Ex-pilot tried to stop flights
A FORMER airline pilot and his wife were at the centre of complaints that nearly grounded flights at Kemble Airport, it has been revealed.
Last week, a High Court judge threw out a case to restrict flights at the airport, near Cirencester, following a legal battle between Cotswold District Council and Wiltshire Council that cost the taxpayer nearly £100,000.
-
Kemble Airport
The two authorities were at loggerheads over the granting of a Certificate of Lawfulness for general aviation.
It followed enforcement action by Cotswold District Council to try to restrict flying there.
The move followed complaints about flying activity from some people in the community, with former RAF and commercial airline pilot John Gurney and his wife Angela, of Kemble Wick, the most vociferous.
Mr Gurney – who retired from flying commercially in January 2004 – and his wife bought their Kemble Wick house in the area some 30 years ago and, since 2003, have amassed huge volumes of correspondence spread throughout numerous files at Cotswold District Council.
Throughout the two-day Judicial Review hearing last week, which was restarted after an adjournment of several months, the couple sat in court taking notes.
In his summing up, Justice King said the attempted initial enforcement by Cotswold District Council was "probably prompted by complaints about aircraft noise."
The couple declined to comment on the latest developments.
After the hearing, airport owner and chief executive Ronan Harvey said the decision to dismiss the action had safeguarded hundreds of jobs.
He was angry action had been taken against the airport based on complaints from a minority of local people.
"The attempts to suddenly restrict the airport's use follow a sustained and persistent campaign by a handful of local residents, who bought their houses in the community knowing full well they were close to an active airfield.
"The majority of people living around Kemble Airport see it as an asset to the community and have lived alongside it happily for many years."
15 Comments
View all
by M Grindrod, Stroud
Monday, August 03 2009, 10:39AM
“We should question CDC's judgement in taking the action in the first place. They were trying to use a legal loophole to persue an action on behalf of a minority of parishoners that, if successful, would have been damaging to the majority of parishoners (loss of jobs, damage to the local economy).”
by James, Cirencester
Thursday, July 02 2009, 9:15AM
“£100,000 cost to the taxpayer - try more like £300,000 at least. All because of one selfish couple who used our money to further their own aims and now we all have to pay the bill. We could have had weekly bin collections instead of a hearing, or better schools, an upgraded hospital perhaps. Not now! All that money wasted thanks to the Gurneys. Let's hope that their next tirade against a perfectly legal business is thrown out at the first step - not the last.”
by Sceptical, Cleeve
Wednesday, July 01 2009, 12:00AM
“I suspect that the prospect of getting a presumably cheaper house due to its proximity to the airfield was a major draw for these NIMBYS. "Oh and once we are installed in our country residence we will make sure those damn locals shut down their airfield and the house will rocket in value dear!"
I used to live near Silverstone and we had the same thing every year when the F1 came to visit. Strangely enough, F1 has been visiting since 1948 and most of the people complaining moved in...yep you guessed it, after 1948!”
by Ed, Cirencester
Tuesday, June 30 2009, 10:58PM
“£100,000... This airfield issue has been going on for ages. I think Cotswold District Council have entertained this for too long, years now. Either CDC was right or wrong no excuse for middle ground. Why so long to resolve. Are CDC really this inept to tell a local to go and poke it. The saying goes "you can't have smoke without fire" which makes me think the issue is wider and deeper than this article.
SOMEONE TELL WHERE MY COUNCIL TAX IS GOING”
by Richard, Cirencester
Tuesday, June 30 2009, 9:30PM
“I wonder if the Airport owners have the metal to share their future plans with the local community and confirm or deny the possiblilty of any Night Flying. I think the court ruling is good for the Airport and too bad for the village - unless you work at the Airport.”
by James, Local
Tuesday, June 30 2009, 9:14PM
“Uhmmm, do the Kemble locals other than those NIMBYs realize that such a court ruling could lead to such practices as Night Flying 5 nights a week. If that nonsense starts I am sure the local community will find their voices, but will it be too late?
I just hope the AIRPORT owners are more considerate.... time will tell.”
by Simon, Cumbria
Tuesday, June 30 2009, 6:26PM
“I believe that in the US there is a register so if someone complains about aircraft noise, it can be registered that a complaint has been made. Apparently, when it's been suggested to complainers that this would happen, they've decided that they are more worried about losing value on the house and drop their complaint. Isn't there something similar here in the UK, so the "noise problem" can be registered against the Gurney's house ?”
by Paul, Cheltenham
Tuesday, June 30 2009, 2:03PM
“I like your comment Bob, Glos about going to live in the Brecon Beacons for peace and quiet.
Apart from the RAF & US Air Force using it for low level flight training. (Planes so low that I could see the pilots face!)
and the army using it for training troops from Sennybridge training camp.”
by Bob, Glos
Tuesday, June 30 2009, 11:30AM
“Thank God the judge actually made the right decision for once.
And as for the former pilot who caused all this in the first place, what an idiot!
As said before, did he give a damn about all the people he annoyed when he was flying out of airports? I very much doubt it. Anyone who moves next to an airfield and then complains about the noise should be made to live in a tent in the middle of the Brecon Beacons, where they will have perfect peace and tranquility and can the let rest of us get on with living.”
by Mal, Local
Tuesday, June 30 2009, 8:57AM
“Why should the Taxpayers have to be penalised for the Status Quo being continued?
Let the losers pay. A case of putting their money ( not ours) where their mouths are.”