Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended)
APPEALS BY MR MARTIN SCOTT
Against the decisions by Hambleton District Council to refuse planning consent for
(1) Revised planning application comprising an airfield clubhouse with three bedrooms new/extended hangers with concrete aprons, new workshop/maintenance hanger, artificial matting on main runway, relocate fuel line, access and car parking; (2) Replacement helicopter landing pad and jet fuel stop facility; (3) Retrospective application for provision of geo-textile matting and concrete apron;
and to issue an Enforcement Notice in respect of
(4) alleged breach of planning control relating to the unauthorised construction of an aircraft hanger; the unauthorised concreting of the apron to aircraft hanger F; the unauthorised concreting of the apron to aircraft hanger A; the unauthorised concreting of part of the east-west runway; and the unauthorised installation of plastic geo-textile on part of the main east-west runway
at:
Bagby Airfield, Bagby, Thirsk, North Yorkshire, YO7 2PH
Evidence of Peter Kember Dip Tp, MRTPI (Rtd), MRAeS, Aviation Planning Consultant
Public Inquiry at: The Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Stone Cross, Northallerton, DL6 2UU, opening at 1000 on 15th March 2011 References: Planning Inspectorate: APP/G2713/A/10/2136646/NWF; APP/G2713/C/09/2114975; APP/G2713/A/2123183/NWF; and APP/G2713/A/10/2123181 Hambleton District Council: 10/01272/FUL; 09/04039/FUL; and 09/03959/FUL Kember Loudon Williams: K11/005
Kember Loudon Williams Ltd, Ridgers Barn Bunny Lane, Eridge, Nr Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN3 9HA Tele: 01892 750018 Fax: 01892 750019 Email: [email protected]
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction - Professional qualifications and experience - Instructions - Submissions - Bagby Aerodrome - Definitions - Context - Facilities - The proposed development - The Enforcement Notice
2.0 History of Bagby Aerodrome - Early development - Aircraft Repair Servicing and Maintenance - Pilot training - ‘Crosswind” runway - Reinforcement works
3.0 General Aviation – A Context For The Appeals - Trends in GA - New technology aircraft - Helicopters - The GAAC’s “Considerate Flying Programme” - The role of an Aerodrome Joint Consultative Committee
4.0 Proposed Facilities - Hangarage - Clubhouse - Related development
5.0 Aerodromes in Yorkshire - Analysis of Alternative Aerodrome Sites - Bagby Constraints
2 6.0 Development Plan Policy (Aviation) - Regional Spatial Strategy - Local Development Framework – Core Strategy
7.0 Aviation Policy Considerations - National Policy - Aviation Planning Guidance
8.0 The Future for Bagby Aerodrome
9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations - A way forward - LPA planning conditions - Appellants proposed planning conditions (aviation) - Aerodrome Consultative Committee - Draft Flight Policy - Draft Complaints Policy
10.0 Summary of Case
3 APPENDICES
PK1 DfT Guidelines for Joint Consultative Committees
PK2 Extract of CAA Aeronautical Charts for the North of England 1998 and 2010
PK3 Extract of GPDO 1995 Article 1 definition of aerodrome
PK4 Extracts of CAA UK Aerodrome Index (CAP481)
PK5 “Why General Aviation ?” GAAC Booklet
PK6 “Safe Operating Practices at Unlicensed Aerodromes” CAA Publication CAP793
PK7 Bagby Aerodromes Flight Protocol
PK8 Witness Statement of Messrs J.P.Lassey, J.Dundon, A.G.Kennet and G.Fox
PK9 DofE and DofT Appeal Decision Letter – the Airfield, Bagby 9th September 1987
PK10 Extracts of Pilot Flight Guides for Bagby
PK11 Assessment of Aircraft Movements at Bagby Airfield by P.A.Pritchett BSc, ACA
PK12 PIN Appeal Decision Letter - Elmsett Aerodrome 13th October 2000
PK13 CAA leaflet – GA Safety Sense “Aeroplane Performance”
PK14 Secretary of State Appeal Decision Letter – Fairoaks Aerodrome dated 18th
September 1978 and, Sywell Aerodrome dated 21st November 2007
PK15 CAA statistics - UK Registered Aircraft 1985 – 2010
PK16 New technology aircraft requirements
PK17 Yorkshire Air Ambulance letter dated 13th September 2010
PK18 GAAC leaflet – ‘More Considerate Flying’
PK19 Support for Joint Consultative Committees
PK20 Yorkshire GA aerodromes – constraints/potential
4 1.0 Introduction
Professional Qualifications and Experience
1.1 My name is Peter Kember. I am aviation planning consultant to Kember Loudon Williams Limited, I hold a Graduate Diploma in Town Planning from London - South Bank University (1979). I am a retired member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I am also a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
1.2 I have been engaged in the town planning profession since 1968. The first 19 years of my planning career were spent with a succession of local and county planning authorities in the South East of England. From 1974 to 1986 I was employed by Wealden District Council (East Sussex) initially as a senior and then as a principal grade planning officer. It was whilst acting as a team leader at Wealden that my interest in aviation planning started. Since 1986 I have worked in the private sector as a consultant specialising in airport and aerodrome planning. In 1996, with others including Robert Loudon Meek I formed Kember Loudon Williams Ltd (KLW) as a town planning and environmental consultancy.
1.3 In addition to my professional qualifications I hold a UK Private Pilots Licence (PPL) and I fly my own aeroplane for both recreational and business purposes. I learned to fly gliders when I was 16 and I have held a UK PPL since 1984. For the past ten years I have operated Laddingford Aerodrome near Tonbridge in Kent and in 2006, with others, I purchased the Aerodrome. I am a member of the Light Aircraft Association (LAA), formerly the Popular Flying Association and since 1993 I have built and have operated two different Europa aircraft under the LAA’s “Permit to Fly” scheme.
