Lee On Solent - The End?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Report concludes by recommending that Lee be closed to all GA traffic....but it then goes on to say....
So is it at all conceivable that actually once the Police take it over they will decide that actually, this is too expensive and start letting GA back in?
"It allows the MCA/Hampshire Police to independently develop the airfield as they see fit
which could, subject to planning permission, include constructing a number of hangars,
etc within the site A compound and inviting general aviation users or gliders to rent
these and use the runway/facilities at a commercial rate; whilst this would never be
commercially viable due to the number of movements, it would enable the MCA and/or
Hampshire Police to minimise their annual running costs."which could, subject to planning permission, include constructing a number of hangars,
etc within the site A compound and inviting general aviation users or gliders to rent
these and use the runway/facilities at a commercial rate; whilst this would never be
commercially viable due to the number of movements, it would enable the MCA and/or
So is it at all conceivable that actually once the Police take it over they will decide that actually, this is too expensive and start letting GA back in?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Clearly existing arrangements for the operation of the airfield are unsatisfactory "
Aren't the existing arrangements for the operation of the airfield the responsibility of Hampshire Constabulary? And have been so since 1996?
Don't the existing arrangements include:
- being a goverment aerodrome, but somehow not knowing it should by default have an ATZ of it's own? And a radio frequency of it's own rather then 'borrowing' DARA Fleetland's assigned 135.7 frequency (which AOPA understand is actually technically an illegal use of that frequency). Which may explain why the tower is manned and he frequency monitored but an air-ground service is not provided - but how hard can it be for a govt aerodrome to be assigned a frequency and an ATZ?
Aren't the existing arrangements for the operation of the airfield the responsibility of Hampshire Constabulary? And have been so since 1996?
Don't the existing arrangements include:
- being a goverment aerodrome, but somehow not knowing it should by default have an ATZ of it's own? And a radio frequency of it's own rather then 'borrowing' DARA Fleetland's assigned 135.7 frequency (which AOPA understand is actually technically an illegal use of that frequency). Which may explain why the tower is manned and he frequency monitored but an air-ground service is not provided - but how hard can it be for a govt aerodrome to be assigned a frequency and an ATZ?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So is it at all conceivable that actually once the Police take it over they will decide that actually, this is too expensive and start letting GA back in?"
Let's analyse that:
1) Hampshire Constabulary took over the running of the (fully functional) airfield from the Royal Navy in 1996.
2) Hamsphire Police do not seem at all uncomfortable with the cost to them of running the airfield - what they have said thay cannot fund is an ADDITIONAL £300k on (unspecified) upgrades to airfield infrastructure which would be required to resolve the (unspecified) Health and Safety concern if GA and Gliders are to be allowed to continue their mixed operations.
3) The notion that the Police/MCA *could* invite General Aviation OR Gliding back to Lee at some future date ... ....well, what is that all about, really... ...be good, go away, and who knows one day *some* of you *might* get an nice invitation from the Police/MCA to access a government aerodrome that the DfT own? Is it credible for a Consultants report to end with a conclusion like that?
Let's analyse that:
1) Hampshire Constabulary took over the running of the (fully functional) airfield from the Royal Navy in 1996.
2) Hamsphire Police do not seem at all uncomfortable with the cost to them of running the airfield - what they have said thay cannot fund is an ADDITIONAL £300k on (unspecified) upgrades to airfield infrastructure which would be required to resolve the (unspecified) Health and Safety concern if GA and Gliders are to be allowed to continue their mixed operations.
3) The notion that the Police/MCA *could* invite General Aviation OR Gliding back to Lee at some future date ... ....well, what is that all about, really... ...be good, go away, and who knows one day *some* of you *might* get an nice invitation from the Police/MCA to access a government aerodrome that the DfT own? Is it credible for a Consultants report to end with a conclusion like that?
