community would understand the aviation community's situation too. There are so many parallels between your post and aviation; Flying can be a dangerous activity, pilots need to minimise risk when flying (hence the longer runway than it technically 'required' for aircraft of this size for example) and airfields such as that proposed here allow pilots to enjoy their hobby safely - something, much like your safe areas to ride, that are becoming few and far between. I'd expect you'd support the creation of a new bridleway, equestrian centre, etc. Light aircraft pilots approaching grass fields will also give consideration to horse riders. If I saw one on the final approach path then I would be happy to continue to circle for a while at altitude and wait until the horse and rider had passed. Indeed there's plenty of light aircraft fields where you'll find dogs, walkers, etc... part of flying is constantly adjusting to the circumstances. The horse riding community is definitely one that should be engaged with as part of this plan but I'd hope for a mutual understanding from both groups as opposed to simply campaigning against it - after all, both are simply individuals trying to enjoy their own chosen recreational activity.

The modern Rotax engine is one of the most common light aircraft engines; very cheap to run, fuel efficient, and quiet compared to some of the older designs. Quite common on 'bush plane' type aircraft too,, although I'm not sure about the specific aircraft proposed to be based here. As for why you have a 750m long runway when a much smaller strip could be used. there's a few reasons. One notable one is safety, especially in more challenging weather conditions another is reducing noise. To take off from a short strip you are required to hold the aircraft on the brakes, apply full power (which is the noisiest bit) then release, this is considerably louder than a normal takeoff with a smooth progressive application of the throttle and accelerating down the runway.