Author Topic: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!  (Read 43805 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline I Could Do That

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
  • Swindon Born & Bred & Gone
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #60 on: August 11, 2011, 12:51:21 PM »
Very true, but false claims won't help the cause.

The ten mile radius claims also bring Membury, Lower Upham, and Draycott Farm airfields onto the equation.

The unlicensed(?) status could decrease training flights though?
Proud to be gone

Offline Dale Heenan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 213
  • Gender: Male
    • Covingham and Nythe Intouch
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #61 on: August 11, 2011, 06:20:12 PM »
Noisy aircraft need controls says Cllr Heenan in the Adver this week.

After realising that his planning committee doesn't have the powers he thought it had, and his previous bullishness towards the Redlands airfield was little more than an impotent political rant, he's now lobbying MP's Justin Tomlinson and Robert Buckland for a change in the law.  Dale didn't know his subject as well as he'd led people to believe and this looks like sour grapes.

Take it on the chin and move on Dale :)

Robert Bucklands comments in the adver won't be of much use to Dale though, as they suggest that more people that have written to him about it are in favour of the Redlands Airfield than against. (sorry, I know that sentence is clumsy).

I suppose Cllr's Heenan, Faramarzi and Hurleys wish to see land East of the A419 sprouting their '3 villages' of between 7,500 and 12,000 houses will have to wait.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for an explanation from Covingham and Nythe councillors about their claim to have scrapped the Eastern Development area plans and promise to keep a 'watchful eye' on plans for 3 villages of 1,500 houses each.....

....and the subsequent positive noises they then started making about a figure of 7,500 houses. I'm confused dot com. 

I think this one is going to roll on for a long time yet and next years election leaflets are going to be interesting.


I heard about this earlier today from a friend so I've come on to elaborate...

Geoff, you are quite wrong on what you have said. As Councillors we need to deal with complaints that we receive from local residents and this is what I said on the Adver comments

"The Planning Committee voted that this matter should be raised with the MP's and it has been.

As Robert has highlighted there are lots of people in support and plenty of people against. As the article says "Many residents welcome the attempts by farms to diversify their activities, and do enjoy watching people descend in parachutes for charity, or their own fun, so this request is not a negative against airfields. Instead this is about addressing the balance about noise"

For too long, local residents believe their voices have not been heard and its a real shame then when some action is taken all people can do is descend to name calling and negative comments"

Interestingly residents have also said that former MP, Michael Wills was of the same opinion.

You then try to link this to land East of the A419 and how Emma, Richard and I wish to see 7,500 to 12,000 houses being built. Quite why the link? and this is false anyway. I'll continue to oppose any attempt to see these kind of numbers and the EDA has been scrapped. I opposed those plans and been very consistent about that. Have you asked Richard or I for their views?

Geoff - To be fair to Councillors Faramarzi and Hurley they gave opinions in favour of small businesses such as Redlands. I don't think it is fair to associate them with Dale's position and indeed there were diverse views expressed by councillors.

On the night of the Planning meeting I did wonder if the problem was that bad it would stop the Eastern development? There is still room at Wichelstowe.

Those in the know about the issue did say if Dale got his way it could had lead to a heavy legal bill for SBC. Good job they accepted the advise.
Bob, I'm afraid your incorrect too. I made the same points as Councillors Faramarzi and Hurley, but I also emphasized the key problem of noise. I think you have confused what I put forward with Cllr Parry, Albinson and Wren. Their motion was withdrawn because of the potential legal cost and problems. Kevin was sat in front me.


 


Offline I Could Do That

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
  • Swindon Born & Bred & Gone
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #62 on: August 11, 2011, 06:36:45 PM »
Whilst you're here Dale, how do you feel about the more dubious complaints?
Also, what are your views on Lower Upham and Draycott Farm?
Proud to be gone

Offline Dale Heenan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 213
  • Gender: Male
    • Covingham and Nythe Intouch
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #63 on: August 11, 2011, 07:03:20 PM »
Some of the complaints about low flying and noise etc are from other airfields, but Redlands is often attributed because they are nearest.

If a complaint is received about noise or the flight path from any low flying aircraft from any unlicensed airfield SBC can do nothing except refer to the CAA to monitor and investigate, and this is the point. Aircraft noise is not a statutory nuisance by law so people like environmental health cannot investigate.
 

