mjrFair enough, just quoting what is written in Kev Darlings, operational history book. Perhaps Kuwait still operated a few of them, using pilots from the Saudi pool, who knows? several sources do stipulate though that the magic carpet contract ended in 1971, with no further renewal for Kuwait, only Saudi, so who operated the maintenance for KAF?
mjrThat is his own place, the other place closed 4 years ago for his house build.
mjrfb#5: the industrial biography by C.Gardner,BAC,Batsford,1981, pp.248-251:5/66: Saudi Main contract: “Airwork were contracted to service BAC/AEI equipment and to train RSaAF personnel…to…service all the installations”;
(18/12/66: Kuwait contract, 14 Lightnings/12 Strikemasters);
“In 1972 the Saudi Govt. expressed a wish to deal with just one firm…5/73 Inter-Governmental MoU, 5 years (extended 9/77), BAC contracted (by HMG: 10 tasks supporting a defined level of readiness for Lightning, Strikemaster and Cessna T-41A)”;
1977 BAC formed “Defence Support Services…inc. civil engineering…Kuwait also continued to need support services for the Lightnings…and 12 Strikemasters”.
B.Philpott, Lightning,PSL,1984,P.151: KAF Lightnings (F.53K/T.55K) “are now being phased out of operational service”.My understanding: 1, not 2 Projects. Kuwait airspace was embraced within the Saudi (Arabian Peninsula) Air Defence Ground Environment. The oil barter deal embraced all kit, RSaAF+KAF. BAC/AEI/Airwork supported the lot. So, wherever the word “Saudi” appears, read as “Saudi+Kuwaiti”. Dhahran support to all aircraft. Airwork+BAC ground personnel working on all aircraft. I believe the contractual centralisation on BAC (becoming BAe. 29/4/77) caused subordination, not ejection of Airwork Services Ltd. I believe KAF displacement of Lightning by Mirage F.1 was less to do with techno-matters, but with, ah, politics.
correct. mostly. Airworks bit off more than they could chew. O/R rates were not up to scratch throughout the 2 years up to 1970/71. The carpet contract ended in 70, and Pakistani contracetd maintenance crews couldn’t handle the Lightning and Hunter at all. The Sauds approached directly BAC to extent the carpet contract, only this time they wanted better O/R as they had not been happy with Airwork’s overall performance. BAC responded by sending civi BAC contingent out to work along side Airwork RAF contractors for RSAF, (this didnt happen for KAF, since the contract finished, and that was that) this worked very well, and remained the case until Jan 86. Kuwait operations never really took off, flying was sporadic, no fault of Airworks or BAC, but because Kuwait INT airport was unsuited to operating something like the Lightning. Kuwait responded by building 2 new airfields for the purpose in 69, unfortunately neither of them were ever finished properly, and lack of facilities/infrastructure kept the Lightnings only stuttering along. After contract ended in 70, Kuwait had given up on the Lightning soon after in early 71, and moved to the simpler Mirage. The entire Kuwaiti Lightning fleet (by now moth balled some 18 months) was put up for sale in 73, inital interest from egypt amounted to nothing. There was no BAC buy back scheme since Kuwait already had the Mirage.
All documented in Kev Darlings excellent operational history..(apart from Airworks shortcomings, that info came directly from several BAC guys working on Dharan line)
mjrp.s. And that yards been cleared since
.
No it hasnt
mjrdont read too much into that advert. Although still active, It’s from feb 2010. Things have moved on since then.
mjrVery early leaked documents suggest the new national policy statements will relax green belt protection. In what circumstances I don’t know. Whilst I wouldn’t normally support such a policy, if it can be used to benefit this case then why not use it.
New policy should be out later this year.
a change to the PPG2 policy??? where did you hear this?. first we have heard of it..
Peter, Gatwicks land surrounds almost three sides of our property. their boundary being the width of a wire fence adjacent to ours on all of those sides. in fact the taxiway to the main runway is less than probably 150 yards away from our BBQ area! we are so close that their fire training ground is less than 50 yards away from our boundary. you could stand up and hit the aircraft with a golf ball while eating a burger! the runway is probably 400 yards away from our display area. Now you see why the “greenbelt” tag is utter nonsense?, it was likely created in 1988 to try to stop gatwick expanding. according to the planners it was green belt from 1950’s but took 35 years to formalise it!…:rolleyes: yea ok..
in reality it would not make one jot of difference, if national air transport policy demanded that the airport required the space, it would be used.
mjrthanks for all the info Milt, had a quick watch of the webcam, useful tool eh.
Can you put in very simple terms what the situation is now, and the next planned move?
The situation now is:- the ball is in our court. Planning application refused, so the next step is to go to appeals and an independant planning inspector with a public enquiry, which removes the district committee from the equation. following an appeal, then High court would be the next road. All the while this goes on no enforcement can take place. We are talking big big dollar however we proceed
The other road is to walk away and consider other options.