1.4 In the past 20 or so years, during which period I have been concentrating on aviation planning cases, I have advised on more than 80 different flying sites in the UK 30 or more of which have been the subject of public local inquiries of one sort or another. My list includes, inter alia, Fairoaks Airport in Surrey, Biggin Hill and Rochester Airports in Kent, Nottingham City Airport, Truro and Perranporth Aerodromes in Cornwall, Little Gransden and Duxford in Cambridgeshire, Elmsett
5 and Monewden in Suffolk, Turweston and Finmere in Buckinghamshire, North Weald in Essex, Sywell Aerodrome in Northamptonshire and Elvington and Breighton Aerodromes in Yorkshire. Most of this work has been carried out for the private sector but on occasions I have advised local planning authorities. I have also advised Members of Parliament on the subject of planning for General Aviation (GA) most recently on the subject of the effects of wind turbine farms on nearby aerodromes. I was a founding director of the General Aviation Awareness Council (GAAC). I am presently a member of the CAA’s General Aviation Consultative Committee (GACC).
1.5 As the planning consultant to the LAA I have given advice on a further 100 or so small scale flying sites used or operated by LAA members. I was recently part of the public inquiry teams that obtained planning permission on appeal for a new HQ building for the LAA and proposed helicopter operations at Turweston Aerodrome in Buckinghamshire, and a proposed 1000 m paved runway and other development including new hangars at Sywell Aerodrome in Northamptonshire.
Instructions 1.6 KLW was instructed by Bagby Airfield in June 2009, inter alia, to provide general planning advice and to provide aviation planning advice on an intended appeal and associated matters. I flew into Bagby from my base near Tonbridge in Kent on the 16th June 2009, and, I inspected around the airfield (or Aerodrome as I shall refer to it) and the nearby village. I have subsequently revisited the Aerodrome.
1.7 Because the appeals are in respect of town planning issues my evidence necessarily concentrates on town planning issues. However as an experienced pilot I am able to offer the benefit of my knowledge of considerate flying practices and flight protocols which can significantly reduce the environmental impact of an aerodrome. These protocols are best addressed by the Aerodrome having a Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) to be set up in accordance with the guidelines promoted by the Department for Transport (see Appendix PK1). No such JCC exists at present and strictly speaking none is required because the Aerodrome is not designated for the purposes of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (Section 35). I shall return to the subject of a JCC in Sections 3 and 9 of my evidence.
6
1.8 The evidence which I have prepared and provide for this appeal in this proof of evidence is true and has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institutions and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.
1.9 At one time or another I have flown into the majority of GA aerodromes in Yorkshire. These Aerodromes are shown on the 2010 edition of the CAA Aeronautical Chart for the North of England, an extract copy of which is reproduced at my Appendix PK2. For comparison purposes I have included a copy of the CAA Chart dating from 1998. If an aerodrome has no published data, despite being shown on the CAA chart, it is not available to visiting pilots or the public. Those aerodromes that I have not personally visited have been contacted either by myself or my assistants at Kember Loudon Williams Ltd. I have examined the published flight guide data on all of the Yorkshire aerodromes.
Propositions 1.10 My evidence is concerned to substantiate 7 main propositions in respect of this appeal:
(i) There is evidence to support my view that the appeal site has been in continuous use as an aerodrome, as defined by the GPDO, which caters for General Aviation since at least 1986.
(ii) The use of the proposed hangars and associated development, the subject of the planning appeals, and the development the subject of the enforcement appeal, represent development which is ancillary to the lawful aerodrome use.
(iii) The development enforced against is not harmful in the planning sense and represents an important benefit to the Aerodrome and the amenity of the area.
7 (iv) General Aviation is an important contributor to the UK economy. The size of the GA aircraft fleet in the UK has increased markedly in recent years whilst the number of licensed aerodromes is declining. If GA is to continue as an important component of the UK’s economy the focus needs to be on making the best use of existing and established GA facilities.
(v) There is a quantitative need for additional GA facilities in Yorkshire and that there is a qualitative need for improved facilities specifically at Bagby Aerodrome.
(vi) The grant of planning permission with conditions and the Section 106 planning undertaking which is offered would, for the first time in recent years, bring Bagby Aerodrome under the ambit of planning control to the benefit of the amenity of the area. This is preferable to the Aerodrome operating in a largely unregulated manner.
(vii) That if planning permission is not forthcoming as a result of this appeal and the enforcement notice appeal is dismissed, it is likely that Bagby Aerodrome would continue to operate, albeit with poor quality facilities which are unlikely to contribute, in any significant way, to the local economy of the area. The important amenity benefits which I claim would be associated with the proposed development would not be forthcoming.
Related Issues 1.11 Other witnesses including Mr Robert Meek from my company and Mr Phillip Rech and Mr Douglas Sharps will be giving evidence on behalf of the appellant to address issues relating to planning policy and other considerations, landscape impact and biodiversity and acoustic considerations.
Bagby Aerodrome Definitions 1.12 Bagby is an aerodrome catering for General Aviation. “Aerodrome” is defined by Article 1 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order
8 1995 (GPDO). Bagby qualifies as an ‘aerodrome” because it meets two of the tests in the GPDO as follows:
“(c) one at which the manufacture, repair and maintenance of aircraft is carried out by a person carrying on a business as a manufacturer or repairer of aircraft,” and “(e) one identified to the Civil Aviation Authority before 1st March 1986 for inclusion in the UK Aerodrome Index”.
