Update Report for Planning Committee 04/02/2015

Committee Planning Manager:Liz Nicholson

10/01059/VARY–Snitterfield Gliding Club. All letters/e-mails are précised– the full versions are available on the District Council’s web site

Ward Members

-Verbal response from Councillor Peter Richards (received 02.02.2015) stating objecting to the application for the same reasons detailed by Snitterfield Parish Council (Officers note: See response detailed below)

Parish Council responses

Objection received from Snitterfield Parish Council dated 30.01.2015 on the following grounds:

1/2. Snitterfield Parish Council (SPC) make reference to the requirements of condition 6 in planning permission S87/0253 and the two previous refusals of planning permission in 1994 and 1998. -SPC have considered these references in the committee report and take the view that the current policy for noise and amenity is no less onerous than previous Development Plan Polices and that the proposed conditions relating to the impact of increased noise levels are inadequate or unenforceable. Applications should be refused for the reasons in 1994 and 1998. 3. SPC disagrees with statement that SSMG’s and SLMG’s and TMG’s on the site would be a material change in the use of the site and this trivialises the crucial issue of the noise impact resulting from the fundamental change of land use from operation of a gliding club (non- powered gliders) to allow use of motorised gliders to take off and land under their own power. 4. No evidence to support the fact that TMG’s are essential to the future of the gliding club. 5. Policy CTY.10 has regard to the potential for nuisance being caused to local residents, the effect of tranquility of the area as a result of activities etc.SPC disagrees with the assertion made in the committee report in respect of the scale of the existing facility in relation to the key issue of the resulting increased nuisance from noise pollution and its impact on the tranquility of the area, which would not be satisfactorily regulated by the proposed noise conditions. 6. Committee report fails to identify any intent to manage noise – by establishing and policing noise limits and by limiting satisfactorily the number of flights. -Condition 20 would be unenforceable and there would be no intention to monitor noise levels and general aircraft flights cannot be controlled by planning legislation. Local community will never know if the actual noise levels are being met. -Daily limit of 15 TMG launches (equates to a total of 105 per week) is too high to maintain reasonable tranquility in the area. No limits on launches for SLMG’s and SSMG’s that can be used for training. -Committee report makes reference to the fact that the club flew the TMG 63 times in the 22 months before the permission was quashed where the maximum flights in anyone day was 5. Now concluded that 15 flights are acceptable. However, the numbers are so difference no meaningful comparison can be made. - Flights time extended from 5pm to 6pm on a Sunday without consultation with SPC. -For condition 20 to have any force or effect it would be reasonably expected that SDC would :-implement a level of noise monitoring at key receptors; carry out occasional noise tests on days of high activity at the Gliding Club; Require notification of any changes to the number and type of gliders that can operate from the club and undertake further noise monitoring at key receptors when there are notification of changes. 7. Condition 16 of the 1987 permission imposed noise limits measured at the site perimeter and are necessary for protection of users and occupiers of all land surrounding the site, to supplement the noise limit at key receptors under proposed condition 20. Noise report clearly identifies that the winch does not comply with current daytime noise limit at the site perimeter (specified in the current condition 16). Fact no complaints have been received is irrelevant

Page 1 of 10 when residents are under the impression that permission has been granted for the existing operations. Exclusion of winch noise from proposed condition 18 is illogical. 8. Concern that larger, more powerful TMG’s could use the site that could be noisier which could expose residents to greater noise levels especially if the noise levels are not monitored. Conclusion: Noise would be detrimental and harmful to amenities enjoyed by local residents; Use of TMG’s is a material change of use of the site; Proposed condition 18 not fit for purposeas it excludes the winch; Proposed condition 20 not fit for purpose in the absence of any means for verifying compliance with prescribed noise limit and is therefore unenforceable

-Verbal confirmation from Snitterfield Parish Council (dated 02.02.2015) that the note dated 15.08.2014 referred to in the committee report was put forward by Bearley Parish Council only.

