December 15, 2005 at 11:48 pm
I have just been advised that the local Council is trying to stop airliners arriving at Kemble and being scrapped, due to noise complaints from the locals. Apparently they are getting high-handed about having planning permission to do this. If this gets stopped, it could mean Kemble’s closure with all the other resident aircraft owners suffering as it is the scrapping of these airliners that helps pay to keep Kemble running! The council seems to think this is something new that has only recenty started, so I am appealing to you if anyone has any photos of aircraft being scrapped by 5 MU at Kemble during the ’50s and ’60s to post them here to prove to the council this is an on-going activity! You can read the council’s report here:
http://www.cmis.cotswold.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=10744
Thanks.
By: Flanker_man - 19th December 2005 at 16:59
Sure the RAF used this base in the early 90’s . We used to drive past from 91 -95 when on our way down the coast of swanage and poole.
from coventry. And on a most times passing sat for an hour or so seeing c130’s dropping pallets from the back and chute deployed drops on to the field,
Are you sure you weren’t 5 miles further down the road – outside RAF Hullavington ???
The Herks from Lyneham used to fly directly over my house (about 3 miles down an extended runway centreline from Hullavington).
They may also have used Kemble ….??? Did they ? :confused:
Ken
By: vulcan558 - 19th December 2005 at 15:51
Sure the RAF used this base in the early 90’s . We used to drive past from 91 -95 when on our way down the coast of swanage and poole.
from coventry. And on a most times passing sat for an hour or so seeing c130’s dropping pallets from the back and chute deployed drops on to the field,
By: The Blue Max - 19th December 2005 at 14:48
David, working out an average is a very sensible idea, but as Mark V says planner are not always sensible and usually not Aviation minded either! In there eyes the fact that the Airfield had very little going on for a number of years make the situation worse because the increase now looks greater when infact it probably is not. Mark V is right when he says that you have to think like them and fight with there rules. Not right or sensible but an unfortunate fact of life these days.
By: Mark V - 19th December 2005 at 11:57
Blue Max- Interesting ideas . However what annoys me is that because the airfield was effectively morribund for a number of years should that actually mean that the number of movements now is actually a material increase? The rational I would have thought is that the airfield by being such an item relies on having aircraft movements . The fact that not a lot happpened for a while shouldn’t really affect it that much .
Maybe the rational thing to do would be to look through the flying logs and work out an average .
David, you have to take off your common sense hat and think like planners. If an airfield was moribund for years (in effect a disused airfield), when someone comes along and starts to use it as an airfield again they are in danger of falling foul of the planning system because if their use of the field is questioned thay may have difficulty in proving ten years continuous use. The planners see an airfield in use as being a change of use from a disused airfield. The person in question would then have to apply for planning consent to continue his use of the field and such an application would be decided ‘on its own merits’.
I am not a planning officer by the way, I work for the opposition!
By: David Burke - 19th December 2005 at 10:52
Blue Max- Interesting ideas . However what annoys me is that because the airfield was effectively morribund for a number of years should that actually mean that the number of movements now is actually a material increase? The rational I would have thought is that the airfield by being such an item relies on having aircraft movements . The fact that not a lot happpened for a while shouldn’t really affect it that much .
Maybe the rational thing to do would be to look through the flying logs and work out an average .
By: The Blue Max - 18th December 2005 at 23:54
Mark V’s post is correct in that you have to read the document very carefully to be able to fight it to the best possible effect. The fact that the Red Arrows were based there has no bearing on the use now! i quote” Flying activity has now materialy increased and has in its self resulted in a change of use. consiqently, planning permision is required in respect of aviation related activities”
Jumping up and down and shouting”But the Red Arrows use to be based here” will not get the planning permision granted. A well structured report of the current flying activities and noise abatement procedure is whats needed. We need to help ourselves and not give them any room to shut ANY airfields or restrict there use.
By: T6flyer - 18th December 2005 at 22:04
Royal Brunei Airlines Boeing 757.
Thanks, was just wondering what it was:)
Martin
By: David Burke - 18th December 2005 at 22:01
There are a few BAe146’s and a Saab of some description stored . I was at Kemble in 1992 with the deployed elements of Harrier Force i.e 1,3 and 4 Squadrons for a period of two weeks and we operated a bomb dump from near the Bristol Aero Collection area and the jets lived up in the woods near the tower.