I attach an extract copy of the GPDO at Appendix PK3 and the CAA’s “United Kingdom Aerodrome Index” for years 1986, 1988 and 1996 (CAP481) at Appendix PK4.
1.13 The term ‘General Aviation’ (GA) has been defined by the General Aviation Awareness Council (GAAC) as covering:
“all civil aircraft activity other than that carried out by the Commercial Air Transport (CAT) sector (i.e. the airlines) and represents the largest element of aviation in the UK. GA includes business flights, pipeline and cable inspections, police, security and pollution patrols, traffic survey flights, medical and medevac flights, aerial surveys, civil search and rescue operations, pilot training (ab initio (student) and instrument, night rating, commercial pilot and air transport pilot training) and flights for recreational purposes.”
Bagby is a small aerodrome catering mostly for recreational flying including ab initio, continuity and aerobatic training but also accommodates business flights in the form of pipeline and cable inspections, police and air ambulance flights.
According to the GAAC booklet “Why General Aviation ?”, which is reproduced at Appendix PK5 more than 70 per cent of all GA flights have some business, safety or training purpose.
9 Context 1.14 Bagby Aerodrome is one of a number of relatively small aerodromes which serve the needs of GA in Yorkshire. It is located close to a number of well established military aerodromes accessed via the A1(M) including from north to south, RAF stations Leeming, Topcliffe, Dishforth, Linton-on-Ouse and Church Fenton as shown on the chart at Appendix PK2.
1.15 Leeming, Topcliffe and Linton-on-Ouse cater mostly for the RAFs advanced trainer, the turboprop Tucano (the highpitched whine of which is a characteristic sound in this area) whereas Church Fenton caters for the Grob and Slingsby T67 piston-engined basic trainers.
1.16 In addition to Bagby other civil aerodromes which cater for GA in Yorkshire, include Breighton, Elvington, Felixkirk, Fishburn, Full Sutton, Pocklington, Rufforth, Sherburn in Elmet and Wombleton as shown on the chart at Appendix PK2. There are some other flying sites in Yorkshire, which are also shown on the chart. They include Carlton Moor, East Heslerton, Fadmoor, Husthwaite, Melbourne, Sutton Bank and Kirbymoorside. These flying sites are not available to GA either because they are private airstrips, gliding sites or company-use airfields only.
Facilities 1.17 Bagby Aerodrome is a relatively small grass aerodrome which enjoys excellent flight approaches over open countryside. It has one, mainly–grass runway, (runway 06/24) which is in a published document described as being 710 m long by 20 m wide but is actually 695 metres long. There is also another, short grass runway which is only used on the few occasions per year when the wind strength and direction means that the main runway cannot be safely used (runway 15/33) or “the crosswind runway”. This is 450 m long by 20 m wide. There is a slight upslope to runway 06, which means that in light winds, the tendency is for runway 06 to be used for landings, and runway 24 for take offs. The Aerodrome is not licensed by the CAA but is operated in accordance with the CAA’s advice on “Safe Operating Practices at Unlicensed Aerodromes”, published in July 2010 as CAP793 a copy of which appears at Appendix PK6. CAP 793 advice includes, inter alia, Planning
10 Authority Liaison, Rights of Way, Safeguarding, Local Engagement, Usage Levels, Runway Lengths and Orientation, and Safety Factors, Wind Indication, Obstacles, Roads, Buildings, Lighting and Aircraft Parking, Flying Operations, Aircraft Refuelling, Low Flying Emergency Services and Provision of Air Traffic Services.
1.18 The Aerodrome has a range of 9 hangars in total, 5 of which are located on the south-eastern side of the main runway at the further point from the village. There is a clubhouse, café and toilets, a maintenance hangar, and 3 smaller hangars located on the north-western, the village side, of the site.
1.19 I am instructed that as at January 2011 there were 38 aeroplanes and 1 helicopter based at Bagby, some of which are stored in the hangars when not in use. On the occasion of my first site visit on the 16th June 2009 I counted a total of 56 aeroplanes (including my own) on the Aerodrome, and 4 helicopters. The difference between the home-based fleet and the total I counted (17 aircraft), is accounted by visitor flights to the Aerodrome, either for fuel, for refreshments, a visit to the locality, or for temporary open air storage pending repair, service or maintenance (RSM). I am informed that 7 of the aircraft which I saw stored in the open were awaiting space in Graham Fox’s workshop, prior to maintenance work. There are two aircraft maintenance companies based at the Aerodrome, Graham Fox Engineering and the Swift Technology Group. Both are authorised by the CAA to carry out maintenance work on aircraft.
1.20 There is some reinforcement of the surface of runway 06/24 which I address later in my evidence. There is also a concrete helipad in front of hangar ‘A’, metalled aprons to all other hangars and an Avgas and Jet A1 fuel installation near to the clubhouse. This building is also the home to the air/ground radio facility.
1.21 The Aerodrome has in recent years adopted a flight protocol which means that all aircraft using the site follow a standard overhead joining and departing procedure and follow a circuit which routes aircraft to the east away from Bagby village. This is illustrated on my plan at Appendix PK7. I consider that some alterations to the flight protocol together with a more formal way of enforcing and monitoring
11 compliance would produce worthwhile benefits in the reduction of aircraft noise and these I address later in my proof.
