URGENT HELP REQUIRED

[bentwaters81tfw]

As many of you may be aware, since Bentwaters closed in 1993, there has been a small aircraft presence on the base. We still have most of the infrastructure in place, including 6000 feet of runway in excellent condition.

Carolyn Grace keeps her Spitfire there, and also a Yak, 2 Pitts Specials, a Tempest V and 3 others.

Unfortunately we have a loud mouthed woman protestor who prevented the airfield being used for commercial flying. Carolyn has planning permission to fly the Spitfire, but has applied for permission to fly other types, and to attract income to support the operation of ML 407.

http://www.ml407.co.uk/

Said loud mouthed woman has set up a protest group to drum up support to have the planning permission refused. http://www.bentwaterscampaigngroup.org/

You will note there is a link direct to the local Planning Department.

Please use this link to write in support of Carolyn and her application. There is also the possibility of the occasional airshow being staged, but only if the Application succeeds. We don't need to lose another facility to a busybody with no interest in avaiation except to swan off to the Riviera on holiday.

Many of you will know the history of ML 407 and the efforts Carolyn made to keep this a/c flying. We don't want to lose her to another airfield.

As a point of interest, the protest group show a photograph of Bentwaters saying how much like an airport it is. This is deliberately misleading as the runway has been shortened, leaving only the 6000 foot tarmac strip. That is an historical photo over 20 years old, and the place does not resemble that now, much of the technical site is given over to industry and business, but the hangars and buildings are intact.

Please help, and spread the word. The more e-mails and letters of support we get, the better our chances. This woman already stopped the annual single aircraft flypast at Martlesham Heath museum

Thank you all in advance.

[Truro Model Builder]

I find these people remarkable, I really do. How long ago were there, what, forty or fifty A-10s based at Bentwaters and Woodbridge?

I will be writing in support of the application.

[bentwaters81tfw]

The F-4 wing was 72 strong, the A-10 package was 6 full squadrons, plus the 67th ARRS and the Aggressors with F16's

Would she rather hear a Spitfire, or MiG's ?

[stevej60]

Go on bulldoze the lot,stick a thousand homes on it with all the attendant traffic,noise etc,she,ll soon wish the whole B****y U S air force was back!

[Radpoe Spitfire]

My Support for Carolyn sent, it never ceases to amaze me how narrow minded people move into an area & complain about what has been there for years.

Our Church had to stop the clock chiming after 11:00 after someone moved nearby and complained it kept him awake at night.

Sad lives they lead.

[bentwaters81tfw]

They wanted to do that. The MOD would not agree sale until Russian elections were favourable, then told the developers not to rip up the original runway as there were 'buried demolition charges ' beneath it.

In effect, it could be re activated with comparatively little work.

'

[Truro Model Builder]

Done. I will be copying it to the planning applicants.

"Dear Sirs

It has been brought to my attention that there is a planning application regarding the amount of aviation activity at the former RAF Bentwaters airfield. My understanding is that eight aircraft are to be based there rather than the one currently in residence, with associated maintenance activities. In addition 960 aircraft movements per year and the possibility of an annual airshow are included in the application.

I wish to state my support for this application. I have no connection at all with any of the applicants or businesses that may be involved, or Bentwaters Park in general. My attention has been drawn to the application by the activities of the Bentwaters Campaign Group, who are opposing the application using what seems to be a great deal of rhetoric out of all proportion to the proposals. I feel that the organisers of the campaign could not have lived in the area prior to the closure of Bentwaters as an active military airfield, as the projected increase in activity is nothing compared to the daily flight activities of the United States Air Force who were in residence at that time. I believe also that some of the information on their website could be seen as misleading.

Furthermore, Bentwaters is in an area that already sees a great deal of aerial activity. I note that there are three active military airfields (two of which house fast jets) and a number of general aviation airfields within a reasonable radius, as well as one commercial airport. 960 annual movements at Bentwaters, which equates to less than three a day, cannot be considered a substantial increase when put alongside that activity. However, such an increase would surely bring an increase in employment, and in these days when the country is attempting to claw its way out of recession, that surely can only be a good thing.

