Lee On Solent - The End?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fareham
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is more....
From the Southern Daily Echo http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/late...high_court.php
"Airfield row could end in High Court
A ROW over plans to ban flights from a Hampshire airfield could be set to go all the way to the High Court.
Today there was a dramatic development in the controversy surrounding the Daedalus airfield at Lee-on-Solent after it was revealed that the Lee Flying Association had started the first step in getting a judicial review.
It came as the Hampshire Police Authority were about to debate the issue, which has caused a storm of protest.
The association had been given a stay of execution for one month after it was announced that the gates would close to general aviation on December 14.
Police spotter planes and coastguard helicopters would continue to use the airfield, which is also home to Portsmouth Naval Gliding Club.
But Police Authority members decided that while legal proceedings were in the air they would postpone their debate on the Daedalus issue."
From the Southern Daily Echo http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/late...high_court.php
"Airfield row could end in High Court
A ROW over plans to ban flights from a Hampshire airfield could be set to go all the way to the High Court.
Today there was a dramatic development in the controversy surrounding the Daedalus airfield at Lee-on-Solent after it was revealed that the Lee Flying Association had started the first step in getting a judicial review.
It came as the Hampshire Police Authority were about to debate the issue, which has caused a storm of protest.
The association had been given a stay of execution for one month after it was announced that the gates would close to general aviation on December 14.
Police spotter planes and coastguard helicopters would continue to use the airfield, which is also home to Portsmouth Naval Gliding Club.
But Police Authority members decided that while legal proceedings were in the air they would postpone their debate on the Daedalus issue."
Police spotter planes and coastguard helicopters would continue to use the airfield
A large portion of the momentum of this case is subjective perception, I guess that the Health & Safety "Silver Bullet" is not working as well as expected by the person in the Aerodrome Manager office, we need to have accurate facts to keep our momentum going.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hanging around Barton
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I emailed Mr Viggers MP last week as did others on this forum and he's been kind enough to mail myself and a couple of others with his thoughts on the way ahead.
I don't want to publish them here as I don't yet have his permission.
Nipper2; I've assumed that you're one of those on the email. If not, PM me.
I'm pleased that Sir GC was able to watch the debate and that the case appeared to be put successfully.
But in answer to the original question - not the end, not yet.
I don't want to publish them here as I don't yet have his permission.
Nipper2; I've assumed that you're one of those on the email. If not, PM me.
I'm pleased that Sir GC was able to watch the debate and that the case appeared to be put successfully.
But in answer to the original question - not the end, not yet.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hanging around Barton
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
As per Nipper2's post, GA operations extended until 14th December, but whether that's just based aircraft I don't know. Could always phone for PPR, see what happens?
MM
As per Nipper2's post, GA operations extended until 14th December, but whether that's just based aircraft I don't know. Could always phone for PPR, see what happens?
MM
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hanging around Barton
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um, in an idle moment I've turned up 02392 551714 but that's just from UKGA and a airfield manual dated April 2006 I managed to find on Google.
Apologies if it's wrong...or they're not accepting visitors. Would be interested to know...
MM
Apologies if it's wrong...or they're not accepting visitors. Would be interested to know...
MM
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want more info go to www.eghf.co.uk
For more info on the airfield and procedures click here.
Be interested to hear the answer you get.
BTW you might find this interesting!
Mike
For more info on the airfield and procedures click here.
Be interested to hear the answer you get.
BTW you might find this interesting!
Mike
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did call.
The answer was no private flights are being accepted at all.
I was told that a temporary reprieve has been granted but the purpose of the reprieve has been totally mis quoted. The reprieve is only intended to give people the opportunity to move out before the airport finally closes to all on the 19/12.
So that was a waste of time and the operators would seem to have a very different agenda.
The answer was no private flights are being accepted at all.
I was told that a temporary reprieve has been granted but the purpose of the reprieve has been totally mis quoted. The reprieve is only intended to give people the opportunity to move out before the airport finally closes to all on the 19/12.
