Mr M Scott, Bagby Airfield, Bagby, Thirsk, North Yorkshire, YO7 2PH

The Town and Country Planning (Inquiry Procedure)(England) Rules 2000

Appeal by Mr M Scott against the refusal of planning permission and service of Enforcement Notice relating to development at Bagby Airfield.

PROOF OF EVIDENCE

Tim Wood

Hambleton District Council

Planning Inspectorate Reference APP/G2713/A/10/2136646/NWF

APP/G2713/A/10/2123183/NWF

Local Planning Authority References 10/01272/FUL 09/03959/FUL 09/04039/FUL

Local Planning Authority Enforcement Notice 09/00026/ENF_A

March 2011

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 1 -

Contents

Page Subject 5 Introduction 6 Overview 12 The Appeals 15 The main appeal 16 Planning Policy Background 17 Regional Spatial Strategy 17 Hambleton LDF Core Strategy 18 Hambleton LDF Development Policies 19 Allocation Document 20 Consideration of National Planning Policy Guidance 20 PPS1 21 PPS4 24 PPS4 and the PPS1 supplement on Climate Change 26 PPS7 27 PPG13 30 PPG18 30 PPG24 33 Consideration of the Hambleton Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies 33 Exceptional case test CP1, CP2, CP4 35 CP15 36 CP16 37 CP21 37 Consideration of the Hambleton Local Development Framework Development Policies 37 DP1 38 DP25 38 DP30 39 DP44 39 Lawful Use 40 What evidence do we actually have? 41 Continuous use of the airfield 42 Evidence from external source – As stated on the application forms

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 2 -

43 Evidence from external source - Flight data provided with the 2008 application 43 Survey data from August 2008 43 Planning Statement with the 2010 application 45 Assessment by Mr Thomas Brown of the 2008 movements report 46 Flight numbers reported by others 46 The parameters to flight numbers 48 Legal opinions 49 Conclusions on lawful use 53 Recent and Related Planning Applications 53 Issue based assessments 53 Amenity 57 Business Case 61 Landscape 65 Visual impact from Bagby Lane 65 Visual impact on Play Area and Open Space, Bagby Lane 66 Conclusions on visual amenity 66 Use of Bagby Lane by HCV’s associated with Bagby Airfield 67 Conditions 67 Enforcement Notice 68 The Ground A appeal 68 The Ground C appeal 69 The Ground F appeal 70 The Ground G appeal 70 Conclusion

Table 1 Chronology of main planning history for Bagby Airfield included in this Proof

Table 2 Lawful flight numbers

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 3 -

Appendices to this Proof

1 York Aviation statement 2 Planning history narrative and copy documents 3 Buildings with planning permission – table and plan 4 Buildings and structures without planning permission but immune from planning enforcement action – table and plan 5 Buildings and engineering operations the subject of the 2009 enforcement notice – table and plan 6 Building, use and engineering operations not included in the 2009 enforcement notice 7 Structure not requiring planning permission 8 Composite plan of those in appendices 4 - 7 9 Planning Committee report 10 The 2010 decision notice 11 Commentary on the Cala Homes decision 12 Extent of Lawful Airfield the 1976 application site boundary (planning committee report appendix 3 plan also shows this information) 13 The extended north south runway – (planning committee report appendix 5 shows this information) 14 Legal opinion David Cooper 15 Legal opinion Lockhart Mummery on instruction from David Cooper 16 Legal opinion Walker Morris on instruction from Signet planning for the appellant 17 Legal opinion Martyn Richards 18 Assessment by Thomas Brown 19 High Court Challenge to the Allocations document by Mr E Barker 20 Hambleton District Council - Enforcement and Compliance Policy (June 2008) 21 Aerial photograph of Bagby Airfield circa 1995-1997 22 Bus Routes and timetables 23 Bagby distances to nearby settlements

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 4 -

BAGBY AIRFIELD, BAGBY, THIRSK, NORTH YORKSHIRE, YO7 2PH

Appeal by Mr M Scott

STATEMENT OF Mr. Timothy J. Wood on behalf of the Local Planning Authority

Introduction

1. I am Timothy John Wood. I am the Development Manager employed by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). My qualifications are BSc (Hons) Environment Planning and I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I have been employed as a planning officer with Hambleton District Council since 1989.

2. I have been the case officer in connection with this application.

3. My evidence addresses those national and development plan policies and other material considerations relevant to assessing the merits of the proposed development. The main issues covered relate to: the impact of the operation of proposed airfield development on amenity of the neighbouring population, the lack of support that the proposal would give to sustain the rural community and the harmful impact of the proposal on the visual amenity of the landscape.

4. York Aviation has been commissioned by the Local Planning Authority to provide expert advice in relation to General Aviation. The York Aviation statement appended to this proof (Appendix TW1) demonstrates that the unauthorised development will have already given rise to a significant deterioration in the amenity of the neighbouring population and the proposal has potential to further harm the amenity of population due to the increased use of the airfield.

5. Joy Swithenbank, Environmental Health Officer at Hambleton District Council will appear as an expert witness in relation to noise impact also due to the rise in the number of aircraft movements at the airfield that has arisen from the unauthorised development and which would further increase as a consequence of the development proposed.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 5 -

6. I prepared a report to the Planning Committee (Appendix 9) which proposed a grant of planning permission. My professional view has not changed. As I made explicit in my presentation to members of the Planning Committee there is more than one means of controlling the future activity at Bagby Airfield. Either approval subject to appropriate conditions or refusal of the planning applications and enforcement of the breaches of planning control could address the impacts of the current and future operation of the airfield. I considered a balanced planning judgment was required in determining the application. On balance, Members of the Planning Committee refused planning permission and my evidence seeks to explain and support the decision of the Planning Committee.

7. Overview

8. The Appeal Site (“the Site”) has an area of 17.82 hectares (44.03 acres). At one time, the Site was part of an agricultural holding. The extent of land used as the airfield has changed overtime. Initially the grass landing strip extended further west than is currently the case and was extended eastwards in April 1999. A summertime aerial photograph (Appendix 21) taken sometime between 1995 and 1997 from a position to the south west of the airfield shows the western end extending further that it does at present and further than was shown in either the 1976 or 2010 application site boundaries (see Appendix 12), the eastern extension stated to have first been in use on 1st April 1998 is evident. The aerial photograph also shows the land in the position of the current north south runway to be in cultivation and not available as a grass runway. The central area of the airfield has a longstanding use as an airfield. It was first used as a base for flying activity around the beginning of the 1970’s. A planning permission was granted on 29 July 1976 on a personal basis to two local pilots Mr Whiting and Mr J P Lassey. The description used was “Increased use of an existing grass airstrip for private flying”. Subsequent approvals have consolidated the use of the land as an airfield by the addition of hangars and facilities for refuelling and club house. Other activities have been undertaken at the airfield including the servicing and repair of aircraft though no planning permission has been granted for such use.

9. Beyond the boundaries of the site the land is in agricultural use except for the children’s play area which is located to the northern edge of the site. The

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 6 -

play area incorporates fixed pieces of equipment some of them raised above ground level as well seats and landscaped grounds to provide a high quality of visual as well as recreational amenity to the play area. The recreational facilities include equipment and facilities to cater for a range of ages from the young child to teenager

10. The village of Bagby is mainly to the north and north east of the appeal site. There are also dwellings to the south and south west of the appeal site that are affected by activities at the airfield. Flying activities arising from the operation of the airfield also impact upon a wider area of villages within the Vale of York particularly to the south of Thirsk.

11. The proposal is to demolish all of the old buildings on the Site except for the largest aircraft hangar and replace them with a new range of hangars and clubhouse and form new access to the site. Two modern hangars will also be retained. The scheme would result in a mixed use development comprising airfield club house and other airfield facilities including aircraft maintenance.

12. During the growth of the airfield, applications have been made for the use of the grass air strip and for the construction of hangars and fuel. Full details of the history are contained in the Appendix 2. This Appendix provides copies of the Decision Notices and a narrative relating to the proposals.

13. Key dates and events in the airfield are given below.

14. Table 1 Chronology of main planning history for Bagby Airfield.

Date of Planning Details of the scheme Outcome decision reference number 27.09.1973 4/3/2568 Construction of a light aircraft Granted hangar in OS field 124 and the use of the grass runway for light aircraft.

(OS field 124 was a strip of land

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 7 -

north west of parallel to and adjoining fields 125 and 123)

29.07.1976 2/9/15PA Increased use of an existing Granted grass airstrip for private flying at OS Fields 125, 123 and 86 Bagby. Personal to Mr Whiting and Mr Lassey No more than six take-offs and landings shall take place in any one week and these shall be restricted to between the hours of 0600 and 2300 29.05.1980 2/9/15A/PA Increase in use of an existing Granted grass airstrip for private flying at OS 125, 123 and 86 Bagby. Personal to Mr Lassey, aircraft owned by him or on site with his authority No more than 40 take-offs and 40 landings in any one week between the hours of 0600 and 2300 20.06.1986 2/86/009/0015B Variation to allow 200 flights per Refused month 01.09.1986 2/86/009/0015C Construction of a clubhouse Refused and 5 hangar buildings 01.09.1986 2/86/009/0015D Variation to allow 60 take-offs Refused and 60 landings in any 7 day period 06.11.1986 2/86/009/0015E Retention of existing hangar Granted buildings Personal permission to Mr Lassey

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 8 -

Personal condition removed on appeal A note in the appeal statement in respect of the appeal against the personal permission condition states that the application 2/86/009/0015C was refused by virtue of the inclusion of the clubhouse, this application did not include a clubhouse and Members were of the opinion that a refusal of consent for the hangar buildings only was not justified subject to a condition requiring the removal of the buildings when the use as an airfield ceased. 04.11.1986 2/96/009/0015F Siting of a portakabin for use as Granted an office/aircraft control facility/ toilet/ restroom Personal permission to Mr Lassey and those using the facility with his authority 26.06.1987 2/87/009/0015G Construction of an aircraft Refused hangar 06.05.1988 2/88/009/0015H Construction of an aircraft Granted hangar 01.06.1989 2/89/009/0015J Installation of an underground Granted fuel storage tank and a fuel pump

Only to be used for the refuelling of aircraft and shall not be used for any other purpose not ancillary to the use of Bagby Airfield

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 9 -

27.07.1990 2/90/009/0015K Construction of a building for Granted the storage of light aircraft 22.08.2005 2/05/009/0015N Change of use of agricultural Granted building to agricultural and aircraft hangar 17.05.2006 06/00482/FUL Construction of an aircraft Granted hangar

16.10.2008 08/01109/FUL Construction of replacement Withdrawn clubhouse with leisure facilities “2008” scheme and accommodation, construction of 7 hangars with associated works, extension to existing hangar, siting of 4 wind turbines, new vehicular access and landscaping works 28.04.2009 09/00231/FUL Revised application for the Refused, construction of replacement Appeal “2009” scheme clubhouse with leisure facilities withdrawn and accommodation, construction of a workshop, 6 hangars with associated works, extension to existing hangar, siting of 4 No 3 metre diameter hangar roof mounted wind turbines, new vehicular access and landscaping works 09.02.2010 09/03959/FUL Retrospective application for Refused, provision of geo-textile matting subject of and concrete apron this appeal 10.02.2010 09/04039/FUL Replacement helicopter landing Refused, pad and jet fuel stop facility subject of this appeal 03.09.2010 10/01272/FUL Revised planning application Refused, on Bagby Airfield comprising an subject of “2010” scheme airfield clubhouse with three this appeal

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 10 -

bedrooms new/extended hangars with concrete aprons, new workshop/maintenance hangar artificial matting area on main runway relocated fuel line, access and car parking

15. The buildings on the airfield that have the benefit of planning permission are contained in the table and plan at Appendix 3. There are other buildings and structures on the airfield that do not have planning permission but have been in existence for more than 4 years and are therefore immune from planning enforcement action these are contained in table and plan at Appendix 4.

16. A further group of building and engineering operations on the airfield do not have planning permission, have not existed for more than 4 years, are not immune from planning enforcement action and have been the subject of a planning Enforcement Notice. These building and engineering operations are detailed in the table and plan at Appendix 5.

17. In addition to the works in the Enforcement Notice the installation of a package treatment works to serve a static caravan that has been used for residential occupation but which is now vacant, the residential use of the static caravan, the Air Ambulance restroom toilet and package treatment and hangar A do not have the benefit of planning permission. These are contained in the table and plan at Appendix 6.

18. The siting of the air ambulance restroom is currently considered to be a chattel and does not require planning permission the position of the restroom is shown on the plan at Appendix 7.

