The Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House Inquiry held on 15-23 October and 2 The Square Temple Quay 11-12 December 2008 Bristol BS1 6PN Site visit made on 20 October 2008 0117 372 6372 email:[email protected] by Colin Tyrrell MA(Oxon) CEng MICE FIHT ov.uk

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: for Communities and Local Government 14 January 2009

Appeal Ref: APP/C2741/A/08/2069665 Elvington Aerodrome, Elvington, YO41 4UA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. • The appeal is made by Elvington Park Ltd against . • The application Ref 04/04316/FULM, is dated 7 December 2004. • The development proposed is the erection of aircraft hangars, together with the widening of taxiway, and the laying out of a parking area and apron.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

Adjournments

2. Several requests for adjournments were received before and during the Inquiry. Natural and others requested that the Inquiry should be adjourned to allow evidence to be gathered to enable an appropriate assessment to be carried out of the potential effects of the proposals on the Lower Derwent Valley Special Protection Area in accordance with the provisions of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. The Highways Agency requested an adjournment to allow the implications of the proposals on the trunk road network to be fully assessed. Various local residents and organisations requested that the Inquiry be adjourned to allow more time for publicity of the Inquiry and its proposals and for further local consultations.

3. The Inquiry was adjourned between 23 October and 11 December to allow the gathering of evidence to enable me to undertake an appropriate assessment. It proved possible, with the cooperation of the Highways Agency, to resolve the objection on highway grounds without the need for an adjournment. The City of York Council produced evidence (Docs CYC 7 & CYC 25) showing that the amount of publicity given to the Inquiry exceeded statutory requirements, including site notices, notices in the local paper, and letters sent to local organisations and individuals. The adjournment for the appropriate assessment also allowed additional time for local organisations and individuals to acquaint themselves with the proposals. I concluded that there was no requirement for further publicity or consultation and that an additional adjournment for these purposes was unnecessary.

Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

Amended Description

4. The description of the proposed development given on the planning application form is “erection of aircraft hangars”. The extended description shown above was proposed by the appellant at the Inquiry in conjunction with a larger scale drawing (Doc EPL 48) showing the layout of the proposed hangars and their immediate surroundings in more detail. The larger scale drawing also illustrates a slight repositioning of the hangars to allow for a narrow belt of landscaping on the boundary. The Council were content that this change should be considered as a minor alteration to the proposals, and I am satisfied that the amendments do not materially alter the nature of the application and that no one who would normally have been consulted would be prejudiced by the revised plan being considered.

Arrangements for the Appropriate Assessment

5. Elvington aerodrome is situated about 3km north of the boundary of the Lower Derwent Valley Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and Ramsar Site. There are other associated Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in the locality. The main part of the SPA is essentially a linear north/south feature which follows the River Derwent over a length of some 14km from Sutton upon Derwent to Wressle.

6. The Habitats Regulations require that the impact of any new development upon an SPA and SAC should be considered at the planning stage. ODPM Circular 06/2005 extends this same consideration to Ramsar sites. I am now the decision-taker and competent authority within the terms of the Habitats Regulations, and I decided that the effect of the proposed development, by itself or in combination with other projects, was likely to be significant in terms of the internationally important interest features of the protected sites. I am required therefore to carry out an appropriate assessment of the implications of the development proposals on the conservation objectives for which the Lower Derwent Valley sites were classified, as laid down by the Regulations.

7. In carrying out my assessment, I have had regard to the information, analysis and assessment produced on behalf of the appellant, (Doc EPL 33). To assist me in this task, I decided to carry out a limited consultation of specialist bodies which I believe have a particular interest in the nature conservation value of the protected sites in the Lower Derwent Valley. I received responses from Carstairs Countryside Trust (Doc INQ 23/3), Natural England (Doc INQ 23/4), Wildlife Trust (Doc INQ 23/6), RSPB local branch (Doc INQ 23/7), RSPB Regional Conservation Officer (Doc INQ 23/8), and the Environment Agency (Doc INQ 23/9).

Protected Sites Appropriate Assessment

Activity at the Aerodrome

8. In the appellant’s view, the most-likely result of the proposed development would be an increase in air traffic movements at Elvington from about 1,550 per year at present (750 during the air show and 800 for the rest of the year) to about 10,000 in the medium-term future (Scenario 2 in Doc EPL 6 plus 750 for the air show, rounded to nearest thousand). The appellant recommends that with such an increase a “no-fly zone” should be imposed on all aircraft

2 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

flightpaths approaching or departing from the aerodrome to prevent them coming within 1km of the SPA and Ramsar site boundary.

