|
Post by Speke-EZY on Sept 2, 2012 18:35:48 GMT 1
Viscount,why is the "simple wooden roadside fencing" deemed to enhance airfield security in any way at all? Old timers like you or I could climb over it in seconds. The double inner wooden fence has thick brambles in between the two sections and would be much more difficult to penetrate. The reason I asked the "doing things backwards" question earlier is that it seems pointless to invest in a new perimeter fence of any kind directly under the 27 approach,when the entire area surrounding it will eventually fall within the airport boundary...which will have a fence around it.
|
|
|
Post by Beemer on Sept 2, 2012 20:28:28 GMT 1
At Dublin Airport near to the end of r/w 16 there is an Ha Ha fence which is brilliant for spotters and very secure too boot. With regards to the new wooden fence that has been erected in Dungeon Lane I am with Habu on that. Regards Beemer.
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Sept 2, 2012 20:31:42 GMT 1
The whole project is driven by the requirements of the C.A.A., as you well know. What they say must be done, must be done. If they they deem current fencing is inadaquate, then a new fence needs to be added. It is certainly looks like a fence, that states do not cross, rather than the previous half fence/mostly hedge that was a barrier not a declaration of boundary. Certainly something had to be done short term, the previous effort (the single bar fence) was an absolute joke.
Though the original 'double' fence with thorn bushes between is a deterent - there are several gaps/thin growth sections. The previous third fence - the single bar fencing, now replaced by the close-boarded wooden fence put in place over the past two weeks was alot easier to dismantle on Nov 5th!.
|
|
|
Post by ezylpl on Sept 2, 2012 21:26:22 GMT 1
As per the plans the wooden fence is to be retained on dungeon lane even though it will be inside the boundary! I don't know why.
|
|
|
Post by andyh on Sept 2, 2012 21:36:49 GMT 1
It might be as simple as defining the operational airport boundary. Even once the area around the lights is fenced in it will, as I understand it, not be within the boundary of the airport as such, though the airport owns the land. At some point in the future the airport would need to acquire the strip of land we currently know as Dungeon Lane in order to be able to put anything on it and extend the operational area.
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Sept 2, 2012 22:06:23 GMT 1
I have no idea if this will help or confuse. This is an interpretation of a map in the planning/consultation document. As I regularly roam (with my dogs) across the open fields under the approach, I am in a better position than many on the forum to visualise the proposals. Hope you can understand the hieroglyphics. There is not too much point in speculation as to where we will park-up in the future, as there is no allowance for 'spectators' in the plans, although lip service to our needs has been made (see an earlier post by Beemer on this thread). One thing is clear is that traffic/parking will not be welcomed by the residents of Bailey's Lane, while Hale Road is narrow and basically unsuitable for kerbside parking.
|
|
|
Post by maverick on Sept 2, 2012 23:04:58 GMT 1
There is not too much point in speculation as to where we will park-up in the future, as there is no allowance for 'spectators' in the plans, although lip service to our needs has been made (see an earlier post by Beemer on this thread). One thing is clear is that traffic/parking will not be welcomed by the residents of Bailey's Lane, while Hale Road is narrow and basically unsuitable for kerbside parking. Should not 'we' / NWAN forum members be organising ourselves into a lobby/one voice to ensure that the said 'alternative' location promise not be a hollow one? I read in the current fola newsletter that even they seem sceptical of the airports commitment to follow up. Good map Viscount - easy to follow - you should get a job as a geography teacher with skills like that ;D
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Sept 2, 2012 23:17:41 GMT 1
Thanks Maverick.
There is a huge difference in 'speculation' (which will get no where) and organising ourselves to 'lobby' (which might well get us somewhere) to have our needs recognised and maybe even met!
Trouble is as a forum, there is no leader or committee to push collective action forward.
|
|
|
Post by LPL on Sept 2, 2012 23:27:08 GMT 1
At some point in the future the airport would need to acquire the strip of land we currently know as Dungeon Lane in order to be able to put anything on it and extend the operational area. Cant see them not owning the land now with having, or soon to have, planning permission. The works have a deadline set as 2013.
|
|
|
Post by davel on Sept 3, 2012 8:16:50 GMT 1
They do own the land or rather Peel do and a lot more in the Hale area. The land shown as open land on Viscounts plan, the other side of Hale road, is owned by them. This is because of the future plans for a new road to be built from the A562 Speke Road to the proposed freight area near the new control tower. (if it ever gets goes ahead!!)
|
|
|
Post by andyh on Sept 3, 2012 10:59:07 GMT 1
They can't own the land where the road is as its public highway. That's why after getting planning permission they have to get a road closure order.
|
|
|
Post by ezs942 on Sept 3, 2012 11:01:28 GMT 1
would the closure of dungeon lane allow the airport to put in the extended runway 'starter strip'.. mentioned many moons ago on the forum.. for trans Atlantic take off's ?
|
|
|
Post by Speke-EZY on Sept 3, 2012 11:17:11 GMT 1
Returning to the original subject of a spotting/photography/spectators' area,does anybody even know of a suitable location for such a facility,which could be suggested in any request we might make to the airport authorites? This topic has been thrashed out inconclusively many times before,but as far as I am aware,no obvious solution has been put forward.
As I understand the existing plans,all of the public roads south of the runway centreline,if kept open at all,are to be restricted to authorised access only. It is unlikely we could negotiate any sort of concession for photographers to hold passes or permits for this area. Pedestrian access MAY continue to apply,but this would rule out use by disabled persons,thus rendering any formal provision of an area for able-bodied spectators unlawful.
This leaves us with the north-side.
Until now,mostly enthusiasts have parked alongside the road into the flying club. This will change when the rest of the public are prevented from parking on the outside roads nearby. Everyone will swarm on to the only available vantage point,no doubt blocking the road and throwing litter from their vehicles as currently happens all around Dungeon Lane. We will all be blamed and excluded as a result.
Liverpool Airport does not want or welcome spectators. Responsible and potentially vigilant spotters are regarded as part of the problem and actively inconvenienced. It has been that way since the balcony closed!
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Sept 3, 2012 11:55:15 GMT 1
In response to ezs942, the closure of Dungeon Lane section across the runway threshold will certainly be one legal task less, ahead of any renewal of the proposal for a 'runway starter strip' added to 27. However a quick glance at a map shows that a length of Bailey's Lane would also need to be closed and moved further towards the river - as would the currently proposed boundary fencing on the south side.
Putting up a few hundred metres of new fencing on your own land would not be much of a challenge. However road closures, re-routing and building a new road and ownership of land formerly road are all issues that will put thousands of Pounds in the pockets of the legal professions!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2012 15:58:58 GMT 1
A couple of hour's today on the mound and noted all steel post have been installed ready for the mesh fencing and wire on top. Noted on Saturdays visit that it is possible to take photo's of aircraft on the runway,but when all Dungeon Lane closes WHAT THEN ??
|
|