Trees or aircraft?

Discuss all things 'aviation' that do not fit into a more appropriate forum
User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3497
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:17 am
Contact:

Trees or aircraft?

Post by Spiny Norman »

The National Museum of Flight have ran into a spot of bother over their preservation plans.

https://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/18196384.national-museum-flight-plans-fell-299-trees-move-planes/

User avatar
cometguymk1
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon 04 Nov 2019, 8:30 am

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by cometguymk1 »

Glad to hear they are trying to get the Comet undercover :) Always at risk being a large aircraft outside in the British weather.

User avatar
f4phixeruk
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 4:00 pm
Location: 7 miles from EGQL

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by f4phixeruk »

Why not just build in the land to the East of the Concorde Hangar ?? Or do they not own that land ??
If you eat high calorie foods with a Diet Coke, the drink cancels the calories out!

Georgeconna
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed 30 May 2012, 2:38 pm

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by Georgeconna »

Trees for me I'm Afraid. 300 though to be felled, Thats pretty nuts.

But says it would be “paid back” by planting nearly 800 new trees.

Me and my kids won't be around to see the replanted trees reach the size that they are currently at.
Cheers

George

Zero shows for 2018 Giving in a Rest.

User avatar
psquiddy
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:33 am
Contact:

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by psquiddy »

Over 300 free things to do in London
http://www.toplondondaysout.co.uk

User avatar
f4phixeruk
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 4:00 pm
Location: 7 miles from EGQL

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by f4phixeruk »

I thought that too. Could it be that they dont want to do too much that means the display line moves again ??
If you eat high calorie foods with a Diet Coke, the drink cancels the calories out!

User avatar
CJS
Posts: 7764
Joined: Thu 15 Jul 2010, 3:30 pm
Location: Hogwarts

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by CJS »

Georgeconna wrote:Trees for me I'm Afraid. 300 though to be felled, Thats pretty nuts.

But says it would be “paid back” by planting nearly 800 new trees.

Me and my kids won't be around to see the replanted trees reach the size that they are currently at.


Yep, trees for me too. Also worth remembering that planting 800 new trees does not mean you end up with 800 beautiful mature trees later down the line.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/25/209 ... team-trees

“It turns out that many of these seedlings, if you don’t do this well or if people do it who don’t really care about those trees, then they all just die quickly“ says, Eike Lüdeling, department head of horticultural sciences at the University of Bonn. “Sometimes it’s probably a better idea to plant fewer trees and really take care of them.”
With just the slightest bit of finesse, I might have made a little less mess.

Wryneck
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue 17 Sep 2019, 7:20 pm

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by Wryneck »

Trees all the way.

What seems to be getting lost with these "replacement trees", is the shear number of years they take to mature (even if they treated with care).

If you are chopping down 300 mature trees that are all over 100 years old, it will take another 30,000 (that's thirty-thousand) years for 300 replacement trees to reach the same stage of growth.

How this can be banded around as "compensation" is mind boggling :dizzy:

Just another "developers tool" to get plans agreed, there no interest in the environment whatsoever.

The other thing being totalled ignored is "ecosystems" and "biodiversity". Things that only come with time, and once you've already killed off it off, it doesn't simply come back.

User avatar
capercaillie
Posts: 8179
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 3:04 pm
Location: Leominster

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by capercaillie »

Wryneck wrote: If you are chopping down 300 mature trees that are all over 100 years old, it will take another 30,000 (that's thirty-thousand) years for 300 replacement trees to reach the same stage of growth


I know what you are trying to say, but it would only take 100 years unless they only plant one every one hundred years.

That said, it all seems unnecessary. The objectors also saying "there may be bat roosts and badgers", has nobody carried out a survey of what is living and breeding in there before any plans are submitted and passed by a load of old council duffers. Facts first surely?

Cutting down well established old woodland for the erection of an ugly building in this day and age isn't a good look and surely whatever they are sat on now, if a scheduled monument or not, they are already on it, so what's the worry?
"The surrogate voice of st24"

User avatar
NAM Updater
Posts: 2898
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:06 am
Location: Notts / Lincs border
Contact:

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by NAM Updater »

An interesting set of posts around the forum relating to the desire to save large aircraft (Beverley and Victor) and also the need to balance environmental concerns when looking to house large aircraft under cover, or indeed move them around your site.