1.22 Bagby Aerodrome provides basic facilities to serve GA. These facilities have been provided as and when required, without evidence of any overall master plan. Some of the hangars have been converted from former farm buildings and, like the clubhouse are in a generally poor condition. They are not fit for purpose in the sense of catering for modern flying requirements and cannot, economically, be converted or upgraded to provide satisfactory accommodation for the new generation of aircraft types now entering service. In particular the present clubhouse does not have sufficient dedicated space for flight planning and the display of meteorological information and information to pilots (NOTAMS) which have greatly increased the safety of flight in recent years.
The Proposed Development 1.23 The full description of the proposed development appears on the application forms. Essentially the proposal is to demolish all of the original building (including the RSM hangar, the clubhouse, sheds and 3 hangars) which are beyond their economic life and in a visually unattractive condition and to replace them with new buildings which have been designed specifically to perform certain roles. Both the RSM hangar and the new hangars are, in total, larger than that being demolished as shown below:
Hangarage Existing Total 2646 sq m Proposed Total 3483 sq m Net Increase 837 sq m
RSM Existing Total 588 sq m Proposed Total 800 sq m Net Increase 212 sq m
12 1.24 The proposed RSM bay and the new hangars would offer very much improved maintenance and storage facilities. The new clubhouse incorporates three bedrooms for use by airborne and other visitors attracted to North Yorkshire.
The Enforcement Notice 1.25 Although for a long time the Local Planning Authority have been aware of the growth of Bagby Aerodrome it is only recently, in 2009 that the Council decided to investigate possible breaches of control at Bagby aerodrome. A total of 10 Planning Contravention Notices were issued by the Local Planning Authority in July 2009 concerned with the following:
(i) material change of use of land from agricultural to airfield runway (ii) concreting of a section of runway (iii) construction of concrete apron to hangars A, B and E (iv) reinforcement of runway (v) material change of use of land for the siting and occupation of a residential caravan (vi) operational development of construction of an aircraft hangar E and construction of an aircraft hangar A larger than approved (vii) the number of flights by aero club members and non aero club members (viii) use of land for aircraft repair and storage (ix) use of land for aircraft hire/taxi services (x) use of land for flying lessons/training. Mr Robert Meek is exhibiting a copy of the PCN in his appendices.
1.26 In respect of some works carried out to Bagby Aerodrome an Enforcement Notice was issued by the LPA on 28th September 2009. The notice seeks the removal of the reinforcing works to the main runway (both the concrete and the plastic matting), the concrete apron to hangars A and E, and hangar E itself. Following consideration of the PCN responses, the Council have decided not to pursue any enforcement action in respect of the following items referred to above:
(i) material change of use (v) siting and occupation of a residential caravan
13 (vi) construction of aircraft hangar A larger than approved (vii) number of aircraft movements (viii) use of land for aircraft repair and storage (ix) use of land for aircraft hire/taxi services (x) use of land for flying lessons/training Mr Robert Meek is exhibiting a copy of the EN in his appendices.
1.27 Given the appellant responses to the PCN which Mr Robert Meek is exhibiting, I have concluded that the LPA chose not to enforce items (i), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x) because the alleged unauthorised development had either become lawful through the passage of time, or had no measurable detrimental impact and thus the public interest would not be served by enforcement.
14 2.0 HISTORY OF BAGBY AERDROME
Early Development 2.1 Mr Robert Meek has analysed the planning history of the appeal site including LPA correspondence thereon, and I do not therefore need or intend to duplicate his work. I will however refer to certain planning applications and an appeal where they are relevant to aeronautical considerations.
The Council Officers report which is exhibited by Mr Robert Meek in his appendices states that the site was established as a base for flying activities around the beginning of the 1970’s and that in the early years the flying at Bagby was carried out by the airfield owner and his friends. Mr J.P.Lassey, the former owner of Bagby Aerodrome, developed the original airfield site with a friend Mr J.Whiting in the early 1970’s confirmed by paragraph 3 of Mr Whiting’s statement, a copy of which I have included at Appendix PK8.
2.2 Bagby Aerodrome is included in the United Kingdom Aerodrome Index first published by the Civil Aviation Authority in April 1986 (CAP481). I have already referred to an extract copy the first edition of CAP481, together with two subsequent editions of 1988 and 1996 copies of which appear at Appendix PK4. Bagby appears on page 2 of the 1986 Index wherein it is afforded the status “C2” meaning a “civil private aerodrome”, “generally unlicensed, available with prior permission only” (PPR).
2.3 The inclusion in CAP481 is not definitive as the planning status of the Aerodrome. However the fact that Bagby Aerodrome is included in the original UK Aerodrome Index of 1986 and in the subsequent editions of 1988 and 1996 is indicative of the fact that the CAA, the body responsible for the administration and regulation of GA, considered it to be an aerodrome as described and therefore is good factual evidence as to its existence and description.
2.4 In 1987 Mr J.P.Lassey appealed against a condition imposed by planning permission (LPA Ref No. 2/86/009/0015E) for the retention of an existing hangar building at the Airfield, Bagby. The condition stated “the permission shall enure for
15 the benefit of Mr J.P.Lassey only”. The appeal decision letter dated 9th September 1987 is particularly important and I have therefore attached a copy at my Appendix PK9.
2.5 From being the base in the 1970’s for, apparently just one aircraft, the aerodrome expanded to the point where as Inspector Crowther noted in his 1987 appeal decision letter, “18 aircraft operate from the site”, that “occasionally visitors to the area use the landing facility” and also that “the construction materials used in these light planes requires that they are protected when not in use”. He concluded that there would be no harm to the amenities and interests of local residents “provided the scale of the activity is controlled in terms of numbers of flights and operational hours”. It should be noted that, as the Inspector was addressing an appeal in respect of a personal use condition on a building. He did not have the authority to deal with the operating hours and number of flights and indeed did not attempt to do so.
