Dave 'Birdman' Howells
(Request for Help Page).

I am sure many of you will be aware that I have acted for Hanley airstrip as the public relations 'top gun' via the old website managed by 'Hurricane' Wallis. I was responsible for organising the Hanley (William) Fighting Fund and I still act as Treasurer to the fund;- the advantage being my wife works for Barclays! At regular intervals over the last two years of hardship for Hanley, I have issued updates to the old website. I am pleased to participate in this new website. I know that Geoff and Angie (in true style) have injected a tremendous amount of work into this their first website. Not bad for beginners!

By now you will be aware from the general content of the website that, sadly, the result of a long and costly appeal was that the airstrip and maintenance unit were turned down. This, as you can imagine came as a major body blow to all concerned. Geoff and Angela have still not come to terms with a decision which may have cost them their farm. I'm sure you have read the website pages 'The Hanley Airstrip Story' from which you will have realised the wider implications involved for sport aviation as a result of the unprecedented decision regarding noise. Geoff and Angie were unable to contest the decision in the High Court as the costs were estimated at a further £80,000! A way forward is to write to our M.P.'s requesting intervention to enable the House of Lords to evoke a Judicial Inquiry. In any event, responses from M.P.s so far to letters of complaint from pilots is at least encouraging, in as much as the Planning Policy Guidance is to be reviewed. Conversely, response letters received from the Inspectorate simply make every endeavour to cover their back. I can find no evidence of any inherent sense of justice. Perhaps it is time specialised matters (such as aviation) were decided by a panel of Inspectors instead of one individual? I hope to gain your support to write to your M.P. and/or the Inspectorate (address later) to help correct a grave injustice. For the sake of General Aviation, WE MUST ALL CHALLENGE THIS DECISION, AS SITTING ON THE FENCE IS NO LONGER AN OPTION FOR THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT THEIR RECREATIONAL FUTURE.

Although 'The Hanley Airstrip Story' has covered events thoroughly, I set out below a thumbnail appraisal of the issues that were so damaging to Hanley and GA. I have also attached copy of a genuine letter dispatched to the Inspectorate, with the writers details removed to protect their privacy. While it is not intended the letter be copied, it may provide a 'backbone' for your own letter. I hope my efforts constructively assist you. The major issues were:-

a. Noise.
b. Footpath proximity.
c. The need to diversify through aviation.
d. Environmental issues.

Noise:- Both parties carried out an in depth noise survey, this was carried out with detection equipment in all the sensitive areas and on the proposed flightpaths. The data was then fed into a computer programme commonly used for this type of investigation. The resultant noise map is used to determine the level of noise at any location in the surrounding area. Other data generated, was the background noise level over one week, the maximum noise at the sensitive areas and the sixteen-hour average (L Aeq 16 hour, this average of noise has been the figure used since 1990).

Planning Guidance Notes on airfield development state that if less than 30 movements a day occur, then the sixteen hour average noise figure should not be used solely. The expert witnesses agreed that a combination of the sixteen hour average, and maximum noise level should be used, but THE INSPECTOR IGNORED IT choosing instead to use the maximum noise level only. There is no question that since 1990 no other appeal has ever used just L Amax.

Footpaths:- At no point at Hanley William does a footpath cross the runway, there are however footpaths at either end of the strip. We all know of footpaths actually crossing runways up and down the country YET THIS INSPECTOR FELT THAT WALKERS MIGHT BE UNDULY ALARMED BY THE SUDDEN SIGHT OF AIRCRAFT AND THAT NOISE MAY DAMAGE THEIR HEARING. This is categorically against the local footpath officers views.

Diversification:- Everyday we see on the television the difficulties that farmers are facing. The Bunyans supplied the Inquiry with five years of accounts and stated that diversification through the strip was a practical proposition. The Inspector heard that previous owners had also tried to diversify - through an off road driving school, and holiday chalets, - both were turned down, one at appeal. DESPITE THIS THE INSPECTOR BECAME A FARMING EXPERT AND REGARDED THE FARM AS A GOING CONCERN. It was clear from the vein of the report the Inspector did not properly understand farming issues or diversification. In my view he was not qualified to decide farming matters.

Environmental Issues:- The main environmental issue was the effect on the local Buzzard population. Even though the opposition expert witness agreed that the Buzzard population had increased during the period the strip had been in existence THE INSPECTOR MADE COMMENT THAT THE BUZZARD POPULATION COULD BE AFFECTED BY THE AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY.

General:- What we should all be aware of is that the above decision will now be used as a new precedent for small airfield appeals. Not only that, but if a local council wanted to close down YOUR strip or airfield they need only refer to the fact that it does not exceed 30 movements every day, thereby moving the noise goalposts. The effect on light aviation will be to lose another site. Remember, only one week after our decision we became aware of another site that was going to appeal. The operator had come to an amicable agreement with the council regarding noise, based on the usual approach (L Aeq 16 hour). The council had agreed in writing. Despite this, Hanleys decision caused the authority to revoke the agreement requesting maximum noise level readings because there would not be more than 30 flights per day every day.

I am sorry to still be pestering! However, aviation needs our efforts. Example letter follows:-

The Complaints Officer,
The Planning Inspectorate,
Room 1404,
Tollgate House, Houlton St.,
Bristol. BS2 9DJ.

Re: The Hanley William Farm Strip Appeal.

Dear Sir,
I am writing to you to express my disappointment that the appeal for Hanley William Farm Strip has been dismissed. It seems to me that this is largely due to an Inspector who held expert opinion from all parties in contempt and appeared to know better on every level. Is this legal? Does it have any basis in law?

By what authority is he able to over rule the experts. He has done so on the matter of noise thereby making a mockery of that science. He has done so on the matter of footpaths, overruling the statements of the footpath officer! He has done so on the matter of ornithology. He even questions the effectiveness of PPR.

To cap it all, he questions the statements of other 'professionals' when disregarding the audited accounts supplied by accountants and saying the farm is a going concern. Does this extraordinary arrogance know no bounds?

I am totally appalled by the complete disrespect given to expert opinions in this case. Your Inspector has made a mockery of the appeal process. Rest assured that I shall be talking with others about this unless I hear some very good reasons from yourselves as to why this behaviour should not be made more public. It is a farce.

Yours faithfully, M. R.

Hanley (William) Fighting Fund

Although I know Geoff and Angie have directly thanked those who sent donations, (84 out of 2200 contacted) I would also like to add my personal thanks. I have handed over a cheque for £1600 to Geoff and Angela, to try to offset the £50,000 they have already paid out. All donations truly are gratefully received. If you can help please, cheques should be made payable to 'The Hanley (William) Fighting Fund' and posted to Geoff and Angie. See index page for address details.

Best regards to you all,
David Howell.

Please: Set printer layout as 'Fit to Page'.