Whilst I am not aware of the Planning Guidelines in Scotland, I have helped to manage several museum related applications in the UK. It’s worth remembering that the following specific items are covered in each Planning Application that's submitted:

Pedestrian & Vehicle Access & Rights of Way
Pre-Application Advice (discussion with local Council)
Waste Storage & Collection
Materials
Vehicle Parking
Sewage
Assessment of Flood Risk
Biological & Geological Conservation
Existing Use
Trees & Hedges
Trade Effluent
Residential Units
All types of Development for Non-Residential Floor Space
Employment
Hours of Opening
Industrial or Commercial Processes and Machinery
Hazardous Substances
Ownership Certificates and Agricultural Land Declaration

The level of information required to support each of these sections will vary depending on the size and scope of a particular project.

For balance, I have also assisted a Scout Group in highlighting the ecological and social impacts of a local road scheme.
Howard Heeley - Newark Air Museum Trustee
http://newarkairmuseum.org

MiG_Eater
Posts: 1401
Joined: Sat 18 Nov 2017, 4:58 pm

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by MiG_Eater »

You only get one chance to save these aircraft.

The temporary loss of these trees will make almost no difference in comparison to the number of trees removed by homeowners and councils.

User avatar
CJS
Posts: 7764
Joined: Thu 15 Jul 2010, 3:30 pm
Location: Hogwarts

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by CJS »

MiG_Eater wrote:You only get one chance to save these aircraft.

The temporary loss of these trees will make almost no difference in comparison to the number of trees removed by homeowners and councils.


NIMBY heh, that's the spirit :wall:
With just the slightest bit of finesse, I might have made a little less mess.

User avatar
capercaillie
Posts: 8179
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 3:04 pm
Location: Leominster

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by capercaillie »

MiG_Eater wrote:You only get one chance to save these aircraft.

The temporary loss of these trees will make almost no difference in comparison to the number of trees removed by homeowners and councils.


Not if the loss of some unique flora or fauna would be lost forever because of the removal of the trees, you have to look at more than the trees.

NAM - true but neither the Beverley or Victor being saved and moved would have the environmental impact of cutting down an old wood we hope?
"The surrogate voice of st24"

User avatar
NAM Updater
Posts: 2898
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:06 am
Location: Notts / Lincs border
Contact:

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by NAM Updater »

capercaillie wrote:NAM - true but neither the Beverley or Victor being saved and moved would have the environmental impact of cutting down an old wood we hope?

I take your point, and it would have helped if I had perhaps developed my original post further.

On one part of the forum, there is a stated desire to save two very large aircraft, almost on a come what may basis. The long-term future of those aircraft can only be realistically secured by getting them undercover; inside what would be a building costing millions.

Whilst on another section of the forum, a national collection is being commented on for trying to secure Planning Permission to put four large aircraft undercover and save them for future generations. The process that the museum will have gone through in submitting a Planning Application will have taken into account all of the points that I listed; I personally believe that the proposal for taking down the trees will not have been taken lightly, or without extensive consultation and impact studies etc.

I appreciate that everyone has right to a particular viewpoint, but it can be a thankless task for a museum, and or museum trustees to reach a decision that is satisfactory to all sides of a situation.

Even as I type this reply, that challenging decision making process is something that I appreciate to my own cost. Currently there are people (not necessarily on here) thinking it’s simple to nominate a location as a suitable place to save two large aircraft, often without thought or consideration about whether those aircraft form part of that organisations Collecting Policy; development plans; funding capabilities etc. etc.

Challenging times for lots of different reasons, and as so often in life very difficult to square the circle.
Howard Heeley - Newark Air Museum Trustee
http://newarkairmuseum.org

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3497
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:17 am
Contact:

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Having visited East Fortune many times there are additions to its wartime appearance (the gift shop, children's adventure play area) , the ticketing booths, etc.

These aircraft are no long operable and are, in my mind, essentially structures. So it doesn't appear to be a problem to build over them. This type of thing has been done at Manchester airport and looks fine. It might not be keeping with the 'look' of a historic base, but better that than making a new building, which will be a bit of a trek to get to and at the expense of no trees lost.

Georgeconna
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed 30 May 2012, 2:38 pm

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by Georgeconna »

CJS wrote:
Georgeconna wrote:Trees for me I'm Afraid. 300 though to be felled, Thats pretty nuts.

But says it would be “paid back” by planting nearly 800 new trees.

Me and my kids won't be around to see the replanted trees reach the size that they are currently at.


Yep, trees for me too. Also worth remembering that planting 800 new trees does not mean you end up with 800 beautiful mature trees later down the line.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/25/209 ... team-trees

“It turns out that many of these seedlings, if you don’t do this well or if people do it who don’t really care about those trees, then they all just die quickly“ says, Eike Lüdeling, department head of horticultural sciences at the University of Bonn. “Sometimes it’s probably a better idea to plant fewer trees and really take care of them.”