We are currently considering all options before we decide on our stratergy going forward.
mjrit is clear that the decision was really based on the issue of green belt land.
yes, assides form the way in which the whole process was conducted, this is what we cant understand.. here are the PPG2 guidelines the officer was talking about………
We think we more than meet the requirements for special circumstances.
From wiki
The Government sets out its policies and principles towards the green belts defined by local authorities in England and Wales in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts [3]. Local Councils are strongly urged to follow PPG2’s detailed advice when considering whether to permit additional development in the green belt, or to assent to new uses being made of existing premises. In the green belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated to show that the benefits of the development will outweigh the harm caused to the green belt. PPG2 also sets out a number of examples of what would constitute appropriate or inappropriate development in the green belt.
According to PPG2, there are five stated purposes of including land within the green belt:
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Once an area of land has been defined as green belt, opportunities and benefits include:
Providing opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population
Providing opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas
The retention of attractive landscapes and the enhancement of landscapes, near to where people live
Improvement of damaged and derelict land around towns
The securing of nature conservation interests
The retention of land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.
We more than tick the above requirements and greatly improve many of them.. all aspects that were not taken into account…..
there is no damage to the Greenbelt, we have already proved that, as did a planning inspector… ho hum…………..??
mjrgreat, much obliged folks:)
mjrok great, thanks. Is septic Gary Brown then?
mjrAre there any minutes available; sometimes easier to get the gist!?
Milt; I hope you have some contingency plans for some of the aircraft; it might be worth starting to ask if any other museum could take anything in case the worst does happen. Of course, we dont want that, but it would be wise to be ready.
Bruce
Bruce I haven’t found any yet, I think those will lag back a few days, as someone will have to collate it all and type it up!…ill post em when I find them. thanks for the pod casts is what I say!!. what ever is said/done is there on film, no grey area
re contingency, there is “an” stratergy for many of the air frames, obviously can’t reveal details.. as has been pointed out though, we have time yet, we have 6 months alone to lodge an appeal. no action can be taken by MV during that time or the time frame of the appeal itself or further representation after that. It all costs a LOT of money though, the longer it goes the harder it will be.
mjrgentlemen, and ladies
http://www.molevalley.ukcouncil.net/site/player/pl_compact.php?a=59480&t=0&m=wms&l=en_GB
for your viewing pleasure, or displeasure. web cast of last nights dvelopment control committee meeting. there is about 2-3 minutes before GAM, but its about an 70 minutes for us, so get a cuppa!
mjrthanks Bruce, you are right, and we are highlighting these things certainly. If we go to appeals which is likely, it will all come out in the wash!
Twin otter, thanks for the offer, but no, the legal issues such as that should be dealt with by lawyers, not us here. we must refrain from making any defamatory or legality type comments on this forum, as Bruce will no doubt confirm, those and forums are murky waters.
these things are best left to our appointed represensatives.
By all means email Mole Valley to express your dissapointment at last nights outcome and why you think we should be given permission, you are of course welcome to comment on anything in the podcast too, since it is uploaded for public viewing after all.
The planning pod cast should be up very soon, I will post a link,
mjrNo, its not a an issue for the Parish council to vote on. The application is handled by the District councilors, of which 16 of something like the total 22 councillors attended and voted on the 6th June. Last night 19 attended and voted. The fact is they are not doing anything wrong by drawing further councillors in from the full committee. However, the point is, It is both unfair and unconstitutional. Only the same councillors that voted on the 6th of June,to defer, should be allowed to make a final vote at the decision outcome IMO.
As I said, its like starting a football match with 11 players, going for 75 minutes, then introducing another three players to 14 at the 75th minute, neither fair or right! I might add that the 3 additional councillors whom attended and voted last night, were 1)not at the original vote on the 6th June, and 2) were not party to the proceedings in between, which were felt necessary, giving rise to a deferment in the first place. Anyway, this is the kind of system you deal with, and gives some idea of the fluid goal posts we are up against.
We are now taking stock, and formulating our next move as we speak..
Just to remind all, your support so far has been fantastic, and we are very grateful to you all. letters and emails can still be submitted and will be taken into account, despite the decision. representations will be ongoing, so keep the support coming:).. thanks again.
mjrIf incorrect submissions have been made, they must be challenged at appeal – taken apart piece by piece. Having seven on your side is a good start. You only need three to come over to your side!!
Bruce
unfortunately not Bruce. What became evident last night is that the council can draw any of their further councillors aboard at any time during the district decision making process. It’s so unconstitutional it’s icredible. Akin to playing a match with 11 players, then at 75 minutes introducing 15 players to make sure you beat the opposition. They introduced 3 additonal new councillors last night to teh case, whom were not present or involved in the last vote on the 6th June. Goal posts are shifted. the assembly went from 16 voters, to 19 voters last night. The whole affair was eye opening last night. we expected tactics, but this was quite a breath taking display.
Sign In
