Wymeswold Airfield, Prestwold Lane, Prestwold

Item No. 11

Application No: P/03/1604/2

Application Type: Full Date Valid: 29th May 2003 Applicant: Prestwold 1966 Settlement & Everyman Tangerine Proposal: Retention of use of runways etc at Wymeswold Airfield for training and vehicle demonstration for customers and staff of vehicle manufacturers and distributors use areas approved for vehicle use under planning ref: P/01/0853/2. Location: Wymeswold Airfield, Prestwold Lane, Prestwold. Parish: Hoton Ward: The Wolds Ward Case Officer: Mr P Blitz Tel No: 01509 634738

Description of the Application

The application site comprises the majority of the land containing the former airfield and the proposal relates to the use of all the runways and perimeter roads, Hanger 4 at the east end of the airfield and a small area of woodland adjacent to a perimeter road on the southern edge of the airfield.

The uses are for the demonstration of vehicles and the provision of training by vehicle manufacturers and distributors, for staff and customers. Access for the use is from Prestwold Lane, either by the new direct access recently formed or from the internal road system from Prestwold Hall. The proposal includes the use of access, parking and hospitality facilities established as part of the earlier permissions for the recreational use of the airfield, details of which are set out later in the report.

The use contains a series of different activities, albeit all vehicle based. These are shown distributed around the site and include road training and demonstration, rally training and demonstration on gravel and tarmac, a 4x4 course and go-karting, all linked by circulation areas and parking and hospitality areas. This will be illustrated at the meeting and the site will be visited. The uses involved have some similarity of type and distribution to the recreational uses already permitted at the site. That permission is restricted to recreational use and not for the commercial nature of use hereby proposed.

The use proposed has already operated on a number of occasions. The applicant indicates that he would not want this use to extend the number of permitted days or the hours of operation above those already permitted for recreational uses.

As a result of the local reaction to the application and in response to strongly held concerns particularly over noise intrusion, the applicant included in his application proposals for the construction of noise bunds on the airfield at strategic locations around the runways. One would have specialist acoustic fencing on top and they are intended to improve the attenuation of noise from the site.

1 An original bunding scheme was designed in conjunction with a noise report commissioned by the applicant. The scheme would have involved the construction of some 4400 metres length of bunds varying in width from 30m.to 50m but widening in some parts to 100m and varying in height from 4m, with a 2m high fence, to 7.5m. The majority of the bunds would not have exceeded 6.5m. The inclusion of the bunds proposal followed discussion with officers about the options for controlling noise, including the imposition of conditions on a planning permission that might restrict noise outputs, limit speed, the distribution of activities etc. or the use of physical means to contain noise on site. The noise report relies on data collected from the measuring of noise generated by the present recreational use.

The applicant estimated that these bunds would have contained some 500,000 cubic metres of inert material. He indicated that experience with a bund proposal at the west end of the airfield, adjacent to Hoton, suggests that this would equate to some 200 eight-wheeled lorry movements per week bringing 3,000 cubic metres. On the basis that the site was open 50 weeks a year this would mean 150,00 cubic metres per year over 3 – 4 years. The operation would have taken place only between 7am and 4.30pm on Monday to Friday and between 7.30am and 12.30 pm on Saturdays. Access for lorries would have been from Wymeswold Lane and Prestwold Lane only and control over routing of lorries could have been imposed, as it was in the case of the Hoton bunds. Lorries would be excluded from Burton on the Wolds.

Consultation with the local community revealed a considerable concern about the bunds, particularly the effects of their construction in terms of noise, disturbance, traffic generation, the effect on topography and the other commercial considerations.

As a result the applicant has submitted a revised scheme that reduces the extent of bunding, but retains those which were judged to be likely to have the most effect, particularly to protect Burton on the Wolds and premises on Wymeswold Road. The revised scheme would extend to some 2800 metres in length and is estimated to involve 300,000 cubic metres of material, a reduction of some 40%. This would reduce the time for construction to about two years, assuming the same hours of operation. Access would be as before. The scheme reduces the extent of loss of trees and seeks to place bunds closer to the areas where noise appears to be generated and to enclose them more. The scheme retains the proposal to plant a stand of trees along the southern edge of the airfield to compensate for the loss of trees for the construction of one of the earth bunds.

Development Plan Policies and other material considerations

• Development Plan Policies

Leicestershire Structure Plan

There are no directly relevant policies in the plan.

Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (adopted 12th January 2004)

2 Policy ST/1 indicates that the Council will :-

• pursue an overall strategy which generates sustainable patterns of development and remains generally compatible in scale and character with its location and is adequately supported by existing or proposed services, amenities and infrastructure; • promote the beneficial use of all vacant, derelict and underused land; • protect the character and appearance of the countryside for its own sake, especially within areas of particularly attractive countryside and other areas of local landscape value; • identify sufficient land, primarily through the retention and extension where appropriate of existing employment areas within the Borough in locations consistent with the Structure Plan to ensure the maintenance, diversification and expansion of investment and employment opportunities in the interests of sustaining a healthy local economy; • provide for the management of traffic and the extension of traffic calming measures in the interests in particular of pedestrians and cyclists; • develop and support tourist facilities and attractions appropriate in scale and character to their location for the purposes of diversifying the rural economy and bringing about environmental improvements for the benefit of both residents and visitors to the area;

Policy EV/1 states that The Borough Council will seek to ensure a high standard of design in all new developments. Planning permission will be granted for new development which: • respects and enhances the local environment including the scale, location, character, form and function of existing settlements and the open and undeveloped nature of the countryside; • utilises materials appropriate to the locality; • safeguards the amenities of adjoining properties, particularly the privacy and light enjoyed by adjoining residential areas;

Policy EV/20 states that Planning permission for new development will be granted where a high standard of appropriate landscaping is provided to the satisfaction of the Borough Council. Where a detailed landscaping scheme is submitted at the full planning application stage or in any reserved matters it should: • include details of structural planting and any proposed earth modelling on the periphery of the site, particularly where it adjoins areas of countryside, Green Wedge, local separation, Areas of Particularly Attractive Countryside, open space, principal transport corridors or areas where the physical separation of land uses requires reinforcement. In these sensitive locations provision should be made for the use of common locally native species. For within site landscaped areas, the use of common locally native species will be sought unless there is no such species suitable to fulfil the landscaping purpose required;

Policy EV/39 states that planning permission will not be granted for new development which:

3 • because of its nature or operation, would be likely to result in a serious risk to the health or general amenities of nearby residents, the public generally or the natural environment; or, • involves residential or other development sensitive to pollution that would be likely to suffer poor environmental amenity due to excessive noise, disturbance, dust, smoke or other polluting effects arising from existing development nearby. Planning permission will only be granted in these instances where appropriate measures to overcome the potential pollution problems are proposed and implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

Policy CT/1 indicates that the land lying outside the defined Limits to Development is identified on the Proposals Map as Countryside, Green Wedge and Areas of Local Separation. Development within these areas of generally open land, which includes the application site, will be strictly controlled. Planning permission will be granted for the re-use and adaptation of rural buildings for uses suitable in scale and nature, and small-scale new built development, where there would not be a significant adverse environmental impact and the proposal would: • be essential for the efficient long-term operation of agriculture, horticulture or forestry; or • facilitate the diversification of the rural economy; or • improve facilities for recreation, or leisure uses; or • implement strategically important schemes for mineral related uses, transport infrastructure, and for public services or utilities. In all cases it should be demonstrated that the proposed development could not reasonably be located within or adjacent to an existing settlement.

Policy CT/2 states that in areas defined as Countryside, development(s) acceptable in principle will be permitted where it would not harm the character and appearance of the countryside and provided it could safeguard its historic, nature conservation, amenity, and other local interest.

Policy CT/10 says that planning permission will be granted for proposals to diversify the rural economy in locations outside the Limits to Development defined on the Proposals Map provided all the following criteria are met: • the proposal enables economic activity likely to retain or provide additional jobs in rural areas; • features of landscape, ecological or historic importance are properly safeguarded; • the proposal would not generate significant noise or, other nuisance problems; • levels of traffic generated would not be detrimental to the quality of the rural environment or highway safety; • any new buildings and structures or extensions to existing buildings would be small-scale and essential for the proposed use.

4 Policy TR/7 states that planning permission will not be granted for development on non-designated sites where the impact of traffic generated by an individual proposal or the cumulative impact together with other committed and allocated development in the locality would: • result in unsafe and unsatisfactory operation of the highway system; or • have a significant adverse impact on the environment, unless measures are proposed to overcome any harmful effects. Where such measures involve improvements to the transport system they will need to be environmentally acceptable, minimise land take and have a reasonable design life. In all cases measures should help to reduce car use to and from development and contribute to genuine and effective transport choice facilities through the encouragement of walking, cycling and the use of public transport for occupiers jointly or separately.

• Other Material Considerations

Section 54(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act requires decisions to be made in accordance with the provisions of the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Circular 1/97: ‘Planning Obligations’ gives advice on the use of planning obligations. The advice requires planning obligations to be sought only where they meet the following tests: • necessary; • relevant to planning; • directly related to the proposed development; • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; • reasonable in all other respects.

Circular 11/95: ‘The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions’ gives advice about the use of planning conditions. The Circular sets out the six tests for conditions, which are:

• necessary; • relevant to planning; • relevant to the development to be permitted; • enforceable • precise; and • reasonable in all other respects.

PPG24

This sets out the considerations that should be given to noise in the environment. It says that much of the development that is necessary for the creation of jobs and infrastructure will generate noise. Nevertheless local planning authorities should ensure that development does not cause unacceptable degrees of disturbance. The character of the noise should be taken into account as well as the level. Sudden impulses, irregular noise or noise which contains a distinguishable continuous tone 5 requires special considerations. In the context of applying conditions the PPG requires that consideration be given to the expectation of a reasonable degree of peaceful enjoyment of gardens and amenity areas. It requires the consideration of different background noise levels in urban and rural areas and that the introduction of noisy activities in areas of low background levels may be especially disruptive.