19. A composite plan showing all of the above information together with the extent of the 2010 application site boundary and orientation of the east west runway with the labels 06/24 and the north south runway with the labels 15/33 is provided at Appendix 8.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 11 -

20. Concerns were raised by the Bagby and Balk Village Society and the Bagby Parish Council

The Appeals

21. As detailed in the planning history at Table 1 above there have been 3 applications submitted for comprehensive redevelopment of the airfield. The first the “2008 scheme” was withdrawn, the second the “2009 scheme” and third the “2010 scheme” were both refused planning permission. The “2009 scheme” was a “Revised application for the construction of replacement clubhouse with leisure facilities and accommodation, construction of a workshop, 6 hangars with associated works, extension to existing hangar, siting of 4 No 3 metre diameter hangar roof mounted wind turbines, new vehicular access and landscaping works”

22. The appeal following the refusal of the “2009 scheme” has been withdrawn. The 2009 scheme was refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposals are contrary to PPS 1 and the Local Development Framework Policies CP1, CP2, CP4 as it has not be shown to be necessary to meet the needs of tourism and that the hotel facilities could not be located with the Development Limits of a settlement in the hierarchy defined at CP4.

2. The proposals are contrary to PPS 1 and the Local Development Framework Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1 and DP25 as it is not small in scale and has not been demonstrated to support the local economy which in turn would help sustain rural communities. Approval of the additional facilities would be likely to give rise to harm to the amenity of residents in the vicinity.

3. The proposals are contrary to PPS 1 and the Local Development Framework Policies CP16 and DP30 as the proposal would harm to the character and appearance of the landscape.

4. The proposals are contrary to the Local Development Framework Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1 as approval of reinforcement to the runway, hardstanding and surfacing of the runway would increase the number of flights and weather conditions underwhich the runway could be used and which would fail to adequately protect the amenity of residents in the vicinity, particularly with regard to noise and disturbance as required by DP1.

23. There are, therefore, 4 appeals which are detailed in this proof of evidence. Three of these relate to the three refusals of planning permission and the fourth in respect of the Enforcement Notice

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 12 -

24. The appeals are set out in order of the date of submission to the Planning Inspectorate are:-

The matting and concrete apron application

(i) 09/03959/FUL following the refusal of a retrospective application for provision of geo-textile matting and concrete apron.

Reason for refusal:

1. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Framework Policies CP1, DP1 and CP4 as retrospective approval of geo-textile matting reinforcement to the runway and a concrete hangar apron would increase the number of flights and weather conditions under which the runway and hangar 'A' access could be used and which would fail to adequately protect or enhance the amenity of the population, particularly with regard to noise and disturbance as required by DP1.

The refuelling facility application

(ii) 09/04039/FUL following the refusal of an application for a replacement helicopter landing pad and jet fuel stop facility

Reasons for refusal:

1 The proposal is contrary to PPS7 and the Local Development Framework Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1 and DP25 as it has not been supported by a business case that demonstrates that support will be provided to the local economy which in turn would help sustain rural communities.

2 The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Framework Policies CP1, DP1 and CP4 as the provision of an additional helicopter landing pad and jet refuelling facilities would increase the number of rotary wing flights that could be accommodated at the airfield which in turn would fail to adequately protect or enhance the amenity of the population, particularly with regard to noise and disturbance as required by DP1.

3 It is considered that the proposal is contrary to Local Development Framework Policies CP1 as it would generate an adverse traffic impact on the local population due to the increased levels of heavy commercial vehicular access anticipated to be necessary to service the jet fuel stop, the access route to which is not defined.

4 The proposal is contrary to PPS23 and Local Development Framework Policies CP1 as no details have been provided to demonstrate that the proposal will not give rise to spills that could pollute ground and surface water and no details have been provided to mitigate the risk of damage leading to a pollution event.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 13 -

(iii) The 2009 Enforcement Notice relating to

(1) Without planning permission the unauthorised operational development comprising the construction of the aircraft hanger as shown edged blue and identified as hanger E on the attached plan.

(2) Without planning permission the unauthorised operational development comprising the concreting of the apron to aircraft hanger E as shown edged green on the attached plan.

(3) Without planning permission the unauthorised operational development comprising the concreting of the apron to the aircraft hanger marked A as shown edged pink on the attached plan.

(4) Without planning permission the unauthorised operational development comprising the concreting of part of the main east west runway as shown edged yellow on the attached plan

(5) Without planning permission the unauthorised engineering works/operational development comprising the installation of plastic geo-textile matting on the main east west runway as shown edged orange on the attached plan.

The 2010 comprehensive redevelopment

(iv) 10/01272/FUL following the refusal of a revised planning application comprising an airfield clubhouse with three bedrooms new/extended hangars with concrete aprons, new workshop/maintenance hangar artificial matting area on main runway relocated fuel line, access and car parking

Reasons for refusal:

1. The proposal is contrary to PPG24 and the Local Development Framework Policies CP1, DP1, CP4, CP21 and DP44 as the proposed development would give rise to a number of aircraft movements at the airfield that would fail to adequately protect or enhance the amenity of the population, particularly with regard to noise and disturbance as required by Policy DP1.

2. The proposal is contrary to PPS4 and the Local Development Framework Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, CP1 and DP25 as it has not been supported by a business case that demonstrates that support will be provided to the local economy which in turn would help sustain rural communities.

3. The proposal is contrary to PPS1 and PPS7 and the Local Development Framework Policies CP16 and DP30 as the proposal would have a harmful impact on the visual amenity of the landscape.

25. The main application is the last of these; 10/01272/FUL which was registered as a valid application on 27 May 2010 having been received by

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 14 -

Hambleton District Council on 18 May 2010. The 2010 proposal sought a comprehensive redevelopment of the site and included within it a repeat of the works sought by the first and second applications listed above as well as the works that were the subject of the Enforcement Notice.

26. The main appeal

27. The existing use of the Site was described in the “2010 scheme” application forms as “airfield, aircraft parking, storage, repair, maintenance, refuelling, aircraft hire, flying lessons, training, clubhouse with bar and dining facilities.”

28. The application was accompanied by the following:- a. Planning Support Statement b. Statement of community involvement c. Design and Access Statement d. Landscape visual assessment e. Phase 1 Habitat and protected species survey f. Site location plan g. Landscape masterplan h. Site plan existing and demolition i. Survey photo’s existing hangars j. Proposed hangar plans, elevations and sections k. Proposed fuel stop elevations and plans l. A statement on sustainability m. An aircraft movement survey n. A site investigation report o. A flood risk/drainage report

29. The application as already noted was a revised application. Being a replacement of application 08/01109/FUL that was withdrawn and application 09/00231/FUL that was refused planning permission. The revised scheme was of reduced size as it removed the swimming pool, spa and leisure facilities and the restaurant and hotel bedrooms from the first scheme.

30. The application was the subject of a member site visit and was resolved to be refused at the Planning Committee meeting on 19 August 2010 and refused by Decision Notice issued on 3 September 2010.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 15 -

31. A holding direction was issued by the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber on 17 August 2010 directing that the application was not to be granted permission without special authorisation. The Direction was issued to enable the Secretary of State to consider whether or not he should direct under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the application should be referred to him for determination.

32. A copy of the report to the Planning Committee is at Appendix 9.

33. The Decision Notice at Appendix 10 states that:

2. The proposal is contrary to PPS4 and the Local Development Framework Policies CP1, CP2, CP4 and DP25 as it has not been supported by a business case that demonstrates that support will be provided to the local economy which in turn would help sustain rural communities.

3. The proposal is contrary to PPS1 and PPS7 and the Local Development Framework Policies CP16 and DP30 as the proposal would have a harmful impact on the visual amenity of the landscape.

34. The details of earlier applications and a synopsis of the history of Bagby Airfield which is pertinent to the appeals is at Appendix 2.

35. Planning Policy Background

36. Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) requires that if regard is to be had to the development plan in any determination, that determination shall be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 38(5) requires that where policies in the development plan conflict the conflict must be resolved in favour of the last adopted document.

37. The development plan for Hambleton comprises:

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 16 -

(i) The Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and The Humber to 2026 (Published May 2008) (ii) The Hambleton Local Development Framework Core Strategy April 2007 (iii) The Development Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) adopted February 2008 (iv) The Allocations Development Plan Document adopted December 2010

38. Regional Spatial Strategy

39. At the time of the determination of the main planning application on 3rd September 2010 the Regional Spatial Strategy had been deleted as a material consideration following the letter from the Secretary of State. Since that date the document has been reinstated following a High Court challenge. The judgment in the High Court to the latest challenge from Cala Homes has confirmed that the Government’s intention to do away with regional strategies is a material consideration when making planning decisions. (See Appendix 11 for a commentary on the Cala Homes decision).

40. There were no Regional Spatial Strategy policies referred to in the deliberations on the applications or reasons for the service of the Enforcement Notice or preparation of the Statements of Case. No direct reference is made in the preparation of this Proof of Evidence to the Regional Spatial Strategy. The Regional Spatial Strategy was in place at the time of the preparation and adoption of the three Hambleton Local Development Framework documents and is quoted throughout those documents. Accordingly, the Local Planning Authority consider that the Regional Spatial Strategy has been implemented in the local context by the adopted parts of the Local Development Framework.

41. Hambleton Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted April 2007)

42. The Core Strategy presents the overall spatial strategy for development in Hambleton to 2021, setting out how development is to be distributed appropriately during that time. Five sub areas were identified in the Core Strategy as well as a settlement hierarchy which would accommodate the

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 17 - identified level of development. The Core Strategy was submitted to the Government for Examination on 17 February 2006 and the Examination Hearings were held over 7 days between 10-20 October 2006. The Inspectors Report was received on 19 February 2007 and the Council adopted the Core Strategy on 3 April 2007.

43. Spatial Principle 1 of the Core Strategy defines an “area of opportunity” which is drawn in a very simplistic style to encompass the Thirsk area, the southern part of the Northallerton area and the eastern part of the Bedale area. Bagby lies within the Thirsk Sub Area and appears to be at the very south eastern edge of the “area of opportunity”. The Core Strategy defines at paragraph 3.4 that the area is “Reflecting the scope for development, in particular based on its accessibility scale of existing facilities and relative lack of development constraints, and consistent with the RSS strategy, this is the area where most housing and employment related development will take place”.

44. Hambleton Local Development Framework Development Policies DPD (with proposals map) (adopted February 2008)

45. The Development Policies document was submitted on 25 August 2006 and the Examination Hearings took place over 7 days between 5 and 28 June 2007. The Inspector's Report was issued on 15 November 2007. The Council adopted the Development Policies document, with the Inspectors recommended amendments, on 26 February 2008.

46. The DPD provides further clarification and detail to the broad spatial policies set out in the Core Strategy. The adoption of the Core Strategy and Development Policies replaced all the ‘saved’ policies of the Hambleton District Wide Local Plan 1999 Policies with the exception of Policy L1 – Development Limits. Policy L1 was replaced on the adoption of the Allocation Document on 21 December 2010.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 18 -

47. Hambleton Local Development Framework Allocation Document DPD (with Proposals Map)

48. A call for potential sites for allocation was undertaken in 2004 and in excess of 800 sites were received. Sites were then categorised in terms of suitability by applying the spatial strategy set out in the draft Core Strategy – particularly Policy CP4, the sustainable settlement hierarchy. Assessment of sites were undertaken and, in line with CP4, sites located in the Principal Service Centres, Service Centres and Service Villages were then taken forward and considered at the Issues and Option consultation stage in November 2005.

49. Following the results and responses of this consultation, an overall approach to spatial options was explored for each of the five Service Centres in Hambleton (including the Principal Service centres of Northallerton and Thirsk). As a result of this further work the preferred options (and rejected ones) for each settlement were set out at the Preferred Options consultation stage in October 2007. Preferred allocations in Service Villages were also identified along with rejected options with reasons given for inclusion or rejection.

50. Responses to this consultation were considered and lead to the publication of the Proposed Submission Allocations document in January 2009. Representations were received on this and as a result of particular representations a re-run of the Proposed Submission period for representations was undertaken and took place in October 2009.

51. The Submission Allocation document was submitted to Government on 18 December 2009 for Examination. Hearings took place over 8 days between 212 and 27 May 2010. The Inspectors Report was published on 1 September 2010 and the Council adopted the Allocations Document on 21 December 2010.

52. A legal challenge to the Allocations Document was lodged with the High Court dated 1 February 2011. This relates to the allocation of a mixed use site at Thirsk and, in particular, the consultation process leading up to the submission of the document and the attempt by Government to revoke the Regional Spatial Strategy. The challenge is being defended by the Local Planning Authority. The validity of the allocations document is not considered to be relevant to this Appeal

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 19 - and, in any event, the document should be treated as adopted, until such time as the Courts rule otherwise (given the presumption of regularity in administrative decision-making).

53. Consideration of National Planning Policy Guidance

54. The main National policy guidance relating to the appeals is found in:

• PPS1 • PPS4 • PPS7 • PPG13 • PPG18 • PPG24

55. Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) – Delivering Sustainable Development

56. PPS1 is relevant as it sets the General Principles for achieving sustainable development. The Governments objectives for the planning system are that “Good planning is a positive and proactive process, operating in the public interest through a system of plan preparation and control over the development and use of land.” (paragraph 2). PPS1 provides the Government’s overarching policy on Social Cohesion and Inclusion, Protection and Enhancement of the Environment, Prudent Use of Natural Resources Sustainable Economic Development and delivery of sustainable development through amongst other things good quality design and community involvement (paragraph 4).