Objection received from Bearley Parish Council (BPC) dated 02.02.2015 on the following grounds:

1. Wording of condition 6 original planning permission stated that the use of the site as restricted solely to gliders launched by the winch tow system and this permission shall not authorize its use by any powered machine whatsoever, including self-launching motor gliders, micrlight aircraft or model aircraft. 2. 1994 and 1998 applications for motor gliders were refused. Only provision of adequate adequate planning controls and enforcement mechanisms could lead to grant permission otherwise reasons in 1994 and 1998 are still applicable. 3. Use of TMG’s is a material change in the use of the site from ’silent gliding’ to ‘powered take off and landing’. 4. No supporting evidence to show the TMG is essential to the gliding clubs future. 5. The activity on site is commercial in nature and although output is leisure it relies on mobile high power equipment. Given the number of winch launches it is considered that a BS4142 noise assessment would be more appropriate. 6. Definitions should be stated at the beginning of the committee report not in the conditions 7. No evidence in the Committee Report of any provision to manage the noise limits being set in Planning condition 20. Despite the new evidence put forward in the latest letter by Resound Acoustics the number of flights have not been reduced. Conditions will require review. Analysis needs to be mindful of the fact that the calculations have been made on the basis of SLMG and SSMG’s will not engage their engines within 2 mile radius. Sunday operations should be until 17:00. 8. Previous condition in committee report relating to SLMG’s and SSMG’s not engaging their engine has been omitted which is not acceptable. 9. Previous condition in committee report relating to no fly zones has been omitted which is not acceptable. 10. Current condition removes requirement for SLMG’s and SSMG’s to have GPS/flight recorders which is unacceptable. 11. Wording of original condition 16 should be retained and only exclude the TMG’s. 12. Condition 20 should give same level or protection to proposed as well as existing residential properties. 13. Condition relating to aerotowing should be updated. 14. Suggested additional condition: TMG, winch and cable and glider retrieval vehicles on site during the noise measurements should provide the benchmark for the planning conditions and noise limits set. Any changes could impact on the level of noise. Condition should be added that seeks confirmation that replacement/additional equipment would meet the noise condition. 15. Suggested additional condition: Any changes to operational conditions and/or requirements to change flight paths should be notified to SDC and the communities. 16. Suggested additional condition: Condition clearly stating that the conditions will apply in the case of a change of ownership of the site. 17. Suggested additional condition: No aerobatic flying by any TMG, SLMG or SSMG.

Page 2 of 10 A compliance process should be in place to demonstrate enforcement of compliance.

Conclusion (object):

-Use of the TMG results in a material change of use of the site -Essential conditions missing or not adequately drafted -Absence of full set of consistent planning conditions with clearly defined parameters to define the noise limit of the TMG and winch launched glider operations would be harmful to residential amenity. -Mechanisms for ensuring and enforcing compliance are not adequate.

Despite the above BPC has carried out a lot of work which points the way forward to a solution which addresses the above deficiencies. The Council feels that given the time and level of effort spent towards clearly defining the parameters of the planning permission. This work deserves support and of all parties to bring matters to a reasonable and fair conclusion.

Third Party Responses

A number of detailed third party letters have been received which have necessitated that they are reported in more detail as described below.

-Third party objection letter received on the grounds that the proposed conditions do not achieve an appropriate balance between the requirements of the gliding club and living conditions and qulity of life of occupiers of nearby dwellings. . EIA screening letter made reference to the fact that consideration has been given to TMG’s together with SLMG’s and SSMG’s with specific reference being made to not engaging engines within 2 nautical miles of the site. In light of this the assumption that SLMG’s and SSMG’s do not engage their engine within 2 nautical miles should be secured by condition. This would meet the 6 required tests of conditions under paragraph 206 of the NPPF. If not attached the decision should be deferred so that noise assessment and EIA screening can be revisited.

- In respect of the TMG the noise report took account of the no fly zones for villages such as Bearley. This should also be secured by condition but rather than control general flight it should seek to control where engage the engine. This would meet the 6 required tests of conditions under paragraph 206 of the NPPF. If not attached the decision should be deferred so that noise assessment and EIA screening can be revisited.