Offline boothill

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 304
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #64 on: August 11, 2011, 10:00:16 PM »
Some of the complaints about low flying and noise etc are from other airfields, but Redlands is often attributed because they are nearest.

If a complaint is received about noise or the flight path from any low flying aircraft from any unlicensed airfield SBC can do nothing except refer to the CAA to monitor and investigate, and this is the point. Aircraft noise is not a statutory nuisance by law so people like environmental health cannot investigate.

Dale....boogie till yer bounce friend !

ex PJI & SkyGod   Sibson.  Regular RAFSPA ( Weston -on - the Green ,and the Chequers too !)
Old people believe everything...middle aged people suspect everything...young people know everything    3 2 1 back in the room !

Offline bobwright

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #65 on: August 12, 2011, 12:48:32 AM »
Dale - Quite happy to apologise if I got it wrong however my recall is different to your own. I will check with others who were present to see if they concur with your version or mine. I do accept that other councillors proposed some action which may have led to potential legal costs for the council and that is why I spoke up. In my view Councillors Faramazi and Hurley did emphasize a different position to your own, they were focussed on small businesses whilst you were far more focussed on the noise generated by the Redlands operation. I don't think someone supporting small businesses would have brought the matter to planning whilst someone supporting the complaints against noise would.

I think we do agree if we had a modern open transparent council the meeting would have been recorded and such a debate as being discussed on this thread would be substantiated by the actual recorded evidence not just meeting decisions.

Offline Chris Watts

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #66 on: August 12, 2011, 07:34:30 AM »
You have nothing to apologies for Bob. Someone on the planning committee put forward a motion to restrict the hours of business for Redlands. I can not remember if it was seconded but a debate did start before you interjected warning the committee that they were overstepping their authority as Redland had not contravened its  current planning restrictions. If passed it could have left the Council open to an expensive legal action that it would not win.

The whole episode was a farce. More to follow...
Small Print: Member of the Labour Party. GMB Accompanying Rep. IT consultant on sabatical.  Postings may contain political bias. If you have an adverse reaction please desist from reading. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #67 on: August 12, 2011, 02:02:50 PM »

For too long, local residents believe their voices have not been heard and its a real shame then when some action is taken all people can do is descend to name calling and negative comments"


Yes, the first part of Dale's statement is completely true - I've spoken to residents over there who believe that their Councillors have taken them for granted and ignored them.  I asked them why they bothered voting conservative then....

As for the second part - alleged name calling - where?

Anyway, Dale says:

You then try to link this to land East of the A419 and how Emma, Richard and I wish to see 7,500 to 12,000 houses being built. Quite why the link? and this is false anyway. I'll continue to oppose any attempt to see these kind of numbers and the EDA has been scrapped. I opposed those plans and been very consistent about that. Have you asked Richard or I for their views?



I think Cllr Heenans denial that the issues and personalities are linked is interesting - we'll see who is promoting falsehoods over time, but let's have a quick backwards look at the 'scrapping of the EDA plans':

Previously, in a 2010 election leaflet, Cllr Heen claimed:

Quote
"We will keep a watchful eye on any potential alternative plans by developers, including potential proposals such as the idea of 3 new villages of 1,500 houses"


But shortly after he & Cllr Faramarzi appeared to jointly announce, (him saying it in her first election leaflet), that they had 'scrapped' the 'Totally Unnacceptable' Eastern Development Area (EDA) plans, the Conservative lead member for planning & strategic planning attended public meeting in Wanborough and announced new plans to build 7,500 house and an industrial park there.  No wonder Cllr Greenhalgh had tried so hard to exclude the media from that meeting because what he was announcing was very different from what Cllr Heenan had already promised.

The Adver headline was a corker: SWINDON Council has unveiled its blueprint for 7,500 homes and an industrial park in the east of Swindon, part of the Eastern Villages plan.

The irony of Cllr Heenans's denials are self evident, suggesting that he would keep a 'watchful eye' on developers proposals for 1,500 house in each of three villages, but contentedly remaining silent about Conservative plans to build at least 7,500 houses and an industrial park there instead.