Its like the Bog Roll companies, We plant a couple of trees for every bog roll bought, What they don't say is that probably a shed load of forests has been felled in order to plant some Aussie Euculptus trees such as in Brazil as they grow fastest to the detriment of Wildlife.

Link below is nearer and in Sweden!

https://www.itv.com/news/2017-09-27/vel ... er-forest/

As the saying goes "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."

Theres a example of Viscounts and Comets in Museums already.

Let hope a common sense approach happens here and both the trees and the Aeroplanes get what they deserve.
Cheers

George

Zero shows for 2018 Giving in a Rest.

User avatar
EGL
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed 03 Sep 2008, 7:41 pm
Location: Glasgow

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by EGL »

Interesting to see this finally moving forward - this has been proposed for the last 10-15 years. Plan was always to build new hangars off-site due to the restrictions placed on the current site.

If anyone's interest all documents (51 of them) available on East Lothian councils planning web-site including many of the things NAM Updater listed:

https://pa.eastlothian.gov.uk/online-ap ... VJUGNFJJ00

Most interesting two are the Proposed Plan and Layout of the new building. Full report is also there albeit in multiple files.

Purely from the perspective of the museum I think it's a great move. Really don't like Hangar 1 as it currently standards - find it quite depressing (probably the lack of lighting!) when compared to what it was like before Concorde's arrival. Great to read that it will mean the Vulcan goes undercover as well . Plans for the new building show Concorde, 1-11, Comet, Viscount and the Hawk. I was surprised looking at their web-site the number of airframes listed as in storage - hopefully will free up additional space for many of them to be displayed.

Looks like the current shop/entrance (glorified portacabins) will go.
Last edited by EGL on Fri 31 Jan 2020, 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
toom317
UKAR Supporter
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2008, 11:02 am

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by toom317 »

Planes, if for no other reason than to watch "Greetin' Greta" go into meltdown. :biggrin:
"Nice pics mate" comments only! No criticism please.

Equipment: Camera, Lens, Goretex Y fronts.

User avatar
EGL
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed 03 Sep 2008, 7:41 pm
Location: Glasgow

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by EGL »

Just read the first section of the full Report and it looks like the current Military hangar will be WWI and WWII and the main hanger will be "Cold War and Beyond".

Cafe will also move to the new building.

User avatar
alanp
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:22 am
Contact:

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by alanp »

It looks like a small section of the existing tree line that will be removed. Whilst new trees will take a long time to mature, biodiversity will naturally spread from the much larger remaining plantation minimising the long term impact.
My concern is that the new shed won't be nearly big enough to house a Shackleton, Meteor, Hunter, Javelin, Sea Hawk, Sea Venom, Sea Vixen, silver Lightning (none of your green RAFG machines please!), Phantom FG-1 (again, aproptiate model please), Jaguar, Bucaneer, Nimrod, Tornado variants, Sycamore, Dragonfly, Whirlwind, Wessex, Sea King, Chippie and maybe an Albatross as a nod to Prestwicks past (although now I think about it a C-54, Sabre, a Clunk...)

User avatar
capercaillie
Posts: 8179
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 3:04 pm
Location: Leominster

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by capercaillie »

alanp wrote:It looks like a small section of the existing tree line that will be removed. Whilst new trees will take a long time to mature, biodiversity will naturally spread from the much larger remaining plantation minimising the long term impact.


Well that's alright then, glad its been cleared up. :up:
"The surrogate voice of st24"

DOUGHNUT
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat 21 Mar 2009, 2:49 pm

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by DOUGHNUT »

Ok sitting with a nice cup of tea. Let me begin by first saying I have sadly never visited East Fortune but I wish them well with their expansion plans and desire to get more aircraft under cover. May I suggest that the expansion should also provide space for improved restoration workshops and allow stored airframes to go on public display. So thats the good news.
Now for the bad news. Once again a national museum building program is being lead by the Architect. Having worked all my life in the construction design industry I am fully aware that the world needs Architects, their input is vital to allow a building to meet certain standards and provide a safe and welcoming environment. Architects are also very good at spending the clients money. Without wishing to discuss where the museum is going to get £15million it is huge sum to spend on a glorified tin box. From reviewing the planning drawings one can ascertain the building will be 140m long by 40m wide thus a floor are of 5600m2, all this to preserve four large aircraft. The Architectural design takes no account of this and either a smaller(cheaper) building could be developed, or the internal space should be used to display more of the collections aircraft. By means of comparison the floor area of the Cobham Hall conservation hangar at Yeovilton is approx 5000m2 and houses not only complete airframes but many more stored artefacts, and I would guess was built for a faction of the cost.
Secondly the proposed location seems to being driven by a desire to "hide" the building in the trees, whilst I read with the interest the historic nature of the site and the existing hangars surely the landscape would not be conflicted by a new hangar of simple construction and moderate proportions. Once again the museum's brief to the Architect appears to be something else, a modern statement building, with glow in the dark glass walls and room of a restaurant, conference facilities and a hotel (ok the hotel was a joke but it might happen) The outcome of this will be a nice expensive building but no money to run it properly or invest in restoring or obtain further aircraft exhibits for the collection.
One final thought, I have continued to refer to this as a building because the Architect has obviously forgot to include any doors which would be required to define it as a hangar.