-Proposed condition 9 should be amended to apply to all motor gliders; require the log to include when/where the engines are engaged and add requirement that in the event of a complaint that records are retained until the complaint is closed

Officers Note: Officers have given these points further consideration following the receipt of ta number of objections in respect of these conditions not being imposed in respect of the 2 nautical mile zones and the no fly zones. In respect of the conditions Officers consider that as general flight does not come under planning control then conditions cannot be imposed that require the 2 nautical mile zone and no fly zones to be adhered to. However, following further discussions the Gliding Club have confirmed that they would be willing to enter into a unilateral undertaking (S106 agreement) whereby the gliding club will require that any winched launched power glider (SSLG and SSMG’s) will not engage its engine within the 2 nautical mile exclusion zone and that no TMG will engage their engines within the no fly zones (as detailed in the Gliding Clubs Operational Procedures Manual covering TMG, SLMGs and SSMG’s dated July 2014) save in the event of an emergency. Non compliance with the unilateral undertaking would be enforceable by the District Council. In respect of the EIA screening opinion officers have revisited this on the basis of the conditions proposed, the unilateral undertaking and the fact that the S106 to be secured will prevent the undertaking of two planning permissions at the same time rather than the operation of the gliders that is now proposed to be secured by condition. Officers do not consider that this changes the conclusion in respect of a EIA being required. This is a material consideration for committee members to

Page 3 of 10 take into account in the determination of the planning application.

- In light of this the recommendation in respect of the application is proposed to be amended as follows (amendment underlined)

It is therefore recommended that the application is APPROVED, subject to the completion of a S106 agreement requiring the gliding club to agree not to exercise their rights under permission S87/0253 and a unilateral undertaking (S106 agreement) whereby the gliding club will require that any winched launched power glider (SSLG and SSMG’s) will not engage their engine within the 2 nautical mile exclusion zone and that no TMG will engage their engine within the no fly zones (as detailed in the Gliding Clubs Operational Procedures Manual covering TMG, SLMGs and SSMG’s dated July 2014) save in the event of an emergency and the imposition of the following conditions the Planning Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is delegated to officers:

-Third Party objection letter received on the following grounds:

Snitterfield Airfield Notes on noise observations 25 January 2015

-Following receipt of latest information some brief observations and sound recordings were made of winch/cable launch activity and vehicle movements on the airfield (Officers note: These noise recordings have been listened to by the District Council’s Noise Consultant). The letter describes the conditions when recordings were undertaken as well as the time, recording duration and observations. -Recordings illustrate the following problems with the latest information submitted by Resound Acoustics: -Cable noise is dominant noise from the winching activity at the west end of the airfield and will make a difference in the noise impact for westerly operations. This is ignored in the latest information. -In respect fo easterly operations that assertion that cable noise would not affect the calculated total impact is unproven conjecture and seems unrealistic. From the site visit the cable noise was significant and additional to the winch noise. -Other elements of noise not included in the noise impact assessment including the winch operating outside the launching process (such as Land Rover collecting the winch) and other sundry noises on the site. -Overall considered that the noise impact should comprehensively assess the total noise arising from the site during the clubs existing and proposed operations.

Issues with the noise data

1. Cable noise is significant and should be measured and included in the impact assessment 2. Vehicle noise is audible at (inside) Wayfield House (Officers note: the closest residential property to the application site) and should be measured and included in the noise assessment 3. Not clear the included TMG warm up routines are all representative of the real –life or required routines taking into account the aircraft manufacturers operating manuals. 4. Sound of gliders landing not included in the impact assessment.

TMG Noise assumptions

Details of main manual for (1990 version) and Engine Maintenance Manual (1992 version) and the warm up routine are specified.

-Protocol detailed in latest letter from Resound Acoustics do not match the protocol on the manual. -Not clear whether the modelled assumptions properly reflect the taxiing of TMG’s to take-off points and from landing points

Page 4 of 10 Issues with Impact Assessment

1. Recalculated impact is much greater but the answer is the same (as detailed in the first committee report) – this is unfair and undermines the whole rigour of the approach. 2. Impact has not been assessed against periods of relative tranquility 3. An assessment of the winch should be assessed under BS 4142 and do not agree with the grounds for not doing so put forward by the Resound Acoustics Noise Consultants. . 4. Concerns over the robustness of the background noise measurements.

Issues with conditions

1. The overall limit of 45dBA is illogical and unreasonable (4 points raised to demonstrate this making reference to background noise levels). 2. The winch and ancillary noise creating activities should be subject to conditions that correspond to the assumptions modelled in the impact assessment. 3. TMG’s are all different. Each TMG operating should be individually assessed, having regard to its actual noise and actual operating protocols.