The link to Redland airfield is self evident really, but if Councillor's Heenan & Co are solely interested in aircraft noise levels from Redlands Airfield, and are genuinely opposed to their own plans for 7,500 homes and an industrial park there.....

....then why has the term 'Compulsory Purchase' already been mentioned in relation to the airfield ?







« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 03:34:12 PM by Geoff Reid »

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #68 on: August 12, 2011, 03:24:29 PM »
You then try to link this to land East of the A419 and how Emma, Richard and I wish to see 7,500 to 12,000 houses being built. Quite why the link? and this is false anyway. I'll continue to oppose any attempt to see these kind of numbers and the EDA has been scrapped. I opposed those plans and been very consistent about that. Have you asked Richard or I for their views?


Okay, these are Councillor Heenans own words, from earlier this year: (my bold emphasis)



Quote
40% REDUCTION in housing and EDA plans scrapped!


Cllr Dale Heenan, "Great news for local residents to start 2011 off on the right foot. On the 19th of January, the Cabinet is being asked to approve a new Core Strategy for Swindon for public consultation. The Core Strategy sets out Swindon's approach towards housing and development across the town for the next 15 to 20 years.

The plans for the Eastern Development have been SCRAPPED! In their place is a new Eastern Villages approach which proposes to cut the number of houses by over 40%!

Local residents and Council Officers are well aware of my views of inappropiate development, and for me those two words summed up the EDA. Whille some people accepted the idea of over 12.000 houses to the East of the A419 and say the issue was how to mitigate problems for Coleview, Covingham and Nythe residents, I was always pushed for the plans to be challenged, This new level is much better and more appropiate, but it is certainly not the end of the fight."


A 40% reduction from the original figure of 12,000 houses equals 7,500.     (12500 x 40% = 5000     so 12500 minus 5000 equals 7500)

Cllr Heenan has criticised me for 'linking' himself, and Cllr's Faramarzi & Hurley to development plans for land East of the A419 and suggesting that the three of them wish to see between 7,500 to 12,000 houses built there.  He has described what I've said as 'false'. 

Cllr Dale said only yesterday that he will:

Quote
"...continue to oppose any attempt to see these kind of numbers and the EDA has been scrapped. I opposed those plans and been very consistent about that."

To my tired eyes Cllr Heenan's 'consistency' looks inconsistent at best.

On the one hand we have an election leaflet in which 12,500 homes are described as totally unacceptable and a promise to "keep a watchful eye on any potential alternative plans by developers, including potential proposals such as the idea of 3 new villages of 1,500 houses"

And on the other hand we witness the spectacle of Cllr Heenan using a headline banner on his own website to declare that his own cabinet's plan for a reduced figure of 7,500 homes and an industrial area as being "Great news for local residents to start 2011 off on the right foot" and 7500 as being "much better and more appropriate". 

Moreover, his website describes the core strategy Eastern Villages plan in a manner which suggests it's a great and exciting proposal, but the tone of the election leaflet is quite different and suggests that 'developers' plans for 3 villages of 1,500 houses each must be watched carefully....   

Doesn't look like consistent opposition to me, in fact it looks like he's quiet excited about the figures and is quite willing to contort his 'consistent opposition' to suit whatever his political aim-of-the-week is at any given time.

Should readers consider that he's inextricably linked himself into the issue of the EDA and the desire to get rid of Redlands Airfield?, yes, I think it's an entirely reasonable attitude, especially when readers consider that a compulsory purchase order for the Airfield has been mentioned.


Offline Dale Heenan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 213
  • Gender: Male
    • Covingham and Nythe Intouch
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #69 on: August 12, 2011, 07:05:52 PM »
Dale - Quite happy to apologise if I got it wrong however my recall is different to your own. I will check with others who were present to see if they concur with your version or mine. I do accept that other councillors proposed some action which may have led to potential legal costs for the council and that is why I spoke up. In my view Councillors Faramazi and Hurley did emphasize a different position to your own, they were focussed on small businesses whilst you were far more focussed on the noise generated by the Redlands operation. I don't think someone supporting small businesses would have brought the matter to planning whilst someone supporting the complaints against noise would.

I think we do agree if we had a modern open transparent council the meeting would have been recorded and such a debate as being discussed on this thread would be substantiated by the actual recorded evidence not just meeting decisions.
No problem. This was an Officer report on Redlands, and not something that could be called in/red flagged/referred to Committee by any Councillor.