The PPG advises on the levels of noise that would generally generate complaints. A difference of 10 dBa indicates that complaints are likely. A difference of 5 dBa is of marginal significance. It also advises that a change of 3 dBa is the minimum perceptible by the human ear and a change of 10 dBa is equivalent to either a halving or a doubling of perceived loudness.

Relevant Planning History

The history of use of the airfield for driving training goes back to 1974 when permission was given for police driver training at the east end of the airfield.

In August 1993, planning permission was given for recreational use of parts of the airfield for activities including vehicle driving, go-karts, quad bikes, hovercraft and for paintball games.

In September 1997, was again granted for further recreational activities at the west end of the airfield and in the grounds of Prestwold Hall.

Also in October 1997, planning permission was refused for the use of Hanger 4 for warehouse and storage use. Permission was also refused for the retention of portakabins adjacent to Hanger 4. At that time enforcement action was being taken to secure the cessation of a haulage transfer use in the hanger, which was ultimately successful.

In February 1999, conditional permission was given for the use of the airfield and Hanger 4 for emergency services training. At the same time a conditional permission was given for the retention of 5 portakabins that had been introduced to the airfield to provided hospitality and shelter for the recreational uses that were carrying on at the time.

In February 2001, this Committee refused permission for the retention of the recreational uses on the airfield with the inclusion of facility for the use of helicopters. The permission sought to supersede the permission given in 1997. In August 2001 an appeal against this refusal was dismissed.

In April 2001, an application, ref no. P01/0853/2, had again been made to try to obtain permission to include helicopter use, but in September 2001, this Committee, having been appraised of the appeal decision and following the withdrawal of helicopter flying from the application, granted a further permission for recreational activity. A copy of that permission is at appendix A. The conditions imposed on this permission are important considerations.

6 Evidence from the list of events supplied by the applicant for the period from the 4th July to 19th December 2003 indicates the site was in use for 65 of the 144 currently permitted recreational days during that period. In addition, there were 23 demonstration/training days. This means that, currently, only 45% of the permitted recreation days are being taken up.

In December 2001, it was confirmed to the applicant that the planning permission of the local planning authority was not required for the construction of an agricultural road from Wymeswold Lane, along a route just south of the airfield periphery, into the airfield. The road was justified by the need to move large agricultural machinery to land to the east without passing through Burton on the Wolds. This road could be constructed under the rights to undertake permitted development afforded for agricultural purposes. The current application included the use of this road for access to construct the bunds now proposed.

In March 2002, this Committee granted planning permission for the erection of earth bunds at the west end of the airfield adjacent to Hoton. These have been erected and completed and are referred to in other parts of this item. The bunds were erected using, I am advised, the same contractor as would be employed if this application were successful. These bunds extended to some 900 metres overall, were up to 5 metres high and involved approximately 38,000 cubic metres of material to construct them.

In April 2003, it was discovered that a part of the runways on the airfield had been provided with a newly-formed smooth surface to form a well-defined track within the confines of the former runways. Whilst initially it was thought that this was development that should have the benefit of planning permission it was subsequently concluded that permission for this was in fact granted by virtue of Part 9 of schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that permits the carrying out on land within the boundaries of an un-adopted street or private way of works required for the maintenance or improvement of the street or way. The permission granted is unconditional. A private way is defined in the Order as a highway not maintainable at public expense, and any other way, other than a highway. The term “way” is defined by the OED as a road track or path for passing along.

The significance of this part of the site history is that the new track of itself, and without any breach of the conditions on any permission, has altered the extent to which the lawful use of the airfield can be heard in the local area.

In May 2003, this Committee resolved to object to an application made for the construction of a 14 metre high sound and screening earth bund along the southern edge of the airfield. The decision on this application rests with the County Council as a County Matter and has yet to be made. The reasons for objection were as follows.

• The proposal would be an unwarranted intrusion into the Wolds landscape and would detract from the gently sloping form of the land on the northern side of the shallow valley, centred on the watercourses that run through the village of Burton on the Wolds and along its northern edge through agricultural land, 7 between the higher land on the airfield and that of the southern side of the village. Particularly when viewed from the east and the west, and from the public footpaths that both cross and run close to the site, the bunds would appear as unnatural features in the landscape, despite mitigating landscaping measures, which would be detrimental to its character and appearance. • The proposal would be unlikely to provide a suitable alternative route for the footpath that crosses the line of the bunds that would be as convenient or as safe as the existing route and that would not substantially detract from the enjoyment of its use. As such the construction of the bunds would be contrary to the provisions of development plan and the emerging development plan as set out in Strategy Policies 1 and 4 and Leisure Policy 6 of the adopted Leicestershire Structure plan, Strategy Policies 1and 9 and Leisure Policy 4 of the Deposit Draft Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan, and Policies ST/1, CT/1, CT/2, RT/15 and TR/19 of the Deposit Draft Borough of Charnwood Local Plan.

The view taken on this application is relevant because the bund proposed then would have involved only slightly less material (400,000 cubic metres) to form it and therefore a similar degree of noise and disturbance from vehicles delivering the material. The objection was on visual amenity grounds only, not on the disturbance of construction.

