Neil wrote:
This is a very helpful document, I have brought it to the attention of the planners in my feedback supporting the applicationit appears to be Government policy to support GA
UK Government GA Roadmap
Thanks Neil for bringing that document to everyone’s attention. It is an ideal piece of Government policy to reference when submitting comments on the Planning Application.
Peter_G wrote:
Submitted my little piece in support.
Also hoping to have a word with the local MP, Natalie Elphicke, whom I know personally.
She is very pro-active on ‘local’ issues, often with great effect.
Peter, that would indeed be very helpful.
I am afraid some of the objections are based on incorrect assumptions, by people unfamiliar with Light General Aviation on 750m of grass.
Any opportunity to explain the realities of such, would be much appreciated.
Peter wrote:
One supporting comment, making points relevant to Planning law, is worth more than 100 objections which make no reference to Planning law.
Thanks Peter, the perfect guidance.
One supporting comment, making points relevant to Planning law, is worth more than 100 objections which make no reference to Planning law.
Very true. About 15 years ago, local developer tried to shut down local airfield here (but covering it in houses). The local council wanted the airfield to stay open. We all wrote letters. I spent a lot of time writing a letter – I was at the planning meeting – it turns out it would have been just as effective if there was just a single line that referred to the relevant planning law that that council was using.
Can somebody write out a few useful lines that we can use to make our comments. I don’t know what would be applicable here – “STEM training for apprentice mechanics”, “tourism”, “local employment” .
I do hope that as many of our non-UK readers who genuinely feel this new airfield, located as it is in a beautiful and convenient location, would encourage them to visit for tourism or business purposes will make the effort to add their support and comments to the planning application website. We need your help!
Peter wrote:
One supporting comment, making points relevant to Planning law, is worth more than 100 objections which make no reference to Planning law.
Indeed. In the UK it is widely and incorrectly thought that volume of support/opposition is what determines a planning outcome.
A planning officer who is doing their job properly (and thankfully most do) ignores the deluge of emotionally-driven comments where someone offers nothing but their opinion on the merits of a scheme and focuses on those which actually reference planning law / policy.
You can stop an application in its tracks by pointing out some way in which it is contrary to law or policy, and equally you can get the most unpopular scheme through the system with ease if you can demonstrate compliance with law and policy.
That said, there are a couple of limiting factors. Firstly local authorities are reluctant to refuse marginal cases if they think the applicant is determined and has deep pockets – they fear the cost of an appeal. Secondly once certain criteria are met the decision is taken out of the hands of the paid professional (the planning officer) and goes to the elected council – who are subject to the usual prejudices and much more likely to be swayed by local (voting) opinion.
What would be the appropriate planning law to cite?
Policy I assume can be done with the UK Govt. GA document already listed. But planning law? Can anyone come up with a summary what to put in these responses that refer to planning law?
Marchettiman wrote:
I do hope that as many of our non-UK readers who genuinely feel this new airfield, located as it is in a beautiful and convenient location, would encourage them to visit for tourism or business purposes will make the effort to add their support and comments to the planning application website. We need your help!
Done
The comments against are hard to swallow.
„Rich man‘s sport“ etc… well maybe you could also profit from the business that would be generated and go out and do something useful like learn to fly instead of sitting in front of the tv living a sad life bashing people that want to create something meaningful.
hammer wrote:
Can somebody write out a few useful lines that we can use to make our comments. I don’t know what would be applicable here – “STEM training for apprentice mechanics”, “tourism”, “local employment” .
alioth wrote:
What would be the appropriate planning law to cite?Policy I assume can be done with the UK Govt. GA document already listed. But planning law? Can anyone come up with a summary what to put in these responses that refer to planning law?
The Planning Application for Little Mongeham Airfield has been drawn up to comply with the National and Local Planning Policy/Law.
The UK Government GA Roadmap is not Policy/Law, it is a recognition by Westminster of GA’s importance and an indication of their intent to support it.
The Planning Officers involved are familiar with the Planning Policy/Law. However they are not familiar with how a small airfield ‘works’. The positive impact they have on the surrounding environment and ecology. The level of economic contribution they can have through employment, tourism etc.
It is here that fellow Pilots can educate, Planner and Objector alike, with examples from their own experience. Draw parallels with airfields they have visited and holidayed or are lucky enough to be based. Bees hives on the airfield, diverse ecology that comes with large open areas. A source of help and an enjoyable focal point for the local community.
All these things happen at airfields in and around Europe. We have all see it. Now is the time to speak of it. We need the positive stories to help encourage others into our sport and re-position ourselves in the eyes of our communities.
A houses planning application in Fife, Scotland, has been rejected with the developer’s claim that the trees planted would improve habitat for endangered wildcats being ridiculed. There are none in Fife.
An objector to a grass airstrip in Scotland raised the disruption to protected brown hares. They are not protected in Scotland, and appear to do well airside at Inverness, despite more traffic.
Don’t over-egg it.
