A. Its a relative's neighbour
B. It lands within the grounds of some big house's 'curtilage' SP? in planning speak.
C. Apparently he doesn't need planning for it?
D. It seriously pisses off many around it who are either disturbed by noise on takeoffs & landings (usually 1 each perday), have their houses and or land w sheep cows etc overflown at treetop height on ascents/descents.
Are they stuck with it? Seems harsh that one posh kid can annoy so many without a word?
Jim K
I never thought it might be a model :-)
Whether it is a planning issue depends upon whether there has been a change of use in the land. Building a concrete pad or a hangar probably would count as a change of use, but use as a helicopter pad incidental to the use of the land will not necessarily do so.
Colin Bignell
So you don't know then - why not just say that?
Jim K
Guidance for MP's as to the general position
Summary: Not within the curtiledge although definition is a matter for case law, and 28 days max per year
( Quote from PDF and so dodgy font
a.. Planning Helicopters and small aircraft may use temporary sites for landing and taking off
provided safety standards are observed. Such sites can include large back
gardens, hotel grounds, or open fields (provided the owner consents) or open
wasteland. Such sites do not need to be approved by the CAA: their safety for use is judged by the pilot.
Under Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (SI 1995/418), as amended, helicopters
and small aircraft are given permitted development rights to use temporary sites
for up to 28 days in a calendar year without the need to make a specific planning
application. The days can be consecutive and there is no restriction on the number
of movements. The temporary sites, however, must not be buildings or within the curtilage
of a building. Clearly there is scope for interpretation of what constitutes the 'curtilage
of a building' and this is a matter for case law. When introducing a Ten Minute Rule Bill to
amend the law relating to the control of helicopters, Kate Hoey MP said that no-one
was responsible for monitoring the ad-hoc use of helicopters and the 28-day rule
was easily breached.
michael adams
...
I don't know that "model" is the right word, exactly. The latest generation of small helicopters are not usually models in the accepted sense.
If the helicopter passes over houses, people, vessels or vehicles (animals don't count), is less than 500 feet from them (in any direction) and doing so is not strictly necessary as part of a normal taking off or landing, the pilot may be in breach of Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air. A complaint to the CAA will result in an investigation and, if upheld, a quite serious fine for the pilot.
Colin Bignell
I simply thought that built-up area was easier for most people to understand; apparently not. Congested area is not really defined, as it can depend upon what you are flying and whether it can land clear of the area if an engine fails.
Colin Bignell
I reckon noise levels seem to be reducing too. But I put that down to the cr*p state of my lugholes!
Nick
(usually 1 each perday), have their houses and or land w sheep cows etc overflown at treetop height on ascents/descents.
It can't be as bad as the motorbikes that roar past here day and night. I'd rather have two helicopter flights than all the motorbikes.
Bill
/Guidance for MP's as to the general position
Summary: Not within the curtiledge although definition is a matter for case law, and 28 days max per year/q
Mmm so if it *is* within the curtilage?
Jim K
Did you not the read document I provided the link to ?
...
'investigate is:
The Head of Aviation Regulation Enforcement and Investigation Branch
CAA House, 45-59 Kingsway
London
WC2B 6TE
A written answer from 1998 provided details of the action taken by the CAA,
[...] if there appears to be a breach of aviation legislation, steps are taken to identify the machine and the pilot responsible and to ascertain if there are any exemptions or permissions in issue which would accountfor the observed activity. If it then appears that the flight was in breach of the rules and also that there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining sufficient evidence suitable for presentation to a court, a full criminal
investigation is carried out and evidence is taken by a CAA Investigation Officer in accordance with the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984.
Accumulating the necessary evidence shouldn't be too difficult. If matey is creating such a racket that he's disturbing a number of neighbours then they can all keep diaries or logs of the disturbance.
Plus video footage of the helicoptor, both parked and in the air would help.
Presumably were matey found guilty then he might then render himself liable for damages for any noise nuisance resulting from his illegal activity.
While in principle this is what should happen, its possible that the CAA might drag their feet, owing to a lack of percieved public concern for those unfortunate enough to live next door to people rich enough to fly helicopters from their back gardens.
michael adams
...
The CAA do not accept complaints from single households.
The military routinely deny they had any aircraft in the area anyway.
I once saw the Greater Manchester Police helicopter hovering above my street in the middle of the night with no lights or strobes whatsoever showing. I considered reporting it to the CAA, but from what you are saying I would have wasted my breath.
I imagine the AAIB do.
Pretty much. A Police Operator's Licence gives a great deal of freedom to fly where and how other people cannot. OTOH that also means there is very little chance of meeting anybody else in some of the places they fly.
Colin Bignell
Become a radio ham, and get all the other people in the area to do the same, then all erect 200 foot tall towers with nice long guy wires and an aerial and little red light at the top.
When I complained about a bloke looping the loop just above my house every Sunday afternoon they f***ed me off totally. Luckily he crashed and killed himself shortly afterwards.
Bill
Black magic DOES work..
If they are 200 feet high, they won't normally need the red light. The Air Navigation Order only requires lights on en-route obstacles of 150 metres of more in height, unless near a licensed aerodrome.
Colin Bignell
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.