FEELINGS are running high in East Worldham over a controversial application which locals fear could pave the way for the development of a commercial airstrip along the proposed boundary of the new South Downs National Park.
It is a claim denied by the applicant, Ferris Whidborne, who says he has no intention of starting a flying club. But, he has warned local residents that, if the land canÕt be used as a runway then perhaps a housing development would be appropriate.
Nonetheless the application, for continued use of an existing but unauthorised grass airstrip and taxi-way and the conversion of disused agricultural buildings for use as hangers at ShelleyÕs Barn, has elicited fierce opposition.
Apart from potential noise pollution, one of the main concerns is that the site is crossed both by overhead power lines and two Hangers Way footpaths.
East Hampshire District CouncilÕs North planning committee has received some 41 letters of objection, among them representations from the CPRE, the Alton & District Ramblers Association, the BHS and the Open Spaces Society.
During the February meeting, case officer Keith Oliver drew attention to a report by Hampshire County CouncilÕs rights of way officer stating that pedestrians had right of way over aircraft. Any plane coming in to land would have to circle round if there were people on the footpaths.
ÒIn reality people would be unlikely to stand their ground if faced with an approaching aircraft,Ó he said.
With reference to the 11,000 volt overhead cables which run across the land, an agreement would have to be reached with the owner to have them put underground, said Mr Oliver, .
The views of local objectors were represented at the meeting by Keith Gordon who had served 30 years in the RAF and assured councillors that, from his experience, development of the airstrip would result in noise pollution due to increased aircraft movement and maintenance.
Mr Gordon also confirmed that to expect a pilot to go round again if faced with a walker on a footpath was not standard practice and would not be possible if the aircraft had an emergency. ÒThere is clear potential for confusion,Ó said Mr Gordon who believed that this would prove a Òsignificant deterrentÓ to walkers, and would be impossible to monitor during any trial period. There was also increased potential for accidents.
Speaking on behalf of Worldham Parish Council, Mary Trigwell-Jones reiterated concern that the proposed airfield would be of no benefit to the local community. The parish council, she said, had no objection to the landowner pursuing of his hobby but did object to the building of a commercial airfield so close to residential property.
Furthermore there was concern that the proposal would contravene a key purpose of the South Downs National Park in that the airfield would be no benefit to the village, or to the area.
In response, Mr Whidborne confirmed that he was not planning to start a flying club or similar commercial enterprise and he did not feel the airfield would cause the village any harm at all. Sandown airfield on the Isle of Wight had footpaths crossing it, he said, and it operated perfectly well.
Furthermore, operations would be restricted to no more than 30 take offs and landings in any one calendar month, with no more than five during any weekend or recognised public holiday. This would equate to around one flight a day, weather permitting, and would result in very little additional road traffic, he said.
While describing this as Òa contentious issueÓ and one which needed careful consideration, local councillor Minnette Palmer was supported in her request that the application be deferred for a site visit.