Peter MillsThe nose of XL164 is still for sale.
Someone made an offer last year then withdrew it.
It is just about empty inside.
It was used recently by a someone for filming and we have others looking at using it. So at the moment it’s generating revenue!
There is no great pressure to sell it, a number of people have expressed interest in it. I believe that Peter Vallance had been offered the contents a few years ago, so the panels etc to refit it do exist.
Peter MillsThe “Faygate” yard (once used by Aerospace Logistics) has long gone, it has a new house on the site.
Aerospace Logistics have a newish facility on the nearby Crawley industrial estate. The Charlwood site is likely to be cleared soon, I believe that planning permission for about 12 houses has finally been approved for the whole site.
Jaguar XX121 is supposed to be heading for GAM “any day now”.
Peter MillsThe “Faygate” yard (once used by Aerospace Logistics) has long gone, it has a new house on the site.
Aerospace Logistics have a newish facility on the nearby Crawley industrial estate. The Charlwood site is likely to be cleared soon, I believe that planning permission for about 12 houses has finally been approved for the whole site.
Jaguar XX121 is supposed to be heading for GAM “any day now”.
Peter MillsThe original fit of Rad Alt on all Shacks was Rad Alt Mk5.
This had an indicator, height selector and the three “traffic” lights to indicate postiton relative to the selected height. (These can clearly be seen on the panel, lower right) Having been the “Rad Alt 5” expert for a while at St.M I can tell you that it was inaccurate and very unreliable! A number of new fits were tried, some retaining the traffic lights, the MKIII finally had the superb Honeywell version that went on to be fitted in a number of airframes. (The Nimrod had a dual fit). It was so accurate that you could see the difference when the aircraft was jacked up.
Peter MillsThe MKIII has a different Rad Alt, hence the controller is only on the MKII.
The two instruments on the right of the panel are the Rad Alt indicator and the Zero Reader controller.
On the MKIII the Rad Alt indicator is a square unit with the limit control as a part of the indicator. It has a small white triangle that is moved around to the limit desired.
The other instrument is the Zero Reader controller. This is fitted to the MKIII but is located on the top coaming on the co-pilots side.
Peter MillsSounds like the Provost is WW442 that now resides at Gatwick Aviation Museum, the airframe came from a “Swan” pub in the Hemel area.
http://www.gatwick-aviation-museum.co.uk/provost/provost.html
Peter MillsThe Shackleton at Duxfurd has long been a thorn in their side. Some years ago we at GAM had a visit from a couple of volunteers who were trying to give her some attention, They had no budget and were only reluctantly given the keys. Almost all of the interior units had been removed and they spent quite a while making notes about what went where. The location of the removed items was, at that time, said to be “unknown”.
XF708 is the only MKIII in original condition, i.e. never been broken down for transport, it flew there almost directly from 203 squadron. Duxford has always been viewed with some suspicion by us, dealing with such organisations “behind the scenes” is often a very different propsition to that seen by a visitor.
Sadly BAPC is a talking shop. It’s started that way and has hardly progressed. It should be so much more, but somehow cannot seem to get past it’s sloth like attitude. The best that can be said is that it probably doesn’t do much harm.
Now I have an admission that hurts! I agree with a certain amount of what Chox says. Bu**er that hurt! Shiny halls with roped of exhibits may have their place. But there is no substitute for seeing the face of a young lad or lass as they are allowed to touch cold metal or see the inside of a aircraft.
There is no doubt that we all need to get more professional about the way museums are run, this does not mean that the overheads must increase. There are many ex business professionals who can provide help and guidence free of charge. I count myself as one. The scarcity of funds will dictate that we will need to be very clever with whatever money we spend. In many businesses the biggest overhead is salaries, this clearly translates across to the large public institutions, even museums. Perhaps the concept of “volunteers” needs to be revised to include finance and management not just the engineering sector.
Recent history is not generally seen as history, this is the danger that 20th century aircaft face. By the time the value of these is recognised by the public at large it may be too late.
Peter MillsCouncil votes 12 to 7 against
As the title says the planning application was refused by 12 to 7.
We can say that the councillors who supported and spoke in favour should be praised for their courage in the face of the abuse and disrespect shown by the refusal lobby.
For now there will be a period of time to assess the situation.
The immediate action will probably be an appeal.
However there are other possible actions, these have to be considered in the light of the decision. No more comment will be made about other actions until there are definite decisions.
A disapointing result but not totally unexpected. Over the next few days some of the untrue statements made will be exposed. In particular the planning dept has some serious questions to answer.
Peter MillsGatwick Aviation Museum says Thanks…
I’d just like to say a big thank you again for all of the support shown here, it is very much appreciated.
In about 6 hours we will know the decision, personally I will be making a 3 minute address to the council, mostly written by our planning consultant. The “other” side will be represented by the clerk of Charlwood Parish Council (who incidently is also Vice-chairman of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign). Never quite understood that one, but……
So thanks again, we believe we’ve done what we can and it’s now in the hands of the Mole Valley Councillors, bless ’em!
Peter MillsShorty01
We haven’t been down that route for a number of reasons.
Just to correct AMB, we have a good relationship with GAL, to the extent that when we were offered a Nimrod they in turn offered to allow it land and park on the the south side for 3 months for free while we dismantled it. That was sadly found to impractical, as it meant then moving the dismantled bits by road. The roads are not suitable for that. Not such a naive suggestion, direct access across the field is hampered by 16m high noise abatement banks, plus GAL are adamant that they could not breach the security fence, not even for a short time. Quite understandable.
