172driver wrote:
Sure, but not for houses. You’re going to able to count the time from completion of the housing project to the first noise complaint in minutes.
Complaints from actual noise (or perceived), I understand that and GA has to do something about it (e.g. reduced ops, circuit design….)
For the environment argument, it is like shooting yourself in the foot, between a tarmac runway + some green around + open space versus full package of housing around, I will rather go for the former…
I bet you Biggin Hill is behind this, just like they did all they could to block anything at Redhill. The big bizjets could never land at Redhill or Rochester but the PC12s can land on 500m tarmac. They can also land on grass but both the grass and the plane will eventually get very dirty, especially if it is wet.
Dog eat dog, in GA.
Does Rochester have ATC?
I’d say a fair bet would be: both.
What was Rochester’s plans with this tarmac runway. PC12 ops or just more of the same just not grounded when its waterlogged?
This is all true, but if an airfield has a full planning permission, complaints are not worth a great deal.
It is all the strips which are running on the 28 day rule that are extremely vulnerable to complaints, during the first 10 years, and in most cases for ever afterwards because they don’t want to rock the boat by applying for the statement of lawful use.
A planning permission is a “permission” for the specified activity, at the specified level, and is permanent 
It it wasn’t like that, nobody would build a house.
172driver wrote:
Sure, but not for houses. You’re going to able to count the time from completion of the housing project to the first noise complaint in minutes.
And then the first petitions for reductions in movements/times of movements within a day. Houses on an airfield is a terrible idea, unless they are deed restricted to be sold only to aircraft owners!
A crosswind runway hardly strikes me as something that’s not needed.
Peter wrote:
I don’t know about Rochester’s situation but if an airport has spare land which is not needed, it is not an unreasonable thing to sell some of it
Sure, but not for houses. You’re going to able to count the time from completion of the housing project to the first noise complaint in minutes.
I don’t know about Rochester’s situation but if an airport has spare land which is not needed, it is not an unreasonable thing to sell some of it, if it safeguards the airport’s future. It’s a bit like allowing commercial property on-site; an unsubsidised airport cannot maintain itself in a good condition (with a hard runway etc) without some of that.
Peter wrote:
I wonder if they can do the green plastic surface instead.
I had the same idea. It brings a similar result for light GA and is much more acceptable for neighbors.
According to PERFOs website, Rochester Airport already uses their hardware.
At the end of the article, you understand the real reason for this airfield’s renovation : closing one grass runway to make houses !!
They promised a hard runway for the project to be accepted, then they say it became too expensive … Business as usual