57. PPS1 requires that Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development which identifies at paragraph 5 the three themes of sustainable development, economic, social and environmental both combined and individually. “Protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities” is the third bullet point of paragraph 5, signalling the importance to the nation of the countryside. Paragraph 17 reinforces the

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 20 - message from paragraph 5 under the heading of “Planning for Sustainable Development” it states that “The Government is committed to protecting and enhancing the qualities of the natural and historic environment, in both rural and urban areas”. Paragraph 33 advises that “Good design ensures attractive usable durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development. Good design is indivisible from good planning.”

58. The policy in PPS1 is relevant in this case with regard to the protection of the environment, particularly the protection of the environment for the benefit of the local population, locating development in places that reduce the need for travel, and in so far as it demands good design.

59. Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

60. PPS4 “Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth” sets Government policy both in respect of Plan Making and Development management policies and includes policies relating to the determination of planning applications for economic development in rural areas.

61. PPS4 requires Local Planning Authorities to adopt a positive approach towards planning applications for economic development. Policy EC10 Determining Planning Applications for Economic Development and EC12 Determining Planning Applications for Economic Development in Rural Areas are particularly pertinent.

62. PPS4 Policy EC10.2 requires applications to be assessed against 5 factors. The first of these relates to limiting the emission of carbon dioxide over the lifetime of the development and minimising the vulnerability of and resilience to the effects of climate change. The application provides advice that the clubhouse would utilise techniques to minimise energy use and the energy embodied in the building. No measurement has been attempted with regards limiting the emissions of carbon dioxide over the commercial aircraft maintenance space or the other aircraft hangars. Other than a presumption that modern aircraft are more fuel efficient and that the increased amount of hangar space will be occupied by more modern aircraft, which could pro rata produce less carbon

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 21 - dioxide than older aircraft, which have previously been kept outside, there is no link that can be logically drawn between the expansion of hangar space and the Government's commitment to limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

63. The development proposals, when considered against the target to minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to the effect of climate change (PPS4 EC10.2), show a reduction in vulnerability to disruption caused by the weather to the operation of the airfield by the provision of additional areas of hard surfacing to both the runway and hangar aprons and matting reinforcement to the runway and taxi-ways to both aircraft hangars and refuelling points.

64. The second element of PPS4 EC10.2 is “the accessibility of the proposal by means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car and the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured”. As noted above there are significant obstacles to the accessibility of the site by walking and cycling other than for staff or visitors travelling between the site and locations within Bagby village. The site is not served by any meaningful level of public transport that would be a viable means of access to work.

65. Bagby is served by buses on three routes, Services 58, 59 and M11. Service 58 runs from York – Thirsk – Northallerton and returns provides at most 4 buses per day the stop is at Bagby Lane End on the side of the A19 a distance of about 1 kilometre from the residential part of Bagby. Service 59 provides a circuit of villages south east with access to Thirsk. It provides 4 return buses per day with the earliest arrival in Bagby from Thirsk at 09:58 and the last departure from Bagby to Thirsk at 18:22. Service M11 runs from Northallerton to Helmsley through the village of Bagby and is limited to 3 buses in each direction per day at weekends only from 28th March to 31st October and everyday during the last week in July and all of August. (Appendix 22 provides copies of the timetables for these services).

66. The proposal will be heavily reliant on the use of the private car to gain access to the site.

67. The third element of PPS4 EC10.2 is “whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 22 - the character and quality of the area and the way it functions”. The proposal incorporates a series of components which differ in design quality and impacts on the character and quality of the area. Whilst the design quality of the built form of the clubhouse is not challenged overall the scheme does not make a positive contribution to the area. The range of aircraft hangars causes a harmful intrusion on the visual amenity of the landscape. The scheme does not present significant opportunities for inclusive design as it is plainly designed with the purpose of serving the aviation user or enthusiast and is not a facility that would be used by all in the community. The operation of the airfield with increased capacity would cause harm to the function of the area as the level of noise disturbance would rise as increased use is made of the airfield facilities.

68. The fourth element of PPS4 EC10.2 is “the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives”. The proposal does not quantify the economic regeneration effects that may flow from it. The area is not deprived and the schemes will not address and social inclusion objectives. The most recent data from Office of National Statistics Nomis at (2001 ward level) shows the unemployed to be 3% of the population of the White Horse ward compared to the Hambleton Average of 3.1% and National average of 5.7%. The year ending in June 2010 shows the Hambleton unemployment figure at 4.5% and the National figure to be 7.7%.

69. The final element of PPS4 EC10.2 relates to “the impact on local employment”. There is a lack of detail of regarding the impacts on local employment. As noted in the reason for refusal (10/01272/FUL) the scheme was not supported by a business case to demonstrate what support would be provided to the local economy.

70. EC12.1a provides local planning authorities with additional policy on Determining Planning Applications for Economic Development in Rural Areas. Policy EC12 starts by supporting the re-use of buildings in the countryside for economic development purposes and goes on to set out four elements in considering proposals for economic development. The first of these is whether the proposal enhances the vitality and viability of market towns and other rural service centres. The proposal contains no detail that demonstrates any significant means to enhance the vitality or viability of a market town or rural service centre. The nearest market town is Thirsk about 3km distant. There are

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 23 - no nearby rural service centres, the nearest are Carlton Miniott and Topcliffe both about 7km’s distant.

71. The second element of EC12.1b relates to small scale economic development where it is the most sustainable option. Whilst the number of people employed at the airfield is not detailed the scale of the buildings are not small in scale. There is no evidence to suggest that there are unemployed people who would wish to be employed at the airfield or that the developments would bring about new jobs for local people. The proposal is therefore considered not to benefit from the presumptions set out relating to locations that are not readily accessible by public transport sometimes still being acceptable. Plainly the nature of the proposals for aircraft hangars and clubhouse is not ‘foot- loose’. Its location is fixed by the relationship with the existing airfield. The remaining elements of EC12.1 relating to the impact on the supply of employment sites and conversion and reuse of buildings and are not pertinent to the appeal.

72. PPS4 and its relationship to the Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1.

73. PPS4 EC10.2 also makes reference to Paragraphs 9 and 42 of the Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1. The paragraphs refer to plan making and the determination of planning applications respectively. The Supplement to PPS1 sets out at paragraph 9 the “Key Planning Objectives” that should be embodied in spatial strategies. The objectives include an aim to “deliver patterns of urban growth and sustainable rural development that help secure the fullest possible use of sustainable transport for moving freight, public transport, cycling and walking; and which overall reduce the need to travel, especially by car.”

74. The proposals for development at Bagby Airfield do not contribute significantly to any of the Key Planning Objectives of the climate change supplement to PPS1. As it makes no contribution towards sustainability, it does not provide any information to show that new jobs for local people will be created and will not provide services or infrastructure to meet the needs of the local community, does not lead to a reduction in emissions, does not reduce the need for travel, it does provide some reduction in vulnerability and resilience to climate change as noted in the previous paragraph, does not conserve or enhance biodiversity in any significant way, does not reflect the needs or interests of

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 24 - communities and enable them to tackle climate change and it does not encourage business competitiveness and technological innovation. The proposal does not achieve more than one of the Key Planning Objectives of the Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1.

75. At paragraph 42 of the Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1 a further 7 objectives are set out for consideration when determining a planning application. The 7 objectives relate to decentralised energy supply, minimising carbon dioxide emission through careful consideration of a wide range of design measures, delivery of high quality local environment, providing open space, use of sustainable drainage systems, provide for sustainable waste management and sustainable transport.

76. The proposed clubhouse building meets some of the objectives set out as it seeks to comply with the Development Policies DPD Policy DP34 requirement for energy efficiency and has scope within the site to orientate the building to maximise solar gain and proposes drainage of the clubhouse building by means of a sustainable drainage system. No such measures are proposed for the hangar buildings.

77. The transport element of paragraph 42 of the PPS1 supplement relates to the objective to:

“create and secure opportunities for sustainable transport in line with PPG13 including through - the preparation and submission of travel plans.”

No travel plan has been submitted.

78. The paragraph 42 of the PPS1 supplement concludes the objective of sustainable transport by expecting new development to include:

“providing for safe and attractive walking and cycling opportunities including where appropriate, secure cycle parking and changing facilities; and an alternative approach to the provision and management of car parking.”

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 25 -

79. The location of the appeal site could only be an attractive walking and cycling destination for staff or visitors who live within the village or immediately adjoining the village of Bagby. The distance to other centres of population is too great for pedestrians, and is also unviable for cyclists due to volume and speed of traffic on the road network and lack of a cycle-way to make longer journeys to surrounding villages or the town of Thirsk viable. It is acknowledged that the scale of development proposed could not in its own justify the provision of off- road cycling routes.

80. The provision and management of car parking is not considered to be a determining factor in this scheme and the amendments made to PPG13 in January 2011 would reduce the weight that could be applied in any case.

81. Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

82. PPS7 is relevant as it guides development in rural areas, whilst some elements of PPS7 have been superseded by PPS4. PPS7 restates the kep principles stating that “Sustainable development is the core principle underpinning land use planning”. It also notes support in general for the re-use of previously developed (“brownfield”) site in preference to greenfield sites, and that “development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness” (PPS1 paragraph 1(vi)).

83. The scheme does not respect the visual amenity of the landscape and is therefore contrary to this last element of the key principles of PPS7. At paragraph 14 of PPS7 are the words:

“Whilst much of the land use activity in the countryside is outside the scope of the planning system, planning has an important role in supporting and facilitating development and land uses which enable those who earn a living from, and help to maintain and manage the countryside, to continue to do so.”

84. At paragraph 15 PPS7 adds that:

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 26 -

“Planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, enhanced.

85. Paragraph 14 makes reference to both landscape protection and to the human dimension. The 2010 appeal scheme shows blocks of new landscape planting which would restore some elements to the local landscape that have been lost through time. However the appeal schemes have not been shown to support those who earn a living from the land. No support has been given from neighbouring landowners or those working in the countryside stating that the development at Bagby Airfield would assist their business or assist in them to maintain or manage the countryside. The only comments made by those operating businesses based in the countryside have commented upon the impact of aircraft noise disturbing livestock and endangering staff and the impact upon the peaceful enjoyment of the countryside for visitors to holiday accommodation and for residents alike.

86. Paragraph 34 of PPS7 ‘Tourism and Leisure’ recognises the importance of tourism and leisure activities to many rural economies. It notes “As well as sustaining many rural businesses, these industries are a significant source of employment and help to support the prosperity of country towns and villages, and sustain historic country houses, local heritage and culture.” The proposals at Bagby Airfield have as set out by the operators of tourism businesses threatened the livelihood rather than supporting them, as a consequence of the intrusive level of noise.

87. Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) - Transport

88. PPG13 provides the Government’s policy on transport. It sets out as series of objectives at paragraph 4.

“4. The objectives of this guidance are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level to: 1. promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight 2. promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and 3. reduce the need to travel, especially by car

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 27 -

5. This guidance sets out the circumstances where it is appropriate to change the emphasis and priorities in provision between different transport modes, in pursuit of wider Government objectives. The car will continue to have an important part to play and for some journeys, particularly in rural areas, it will remain the only real option for travel.”

89. At paragraph 40 entitled Rural Areas PPG13 recognises the reliance on the car as a key means of transport however it still argues that new traffic generating development should take place in the most accessible locations or where accessibility will be improved as a result of new measures. Public transport is still of some potential value as are walking and cycling but guides at paragraph 43 that Local Planning Authorities “should not reject proposals where small-scale business development or its expansion would give rise to only modest additional daily vehicle movements, in comparison to other uses that are permitted on the site, and the impact on minor roads would not be significant.”

90. In this case the extent of increase in vehicle movements is not known and whilst the scale of the built development is large the number of jobs created is also not known and may not result in a significant increase in vehicle movements. A proportionate response is required by PPG13 noting that the developments with larger numbers of employees have a greater need to be in accessible locations.

91. Bagby Airfield is poorly located in terms of accessibility to centres of population without reliance on the use of a car, Appendix 23 shows Bagby in its wider context and notes the distances to surrounding settlements. The links for pedestrians are too long, for cyclists the road conditions are not favourable and public transport facilities are inadequate to cater for the needs of staff or visitors to the airfield. No travel plan has been promoted by the appellants to address the access issues to the airfield. Accordingly increasing the businesses and the number of employees at the airfield would not sit well against the policy of PPG13.

92. PPG13 Annex B paragraph 4 says that Local Planning Authorities will need to consider (second bullet point) “the role of small airports and airfields in serving business, recreational, training and emergency services needs. As demand for commercial air transport grows, this General Aviation (GA) may find access to larger airports increasingly

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 28 - restricted. GA operators will therefore have to look to smaller airfields to provide facilities. In formulating their plan policies and proposals, and in determining planning applications, local authorities should take account of the economic, environmental, and social impacts of GA on local and regional economies.”

93. The business reality for the commercial aviation sector has not been one of continuing growth. The policy statement appears dated and is indeed more than 10 years old. The global economy, security and environmental factors have all reduced demand for commercial aviation such that the anticipated pressures on larger or regional airports has not arisen. The lack of need for increased capacity together with the changed emphasis in Government towards controlling carbon dioxide emissions in response to the need to respond to the threats arising from climate change undermine the basis for this policy statement.