-Objection letter received from third party stating that the District Council is in material error in proposing to allow the variation to be applied for under the provisions of S73. It is considered that there are many aspects of the proposed changes that that go to the heart of the permission and that would change the use of the site including but not limited to: 1. TMG’s are fundamentally different to gliders and use the site in a way not permitted by the original permsiion 2. Policy COM.8 states Snitterfield is used solely for non-motorised gliders (Officers Note: this is referred to in the explanatory text of the policy) 3. Many disperate things incorporate the word glider in their nameor description. Does not make things central to the operation of a gliding club. 4. Not designed primarily for gliding 5. Different pilot licence to gliders 6. Conditions 6 and 16 integral and central to the permission that was granted.

In light of this either 1. The conditions are peripheral to the permission, as the council has argued, in which case the original core permission does not cover an airfield at all; or 2 the conditions are integral to the permission (as was intended) and thus the changes to condition 6 and 16 are self-evidently not minor. Conclusion that a material change of use will not result is wrong and a new planning application is required.

-Objection letter received from third party raising the following points in respect of the published committee report.

1.Page 9 Comments in respect of the Judicial Review 2. Page 19 Summary of Grounds of objection not considered to be complete 3. Page 22 Original recommendation in respect of the District Council’s Environmental Health officer should be described properly and not omit his recommendation of a BS4142 derived noise limit. 4. Page 26 Description of site visit would be more accurate if it mentioned there was strong wind and most of the TMG activity was observed from an upwind position. 5. Page 27 and 28 issue of material change addressed in previous correspondence. 6. Page 29 Description of the gliding club activities as small scale is incorrect. 7.Page 29 policy COM.8A not mentioned that Snitterfield is expressly described as solely used for winch launching 8. page 31 (final parpagraph) states that changes of more than 3dBA may require mitigation. Letter E from Resound Acoustics states that where such levels arise mitigation should be employed to reduce noise levels 9. Page 32 updated noise for TMG. Unresolved issues commented on previously. 10. Page 32There appears to be fundamental misunderstanding or conflict between various references to the proposed noise limit of 45dBLAeq. 11. Page 33 Proposed new noise condition states to take into account the operation of the gliding club together with the residential amenity. However, contradicts the fact that the

Page 5 of 10 revised condition provides less protection to residential amenity. 12.Page 34 Comments from Resound Acoustics in their draft report and comments from SDC Environmental Health Officer add further weight to the need for a BS4142 assessment. 13. Page 35 Mitigation to reduce the impact level below the LOAEL is available. – guidance makes it clear this is required. 14. Page 36 The various assumptions and assertions regarding the TMG noise need to be matched to actual operating guidance. 15. Page 38 Evidence has been provided to to show that vehicle noise is audible at more than 100m. 16. Using a S106 agreement there is nothing to stop a parallel operator exploiting the old permission. 17. Page 42. Assessment of the effect on tranquility is inadequate. Reference should be made to qualitative guidance on tranquility eg. The 2012 ERCD report Tranquility- an overview. Assessment does not take into account the low points of noise. Conclusion suggests confusion on issue generally. 18. Page 44. Clear that the development has an impact on the SSSI. Warwickshire Wildlife Trust comments have been ignored. 19. Page 50. The harm to the environment has been dismissed whilst not even questioning the basis for anticipating benefits for the gliding club that are false. 20. Proposed conditions need tidying up .

2 e-mails received from a third party objecting on the following grounds:

-Model aircraft have been flown on the site which is in breach of condition 6 of the 1997 planning permission. Observations have been made of model aircraft flying on the site in December 2014. - The removal of the condition requiring the no engine zone for SLMG’s and SSMG’s requires the noise assessment to be revised to consider the potential impact additional to that already assessed.