9. Other specialist consultees have some detailed concerns about this approach, especially the level of survey upon which it is based. However, Natural England, to whose views I give substantial weight as the Government’s statutory advisor on nature conservation, accepts that, if a “no-fly zone” preventing all aircraft from approaching within 1km of the SPA site boundary could be implemented and enforced, together with the restricted approach and departure flightpaths proposed by the appellant, it would be reasonable to conclude that the integrity of the SPA would not be affected.

10. In my view, the primary test for the appropriate assessment is therefore whether the measures proposed by the appellant would result in implementation and enforcement of the “no-fly zone” to within 1km of the SPA boundary to a level that would ensure that the integrity of the SPA would not be affected. ODPM Circular 06/2005 gives some guidance as to the approach that I should follow in my appropriate assessment. It states in paragraph 21:

In the Waddenzee judgment, the European Court of Justice ruled that a plan or project may be authorised only if a competent authority has made certain that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. “That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects”. Competent national authorities must be “convinced” that there will not be an adverse affect and where doubt remains as to the absence of adverse affects, the plan or project must not be authorised, subject to the procedure outlined in Article 6(4) of the EC Habitats Directive regarding imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

11. I must therefore be convinced that there will not be an adverse effect, and if any doubt remains I am required not to authorise the development unless it is justified by imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

12. The additional flying that the development would bring is assumed by the appellant to be made up of 18% business aviation, 24% aircraft R&D and maintenance, 43% flying club and training, and 15% private owners. I consider it reasonable to assume that the business aviation and most of the R&D/maintenance aviation would use the aerodrome as a starting point or destination for a specific journey and would not spend additional time in the local area. For the 58% of the additional flights associated with flying club, training and private aviation (5,090 per year or an average over the whole year of 14 flights per day), it seems to me very likely that some of the pilots would seek to spend some time in the local area and that not all of them would be engaged in the basic circuit flying to the north of the runway.

13. In order to achieve the implementation and enforcement of the “no-fly zone” and to avoid disturbance of the protected sites, the appellant has offered a s106 planning obligations unilateral undertaking and suggested a planning condition relating to aerobatics.

14. The s106undertaking includes an Elvington Aerodrome Flight Policy which would impose an obligation on all pilots flying to or from Elvington to follow air traffic routes away from the protected sites. The plan showing the restricted routes indicates that the restrictions on flightpaths would end some 6km

3 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

southwest of the aerodrome for approach/departure from the south, some 6km west of the aerodrome for approach/departure from the west, and some 6km to the north for approach/departure from the north or east. The sanctions against pilots contravening the flight policy would be a first warning and, on a second contravention within a year, a ban from using the aerodrome for at least a month. If these sanctions were not applied, the Council could serve an injunction on the signatories of the undertaking and their successors in title.

15. The planning condition relating to aerobatics would authorise aircraft to use Elvington aerodrome for aerobatics only outside a radius of 5km from the mid point of the runway, except on up to 3 days a year or with the Council’s agreement in writing. The sanction against contravention of this condition would be an enforcement notice served on the owners of the aerodrome.

16. Success of the mitigation measures over their areas of application would depend on prompt and accurate reporting to the owners of the aerodrome of any infringements, clear identification of the offending pilots, firm application of sanctions by the owners of aerodrome on these pilots, and in the last resort injunction or enforcement proceedings by the Council. This process seems to me to be complicated, time-consuming, and potentially unreliable. I am not convinced that it could be relied upon to avoid all disturbance to the protected sites.

17. The appellant’s s106 undertaking also includes the establishment of a Joint Consultative Committee to include representatives from local organisations and wildlife interests. Although the aerodrome owners would report complaints to this committee, together with steps taken to resolve them, some uncertainty remains in my mind as to whether such a process would be sufficient to deal reliably, effectively, and promptly with any activities threatening the protected sites.

SPA & Ramsar Site Qualifying Features

18. The appellant’s assessment of Lower Derwent Valley SPA (Doc EPL 33 paragraph 10.4) notes that the key concentrations of waterbirds are located at least 5km south [of the aerodrome] within the Derwent Ings SSSI part of the SPA. The SPA citation gives breeding Ruff and Spotted Crake as the species where the SPA contains the greatest concentration of the GB breeding population (at least 63.6% with 7 individuals and at least 62% with 31 individuals respectively). Other species and assemblages qualify under Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) in ten further categories.

19. The proposed mitigation measures of the s106 flightpath restriction and the planning condition would not control aviation or aerobatics over the part of the SPA where the key concentrations of waterbirds are located. The bird species of greatest national rarity in the SPA are present in small numbers, and it is in the breeding season, rather than at times of migration, that their presence is so notable. It seems to me that, once outside the area controlled by the s106 flightpath restrictions and the planning condition aerobatics restriction, pilots are at least as likely to fly over the Lower Derwent valley as over any other local area.