94. Most of the remaining guidance in PPG13 Annex B relates to airports of much larger scale than the proposals at Bagby. However, reference is also made to the need to very carefully consider the environmental impacts of aviation and that advice on noise is given in PPG24.

95. There are two transport issues of detail:

(i) the movement of aviation fuel to the site by road along Bagby Lane and the safety of the junction of Bagby Lane; and (ii) the A19 and its suitability to accommodate increased traffic flows and the potential for increased hazards to drivers from low flying aircraft on either arrival or departure from the airfield.

96. The movement of aviation fuel to Bagby Airfield is currently via a narrow unmade road between residential property in the village street. At paragraph 46 of PPG13 it is noted that

“Freight movements, particularly those serving developments near to residential areas and in town centres, are often restricted in their hours of operation, through the imposition of conditions, because of concerns over disturbance to residents.”

97. The removal of airfield traffic particularly HGV’s from the village would benefit neighbours and the users of the facilities at the play park. The appeal scheme would achieve some benefits over the current arrangement in this

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 29 - respect. Concerns have been raised by residents of Bagby that the use of Bagby Lane for additional HGV traffic is unacceptable due to its width, alignment and current traffic levels. This view is not supported by the Local Highway Authority or the decision of the Local Planning Authority.

98. The second issue relates to the safety of the junction of Bagby Lane and the A19 and the safety issue of low flying aircraft. The Local Highway Authority have not raised concern to the operation of the Bagby Lane – A19 road junction or the capacity to accommodate additional manoeuvres or the proximity of the end of the runway with the A19 and the safety implications which may arise. It is well established that drivers have many potential distractions one of which is low flying aircraft, others include the movement of wind turbines but such distractions are not a justification for the refusal of planning permission.

99. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG18) – Enforcing Planning Control

100. PPG18 provides Guidance on the Enforcement of Planning Controls this, together was the Circular advice in 10/97 Enforcing planning control – legislative provisions and procedural requirements, and local policy document Enforcement and Compliance Policy (June 2008) has determined the approach taken to recent Enforcement decisions at Bagby Airfield.

101. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG24) – Planning and Noise

102. PPG24 establishes General Principles at paragraph 2 that “The impact of noise can be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.” It notes the difficulties of reconciling some uses with noise generating uses and draws the examples of residential use and air transport. Noting that “new development involving noisy activities should, if possible be sited away from noise-sensitive land uses.” Paragraph 2 also guides “Where it is not possible to achieve such a separation of land uses, local planning authorities should consider whether it is practicable to control or reduce noise levels, or to mitigate the impact of noise, through the use of conditions or planning obligations.”

103. Paragraph 4 of PPG24 with reference to the preparation of policy documents guides that “Area-specific noise policies may be useful in some

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 30 - circumstances and, in such cases, the relevant boundaries should be illustrated on the proposals map. However, it will generally be inappropriate for proposals map to show detailed noise contours as noise emissions may change significantly over time (eg, in the case of an aerodrome, operational changes may lead to significant variations in the impact of noise on those living in the area).”

104. PPG24 identifies housing, hospitals and schools as noise sensitive developments. It also introduced the concept of Noise Exposure Categories (ranging from A - D) to help local authorities consider applications for residential development near transport related noise sources. The policy specifies that the Noise Exposure Categories cannot be used in the reverse to consider new transport related applications near to existing residential development.

105. At paragraph 10 PPG24 requires that “local planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. They should also bear in mind that a subsequent intensification or change of use may result in greater intrusion and they may wish to consider the use of appropriate conditions.”

106. Paragraph 11 of the guidance identifies that some sources of noise have characteristics that require special consideration and notes particularly that the noise from aerodromes is likely to include activities such as engine testing as well as ground movements. Similarly noise sensitive development requires particular protection through the night time period as noted at paragraph 12.

107. Noise can have a serious effect on the welfare of livestock and wildlife and special consideration is warranted whether development may impact upon protected sites and upon the quiet enjoyment of a National Park as set out in paragraphs 20 and 21. It is considered in this case that the noise impact of activities at the airfield will not cause a significant impact upon the land uses in the North York Moors National Park.

108. In Annex 3 to PPG24 paragraph 7 advises on the use of forecast contours for small aerodromes and notes that local planning authorities should not rely solely on Leq where this is based on less than about 30 movements a day. Paragraph 7 specifies that:

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 31 -

"Local planning authorities should also be aware that in some circumstances the public perceive general aircraft noise levels as more disturbing than similar levels around major airports.”

109. It is considered that the general quietness of the countryside around Bagby is such that the level of disturbance from aircraft noise would indeed be greater than a similar level measured at a major airport and that the lack of regulation on the use of the airfield both on the ground and in the air increases the impact upon the community and the environment.

110. The particular impact from helicopter movements is noted and draws out the greater noise disturbance that can be caused by helicopter movements, that the noise characteristics are differ from that of fixed wing aircraft and is often regarded as more intrusive or more annoying by the general public. It states that: “The noise exposure categories should be applied with caution”.

111. The guidance in PPG24 Annex 3 notes that planning applications for helicopter landing/take-off facilities should be accompanied by information about the proposed take-off/landing flight paths and air traffic routes where appropriate. Preferably, these paths should have been discussed and agreed in principal with National Air Traffic Services (NATS) beforehand. Where such information does not accompany the application, but is considered necessary, the local planning authority should request it and suggest that the applicant has discussions with NATS.

112. At the time of the applications flight path information was not supplied. No formal request was made for the information to be supplied.

113. Hambleton Local Development Framework Policies

114. Policies of direct relevance to this appeal are as follows:

Core Strategy Policies CP1 CP2 CP4 CP15

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 32 -

CP16 CP21

Development Plan Policies DP1 DP25 DP30 DP44

115. Consideration of the Core Strategy Policies

116. The Core Strategy defines the Strategic Vision and Policies for Hambleton and includes a Spatial Strategy for the District and Strategic Spatial Policies. The Core Strategy aims to achieve sustainable development by use of a settlement hierarchy. Bagby is not identified within the settlement hierarchy (Policy CP4) which means that it is not considered to be a suitable location for additional housing or employment development other than in the instances of development that is an exceptional case under the terms of Policy CP1 and CP2 and is one of the six circumstances identified in Policy CP4. This is the ‘exceptional case test’.

117. Exceptional Case Test - Policies CP1, CP2, CP4

118. Policy CP4 recognises that there must be exceptions to this principle of excluding new development from the countryside, for example where there is an essential requirement to locate in the countryside. Essentially the purpose of CP4 is to exercise strong restraint on development in locations outside the sustainable settlement hierarchy (second paragraph of CP4). Restraint is applied through three tests, all of which must be met to justify development.

119. Test One: “Exceptional Case” in terms of CP1 and CP2. Making an “exceptional case” does not mean showing how a proposal meets the criteria and provision of CP1 and CP2. The Plan states that the benefits sought by CP1 and CP2 are more likely to be achieved by locating development within the sustainable settlement hierarchy (Core Strategy paragraph 4.1.9). The assumption is that development in locations outside the sustainable settlement hierarchy would likely to be contrary to CP1 and CP2. “Exceptional Case”

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 33 - therefore means providing evidence as to why a proposal that does not comply with the intentions of CP1 and CP2 should be permitted.

120. CP1 is a very general policy providing fundamental criteria to be applied as a starting point to all developments aimed at ensuring all development is sustainable and located to help promote sustainable communities. The “exceptional case” in terms of CP1 is, therefore, about providing evidence as to why development should be located in a less sustainable location. Consequently, the aim should be to assess how serious a breach of CP1 a proposal is, which should be weighed against the “exceptional case”.

121. CP2 is another broad policy which sets down the LDF’s intention toward transport and accessibility. CP2 aims to ensure that all development is located so as to minimise the need for travel, particularly by private car. The “exceptional case” in terms of CP2 is, therefore, about providing evidence as to why a proposal which would be contrary to the intentions of CP2 (i.e. a proposal which would increase the need for travel) should be permitted. Again, the aim should be to assess how serious a breach of CP2 a proposal is, which should be weighed against the “exceptional case”.

122. In applying Test One; the proposals at Bagby Airfield are considered to represent a severe breach of CP1. As explained in detail later within this Proof, the proposed development represents a use of land which is harmful to the amenity of neighbouring communities, which has not demonstrated support for the local economy and which will erode the character of the local landscape and the wider countryside. The proposals breach all three strands of sustainable development, social, economic and environmental.

123. The distances to the neighbouring settlements and the infrastructure available for pedestrians and cyclists, the absence of public transport and the nature of the proposed use are such that the site will be highly likely to be mainly accessed by use of the car. Consequently, the proposed development is considered to represent a severe breach of CP2.

124. In light of the above considerations, it is considered that the proposals fail to demonstrate that this development is an exceptional case in terms of CP1 and CP2 and thereby fail to satisfy Test One.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 34 -

125. Test Two: is more straightforward, it means being able to meet at least one of the criteria i) to vi) in CP4 and provide the evidence to prove this. This is additional to the policy test to demonstrate an exceptional case.

126. There are two potential criteria in CP4 against which the scheme can be considered. These are criteria (i) and (vi); • the scheme fails the tests of criteria (i) because the development is not necessary to meet the needs of the industries listed in the policy and the scheme has not demonstrated how (if at all) it will help to support a sustainable rural economy. • in respect of criteria (vi) the scheme fails because there is no requirement for social and economic regeneration in this area. Further, no evidence has been supplied as to how it will support such regeneration. The extent and quality of such evidence must mean something more than modest increase in employment and expenditure in the local economy or else the policy would not act as a meaningful constraint on development in this area. It is a policy allowing exceptions and there is nothing exceptional about this development.

127. In light of the above considerations, Test Two fails.

128. Test Three: requires proposals not to conflict with the environmental protection and nature conservation policies of the LDF (final paragraph of CP4).

129. Subject to appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures, the proposed development will not have a detrimental impact on ecology. The proposals will inevitably have an undesirable impact on the character and appearance of open countryside as explained in the landscape section of this proof. Noise is an environmental impact, the scheme causes noise and harm to the environment most notably the living conditions of the local population.

130. In light of the above considerations, Test Three fails. Accordingly, the development fails to comply with policies CP1, CP2 and CP4.

131. CP15 is a permissive policy supporting rural regeneration. It identifies a range of opportunities to support the economy of rural communities. The policy

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 35 - includes support for the following which are to varying extents relevant to the appeals: “i retention or expansion of appropriate businesses outside of the Service Centres and Service Villages;”, “v appropriate tourism related initiatives, including schemes which improve the accessibility of tourist asses both within and outside the District;” and “recreation uses appropriate to a countryside location;”.

132. Policy CP15 carries with it an overarching requirement that development proposals be designed to be sustainable, consistent with the other policies of the Local Development Framework, not conflict with environmental protection and nature conservation policies and should provide any necessary mitigating or compensatory measures to address harmful implications. The policy makes the explicit links back to CP1 and to CP17 ‘Promoting High Quality Design’.

133. The operation of a General Aviation airfield is a use that is appropriate to a countryside location as it could not conceivably be located within a Service Centre or Service Village due to lack of space in such settlements. Setting aside the particular characteristics of Bagby Airfield the operation of an airfield such as Bagby Airfield can be considered an ‘appropriate’ business in a position outside of a Service Centre or Service Village. The operation of garage and machinery repair businesses are a common feature in the countryside both serving the residential rural community and the agricultural sector. Aviation repairs and servicing are comparable in character to agricultural engineering uses and are appropriate in principle to a location adjacent to an airfield due to the relationship between the place for the parking and operation of aircraft. The policy CP15 allows support to be given to developments for tourism and recreation purposes. Retention of an aviation repair business of appropriate scale can be supported by the terms of the policy subject to the safeguards for protecting the environment.

134. CP16 supports development which will preserve or enhance the natural and man made assets, which in the case of Bagby Airfield is translated in to seeking the preservation or enhancement of the open countryside, its landscape character and appearance. The policy offers support to schemes that will improve the natural environment but also goes further in stating explicitly types of development which will not be supported which links to the Government's policies in PPS7 and PPS9. Also required by CP16 is mitigation and compensatory measures to address potential harmful implications of development.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 36 -

135. CP21 requires “Development and service provision must seek to ensure that communities and the environment are not adversely affected by the actions of natural or other forces.” The policy goes on to require specifically that “Proposals must take particular account of the need to: ii) mitigate development from the consequences of pollution, noise or hazardous activities.”

136. The requirements of CP21 in respect of pollution, noise and safety are underpinned by the words of CP1 which advises that “Proposals will be supported if they promote and encourage or protect and enhance iii) the health, economic and social well-being, amenity and safety of the population.” Whilst both of the Core Strategy policies note the types of development that will be supported they do not state that proposals which fail to meet the requirements will be refused automatically as the policies must be considered in the round and the issues weighed appropriately in reaching a decision.