In addition to the above 16 additional letters of objection and 1 verbal response objecting to the proposal have been received from third parties on the following grounds:

-Detrimental Impact on the tranquility of the area -Impact on the membership of the golf course -Have a detrimental impact on the health of residents. -Impact on the quiet enjoyment of Snitterfield and Bearley -No economic justification for the proposed development -No justification for use of motorised gliders on the site -Difficult to enforce conditions -Increase in traffic levels -Will reduce the number of visitors visiting Arden Lakes (commercial fisheries with approximately 6,000 anglers visiting a year) -Noise levels would be unacceptable and would extend to all daylight hours especially of both winch and powered launches on the site. -Where would fuel be stored for planes? -Would planning permission be required for new gliders if new ones came onto the site subsequent to any planning permission being granted? -Instances of low flying gliders over homes in the area. -Requirements of the glider club should not outweigh the opinions of residents. -Alternative compromise proposal would be acceptable. -Engine noise would be intrusive whereas the winch does not. -Noise Impact Assessment cannot simply measure and record noise in dBA, as this does not capture noise characteristics. -Will disturb the bats on the adjoining SSSI. -Alternative gliding clubs exist e.g. Bidford on Avon. -Gliders should be equipped with radio and air traffic control should be present. -Only the specification of the glider assessed should be used on site -Concern over whether controls can be exercised for short run up checks.

Page 6 of 10 -Concern that future users of the site will not be covered by planning permission. -Concern that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on Straford Armouries and --Hawkswood Farm especially in light of the recent approval for log cabins (14/03115/FUL). Should be a no fly zone over these properties.

-Additional grounds for objection raised by third party (in addition to those reported in the committee report):

-The development is inconsistent with policy COM.8A -LA90 is the appropriate baseline noise measure for considering tranquility

Consultations

For completeness the Environmental Health comments in respect of BS4142:1997 are detailed below (which are referred to in the latest response from Environmental Health in the committee report):

I have considered the Resound Acoustics Noise Assessment report and I find myself in agreement with its conclusions. I have also paid particular attention to its recommendations in section 7 of the report and I have the following observations:

Para 7.2 - The approach taken in the recommended condition in the choice of limit and the locations where it is applicable is one of three possible routes to enforcement, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages. I am therefore content that the rationale for choosing it instead of the alternatives is valid and defensible. I would however suggest that the word "existing" be inserted before "any residential property". I also note that in the last sentence in 7.2 regarding holiday accommodation the word "not" should be inserted before "include" to avoid contradicting paragraph 7.9.

Para 7.8 - The reference made in this recommended condition to a red line can be confusing because of the use of two non-contiguous red lines on the same plan.

Para 7.12 -If the wording of the existing condition 16 of the 1987 permission is to be changed, I would suggest that the opportunity is also taken to 'modernise' the condition by substituting the existing 50 and 40 dBA limits with noise Rating Levels of 50 dBLAr(l hour) and 40 dBLAr(l hour) respectively. This updating of the noise index used would reflect the intent of the original condition which was to deal with fairly constant machinery or equipment noise. Its practical effects would be two-fold:

-It would guide the measurement methodology and the time period (1 hour) over which any 'averaging' of noise from such sources would be assessed, as used in 7.2 and as advised in BS4142:1997

-It would apply a penalty of 5dB to the measured noise emitted from such sources, if it contained any particularly disturbing or annoying characteristics, again as advised in BS4142:1997.

On the subject of the Gliding Club's compliance with historic permission conditions, it has been suggested that complaints have been made in the past to the council's Environmental Health department about noise from the application site. Having examined our records and having consulted with colleagues I can state that, although concern has been expressed by residents about the impact of proposals at the site, no complaints of noise nuisance from either flying or ground- based operations have ever been received by Environmental Health about actual operations there.However, two incidents have been reported to Environmental Health, relating to events on 16/03/2014 and 11/09/2014, when powered gliders were claimed to be operating

Page 7 of 10 from the application site in breach of the club's planning consent. 5uch incidents are outside our remit and the reports were forwarded to Planning Enforcement for further investigation.

- Response from WCC Highways

No objection

-Response from Natural England

No comment to make

-Response from NATS Safeguarding

No safeguarding objection to the proposal

Assessment of the key issues

Final paragraph page 31 of the committee report 6th line up from bottom replace ‘may’ with ‘should’

Recommendation: Conditions

Amendment to the wording of condition 5 (additional wording underlined)

Save in an emergency, the only powered landings (the descent coming down to land on the ground of the glider , including touch and go as defined in condition 6) undertaken at the application site shall be those of TMG’s (a glider equipped with a method of propulsion utilising a fixed or feathered propeller) and shall not relate to winch-launched powered aircraft (self- launching motor gliders (SLMG’s) and self-sustaining motor gliders (SSMG’s) and any other form of aircraft whatsoever including microlights and model aircraft.