20. The appellant points out that pilots would generally avoid flying where flocks of birds could represent a hazard to aviation. However, I heard no evidence that

4 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

the hazard during the breeding season would be as significant as that during periods of mass migration.

21. Overall, I am not satisfied that the proposed mitigation measures would ensure that there would be no additional disturbance to the protected sites as a result of the development.

22. To my mind, there is a reasonable possibility that the development could adversely affect the integrity of the protected sites. No suggestion has been made that the appeal should be allowed on grounds of imperative reasons of overriding public interest relating to human health, public safety, or benefits of primary importance to the environment.

23. In these circumstances, the Habitats Regulations requires that the decision- taker should not grant permission for the development.

Main Development Plan Issue

24. In my determination of the planning appeal in accordance with s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, I must have regard to the development plan and any other material considerations. In this case, the site’s location close to the protected sites is a material consideration to which I must give substantial weight.

25. In my opinion, the main development plan issue is whether the site is within the Green Belt. If it is so located, I must consider whether the development would be inappropriate in such a location and if so whether the harm to the Green Belt caused by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The Green Belt

26. The Development Plan for the City of York comprises only the Yorkshire and Humber Plan Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which was adopted in May 2008. At the date of its adoption, it superseded the only remaining saved policy, Policy E8, from the County Structure Plan (CSP) originally adopted in 1980. Policy E8 of the CSP, now superseded, stated that “The North Yorkshire Green Belts will consist of [three other belts and] a belt whose outer edge is about 6 miles from York city centre”.

27. RSS Policy YH9C refers only to the inner boundary of the Green Belt around York, but RSS Policy Y1C1 deals with both the inner and outer boundaries. It states that plans should, in the case of the City of York LDF “define the detailed boundaries of the outstanding sections of the outer boundary of the York Green Belt about 6 miles from York city centre and the inner boundary in line with Policy YH9C”. Figure 6:2 of the RSS is a diagrammatic representation, without scale or detail, of the York sub-area. It includes shading around York which the key describes as “General extent of Green Belt”, but which cannot be accurately related to any local features. There is no dispute that the appeal site is well within 6 miles (9.6km) of the city centre.

28. The City of York Draft Local Plan never proceeded to adoption as part of the Development Plan, but was approved by the Council in April 2005 for development control purposes. It shows a proposed outer boundary for the Green Belt within the City of York district which extends well beyond Elvington.

5 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

The outer boundary shown is consistent with, and dovetails precisely into, the confirmed boundaries of the Green Belt where it extends into neighbouring authorities, as illustrated in the plans which accompany the Issues and Options document prepared by the City as part of their LDF work (Doc CD20).

29. The site has been within the general extent of the intended York Green Belt since at least 1980, the date of adoption of the CSP. The outer boundary was defined for development control purposes in 2005, the date the draft Local Plan was approved for that purpose. Planning applications and appeals which have been brought to my attention have been determined on the presumption that the York Green Belt extends at least as far as Elvington. In the case of those appeals which were called in for decision by the Secretary of State, she has confirmed that it is reasonable to treat the relevant sites on the basis that they lie within the Green Belt, whilst noting that very little weight should be given to the policies in the draft Local Plan as the plan was never adopted as part of the Development Plan.

30. The latest May 2008 RSS confirms the general extent of the intended York Green Belt as before, and the Council’s work in preparation for the LDF is based on the same outer boundaries for the Green Belt as those shown in the draft Local Plan. Although the appellant has made representations as part of the LDF consultation process seeking for the aerodrome to be excluded from the Green Belt, I am not aware of any other suggestion that the outer boundary of the York Green Belt, when it becomes statutorily defined, should be different in any respect in the area of Elvington from that shown in the non-statutory draft Local Plan.

31. Given the historic treatment of Green Belt issues in the area and the fact that there is no substantial indication that the Council’s work on the LDF will change this, I conclude that it would be perverse to do other than to follow the approach endorsed by the Secretary of State and to treat the appeal site on the basis that it is included in the York Green Belt.

Inappropriate Development

32. There is no dispute that the development, if located within the Green Belt, would be classed as inappropriate development within the terms of PPG2. I agree that the buildings as proposed do not come into the categories given in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2 as development which would not be inappropriate, and that extension of the apron and taxiway do not come within the equivalent category in paragraph 3.12 of PPG2. The development is therefore inappropriate in the intended Green Belt.

Harm to aims of the Green Belt and Openness

33. As inappropriate development, the proposals would by definition cause harm to the intended Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. The seven hangars and two amenity buildings would have a combined floor area of 7,155m2 and a height of up to 9.25m. These large buildings would be set away from other structures on an area of concrete apron accessed by a widened taxiway from the main runway giving a surfaced area (including the buildings) of some 2 ha. Although some of apron and taxiway would be based on earlier hard surfacing, much of this has become overgrown or has been broken up or covered over with soil.