137. Consideration of the Development Policies

138. The Development Policies DPD provides further details to assist the delivery of the Core Strategy.

139. Development Policy DP1

140. The detail in Policy DP1 “Protecting Amenity” is of particular significance to these appeals. The policy DP1 supports CP1 which aims to achieve Sustainable Development. It is, given the duty for Town and Country Planning to achieve Sustainable Development, a policy that is applicable to every element of the each of the appeals. The words of the policy start by defining that: “All development proposals must”, this is not a policy that can lightly be outweighed by other considerations. The decision maker is therefore very clearly directed by the words of the policy that the protection of “amenity particularly with regard to privacy, security, noise and disturbance, pollution (including light pollution), odours and daylight” must be given a high priority in the decision making process. In this instance the policy is requiring that the development must protect amenity with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

141. The second and third of the three elements of DP1 relate to the amenity needs of occupants and users of development and the importance of amenity

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 37 - space about buildings and must not unacceptably affect the amenity of residents or occupants. Other than the final clause of the policy these elements are of very limited significance to these appeals. The final clause requires that development must “not unacceptably affect the amenity of residents or occupants”

142. The links from DP1, to CP1’s reference to social well-being, amenity and safety, and the Strategic Objectives “to ensure that all development is sustainable, enabling people to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations” is clear.

143. DP25 Rural Employment

144. The policy supports employment development in the countryside. It requires that schemes be small in scale, that they re-use or extend existing buildings or uses, are not capable of being within Development Limits of a settlement, are supported by a business case that shows how the development will support the local economy and that it would not harm the economy of one of the market towns in the District.

145. The policy supports the objective of providing most new development in accessible locations, but also takes account of the need to ‘grow’ the rural economy. The justification to Policy DP25 in requiring developments to demonstrate the business case notes that this will allow the decision maker to establish the benefits of the scheme in relation to sustaining local employment and the rural economy. The benefits which could be found in the business case linking to the local economy are noted in DP25 to include provision of local employment opportunities, scope to sell local produce and provision of services to local communities.

146. DP30 Protecting the character and appearance of the countryside.

147. The policy context is provided by RSS ENV10 and PPS7 and seeks where possible to enhance the openness, intrinsic character and quality of the District’s landscape. The District has a wide range of landscapes from the North York Moors National Park, Howardian Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty through to the non designated landscapes of farming and forestry to the former World War airfields some of which have been developed as industrial sites.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 38 -

148. As the policy notes “Throughout the District design and location of new development should take account of the landscape character and its surroundings and not have a detrimental effect on the immediate environment and on any important long distance views.”

149. The guidance in the justification to the policy requires that proposals which will have an impact on the landscape should address the intrinsic character of its surroundings and seek where possible to retain and strengthen the intrinsic character of areas.

150. DP44 Very noise activities

151. The policy provides guidance to prevent new dwellings and other noise sensitive uses from locating in noisy locations and also directs noise generating development away from noise sensitive locations. The areas around the military airfields of Linton on Ouse and Leeming have been designated as noise exclusion, restriction and insulation zones in recognition of the circumstances in those locations. No other such zones exist in the District. Lesser noise levels are considered under policy DP1 Protecting Amenity.

152. The level of noise generated by many uses which are disturbing are infrequent and/or short term such as from certain outdoor entertainments or from industrial processes. The level of noise and impact upon communities from airfields can extend beyond matters of amenity and can raise health problems and interference with sleep justifying a separate policy to deal with the issue. The context of the policy is provided by PPG24 and in turn to the World Health Organisation policy and guidance.

153. Lawful Use

154. An understanding of the lawful use of the site is essential as it gives an understanding of the existing controls over activity at the airfield and determines the fall back position in the event of a refusal of the planning appeals and upholding the 2009 Enforcement Notice.

155. It is plain that evidence of the lawful use is limited. The written evidence is mainly given in the planning application and planning enforcement records. Some of this detail is contained in the documents supporting the planning

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 39 - applications and some is derived from site visits during the process and investigation of cases.

156. Evidence comes from external sources, aerial photography and accounts given on a variety of web sites. Further information comes from the developers’ assessment of the fuel records and flight logs. A large volume of anecdotal evidence has been supplied by residents in the area.

157. No single detailed record exists of activity at the airfield. The flight logs kept by the operators of the airfield were acknowledged to be completed on a voluntary basis and were known to not include records of many of the pilots based at Bagby. The records in the flight log mainly recorded the movements of visitors to the airfield.

158. What evidence do we actually have?

159. I have made visits to the airfield on the followings dates

Date of site Primary purpose of the visit visit 21/02/2008 Statement of Community Involvement event at the airfield Club House prior the 2008 application 23/05/2008 Site notices for 2008 application

23/06/2008 Members site visit for the 2008 application 09/02/2009 Site notices for 2009 application

30/03/2009 Members site visit for the 2009 application 09/04/2009 Enforcement investigation into runway lighting/alignment lights.

04/08/2009 Enforcement investigation into the laying of concrete to the north of Hangar E to enable use of heli-lift

05/11/2009 Enforcement investigation relating to the air ambulance installations and general update of conditions on site 12/01/2010 Site notices for the 2009 minor applications geo-textile, aprons, heli-pad and fuel application

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 40 -

02/03/2010 Enforcement investigation regarding new 'canopy' over door of Hangar E

06/04/2010 Enforcement investigation Second survey visit 09/06/2010 Site notices for 2010 application

16/08/2010 Members site visit for the 2010 application 11/01/2011 Enforcement investigation – engineering operations 160. The evidence from the planning applications shows the extent of the land used for the purpose of an airfield to be as shown on the plan at Appendix 12 until an extension was formed to the east west runway. It is recorded that the extended east west runway was first used on 1 April 1998 and became immune from enforcement action 10 years later on 1 April 2008. The full extent of the east west runway is shown on the plan at Appendix 13.

161. The aerial photographs and web data search results confirm the extent of the airfield and show the removal of the hedgerow at the northern end of the north south runway in 2005. This extends the north south runway on to a piece of agricultural land that had not previously been part of the airfield. The extended part of the north south runway is shown on the plan at Appendix 13

162. The largest hangar ‘B’ has been provided with new internal insulation, new floor screed and provision of internal divisions to form office and stores and now used as an aircraft maintenance building. However these internal works to a building fall outside the definition of development.

163. Yorkshire Air Ambulance occupies the site with a portable rest room building and portable toilet facility plumbed in to mains services and operating as a satellite to their West Yorkshire base. The portable building arrived on site on or about the 13th August 2009. This is considered a chattel ancillary to the function of Bagby as an airfield and the use does not require planning permission. The provision of a separate package treatment works for the waste water from the rest room and toilet is an engineering operation that requires and does not have planning permission.

164. Continuous use of the airfield

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 41 -

165. The operation of flying from the airfield appears to have continued since the first use by Messrs Lassey and Whiting without a break. Other ancillary activities have been undertaken at the airfield for a continuous period in excess of 10 years.

166. On each occasion that I have visited the airfield I have seen light aircraft parked outside, use of a workshop for maintenance, a club house for use of members a member of staff on site and the airfield has been in use.

167. During the period of my visits additional facilities have been provided without the benefit of planning permission and are detailed in the Enforcement Notice. Other facilities have been refurbished and new facilities have been provided which appear at this time to not require planning permission.

168. Evidence from External Sources – as stated on the planning application forms

169. In 1976 application forms described the use of the land as ‘farming’, by the 1980 application the description was “private flying of ultra-light aircraft, hangar with 9 a/c (understood to be an abbreviation for aircraft) and 6 permitted take-offs and landings per week but primarily agriculture”. The 1986 planning application form referred to the use of the land as being an ‘airfield’.

170. The application details draw no clear distinction between the types of aircraft operating from Bagby Airfield. It is known that the first aircraft using the grass strip were described as ultra light, subsequently other aircraft have been introduced to the airfield. A list of aircraft based at the airfield on 18 June 2008 included 5 micro-lights, 2 helicopters and 37 fixed wing aircraft. Fixed wing aircraft predominated as recently as 2008.

171. The Council commissioned a study by aviation specialists York Aviation to consider a range of aspects relating to the airfield. Their report is appended to this proof of evidence. The findings of the York Aviation report support the reports of others that few records exist of movements at the airfield and that an inaccurate analysis of the movement levels has been provided by the applicant and that these probably overstate the activity historically at the airfield. The statement from York Aviation is at Appendix 1.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 42 -

172. Evidence from External Sources – flight data provided with the applications data supplied with the “2008” application

173. More recently the planning applications have been submitted with supporting planning statements and appended statements of aircraft movements. In June 2008 a report was submitted setting out the number of flights based on the records of fuel sales and some records of some of the pilots based at Bagby Airfield. Detailed commentary on the June 2008 report is contained in the York Aviation report at Appendix 1 to this proof.

174. Survey data from August 2008

175. A survey of aircraft movements was undertaken in August 2008. This recorded 644 movements during the period 7 August 2008 to 7 September 2008. 24th August 2008 was a club ‘fly-in’ day and was excluded from the count. The survey recorded flights during 31 days, which gives a daily total of 20.7 flights per day during that month and thus 145.4 flights per week. Various conclusions are drawn from the survey and attempts have been made to extrapolate the data of the August 2008 survey to give average numbers of flights over a range of weekly, monthly and annual periods. The substantial differences in the number of flights through different times of year creates complications when attempting to define the number of flights that have occurred during other times of the year based only on a one month summer survey. The conclusions of the data analysis are challenged by residents of Bagby and are the subject of comment in the appended York Aviation report.

176. Inevitably the level of use of the airfield will be the subject of evidence at the Inquiry. The Local Planning Authority considers that it will only be at the end of the inquiry that a final and settled view of the evidence can be reached

177. Planning statement with the 2010 application

178. The 2010 application planning statement at page 22 claims that “Although the evidence is incomplete, it is possible to estimate that the average number for weekly flights from known residents’ logs over the past 10 years has been 53 flights per week. This figure should, however, be increased to take account of

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 43 - the unrecorded element of flight logs through absentee pilots and also to take account of the multiple take offs and landings of pilots flying circuits. A reconciliation of the recorded movement data in 2008 suggests that the best estimate that can be made of the ‘unrecorded residents’ movements is between 20 and 25 movements per week.” An additional allowance is made in the planning statement for “maintenance” flights, “known visitors” and “visitor refuelling” to reach a total of between 95 and 129 flights per week. On page 23 of the planning statement the appellant notes “Bearing in mind the August 2008 survey results of approximately 150 movements per week (on average), this would tend to suggest that the estimates that have been built into the unknown elements of the overall movement survey may be conservative.”

179. The survey did not record 150 flights per week as noted in the planning statement but an average of 145 flights per week.

180. In the introduction of the Movements Survey prepared by Paul Pritchett on behalf of the appellant a statement is made that “based on empirical evidence that indicated likely movements upwards of 7525”. Dividing an annual figure of 7525 provides a weekly average of 144 flights. My experience, based on observation during site visits to the airfield and during visits to other properties around the Bagby area and the comments of staff at the airfield, is that summertime weekends have a much greater level of activity than summertime weekdays, spring, autumn and particularly winter periods. If the accuracy of the August 2008 survey is accepted, complete with the caveats about unusually wet and cloudy weather during the survey period, then the average number of flights outside of the summer months is likely to be lower, or substantially lower than during the survey period.

181. I consider that the flight numbers at the airfield vary substantially due to the seasonal weather and daylight. The winter time period with days when no fixed wings flights will be possible due to snow, ice, fog and waterlogged ground will be greater than occurs in the spring, summer and autumn where snow and ice are less likely.

182. Data is available on the level of rainfall but no comparative data appears to be available to record ground conditions and the safety of landing fixed wing aircraft on a grass airstrip.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 44 -

183. Some weeks in winter will see no flights possible. In summer months including the ‘fly-in’ days the weekly flight number may be in excess of 300.

184. The provision of matting and concrete on the east west runway and concrete aprons to the hangars prior to the August 2008 survey will have enabled aircraft movements that would have otherwise been more difficult or impossible. These facilities allow for an increased number of movements.

185. The appellant’s Movement Report notes that the level of rainfall in August 2008 was 152% of the average. Despite this level of rainfall there was only day during the survey period when no fixed wing aircraft landed. It is not revealed whether this was as a consequence of low cloud, fog, ground conditions or other causes.

186. The underlying data (fuel sales receipts or account statements and copies of pilot or airfield logs) for the estimates of flight movements have not been supplied to the Local Planning Authority.

187. Assessment by Mr Thomas Brown of the 2008 movements report

188. A detailed assessment of the data supplied in the Movements Report was undertaken by village resident Mr Thomas Brown in 2009 and updated in 2010. His assessment tests the assumptions in the Movements Report and shows a series of weaknesses in common with those found by York Aviation.

189. In particular attention is drawn to the conclusion that the peak of fuel purchased from the supplier Air Total in 1999 was probably due to the fact that this is when a new tank was purchased and the reasonable assumption is made that it was filled from empty with 40,000 litres of fuel. The purchase of 60,000 litres of fuel from the supplier probably shows sales of little more than 20,000 litres with the tank remaining full at the end of the year. A suggestion of the sale of 60,000 litres would significantly distort the figures.