Dr J.S.
Light aircraft had stbd wing outer section damaged plus a number of other “dings” One museum airframe had a couple of paint scrapes. About all I’m prepared to say at this time.
Once again thanks to those who have taken the time and trouble to mail or write to the Mole Valley council, we are highly appreciative.
Peter MillsIt’s not necessarily an automatic response, but is a likely consequence of the failed application. Interestingly, that very question was asked by the plannng committee chairwoman of the chief planning officer. His response was it wasn’t necessarily the case. We were warned of the possiblity by a solicitor when he saw the outcome of the first planning meeting.
Peter MillsThanks TO23 (Howard) for all of your input, as always drawing on some elses knowledge and experience is very valuable. Yes we did specifically address the councillors on the planning committee. A couple of them made their own site visits and as a consequence seemed able to understand the whole picture and not get bogged down in how many trees would have to be removed. In fact they spoke a lot of sense at the meeting without showing any obvious bias.
Thanks again.
Peter MillsAlder Tag,
After a previous failed attempt to get permission it went to public enquiry. To cut a long story short, an enforcement notice was made on the owner to remove them from the site. Although the council did not enforce the notice. This was because of pressure from many sources modified their stance and they acted reasonably and allowed the owner to make strenuous efforts to find alternative locations for the aircraft/museum. He has been trying for nearly 20 years and has had a number of planning applications turned down, including one at Shoreham airport. I’m not sure how many sites have been approached somewhere in the region of 20. If the order is enforced and he does not comply he can be fined £10,000 per day. Clearly no-one can afford this. The cheapest alternative is to crush/break them. Moving is always touted as an alternative, that may work for the smaller airframes, still expensive, but the big ones, no chance. The original post did make the point about some airframes.
Even Duxford can’t get anyone to take their MKIII Shack, they’ve been trying since late last year. It’s just too expensive to dismantle and transport. That may well end up as saucepans.
So that’s how the council has a say in what happens, if they enforce the notice.
Peter MillsYes, Thank you Bruce. I am well aware of what I am saying, but I do appreciate the warning. The Blog was intended to be a lighterhearted look at the offbeat side of the issue.
I am currently writing a report about my findings (with some recommendations) about local government constitution and operation. Hence my very close interest in the way in which this application is being dealt with. I intend to send it to the relevant government department for consideration.
I recently wrote to the three local councillors that serve my ward, only one replied. Just one small example of the way in which representation is actually working (not) in the current system.
Peter MillsThanks for the support shown here.
It all started about 18 months ago when Peter Vallance was told by the Development Control Officer that “there was a wind of change in the council” and that a planning application would most likely to be looked on favourably. Up to this point he had not considered taking such action. An experienced consultant was engaged, one with a lot of experience of “green belt” planning. It may be worth saying at this point that when the land was purchased it was NOT in the green belt, only 8 years later did the council extend the belt to include the land. In Feb this year the planning app was presented, approx 75 documents including just about every survey you could imagine. We were pleased to see that there was no need to rehome any “great crested newts”, we don’t have any! Just to lodge the application with the council cost almost £20,000. Total costs to date are little over £80,000.
Locally there are a number of pressure groups, oddly they all have the same address! They use misinformation and FUD to drum up local and not-so-local opposition. The planning dept don’t help by biasing the report against the application, facts are sadly not admissible apparently. Unlike previous occasions’, a couple of councillors kept away from the bias and rhetoric and actually introduced some sense. It was their insistence on a site visit that made them defer the decision until this had been completed. There are inevitably a number of long standing council members who are opposed no matter what the facts are.
So, we are not out yet, just feels like the water is at chin level!
There is no doubt that over the years Peter V has “ruffled a few feathers” and there’s a lot of personal animosity. Just a little insight to local events. A cafe in the village supports the application and the owner has started a petition for her customers to sign. The clerk of the Parish council and a objector, saw the petition and asked her to give him the names of those who had signed in support. Needless to say she refused, but did invite him to sign. He declined.
It has been suggested that all of this may have been orchestrated by the council to bring this whole matter to a conclusion without them having to use the enforcement order without first having tried to resolve it. Seems a little far fetched. We know that there are councillors who can see the benefits of replacing eight old, dirty, dilapidated chicken sheds with an environmentally sound new building, they even understand that the building have legal right to exist in the “green belt”. They also understand that the proposal is to replace these. Not add to the site. But, boy is that difficult to get through to some people. I just hope that the decision will be based in the merits of this application without all of the previous baggage clouding the issue. A forlorn hope I’m sad to say. It has, for me, highlighted the constitution and running of local councils.
You will have seen my colleague Miltons input(s) by now, he’s correct in what he says.
The major points raised by the objectors is the “development in the green belt”. This is not development but replacement, the so-called Charlwood gap is actually increased and so on.
Anyway, apologies for the length of this little rantett, obviously you can see that we are passionate about preserving our airframes, not just for ourselves but for all, not just now, but for generations to come.
So, any emails/letters that you write in support will be appreciated, perhaps more than we can express. I know that since I started this a number of comments have been made. We/I will try to address these, ideally using fewer words!
Sign In
