Wycombe council: air park residents "not at fault"

Bucks Free Press: Council: air park residents "not at fault" Council: air park residents "not at fault"

RESIDENTS suffer noise from Wycombe Air Park through “no fault of their own”, a leading councillor said, as bosses backed curbs on plane noise.

Councillor Audrey Jones’s comments put her at odds with some residents and councillors who say those unhappy with the noise should not have moved near the park.

Wycombe District Council’s ruling cabinet last night backed residents’ bid to have the Booker facility regulated, which could curb noise.

Conservative Cllr Jones, who proposed the move, said: “I’m in favour of doing whatever we can to improve the living conditions of people in live in Wycombe and, in particular, people who, for no fault of their own, in a situation where they are subject to a large amount of noise.”

Yet a consultation among WDC councillors who represent the area found four do not support the move, for the Department for Transport to “specify” the park (see link, bottom of story).

If this goes ahead then when the Civil Aviation Authority licence the park in Booker, Great Marlow, it would need to “have regard to the need to minimise so far as reasonably practicable any adverse effects on the environment”.

It would also have to regard “any disturbance to the public including noise from aircraft”. Presently the air park’s licence only covers safety matters.

Some councillors said: “Residents knew of the noise issues when they moved into the area.”

Also “only a few residents have complained” of noise and only Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead airports had come within this law, they said.

However, cabinet member Jean Teesdale, responsible for planning, backed the move.

She said: “As one of the local members that has been quite involved in the problems with the air park I welcome that we are going to do this.

“There are definitely some very serious concerns, particularly at weekends and the summer when people want to sit in their gardens and people have aircraft noise constantly every few minutes.”

The call has been brought by the Wycombe Air Park Action Group which says the park is too noisy and is blighting residents’ lives. The DfT has now asked WDC for its view.

Today Tim Orchard, managing director of the air park, said the cost of putting in noise reduction measures would have to be borne by the taxpayers locally or nationally.

He said: “It couldn’t be borne by the airfield. The airfield doesn’t have funds to do so.

“The council wishes to be seen by the greater populace as being fair but I suspect, in the end, if the DfT decide to do something, then the council will shoot itself in the foot.”

And he said: “The action group represents a very very tiny minority of those people in the local area.”

Efforts had been made to cut noise, he said. Mr Orchard said: “We physically have no other things we can add to improve our relations with the locals.”

The council failed in a similar application in 1988.

It is presently locked in the row with the park over rent. The council wants to put the rent up 1,600 per cent from £42,800 a year to £676,000 (see link, bottom of story).

The lease began in 1972 and runs out in 2014 and is reviewed every seven years. The council said advice showed WDC “significantly undervalued” the site.

The council is considering relocated Adams Park, homes of Wycombe Wanderers and London Wasps, to the site.

In a statement, the action group said tonight: "We are delighted that WDC are backing residents as they did in the 1980s.

"WDC has no statutory powers to deal with noise from WAP as things stand; specification could change that.

"WAPAG now represents well over 500 households in the area; we are not a ‘tiny minority’.

"There are members of our group who have lived in the area since the 1940s, long before the airfield was established.

"While WAP claim they have nothing more to offer, we have suggested a number of changes that would make a material difference for residents.

"We do not believe WAP would have to bear additional costs for additional noise reduction measures; items such as silencers have been offered by a local resident free of charge.

"We believe it is unreasonable for WAP to expect public money to fund any changes, particularly as they already receive a generous public subsidy courtesy of a £42,000 annual rent on a 208 acre site."

Comments (60)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:36pm Tue 29 Sep 09

wayneo says...

hahaha, "RESIDENTS suffer noise from Wycombe Air Park through “no fault of their own",

How does that work then considering these people moved next to the airfield? For those who want to know, the following are those who supposedly 'represent' residents:

Russell Chambers
Keith Chanter
Robert Rendel
Richard Wetenhall
Nigel Philips
Michael Pratt
Susan Pratt
Michael King
Alan Mann

hahaha, "RESIDENTS suffer noise from Wycombe Air Park through “no fault of their own", How does that work then considering these people moved next to the airfield? For those who want to know, the following are those who supposedly 'represent' residents: Russell Chambers Keith Chanter Robert Rendel Richard Wetenhall Nigel Philips Michael Pratt Susan Pratt Michael King Alan Mann wayneo

12:41pm Tue 29 Sep 09

time to go clarke says...

Its laughable
If you live next to airport you have to accept the issues
Move away is the solution the airport was there first

Wait till Clarke get her way and puts Wanderers and Wasps on your doorstep --then you will have serious problems !!!
Its laughable If you live next to airport you have to accept the issues Move away is the solution the airport was there first Wait till Clarke get her way and puts Wanderers and Wasps on your doorstep --then you will have serious problems !!! time to go clarke

3:49pm Tue 29 Sep 09

timmyo says...

The 'move away if you don't like it' comment is just nonsense. The character of the Air Park and the noise it puts out have both changed while I've been here. It wasn't a problem when I moved in. And yes, I have been here for quite a while now.

It's good that WDC is standing up for quality of life. After all the Air Park's operations are affecting what is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and it should be protected.

I see Tim Orchard claims the action group is only a very tiny minority of people but he should check his facts. It's convenient for him to say that, but it isn't true. Well over 500 households now, I believe.

And a bit breathtaking to suggest there's nothing more that could be done. As just one example there was that point made by the BfP a couple of weeks ago that they have refused to fit silencers despite someone offering to pay for it.
The 'move away if you don't like it' comment is just nonsense. The character of the Air Park and the noise it puts out have both changed while I've been here. It wasn't a problem when I moved in. And yes, I have been here for quite a while now. It's good that WDC is standing up for quality of life. After all the Air Park's operations are affecting what is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and it should be protected. I see Tim Orchard claims the action group is only a very tiny minority of people but he should check his facts. It's convenient for him to say that, but it isn't true. Well over 500 households now, I believe. And a bit breathtaking to suggest there's nothing more that could be done. As just one example there was that point made by the BfP a couple of weeks ago that they have refused to fit silencers despite someone offering to pay for it. timmyo

4:28pm Tue 29 Sep 09

wayneo says...

even if it were 500 (and it isn't once you subtract the multiple posting and the 'complaints' from WAPAGs own members), 500 would represent a tiny tiny minority doesn't it?

WDC aren't standing up for quality of life at all, they have their own agenda as we well know.

I've been going up to the airfield since I was 5 years old and I can assure you that it has not changed in the number of years that you have been there, the airfield has done all it can to accomodate the minority who clearly have their own axe to grind as well as an agenda. If you don't like it, you didn't have to move there.

It is not only WAPAG that can make a submission to the Secretary of State, we can too and we don't have to use some obscure environmental legislation that is going to end up with you having a very large legal bill.
You might have the ear of a few cronies in the Council but I can assure you that if you're going to fight to the ECHR then you'd better have your cheque books ready.