6 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

34. There are no permanent buildings anywhere on the appeal site, and I saw no significant structures of any sort which protrude above the runway level. Those buildings which remain from the earlier use of the aerodrome as an air station are outside the appeal site boundary on the opposite side of the aerodrome. A new area of construction totalling 2ha with buildings up to 9.25m high on the north side of the aerodrome would in my opinion cause substantial harm to the openness of this part of the intended Green Belt.

Countryside Harm

35. The site is separated from the settlement of Elvington and is located in open countryside. A key principle in PPS7 is the strict control of new building development in open countryside in order to protect it for its intrinsic character, beauty and other values.

36. The proposed development of 2ha of construction with buildings totalling some 0.7ha, albeit on a brownfield site, would in my opinion cause substantial harm to the interests which PPS7 seeks to protect.

Visual Harm

37. The part of the appeal site proposed for this construction is some way from any major roads and would from many viewpoints be seen only in the far distance. As the buildings would be on the northern boundary of the aerodrome, they would be most visible from that direction, where they could be seen from the bridleway some 600m to the north which passes in front of Langwith Lodge. The long distance Beverley to York Minster Way also passes close by. On my site visits, I encountered dog walkers and others along this section which, judging from its surface, is quite well used even in the late autumn.

38. In general, I acknowledge and accept the rigorous approach followed by the appellant’s landscape adviser in his assessment of the visual impact of the proposals, and I agree that from most viewpoints the visual impact of the proposals would be no more than slight or negligible adverse. However, for the 1.2km length of public right of way from Gipsey Corner to Langwith Stray, it seems to me that the visual impact would be greater than the slight or moderate adverse reducing to negligible or slight adverse at 15 years which he assesses.

39. At present, the view to the south from the bridleway is almost entirely open across the aerodrome to Wheldrake Wood, some 1.5km away. The only visible indications of the aerodrome are the discrete (and, at this distance, visually discreet) elements of the control tower and radio mast near Dodsworth Farm. With the proposed development, the 200m width of the main building, up to 9.25m high and with a saw-tooth profile roof, would obscure the control tower and much of Wheldrake Wood from viewpoints 11, 12 and 13 in Doc EPL 5. As it matured, the deciduous planting proposed on the boundary would soften this profile to some extent, especially when the leaves were on the trees, but in my opinion the visual impact from these viewpoints would remain at least moderate adverse in an area where there is little evidence of other built environment.

7 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

Harm to Residents’ Living Conditions

40. The site has a well-established use for aviation and a more recent use for motor sports and other leisure activities. Although Inquiry time was spent exploring the extent to which the motor sports use should be considered a lawful use unfettered by planning control, this aspect is not in my opinion relevant to my determination of the appeal.

41. The aviation use predates the introduction of planning control on such uses, and has continued ever since, albeit that the intensity of use has varied over the years. I have no reason to doubt that the aviation use which is now proposed would not constitute a change of use of the aerodrome.

42. From what I heard at the Inquiry from local residents and organisations, the main cause of disturbance to local residents is motor sports, rather than aviation, though aerobatics can also be disturbing to those in the immediate vicinity. The appellant’s noise witness put it succinctly when he described the noise from F1 car testing as horrendous and the noise from aerobatics overhead as intensely irritating. F1 car testing, though no longer carried out on the aerodrome, has in the past been particularly annoying for those living close by. Noise from overhead aerobatics would be displaced elsewhere if the appellant’s proposed planning condition were adopted.

43. On my unaccompanied site visit, when the aerodrome was being used for motor sports, my enjoyment of the walk along Minster Way was reduced because of the noise emanating from the aerodrome in an area well away from public roads where I could otherwise have expected complete rural peace. I therefore sympathise with those who wrote or attended the Inquiry to express their concern about noise issues.

44. The conclusion to the evidence of the appellant’s noise witness is that there would be a reduction in the noisier activity associated with motor vehicles if the appeal were allowed, and that the increase in noise from aviation activities would have a low impact on those few residential properties close to the site boundary. I conclude that there would be no net harm to residents’ living conditions resulting from the proposed increase in aviation if this resulted in a reduction in motor sports.