Execexpress,
do you really think that the airfield manager would let any form of GA back into Lee once he had acheived his goal of getting rid of it in the first place - I think not.
do you really think that the airfield manager would let any form of GA back into Lee once he had acheived his goal of getting rid of it in the first place - I think not.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Joint Planning Statement by Fareham & Gosport Borough Councils
Future development should seek to maximise the benefit of the existing runways for general and private aviation use.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hampshire
Age: 50
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please post up your current/intended usage of Lee. However, dont use the thread as a playground for viocing discontent/arguements etc. Keep that in this thread if you will, that way the other thread can be used solely as a measure of useage.
Thanks,
Spamcan
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Stubbington
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all I am not a aviator, however my home backs onto Daedalus Lee Airfield. I have lived here for over a decade and therefore have an active interest in the future of the airfield.
Back in August, I was invited to attend a SEEDA meeting, chaired by Clare Chester, and including the masterplanners and Solent Groundwork. At this meeting the future of the airfield was discussed especially the future of the SEEDA owned land (the area outside the horrible blue fence).
I asked about the possibility of developing the SEEDA area to accomodate private aircraft and the willingness of the CG/Hants Police to allow flights from their runways. Clare Chester's reply...
The Police (operating the airfield on CG behalf) do not want to see an increase in flights from the current circa 45,000 per year (are there really that many?) however if a suitable operator could be found to run the airfield, then they would hand over air traffic control to this operator and an increase in flights would be possible.
Asked if SEEDA were actively looking for such an operator ther was a "non specific reply"
It would therefore appear to me, as a local resident, that the future of private aviation at the site is down to you guys actively seeking a suitable operator/invester to run the airfield under licence, and to encourage further aviation industry to occupy the site.
As a slight O/T, I do not understand why the horrible ble fence disects the western taxi-way? This should be reopened to private aircraft.
Unfortunately I believe SEEDA and the CG/Hants Police already have an agenda, and the public consultations etc are purely a front to appear to have done the job correctly before building homes on a large area of the site.
I wish you guys luck in keeping the heritage of aviation at the Daedalus site.
Richard
Back in August, I was invited to attend a SEEDA meeting, chaired by Clare Chester, and including the masterplanners and Solent Groundwork. At this meeting the future of the airfield was discussed especially the future of the SEEDA owned land (the area outside the horrible blue fence).
I asked about the possibility of developing the SEEDA area to accomodate private aircraft and the willingness of the CG/Hants Police to allow flights from their runways. Clare Chester's reply...
The Police (operating the airfield on CG behalf) do not want to see an increase in flights from the current circa 45,000 per year (are there really that many?) however if a suitable operator could be found to run the airfield, then they would hand over air traffic control to this operator and an increase in flights would be possible.
Asked if SEEDA were actively looking for such an operator ther was a "non specific reply"
It would therefore appear to me, as a local resident, that the future of private aviation at the site is down to you guys actively seeking a suitable operator/invester to run the airfield under licence, and to encourage further aviation industry to occupy the site.
As a slight O/T, I do not understand why the horrible ble fence disects the western taxi-way? This should be reopened to private aircraft.
Unfortunately I believe SEEDA and the CG/Hants Police already have an agenda, and the public consultations etc are purely a front to appear to have done the job correctly before building homes on a large area of the site.
I wish you guys luck in keeping the heritage of aviation at the Daedalus site.
Richard
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hampshire
Age: 50
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have now emailed both MY local MP and the MP for Gosport, Mr Peter Viggers.
Mr Viggers kindly wrote a letter back to me assuring me that he IS aware of the situation and that the matter is in hand. From the tone of his letter I got the impression that he is in support of continued GA activity from the airfield which can only be a GOOD thing.
Will be interesting to see where all this leads, especially after reading DaedalusHouseOwner's post.
Spamcan
Mr Viggers kindly wrote a letter back to me assuring me that he IS aware of the situation and that the matter is in hand. From the tone of his letter I got the impression that he is in support of continued GA activity from the airfield which can only be a GOOD thing.
Will be interesting to see where all this leads, especially after reading DaedalusHouseOwner's post.
Spamcan
Having not had the opportunity to look through the planning comments that are made about Lee, is this becoming a planning issue? Should we be watching the developments at Kemble over the next while, if Kemble is forced to discontinue GA because of planning enforcement, then perhaps the powers at Lee should be held accountable for contravening the planning consent that has been granted there?