Besides, the Council have stuffed you already by stating "Although we are aware the Air Park has taken many measures to mitigate its environmental effects", which as the environmental is all they are legally obliged to do.
even if it were 500 (and it isn't once you subtract the multiple posting and the 'complaints' from WAPAGs own members), 500 would represent a tiny tiny minority doesn't it? WDC aren't standing up for quality of life at all, they have their own agenda as we well know. I've been going up to the airfield since I was 5 years old and I can assure you that it has not changed in the number of years that you have been there, the airfield has done all it can to accomodate the minority who clearly have their own axe to grind as well as an agenda. If you don't like it, you didn't have to move there. It is not only WAPAG that can make a submission to the Secretary of State, we can too and we don't have to use some obscure environmental legislation that is going to end up with you having a very large legal bill. You might have the ear of a few cronies in the Council but I can assure you that if you're going to fight to the ECHR then you'd better have your cheque books ready. Besides, the Council have stuffed you already by stating "Although we are aware the Air Park has taken many measures to mitigate its environmental effects", which as the environmental is all they are legally obliged to do. wayneo

4:57pm Tue 29 Sep 09

timmyo says...

Are you commenting as a private individual, or are you posting here on behalf of Wycombe Air Park?
Are you commenting as a private individual, or are you posting here on behalf of Wycombe Air Park? timmyo

5:12pm Tue 29 Sep 09

wayneo says...

I have no affiliation with the air park or anyone, so I post as a private individual only.
I have no affiliation with the air park or anyone, so I post as a private individual only. wayneo

5:33pm Tue 29 Sep 09

Hit me says...

Well said Wayneo.

And Timmyo - You well know my opinion from previous posts on this subject. If you get your way it will be another win for the moaning minority.

Although, in a way, I hope you do get your own way. I cant wait to see your posts on here when you see what they actually do with the place. Lets see - problems with a stadium:

1) Err noise.
2) traffic
3) Drunken match goers
4) Vandalism to property / cars


not to mention the fact that your house will be worth naff all as no-one will want to live there any more.
No really - I cant wait!
Well said Wayneo. And Timmyo - You well know my opinion from previous posts on this subject. If you get your way it will be another win for the moaning minority. Although, in a way, I hope you do get your own way. I cant wait to see your posts on here when you see what they actually do with the place. Lets see - problems with a stadium: 1) Err noise. 2) traffic 3) Drunken match goers 4) Vandalism to property / cars not to mention the fact that your house will be worth naff all as no-one will want to live there any more. No really - I cant wait! Hit me

6:27pm Tue 29 Sep 09

timmyo says...

Err Mr Hard

This isn't about a stadium, it's about noise. Fix the noise and I don't have a problem with an Air Park at all.
Err Mr Hard This isn't about a stadium, it's about noise. Fix the noise and I don't have a problem with an Air Park at all. timmyo

6:59pm Tue 29 Sep 09

Hit me says...

Excellent news.

So your solution to the noise is?

Again, we have had this conversation before.

You have no starting point, no finishing point. Unless you have since changed your mind?
Excellent news. So your solution to the noise is? Again, we have had this conversation before. You have no starting point, no finishing point. Unless you have since changed your mind? Hit me

7:30pm Tue 29 Sep 09

wayneo says...

exactly HMH however I thin Timmyo should reflect back to previous WAPAG statements that categorically that they would welcome a stadium if it meant the closure of the air park. Surely, if one was concerned about noise and on weekends, then the last thing you would want, is a sports stadium.

Besides that, if the airfield went, then the motorway would be the nuisance, if it wasn't the motorway then it would be the birds and so on.
exactly HMH however I thin Timmyo should reflect back to previous WAPAG statements that categorically that they would welcome a stadium if it meant the closure of the air park. Surely, if one was concerned about noise and on weekends, then the last thing you would want, is a sports stadium. Besides that, if the airfield went, then the motorway would be the nuisance, if it wasn't the motorway then it would be the birds and so on. wayneo

8:22pm Tue 29 Sep 09

timmyo says...

I think the article is about noise and the request to do something about it, not about sports stadiums.

The fact is that the likes of WDC and others recognise that WAP is a noise nuisance that no-one has any control over. That is not fair and needs to change.

As they're giving WAP a thumping great subsidy too, I think they should have a say in what WAP does!

Thanks, WDC, for standing up for us.
I think the article is about noise and the request to do something about it, not about sports stadiums. The fact is that the likes of WDC and others recognise that WAP is a noise nuisance that no-one has any control over. That is not fair and needs to change. As they're giving WAP a thumping great subsidy too, I think they should have a say in what WAP does! Thanks, WDC, for standing up for us. timmyo

9:41pm Tue 29 Sep 09

tigeran says...

timmyo wrote:
Err Mr Hard This isn't about a stadium, it's about noise. Fix the noise and I don't have a problem with an Air Park at all.
What a STUPID comment!! Air parks are noisey full stop!! Like Wayneo said, they moved there out of choice so shut up and stop moaning or MOVE!!
[quote][p][bold]timmyo[/bold] wrote: Err Mr Hard This isn't about a stadium, it's about noise. Fix the noise and I don't have a problem with an Air Park at all. [/p][/quote]What a STUPID comment!! Air parks are noisey full stop!! Like Wayneo said, they moved there out of choice so shut up and stop moaning or MOVE!! tigeran

9:43pm Tue 29 Sep 09

wayneo says...

same cr@p. different thread.
same cr@p. different thread. wayneo

10:08pm Tue 29 Sep 09

free spirit says...

Hello, Wayneo,
Fortunately for residents living close to WAP you are not the judge who decides whether the Air Park has done all that it is legally obliged to do. It remains to be seen whether those who know something about the law agree with you.

I particularly liked your reference to the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights). No doubt, as WAP’s putative lawyer, you would argue that WAPAG and local residents groups are trying to deny pilots from the Air Park the human right to fly just where they want when they want. See you in court! And well done WDC!

Hello, Wayneo, Fortunately for residents living close to WAP you are not the judge who decides whether the Air Park has done all that it is legally obliged to do. It remains to be seen whether those who know something about the law agree with you. I particularly liked your reference to the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights). No doubt, as WAP’s putative lawyer, you would argue that WAPAG and local residents groups are trying to deny pilots from the Air Park the human right to fly just where they want when they want. See you in court! And well done WDC! free spirit

10:36pm Tue 29 Sep 09

Hit me says...

Stupid, stupid, stupid comment.

And totaly not constructive. (As, before you say it, is my criticism of your comment).

However, if you want to bring EHCR into this, (which is stupid - still), rather than argue that pilots have a right to fly (I presume you have to argue on your right to the airspace above you, or your right to peace and quiet?), how about we argue that operations that have been ongoing for the last 50 years without significant change in their nature, should not be jepoardised by those who freely, by their own choosing, move into the vecinity.

The air park HAS done all its legally obliged to do, and a lot more. Alas, like every previous thread on here, not a single rep from WAPAG can explain what they want. Neither can your website.

How on earth do you expect an ounce of sympathy from anyone here?