2.6 In addition to the historical record of Bagby Aerodrome in CAP481 the details of the flying site have been published annually in the various pilots flight guides which are available.
2.7 I have obtained a copy of Pooleys Flight Guide, the Flyer VFR Organiser and the UK VFR Flight Guide as it is now known, for most of the years from March 1986 to date. Extract copies of the editions for the years 1986, 1988 and for the years 1994 to 2010 are included at Appendix PK10.
Summarised below is the published information on the Aerodrome, taken from the various flight guides as follows:
16 Year Reference Runway A/C A/C Fuel Other Details Maintenance 1986 Pooleys 07/25 (550 x 18 m) Nil No A/G radio/refreshments 1988 Pooleys 07/25 (500 x 20 m) By arrangement No A/G radio/refreshments/club facilities 1993 Pooleys 06/24 (550 x 20 m) lighting G.Fox Eng Avgas A/G radio/meals and club facilities 1994 Flyer 06/24 (520 x 20 m) lighting No references Avgas A/G radio/Aero Club 1995 VFR 06/24 (550 x 20 m) lighting Nil Avgas A/G radio/bar meals and club 1996 Pooleys 06/24 (500 x 20 m) lighting G.Fox Eng Avgas A/G radio/catering/pilot supplies 1997 Pooleys 06/24 (500 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas A/G radio/catering/pilot supplies 1998 VFR 06/24 (745 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities JetA1 1999 VFR 06/24 (708 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities JetA1 2000 VFR 06/24 (708 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities JetA1 2001 VFR 06/24 (708 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities, ICAO JetA1 code 2002 VFR 06/24 (710 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities, ICAO 16/34 (310 x 20 m) JetA1 code 2003 VFR 06/24 (710 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities, ICAO 16/34 (310 x 20 m) JetA1 code, southern taxiway 2004 VFR 06/24 (710 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities, ICAO 15/33 (310 x 20 m) JetA1 code, southern and northern taxiways Year Reference Runway A/C A/C Fuel Other Details Maintenance 2005 VFR 06/24 (710 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities, ICAO 15/33 (310 x 20 m) JetA1 code, southern and northern taxiways 2006 VFR 06/24 (710 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities, ICAO 15/33 (450 x 20 m) JetA1 code, southern and northern taxiways 2007 VFR 06/24 (710 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities, ICAO 15/33 (450 x 20 m) JetA1 code, southern and northern taxiways 2008 VFR 06/24 (710 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities, ICAO 15/33 (450 x 20 m) JetA1 code, southern and northern taxiways 2009 VFR 06/24 (710 x 20 m) lighting and PAPI G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/bar meals and club facilities, ICAO 15/33 (450 x 20 m) JetA1 code, southern and northern taxiways 2010 VFR 06/24 (710 x 20 m) lighting G.Fox Eng Avgas and A/G radio/snacks/meals and club facilities, ICAO 15/33 (450 x 20 m) JetA1 code, southern and northern taxiways
PAPI stands for Precision Approach Path Indicator ICAO stands for International Civil Aviation Organisation Avgas can include 80/87 octane, 100 octane and 100 LL (100 octane low lead) aviation fuel for piston-engined aircraft Jet A1 is a type of kerosene used in turbine engined aeroplanes and turboshaft helicopters ‘Pooleys’ is a well established Pilots Flight Guide ‘Flyer’ is a short lived Pilots Flight Guide ‘VFR’ is the most comprehensive of all Pilots Flight Guides
18 2.8 According to the Pilot Flight Guide references above Bagby Aerodrome has been available for the use of both home based and visiting pilots from 1986 to date, on a continuous basis. The original (main) runway was lengthened in 1997 from about 500 metres to 745 metres. Aircraft maintenance was made available in 1988, and Graham Fox Engineering have been based at the Aerodrome since 1993. The aircraft fuel known as Avgas has been sold from 1993 to date and in 1998 Jet A1 fuel was first advertised as being available at the Aerodrome for use by turbine engined helicopters, and some “new-generation” light aeroplanes. Meals and club facilities were first made available in 1988. From 1993 the main runway was described as having lighting (for use in conditions of poor visibility or at night). In 1997 a Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) was first installed to enable aircraft to accurately track the approach path to land. The length of the main runway has recently been checked and measures 695 metres.
2.9 Pilot supplies, which for example normally include aeronautical charts, log books, rulers and chinagraph pencils were first sold at the Aerodrome in 1996. A short crosswind runway, runway 16/34 was first made available in 2002 and lengthened to 450 metres in 2006. The Aerodrome was allocated an International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) code (EGNG) in 2001 and this has enabled more accurate track recording, simplified and inherently safer flights plans for international flights.
2.10 The evidence of four witnesses, Messrs J.P.Lassey, J.Dundon, A.G.Kennet and G.Fox at Appendix PK8 is revealing as to the history of the development of Bagby Aerodrome, particularly in the early years upto about the year 2000.
2.11 A southern taxiway was first added to the Aerodromes as shown in the 2003 VFR Flight Guide and from 2004 to date southern and northern taxiways have been included in the Aerodrome’s details. By the 2006 edition of the VFR Flight Guide, which would have gone to press in 2005, (i.e. more than 4 years before the date of the enforcement notice), Bagby is shown as having a main runway 06/24 of length 710 m and width 20 m, a crosswind runway 15/33 of length 450 m and width 20 m together with 5 buildings north west of the runway and 4 buildings to the south east. A helipad is shown to the north east of the easterly group of hangars.