So that was a waste of time and the operators would seem to have a very different agenda.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a waste of time. Far from it. The airfield was due to close on safety grounds. Now its "open". And due to close again no Dec 14. Aviation safety just isn't as 'pick and choose' as that. The safety case has to be shared, not withheld.
Aviation safety data is being withheld from aviators!? By the police!? Who then say, use at your own risk!? WOW!!
As one councillor is reported as saying in the press: if the deadline can be extended once, it can be extended again. Indeed a request for a SECOND extension has already been made. At the Hampshire Police Authority meeting yesterday. The Chief Constable undertook to consider the request with his legal advisor.
It is perhaps beginning to look like the *real* "safety issue" *might* really be an internal wrangle between government departments as to who should have done, or do, what to ensure safety and airfield operations to an appropriate standard -regardless of what aviation activites occur there.
That the businesses, jobs, expressed will of the people, their representatives, public consultation results, joint planning statements, an invaluable airfiled resource, community relations, Ministerial visits , ..., all go hang while some sort of wrangling goes on seems to be of little consequence to those involved in it.
Whoever they are they seem unable to appreciate how achieveable a win-win result is for everybody, if they could step back and take a fresh perspective.
Perhaps it is time for the Secretary for Transport get involved, along with the leaders of whatever other government departments need to assist in appointing an aviation regulator for the airfield.
Aviation safety data is being withheld from aviators!? By the police!? Who then say, use at your own risk!? WOW!!
As one councillor is reported as saying in the press: if the deadline can be extended once, it can be extended again. Indeed a request for a SECOND extension has already been made. At the Hampshire Police Authority meeting yesterday. The Chief Constable undertook to consider the request with his legal advisor.
It is perhaps beginning to look like the *real* "safety issue" *might* really be an internal wrangle between government departments as to who should have done, or do, what to ensure safety and airfield operations to an appropriate standard -regardless of what aviation activites occur there.
That the businesses, jobs, expressed will of the people, their representatives, public consultation results, joint planning statements, an invaluable airfiled resource, community relations, Ministerial visits , ..., all go hang while some sort of wrangling goes on seems to be of little consequence to those involved in it.
Whoever they are they seem unable to appreciate how achieveable a win-win result is for everybody, if they could step back and take a fresh perspective.
Perhaps it is time for the Secretary for Transport get involved, along with the leaders of whatever other government departments need to assist in appointing an aviation regulator for the airfield.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Government Body
I have been following this thread for some time with a growing sense of gloom, however the latest news has cheered me a little. I have one question, as a Government body, are we not entitled to demand sight of the so called "safety review" conclusions under the freedom of information act? Or is the some form of time constraint?
Mal
Mal
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree.
The campaign is far from a waste of time.
It seems odd the closure has been delayed, but in fact it clearly is not open to visitors either - is there a contradiction there somewhere.
The campaign is far from a waste of time.
It seems odd the closure has been delayed, but in fact it clearly is not open to visitors either - is there a contradiction there somewhere.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airfield has never been freely avialable to visiting aircraft.
The process is, and has been for sometime, along these lines:
1) call up the police airfield manager, tell him you reason for visit
2) if reason acceptable (e.g. fly in for maintenance), and
3) you had a named sponsor (e.g. maint company manager)
4) provide you with an airfield briefing) and
5) sent a fax of insurance with £7.5m Crown Indemnity, to police
6) you get a logged PPR number, which is your permission to visit
Acceptable reasons are basically "business purpose visit to companies, clubs on the airfield".
Visiting businesses, even your own business, relatives etc in the area are not the type that cut an ice. Other govt MOD/RN/RAF aerodromes support a policy of enabling civilian use - the majjority of MOD/RN/RAF airfield are less restricted than Lee in this regard.
Where did Polly Vacher get to on her charity tour this year? Where not? Why not? Lee is not in the flight guides. and even if it were, it is unlikely that permission would have been granted to include Lee in the UK tour. I may be wrong on that, so if someone is proposing a charity flight they should still ask.