Stupid, stupid, stupid comment. And totaly not constructive. (As, before you say it, is my criticism of your comment). However, if you want to bring EHCR into this, (which is stupid - still), rather than argue that pilots have a right to fly (I presume you have to argue on your right to the airspace above you, or your right to peace and quiet?), how about we argue that operations that have been ongoing for the last 50 years without significant change in their nature, should not be jepoardised by those who freely, by their own choosing, move into the vecinity. The air park HAS done all its legally obliged to do, and a lot more. Alas, like every previous thread on here, not a single rep from WAPAG can explain what they want. Neither can your website. How on earth do you expect an ounce of sympathy from anyone here? Hit me

10:45pm Tue 29 Sep 09

wayneo says...

agreed with Hit Me Hard; 'freespirit', for those that do know something of the law, it won't be me that you see in Court, or the airfield for that matter, it will be the Council and the secretary of State for transport you'll be taking on, like I said, get your cheque books out. LMAO
agreed with Hit Me Hard; 'freespirit', for those that do know something of the law, it won't be me that you see in Court, or the airfield for that matter, it will be the Council and the secretary of State for transport you'll be taking on, like I said, get your cheque books out. LMAO wayneo

10:52pm Tue 29 Sep 09

wayneo says...

wayneo wrote:
same cr@p. different thread.
Sorry Tigeran, that was aimed at Timmyos post above yours.
[quote][p][bold]wayneo[/bold] wrote: same cr@p. different thread. [/p][/quote]Sorry Tigeran, that was aimed at Timmyos post above yours. wayneo

11:47pm Tue 29 Sep 09

Ono says...

The problem is continuous noise at the most "outdoor" times of day and weekends in this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and WAP managements failure to do anything about it.
They have even rejected an incredibly generous offer to pay for silencers, while accepting an incredibly large subsidy from WDC ratepayers.
Why should we ratepayers have to subsidise a tiny number of flyers, most of whom don't live in Wycombe.
And my family have lived here since
1947
Well done WDC for taking a stand
The problem is continuous noise at the most "outdoor" times of day and weekends in this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and WAP managements failure to do anything about it. They have even rejected an incredibly generous offer to pay for silencers, while accepting an incredibly large subsidy from WDC ratepayers. Why should we ratepayers have to subsidise a tiny number of flyers, most of whom don't live in Wycombe. And my family have lived here since 1947 Well done WDC for taking a stand Ono

12:13am Wed 30 Sep 09

Hit me says...

First of all, the rate subsidy argument is a load of rubbish - as per the story up there^^.

So lets assume the council get their way the the rates increase by 1500%, and that element of your argument is lost.

Now lets consider the silencer argument. WAP said they wanted to have a study into their effectiveness.

Now unfortunately BFP have removed the comments from the last article about this (http://www.bucksfre
epress.co.uk/search/
4533494.Resident_off
ered_own_cash_to_sil
ence_aircraft/).

However, the article does state that "The resident, who did not wish to be named, said the evidence for silencers was overwhelming and was therefore not prepared to fund a noise trial"

The comments, as I remember also stated that WAPAG dont trust anything that WAP says.

WAPAG shoot themselves in foot yet again. What you said there was that even if WAP paid for the study, you wouldnt belive the outcome.

So WAP are stuck between WAPAG's very own rock & hard place.

This is backed up by the article:

"However, after agreeing parameters for the trial the resident withdrew because he “thought or believed it would be a sham,”

Yet again, WAPAG having no idea what they want to achieve or how they want to do it.

Ono says: "And my family have lived here since 1947". Well excellent Ono. In 1947 there were no flying restrictions. So I am guessing they were flying planes of that era too? Say - a spitfire?

Now I am guessing the sessna's and warriors of todays flying or much much quieter, so you will currently be enjoying a much better life style.

Again, come up with some proper suggestions and people might listen.....
First of all, the rate subsidy argument is a load of rubbish - as per the story up there^^. So lets assume the council get their way the the rates increase by 1500%, and that element of your argument is lost. Now lets consider the silencer argument. WAP said they wanted to have a study into their effectiveness. Now unfortunately BFP have removed the comments from the last article about this (http://www.bucksfre epress.co.uk/search/ 4533494.Resident_off ered_own_cash_to_sil ence_aircraft/). However, the article does state that "The resident, who did not wish to be named, said the evidence for silencers was overwhelming and was therefore not prepared to fund a noise trial" The comments, as I remember also stated that WAPAG dont trust anything that WAP says. WAPAG shoot themselves in foot yet again. What you said there was that even if WAP paid for the study, you wouldnt belive the outcome. So WAP are stuck between WAPAG's very own rock & hard place. This is backed up by the article: "However, after agreeing parameters for the trial the resident withdrew because he “thought or believed it would be a sham,” Yet again, WAPAG having no idea what they want to achieve or how they want to do it. Ono says: "And my family have lived here since 1947". Well excellent Ono. In 1947 there were no flying restrictions. So I am guessing they were flying planes of that era too? Say - a spitfire? Now I am guessing the sessna's and warriors of todays flying or much much quieter, so you will currently be enjoying a much better life style. Again, come up with some proper suggestions and people might listen..... Hit me

12:36am Wed 30 Sep 09

Hit me says...

Oh. And during my latest google searches (More than anyone from WAPAG manages), I really really suggest that EVERYONE reading this thread looks at this:

http://www.wycombeai
rpark.co.uk/flying-i
nto-wap/noise-abatem
ent-procedures.aspx

Watch the videos - about 6 minutes

Dont worry about the technical terms, but just see how the track that aircraft are taking basically weaves around the houses and residences of the moaners.

As far as I can see the only people with cause to complain are those on final approach in cressex, but eveyone who wants to moan seems to live in Lane End?

Sorry - but even less sympathy now.

Come on WAPAG. Get some more evidence on here to counter this?

Or are you wasting our time, our tax money, and your lives?
Oh. And during my latest google searches (More than anyone from WAPAG manages), I really really suggest that EVERYONE reading this thread looks at this: http://www.wycombeai rpark.co.uk/flying-i nto-wap/noise-abatem ent-procedures.aspx Watch the videos - about 6 minutes Dont worry about the technical terms, but just see how the track that aircraft are taking basically weaves around the houses and residences of the moaners. As far as I can see the only people with cause to complain are those on final approach in cressex, but eveyone who wants to moan seems to live in Lane End? Sorry - but even less sympathy now. Come on WAPAG. Get some more evidence on here to counter this? Or are you wasting our time, our tax money, and your lives? Hit me

12:47am Wed 30 Sep 09

Voyeur says...

If noise is the problem why can't residents use some earplugs?
If noise is the problem why can't residents use some earplugs? Voyeur

7:39am Wed 30 Sep 09

timmyo says...

Oh come on Mr Hard. The videos are one thing. I have to say if everyone flew the same track as the video then there really wouldn't be a problem.

Also the video doesn't show where helicopters fly; they affect a different group of people.
Oh come on Mr Hard. The videos are one thing. I have to say if everyone flew the same track as the video then there really wouldn't be a problem. Also the video doesn't show where helicopters fly; they affect a different group of people. timmyo

7:44am Wed 30 Sep 09

timmyo says...