Responses of Statutory Consultees

The highway authority is not opposed to the development, including the construction of the bunds, but is concerned about the access from HGV traffic associated with the importation of material. It takes the view that the access to Prestwold Lane, which was used as the sole access for the construction of the Hoton bund, is acceptable, provided access is from the A60 only, not to or from the south on Prestwold Lane. It is of the view that the use of the Wymeswold Lane access would only be acceptable if the bunds were considered to be of great benefit and that by not allowing access, other significant problems would occur. Any access to Wymeswold Lane should be controlled in such a way that vehicles only approach and leave eastwards on the B676 in the Six Hills direction. Conditions are recommended that would require:-

1. the access at Wymeswold Lane to be improved to a standard similar to that at Prestwold Lane, 2. a legal agreement regarding lorry routing 3. measures to prevent material being deposited on the highway.

If a routing agreement is not possible then the application should be refused on the grounds of the unsuitability of the road junctions to cater for the traffic and the danger that would ensue.

Wymeswold Parish Council

8 The Council is concerned that the noise report is highly technical but that the village appears to benefit very little from the bunds. It is very concerned that the village should not be used as a short cut to the airfield from Rempstone. In response to the latest revised scheme, the Council says that the Council is concerned that the proposed bunds are too large and not really appropriate. They should only be considered and agreed where there is independent expert assurance that they will prevent noise nuisance. The Council has no objection to the use of the airfield, as currently allowed. There should not be any additional timings or activities allowed, without further consultation.

Hoton Parish Council

Based on its experience with the building of the Hoton bunds, the Council objects to the application on the basis that :- • the intention is for bunds • the noise benefits are questionable • the construction traffic would bring material onto the road and be dangerous • some lorries would approach through the village on the A60 • lorries queued on Prestwold Lane awaiting entry to the site

The Council would wish to be involved in any lorry routing agreement and would wish to see pressure washing of vehicles leaving the site.

Burton on the Wolds, Cotes and Prestwold Parish Council

The Parish Council was not opposed to the use as originally proposed, subject to various safeguards, but did oppose the inclusion of the original bunds for the following reasons :

• The implications of the construction over an eight year period and the disruption to residents lives, both to those in the village and those on the lorry routes to the site. • The lack of effectiveness of the bunds. • That the bunds go far beyond the terms of the original application, which is for an activity that the applicants say, has been carried on for eight years already. The Council disputes this. • A decision on the bunds should be separate from the decision on the use. • All complaints have been about the use of the new track. • Only Bunds 1,5 and perhaps 2 are likely to have any significant benefit for Burton. • Most others are giving spurious protection from areas where there is no objectionable activity. • The bunds have their own commercial purpose beyond that which is required to provide noise protection. • The noise report does not show that the noise from the racetrack will be reduced to a non-intrusive level

9 • The noise problem is being tackled from the wrong end. It should be to control noise at its source. • The conditions on the present recreational consent are inadequate and should be made more effective. They should include reference to control over tyre squeal and should define what activities can take place. • Limits should be placed on the number of days the use can operate • There should be a trial period of one or two years.

The Parish Council has renewed its objection to the application, with the revised bunds. It now wishes to oppose the application outright in the strongest possible way. It is concerned that the application has undergone another metamorphosis, again changing the nature of the application completely from that first requested, which was for a retrospective permission for a use which was not permitted. There is no attempt at a justification in terms of noise amelioration and no indication as to volumes, duration of construction, etc. It is inconceivable that permission can be granted for such a major potentially disruptive scheme with no supporting information whatsoever. Previous information cannot be considered relevant to what is now proposed.

The Council can only conclude that this lesser scheme does not optimise the sound benefit. It points to officer’s conclusions that the larger scheme would not have a significant effect overall, and uses this to support its conclusion that it would not offset the major environmental disturbance caused during construction. Residents have made it clear that they have major concerns about this.

The Council would only support the application if it omitted the bunds and imposed conditions to limit noise, especially tyre noise, within acceptable bounds.

The Council submit that advertising material produced by the operator of the use, which refers to the site as a new racetrack, reveals the operator’s true intentions. Tyre squeal needs to be dealt with by new conditions laid down. The Parish Council calls for enforcement action to be taken against the use.

It is a real concern that the material produced by the operator of the site does stress the racetrack characteristics of the site, promoting the fast straights, the high speed corners, a demanding chicane and wide run offs.

(Officer note - whilst this concern is very understandable, the material is not promoting the use applied for here, but the use already permitted. The applicant’s response to the Parish Council’s concern over the advertising material is to point out that it is aimed at prospective customers and should not be construed as indicating that the terms of the planning permission would be contravened in any way. It would be difficult to use the advertising material as a consideration of significant weight in the determination of this application, although the production of such material does not help the relationship between the operator and owner of the site and the local community)

Other Comments Received

10 Residents

23 letters of objection from 22 properties were received in respect of the original application, before the bunds were added. 16 referred to the effects of tyre noise, 14 referred to engine noise, 7 referred to the harm to residential amenity, 5 to increased traffic on local roads and 4 to the uncertainty over who could operate under the terms of any permission granted and to the limited effects of the Hoton bund. Smaller numbers referred to:- • the visual intrusion of flags • the buildings on the site are an eyesore • that testing could take place elsewhere on the site • the use encroaches on currently peaceful days • it would be detrimental to conservation villages • the use has been happening for 8 years already, blatantly in disregard of planning regulations • there were no problems up to 12 months ago • disturbance to animals • the works are leading to a full race track • time testing already takes place • trees offer little noise attenuation