What would the requirements be for obtaining the licence to operate the airfield for GA as mentioned in previous posts? If someone has more information about licencing this specific facility would you please PM me?
What would the requirements be for obtaining the licence to operate the airfield for GA as mentioned in previous posts? If someone has more information about licencing this specific facility would you please PM me?
Not quite sure I understand the point ....
However the planning issue at Lee is, as far as I can see, simply one of how it fits within the overall planning strategy for the Local Plans for Gosport and Fareham. As far as Planning PERMISSION s concerned I would not have seen a problem at Lee - specifically as an airfiled - as (at least in it's current form) it s merely continung an "established use".
There would of couse have to be permisson granted for further buildings etc and that might be used as a route to examine such things as the numbers of movements and the types of aircraft but with the Local Planning Authority apparently in favour, that doesn't immediately strike me as a problem.
DGG
However the planning issue at Lee is, as far as I can see, simply one of how it fits within the overall planning strategy for the Local Plans for Gosport and Fareham. As far as Planning PERMISSION s concerned I would not have seen a problem at Lee - specifically as an airfiled - as (at least in it's current form) it s merely continung an "established use".
There would of couse have to be permisson granted for further buildings etc and that might be used as a route to examine such things as the numbers of movements and the types of aircraft but with the Local Planning Authority apparently in favour, that doesn't immediately strike me as a problem.
DGG
Planning consent is granted for a specific purpose, i.e., if consent is granted on a building for use as a restaurant, it shall continue to operate as such unless change of consent is applied for and granted. The owner of the property cannot convert the facility into residential accommodation without applying for change of use consent.
The way I understand the planning enforcement notice at Kemble is that the NIMBY's are suggesting that GA does not fit the original Planning Consent granted for Kemble, the specific wording of that planning document escapes me at this time, but I recall it included the wording 'maintenance and storage'. Kemble has Planning Consent to operate as an airport, but according to the NIMBY's GA does not fall into the category(ies) of aviation specified in the consent document.
If the argument from the NIMBY's at Kemble is regarded valid, i.e., GA is excluded from that specific Planning Consent and such operations have to terminate, my observation with regards Lee On Solent is that we have a good look at the specific planning consent. If the planning consent issued includes GA, and by the sounds of it the council is backing the GA side of the argument so I cannot believe it is not the case, the owner cannot exclude GA from the use of the facility without applying for Change of Use Consent?
Maybe not such a long shot in getting GA back at the airfield...
The way I understand the planning enforcement notice at Kemble is that the NIMBY's are suggesting that GA does not fit the original Planning Consent granted for Kemble, the specific wording of that planning document escapes me at this time, but I recall it included the wording 'maintenance and storage'. Kemble has Planning Consent to operate as an airport, but according to the NIMBY's GA does not fall into the category(ies) of aviation specified in the consent document.
If the argument from the NIMBY's at Kemble is regarded valid, i.e., GA is excluded from that specific Planning Consent and such operations have to terminate, my observation with regards Lee On Solent is that we have a good look at the specific planning consent. If the planning consent issued includes GA, and by the sounds of it the council is backing the GA side of the argument so I cannot believe it is not the case, the owner cannot exclude GA from the use of the facility without applying for Change of Use Consent?
Maybe not such a long shot in getting GA back at the airfield...
Had the opportunity to briefly look through the Joint Planning Statement for Daedalus:
Future development should seek to maximise the benefit of the existing runways for general and private aviation use.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a rundown on the situation at Lee.
Lee is a Governement Aerodrome. It used to be a Royal Naval Air Station, HMS Daedalus.
In 1996 the Navy ceased using it and Hampshire Police Air Support Unit (HPASU) took over the day to day running of the airfield. The Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) operate two SAR helicopters from there.
Last year ownership of the core central area including the runways was transferred to MCA, with outlying areas being transferred to South East England Development Agency (SEEDA). The current situation is that MCA are the owners and HPASU are tenants and manage the airfield.