45. Motor sports at the aerodrome might be reduced for reasons unconnected with the proposals. Using the most-likely Scenario 2 figures for future aircraft movements, the agreed noise contours resulting from take off and landing

show that only two residential properties would lie within the 50dBLAeq,16hr contour and that at neither of these would noise levels exceed 57dBLAeq,16hr. 46. There is disagreement between the parties as to what degree of annoyance these contours represent. It seems to me that, with such low numbers of properties affected, the mass social surveys which have been used to calibrate average subjective levels of annoyance at particular noise levels have little direct application. I consider that the handful of residents of the properties affected would experience aviation noise towards the low end of the continuum of annoyance. I conclude overall that noise resulting solely from additional take off and landing at Elvington would have limited impact on residents in the area and that I should give this issue little weight in my determination of the appeal.

8 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

Considerations in Favour of the Proposals

47. National and regional policies support the principle of making best use of existing airport capacity and of previously-developed land. The importance of good transport links including aviation in regional and local economies is recognised. The role of General Aviation (GA) is acknowledged, and the tendency for GA including business aviation to be displaced from busy commercial aviation airports is noted. The proposals would bring some employment to the area, and the availability of a convenient business aerodrome close to the sub-regional city of York would improve links for business users and support the city’s economic growth. Some interest has been expressed by potential future users of the aerodrome who are currently constrained in their operations elsewhere or who would welcome a wider choice of operational facilities.

48. These general considerations in favour of the proposals are augmented by some which are specific to Elvington. No other aerodrome is better positioned in the York area than Elvington to meet the need of GA (including business aviation) in terms of proximity to the city, existing infrastructure, lack of operational constraints, and existing users. Subject to some minor details, there is no objection on highway grounds for the level of activity proposed. The existing runway is recognised in the Council’s SPG as being an unusual resource and a unique facility with possible aviation-linked opportunities, subject to various caveats. The planning permission, if granted, would bring aviation activity at the aerodrome, which is an established use pre-dating planning control, within the ambit of such control for the first time.

49. Although the appellant asserts that the full range of general aviation activity would be required to make the development economically viable to the owners, it is mainly the business aviation element which is relied upon to demonstrate the importance for the economy of York and the wider area. The corporate prop aircraft movements for such business aviation are estimated at 1,560 per year for the most-likely Scenario 2, an average of about four movements per day. This modest amount of business aviation is credited with substantial benefit to the economic well-being of York, but would represent only 18% of the additional aircraft movements which the development would be likely to bring.

Discussion

50. I recognise the full range of policy support accruing to the development and the benefits that it would bring to the local area, and in my determination I can give weight to all these elements. Although a significant advantage claimed by the appellant is the benefit for business aviation, other airports are well within an hour’s drive of the centre of York. Not all those catering for commercial aviation have additional capacity for general aviation (including business aviation), but I heard little persuasive evidence that York’s current position and future prospects as a successful business location were significantly constrained by the lack of closer facilities for business aviation.

51. At the Inquiry, the picture was painted of key senior business executives (captains of industry was the phrase used) who would discount York as an area for future investment because they would not be able to take direct private

9 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

business flights between aerodromes within a few miles of their chosen investment locations. I was told that the time of such executives was so valuable that they could not be expected to travel on less-flexible commercial routes or to use ground transport to an airport more than about 40-45 minutes travel-time from their chosen investment location. The June 2007 Future York Group report also supports a maximum transit time to a local airport of 45 minutes, but only in the context of use of one of the three existing airports in the area.

52. It seems to me that there may be long-term sustainability reservations about such a bespoke approach to business travel, but I accept that some investment decisions may be made on this basis. However, even taking this into account, I do not consider that the considerations in favour of the proposals clearly outweigh the harm to the intended Green Belt by reasons of inappropriateness and the other harm which I have identified above. Very special circumstances therefore do not exist, and I am advised by PPG2 that the development should not be approved.

Fall Back Position

53. It was suggested on behalf of the appellant that if the appeal were not allowed the owners would be forced to look for alternative means of increasing income from the aerodrome. One method would be to forego or reduce landing fees and to encourage pilots to visit to refuel from a mobile bowser and to take refreshments from a mobile canteen located alongside the runway for those purposes. I saw no breakdown as to how pricing for fuel and refreshments could be set to provide the required income in a way that would exceed the loss of landing fees, and it seems to me that such an operation would be unlikely to provide a reliable income stream.

54. Such an operation would in my opinion cause very little harm to the objectives of the intended Green Belt, and an increase in aviation activity to the sort of level envisaged for the appeal proposal would have little impact on residents’ living conditions, as noted above. I conclude that I should give the fall-back position indicated by the appellant very little weight in my assessment of the appeal.

Other Matters

55. Many local residents are concerned about the prospect of the business and general aviation aerodrome now proposed developing at a later date into a full- scale regional airport. Indeed, the Masterplan, which accompanied the original application but which was verbally withdrawn by the appellant in September 2006 and in writing in May 2007, indicated just such a development in the longer term. The first stage of the Masterplan is effectively identical to the development now proposed. This has led to some scepticism that the original Masterplan, though now formally withdrawn, remains as a hidden agenda behind the current proposal.