35 letters from 30 properties were received as a result of the addition of the original bunds. 13 referred to the general noise from the use, 12 referred to the effect of bund traffic, including the damage to local roads, 9 referred to the noise and disturbance of bund construction and 9 referred to the advantageous commercial benefits of bund construction as oppose to their real benefits. Smaller numbers referred to • worries over future plans for the airfield • the inadequacy of the noise report • that the bunds would be ineffective • the effect on topography • the dust from construction • noise should be controlled by planning conditions • increased air pollution • only bund 1 is of benefit • use should be restricted to weekdays • other methods of attenuation should be used, e.g. straw bales, walls etc • the use of the Wymeswold Lane access only • loss of trees • tyre screech • dust from the Hoton bunds • shortage of material for capping • the track surface has made thing worse

Reaction to the revised reduced scheme of bunding is being received. This will be reported in more detail in the Extras Report but, for the most part, the comments so far reiterate the objections recorded above, making the point that, if the larger 11 scheme was judged not to be of significant overall benefit, neither would the reduced scheme

A letter from Loughborough University indicates the its Ergonomics and Safety Research Institute uses the facilities at the airfield because it provides a safe environment for trials involving usage of vehicles and items of road infrastructure for low speed manoeuvres and tests of visibility. The site is an important resource for safety related research and there is no local alternative.

Consideration of the Planning Issues

It will be important to be mindful that the decision must be based on the merits of this proposal, i.e. to retain a specific use for training and demonstration. It is not an opportunity to re-assess the merits of earlier permissions for recreational use or the levels of control that have been exercised over them. The fact and details of the earlier permissions are material considerations, as is the fact of the laying of the new track surface.

The issues raised are summarised as:_

• The appropriateness of the land use. • Noise and the benefits of the proposed bunds. • The disturbance associated with the bund construction. • Traffic and highway safety. • Landscape impact. • Whether conditions would deal with any harm. • Whether there are matters appropriately controlled through a planning agreement.

Land Use

Development plan policy for the use of land in open countryside is set out in Policies ST/1, CT/1, CT/2 and CT/10 above. The character and appearance of the countryside is to be protected, the beneficial use of all vacant and underused land is to be promoted, development is to be in scale and character with its surroundings, uses supporting rural diversification will be considered.

The planning authority has in the past, in reaching decisions regarding the use of the airfield, taken into account other material considerations, including the very particular hard surfaced facilities available at the site, the limited landscape value of the airfield, its relative isolation from surrounding settlements, the need to find sites for such recreational and training facilities and the need to diversify the rural economy, in this case also to support the maintenance of the historic Prestwold Hall.

These remain material considerations. The use to be retained has many of the characteristics of the permitted recreational use, including external effects, and it is not proposed to be carried on for more days than could that recreational use. The uses operate on the same areas of the site and would not normally be run together.

12 In these circumstances, it is difficult to see a clear distinction between the merits of the recreational use, which is permitted, and the training and demonstration use. The main difference is in the purpose of the use, i.e. training not recreation, and this is why planning permission is required. The objections to the development centre more on the noise impact of the use, particularly tyre squeal, and the inclusion of earth bunds to contain the noise, rather than the use itself.

Noise and the benefits of the bunds

In many respects, this is the main issue for the local community. The granting of the recreational permission was subject to conditions that controlled noise output from vehicles but did not prevent or limit the noise generated by tyre squeal. The problem of tyre squeal has been made worse by the formation of the new surface, which was undertaken after the collection of the data for the noise report. Monitoring of the use has shown that the conditions on the present permission have generally been complied with. The Head of Environmental Health Services has been satisfied that the noise produced, including the tyre squeal does not amount to a statutory nuisance.

The noise report does not distinguish between the particular noise characteristics of the demonstration use to be retained as opposed to the present recreational use. The report seeks to demonstrate the impact that the original scheme of bunding would have had. The report predicted that, for the northern edge of Burton, the bunds would have reduced noise from all sources on the airfield, including tyre squeal, by 5 decibels or less. For higher parts to the south of the village, it would have been reduced by up to 8 decibels.

For the western edge of Wymeswold the benefit would be to reduce levels by less than 5 decibels. There would be little or no benefit for Hoton. The noise levels need to be considered against background noise and this shows that background noise levels in Burton on the Wolds during the day are of the order of 42/43 dBa in the Hall Drive and Springfield Close areas and only 32dBa in the Seymour Road and Somerset Close areas. Members need to bear in mind that PPG24 advises that a change of 3dBa or less is generally not perceptible by the human ear, changes of 5dBa are of marginal significance, whereas an increase of 10 dBa is a level when complaints are likely. A change of 10dBa is the equivalent of either halving or doubling the level of noise.

The use of bunds as a way of containing noise, without recourse to conditions that would be difficult to control and monitor, was promoted with the applicant. It was considered more effective to try to contain noise with structures that have effective mass, close to noise sources, because this is technically the best approach to take and obviates the need for remote, extensive and on-going monitoring which would be expensive in resources.