It is true that I also raised the noise problem because the report covered aspects like this, and those are complaints I have received as a local ward Councillor. I stepped down as Chairman for this debate so that I could speak as a ward Councillor, and not be seen to do it as Chairman.

Offline Dale Heenan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 213
  • Gender: Male
    • Covingham and Nythe Intouch
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #70 on: August 12, 2011, 07:32:06 PM »
This thread was about Redlands, not the EDA but I have been very consistent on both...

On the EDA, I've yet to see anything that supports your statement claiming that either Cllr Faramarzi, Hurley or I wish to see between 7500 and 12000 houses built to the East.

Good to see you found my website, I stand by it.  I think a fair summary of the quote you have highlighted is "The EDA is no more, 12,000 was clearly inappropriate, a 40% reduction is good news and much better, but it is certainly isn't the end of the fight"

- The original Core Strategy and the EDA Supplementary Planning Document said 12,500.
- The EDA SPD was scrapped 18+ months ago and the Core Strategy altered last summer.
- A 40% reduction is great news and far better than 12,500
- I will continue to challenge officers and councillors on the East, and if flooding and transport issues aren't sorted then I believe no application should even be considered.
 
 
Far from remaining silent, you've seen my website and there were public meetings last September, and in April with over 100 residents present. I stood up at the front and yes my views differ from other Councillors. For instance, several Labour Councillors have said in Full Council debates that the EDA should happen just because of the affordable housing, while other people have said accept the inevitable - in which case we'd been talking about 12,500 and that is not even on the radar.

The cherry picking of words out of context to support a view that I am pushing for 7,500, or even worse advocating for between 7,500 and 12,000 is completely wrong. 


Back onto Redlands, you've inferred twice something about a compulsory purchase. Please by all means let everyone know.

I'm not aware of any Council report that says this, and there certainly hasn't been any letter/email/statement made by Cllr Faramarzi, Hurley or I. I'm not aware of any officer or cabinet member saying, suggesting or writing about compulsory purchase. I know Cllr Greenhalgh would disagree for starters.

Do I have a desire to get rid of Redlands Airfield? no and I have also never said that.   

There are no conspiracy's and it makes me chuckle when people try to connect unrelated things, or attempt to mislead very clear positions.

Offline Chris Watts

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #71 on: August 12, 2011, 09:36:11 PM »
Hold up Dale, I recall a conversation after the planning meeting. I was talking to the owners of Redlands when you came up and said that that would be the end of the planning challenges to their business. (That was gracious, but it should never have gone to the planning committee in the first place as Redlands had not contravened their planning. Further more, once the plane leaves the ground it is not under SBC jurisdiction.) Also, you stated there would need to be an arangment in the future as Redlands would not be able to continue to operate on that site as it borders the EDA. Can not remember the conversation verbatim but land purchase was stated by your good self.

Questions: If Redlands do not want to sell, what would be the councils options?
Hypothetically speaking, If the business is forced to close, would this affect the amount paid out in a compulsory purchase?
What affect will an operating airfield have on the value and sale price to developers of Bordering EDA land?
Also, when you declared an interest and stood down as chair for this agenda item, did you remain as a voting member of the committee?

Sent from my iPhone
Small Print: Member of the Labour Party. GMB Accompanying Rep. IT consultant on sabatical.  Postings may contain political bias. If you have an adverse reaction please desist from reading. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Offline Dale Heenan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 213
  • Gender: Male
    • Covingham and Nythe Intouch
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #72 on: August 12, 2011, 11:11:42 PM »
Hi Chris,

As far as the report goes, a previous monitoring report happened in 2005. Local residents themselves organised a leaflet and campaign about Redlands earlier this year, which had 99 complaining and 119 supporting. The CAA opened an investigation at the request of Robert Buckland MP in March.  The report summarized all of these points and the Planning Committee voted, and agreed, that all complaints about aspects like noise can only be dealt with by the CAA.

Straight from the report recommendations, and I reiterated this after the meeting because the owners weren't sure about what actually happened and what that meant for them.