Voyeur wrote:
If noise is the problem why can't residents use some earplugs?
Voyeur, I can assure you sometimes we have to!
[quote][p][bold]Voyeur[/bold] wrote: If noise is the problem why can't residents use some earplugs?[/p][/quote]Voyeur, I can assure you sometimes we have to! timmyo

7:50am Wed 30 Sep 09

timmyo says...

wayneo wrote:
same cr@p. different thread.
Wayne, you and Mr Hard are every bit guilty of that.

How about a little bit of humility from the Air Park community. You've had it your own way for a long time and your real gripe is that people are now objecting effectively. Actually, brought together by complete intransigence on behalf of the Air Park management.

If I were you I'd have a go at them and demand to know how it ever came to this. Nobody goes to the DfT, ECHR etc unless they've exhausted all other avenues.
[quote][p][bold]wayneo[/bold] wrote: same cr@p. different thread. [/p][/quote]Wayne, you and Mr Hard are every bit guilty of that. How about a little bit of humility from the Air Park community. You've had it your own way for a long time and your real gripe is that people are now objecting effectively. Actually, brought together by complete intransigence on behalf of the Air Park management. If I were you I'd have a go at them and demand to know how it ever came to this. Nobody goes to the DfT, ECHR etc unless they've exhausted all other avenues. timmyo

8:40am Wed 30 Sep 09

Tom Jones says...

If you constder the number of pretty villages surrounding WAP and then look at the quality and age of the houses in the villages or bordering the country lanes you will find that the majority of the structures were built well before 1940. The air park actually came AFTER the construction of the properties and formation of the villages.

The air park HAS changed and is no longer a little boys plane spotting paradise but a commercial business with ever increasing plans for expansion. Time to grow up and look at what is really happening here, plans for MORE aircraft, MORE flying facilites, extending runways - get real - no business operation stands still and Surinder plans expansion for this air park, it makes sense to curb the noise issue sooner rather than later, what is so wrong with that ?

The air park is a blight on the beautiful countryside and villages that surround it. WDC should vigorously protect such areas and thank goodness for those within WDC who have chosen to support any efforts to prevent this disease of noise and pollution spreading. There are fewer and fewer areas of peace and tranquility in our congested towns. We have the right to protect the dwellings, walkways and general wooded areas from this noisy intrusion at WAP. I am sure the originators of the air park could never have envisaged it turning into the operation it is today.

The air park HAS changed, just one major example alone is the helicopter traffic. Not only has this increased dramatically but WAP allow the unwanted week end helicopter circuits from Denham to be flown here at Wycombe thus moving the noise nuisance from other air parks to cause even more noise pollution on long suffering residents here in Wycombe.

How does Tim Orchard equate this activity to improving relations with "the locals". If that is what he thinks he is deluded.
If you constder the number of pretty villages surrounding WAP and then look at the quality and age of the houses in the villages or bordering the country lanes you will find that the majority of the structures were built well before 1940. The air park actually came AFTER the construction of the properties and formation of the villages. The air park HAS changed and is no longer a little boys plane spotting paradise but a commercial business with ever increasing plans for expansion. Time to grow up and look at what is really happening here, plans for MORE aircraft, MORE flying facilites, extending runways - get real - no business operation stands still and Surinder plans expansion for this air park, it makes sense to curb the noise issue sooner rather than later, what is so wrong with that ? The air park is a blight on the beautiful countryside and villages that surround it. WDC should vigorously protect such areas and thank goodness for those within WDC who have chosen to support any efforts to prevent this disease of noise and pollution spreading. There are fewer and fewer areas of peace and tranquility in our congested towns. We have the right to protect the dwellings, walkways and general wooded areas from this noisy intrusion at WAP. I am sure the originators of the air park could never have envisaged it turning into the operation it is today. The air park HAS changed, just one major example alone is the helicopter traffic. Not only has this increased dramatically but WAP allow the unwanted week end helicopter circuits from Denham to be flown here at Wycombe thus moving the noise nuisance from other air parks to cause even more noise pollution on long suffering residents here in Wycombe. How does Tim Orchard equate this activity to improving relations with "the locals". If that is what he thinks he is deluded. Tom Jones

9:06am Wed 30 Sep 09

Tom Jones says...

It would seem HMH condones the uncontrolled activity at WAP - does this apply to all noisy operations Mr Hard ? If I moved next door to a restaurant and they then expand to an all night operation playing loud music are you saying I should not have moved next door to the restaurant as I should have seen the noise nuisance coming ? Ridiculous .... if you are going to publicly argue here at least come up with something constructive.

The "final approach" over Cressex is usually coming in to land, almost noiseless so why would the residents of Cressex complain ?

If you got yourself better informed Mr Hard you would know that complaints come in from Radnage, Flackwell Heath, Penn and many other villages besides Lane End.

By your reasoning, Mr Hard, we should remove the laws on silencers for cars, noisy neighbours, factory noise etc etc - why should hobby flying be any different from any other noisy operation - perhaps you could manage a constructive reply to this question.

It would seem HMH condones the uncontrolled activity at WAP - does this apply to all noisy operations Mr Hard ? If I moved next door to a restaurant and they then expand to an all night operation playing loud music are you saying I should not have moved next door to the restaurant as I should have seen the noise nuisance coming ? Ridiculous .... if you are going to publicly argue here at least come up with something constructive. The "final approach" over Cressex is usually coming in to land, almost noiseless so why would the residents of Cressex complain ? If you got yourself better informed Mr Hard you would know that complaints come in from Radnage, Flackwell Heath, Penn and many other villages besides Lane End. By your reasoning, Mr Hard, we should remove the laws on silencers for cars, noisy neighbours, factory noise etc etc - why should hobby flying be any different from any other noisy operation - perhaps you could manage a constructive reply to this question. Tom Jones

10:08am Wed 30 Sep 09

wayneo says...

So what you're really saying is that when people move into these areas, they are too stupid to realise that a pub might introduce music, an airfield might allow helicopters to land and that motorways might require more lanes? If that is so, then I put you people en par with the idiots who sue because wow! coffee is hot, or that they burnt themselves on HOT apple pies. There's a cretin in Lane End who having moved next door to a pub, is now moaning about the noise, people have had enough of people like that, they have had enough of people like you as will be shown soon.

For most of us brought up near to the airfield, it is our heritage, the choices for its replacement would decimate the 'pretty little villages' that you speak of so be carefu; what you wish for.
So what you're really saying is that when people move into these areas, they are too stupid to realise that a pub might introduce music, an airfield might allow helicopters to land and that motorways might require more lanes? If that is so, then I put you people en par with the idiots who sue because wow! coffee is hot, or that they burnt themselves on HOT apple pies. There's a cretin in Lane End who having moved next door to a pub, is now moaning about the noise, people have had enough of people like that, they have had enough of people like you as will be shown soon. For most of us brought up near to the airfield, it is our heritage, the choices for its replacement would decimate the 'pretty little villages' that you speak of so be carefu; what you wish for. wayneo

10:21am Wed 30 Sep 09

timmyo says...