I have formed the opinion, however, that the benefits are less than had previously been anticipated. My conclusion, reached in discussion with Environmental Health colleagues is that, for the Hall Drive area of Burton, the noise with or without the

13 original bunds would be close to existing background and, therefore any reduction by the bunds would be likely to be only of marginal significance.

The most benefit would appear to be for Springfield Close, in the sense that the bunds would reduce the perceived noise by half, which means that without the bunds the impact is such that complaints could be expected, whereas with them they would not, by the standards set out in PPG24.

The situation for Seymour Close is different because background levels are much lower. Here, without the bunds complaints are likely, but the reduction in noise predicted for the original bunds, although the highest, is such that the noise levels would still be such that complaints could be expected.

There is evidence that there would be advantage to residents on Wymeswold Road. It is reported that straw bales have made a difference and, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the bunds, which would be higher, would also have this benefit.

I believe the difficulty for local residents lies more with the characteristics of the noise than the overall dBa level. It is the frequent, but intermittent, nature of the noise, and the connotation with stress and danger that it conjures up, that is the difficulty. The fact that it is in an otherwise rural area where such noise is less expected does not help. The noise benefit maps only for tyre squeal appear to suggest that for the most part, other than higher ground to the south of Burton, the reduction in noise level would be 5dBa or less. The advice in PPG24 indicates that this would be only of marginal significance.

From this analysis it was concluded that, overall, the benefits of the original bunds, in terms of containing noise within the airfield, would not be significant for all areas but would have localised advantages, when judged against the criteria set out in PPG24. The revised bund scheme would provide closer attenuation to noise sources.

The applicant has not provided another full analysis of the performance of this revised scheme, but it would be reasonable to postulate that this revised scheme would be unlikely to perform very differently, but would involve much less material for construction and less loss of trees. Again it would be reasonable to suppose that there would not be significant benefits for all areas but some benefits for local areas would be realised, more particularly in parts of Burton and along Wymeswold Road, where anecdotal evidence suggests that the placing of straw bales has made an improvement. These bales are in long lines and are some 1.5 – 2.0 metres high.

Bund Construction

No information has been submitted regarding the noise levels associated with bund construction. The committee will need to make a judgement on this and bear in mind its decision on the earlier consultation by the County Council on the larger 14m. high bund south of the airfield as set out above, where the effect of noise was not considered to be a significant issue. The amount of material for the bunds originally proposed with this application would be some 25% more than that earlier one and would be spread over a much wider area. The material for the reduced 14 scheme now proposed here of bunds would be less. This revised scheme was negotiated solely because of the concerns of the local community about the impact of construction and that the previous scheme went beyond that which was necessary to provide attenuation. It has been designed to try to retain as much of the effectiveness as possible.

Traffic

There are no traffic generation issues with the use of the land, but very significant issues in respect of construction traffic for the bunds. The highway authority clearly has reservations regarding the highway safety implications, but wishes not to stand in the way of a proposal that has other significant planning merits, if that is the conclusion reached.

The main concern is for the operation of the junction of Wymeswold Lane and Melton Road, where visibility, especially to the right, is limited. This is a well known concern of the highway authority from past proposals for development on the airfield industrial site. If the conclusion were reached that the effectiveness of the bunds is such that they are not justified as securing a planning objective, the highway authority would support the Council if it came to the view that, on a weighing of all the considerations, it wished to impose a highway reason for refusal.

Landscape Impact

The airfield site is gently domed, and can be viewed from close quarters, to a wide extent, from Wymeswold Road. The airfield land is generally flat and although farmed to some degree, the vehicle activities on the airfield can be seen. From other directions the airfield is seen in long views only. The nearest part of the proposal on the southern edge of the airfield is some 350 metres from the northern edge of Burton on the Wolds. There is a clear line of sight to the southern edge from a number of vantage points in the village. The view is of the tree screen on this southern edge, a part of which would be thinned out to make way for the latest bund proposal. A stand of tree planting in front would mitigate the effect of the loss of trees in the longer term. The bunds would be planted extensively with native trees and shrubs, similar to the planting being carried out at Hoton.

Policy EV/1 requires development to respect and enhance the local environment, including the open and undeveloped nature of the countryside. Policy EV/20 says that planning permission for new development will need to be landscaped to a high and appropriate standard. No screening requirements were attached to the existing permission for recreational use. The screening that would occur as a product of the noise attenuation bunds would be permanent features and would alter the character of the landscape, particularly along Wymeswold Road. The judgement is whether the open character of the airfield is such that it needs to be protected or whether the remodelling of the land and the provision of what would be significant new indigenous planting would harm the character of the landscape.

Conditions

15 This is an important issue and was the impetus for the original discussions about a scheme of physical on-site noise attenuation. A number of options for control through conditions was discussed but none appeared to offer a comprehensive and easily enforceable control regime. Without physical attenuation, members will need to consider whether conditions imposed on a planning permission could be effective in controlling the use applied for. It is important to bear in mind that the conditions that have already been applied to the existing recreational permission cannot be amended through the granting of any new permission here.