Amendment to wording of condition 22 (additional wording underlined)

No aerotowing ( the towing of a glider,SSMG,SLMG by a TMG to a height suitable for launching) shall take place on the site)

Amendment to the wording of condition 9 (To be added before the last sentence of the condition)

In cases where a complaint has been made to the Local Planning Authority such records shall be kept until the investigation is completed and the Local Planning Authority confirms in writing that the records are no longer required.

Amendment to condition 18 that should refer to plan 4 and not plan 6. A copy of plan 4 is attached to this update sheet.

Additional condition 23

Save in an emergency, no TMG shall enter the two noise abatement zones shown on Plans 2 and 3 during a powered landing (the descent coming down to land on the ground of the glider , including touch and go as defined in condition 6).

Officer note: As a result of this condition and the proposed unilateral undertaking the key to plans 2 and 3 and the accompanying text at the bottom of the plan will be updated.

Additional note 7

For the avoidance of doubt the conditions relating to the use of the site in respect of TMG’s SSMG’s and SLMG’s also relate equally to visitors to the site.

Page 8 of 10 Additional Note 8

The notice of decision must be read in conjunction with the associated S106 legal agreements.

Adjoining development at Armourises Museum

Members will be aware that permission 14/03115/FUL for : Change of use of land to holiday home park with the siting of up to 33 log style effect caravans was granted planning permission on 28.01.2015.

14/03293/VARY–The Stables, Mollington Lane, Warmington 1) That the word “tenants” is removed from the ward member comments on page 65 of the agenda and replaced with the word “tenets” to correct a typing error.

2) Cllr Simon Jackson (Ward Member) has requested on 29.01.2015 that this previous comments are included in full in the committee update sheet. The submitted comments are below:

Nature of Submission: Object to the application for the following planning reasons

As I interpret it, this application seeks to expunge Conditions 2 & 3 of the extant temporary planning permission for this site as made and part of the appeal decision dated 9/11/11. The two Conditions in my view are not wholly or necessarily inextricably linked and therefore I ask the Case Officer to consider each on a split decision basis as follows:-

1. Condition 2 was predicated and given weight in the appeal decision based on the personal needs of the Applicant - including those of his wife and children, and, those of his mother and sister (c/r Paras 39-42 of the 9/11/11 Appeal Decision). These needs were also material in establishing the permitted number of caravans on the site (c/r Condition 5). Insofar that the Applicant's mother and sister have not moved onto the application site, Condition 2 has neither been fulfilled nor tested in line with the Applicant's originally stated needs and intentions. And whilst the Applicant may contend that until there is greater certainty over the longer term future of the site he is not prepared to invest further in compliance with Condition 2, this must call into question the validity and need associated with one of the central tenets of the appeal decision, and is not in my view a material planning reason in itself to vary or remove Condition 2. Accordingly I feel unable to support this element of the application - and this is irrespective of the outcome of any decision reached in respect of Condition 3.

2. Condition 3 should be considered separately - specifically in the context of landscape and environmental impacts of removing the temporary nature of the extant permission, including but not limited to the cumulative effects of:-

2.1. Para 49 of the 9/11/11 Appeal Decision and the Inspector's assessment of the planning balance leading to his decision to grant a temporary, as opposed to a permanent permission, 2.2. The introduction of the NPPF (which post-dated the Appeal Decision) that under Para 115 now affords far greater protection from harmful impacts of any development in or adjacent to the ANOB; and in this respect the relevance of SDC's saved policies EF.1 and PR.1,

2.3. Whether the hard & soft landscape works required under Condition 8 would be adequate for a longer term permission? 2.4. Whether the Applicant's Odour Assessment sufficiently allays previous concerns? 2.5. Whether overall in landscape and environmental terms, the harm associated with granting a permanent permission would be so substantial as to outweigh the benefits of

Page 9 of 10 doing so?

I make this further comment: notwithstanding the District's present shortfall in suitable sites of this nature (presently being addressed) and given the expiry date of this Condition (9/11/16), it is premature at this stage to consider its variation or removal. For this and the other reasons given above, I am unable to support this element of the application.

Page 10 of 10