The ATZ at DARA Fleetlands overlaps part of the Lee site. Fleetlands provides AFIS but has no visibility of the runways or taxiways at Lee. A Letter of Agreement to regulate safe interoperation was drawn up over a year ago and has been agreed by all parties except HPASU, who have refused to sign it. The airfield management have also not applied for an ATZ or for a radio frequency. When the RN operated it Lee was the controlling station for Lee and Fleetlands.
We now have a situation where the Airfield Manager has decided on Health and Safety grounds to deny access to the airfield to anyone other than the two coastguard helicopters and the police Islander. As he's had over 10 years in post, to declare that he's mismanaged the airfield to the extent that he cannot now safely operate it looks like a severe case of foot in mouth.
It's ludicrous that anyone should for one moment contemplate the idea that the entire operating expenses of an airfield the size of Lee on Solent should be carried on the operating budgets of two helicopters and an Islander, all out of the taxpayer's pocket.
It is of course possible that the subtext to this relates to the recently concluded prosecution of the Met for breaches of H&S law relating to their duty to protect members of the public.
Those affected by the unilateral decision to close the airfield to outsiders include the Tigers Children's Motorcycle Display Team, The Lee Bees Model Aircraft Club, Carrill Aviation, a long established flying club, an aircraft maintenance organisation, a microlight manufacturer, the Portsmouth Naval Gliding Club, and of course the owners and users of all of the based aircraft.
Lee is a Governement Aerodrome. It used to be a Royal Naval Air Station, HMS Daedalus.
In 1996 the Navy ceased using it and Hampshire Police Air Support Unit (HPASU) took over the day to day running of the airfield. The Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) operate two SAR helicopters from there.
Last year ownership of the core central area including the runways was transferred to MCA, with outlying areas being transferred to South East England Development Agency (SEEDA). The current situation is that MCA are the owners and HPASU are tenants and manage the airfield.
The ATZ at DARA Fleetlands overlaps part of the Lee site. Fleetlands provides AFIS but has no visibility of the runways or taxiways at Lee. A Letter of Agreement to regulate safe interoperation was drawn up over a year ago and has been agreed by all parties except HPASU, who have refused to sign it. The airfield management have also not applied for an ATZ or for a radio frequency. When the RN operated it Lee was the controlling station for Lee and Fleetlands.
We now have a situation where the Airfield Manager has decided on Health and Safety grounds to deny access to the airfield to anyone other than the two coastguard helicopters and the police Islander. As he's had over 10 years in post, to declare that he's mismanaged the airfield to the extent that he cannot now safely operate it looks like a severe case of foot in mouth.
It's ludicrous that anyone should for one moment contemplate the idea that the entire operating expenses of an airfield the size of Lee on Solent should be carried on the operating budgets of two helicopters and an Islander, all out of the taxpayer's pocket.
It is of course possible that the subtext to this relates to the recently concluded prosecution of the Met for breaches of H&S law relating to their duty to protect members of the public.
Those affected by the unilateral decision to close the airfield to outsiders include the Tigers Children's Motorcycle Display Team, The Lee Bees Model Aircraft Club, Carrill Aviation, a long established flying club, an aircraft maintenance organisation, a microlight manufacturer, the Portsmouth Naval Gliding Club, and of course the owners and users of all of the based aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fareham
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hampshire Police Statement On Lee On Solent
On Friday 2nd November Hamsphire Constabulary issued a statement regarding its decision to close the Lee airfield (which is owned by the Department for Transport).
Lee Flying Association have issued a response that may be of interest:
http://www.product-technik.co.uk/EGH...elease%203.pdf
Lee Flying Association have issued a response that may be of interest:
http://www.product-technik.co.uk/EGH...elease%203.pdf
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick response from someone who routinely crews a police aircraft. The main problem when dealing with Police and their managers when it comes to aviation is the obvious one , They havent got a clue . Most senior police officers didnt get to where they are by knowing how to be good cops , in most cases this is quite the contrary. Im sure most of you will agree that policing in this country is a joke , this is primarily due submissive leadership.