Conditions need to meet the tests in Circular 11/95 as set out above. To meet the concerns of the local community they need primarily to prevent tyre squeal and other mechanical noise from being intrusive and disturbing. They would need to set a standard that would be stricter than that for a statutory nuisance. Tyre squeal is brought about by a combination of speed, vehicle type and design, driving activity type, weather, driver behaviour, event management and road alignment and surfacing.

Tyre squeal is a transitory noise which would have ceased long before enforcement resources could be deployed. Planning conditions are not best suited to exercising control. Imposing a speed limit to reduce vehicle speed by condition would present difficulties of precision and enforcement. Controlling vehicle type by condition presents difficulties of precision and reasonableness. Some control may be exercisable over activity type but not over driver behaviour. Requiring on-site management is possible but to define to what purpose and to be precise over objectives and enforcement would be difficult. Restricting activity according to weather conditions is not feasible.

Conclusions

There is a difficult judgement to make. In principle, the use is not objectionable in land use policy terms. The use is likely to be similar in its external effects to that already permitted and the use would not extend the number of days that the uses could operate.

The first primary objection is to the noise generated, particularly tyre squeal, although this appears to be based as much on experience of the permitted use as to the use applied for here. There have been occasions when the noise of activities on the airfield have produced excessive amounts of tyre squeal, which is very intrusive and disturbing in a rural area, I believe as much for its stress connotations than in terms of outright decibel levels.

The second objection has arisen as a result of the proposal for bunds to contain the noise, which have been investigated as a direct response to the noise objections. The basis of this approach is the sound proposition that noise is best attenuated by providing mass and volume of absorbing material as close as possible to the source of the noise. Linear earth bunds provide this. Their construction produces traffic and some disturbance for a period, but then they remain as a permanent feature to perform the attenuating function at all times, not just when the use hereby applied for is in operation. A collateral benefit is that they would help with control over 16 noise, which the present recreational permission does not exercise well enough to meet local aspirations.

For reasons of topography and distance the bunds are more effective in some areas than others. The revised scheme sought to deal with local criticism that the bunds went beyond that which was necessary, whilst retaining the bunds most likely to make the most contribution for the areas that would benefit.

It has been difficult to recommend conditions that can be predicted to deal with the tyre squeal problem, because of its transitory nature and the varied causes, as discussed above.

What is recommended is a combination of the lesser bunds and conditions. A priority for the construction of the bunds is established, extra control over the use of the track before the bunds are completed is included, the period of construction is limited and a requirement for on-site control of the use to be permitted is set out. The recommendation is based on a fine balance of the considerations, but also because :-

• there is no land use policy objection to the use itself and a beneficial use would be made of the particular facilities the site offers, • the bunds would be of advantage to some, • they are distant from villages, although prominent on Wymeswold Road, • construction would be for a limited period and the routing of vehicles through Burton and Wymeswold by the applicant’s contractor can be strongly discouraged, if not entirely eliminated, • there would be collateral benefits for the surrounding area, • the bunds would be landscaped naturally and be features of an otherwise barren landscape, • experience with the Hoton bunds, constructed much closer to the settlement than would be the case here, revealed relatively short term disturbance, • conditions can only offer limited effectiveness in controlling noise.

If the Committee concludes that the bunds are not justified, then it will need to consider whether conditions are sufficient to control the use. If this is the case, it is recommended that authority be given to issue a permission that excludes the bunds, their exclusion from the application having been confirmed by the applicant. To cover the eventuality that he declines to so do, reasons for refusal will need to have been decided upon. These will need to specify all those matters that are objectionable, with reference to the impact of the bunds and/or the impact of the use, with appropriate references to policy and the other material considerations.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant Conditionally - Recommendation - subject to the following conditions:

17 1 - The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the details and specifications included in the submitted application, as amended by the revised drawing no 8920/C received by the local planning authority on the 20th April 2004 and showing a revised and reduced scheme of 7 bunds and off-site tree planting. REASON: To make sure that the scheme takes the form agreed by the authority and thus results in a satisfactory form of development.

2 - The uses hereby permitted shall only operate for pre-booked events organised and attended by vehicle manufacturers and distributors for the training of and demonstration to employees and staff and to commercial trade customers. It shall not be open to the general public for casual or other use, including any use which forms part of the retailing of cars to individual members of the public.. REASON: To minimise the risk of noise and traffic generation becoming a nuisance to local residents.

3 - The activities of the use hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than with vehicles which are designed, and licensed, for use on the public highway and which have not been modified in any way that would disqualify them for such use. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents by limiting the impact of the vehicles that can be used to be commensurate with the characteristics of the local environment

4 - Before any ground-based vehicle, capable of speeds in excess of 30 miles per hour, is used on the site on any day, it shall have been the subject of a static noise test which demonstrates a level of less that 101dB(A), as defined by the single vehicle DOT Motor Vehicle Approval Regulations 1996, or any regulations replacing or re- enacting those regulations. All such vehicles shall also undergo a drive by test on a monthly basis. No vehicle which exceeds 87.5 dB(A) on this test shall be used on the site. Written results of the tests required by this condition shall be sent to the local planning authority on not less than a 2 monthly basis. No vehicle shall be used on the site unless it is fitted with a road legal silencer, as defined in the above regulations. Reasonable access shall be afforded at all times for officers of the local authority to enter the site for the purpose of monitoring noise from vehicles used on the site. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of local residents and to demonstrate that the vehicles are suitable for use on this site.