User avatar
EGL
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed 03 Sep 2008, 7:41 pm
Location: Glasgow

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by EGL »

DOUGHNUT wrote:Ok sitting with a nice cup of tea. Let me begin by first saying I have sadly never visited East Fortune but I wish them well with their expansion plans and desire to get more aircraft under cover. May I suggest that the expansion should also provide space for improved restoration workshops and allow stored airframes to go on public display. So thats the good news.
Now for the bad news. Once again a national museum building program is being lead by the Architect. Having worked all my life in the construction design industry I am fully aware that the world needs Architects, their input is vital to allow a building to meet certain standards and provide a safe and welcoming environment. Architects are also very good at spending the clients money. Without wishing to discuss where the museum is going to get £15million it is huge sum to spend on a glorified tin box. From reviewing the planning drawings one can ascertain the building will be 140m long by 40m wide thus a floor are of 5600m2, all this to preserve four large aircraft. The Architectural design takes no account of this and either a smaller(cheaper) building could be developed, or the internal space should be used to display more of the collections aircraft. By means of comparison the floor area of the Cobham Hall conservation hangar at Yeovilton is approx 5000m2 and houses not only complete airframes but many more stored artefacts, and I would guess was built for a faction of the cost.
Secondly the proposed location seems to being driven by a desire to "hide" the building in the trees, whilst I read with the interest the historic nature of the site and the existing hangars surely the landscape would not be conflicted by a new hangar of simple construction and moderate proportions. Once again the museum's brief to the Architect appears to be something else, a modern statement building, with glow in the dark glass walls and room of a restaurant, conference facilities and a hotel (ok the hotel was a joke but it might happen) The outcome of this will be a nice expensive building but no money to run it properly or invest in restoring or obtain further aircraft exhibits for the collection.
One final thought, I have continued to refer to this as a building because the Architect has obviously forgot to include any doors which would be required to define it as a hangar.


Interesting to read your comments as someone who has worked in the construction industry. I avoided using the term hangar as well for the same reason - it appears once those airframes are in place they will be locked in. The documents also suggest that they will be taken into the building at the end of the building furthest away from the current site!

Didn't realise the costs involved - that does seem a large sum for the additional of one building. Presumably that includes the purchase of the land any re-development of the current buildings/displays (although that was also done four years ago).

You do wonder however, if things would be different if the museum was independent from National Museums of Scotland where it's one in a number of museums with different diverse focuses and how much is controlled centrally rather than within the Museum of Flight itself? The addition of Concorde to me always seemed to be about headlines and feet through the door. However, once you've seen it once what's the incentive (for Joe Public) to go back - nothing has changed. Whereas putting that investment into the restoration of the Beaufighter, freeing up space for APSS, purchase of additional relevant items would get return visitors. Previously the key focus had been on Scotland's role in aviation and items that had particular significant to Scotland but that doesn't necessarily seem to apply as much anymore which is disappointing. It then becomes another aviation museum with a collection of aircraft with no strong theme connecting them all together. Many of them do meet this criteria but many others that don't.

Mods - any chance of renaming this thread to more accurately describe the topic!?

User avatar
EGL
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed 03 Sep 2008, 7:41 pm
Location: Glasgow

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by EGL »


DOUGHNUT
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat 21 Mar 2009, 2:49 pm

Re: Trees or aircraft?

Post by DOUGHNUT »

I would be interested to know why the existing hangars and surrounding area is a "Scheduled Monument" Anybody with local knowledge know why East Fortune is listed as such, it sounds very grand, but expect it has little relevance, from photographs most of the building appear to be post war design with very little from Google earth to indicate their importance.
Once again a simple design using the natural environment, ie it is / was an airfield so make the building look like they belongs there, not a glass fronted office block.

Post Reply