The process is, and has been for sometime, along these lines:
1) call up the police airfield manager, tell him you reason for visit
2) if reason acceptable (e.g. fly in for maintenance), and
3) you had a named sponsor (e.g. maint company manager)
4) provide you with an airfield briefing) and
5) sent a fax of insurance with £7.5m Crown Indemnity, to police
6) you get a logged PPR number, which is your permission to visit
Acceptable reasons are basically "business purpose visit to companies, clubs on the airfield".
Visiting businesses, even your own business, relatives etc in the area are not the type that cut an ice. Other govt MOD/RN/RAF aerodromes support a policy of enabling civilian use - the majjority of MOD/RN/RAF airfield are less restricted than Lee in this regard.
Where did Polly Vacher get to on her charity tour this year? Where not? Why not? Lee is not in the flight guides. and even if it were, it is unlikely that permission would have been granted to include Lee in the UK tour. I may be wrong on that, so if someone is proposing a charity flight they should still ask.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is no time constraint on making FOI requests, google for the details - you want information you can ask for it, 20 working days to respond to your request.
There are FOI, and legal, requests in for the Lee safety data, raised after a 24th October letter to the Chief Constable for the safety case failed to yield any response, let alone the safety case.
There are FOI, and legal, requests in for the Lee safety data, raised after a 24th October letter to the Chief Constable for the safety case failed to yield any response, let alone the safety case.
Polly Vacher
Just had a brief look at Polly Vacher's itinery for her round Britain tour and I cannot see sign of her having been to Lee.
Looks like she flew right past en route from Southampton to Goodwood on 11 July 2007.
(off topic .... but I'm jealous as hell of her getting all those airfields and hours in her logbook in a 3 month period - fantastic acheivement)
DGG
Looks like she flew right past en route from Southampton to Goodwood on 11 July 2007.
(off topic .... but I'm jealous as hell of her getting all those airfields and hours in her logbook in a 3 month period - fantastic acheivement)
DGG
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fareham
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find they have an obligation under the Health and Safety at Work Act to provide all relevant safety information to interested parties. Anyone care to apply?
in addition to Mike Cross post 57 - aircraft owners did pay a fee to be on the airfield (400 pounds / yr) business pay rent on hangars etc (some of which are in a poor state)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paulc
Affirm, to the best of my knowledge aircraft owners paid £410 a year per aircraft access charge to use the airfield. This was in addition to any hangarage/tiedown charges.
Users paid in advance every six months and paid up until Sept 2006. Hampshire Police then stopped invoicing and no further payments were accepted from users. To date 18 months worth of fees that should have been invoiced have not been. If there were 100 based aircraft that's 61,500 of money due to the public purse that's not been collected.
Hampshire Police appear to have deliberately manipulated the situation so they could say that users paid nothing, had no right to be there, and had only been allowed to use the airfield on a grace and favour basis. Draw your own conclusions.
Affirm, to the best of my knowledge aircraft owners paid £410 a year per aircraft access charge to use the airfield. This was in addition to any hangarage/tiedown charges.
Users paid in advance every six months and paid up until Sept 2006. Hampshire Police then stopped invoicing and no further payments were accepted from users. To date 18 months worth of fees that should have been invoiced have not been. If there were 100 based aircraft that's 61,500 of money due to the public purse that's not been collected.
Hampshire Police appear to have deliberately manipulated the situation so they could say that users paid nothing, had no right to be there, and had only been allowed to use the airfield on a grace and favour basis. Draw your own conclusions.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only difference between Police and Crooks is the Police wear uniforms. IMHO
Second thought. Maybe the Police and the local Land Developers are in the same
Masonic Lodge? After all it must be a prime housing site?
Second thought. Maybe the Police and the local Land Developers are in the same
Masonic Lodge? After all it must be a prime housing site?
Last edited by aviate1138; 23rd Nov 2007 at 07:58. Reason: additions