190. A full copy of the report by Mr Brown is appended to this report. Appendix 18. The report has been appended because it shows that there is a conflict in the evidence between local residents and the appellant. Further, different

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 45 - conclusions can (and have) been made on the submitted evidence. It is very difficult to resolve such evidential conflicts, which can best be resolved at the Inquiry, when all the evidence has been heard and tested . 191. Flight numbers reported by others

192. The acoustic reports submitted in support of the planning applications also include a statement of flight numbers, there is no reason to suggest that the authors of those reports had access to any additional detail regarding the number of aircraft movements. Accordingly the figure quoted by A E Charles 5000 flights per annum (100 week) in the noise assessment for the ‘2009’ application offers no clarity on the number of flights. His noise assessment regarding the level of noise generated by the airfield and the disturbance caused to residents similarly has little significance as the basis for the assessment is flawed.

193. Large numbers of residents of Bagby and surrounding villages have reported the increased number of flights from the airfield. These were detailed in the report to the Planning Committee. The volume and consistency of the views expressed add considerable weight to the evidence of increasing numbers of flights and increased disturbance from aircraft, particularly from aerobatic flights and from helicopters that do not follow the approach and circuits set out in the airfields details for airmen. No resident has produced a reliable record of flight numbers for either an extend period or defined stage during the history of the airfield.

194. The parameters to flight numbers

195. If the appellant considered that the 2008 survey data was significantly flawed due to the un-seasonally cloudy and wet weather they could have undertaken additional survey work. The absence of additional survey work by the appellant and the lack of any evidence that would suggest a higher monthly figure than 644 (which is recorded in the August 2008 survey) suggests to me as a matter of logic that the monthly total (excluding special events such as a fly-in day) is no higher than 644. Taking the 644 monthly figure divided by 31days and multiplied by 7 to give a weekly figure gives a summer time peak period weekly total of 145.4 movements.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 46 -

196. There is no firm evidence setting out the maximum number of winter, spring or autumn movements.

197. Assessment of flight numbers at the airfield starts with the landmark decision in 1980 to allow 40 take-offs and 40 landings per week. As 2 applications were made in 1986 to increase the flexibility and numbers of flights from the airfield is reasonable to conclude that at that time the airfield were operating at (or close to) the limits of 80 flights per week. The fact that the June 1986 application sought to increase from 40 take-offs and 40 landings per week to 200 flights per month (assumed to relate to 200 take-offs and 200 landings per month) suggests that the banking of flights from one week to the next was considered to be valuable at the airfield. Clearly the difference between 40 take- offs per week and 200 flights per month, in 5 week month is only one of flexibility rather than total numbers of aircraft movements as the 40 take-offs per week is 200 take-offs per month.

198. The absence of complaint or further requests or an appeal suggests that the airfield settled to operate within the 40 take-off 40 landing limit of the 1980 permission until at least the end of the 1980’s. The provision of additional hangars at the airfield may suggest that activities may have increased beyond the 1980 limit. No evidence is available to show number of aircraft housed in hangars at Bagby has compared to those kept in the open and how trends for hangar storage may have changed in recent years and how the two types of storage affect the number of flights made. The evidence of York Aviation (Appendix 1) is clear that the current trend for housing aircraft in hangars is an indication of increased usage.

199. The peak periods noted by the appellant have not been shown to be consistently high levels for a period of ten years or more. The evidence relating to the busiest periods at the airfield would not generate a lawful use at the highest level. The lawful use is the level that can be shown to have existed throughout the ten year period.

200. This approach suggests that the lawful number of flights at the airifield will be at or above 80 flights per week. Great caution must be exercised with regard to the total number of flights per year as the seasonal variation must be substantial. The statement of York Aviation suggests that the winter movements

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 47 - will be half those of the summertime and that the numbers in the shoulder months will be less than the summer months.

201. In the absence of any more reliable data the 2008 survey can be used as an indication of the maximum number of flights that can be achieved under the current physical condition and management regimes at airfield.

202. Expert opinion from York Aviation suggests that the proposals would increase the capacity to store aircraft and would increase the attractiveness of the airfield to users and would therefore lead to an increase in flight numbers.

203. An operator Diamond Executive Aviation previously operated from Bagby Airfield but as the airfield could not offer consistently good conditions for take-off and landing the business moved to Retford/Gamstone airfield. However other aircraft remain available to hire by licensed pilots

204. From the information available I consider that the weekly flight numbers ar Bagby Airfield from the lawful use would be less than that which currently exists as some of the existing aircraft movements are generated by aircraft that are stored in hangars that do not have planning permission and that there movements are facilitated by hard surfacing that also is without planning permission.

205. Robust assessment of the evidence available as been undertaken by York Aviation and this records the potential levels of use of the airfield but this still is not evidence of actual use.

206. Legal opinions

207. Legal opinion has been expressed and submitted to the Council in the run- up to the determination of the ‘2010’ application.

208. The first legal opinion was prepared by David Cooper solicitor acting for the pressure group “Action4Refusal”. This opinion was received on 14 July 2010. The opinion is set out at Appendix 14.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 48 -

209. A further legal opinion was submitted on instruction from David Cooper by Mr Lockhart-Mummery QC. This was received on 13 August 2010 and is at Appendix 15.

210. A rebuttal to the opinions of Mr Lockhart-Mummery QC and David Cooper was submitted by solicitors Walker Morris acting on instruction from the agents for the applicant. This was received on 18th August 2010 and is at Appendix 16.

211. A legal opinion was prepared by Martyn Richards – solicitor for Hambleton District Council, this was received on 18th August 2010 and is at Appendix 17.

212. Section 171A and B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out the time limits for enforcing a breach of planning control. In the case of the developments at Bagby Airfield all of the alleged breaches relates to a breach of planning control consisting of the carrying out of operational development and the four year time period imposed by Section 171B(1) applies. As set out in Section 172 the Planning Authority have found it expedient to issue an enforcement notice having had regard to the provisions of the development plan and other material considerations.

213. Conclusions on the Lawful Use

214. I consider that the burden of proof in demonstrating a lawful use as a fallback position is firmly with the Appellant. This is equivalent to the position if an application was made under s.191 (Circular 10/97, Annex 8 paragraph 8.12). The relevant test is the “balance of probability”, and Local Planning Authorities are advised that if they have no evidence of their own to contradict or undermine the Applicant’s version of events, there is no good reason to refuse the application provided the Applicant’s evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of the certificate (paragraph 8.15). In this case, the appellant's evidence contains considerable ambiguity lacks precision. It is also contested by local residents.

215. The Lawful Use of much of the appeal site is as an airfield. The landing and take-off of aircraft is known to have taken place from the Runway 06/24 (also known as the east-west runway) and the storage and parking of aircraft on land either side of the runway for a period in excess of ten years. (Appendix 8)

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 49 -

216. The use of a building as a club house and an adjoining building for purposes of aircraft maintenance and repair together with other buildings as aircraft hangar facilities has also existed for a period in excess of ten years.

217. Most of the Runway 15/33 (also known as the north-south runway) lies within the area that has been used for the purposes of an airfield but the northern most element (about 45 metres) shown on drawing 4085-CH-SK-02 extends in to land that has not been used for a continuous period as part of the airfield and the entirety of the Runway 15/33 north of the margins to Runway 06/24 has within the last ten years been used for the purposes of agriculture. (Appendix 8)

218. Land to the northern side of the Runway 06/24 between the margins of the existing airfield buildings and the margins of Runway 15/33 has been used for the purposes of agriculture and has not formed part of the airfield. (Appendix 8)

219. A plan showing the extent of land that has been in use for the purposes of the operation of an airfield is appended at Appendix 8

220. The lawful use as an airfield includes the provision of an above ground fuel bowser as a chattel as well as underground fuel store and above ground dispensing equipment following the grant of planning permission under reference 2/89/009/0015J

221. Numerous buildings on the airfield which were granted planning consent were not subsequently built in complete accordance with the approved plans. Most of these buildings have been on the appeal site for more than 10 years and are considered to be immune from enforcement action. Others however are not immune from enforcement action. The Enforcement Notice served on 28 September 2009 refers to those breaches which the Council consider are significant and justify action on the part of the Council. Other breaches exist but have been considered to not justify enforcement action at this time.

222. The series of plans Appendix 3 to 7 show the building and engineering operations which are lawful and those which are not and those which were included in the 2009 Enforcement Notice.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 50 -

223. The details set out by the appellant in their application for planning approval for the 2010 scheme stated that the existing use of the site was for “airfield, aircraft parking, storage, repair, maintenance, refuelling, aircraft hire, flying lessons, training, clubhouse with bar and dining facilities.” The use of the site for aircraft hire, flying lessons, training have not been established as lawful uses. The uses are however uses that may be anticipated to operate from any airfield and the matter of whether they require planning permission is therefore a matter of fact and degree. No evidence has become available to the Council to demonstrate that on the balance of probability that the level of use for aircraft hire, provision of flying lessons or training have reached a level that requires planning permission for a change of use.

224. Change of use frequently is a gradual process, involving fluctuations in intensity and shifts in precise location. Pinpointing the date of a breach of planning control is often, therefore, difficult. In such cases, the only effective test is to compare the present use with the previous use, or (as in this case) the use in the base year (ten years prior to the date of the application) and assess whether there has been any material change in use. This test was expressly endorsed in Thurrock BC v. SoSE [2001] EWHC Admin 128

225. The lawful use of Bagby Airfield is as an airfield subject to the limitations of the physical extent, condition and facilities at the airfield and those uses and activities that have existed throughout the last 10 years.

226. The physical limitations include the size of the runway, its width and length, gradient, drainage and surfacing, all of these have been noted to have changed overtime, with particular importance are the additional matting on the runway and provision of hangar. These are in breach of planning control and subject to the 2009 Enforcement Notice. The nature of the use has changed as a consequence of the physical changes. The use of hangars for storage of aircraft and for maintenance has the potential to change the character of the use.

227. The lawful use of the airfield is not as it is seen today.

228. Some important changes occurred in 2007 with the laying of matting and provision of concrete section to runway and apron. Construction of additional

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 51 - hangar space and refurbishment of the existing hangar B together has the potential to increase the number of flights particularly during the winter months.

229. As noted by the manufacturers of matting and by a user of a Pilot Web forum “there is black plastic mesh that has been laid down into the runways surface to help with drainage and serviceability during the winter months which may look like tarmac…” (Flyer Forums 4th June 2007) The appellant’s response to the 2009 Enforcement Notice records that the laying of the matting and concrete took place within the 4 year period preceding the service of the notice.

230. The works represent a significant investment in the infrastructure at the airfield. It is reasonable to conclude that the investments are a business proposition and that they should provide a financial return to the investor. To achieve increased income additional visits would be required to allow uplifts of fuel, provision of servicing repair, modification or other aero engineering activities, provision of hospitality, training or other commercial and social activities. The development proposals would result in increased activity above that which is lawful at the airfield.

231. Drawing any conclusion on the number of flights per year over the last 10 years is made more difficult by the changed facilities at the airfield. It is likely that the lawful number of flights annual is in the order of 4567. This is the figure quoted by York Aviation (Appendix 1 Section 3) as the total movements excluding those of G-SKYC which York Aviation note may give rise to a further 1000 movements per annum. However the records available do not show G-SKYC (or a similar alternative aircraft) to have operated consistently from Bagby Airfield for all of the previous 10 years and therefore should be excluded from the lawful use figure.

232. Following the methodology in the York Aviation report with the assumption of splits between summer time and winter time flying (excluding the fly-in days) the following conclusion can be reached.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 52 -

Table 2 - Lawful flight numbers Weeks in season Aircraft movements Adjustments in proportion of flights by season Summer 30 3342 100% Winter 22 1225 50% Annual total 52 4567

233. Recent and Related Planning Applications

234. The planning applications were submitted by the same applicant in 2007 and 2008 which were withdrawn and refused respectively. Two applications submitted in 2009 seeking retrospective approval for provision of geo-textile matting and concrete apron (LPA reference 09/03959/FUL) and a replacement helicopter landing pad and jet fuel stop facility (LPA reference 09/04039/FUL) both were refused. The Planning Inspectorate notified the Council on 7 October 2010 that the appeals against the 2009 refusals and the Enforcement Notice would be taken jointly with the 2010 refusal for the comprehensive scheme. The 2010 scheme repeated the detail of both of the 2009 applications. The evidence I present therefore deals with the matters together by issue and does not proceed through the issues of each appeal separately.

235. ISSUE BASED ASSESSMENT

236. Amenity

237. The principal noise witness statement is presented for the Council by Joy Swithenbank.

238. The operation of Bagby Airfield impacts upon amenity of the area. Noise from the operation of aircraft particularly harms the peace and tranquillity for residents of Bagby and the other the neighbouring villages and isolated dwellings.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 53 -

239. The noise of fixed wing aircraft is largely due to take-off, departure and ground movements; and to a lesser extent arrival. Helicopter movements cause noise in all aspects of take-off, departure, arrival and landing. Prolonged ground movements and low hovers are particularly intrusive.