On the case in point I have seen our particular unit harrassed and questioned for years over why we dont do things a certain way and why things cost what they cost etc etc etc . Hierarchy do not realise that they do not control how we operate but the CAA do and no matter how much they kick gouge and throw their teddies this will never change . Senior police officers do not understand aviation and very rarely make any effort to understand it , but they will attempt to impose their will on others , as in this case .. The police will see this as their airfield with their aircraft and they dont want the public involved in any way with it , Until it affects their purse strings when all of a sudden you may find their minds are changing .
They will eventually have to go to a RW this is pretty much set in stone it is just a matter of when . They will then correctly not need a big chuffin A/F .
There are many A/f's that are used jointly by police asu's and GA , Barton , Halfpenny Green , Hawarden to name a few . I am not aware of any ill effects or bad relationships at any of these.
To answer one previous question , Islanders are used due to penny pinching , they are significantly cheaper to operate and maintain than Helis in fact it is more than significant . I personally dont think they are as much fun though.
But to reiterate these problems will be caused by ignorant megalomaniac cowardly senior police officers who know jack about avaition after lengthy consultation with others who know squat about aviation
On the case in point I have seen our particular unit harrassed and questioned for years over why we dont do things a certain way and why things cost what they cost etc etc etc . Hierarchy do not realise that they do not control how we operate but the CAA do and no matter how much they kick gouge and throw their teddies this will never change . Senior police officers do not understand aviation and very rarely make any effort to understand it , but they will attempt to impose their will on others , as in this case .. The police will see this as their airfield with their aircraft and they dont want the public involved in any way with it , Until it affects their purse strings when all of a sudden you may find their minds are changing .
They will eventually have to go to a RW this is pretty much set in stone it is just a matter of when . They will then correctly not need a big chuffin A/F .
There are many A/f's that are used jointly by police asu's and GA , Barton , Halfpenny Green , Hawarden to name a few . I am not aware of any ill effects or bad relationships at any of these.
To answer one previous question , Islanders are used due to penny pinching , they are significantly cheaper to operate and maintain than Helis in fact it is more than significant . I personally dont think they are as much fun though.
But to reiterate these problems will be caused by ignorant megalomaniac cowardly senior police officers who know jack about avaition after lengthy consultation with others who know squat about aviation
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many places do we know where gliding and GA, rescue choppers etc operate happily together? Here in the UK, I can immediately think of gliding coexisting with GA at Bembridge, Tibenham, Booker and Yeovilton. On the continent, there seems no problem mixing all the above with commercial traffic as well: gliders cohabit at Innsbruck and Luebeck (Blankensee - RyanAir's 'Hamburg'), and gliders, GA and rescue choppers lived happily together at Trento. Notably, many continental airfields are run by the local authorities as a way of promoting regional development.
Lee would be by far the most convenient airfield for the now rather substantial population of Southampton/Fareham/Gosport/Portsmouth; one can certainly imagine a significant business activity, and it would be a splendid base for round-the-island tourist trips as well as flying schools like Carill and maintenance organizations like Thruxton Aviation. Hard runways, clear airspace, good road and transport connections, plenty of interest nearby - not many airfields can boast all that!
Good luck to all at Lee that are campaigning to keep (and broaden access to) flying there.
Windrusher
Lee would be by far the most convenient airfield for the now rather substantial population of Southampton/Fareham/Gosport/Portsmouth; one can certainly imagine a significant business activity, and it would be a splendid base for round-the-island tourist trips as well as flying schools like Carill and maintenance organizations like Thruxton Aviation. Hard runways, clear airspace, good road and transport connections, plenty of interest nearby - not many airfields can boast all that!
Good luck to all at Lee that are campaigning to keep (and broaden access to) flying there.
Windrusher
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd add Shobdon. Fixed wing and rotary schools happily ce-exist with gliding.
Then of course you have a number of places where parachuting co-exists with f/w and rotary. It's not rocket science to come up with a safe method of operation, nor is it hugely expensive.
Then of course you have a number of places where parachuting co-exists with f/w and rotary. It's not rocket science to come up with a safe method of operation, nor is it hugely expensive.