Wayne

I don't know which Lane End pub is the issue here. But there are plenty of examples of pubs and even private homes becoming noisy - sometimes just once for a party.

In general if you have a noisy neighbour the Council can intervene, if asked, to deal with the nuisance. But they have no power to do that with the Air Park. All they can do is ask, and the Air Park is under no obligation to do anything about it.

Imagine if that applied equally to all noisy neighbours and other sources of environmental damage. Life would not be good.

There's no good reason why aviation should be the one area exempted from environmental control. Good on WDC for asking for some powers on this.
Wayne I don't know which Lane End pub is the issue here. But there are plenty of examples of pubs and even private homes becoming noisy - sometimes just once for a party. In general if you have a noisy neighbour the Council can intervene, if asked, to deal with the nuisance. But they have no power to do that with the Air Park. All they can do is ask, and the Air Park is under no obligation to do anything about it. Imagine if that applied equally to all noisy neighbours and other sources of environmental damage. Life would not be good. There's no good reason why aviation should be the one area exempted from environmental control. Good on WDC for asking for some powers on this. timmyo

11:10am Wed 30 Sep 09

Hit me says...

Tom Jones. How amusing you are asking me to come up with a constructive reply.

On this and every other thread relating to WAP I have asked you to do the same - to come up with a constructive solution rather than saying "Its too noisy". Neither you, nor WAP have managed that, on any occasion.

So come on - what exactly are you suggesting? How do you want to reduce noise?
What are the levels now?
What do you want the reduced to?
If you want the helicopters to move, where to?

And thank you for pointing out that the Cressex part of the route is almost noiseless - so I presume that its only the take-off that effects you. Please can you point out where on the video houses are flown over on the take off? Because I cant see them?

..and of course, if you can point that out, can you please, for me and everyone else here, point out how you would amend the circuit flown to avoid this?

Finally, dont accuse me of not doing my research properly. As I pointed out previously, I have nothing to do with the air park and do not fly. Every bit of info I put on here I have researched - including all the db levels etc last time. You guys at WAP dont seem to have done anything. Or if you have you are keeping it to yourselves, and thats just not helpful.
Tom Jones. How amusing you are asking me to come up with a constructive reply. On this and every other thread relating to WAP I have asked you to do the same - to come up with a constructive solution rather than saying "Its too noisy". Neither you, nor WAP have managed that, on any occasion. So come on - what exactly are you suggesting? How do you want to reduce noise? What are the levels now? What do you want the reduced to? If you want the helicopters to move, where to? And thank you for pointing out that the Cressex part of the route is almost noiseless - so I presume that its only the take-off that effects you. Please can you point out where on the video houses are flown over on the take off? Because I cant see them? ..and of course, if you can point that out, can you please, for me and everyone else here, point out how you would amend the circuit flown to avoid this? Finally, dont accuse me of not doing my research properly. As I pointed out previously, I have nothing to do with the air park and do not fly. Every bit of info I put on here I have researched - including all the db levels etc last time. You guys at WAP dont seem to have done anything. Or if you have you are keeping it to yourselves, and thats just not helpful. Hit me

1:26pm Wed 30 Sep 09

Slimster says...

Does WAPAG think helicopters are a bigger problem than fixed wing aircraft? I find helicopters awfully noisey - are they your real problem?
Does WAPAG think helicopters are a bigger problem than fixed wing aircraft? I find helicopters awfully noisey - are they your real problem? Slimster

3:17pm Wed 30 Sep 09

Tom Jones says...

The intellect behind comments that call people stupid, idiots and cretins says it all.
The intellect behind comments that call people stupid, idiots and cretins says it all. Tom Jones

3:59pm Wed 30 Sep 09

Hit me says...

So is that your answer then Tom?

Is that another complete failure to come back with anything resembling a solution?

So is that your answer then Tom? Is that another complete failure to come back with anything resembling a solution? Hit me

4:07pm Wed 30 Sep 09

wayneo says...

Tom Jones wrote:
The intellect behind comments that call people stupid, idiots and cretins says it all.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

Albert Einstein

“In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never did succeed in making those idiots understand their own language”

Mark Twain


The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later.”

Louis Aragon

[quote][p][bold]Tom Jones[/bold] wrote: The intellect behind comments that call people stupid, idiots and cretins says it all.[/p][/quote]"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein “In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never did succeed in making those idiots understand their own language” Mark Twain The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later.” Louis Aragon wayneo

4:55pm Wed 30 Sep 09

sorrystate says...

Gosh, name calling hits new lows. Hold the front page!

Slimster, I can't speak for WAPAG but I do know the answer to your question rather depends on where you live.

If you're in Lane End area then helicopters are the problem. If you're in Frieth or Sands it's likely to be fixed-wing aircraft.

I'm a Lane Ender so helicopters are what bother me!
Gosh, name calling hits new lows. Hold the front page! Slimster, I can't speak for WAPAG but I do know the answer to your question rather depends on where you live. If you're in Lane End area then helicopters are the problem. If you're in Frieth or Sands it's likely to be fixed-wing aircraft. I'm a Lane Ender so helicopters are what bother me! sorrystate

5:48pm Wed 30 Sep 09

wayneo says...

So how long have you lived in LaneEnd then?
So how long have you lived in LaneEnd then? wayneo

8:27pm Wed 30 Sep 09

Hit me says...

Still we are blessed with the silence of WAPAG when asked for a solution or basic constructive comments.

I am actually starting to resent the fact that this minority group is taking up so much of our councillors time....
Still we are blessed with the silence of WAPAG when asked for a solution or basic constructive comments. I am actually starting to resent the fact that this minority group is taking up so much of our councillors time.... Hit me

8:36pm Wed 30 Sep 09

sorrystate says...

wayneo wrote:
So how long have you lived in LaneEnd then?
We've been here since the early 1970s, though I don't see how that's relevant...
[quote][p][bold]wayneo[/bold] wrote: So how long have you lived in LaneEnd then?[/p][/quote]We've been here since the early 1970s, though I don't see how that's relevant... sorrystate

8:53pm Wed 30 Sep 09

Hit me says...

Ok Sorrystate. If you cant comment for WAPAG then maybe you are not involved with them - which in turn means you may be able to be constructive about the issue here.

You say the helicopters are the problem for you. Obviously this would not be affected by the fitting of silencers - whoever pays for them.

So what would you suggest as a solution? A change to the circuit? More info would be much appreciated as the WAPAG argument seems to have little detail...
Ok Sorrystate. If you cant comment for WAPAG then maybe you are not involved with them - which in turn means you may be able to be constructive about the issue here. You say the helicopters are the problem for you. Obviously this would not be affected by the fitting of silencers - whoever pays for them. So what would you suggest as a solution? A change to the circuit? More info would be much appreciated as the WAPAG argument seems to have little detail... Hit me

8:56pm Wed 30 Sep 09

wayneo says...

sorrystate wrote:
wayneo wrote: So how long have you lived in LaneEnd then?
We've been here since the early 1970s, though I don't see how that's relevant...
I know you don't see it,that's half of the problem, you see what you want to see; let me ask you something:

If you went to look at a house and you could hear the residents making a noise next door, would you still buy it?