240. The operation of an airfield is expected to give rise to some degree of noise and disturbance with this being particularly noticeable to the population living close to the Runway and those living close to or under the approach and departure routes.

241. The time of day, day of the week, time of year and weather conditions are critical to the level of disturbance that is experience by the population. Aircraft movements during fine summer weekend afternoons being the most likely to give rise to disturbance as this is the time when the resident population are most likely to be seeking the peaceful enjoyment of their gardens and homes.

242. The appeal proposal seeks to gain approval to a number of works that would result in increases in the potential number of flights due to the increased capacity and attractiveness of the facilities at the airfield to pilots either as a home base or to visit.

243. The provision of surfaced and reinforced aircraft manoeuvring areas enables the movement of both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters during periods of wet weather when without hard surfacing or reinforcement the aircraft hangars would become inaccessible to aircraft.

244. Two particular pieces of evidence relating to the difficulty of moving aircraft at Bagby Airfield during times of wet weather and soft ground conditions are available. The first of these is the unauthorised provision of a hard surface area immediately adjoining the apron of Existing Hangar E (see Masterplan drawing 4085-CH-SK-02 and the Enforcement Notice plan area shown outlined Green). The appellant’s agent advised that the purpose of the extended hardstanding was to enable the use of a ‘helilift’ to transport helicopters from the position of land in to the hangar as the ‘helilift’ could not reliably travel over grass particularly when it was wet or soft. The reason given is that the ‘helilift’ could not achieve sufficient traction unless the surface was hard and even. Whilst the helilift is specialist equipment for moving helicopters with skids rather than wheels this is

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 54 - an example of changes at the airfield that may make it more attractive to pilots that would then give rise to additional helicopter movements which in turn are more intrusive than fixed wing aircraft.

245. The second piece of evidence relates to an incident observed at the airfield during a site visit to survey the extended apron shown as Area 2 on plan at Appendix 5. An aircraft taxiing under its own power across the airfield from the refuelling point beside the club house using the reinforced tracks and crossing the Runway 06/24 became bogged down in soft ground. The use of a high level of power from the propeller failed to extract the light aircraft and required the combined efforts of tractor and manpower to remove the aircraft the margins of the Runway 06/24 and subsequently to tow it to the area used for the parking and storage of aircraft close to the position of the proposed Jet A1 Fuel Stop. Aircraft being parked in the hangars using reinforced taxi-ways gives rise to additional aircraft movements even during periods when the ground is soft. The provision of reinforcement to the taxi ways from the aircraft hangars to the refuelling points and with sufficient reinforcement to Runway 06/24 also enables take-off and landing along the 378.3 metres of reinforced and hard surfaced runway during wet and soft conditions. The removal of the reinforcement and hard surfacing would reduce the frequency of use of the airfield during periods when the ground is wet or soft.

246. The increased reliability of the ground conditions that are suitable for the manoeuvring of aircraft together with the increased provision of aircraft hangar space would enable an increased use of the airfield and an increased attraction to airfield users of all types. York Aviation advises that the changes would provide increased reliability and that a growth of aircraft flight numbers would result. (Appendix 1 Section 5)

247. The recreational airfield user would be more certain of the ability to fly to and from the airfield irrespective of the weather conditions in the preceding days. With more reliable ground conditions the commercial pilot would be more able to timetable flights to and from the airfield the make use of the airfield with less likelihood of needing to divert to other airfields. Both of these aspects would reasonably be expected to increase the number of flights to and from the airfield as a consequence of the provision of the reinforced matting and hard surfacing to the central section of the Runway 06/24.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 55 -

248. The ability to predict the ground conditions would also increase the attractiveness of Bagby Airfield as a place to host training and the fly-in social events that have been organised by the Flying Club based at Bagby Airfield. All these activities would be liable to increase the number of flights and inherently cause greater disturbance to the population.

249. The parking of high value and older less valuable aircraft undercover would be achieved by the provision of additional hangar space and may make outside storage an unnecessary feature of the airfield. With the additional hangar facilities the trend towards lower numbers of aircraft being stored on the airfield may be reverse. It is known that aircraft are owned by syndicates as well as by individuals, accordingly increasing the number of aircraft based at the airfield can result in increased numbers of flights and activity at the airfield beyond that which would be expected from a single pilot. Increasing the number of aircraft can therefore lead to a marked increase in the number of flights.

250. The increased facilities of the club house would also increase the attraction of Bagby Airfield as a place for the keeping of aircraft and the operation of airfield based businesses.

251. The enhancements of facilities for helicopters are of particular concern to local residents due to the particular disturbance that they cause. The provision of a space for the refuelling of helicopters away from other activities at the airfield enables an increase in the use of the airfield as a refuelling point for helicopters that are in transit. There is little opportunity for the airfield management to sanction such aircraft from arriving or departing by routes that do not comply with the noise abatement procedures. A non technical assessment of helicopter movements suggests that they are perhaps at least 4 times more disturbing than fixed wing movements. Only the take-off of a fixed wing aircraft is likely to give rise to significant amounts of unavoidable noise, whereas all four aspects of helicopter movement (approach, landing, take-off, departure) generate significant amounts of noise that are to some extent unavoidable. In addition the rotor noise from a helicopter is a particularly intrusive type of noise that has been reported by residents to disturb sleep and interfere with the normal daily activities in the homes of Bagby residents. Noise that is sufficiently loud to disturb sleep patterns, wake a sleeping person, prevent sleep in an evening and disrupt daily

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 56 - life can not be defined as being “acceptable”. Such a level must therefore be “unacceptable” and contrary to the policy requirements of the Development Plan.

252. Whatever method of measurement that is used to compare the noise at the airfield with a pre-determined standard the incidence of unacceptable impact on the neighbouring community is clearly stated by that community in response to a pre-application Community Involvement exercise, application consultation and ongoing correspondence since the determination of the 2008 application.

253. The impact on amenity that is reported by the neighbouring community is based on the existing level of use. This is a level that is greater than would be achieved by the lawful use as the existing activity utilises the hard surfaces of the hangar aprons, the concrete section and matting on the runways which were constructed during 2007. The level of use is however lower than is anticipated if the scheme was approved as it does not provide the additional hangar space, new clubhouse or other facilities of car parking or overnight accommodation that would be available to a club member.

254. It is logical to conclude that the investment proposed in the airfield would be expected to give a return to the investor. The range of facilities provided would provide a return by undertaking more business all of which can be anticipated to increase the level of movements at the airfield. The development proposals would result in increased activity above that which is lawful at the airfield.

255. The increased number of fixed wing take-offs and helicopter movements would increase the amount of noise from the airfield. The extent of objection and complaint in the correspondence from residents of the village of Bagby and surrounding villages makes plain that the impact on their amenity from the unlawful development is at a level that is already “unacceptable”. To grant planning permission for the existing development, would be contrary to the requirements of DP1 which requires that “Developments must not unacceptably affect the amenity of residents or occupants.” The proposal is contrary to Policies DP1 and CP1 and the underlying Strategic Objective of the Core Strategy which seeks to ensure that all development is sustainable and enable people to enjoy a better quality of life. The proposal is also contrary to PPG24 paragraph 10 as it requires the local planning authorities to ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 57 -

256. Business case

257. There is a lack of evidence to show how the scheme will support local businesses and lead to regeneration or growth of the local economy. Consideration has been given to the ‘business case’ by the Council’s consultants – York Aviation. The statement from York Aviation is appended to the proof at Appendix 1.

258. The history of the airfield shows that it has grown from a base for hobby flyers operating at a small scale that appeared to be funded by the collective efforts of those using the airfield as their home base. The additional facilities provided at the airfield during the 1980’s and 90’s and the change in ownership at the end of the 90’s saw the airfield operated as small business by the new owner Mr Dundon.

259. The appeal proposals seek to replace and enlarge the facilities. Many of the buildings erected during the 1980’s are of poor quality. Some of the earliest buildings have fallen into disuse. The workshop building alongside the clubhouse has provided a workspace for an aviation engineer. The appeal scheme would increase the amount of maintenance floor space and improve the quality of the facilities.

260. No precise detail was given in the application documents of the nature or extent of the existing business and how it may contribute to the local economy which in turn would help sustain rural communities or facilitate regeneration.

261. Similarly the ‘2010’ appeal scheme lacked detail of how the development would support the local economy again which in turn would help sustain rural communities.

262. The requirement to understand the contribution a development may make to the local economy is routed in the Core Strategy of the LDF. The Core Strategy sets out the Strategic Vision and Objectives for the District. The sixth Strategic Objective is:

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 58 -

“To support the growth of the local economy and rural regeneration in ways which are compatible with environmental objectives, and which deliver increased prosperity for the whole community

- seeking to encourage the appropriate type of employment development that will provide the jobs needed throughout the whole of the District and to support the policies and initiatives of the Regional Economic Strategy. This will involve capitalising on the strengths of the District, in terms of location and accessibility and in terms of economic strengths, including the skills of the workforce – such as the potential to support the food industries cluster. It will also involve seeking to provide better skilled jobs locally to reduce the scale of out-commuting to work by Hambleton residents. These principles may have environmental implications, which may need to be mitigated and in part addressed through supporting creative approaches to economic development and rural regeneration that encompass all aspects of sustainable development.

263. The Core Strategy acknowledges that the growth of the economy will have implications. The aim of achieving sustainable development requires a balance to be struck between the three strands of environment, economy and community. In the absence of any evidence to show the economic benefits that might be derived from the development little weight can be given to this strand of sustainable development. The severity of the impact on the community in respect of noise and disturbance arising from the activity associated with the airfield is better understood. The impact on the environment other than the visual impact of the additional buildings and some disturbance to domestic animals and wildlife is not of great significance. No protected species or habitats are significantly adversely affected by the proposed works (subject to the need for safeguards against pollution from fuel and oil spillages).

264. It can be anticipated that the airfield provides some modest local benefit in terms of jobs and services bought in and that the replacement facilities would similarly have some benefits. However, the extent of jobs at the airfield anticipated to be created due to the development in the various disciplines of: administration, grounds maintenance, aircraft maintenance engineering, pilot work, and catering are not set out in the application. The suppliers of services to the airfield are similarly not stated.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 59 -

265. The provision of additional facilities particularly the provision of overnight accommodation would have the potential to detract from the viability of other businesses in the area such as the nearest hotel, The Divan Hotel on Sutton Road, and farmhouse bed and breakfast accommodation in the vicinity. However the scale of facilities sought in this application are not so large that the impact would be anticipated to be seriously harmful to the existing business. The appellant has previously set out that the facilities are intended to be a niche market attractive to those wishing to fly in and out of the airfield and that the facilities would not be made available to those who do not have business at the airfield.

266. The operation of the maintenance business at the site has been expanded recently in to the existing Hangar B. The Hangar B has been refurbished and provided as a maintenance building.

267. There is a caravan used for staff accommodation. This is an unauthorised use which the proposal shows is to be removed. No business case has been made for the provision of permanent accommodation on the site. The replacement clubhouse makes no provision for dedicated staff accommodation and in the event an approval should prevent use as a dwellinghouse. No evidence has been provided to show that a permanent residential presence is necessary for the purposes of the operation of the business or that the business could not be operated on a viable basis in the absence of residential presence.

268. The operation of the site as a filling station for aircraft has the potential to give rise to a significant increase in noise. The layout of the site with a helicopter refuelling pad separate from the other facilities at the airfield has the potential to increase the number of fuel sales as the operation of the helicopter refuelling pad would result in less congestion than the current location of the Jet A1 fuel bowser just north of Hangar A.

269. The change from the management of the land between the club house and the Runway 15/33 from agricultural use for cereal production to “existing grass land retained” suggesting a reduction in the farmed land. The removal of the land from agricultural production and maintenance simply as grassland would not benefit the local economy. It is acknowledged that depending on the land

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 60 - management practices employed the provision of an area of grassland could be beneficial to bio-diversity.

270. No detail has been provided of the economic value of the training, and air taxi operations to the local economy.

271. The proposals are therefore contrary to the Local Development Framework Policies CP16 and DP25 and PPS4 Policy EC10. The scheme provides no evidence of any meaningful reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The operation of General Aviation aside (which plainly is a contributor to carbon dioxide emissions but which is not the subject of the LDF policies or other National or Regional planning policy) the location and operation of the business is not in a sustainable location and will be likely to continue to be reliant upon the use of the car as a means of access for visitors and staff. The operation of more intensive aerial activity at the airfield would harm other business interests based on tourism or farming or keeping of other livestock. No evidence has been provided through the period of applications on how the schemes would assist the rural economy to grow.

272. Landscape

273. The landscape character of the area around Bagby is described in the submitted document by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd that accompanied the ‘2010’ application.

274. The methodology adopted which considers a. the policy basis, b. a baseline survey of receptors and their sensitivity, c. the magnitude of change caused by the design proposals d. the mitigation measures and enhancement opportunities and e. the overall cumulative impacts , is considered appropriate.