• Notes that the Civil Aviation Authority has responsibility for all aspects of an  aircraft’s activities when the aircraft is in the air, including over noise levels  generated, flight paths, and safe flying practices;
• Agrees that all complaints received by the Council in relation to the above activities
should be forwarded directly to the Civil Aviation Authority;

To be clear about my views, and to reiterate my reply to Bob,

Part of what I said during the report debate can be seen here.
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9138062._Noisy__airfield_keeps_its_wings/
“The planning permission was granted before many of us were even councillors but it continues to be an issue and we need to acknowledge this. The problem is what powers we have to act. The issue of noise is what is at question and the residents do have a problem with this and it needs to be addressed without acting against Redlands running as a business."

And following up the first action that I asked for, and agreed by the Planning Committee.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9182554.Noisy_aircraft_need_controls/
“Many residents welcome the attempts by farms to diversify their activities, and do enjoy watching people descend in parachutes for charity, or their own fun, so this request is not a negative against airfields. Instead this is about addressing the balance about noise.”

I continue to stand by both statements.

Geoff and some other anonymous people on the Adver site, say I have been trying to get "rid" of Redlands or been "stoking anger", however as everyone can read that is simply not true. It might be an inconvenient fact, but we have to acknowledge that this issue has divided people and both sides have strong feelings.

I have no doubt that if any houses are built to the East of Swindon then there will be further complaints. I made this point in the debate and I trust no-one is naive enough to say they will be none.

I have not said there would have to be "any arrangement in the future as Redlands would not be able to continue to operate on that site as it borders the EDA."

During the debate, I said that under the original Core Strategy and EDA plans, the owners could have discussed options with developers for their land. Under the new Core Strategy, without the EDA, this is not the case because the "red line" has changed. This very point was raised by the owners to me several months ago.

This is the second point I asked the Committee to agree, and they did - that officers should review this situation in the Core Strategy and ask the owners what they think. If the Core Strategy is adopted as it is then this opportunity is unlikely to exist for the next 10-15 years, if not longer. That is a very reasonable and pragmatic position.

Should the owners wish to talk to anyone then they should be able to, and the Council should not stop that from happening. If they are happy to talk then clearly this could be a long term win/win for almost everyone. If they do not wish to consider it then so be it, atleast the suggestion has been put forward by someone who has tried. It is entirely voluntary and the Council cannot force any deal, and to the best of my knowledge it would it wish too.

Officers have written to the owners explaining what happened at the Committee, and asked them for their views. I've not seen any response yet. I have also replied to a letter they sent me where I said the same thing as I've said here, and I've also not had any response yet.

Perhaps I can ask the question myself, what everyone here do on this issue if you were a Councillor in the same situation?




Offline bobwright

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #73 on: August 12, 2011, 11:35:10 PM »
Not sure if this matter will be resolved through this thread, the meeting did provided the best complaint I have heard at any planning meeting; 'sunbathing in a bikini being disturbed by the buzz of overhead noise'.

Offline Ben Reid

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 132
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #74 on: August 13, 2011, 04:47:05 AM »
And whose choice was it to....I dunno live next to an airfield? Chances are it was a lawnmower, plus there's always ear defs

Offline I Could Do That

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
  • Swindon Born & Bred & Gone
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #75 on: August 13, 2011, 08:11:27 AM »
To be fair, many people lived in the area before the airfield.

I have spoken, on a social level to some of those people.
One of the comments I made was "be careful what you ask for"
That was before talk of an EDA was even heard.
At the time, I used Kemble as an example (much noisier than Redlands with jets).
In that scenario, an ex RAF chap bought A house on the main runway approach and proceeded to campaign for the closure of the airfield.

Certainly a few years ago, there was a huge amount of wildlife within Kemble. Deer have had to be ushered off the runway in the mornings.
That wildlife is well protected by default of the airfield security.
Had the well managed green space of the airfield been ransacked by closure and a housing development, it would be another Whichelstowe scenario or worse.

An even more relative scenario took place at Bourne Airfield, Cambridgeshire.
There were rural issues similar to Coate and Wanborough.
Residents had already been sickened by large developments at Cambourne.
In the end most of the airfield objectors began to defend the airfield in preference to tasteless expansion, loss of wildlife and rural setting.