I note that the increase in tourism is given as a reason not to grant this application. I live in an area that is heavily dependent on tourism, has areas protected from development and is home to a commercial airport, four general aviation airfields and a busy Royal Naval Air Station. Aside from a handful of people who feel noise of any kind, be it church bells, farmyards or playgrounds is an affront to civilisation, or aviation enthusiasts who are particularly attuned to it, aircraft noise is barely noticed. As I write I am looking out on a busy pedestrianised high street. A light aircraft trailing a banner in support of a political party has just flown over the town at minimum altitude over the town and, quite frankly, nobody is paying it any attention at all. There is more reason to object to some of the buskers who 'entertain' the shoppers.

We live in the twenty-first century, on an island with a population of over 60 million. It is impossible to go about our daily lives without affecting others, and while we all have a responsibility to limit the effect we have on other people, to demand that our little bit of the island is isolated from the rest of it is unrealistic and selfish.

Yours sincerely..."

[redcap]

I wish Carolyn Grace and all the others who have aviation connections to this airfield every success. That said however and if the 'usual suspects' and NIMBYs who spend their entire lives interfering and telling others what they can and cannot do are successful, then I hope these small minded individuals come to rue their inward looking attitudes. With luck, the engine noise they hear from their living rooms or patios is not that of a single Merlin on occasional days, but rather, those made by hundreds of Fodens, Leyland Daf and Volvo thundering past daily or better still, the resultant noise and disruption when they concrete the lot and turn it into another annonymous urban sprawl.

More poetic still and in the current climate, Bentwaters may make for an ideal deportation or immigrant holding centre? Now THAT would really give her and her cohort of busybodies something to moan about!

Gary

Edited June 30, 2014 by redcap

[Truro Model Builder]

Maybe they could try a house swap for a week with somebody who lives in Hounslow or Cranford. Then say they have a problem with aircraft noise.

[LeVi Tophatter]

I live within 40 meters of a busy dual carriageway. All those motorists are so annoying, I'm going to campaign to close the the road down... Beyond self centred, it's almost arrogant ignorance.

Maybe they could try a house swap for a week with somebody who lives in Hounslow or Cranford. Then say they have a problem with aircraft noise.

My late Gran lived on Spring Grove Road (Hounslow), right underneath the path of the landing airliners. You get used to it quite quickly, especially with double glazing. The Concorde was loud though, but so beautiful it didn't matter...

I suggest this self centred 'activist' Lady takes up a hobby...

[Roland Pulfrew]

I will be writing in support of the planning application. I think the protestor is confusing some light aircraft/warbird flying with a commercial airport a la Luton, Stanstead or Gatwick! Given that a well established airport like Manston is struggling I cannot see somewhere as remote as Bentwaters doing any better, particularly as Stanstead is just up the road. I did have a quick look at the protests site's forums, seems lots of people support the site - what with one post total and that is of a picture, of the beach!

[pte1643]

Maybe they could try a house swap for a week with somebody who lives in Hounslow or Cranford. Then say they have a problem with aircraft noise.

I used to live in Isleworth/Hounslow... If you draw a line (3 miles long) on Google earth directly from the end of 27L the line goes straight over the top of my old house.

After living there for 20 yrs, you really don't notice the noise after a while.

We used to spot incoming aircraft numbers from the back garden without a need for binoculars.

My late Gran lived on Spring Grove Road (Hounslow), right underneath the path of the landing airliners.

Spring Grove Road... I know it well. Even went to the Poly' next to the Fire Station at the Isleworth end.

[pte1643]

Go on bulldoze the lot,stick a thousand homes on it with all the attendant traffic,noise etc,she,ll soon wish the whole B****y U S air force was back!

Better still... Turn it into an official Pikey, sorry, Traveller site... See how she likes that.

[Jinxman]

Email sent and support noted..

[robvulcan]

Who ever this woman is shes made me very angry. She represents everything about the control freak, paranoiac, self centred, nanny state, protectionist culture I truly hate.

People who know nothing of what they speak ignorant misinformed people with an ego. Usually well educated but not intelligent by any means and totally dangerous.

The kind of people who would ban butter knives, ban floor polish, ban everything including common sense in favour of a bland silent world were nothing ever happens nothing exciting no risk in sight... well you might as well be dead if that is your out look.