Do you or have you flown using commercial aircraft.

Do you drive a car?

Do you use the M40 motorway that passes through Lane End.

Do you use a lawnmower, if so how regularly?
[quote][p][bold]sorrystate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wayneo[/bold] wrote: So how long have you lived in LaneEnd then?[/p][/quote]We've been here since the early 1970s, though I don't see how that's relevant...[/p][/quote]I know you don't see it,that's half of the problem, you see what you want to see; let me ask you something: If you went to look at a house and you could hear the residents making a noise next door, would you still buy it? Do you or have you flown using commercial aircraft. Do you drive a car? Do you use the M40 motorway that passes through Lane End. Do you use a lawnmower, if so how regularly? wayneo

8:58pm Wed 30 Sep 09

wayneo says...

Apologies hit me hard, posted the same time as you?
Apologies hit me hard, posted the same time as you? wayneo

9:03pm Wed 30 Sep 09

wayneo says...

WAPAG said "We believe it is unreasonable for WAP to expect public money to fund any changes, particularly as they already receive a generous public subsidy courtesy of a £42,000 annual rent on a 208 acre site."

Hangon, i thought this was only about noise! now it seems, that their official policy is to concern themselves with how much WAP pay in annual rent. This campaign is clearly borne more out of spite and alterior motives than it is about noise.
WAPAG said "We believe it is unreasonable for WAP to expect public money to fund any changes, particularly as they already receive a generous public subsidy courtesy of a £42,000 annual rent on a 208 acre site." Hangon, i thought this was only about noise! now it seems, that their official policy is to concern themselves with how much WAP pay in annual rent. This campaign is clearly borne more out of spite and alterior motives than it is about noise. wayneo

9:30pm Wed 30 Sep 09

Hit me says...

The rent issue is just not the point here - its just WAPAG trying to get the place shut down. WDC have put the rent up already - and this is being challenged in court.

I dont have the inclination to pay companies house for the WAP's accounts, but I am guessing that a rent increase of this amount would pretty much bankrupt them.

..which is obviously good news for WAPAG. Except that I think many of WAPAG's members are realising the implications of this. Airfields are considered brown field sites according to government legislation, so anything could happen.

....so the arguments about the area of outstanding natural beauty are also not relevant - as anything from offices, to flats, to an out of town shopping centre could be built there. Any of which would have many WAPAG members begging for the return of the airfield.

The problem is that WAPAG dont realise that WDCs backing in the noise issue has nothing to do with their issue - its simply feeding WDC with an excuse to develop the land.

As I said right up the top there, I cant wait to see the protests from WAPAG members if they finally get their way!
The rent issue is just not the point here - its just WAPAG trying to get the place shut down. WDC have put the rent up already - and this is being challenged in court. I dont have the inclination to pay companies house for the WAP's accounts, but I am guessing that a rent increase of this amount would pretty much bankrupt them. ..which is obviously good news for WAPAG. Except that I think many of WAPAG's members are realising the implications of this. Airfields are considered brown field sites according to government legislation, so anything could happen. ....so the arguments about the area of outstanding natural beauty are also not relevant - as anything from offices, to flats, to an out of town shopping centre could be built there. Any of which would have many WAPAG members begging for the return of the airfield. The problem is that WAPAG dont realise that WDCs backing in the noise issue has nothing to do with their issue - its simply feeding WDC with an excuse to develop the land. As I said right up the top there, I cant wait to see the protests from WAPAG members if they finally get their way! Hit me

10:27pm Wed 30 Sep 09

wayneo says...

Exactly, perphaps they might like to look at Kingshill near West malling to see what one gets in place of an airfield.
Exactly, perphaps they might like to look at Kingshill near West malling to see what one gets in place of an airfield. wayneo

7:21am Thu 1 Oct 09

sorrystate says...

Guys (wayne and hitme) I'm sorry but there's really no point responding to your posts above.

I don't think you would listen to anything I might have to offer.

I'm not an expert on this (seems you both are) and all I commented on was a question about whether helis are the only problem or not. Why I should be ridiculed I don't understand.

So while I may continue to post to this thread, I won't be responding to your comments.

Guys (wayne and hitme) I'm sorry but there's really no point responding to your posts above. I don't think you would listen to anything I might have to offer. I'm not an expert on this (seems you both are) and all I commented on was a question about whether helis are the only problem or not. Why I should be ridiculed I don't understand. So while I may continue to post to this thread, I won't be responding to your comments. sorrystate

8:29am Thu 1 Oct 09

Laneender says...

sorrystate wrote:
Guys (wayne and hitme) I'm sorry but there's really no point responding to your posts above. I don't think you would listen to anything I might have to offer. I'm not an expert on this (seems you both are) and all I commented on was a question about whether helis are the only problem or not. Why I should be ridiculed I don't understand. So while I may continue to post to this thread, I won't be responding to your comments.
As I see it, the only way you've been ridiculed, is by you not answering simple questions.

What can be easier than answering

"You say the helicopters are the problem for you. Obviously this would not be affected by the fitting of silencers - whoever pays for them.

So what would you suggest as a solution?"

[quote][p][bold]sorrystate[/bold] wrote: Guys (wayne and hitme) I'm sorry but there's really no point responding to your posts above. I don't think you would listen to anything I might have to offer. I'm not an expert on this (seems you both are) and all I commented on was a question about whether helis are the only problem or not. Why I should be ridiculed I don't understand. So while I may continue to post to this thread, I won't be responding to your comments. [/p][/quote]As I see it, the only way you've been ridiculed, is by you not answering simple questions. What can be easier than answering "You say the helicopters are the problem for you. Obviously this would not be affected by the fitting of silencers - whoever pays for them. So what would you suggest as a solution?" Laneender

8:40am Thu 1 Oct 09

timmyo says...

Don't blame you, sorrystate.

I think it's called cyber-bullying.

Your point was entirely reasonable and I think would be supported by all bar two of those posting here.

And Slimster, don't you be put off either. There's plenty of people who share your view, including the Council.

Don't blame you, sorrystate. I think it's called cyber-bullying. Your point was entirely reasonable and I think would be supported by all bar two of those posting here. And Slimster, don't you be put off either. There's plenty of people who share your view, including the Council. timmyo

8:49am Thu 1 Oct 09

Laneender says...

I've followed this thread from the start,there's been no bullying at all.

There has been posting by WAPAG members using different pseudonyms to create a perception of support, I can see through it by a mile.

If you people cannot answer the questions then why bother posting at all?
I've followed this thread from the start,there's been no bullying at all. There has been posting by WAPAG members using different pseudonyms to create a perception of support, I can see through it by a mile. If you people cannot answer the questions then why bother posting at all? Laneender

9:11am Thu 1 Oct 09

Tom Jones says...