Proud to be gone

Offline Chris Watts

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #76 on: August 16, 2011, 07:52:34 PM »

Questions: If Redlands do not want to sell, what would be the councils options?
Hypothetically speaking, If the business is forced to close, would this affect the amount paid out in a compulsory purchase?
What affect will an operating airfield have on the value and sale price to developers of Bordering EDA land?
Also, when you declared an interest and stood down as chair for this agenda item, did you remain as a voting member of the committee?

Sent from my iPhone

Dale, I would like to put forward these questions again, keeping in mind at the planning meeting you posed the question as to who would buy any of the 1600 houses located next to an operating airfield.

1. If Redlands do not want to sell, what would be the councils options?
2. Hypothetically speaking, If the business is forced to close prior to the commencements of the EDA, would this affect the amount paid out in a compulsory purchase?
3. What affect will an operating airfield have on the value and sale price to developers of bordering EDA land?
4. When you declared an interest and stood down as chair for this agenda item, did you remain as a voting member of the committee?

Small Print: Member of the Labour Party. GMB Accompanying Rep. IT consultant on sabatical.  Postings may contain political bias. If you have an adverse reaction please desist from reading. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Offline Chris Watts

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #77 on: August 16, 2011, 08:08:25 PM »
Perhaps I can ask the question myself, what [would] everyone here do on this issue if you were a Councillor in the same situation?

I would have sought information from both sides and presented this to the Officers and the Borough Solicitor. I would trust that they would inform me that Redlands have not broken any of their planning restrictions and that it was out of the council's authority, therefore there are no grounds to bring this to planning. I would have then informed the complaining residents that they should contact their MP and that there was nothing the council could do as it was not within their jurisdiction. (Not a vote winner though, is it Dale?)

So, were you badly advised by the Officers and Borough Solicitor, or did you ignore their advice and bring this to planning off your own back?
Small Print: Member of the Labour Party. GMB Accompanying Rep. IT consultant on sabatical.  Postings may contain political bias. If you have an adverse reaction please desist from reading. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Offline Chris Watts

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #78 on: August 17, 2011, 09:15:05 AM »
Perhaps I can ask the question myself, what [would] everyone here do on this issue if you were a Councillor in the same situation?

I would have sought information from both sides and presented this to the Officers and the Borough Solicitor. I would trust that they would inform me that Redlands have not broken any of their planning restrictions and that it was out of the council's authority, therefore there are no grounds to bring this to planning. I would have then informed the complaining residents that they should contact their MP and that there was nothing the council could do as it was not within their jurisdiction. (Not a vote winner though, is it Dale?)

So, were you badly advised by the Officers and Borough Solicitor, or did you ignore their advice and bring this to planning off your own back?

I have been reminded that when the Redlands protesters approached Anne Snelgrove's office a few years back, she realised that this was not a council issue and forwarded the complaint onto the CAA. The CAA investigated and found that their were no grounds for the complaints. Job done at no cost to the council.
Small Print: Member of the Labour Party. GMB Accompanying Rep. IT consultant on sabatical.  Postings may contain political bias. If you have an adverse reaction please desist from reading. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Offline Chris Watts

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Redlands Airfield Wanborough- BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!
« Reply #79 on: August 18, 2011, 07:48:10 PM »

Questions: If Redlands do not want to sell, what would be the councils options?
Hypothetically speaking, If the business is forced to close, would this affect the amount paid out in a compulsory purchase?
What affect will an operating airfield have on the value and sale price to developers of Bordering EDA land?
Also, when you declared an interest and stood down as chair for this agenda item, did you remain as a voting member of the committee?

Sent from my iPhone

Dale, I would like to put forward these questions again, keeping in mind at the planning meeting you posed the question as to who would buy any of the 1600 houses located next to an operating airfield.

1. If Redlands do not want to sell, what would be the councils options?
2. Hypothetically speaking, If the business is forced to close prior to the commencements of the EDA, would this affect the amount paid out in a compulsory purchase?
3. What affect will an operating airfield have on the value and sale price to developers of bordering EDA land?
4. When you declared an interest and stood down as chair for this agenda item, did you remain as a voting member of the committee?
Sorry to be a pain Dale, just wondered if you have had a chance to look at the above questions?
Small Print: Member of the Labour Party. GMB Accompanying Rep. IT consultant on sabatical.  Postings may contain political bias. If you have an adverse reaction please desist from reading. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.