56. However, any development of the aerodrome to cater for scheduled commercial passenger flights, such as would serve a regional airport, would require different buildings, different access, and CAA certification. Aircraft for such scheduled services would be larger than those which would be permitted under the conditions provisionally agreed by the Council and the appellant.

10 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

57. While I understand the concerns of residents in this respect, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not directly facilitate expansion to a regional airport without additional planning permission being granted, including the relaxation of conditions which would be applied to the appeal permission.

58. I heard some anger and frustration from local residents resulting from what they perceive as the failure of the appellant to respond to community concerns about the current use of the aerodrome for motor sports and other noisy leisure pursuits. It is not for me respond to these concerns, and I recognise the principle that planning permission is not something which should be withheld from parties which fail to engage with the local community or otherwise behave in ways which do not meet local approval.

Overall Conclusion

59. The Habitats Regulations requires that the decision-taker should not grant permission for a development such as this which could affect the integrity of the SPA. PPG2 advises that the development such as this should not be approved in the Green Belt, and this site is within the intended York Green Belt. The fall-back position indicated by the appellant does not in my opinion alter the weight I should give to these issues.

60. For these reasons, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that I should dismiss the appeal.

Colin Tyrrell

INSPECTOR

11 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Michael Druce of Counsel instructed by Dickinson Dees LLP He called Mr Peter Kember DipTP MRTPI MRAeS (Planning and Aviation Witness) Ms Louise Congdon BA MTD (Economic Development Witness) Prof Richard N Humphries BSc MA PhD CSci CBiol MIPSS FIQ (Ecology Witness) Mr Douglas F Sharps CEng FIMechE FIOA (Noise Witness) Mr Eric Appleton BEng DMS CEng MICE (Highways Witness) Mr Philip Russell-Vick DipLA MLI (Landscape Witness)

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Paul Tucker of Counsel instructed by City of York Council Solicitor He called Mr Patrick W Sutor BA DipTP MRTPI (Planning Witness) Mr Bob Wolfe MA DipTP MRTPI (Aviation Planning Witness) Dr Howard G Latham PhD RIBA MAEx FIOA (Noise Witness) Mr Robert E Missin BSc MALGE (Ecology Witness) Mr Richard Edwards BSc MSc MIHT (Highways Witness) Mr G Brynmor Jones BA DipTP (Economic Development Witness)

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mr Simon Jones, Highways 8 City Walk, Leeds LS11 9AT Agency Ms Harriet Dennison, RSPB 15 Priory Street, York YO1 6ET Mr Ian Bailey, Elvington PC The Glen House, Elvington, York YO41 4AG Mr David Randon, Wheldrake PC 4 Blue Slates Close, Wheldrake, York YO19 6NB Councillor Jenny Brook 21 Water Lane, Donnington, York YO19 5NP Councillor Christian Vassie 10 Blake Court, Wheldrake, York YO19 6BT Mr Robin Black 75 Main Street, Wheldrake, York YO19 6AA Mr Andrew Collingwood 10 Turners Croft, Heslington, York YO10 5EL Mr Graham Keighley 20 Elvington Park, Elvington, York YO41 4DW Mr D Liptrot 25 Valley View, Wheldrake, York YO19 6AJ Mr Dennis Martin 74 Cedar Drive, Dunnington, York YO19 5PL Dr David Mayston 27 Common Road, Dunnington, York YO19 5NG Mr Julian Sturdy Northfield Farm House, 25 Marston Road, Tockwith, York YO26 7PR Mr Tim Vicary Blackwoods Farm, Broad Highway, Wheldrake, York YO19 6BG