2.12 The increase in the fleet of aircraft based at Bagby from the 18 or so noted by Inspector Crowther in his 1987 appeal decision letter to the 39 based there now, is neither exceptional given the growth in GA and its dispersal from the UK airports, nor is it of any great planning significance in itself, given the limited noise impact of the type of aircraft which use Bagby Aerodrome, as assessed by Mr Douglas Sharps.
Aircraft Movements 2.13 Evidence as to aircraft movements at Bagby Aerodrome over the past few years has been collected by Mr P.Pritchett on behalf of Bagby Aerodrome, using Pilots Log Books, aircraft technical logs, the aerodrome’s movement log and aircraft maintenance records. The Bagby Airfield Movement Assessment produced by Mr Pritchett, a copy of which I have included at my Appendix PK11, seems to me to represent the culmination of a very detailed analysis of aircraft movements. Over the years I have prepared a number of such assessments myself, for other aerodromes. Mr Pritchett’s analysis is of considerable benefit in understanding the growth in air traffic at Bagby Aerodrome.
2.14 The evidence suggests a typical utilisation of the Aerodrome at an average of about 100 aircraft movements per week, with peaks of about 163 aircraft movements in one week. A movement is a take off or a landing.
2.15 Mr Pritchett estimates that ‘with project’ the Aerodrome could expect to see an increase in aircraft movements by about 40 per cent. The development proposed is likely to attract the new generation of fuel efficient, quieter aircraft which I refer to in Section 3 of my proof.
2.16 The growth in the size of the home based fleet and the potential increase in aircraft movements “with project” suggests an increase of use. However the expansion of operations is not a material change of use in the planning sense. To demonstrate a change of use there has to be a “character change” and I can see no evidence of that within the last 10 and more years, nor will there likely to be a character change with the development proposed, as analysed and described. The most significant period
20 in the growth of aircraft movements at Bagby occurred in the period 1987 to the mid 1990’s.
2.17 The facts are that, at the latest by 1998, Bagby Aerodrome had been recognised as such by the CAA (by inclusion in the various editions of the UK Aerodrome Index and by the Aerodromes inclusion on the aeronautical charts, such as the 1999 Chart exhibited at Appendix PK2. Details of the Aerodrome had been published in the various flight guides used by pilots. In the 1999 VFR Flight Guide reference is made to the runway and its lighting, the status of the site as an unlicensed
aerodrome, the existence of a dedicated air/ground radio frequency (123.25 MHz), the operating hours of 0800-sunset (and by arrangement outside these hours), and the availability of aviation fuel.
2.18 The above facilities have hardly changed at all in the 10 years between the descriptions in the various Flight Guides and now. Such details are relevant to the question as to whether or not there has been a material change of use in the planning sense. This analytical procedure was first set out by an Inspector in the determination of two enforcement notice appeals in respect of Elmsett Aerodrome in Suffolk in 2000. He adopted the same approach to this issue, as I do now. The analysis which I have carried out using mostly published aerodrome data and my conclusion that there has been no material change of use within the last 10 and more years accords with the planning history analysis carried out by Mr Robert Meek.
2.19 For the record, the basic details of the Elmsett case are as follows. When in 1996 Ipswich Borough Council, (being short of funds) sold Ipswich Aerodrome for redevelopment for housing, some of the aircraft based there moved to the nearby and much smaller Elmsett Aerodrome, a grass flying site comparable in many ways to Bagby. The LPA, Babergh District Council, served two Enforcement Notices on Elmsett Aerodrome alleging a material change of use by intensification. At the resulting two inquiries I gave evidence that the considerable increase in aircraft movements, seen at Elmsett Aerodrome, was “more of the same” and not a material change of use. There were two inquiries because the first Inspectors decision was successfully challenged in the High Court and as a result the Planning Inspectorate held a new inquiry.
21
2.20 In that case I also referred to the entries in pilots flight guides for Elmsett Aerodrome, to its designation as a civil private aerodromes by the CAA in 1986, and to its identification on successive editions of the CAA aeronautical charts. All of these points were considered to be of significance as can be seen from paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Inspectors Decision Letter in respect of Elmsett Aerodrome at Appendix PK12. The Inspector quashed the two enforcement notices.
Aircraft Repair, Servicing and Maintenance 2.21 Aircraft Repair, Servicing and Maintenance (RSM) takes place, to a degree at least, at every aerodrome. That is because the “pre flight check” which a pilot is obliged to perform, prior to flight, may highlight an issue of airworthiness which requires rectification before the flight may take place. Where a fault is found which can “ground” an aircraft it can only be rectified by a CAA licensed aircraft engineer, or in some simple cases, a pilot working under the authority of a licensed engineer.
2.22 Many aerodromes have a dedicated RSM facility operating from a CAA licensed hangar building. The evidence from the Pilots Flight Guides is that RSM has been taking place at Bagby Aerodrome by a CAA recognised “M3” maintenance organisation, G.Fox Engineering, continuously from before the publication date of the 1996 VFR Flight Guide (Appendix PK10). The later references confirm the continuous nature of the activity as does Mr Fox’s description of his work at Bagby in his statement at Appendix PK8. The site plan included within the applications at appeal annotated as “existing” (drawing no 0715 PL002 Rev B), shows the location on site of this activity. The “M3” category of designation requires the facility of a dedicated aircraft maintenance hangar.