Sorrystate has said it all. No point in responding to those who choose not to hear and are serial bloggers on anything and everything anyway. The fact remains WAP's operations are noisy, off track and expanding. It is high time authorities and litigation took steps to protect residents affected by noise from airports. This action is long overdue - all credit to WDC if they lead the way on this issue.
Sorrystate has said it all. No point in responding to those who choose not to hear and are serial bloggers on anything and everything anyway. The fact remains WAP's operations are noisy, off track and expanding. It is high time authorities and litigation took steps to protect residents affected by noise from airports. This action is long overdue - all credit to WDC if they lead the way on this issue. Tom Jones

9:18am Thu 1 Oct 09

timmyo says...

Laneender wrote:
I've followed this thread from the start,there's been no bullying at all.

There has been posting by WAPAG members using different pseudonyms to create a perception of support, I can see through it by a mile.

If you people cannot answer the questions then why bother posting at all?
Sorrystate, you should add Laneender to your 'ignore' list as it seems HitMeHard has changed his id....
[quote][p][bold]Laneender[/bold] wrote: I've followed this thread from the start,there's been no bullying at all. There has been posting by WAPAG members using different pseudonyms to create a perception of support, I can see through it by a mile. If you people cannot answer the questions then why bother posting at all? [/p][/quote]Sorrystate, you should add Laneender to your 'ignore' list as it seems HitMeHard has changed his id.... timmyo

9:19am Thu 1 Oct 09

timmyo says...

Laneender wrote:
I've followed this thread from the start,there's been no bullying at all.

There has been posting by WAPAG members using different pseudonyms to create a perception of support, I can see through it by a mile.

If you people cannot answer the questions then why bother posting at all?
Sorrystate, you should add Laneender to your 'ignore' list as it seems HitMeHard has changed his id....
[quote][p][bold]Laneender[/bold] wrote: I've followed this thread from the start,there's been no bullying at all. There has been posting by WAPAG members using different pseudonyms to create a perception of support, I can see through it by a mile. If you people cannot answer the questions then why bother posting at all? [/p][/quote]Sorrystate, you should add Laneender to your 'ignore' list as it seems HitMeHard has changed his id.... timmyo

9:40am Thu 1 Oct 09

wayneo says...

Laneender wrote:
I've followed this thread from the start,there's been no bullying at all. There has been posting by WAPAG members using different pseudonyms to create a perception of support, I can see through it by a mile. If you people cannot answer the questions then why bother posting at all?
I have suspected that for some time, bunch of babies. This is what will happen and I'll put money at the bookies on it:

WAPAG have to convince the Secretary of State for transport, that the air park has acted unreasonably when in fact the air park already operates stringent, expensive and lawful operating procedures. As I see it, their whole argument rests on the silencer issue which, considering it is not a lawful requirement to fit secondary silencers and that their effectiveness is in question. The Council, while appearing to support WAPAG, have stated: "
Although we are aware the Air Park has taken steps taken MANY measures to mitigate its environmental effects and have worked with it through the JCC to acheive this, we would welcome the independent view of an expert body to review these measures and consider any additional measures to mitigate noise in the excercise of its licensing function".

WAPAG on the other hand, want the following:

1. An end to fixed-wing and helicopter circuit flying on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and Bank Holidays.
2.Fitting of secondary silencers to all club aircraft.
3.An end to helicopter training and a phasing out of helicopters altogether.
4. A comprehensive and transpartent monitoring and complaints system with real enforcement, and
5. The setting up of a newly formed and properly representative JCC with a new independent chairman.

Apart from number 5. clearly the above demands are unreasonable as the airfield is a lawful entity which hasn't and isn't, breaking the law, I can also appreciate why there were resignations from the JCC who were probably felt it wasn't getting anywhere, how can one argue against demands such as the above?

The Council might well be concerned by the threat of legal action which is I suspect why they are supporting WAPAG, reading between the lines and in light of their report extract above, they are simply saying bring in the inspector who will report on whether the airfield are behaving as they should, a point already endorsed in the report, it's a case of pass the buck to the 'secretary of state' who is Judicially reviewed on a weekly basis and is unlikely to be fazed by the prospect of legal action from the likes of WAPAG.

So what will happen is that the inspectors will be sent out, they might make a few further recommendations to the circuits (which are already 'tight'), the SOS will be Judicially reviewed by WAPAG (there are plenty of lawyers who will take their money), they will lose in the High Court, they will appeal then try and take it to ECHR where undoubtely they will lose too. I'll even say here now, that they will lose at the application for permission stage.

[quote][p][bold]Laneender[/bold] wrote: I've followed this thread from the start,there's been no bullying at all. There has been posting by WAPAG members using different pseudonyms to create a perception of support, I can see through it by a mile. If you people cannot answer the questions then why bother posting at all? [/p][/quote]I have suspected that for some time, bunch of babies. This is what will happen and I'll put money at the bookies on it: WAPAG have to convince the Secretary of State for transport, that the air park has acted unreasonably when in fact the air park already operates stringent, expensive and lawful operating procedures. As I see it, their whole argument rests on the silencer issue which, considering it is not a lawful requirement to fit secondary silencers and that their effectiveness is in question. The Council, while appearing to support WAPAG, have stated: " Although we are aware the Air Park has taken steps taken MANY [my emthasis] measures to mitigate its environmental effects and have worked with it through the JCC to acheive this, we would welcome the independent view of an expert body to review these measures and consider any additional measures to mitigate noise in the excercise of its licensing function". WAPAG on the other hand, want the following: 1. An end to fixed-wing and helicopter circuit flying on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and Bank Holidays. 2.Fitting of secondary silencers to all club aircraft. 3.An end to helicopter training and a phasing out of helicopters altogether. 4. A comprehensive and transpartent monitoring and complaints system with real enforcement, and 5. The setting up of a newly formed and properly representative JCC with a new independent chairman. Apart from number 5. clearly the above demands are unreasonable as the airfield is a lawful entity which hasn't and isn't, breaking the law, I can also appreciate why there were resignations from the JCC who were probably felt it wasn't getting anywhere, how can one argue against demands such as the above? The Council might well be concerned by the threat of legal action which is I suspect why they are supporting WAPAG, reading between the lines and in light of their report extract above, they are simply saying bring in the inspector who will report on whether the airfield are behaving as they should, a point already endorsed in the report, it's a case of pass the buck to the 'secretary of state' who is Judicially reviewed on a weekly basis and is unlikely to be fazed by the prospect of legal action from the likes of WAPAG. So what will happen is that the inspectors will be sent out, they might make a few further recommendations to the circuits (which are already 'tight'), the SOS will be Judicially reviewed by WAPAG (there are plenty of lawyers who will take their money), they will lose in the High Court, they will appeal then try and take it to ECHR where undoubtely they will lose too. I'll even say here now, that they will lose at the application for permission stage. wayneo

9:55am Thu 1 Oct 09

Red Snow says...