12 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

DOCUMENTS

York City Council Documents CYC 1.1 Statement and Appendices - Patrick Sutor CYC 1.2 Summary – Patrick Sutor CYC 2.1 Statement – Bob Wolfe of APD Ltd CYC 2.2 Appendices – Bob Wolfe of APD Ltd CYC 2.3 Summary – Bob Wolfe of APD Ltd CYC 3.1 Statement – Howard Latham of Bikerdike Allen CYC 3.2 Summary – Howard Latham of Bikerdike Allen CYC 4.1 Statement and Appendices – Bob Missin of City of York Council CYC 5.1 Statement and Summary – Richard Edwards of Halcrow Ltd CYC 6 Appearances – City of York Council CYC 7 Statutory Notices of Inquiry – City of York Council CYC 8 Rebuttal – Bryn Jones CYC 9 Turweston Aerodrome Proof of Evidence of Doug Sharps CYC 10 E-Mail of Denise Stewart CYC 11 Working draft of conditions CYC 12 York City letter of 9/10/08 to PINS with copy of letter sent to HA on 8/10/08 CYC 13 Response Proof - Richard Edwards of Halcrow Ltd CYC 14 Minute of Committee Meeting of April 2008 – relating to this proposal. CYC 15 List of Consultees for the Heslington Village Design Statement CYC 16 List of Attendees at Site Visit of 20 October 2008 CYC 17 Highways Consultation CYC 18 Location Plan showing the site of the second T2 hangar CYC 19 Agreed Distances from York to certain aerodromes CYC 20 Cover and Abstract to ISVR report of July 1988 CYC 21 E-mail from Mr Sutor dated 27/11/08 concerning delay to submission of agreed conditions CYC 22 E-mail from Mr Sutor dated 2/12/08 concerning submission of agreed conditions CYC 23 Mr Missin’s views dated 2/12/08 on the Appropriate Assessment responses CYC 24 E-mail from Councillor J Brookes CYC 25 Bundle of Third Party Representations and Statutory Notices CYC 26 Closing Submissions of Paul Tucker

Elvington Park Ltd Documents EPL 1 Proof of Evidence of D F Sharps EPL 2 Summary Proof of Evidence of D F Sharps EPL 3 Appendices to Proof of Evidence of D F Sharps EPL 4 Proof of Evidence of Philip Russell-Vick EPL 5 Figures and Appendices to the Proof of Evidence of Philip Russell-Vick

13 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

EPL 6 Proof of Evidence of Louise Congdon EPL 7 Summary Proof of Evidence of Louise Congdon EPL 8 Appendices to Proof of Evidence of Louise Congdon EPL 9 Proof of Evidence of Peter Kember EPL 10 Appendices to Proof of Evidence of Peter Kember EPL 11 Proof of Evidence of Eric Appleton EPL 12 Summary Proof of Evidence of Eric Appleton EPL 13 Appendices to Proof of Evidence of Eric Appleton EPL 14 Proof of Evidence of Prof R N Humphries EPL 15 Summary Proof of Evidence of Prof R N Humphries EPL 16 Supporting Documents to Proof of Evidence of Prof R N Humphries EPL 17 Response Evidence of Mr Kember EPL 18 Response Evidence of Louise Congdon EPL 19 Response Evidence of Prof Humphries (without Appendices N24, NH25 and NH26 or replacement Appendix NH12) EPL 20 Draft Travel Plan Framework EPL 21 SOCG on Highways and Traffic Related Matters (signed by Eric Appleton) EPL 22 Draft Statement of Common Ground between Mr Kember, Ms Congdon and Mr Wolfe EPL 23 List of Appearances for the Appellant EPL 24 Extract from the Habitats Regulations EPL 25 SOCG agreed between Peter Kember and Patrick Sutor (amended document – as agreed) EPL 26 Agreed SOCG on Noise EPL 27 Proposed Inquiry Timetable EPL 28 Elmsett Aerodrome Appeal Decision, 13 October 2000 EPL 29 Turweston Aerodrome Proof of Evidence of Jeffrey Gwilym Charles EPL 30 TAG Farnborough Airport Proof of Evidence of Jeffrey Gwilym Charles EPL 31 Opening Statement of Mr Druce for the Appellant EPL 32 Planning Encyclopaedia (extract) EPL 33 Appropriate Assessment Supporting Documentation (URS Corporation Ltd) EPL 34 Statement of Common Ground on Economic Impacts (Louise Congdon and Bryn Jones) EPL 35 Elvington Airfield Study of Motor Sports Noise, Report of Hayes McKenzie EPL 36 Rebuttal Proof of Prof R N Humphries EPL 37 SOCG on Highways (Eric Appleton and Richard Edwards) EPL 38 Lilo Blum v. Secretary of State for the Environment and the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Council [1987] JPL 278 EPL 39 Extract from planning decisions of the City of York Council

14 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

EPL 40 Photographs from “The RAF Elvington War Diary” by Mike Usherwood EPL 41 Comparison of the Volume of the proposed hangars and the hangars at the Yorkshire Air Museum EPL 42 Map showing 40 minute Isochrone EPL 43 Note of Consultations undertaken by York Aviation. EPL 44 Journey time advantages of Business aircraft use from York EPL 45 Mileage saved if Business Aviation operates from Elvington rather than Leeds-Bradford EPL 46 Extract from “The social and economic impact of airports in Europe”, dated January 2004 EPL 47 Regional Economic Strategy for Yorkshire & Humberside 2006- 2015 EPL 48 Detailed layout of hangars and apron area dated October2008 EPL 49 45 minute isochrone of York centre EPL 50 Consultees by EPL in assessing need and economic impact EPL 51 Agreed distances from bus stops to control cabin/gatehouse EPL 52 Proposed Planning Conditions (draft 5/12/08) EPL 53 Statement of Common Ground on Biodiversity (draft 7/12/08) EPL 54 s106 Unilateral Undertaking (draft 8/12/08) EPL 55 Response to comments received from Consultees in relation to the Appropriate Assessment EPL 56 Decision Letter on Sywell EPL 57 Sywell Section 106 Agreement EPL 58 Note on Aerobatics at Elvington EPL 59 Enforcement Notice issued by City of York Council EPL 60 Grounds of Appeal to Enforcement Notice EPL 61 Closing Submissions of Michael Druce