2.23 In recent years the CAAs regulation of aircraft maintenance organisations has changed greatly (both for “M3” and “JAR145” organisations). The emerging European-wide regulation regime, known as “EASA Part M”, endeavours to achieve a European-wide standard for aircraft maintenance. Whilst the full implications of this planned regime still to be set out in detail, it is clear from meetings I have attended that the adoption of a European ‘best practice’ standard is likely to increase work place requirements for aircraft maintenance in terms of space and storage of
22 spare parts, aircraft certification and maintenance documents. As a rough guide I estimate that the standard for small aircraft maintenance will increase from 100 sq m to about 150 sq m per aircraft.
Pilot Training 2.24 Bagby Aerodrome is not licensed by the CAA and as a result the Aerodrome is not able to be used for “aerial work” (other than ab initio pilot training) defined by Article 157 of the Air Navigation Order as meaning “any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight”. For public transport flights the CAA requires there to be an Air Operators Certificate (AOC). Bagby Aerodrome does not have a AOC. The training of pilots to fly microlight aircraft does legitimately take place at Bagby, although not on any significant scale.
2.25 Regular training of qualified pilots also legitimately takes place at Bagby. This includes “continuity training”, whereby a pilot can hone his/her flying skills by taking advice from another pilot who is more qualified or experienced on type, and “conversion training” where a pilot is taught to fly a type new to him/her. Training is also available for the purposes of the Biennal Fly Review (BFR) which is now required of all pilots. Aerobatic practice/training is available on a limited basis. Training of this type has taken place continuously since 1998 when an aerobatic Slingsby T67 was first based at Bagby for such purposes. I have seen no evidence to doubt that the flying training which takes place at Bagby does so with proper authority.
Crosswind Runway 2.26 The crosswind runway (runway 15/33) is described in the VFR Flight Guide 2002 (Appendix PK10) as “open in 2002”. The area of land which is orientated north- west/south-east had been available for use in an emergency, for many years prior to 2002 and that engineering operations involving levelling, drainage and other works were carried out for this purpose at the time.
2.27 The Aerodrome does not need a crosswind runway in order to survive as a flying site but it is an important safety feature for the few occasions when it is needed. At
23 Bagby the crosswind runway is mostly used by microlight aircraft, which not only have low crosswind limits, but are more susceptible to damage from high wind speeds and strong gusts. More so than other light aircraft the microlight needs to take off and land into wind.
2.28 The existence of a crosswind runway is evidence of the Aerodrome taking a responsible approach to the issue of flight safety.
Reinforcement Works 2.29 The reinforcement works which I am addressing includes the small area of concrete set into the main runway, the length of plastic matting on the main runway and the concrete aprons which have been constructed in front of the hangars A and E as shown on the site layout plan. The area of concrete was set into the main runway at the normal braking point for landing aeroplanes in 2006 and this work stabilised an area of hardcore reinforcement dating from an earlier period. The concrete coincides with the crossing point for vehicles heading to and from the hangars. According to Mr Fox (Appendix PK8) the plastic geo textile matting on a length of the main runway was first laid in 2004 and renewed in about 2008. The process stabilises the grass and improves air safety by improving the take off and braking performance of aeroplanes. The concrete apron formed in front of hangars A and E was designed to make it manually easier to store and retrieve aircraft from hangars without the use of mechanical devices.
2.30 Collectively this work has enhanced public safety, it has enabled aeroplanes to take off earlier on the runway meaning that the aircraft can climb to height sooner, thus reducing the noise footprint, it has reduced the potential for a landing aircraft to overrun the runway, because of the, poor braking friction on wet grass, and it has made the maneouvering of aircraft to and from hangars A and E, whether under power or manually, a much safer operation. It has also reduced the need to repair damaged soil and grass.
2.31 The majority of grass aerodromes experience problems after heavy and prolonged rainfall, usually in the winter months when the sun has insufficient energy to dry the grass and soil below. Damp grass and soil greatly extend a take off roll and landing,
24 as described in the guidance from the CAA in General Aviation Safety Sense Leaflet No. 7B “Aeroplane Performance”. An extract of this leaflet is reproduced at Appendix PK13. Frequent use of wet grass runways, taxiways and aprons by aeroplanes and vehicles can damage operational areas necessitating constant repair with new soil/sand and grass seed or turf. To the operator this represents an unnecessary cost and a nuisance.
2.32 The idea that the removal of the reinforcement works to the main runway would serve the public interest by reducing flight numbers is misplaced. Whilst there might be a slight reduction in flying for a few days in the winter, this would be at a time when the local population is mostly indoors with windows shut. As I know from my own experience if the reinforcement were to be removed the length of the take off would increase, noise levels would be higher, safety levels reduced and with a greater potential for aircraft and vehicle damage. My conclusions in this respect are consistent with the findings of two different Inspectors who were determining appeals for paved runways at Fairoaks Airport in 1978 and at Sywell Aerodrome in 2007. I have included copies of the Secretary of States decision letters, at Appendix PK14.
2.33 The reinforcement works do not represent a planning issue of any great significance. I agree with Mr Rech that the works do not harm the landscape quality or visual amenity of the area. As to the laying of the plastic matting I consider that this work does not constitute development requiring planning permission. This is because there is no engineering operation involved in the process of laying the matting. No excavation work is involved and surface drainage is not affected. The plastic matting is environmentally neutral and the initial landscape impact is soon lost after a few weeks of grass growth. The suppliers (S2T Aviation) have informed me that many grass aerodromes and a number of local authorities are users of their product and to their knowledge there has never been a case where planning permission has been sought. Certainly I have never seen a planning application for the laying of this type of matting which has been used at Andrewsfield, Bidford, Compton Abbas, Kingsmuir, Newark, Panshanger, Popham and Stapleford Aerodromes and Bournemouth, Bristol, Cumbernauld, Fairoaks, Guernsey, Oxford, Rochester, Shoreham, Southampton and the Scilly Isles Airports.