I will be writing in support of Carolyn and I hope they have an airshow there with the Vulcan the shut this mare up.

I hear Cosford Airshow has to be tamed down because an old woman who lives there has complained about the noise. Simple solution to me would be well don't like it then don't live near an airfield idiot.

Oh man these people get my goat....

[goggsy]

There's some nice pictures of the planes on her site though....

[goggsy]

This is what I sent:

Dear Sir

I'm writing to you to express my support for the above application to expand the aviation activity at the former RAF Bentwaters site as per the reference number cited above. My interest in this issue is thus; although I am not a local resident I am a frequent visitor to the area and am drawn to spend my tourist pounds there largely on the strength of its aviation heritage. I have no connection to either the applicants or objectors.

It is certainly true to say that this is an area of great natural charm and beauty and no one would wish a harsh environmental impact upon the site and its attendant flora and fauna; however, given the limited nature of the activity on the application it is hard to understand how objectors could view this as strongly detrimental. Perhaps they would prefer a housing estate to be built, or perhaps a road transport hub?

Former airfields have a variety of potential uses and from a planning perspective there are interesting parallels to be drawn to a case in my local area in which a large logistics company has repeatedly applied for permission to develop Carlisle Airport as a passenger and mixed air/road freight terminal. Their applications have been successfully blocked several times in a high profile campaign by local residents who argue that the plan to develop the airport is nothing more than a smokescreen for the development of a huge road transport depot in the middle of a peaceful rural area. In contrast to the situation in your area, people are supportive of the aviation element of the plan but are concerned about the road transport implications. Of course none of this applies to your situation other than to place it into a bit of context; given the choice of living next to half a dozen elderly aeroplanes or having juggenauts thundering past your door 24/7, what would most people choose? I also note that the website of the main objectors to the plan seems to cite recovery of the concrete runway for hardcore as being acceptable; perhaps they believe this would be a quiet and low impact operation?

Of the many hundreds of airfields that were built during the last war in East Anglia comparatively few have any link to aviation today. On a purely emotional level, does it not seem right and proper that this site that has seen the operation of aircraft for generations should continue to do so, especially given the limited nature of the plan submitted?

Yours sincerely

Edited May 18, 2014 by goggsy

[blikkey]

Email sent

[gruffy]

My Support for Carolyn sent, it never ceases to amaze me how narrow minded people move into an area & complain about what has been there for years.

Our Church had to stop the clock chiming after 11:00 after someone moved nearby and complained it kept him awake at night.

Sad lives they lead.

I knew someone who had a rural cottage ( eg the profesional london type who has a rural fantasy ie logs fires,organic food everyday!) but moaned that nearby cows were led to milking at 5:30am every morning. However, the farmer was also a justice of the peace so he soon quashed her moaning and legal action.

[PhoenixII]

Sent!

[Toe]

I used to bike to there from Ipswich when I was at school (must be around 10 miles?) to view the goings on from the car park to the north end I think it was... Used to hear the A-10's buzzing about, even our next door neighbour was an American Serviceman so you can imagine the money the US Airforce brought into the region and any increase in activity in the area will bring more prosperity.

It's all a load of crap about loosing tourism, there are dozens of flights over the area as it is and small aerobatic maneuvers isn't going to make any difference, I'm sure these types of people only do it because they haven't anything else to do, myself, friends and family have been around this area for decades and there wasn't a single objection to RAF Woodbridge or Bentwaters and it's activities, in fact my cousin met a serviceman from one of them, married, had 2 children and now live in Kansas!

[bentwaters81tfw]

My letter.

Planning Application C10/3239

18.5.14.

Dear Sir,

I am writing in respect of the above application to vary the numbers of aircraft and flights from Bentwaters Parks Ltd and Carolyn Grace.

I am broadly in support of the application, and believe that the benefits outweigh any detriment by a large proportion.