General Inquiry Documents INQ 1 Inquiry Document List INQ 2 Letter from Mr D Martin dated 15.10.2008 INQ 3 Statement of Heslington Parish Council INQ 4 Letter from Mr Turton INQ 5 Highways Agency letter of 16.10.2008 INQ 6 Letter from Mr Broadbent, resident of Fir Tree Farm INQ 7 E-mails between PINS and Simon Jones of the Highways Agency INQ 8 E-mail from PINS to Simon Christian at Natural England INQ 9 Correspondence from Ian Reed of the Air Museum to PINS INQ 10 Letter from the Highways Agency dated 21 October 2008 INQ 11 Letter from D Wise, Chairman of the Sutton upon Derwent Parish Council INQ 12 Letter from Mr and Mrs Powell INQ 13 Proof of Evidence of Councillor Vassie INQ 14 “Focus on Wheldrake Ward” (Liberal Democrats) INQ 15 Extract from Yorkshire Evening Press dated 25 February 2008

15 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

INQ 16 E-mail and attachments from the Highways Agency dated 22 October 2008, at 11:31. INQ 17 Elvington PC letter of 15/10/08 INQ 18 Objection letter of 27/11/08 from Mr G Unwin, The Orchard, Forest Farm, East Cottingwith INQ 19 Letter of support from Mr Don Proud of 18 Curlew Glebe, Dunnington INQ 20 Request for adjournment form Miss Julie Harrison, Appletree House, Green Lane, East Cottingwith INQ 21 Proof of evidence of Mr Simon Christian, Natural England INQ 22 E-mail from Ms Stallard/Brown of Dunvegan, East Cottingwith concerning resumption of Inquiry, with request for adjournment and details of objection INQ 23 Appropriate Assessment Bundle containing: INQ 23/1 Inspector’s invitation to consultees dated 22/10/08 INQ 23/2 Mr Turton (Carstairs Countryside Trust) comment of 23/10/08 INQ 23/3 Carstairs Countryside Trust response INQ 23/4 Natural England response INQ 23/5 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust preliminary comment of 20/10/08 INQ 23/6 Yorkshire Wildlife response of 4/11/08 INQ 23/7 RSPB local branch comment of 17/11/08 INQ 23/8 RSPB headquarters response of 21/11/2008 (amended) INQ 23/9 Environment Agency response of 13/11/08 INQ 24 Notification of resumed Inquiry dated 11/11/08

York City’s Core Documents CD 1 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026. Government Office for Yorkshire and Humber, May 2008 CD 2 City of York Draft Local Plan including the fourth set of stages. Development Control Local Plan. CoYC, April 2005. CD 3 Elvington Airfield Development Brief. CoYC February 1998. CD 4 Approved Local Development Scheme. CoYC, 2007. CD 5 Heslington Village Design Statement, CoYC, July 2004. CD 6 Elvington Airfield, Stage 1 Masterplan, Spawforth Associates, December 2004. CD 7 The Future York Group Report, CoYC, June 2007. CD 8 Decision letter on Germany Beck and Metcalfe Lane planning applications, 9 May 2007. CD 9 Planning appeal Decision on Portakabins, 18 January 2006. CD 10 Decision letter on University campus, 24 May 2007. CD 11 The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030 DfT 2004. CD 12 Regional Air Surfaces Co-ordination Study (RASCO), DfT 2002. CD 13 The Future of Air Transport" Air Transport White Paper, DfT 2003. CD 14 The Future of Air Transport Progress Report NT 2006. CD 15 BAA Airports Market Investigation – Provisional Findings Report, Competition Commission, August 2008.

16 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/A/08/2069665

CD 16 CAP168, Licensing of Aerodromes, Aviation Publication. CD 17 Guidance on Air Transport Forums and Airport Surface Access Strategies, DETR, 1999. CD 18 SINC Guidelines North Yorkshire CC. CD 19 Review of the Importance of the Lower Derwent Valley for Birds, Natural England. CD 20 City of York LDF (Draft) Allocations DPD Issues and Options

17