I don’t think that civilian flying training from the airfield can really be judged as a material change of use as the airfield was the home base of the Red Arrows which is a unit of the CFS with their primary purpose being flying training.
By: ALBERT ROSS - 18th December 2005 at 21:22
This may be a little off subject, but made a visit to Kemble today and was surprised to see so many airliners stored there (I thought Exeter was bad). At the end of the runway was the attached. Not being very good at airliner recognition, what was it at some stage of its life?
Martin
Royal Brunei Airlines Boeing 757.
By: T6flyer - 18th December 2005 at 20:27
This may be a little off subject, but made a visit to Kemble today and was surprised to see so many airliners stored there (I thought Exeter was bad). At the end of the runway was the attached. Not being very good at airliner recognition, what was it at some stage of its life?
Martin
By: ALBERT ROSS - 18th December 2005 at 19:37
And after it must have been around 10 years of USAFE into the 1990’s at Kemble with F5,F4,A10,F16,F15 & C130’s to name but a few???? Is that right Albert????
Absolutely right. I think 5 MU disbanded in 1976 and the Red Arrows left in 1983, followed by USAFE types being flown in there for maintenance. It really annoys me when people by houses near an airfield or the railway and then complain about the noise!! What did they expect?
By: Denis - 16th December 2005 at 20:27
.Which would these NIMBY’s prefer, the odd few aircraft movements, or a massive population influx ?
They would prefer a massive population influx, this way they can grow a larger ego that would serve them well by writing many letters to local papers. They could then complain on a grander scale about the influx of ‘outsiders’, unwarranted housing, the loss of the Purple three legged
uncrested Newt to the local ponds and the noise caused by Eastern European building workers 😉 .
By: TMN - 16th December 2005 at 19:32
Can’t help with any photo’s I’m afraid, but I thought Kemble had just been given a listed status ??
Suppose that would stop the building of a few thousand houses, shopping and entertainment complex, along with a new dual-carriageway and the odd industrial estate, which seems to have befallen far too many of our airfields.
Which would these NIMBY’s prefer, the odd few aircraft movements, or a massive population influx ?
By: Stinky Pete - 16th December 2005 at 18:18
Wrong! They were there until 1983 when they moved to Scampton, so this bloke has had 7 years of Red Arrows practising!
And after it must have been around 10 years of USAFE into the 1990’s at Kemble with F5,F4,A10,F16,F15 & C130’s to name but a few???? Is that right Albert????
By: Moggy C - 16th December 2005 at 17:57
I also missed out RAF Barkston Heath .
Moggy
By: ALBERT ROSS - 16th December 2005 at 17:37
Up to early 1976. They’d formed at Fairford originally.
Since then they’ve been at Scampton, Cranwell and Scampton to my knowledge.
Moggy
Wrong! They were there until 1983 when they moved to Scampton, so this bloke has had 7 years of Red Arrows practising!
By: Mark V - 16th December 2005 at 17:23
You would all better serve the airfield by reading the report very carefully and trying to understand it in the context of currrent planning legislation, that way you may be able to offer the users some real help.The law says that if you carry out an activity on a site in the UK there must be planning consent in place for that use or you must be able to prove the use has been on-going for ten years. Digging up old photos fromthe 60’s and 70’s will not help. Many of the current uses, it appears from reading the report, are relativley new, including the use of the field for general aviation and training flying. If you undertake a new use on a site without consent you do run a grave risk in the first ten years. Ultimately one or more of the current uses may have to be subject of planning application and will, as the report says, be considered on their own merits. Thats the way our planning system works I am afraid.
By: hunterxf382 - 16th December 2005 at 16:51
Up to early 1976. They’d formed at Fairford originally.
Since then they’ve been at Scampton, Cranwell and Scampton to my knowledge.
Moggy
And Little Rissington of course..lol
By: Moggy C - 16th December 2005 at 16:15
Up to early 1976. They’d formed at Fairford originally.
Since then they’ve been at Scampton, Cranwell and Scampton to my knowledge.
Moggy
By: Beaufighter VI - 16th December 2005 at 16:00
The Red Arrows were based at Kemble, when was that?