Bentwaters supports a sizeable contribution to local employment through diversity, and it's former primary function was directly aviation related. The use of Buildings 668 and 669 are historically directly aviation related, being two of the four shelters used by USAF aircraft standing Nuclear Alert. As such, these buildings were fully equiped to store, handle and maintain aircraft at a high state of alert in an environment of security and secrecy. These buildings would be equipped with all the necessary support and environmental facilities required for such an activity. It is difficult to imagine any buildings anywhere in the world better suited to storing and maintaining operational aircraft.

The aircraft in question have considerable historical significance, both the Bentwaters and the Nation. Spitfires flew from the Base in defence of the Realm, indeed ML 407 took first blood in the air on D-Day, and the Piper Cubs have a military lineage, being flown by British and American pilots over Europe in support of gound troops. If we did not have these aircraft, and those that follwed them in our skies, would could well be speaking German or Russian!

Aircraft, by their very nature, need to be based on an Airfield, and the number of Licensed airfields are diminishing; only last week we lost Manston Airport. With the Government's expansion programme for large commercial airfields, the small aircraft become displaced into fewer and fewer facilities.

It is not proposed to apply for any sort of commercial aviation activity at Bentwaters, merely to operate a handful of aircraft for display purposes around the country on selected weekends throughout the summer display season. The figures quoted for these 8 aircraft relate to an average of less than 3 flights per day. Hardly a massive impact on the environment in any shape or form.

The mention of possible future air displays at the Airfield would only aid tourism and the associated spending, therefore boosting the economy. This can only be seen as a good thing. Any form of organised activity causes disruption to some, even if only on a temporary basis. It's called life.

Visiting flights from aircraft in relation to other business intersts on the Airfield are incidental to this application, and as they have taken place on an ad-hoc basis over the past few years, and I understand no complaints have been lodged in respect of any flying at the airfield since it recommenced following the sale of the land by the MoD. It should also be noted under CAA regulation, any suitable runway may be used by any aircraft in an emergency situation, so an unplanned landing could occur at anytime, especially as we live beneath a commercial airway!

I do not have any connection to either the applicant, nor any compaign or pressure group, but have lived under the relevant local flight paths for the past 62 years, and I am familiar with all manner of aircraft 'noise'.

This matter was brought to my attention by the existance of a 'pressure group' website. I believe the driving force behind said website is making a concerted effort to provide 'misinformation'. It contains an outdated photograph of the airfield prior to the removal and recovery of the concrete taxiways and runway extentions, and makes out the airfield looks like a modern airport.

She also provides images of aircraft which will presumably appear at 'future airshows' I somehow doubt that single seat , aircraft on the American, German and New Zealand register will be making trips all the way to Bentwaters.

Perhaps the pressure group aught to be reminded that without the Aircraft proposed in the application, they might not enjoy the freedom to protest against their future existance and operation.

Incidentally, an airworthy Spitfire on the open market would set you back about £2 Million. The applicants have already put in a very substantial investment into these important historic airframes for the enjoyment and education of future generations.

I am certain Suffolk Coastal District Council will see the merit in granting this application.

Yours faithfully

[Pagey]

I sent an email (which you have to thank the protest group for providing us with the details to support the Grace Spitfire - that was nice of them) Don't know if it will make a difference as any decision will not affect me personnally as I live in Cambridgeshire, but, every little helps.

[Miggers]

I knew someone who had a rural cottage ( eg the profesional london type who has a rural fantasy ie logs fires,organic food everyday!) but moaned that nearby cows were led to milking at 5:30am every morning. However, the farmer was also a justice of the peace so he soon quashed her moaning and legal action.

I have shooting permission on a 600 acre local farm.

When I asked Julie(the farmer's Mrs)if there were any complaints about shooting noises,

she replied that she didn't care if there were,she'd just ignore them.

Good on the farmer,it's a damn shame there were'nt more of them who're JP's.

[gruffy]

I have shooting permission on a 600 acre local farm.

When I asked Julie(the farmer's Mrs)if there were any complaints about shooting noises,

she replied that she didn't care if there were,she'd just ignore them.

Good on the farmer,it's a damn shame there were'nt more of them who're JP's.

Tough people those farmers! I actually got on better with the farmer and his wife. The farmers/jp's wife is one of those ladies who can go for a posh lunch but later gut a whole deer! (And is a crack shot with a rifle! Yipes!)