5 - At no time shall any racing or other speed/time based competitions take place on the site. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of local residents.

6 - The activities of the use, hereby permitted, shall not be carried out other than between 0900 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays between 1st April and 30th September and 0900 hours and 1700 hours between 1st October and 31st March. There shall be no operation on Saturdays, Sundays or recognised Bank Holidays. REASON: The site is close to residential properties and it is necessary to limit this aspect of the use to ensure that it does not become a nuisance or annoyance to neighbouring occupiers.

18 7 - No loud speaker or amplified music systems or any other source of amplified noise, including horns, sirens etc., shall be used in association with any of the approved activities on this site at any time. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of local residents.

8 - All event traffic using the site in association with this permission shall leave the site using the northern exit to Prestwold Lane. REASON: In the interests of highway safety where visibility is satisfactory.

9 - The activities of the use hereby permitted shall not take place other than in accordance with a previously agreed scheme of briefing, supervision and monitoring of participants in those uses by representatives of Everyman Racing Ltd, or such other body as may have been previously agreed in writing with the local planning authority, designed and implemented to control the activities of the use so that noise from tyre squeal is not generated. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of residents in the vicinity of the site, for whom noise from tyre squeal has proved to be intrusive and disturbing

10 - The use hereby permitted shall not operate for a period of more that three months, starting from the date of this permission, unless the construction of the bunds indicated on the approved plan has been commenced. REASON: To ensure that the works to provided a satisfactory scheme of noise attenuation is commenced within a reasonable time, because, without it, the impact of the use would be likely to be detrimental to the amenities of nearby residents.

11 - The works to construct the bunds referred to in the above condition shall be completed within 24 months of the commencement of the works, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the works are completed within a reasonable time, to protect the amenities of local residents

12 - The bunds hereby permitted shall not be constructed other than in the order, by reference to the approved plan, bund 1 (without the fence), bund 2, bund 6, bund 5, bund 4, bund 3 and bund 7. The construction of the fence on bund 1 shall be completed within 12 months of the completion of the construction of bund 1. REASON: To ensure that the areas most sensitive to noise disturbance are protected first, in the interests of residential amenity.

13 - No construction of a bund shall begin until a landscaping scheme, to include those details specified below, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority: i) full details of tree planting; ii) planting schedules, noting the species, sizes, numbers and densities of plants; iii) finished levels or contours; iv) full details of the off-site tree planting belt to the south of bund 1. REASON: To make sure that a satisfactory landscaping scheme for the development is agreed.

19 14 - The landscaping of each bund shall be fully completed, in accordance with the details agreed under the terms of the above condition, in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of that bund, or in accordance with a programme previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Any trees or plants removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased, within 5 years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by trees or plants of a size and species similar to those originally required to be planted. REASON: To make sure that the appearance of the completed development is satisfactory and to help assimilate the development into its surroundings.

15 - The off-site tree planting to the south of bund 1 shall be implemented and completed in the first planting and seeding season following the commencement of work on bund 1, or in accordance with a programme previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Any trees or plants removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased, within 5 years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by trees or plants of a size and species similar to those originally required to be planted. REASON: To make sure that the appearance of the completed development is satisfactory and to help assimilate the development into its surroundings.

16 - Before and during the period of the construction of bunds 1, 2 and 3, there shall be no use of the chicane section of the track to the north east of bund 2. REASON: The use of the chicane is a significant source of noise, particularly tyre squeal, and its use before bunds 1, 2 and 3 are constructed would be likely to cause detriment to the amenities of nearby residents.

17 - The tipping hereby permitted shall be limited solely to inert uncontaminated granular material, other naturally occurring material, clays, subsoils and topsoils. There shall be no tipping of any other type or form of material or waste, without the prior agreement of the local planning authority. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to ensure the early maturity of the development and its assimilation into the landscape.

18 - The tipping of material hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than between 0800 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays, and 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays, and there shall be no working on Sundays or recognised Bank Holidays. REASON: The site and the accesses to the site are close to, or through, residential areas and a limit on the use is needed to prevent a nuisance or annoyance to residents.

19 - Access to the site by vehicles associated with the construction of the bunds shall not be other than from the present access from Prestwold Lane or from the recently constructed access from Wymeswold Lane, as indicated in the application. REASON: To minimise the impact of traffic on local communities.

20 - Before the access to Wymeswold Lane is used, it shall have been hard surfaced for a distance of 10 metres back from the carriageway, in accordance with details that shall have previously been agreed with the local planning authority. 20 REASON: In the interests of highway safety .

21 - Before the access to Wymeswold Lane is used, wheel washing facilities, details of which shall have previously been agreed with he local planning authority, shall be provided and retained for use at all times. All vehicles leaving the site shall be monitored and cleaned as necessary before they proceed on to the public highway. REASON: In the interests of highway safety.