275. The policies are not disputed, other than the omissions detailed below. Much of the survey work and sensitivity attributed is also agreed. The magnitude of change is considered to be understated and the value of the mitigation is considered to be overstated.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 61 - a. The policy basis,

276. The statement omits the full words of Local Development Framework Policy CP16 relating to the circumstances when schemes will not be supported. These missing words are significant as they say, “Development or activities will not be supported which: i. has a detrimental impact upon the interests of a natural or man-made asset.” The interest in this case is the open agricultural landscape, a man-made landscape but one which is largely open, and contains natural features.

277. The FCPR statement although setting out in paragraph 1.1 to seek possible enhancements to Bagby Airfield makes no reference to Policy DP31 Protecting natural resources: biodiversity/nature conservation. This policy supports proposals to restore or create new habitats where they would contribute to the Biodiversity Action Plan and to the targets, priorities and enhancement proposals of the RSS.

278. In the selective quotes from Policy DP32 General Design xviii is omitted. This reads “design should seek to retain existing important species and habitats and maximise opportunities for habitat enhancement, creation and management in accordance with Policy DP31. b. a baseline survey of receptors and their sensitivity

279. The Detailed Character Assessment for Character Area 7 – York Road (FPCR report page 18) Agricultural omits reference to the prominence of the airfield from Moor Lane. From this position the sloping part of the east west runway and airfield buildings are the main built feature in the landscape.

280. At 4.19 of the same report considering the Easterly view from the public footpath leading on to Bagby Lane reference is made to the glimpsed views in to adjacent fields including pasture within Bagby Airfield, The glimpsed views from Bagby Lane includes views of the main hangar ‘hangar B’ on plan in Appendix 4 the buildings of Bagby Airfield

281. Paragraph 4.21 of the report explains that from Viewpoints 9 and 10 views of the buildings within Bagby Airfield are only available from a short stretch of the A19. The views are achieved for about 300 metres, being the distance from the

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 62 - junction of the A19 and Bagby Lane to the position of Griffin Farm with only minor interruption due to a tall hedgerow. At 80 k/mph the hangars, club house and windsock around the airfield are visible for about 14 seconds to a motorist/passenger on the A19 in both southbound and northbound directions. The same claim of limited views from the A19 is made at paragraph 6.23 where the report makes reference to the impact of the new project.

282. The FPCR report claims at paragraph 4.35 (page 27) that, “There are no negative impact upon the wider landscape character beyond its immediate context which is currently degraded by its utilitarian ramshackle structures and setting.” This statement avoids reference to the intrusion caused by the demolition debris that has accumulated at the south western end of the runway or the attention drawn to the site by the recently installed windsock. The existing buildings on the airfield are noticeable from positions that are up to a kilometre from the site. The existing buildings could not be described as enhancing the landscape, nor is the impact of the buildings neutral in the landscape. Accordingly it is considered that the impact of the existing buildings on the airfield is more significant than that claimed in the FPCR report and is clearly adverse. I consider that the existing buildings cause a slight adverse impact on the wider landscape and that the movement of the windsock and aircraft draw attention to the airfield such that the slight adverse impact is experienced by a greater number of people than would be the case of a similar group of agricultural buildings. c. the magnitude of impact caused by the design

283. Section 6 of the FPCR sets out to assess the impacts of the project. The report appears to assess both the impact of the new landscaping work ten years after planting in combination with the impact of the building work. However the report concentrates on assessing the impacts on the landscape of the new planting works and makes little reference to the impacts arising from the additional building works.

284. The new range of hangars on the south eastern boundary of the airfield would stand as a significant and solid barrier in the landscape. The grouping of buildings would not be of an agricultural character and would when viewed in

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 63 - association with the other airfield infrastructure would create a significant visual impact in a landscape otherwise dominated by agricultural use and woodlands. e. the mitigation measures and enhancement opportunities

285. The provision of new blocks of broadleaf native woodland, re-introductions of hedgerows with hedgerow trees and formation of wetland areas would all benefit the quality of the landscape. The significance of the effects of the new landscaping works as set out in the FPCR report is rated between substantial, through slight, to negligible. The benefit of the landscaping scheme in isolation is not disputed.

286. The change of surface colour to the existing hangar walls and roofs from the light colour to a darker tone would reduce the prominence of the buildings within the landscape. f. the overall cumulative impacts

287. The impact on the landscapes within the character areas 3, 4, 7 and 9 (FPCR Figure 6) is considered to be understated.

288. The report gives no indication that full consideration has been given to the increasing ground level to the eastern end of the runway which is two metres higher than the position of the main hangar (hangar B). The increased ground level is such that the visual impact of the new hangars would be greater from the vantage points to the east, south and west. The impacts of the new works assessed at all of the near vantage points shown on Figure 7 of the FPCR report are considered to be greater than assessed in the report. The report states at 4.33 that the new buildings would be “little different in scale or character from typical contemporary agricultural buildings such as those at neighbouring Griffin Farm”. However, buildings at farms normally are clustered in groups with a farmhouse and landscape features with outdoor storage and the paraphernalia of agricultural use such that they ‘settle’ in to the landscape. The buildings on the airfield are by function not arranged in a group as this would restrict access to aircraft, the paraphernalia that accompanies an airfield such a parked aircraft and windsock are not the normal features of the local landscape. The buildings and other structures will therefore appear conspicuous in the landscape.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 64 -

289. Visual impact on Bagby Lane

290. No reference is made to the visual impact of the formation of the verge crossing and removal of existing hedgerow on Bagby Lane in order to form the `new access. The FPCR report refers at paragraph 6.3 that the new access would be “discrete”. The drawn details show the access of sufficient width to accommodate two way traffic comprising an HCV and another vehicle. A junction of sufficient size and construction to accommodate traffic of this type will be larger than the existing access in the village. It will require the removal of the rough grass verge and boundary hedge at the back of the verge. The proposal also includes a statement that gates will be provided at the access with fencing and new native hedge. Even when the hedge is mature the new crossing will be an urbanising feature beyond the western end of the village.

291. Visual impact on Play Area and Open Space, Bagby Lane

292. The equipped play area on Bagby Lane is an important public space in Bagby. The space provides a range of functions including a. equipment within a fenced area for play for young children b. swings, balance beam, stepping stones, climbing net and other adventure play equipment for older children and c. skatepark and kickabout area for older children and teenagers.

293. The open space also includes seating and picnic bench as an amenity for all ages of user and also has a village notice board, parking and recycling facilities.

294. The proposed works on the airfield would all be highly visible from the play park particularly from elevated positions on play equipment. The boundary hedge to the play park is insufficiently high to obscure views of the airfield buildings. The magnitude of the change of the appearance of the airfield from open space from the approved condition and that sought in the application would be substantial with a significant adverse effect on the agricultural character of the landscape.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 65 -

295. Conclusions on visual amenity

296. The development would impact upon a range of receptors, from those people using the local highway network on foot, cycle, horseback, from cars and other vehicles, either travelling slowly on Bagby Lane or greater speed on the A19. The wide age range of users of the open space at the west end of Bagby would experience the development during leisure activities. The residents of some neighbouring properties would also experience from their homes and gardens the increased visual impact of the development.

297. The users of the open space area and pedestrians on Bagby Lane are considered to have the greatest sensitivity to the changes as they spend most time in locations from which the airfield is visible and are also subjected to the noise impacts of aircraft engines which draw particular attention to the visual impact of the airfield.

298. The magnitude of the visual impact of the new developments is considered to be significantly greater than the magnitude of the visual impact of the lawful development causing intrusion in to an agricultural landscape.

299. The mitigation measures proposed would enhance the landscape but would not overcome the visual intrusion from some of the principle vantage points.

300. Overall the development of the airfield as proposed would result in a harmful impact on the visual amenity of the landscape.

301. Use of Bagby Lane by HCV’s associated with Bagby Airfield

302. The 2009 (09/04039/FUL) application for the provision of a new refuelling point was refused permission. The application did not include details of the access to be used. The scheme did not clarify whether the intention was to access via the existing access within the village next to the dwelling “Milford” or whether some alternative route was intended. If the intention was to access via the existing indistinct access track next to “Milford” concerns regarding the suitability of the access in terms of highway safety, amenity of neighbours and the quality of the environment due to the increase in large commercial vehicles in the village street remained.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 66 -

303. Clarification of the access arrangements were not provided and it was therefore anticipated that the access route would be via the only existing vehicular access the unmade track adjacent to “Milford” and that this would result in increased use of the village street

304. It was anticipated that most of the fuel delivery vehicles would arrive from either refinery or storage facilities to the north and would use the A19 to gain access to the site. Access to the village from the A19 would result in the passing of the play area and 7 houses on Bagby Lane before reaching the site access.

305. Such a development would have been harmful to the highway safety due to the difficulty for an increased number of drivers, particularly those who may be unfamiliar with the “Milford” access to manoeuvre in to the site. The potential for manoeuvres elsewhere in the village if the access was missed would add to the loss of amenity to village residents. The position of the existing airfield access track requires all vehicles approaching from the west to pass the children’s play area and as such cross the footway that is used for children to access the play area.

306. A new access outside of the village would overcome the highway safety and amenity concerns relating to the existing access but result in the other impacts noted earlier in this proof.

307. Conditions

308. The Council have set out in the Statement of Common Ground without prejudice to its opposition to the development a set of conditions which it is considered would be appropriate to regulate the use of the airfield in the event that the Inspector considers the development should be approved and the Enforcement Notice varied or upheld.

309. Enforcement Notice

310. The Enforcement Notice served on 28th September 2009 related to five alleged breaches of planning control.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 67 -

(1) Without planning permission the unauthorised operational development comprising the construction of the aircraft hanger as shown edged blue and identified as hanger E on the attached plan.

(2) Without planning permission the unauthorised operational development comprising the concreting of the apron to aircraft hanger E as shown edged green on the attached plan.

(3) Without planning permission the unauthorised operational development comprising the concreting of the apron to the aircraft hanger marked A as shown edged pink on the attached plan.

(4) Without planning permission the unauthorised operational development comprising the concreting of part of the main east west runway as shown edged yellow on the attached plan

311. The appeal was made on Grounds A, C, F and G. The appeal under Ground A for items (3) and (5) failed as the period for payment of the fee lapsed. Whilst a further application was made in respect of the matters alleged in the Enforcement Notice the Ground A appeal can not be revived.

312. The Ground A appeal

313. The Ground A appeal seeking the grant of planning permission in respect of all 5 breaches raises all the same issues for both the appellant and the Local Planning Authority as the appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the two 2009 applications and the 2010 application. The reason for the issue of the Enforcement Notice relates to the same issues as set out planning decision regarding a loss of amenity to local residents. No additional evidence is considered necessary beyond that set out in the earlier part of this Proof of Evidence.

314. The Ground C appeal

315. Section 57 (1) of the Planning Act requires planning permission for development. Section 55 defines “development” including at Section 55 (1) “development” means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 68 -

316. As set out in the Enforcement Notice the installation of the matting is an engineering operation.

317. The appellant states that “In this respect, it is considered that the geo-textile matting is not development and therefore does not require planning permission, since it does not constitute an engineering operation”.

318. The provision of matting to the east west runway involves the installation of an engineered product, a product that has been designed to be installed under the supervision of a suitably experienced engineer and with reference to the manufacturers’ specification.

319. It is an engineering operation to install the matting involving engineering plant and equipment again with adherence to the manufacturers’ specification of installation, being an operation normally undertaken as a building activity or engineering operation depending on the scale of installation. In this case the installation is over a large area and was installed as an engineering operation. The installation of the matting is therefore development and is development which is not permitted by any General or Special Development Order.

320. It is my understanding that the installation of the special reinforcement matting took place over the course of several days and that the work involved the use of specialist vibration rolling equipment as used in road building and other engineering works. To the best of my knowledge no other additional preparatory work was required before the matting was installed.

321. The Ground F appeal

322. The Notice requires the removal of the concrete from the main east west runway. The requirements of the notice do not specify the material to be used to reinstate the runway. It is understood that the ground was previously made up of hardcore overlaid with soil and a 4” deep heavy duty plastic reinforcement matting similar to the type installed to the east and west of the concrete.

323. The notice does not require the re-instatement to a grass finish without the underlying hardcore or reinforcement matting.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 69 -

324. The Ground G appeal

325. The period set out in the Notice for compliance with the requirements of the Notice is 3 months. The appellant seeks a long period of time. Nothing has been provided to indicate that a longer period of time would be necessary and to extend the period for compliance with facilitate an extension of the unlawful use of the airfield.

326. Conclusion

327. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to both National Planning Policy and Guidance and that contained within the Hambleton Local Development Framework. The development would, as set out in the decision notices, cause harm to the amenity of residents, the landscape and this is not offset by any economic benefits.

328. In addition the works undertaken in breach of planning control, and the subject of the Enforcement Notice, cause actual harm to the resident population due to the disturbance caused by operations at the airfield and the visual intrusion of the development in the countryside.

329. The harm arising from both the development in the Planning Applications and in the Enforcement Notice can not be overcome by the imposition of conditions.

330. In the light of the above considerations, the appointed Inspector will be respectfully requested to dismiss the appeals.

Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 70 -