Maybe WAP should sell the site back to the RAF so that they can base a QRA force of Typhoons there for response to incidents around the London area. I suggest that the RAF train with QRA take offs night and day, 7 days a week ............
Maybe WAP should sell the site back to the RAF so that they can base a QRA force of Typhoons there for response to incidents around the London area. I suggest that the RAF train with QRA take offs night and day, 7 days a week ............ Red Snow

10:03am Thu 1 Oct 09

wayneo says...

Red Snow wrote:
Maybe WAP should sell the site back to the RAF so that they can base a QRA force of Typhoons there for response to incidents around the London area. I suggest that the RAF train with QRA take offs night and day, 7 days a week ............
Now that I would like to see :-)
[quote][p][bold]Red Snow[/bold] wrote: Maybe WAP should sell the site back to the RAF so that they can base a QRA force of Typhoons there for response to incidents around the London area. I suggest that the RAF train with QRA take offs night and day, 7 days a week ............[/p][/quote]Now that I would like to see :-) wayneo

10:35am Thu 1 Oct 09

Hit me says...

timmyo wrote:
Laneender wrote: I've followed this thread from the start,there's been no bullying at all. There has been posting by WAPAG members using different pseudonyms to create a perception of support, I can see through it by a mile. If you people cannot answer the questions then why bother posting at all?
Sorrystate, you should add Laneender to your 'ignore' list as it seems HitMeHard has changed his id....
Hahahaha.

Seems you cant cope with the fact that everyone except for your little group of mercenaries thinks you have no case.

At least you dont seem to thnk I am the airfield manager this time!

Also, your accusations of bullying are rediculous. This is a discuassion in which muself and several other posters have asked you to clarify several key points of your argument. And you still have not done it. So either you dont know, or you dont want people to understand your point of view.

[quote][p][bold]timmyo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Laneender[/bold] wrote: I've followed this thread from the start,there's been no bullying at all. There has been posting by WAPAG members using different pseudonyms to create a perception of support, I can see through it by a mile. If you people cannot answer the questions then why bother posting at all? [/p][/quote]Sorrystate, you should add Laneender to your 'ignore' list as it seems HitMeHard has changed his id....[/p][/quote]Hahahaha. Seems you cant cope with the fact that everyone except for your little group of mercenaries thinks you have no case. At least you dont seem to thnk I am the airfield manager this time! Also, your accusations of bullying are rediculous. This is a discuassion in which muself and several other posters have asked you to clarify several key points of your argument. And you still have not done it. So either you dont know, or you dont want people to understand your point of view. Hit me

2:22am Sun 4 Oct 09

Novacool88 says...

The Air park is a good thing for the area, as a brownfield sight it would be turned into anything after the closure of the WAP, im sorry but lets face it planes make noise, don't live next to an airport if you don't like it, or maybe its not about this at all and a small number of people would like to see there house prices rise from the closure of the WAP
The Air park is a good thing for the area, as a brownfield sight it would be turned into anything after the closure of the WAP, im sorry but lets face it planes make noise, don't live next to an airport if you don't like it, or maybe its not about this at all and a small number of people would like to see there house prices rise from the closure of the WAP Novacool88

1:08pm Sun 4 Oct 09

Tom Jones says...

Thankfully the constructive actions and thought processes coming out of WDC on the WAP issues demonstrate support for the local residents on noise and financial issues. I am all for anything that improves the environment and pays more money into the council's pot therefore helping to keep council tax down.
Thankfully the constructive actions and thought processes coming out of WDC on the WAP issues demonstrate support for the local residents on noise and financial issues. I am all for anything that improves the environment and pays more money into the council's pot therefore helping to keep council tax down. Tom Jones

9:37am Mon 5 Oct 09

wayneo says...

Tom Jones wrote:
Thankfully the constructive actions and thought processes coming out of WDC on the WAP issues demonstrate support for the local residents on noise and financial issues. I am all for anything that improves the environment and pays more money into the council's pot therefore helping to keep council tax down.
1. When you speak of "local residents" you actually speak for a minority. RESIDENTS, have not been consulted.

2. How does a 20,000 seater stadium complete with shopping mall and, hotel etc, "improve the environment"?

3. If you believe that more money will keep Council Tax down, then you have absolutely no idea as to how local Government works.

4. I refer you to my above post which details exactly how your little plan will evolve.
[quote][p][bold]Tom Jones[/bold] wrote: Thankfully the constructive actions and thought processes coming out of WDC on the WAP issues demonstrate support for the local residents on noise and financial issues. I am all for anything that improves the environment and pays more money into the council's pot therefore helping to keep council tax down.[/p][/quote]1. When you speak of "local residents" you actually speak for a minority. RESIDENTS, have not been consulted. 2. How does a 20,000 seater stadium complete with shopping mall and, hotel etc, "improve the environment"? 3. If you believe that more money will keep Council Tax down, then you have absolutely no idea as to how local Government works. 4. I refer you to my above post which details exactly how your little plan will evolve. wayneo

10:02am Tue 6 Oct 09

timmyo says...

Novacool88 wrote:
The Air park is a good thing for the area, as a brownfield sight it would be turned into anything after the closure of the WAP, im sorry but lets face it planes make noise, don't live next to an airport if you don't like it, or maybe its not about this at all and a small number of people would like to see there house prices rise from the closure of the WAP
Mmm, interesting to see that the residents of Shropshire have such strong views on issues in Bucks.

The don't-live-next-to-a
n-airport-if-you-don
't-like-it argument gets aired time after time. But it carries no weight. Even if you live under the flight path to Heathrow you have rights. Not rights to close the airport, but the right to reasonable behaviour to mitigate the airport's impact on you.

A bit more of the same here in Wycombe would do wonders. More considerate flying is what we need.
[quote][p][bold]Novacool88[/bold] wrote: The Air park is a good thing for the area, as a brownfield sight it would be turned into anything after the closure of the WAP, im sorry but lets face it planes make noise, don't live next to an airport if you don't like it, or maybe its not about this at all and a small number of people would like to see there house prices rise from the closure of the WAP[/p][/quote]Mmm, interesting to see that the residents of Shropshire have such strong views on issues in Bucks. The don't-live-next-to-a n-airport-if-you-don 't-like-it argument gets aired time after time. But it carries no weight. Even if you live under the flight path to Heathrow you have rights. Not rights to close the airport, but the right to reasonable behaviour to mitigate the airport's impact on you. A bit more of the same here in Wycombe would do wonders. More considerate flying is what we need. timmyo

10:28am Tue 6 Oct 09

wayneo says...

The fact that you have moved next door to the airfield actually carries considerable weight for you have put yourself in that position, you might want to have another look at the case history. Hope yer on no win no fee.
The fact that you have moved next door to the airfield actually carries considerable weight for you have put yourself in that position, you might want to have another look at the case history. Hope yer on no win no fee. wayneo

9:24pm Sun 11 Oct 09

Laneender says...

Incidently, I can't see anywhere where Councillor Mann, has declared and interest concerning her husband's (Redkite), involvement in WAPAG, why would that be then?
Incidently, I can't see anywhere where Councillor Mann, has declared and interest concerning her husband's (Redkite), involvement in WAPAG, why would that be then? Laneender

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree