De Havilland Aircraft Museum's appeal to keep hangar is granted
A museum displaying the works of one of Britain's aviation pioneers has successfully appealed to keep a temporary hangar open.The de Havilland Aircraft Museum, near London Colney in Hertfordshire, was granted retrospective permission to maintain a permanent marquee and outdoor display of historical aircraft and aircraft parts.The aerospace engineer, Geoffrey de Havilland, designed World War Two aircraft such as the Tiger Moth and Mosquito at the Grade II listed Salisbury Hall, where the museum is now based.Jonathan Fulwell, the museum's manager, said it was "fantastic news for the longevity of the museum".
"We can now deliver our plans to provide the maximum opportunity to enjoy the de Havilland legacy," he added.
The museum, which is run by volunteers, opened in 1959 and houses 20 aircraft, including the World War Two Mosquito plane, and the Comet, the world's first commercial jet airliner.A temporary hangar was constructed in 2018 to house a display while another one was being built, but planning permission from Hertsmere Borough Council lapsed two years ago.Special circumstances were required for permission to continue displaying in the outdoor space, as the museum is on green belt land.The museum argued it had evolved from a centre for aviation enthusiasts to a significant local amenity.Now known as the Amy Johnson Hangar, the space hosts the museum's Cold War exhibition, as well as workshops and includes a learning centre, cafeteria and events area.
Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
6 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Yes we should stand firm, but let's not make Russia our implacable foe
It is always dangerous to confuse leaders with countries since all of the former are mortal. Trump is not America. Netanyahu is not Israel. Putin is not Russia. In every case, the channels have to be kept open to a different future, rather than entrenched in assumptions of mutual assured hostility. Indeed, Russia offers the best possible example of that. Somehow, out of the Cold War madness, it produced Mikhail Gorbachev who saw that the system he presided over was unsustainable. That opened the way to co-existence and I feel fortunate to have lived through that interlude in history. At the moment, such reconciliation seems a pious hope. The objectives of the strategic defence review, with talk of 'immediate and pressing danger' are pretty Russia-specific. The threat may no longer be of Soviet hordes appearing with snow on their boots, but the message is much the same. Read more by Brian Wilson It is difficult to dissent from the premises on which this rhetoric is based. Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine are deplorable with no guarantee that he will stop there. Cyber attacks and destruction of energy infrastructure are among the new weapons of war in which Russia is prominent. On these grounds alone, it seems prudent to enhance our defensive capacity, which quickly translates into more money. Three per cent of our national wealth does not sound unreasonable, so long as it is spent on the right priorities. If the rest of Europe is doing it, then so should we. There is a difference, however, between sensible preparedness and an entrenched state of mind which refuses to recognise the perspective of the assumed enemy or prioritise diplomacy over polarisation. If nobody in government is recognising mistakes of the past, then they are missing a large part of this story. One of my Russian memories was created on a very specific date: August 17, 1998. As Trade Minister, I was in St Petersburg to open what was billed as the largest-ever UK trade show in Russia. Unfortunately, nobody came, apart from schoolchildren to pick up the freebies at the deserted exhibition stands. For it was also the day that the rouble collapsed. At that moment, the Russian economy was apparently in a state of terminal crisis. Under the Yeltsin regime, corruption had been rampant, state assets were stolen wholesale and vast sums were finding their way into western banks while Russia's coffers ran dry and the poor paid the price. Far from being treated as the criminals they undoubtedly were, the newly-minted Russian oligarchs and their ostentatious wealth were welcomed with open arms in the West. On the basis that it took a thief to catch many thieves, Vladimir Putin stepped into that void and, in what seemed a miraculously short time, restored economic order. In short, the West treated the break-up of the Soviet Union as an opportunity to be exploited rather than a very fragile new reality to be nurtured with care and respect. That was also the approach taken on foreign policy with an immediate push to extend the boundaries of the EU, and more significantly, Nato, as close as possible to the borders of Russia when it might have been prudent to apply a little more circumspection. This is an impossibly complex subject to be definitive on. The rights of former Soviet republics to seek collective security had to be balanced against Russia's fears of encirclement. As Putin's reign in the Kremlin continued, it became increasingly likely that he would exploit the latter whenever the occasion demanded. I saw some of this behaviour in negotiations over routes for pipelines which would carry oil and gas out of the former Soviet republics to the West. Short of having CIA stamped on their foreheads, it could not have been more obvious that some of those involved certainly did not have Russia's interests at heart – or indeed have any regard for them at all. There was far too much interference in what Russia still regarded as its own rightful sphere of influence. The more that perspective was disregarded, the more likely it became that nationalist sentiments would come into play, under a leader who knew exactly how to exploit them. Ukraine was always likely to be in that front line. In 1954, when dissent was not encouraged, Crimea was transferred from one Soviet republic (Russia) to another (Ukraine), which flew in the face of prior history. Once the Gorbachev genie was out of the bottle, Russian hostility to this arrangement soon emerged. Diplomacy might have forestalled the potential for trouble. Mikhail Gorbachev (Image: PA) In an upheaval as traumatic as the break-up of the Soviet Union, it was inevitable that not all the borders of new states which emerged would be clear-cut. Continuous international support for resolving these incipient conflicts peacefully, without becoming partisans in them, might have saved a lot of subsequent trouble and without a war based on what Kruschev and the Supreme Soviet decided for whatever reason in 1954. None of this in any way excuses the war that Putin has prosecuted in Ukraine though it might imply that negotiation is the only route to a solution. Neither does it call into question the need to defend our own population against the ambitions of any potential foe. The danger is that, around that objective, narratives are created from which it then becomes difficult to escape. We should be sure they are being written with due regard to past history and also future potential for peaceful co-existence. Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003.
Daily Mail
16 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Chaos erupts on ABC as heckler interrupts live TV game show
An ABC TV quiz show recently descended into chaos when an overenthusiastic audience member spoiled the episode during a live taping. New Zealand comedian and host of Guy Montgomery's Guy Mont-Spelling Bee was left flabbergasted when a contestant got the unexpected lifeline from the audience. Fellow comedian He Huang was struggling to identify (and then spell) the name of a country represented by one of four international flags. 'Does it start with G?' she asked Guy, after being given the 'fun fact' prompt: 'This country has a lot of world's heaviest animals because a lot of them are still carrying the psychological weight of World War Two.' ' Poland!' a voice from the crowd yelled out, shocking everyone on the stage. From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail's new showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop. Fellow contestants Emma Holland and Rove McManus were left visibly shocked, with Emma covering her mouth with one hand to stifle a genuine gasp and Rove freezing with his jaw open. 'That is absolutely illegal,' a stunned Guy reprimanded the audience member, prompting a round of raucous laughter. Co-host Aaron Chen sprung into action. 'Don't worry Guy, I'll go sort this,' he yelled, before pretending to run into the audience to apprehend the audience member. Not to be outdone, Rove made eye contact with the audience as he said, 'Before I go, can I just check, are any of my "ancestors" out there?' 'That is generally discouraged,' Guy responded. The host was adamant that the real-life blooper not be taken out of the episode in the final edit because he enjoyed how 'incredibly unusual' and 'kind of funny' the moment was. Speaking to Guy said he felt the social contract between a live audience and TV quiz show contestants was 'pretty clear'. Which is, of course, not to participate in the game show unless you're actually a contestant. 'To be fair, no one was requesting spelling assistance,' Guy laughed. 'The show does draw an audience of word nerds or people who believe in themselves as spellers, so there is a sense of excitement and frustration that can occur when they're watching a contestant who is so close to approaching a word.' The stand-up comic and TV host attempted to unpack potential underlying motivations that may have pushed the helpful heckler to break that unspoken contract. 'One might be sympathy and that you're wanting to help them. You think "I can get them over the line here",' he theorised. Guy came up with the idea for The Guy Mont Spelling Bee in 2020 during the Covid lockdown in Auckland. He invited some of his comedian friends to join him on a Zoom for the silly spelling contest and uploaded the results to YouTube, creating an informal pilot for a stage show. Joseph Moore came onboard as a co-writer and pitched the idea to ABC, with Aaron Chen attached as a co-host. Guy has previously said the series has developed 'quite an intense fandom,' thanks its rotating roster of top Aussie and Kiwi comedians. Previous guests have included the likes of Melanie Bracewell, Urzila Carlson, Geraldine Hickey, Nazeem Hussain, Demi Lardner, Zoë Coombs Marr, Luke McGregor, Tim Minchin, Rhys Nicholson and Steph Tisdell.
The Herald Scotland
16 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
This is not warmongering. This is facing up to reality
As for the UK's defence budget: 2% of GDP may meet Nato's floor, but it is woefully inadequate for the threats we face – especially for a nation that aspires to global relevance. Critics rightly bemoan overstretched armed forces and dependency on US equipment, yet scoff at increased spending. One cannot demand sovereignty without footing the bill. If we genuinely sought an independent defence, we would need to spend not 2%, but upwards of 7% of GDP, as France did in the Cold War. Within Nato, a more realistic and responsible figure is 3.5%. The age of cheap defence is over. Even if Europe wants security with American support, it must pay for it. Deterrence isn't warmongering – it's realism. Those who refuse to face that truth risk leaving us dangerously unprepared in a world that is getting less safe, not more –especially with the scramble to secure rare earth materials essential for so-called 'green' energy. Ian Lakin, Aberdeen. • Forget independence: the only political issue that matters right now is the severe risk of war with Russia. Nato's Article 5 requires members to assist any ally attacked, but the degree is not specified. Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron continue to bait the Russian bear in the naive belief that should retribution ensue, Uncle Sam will come steaming in. Yet Donald Trump rightly regards the war as Joe Biden's, and is unlikely to send much weaponry. The UK is at particular risk through escalation, since even if mutual bombardment is sub-nuclear, Russia is 70 times larger, with far more space for bunkers. George Morton, Rosyth. Read more letters Let's get free of US control The Government's Strategic Defence Review sets out 62 recommendations, which, we are told, the Government is expected to accept in full. Let us hope we have learned the lessons from the way the US has treated Ukraine and, indeed, the UK itself. We must take this golden opportunity to free ourselves from US control over every aspect of our defence. We must not buy any more F35 fighter aircraft, we must develop our own. Nobody, but nobody, must have control over when and against whom we use our weapons. Keir Starmer's shameless, grovelling give-away of our fishing grounds to the EU and our bioethanol industry to Donald Trump does not bode well for our autonomy as a nation. Doug Clark, Currie. Focus on welfare, not warfare Across the length and breadth of the UK the NHS and other public services are in desperate need of additional funding. In England alone the predicted funding gap for local councils in 2025/26 is £3.4 billion, a figure expected to rise to £6.9bn by 2026/27 according to research by Unison. In the third quarter of 2024/25 there were 106,000 workforce vacancies in NHS England with 27,000 nursing positions needing filled. One of the consequences of persistent understaffing has been widespread staff burnout. This has led to a mental health crisis amongst healthcare workers. Bearing all this in mind it is difficult to comprehend why Sir Keir Starmer is evidently determined to spend billions more on defence. If the UK, US, Russia, China and others keep upping the ante by spending more and more on increasingly sophisticated weapons the only beneficiaries will be arms companies and their shareholders. The inevitable outcome of continued escalation of tensions will be nuclear war and mutually assured destruction. It is surely time for our government to focus on welfare not warfare. Alan Woodcock, Dundee. Approaching a watershed I note excellent articles without undue slant this morning (June 3) from Kevin McKenna ("Out-of-touch Holyrood has sparked the rise of Reform") and Kathleen Nutt ("Is Farage's rise a threat to the Union? Probably not") on the realisation of the change happening in UK politics and also our wee corner of it. Whilst the mainstream parties resort to reverse-ferret policies and petty name-calling, Reform just seems to be getting on with the job. And it appears to be working. At last year's General Election many Scots lent their votes to Labour in Scotland, not to oust the Tories but to remove the SNP. It worked well. However it has backfired with the apparent resultant betrayal of the UK working class by this Labour Party. At the time many felt that the Scottish elections 2026 would be a shoo-in for Anas Sarwar. This is now nowhere near the case. As with the UK Labour leader, he has flip-flopped on so many issues and it's anyone's guess what his actual thoughts and policies are. This Thursday could be a watershed moment for Mr Sarwar and Scottish Labour. It is the most interesting by-election for years anywhere in the UK, certainly not for the quality of the candidates, but merely to give us a snapshot of what the Scottish public really think. Kenny Watson, Renfrew. • I enjoyed Kevin McKenna's reference to 'the great Holyrood toilet debate". Given the modern trend for suffixing scandals with 'gate', may I suggest 'Cludgiegate' as a suitable moniker? Mike Flinn, West Kilbride. Wake-up call to Scotland The by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse should be a wake-up call not just to the intending voters but the whole of Scotland. It would be correct to say that politics north of the Border is in a very sorry state, but the voters on Thursday have the opportunity to show that this particular electorate, and Scotland in general, does not want to to be fodder for a party that is insignificant in UK politics, and is only interested in furthering the personal interests of the leadership of Reform UK. If "reform" is the "in word", then it it should be used to reform, internally, our current national politics. We have the knowledge, expertise and personalities to do it ourselves. Mike Dooley, Ayr. Mind the language I agree, as I usually do, with Kevin McKenna's analysis and commentary on the gap between the "political elite" and working-class, minority communities in Scotland ("Scotland's political establishment must shoulder the blame for the rise of Reform", The Herald, June 2). As ever, Kevin uses strong and clear language to present his arguments. However, using language such as "evoking cheers and foot-stamping from the Bearsden Bolsheviks" and "troughers and frauds of the Scottish elite" simply adds to the range of invective and insulting behaviour that characterises the very tenor of debate of which he complains. Bob MacKinnon, Inverness. Nigel Farage (Image: Newsquest) Welding snub makes no sense News that Scottish Enterprise has refused to provide any support to an £11 million investment by Rolls-Royce in a state-of-the-art welding centre on Clydeside take one's breath away ("SNP in munitions ban hypocrisy row over Ferguson Marine", heraldscotland, June 3). This facility, developed in conjunction with the University of Strathclyde, would provide skilled jobs and apprenticeships, with the potential to attract further inward investment, to an area of Scotland that desperately needs all these. The decision seems to be based on the mantra that the Scottish Government doesn't believe in support for "munition manufacture". This approach demonstrates a total lack of common sense, whether seen from a defence or an economic perspective. Scots used to be known for their good sense. This decision, sadly part of a pattern under this administration, shows a total lack of it. John Jarvie, Solihull, West Midlands. Investigate these contracts Your story about South Lanarkshire's financial problems ("Building contracts to cost taxpayers £165m", The Herald, May 31) is really applicable to every council which adopted this hire purchase type of privately financed building project after its introduction by John Major and enlargement by Tony Blair. Supposedly legally binding contracts have resulted in substantial repayments for periods beyond 30 years. These contracts require investigation and auditing immediately. Are they equitable over long periods with varying bank rates? Who is benefiting from them at present times? Feuhold and leasehold terms have been revised despite having been historic legally binding contracts as it was recognised that – apart from administration charges – the fees were unearned income. Is it now the case that PPI and PPP are similar and excessive? The Establishment and governments tend to favour investors without checking their financial effects on the public purse. Until last week Thames Water dividends were a good example of this policy. If an in-depth study of these existing PPI and PPP contracts reveals excessive profits, then they should be revised or made subject to windfall tax repayable to the councils involved. JB Drummond, Kilmarnock.