25
2.34 The evidence indicates that the Aerodrome seen today was substantially in existence by late 1998 when the details of the flying site would have been sent by the Aerodrome owner/operator to the publishers of the VFR Flight Guide for inclusion in the 1999 edition. By 2002 it is evident that the crosswind runway had been brought into use. By 2006 one additional building had been erected. The extent of land in the ownership of the owner/operator is unchanged from that described by Mr J.Dundon in paragraph 6 of his statement (Appendix PK8). In conclusion I consider that, on the basis of the evidence of the CAA, the various flight guides, Mr Pritchett’s analysis of aircraft movements and the statements of Messrs Lassey, Dundon, Kennet and Fox, Bagby Aerodrome has experienced a relatively consistent usage for more than ten years. I consider that no material change of use has taken place and as a consequence no enforcement action may be taken.
2.35 Furthermore the proposed development, whilst inevitably attracting a greater number of aircraft movements, is unlikely to result in any character change. The benefits of a modern clubhouse, with some overnight accommodation, together with the new hangars proposed would significantly improve the appearance of the site and benefit the area. The contribution that the Aerodrome can make to the local economy and the importance of job creation is addressed by Mr Robert Meek in his evidence.
2.36 Whilst the proposed development is likely to attract an increase in aircraft movements there is no possibility of the Aerodrome expanding still further to accommodate what is known as Commercial Air Transport (CAT) or, to put it more simply, the transport of bulk freight or passenger flights on a commercial basis. With a maximum runway length of about 700 metres and its predominantly grass character, the limitations imposed by ownership, physical features including trees, hedgerows and the nearby public highway, the lack of terminal facilities, the proximity of military aerodromes and military airspace, Bagby can only ever function as a small GA aerodrome.
26 3.0 GENERAL AVIATION – A CONTEXT FOR THE APPEALS
General Aviation Trends 3.1 The proposed development and that which has been enforced against is designed to meet the needs of General Aviation (GA). The Commercial Air Transport (CAT) sector depends upon GA to provide a supply of new air transport pilots, the greater majority of cases fund their own training. The CAT sector in the UK operates about 1000 aircraft in total, mostly airliners, whereas the UK GA fleet comprises almost 20,000 aircraft of all types. (see Appendix PK 15). The CAT fleet is concentrated at the 25 major UK airports, whereas the GA fleet is more dispersed and uses the 140 licensed and approximately 350 unlicensed aerodromes, like Bagby, in the UK.
3.2 The CAA’s ‘Strategic Review of General Aviation in the UK’ published in July 2006 makes reference in paragraph 7 of the Executive Summary (page i) to the work of Terry Lober who calculated that in 2005 UK GA directly contributed £1.4 billion to the UK economy, and employed over 110,000 people in the UK. The Strategic Review concluded with a recommendation (paragraph 3.61 page 34) that the Government should “consider making a policy statement on the value of maintaining a viable network of GA airfields, to be considered by those involved in planning decisions in the future”.
3.3 The number of licensed aerodromes has been in decline for some years due to the high cost of maintaining licensed status, which involves a permanent presence of the fire and rescue services, air traffic control in one of its many levels, aircraft movement log keeping, surface maintenance and the provision and maintenance of safety equipment. Research by GAAC (funded by the Department for Transport) as published in February 2006 shows that 48 aerodromes have closed in the past 10 years, with only 1 wholly new aerodrome having opened during this period (Sheffield City which is has now closed to GA fixed wing traffic).
3.4 In contrast to the decline in the numbers of UK licensed aerodromes, the UK GA fleet able to use aerodromes like Bagby has doubled in the period from 1985 to 2010 as newer, more fuel efficient, aircraft types have become available. In the
27 same period the numbers of microlights, helicopters and gyrocopters trebled as illustrated by the data at Appendix PK15.
3.5 The modern light aircraft makes a viable and sustainable alternative to surface transport on journey times greater than about one hour and this accounts for the increasing use of light aircraft and helicopters by European based businesses.
New Generation Aircraft 3.6 The average age of the UK fleet of GA aircraft is over 30 years. Typically the light aircraft used by flying schools and clubs are amongst the oldest (e.g. Cessna 150, 152, 172 and Piper PA28 and PA32). These aircraft are slow and relatively inefficient, requiring high octane aviation fuel which is costly to refine.
3.7 Over the past 15 years there has been a revolution in light aircraft design and Yorkshire, being the historic home for aircraft and flight in the UK, has played a vital part in this revolution. Slingsby Aviation is based at Wombleton and Europa Aircraft/Swift Technology Group is based at Kirbymoorside. The widespread availability of modern constructional materials including glass fibre, Kevlar, carbon fibre, and honeycomb sandwich, has enabled the design of new lightweight but with very strong airframes. New engines have been designed to run on unleaded motor or diesel fuel, some have water cooled cylinder heads and gearboxes to reduce propellor speed, (increasing torque and reducing noise), many have multi blade propellors and all now have effective silencing systems. There are now under test the prototypes of electric aeroplanes, and a hydrogen fuel cell powered aircraft has just flown for the first time in the USA.
3.8 It is significant that the world's largest manufacturers of light aircraft, Cessna and Piper, in the USA are now supplying their own designs of new technology aircraft. The established manufacturers in Europe are also building such aircraft and the flying clubs are beginning to revamp their fleets. The new generation of aircraft include the Yorkshire designed, and manufactured Europa kit plane (which I fly), the Yorkshire designed Liberty aircraft, the Socata TBM700 single turboprop, the Pilatus PC-12 single turboprop, the Eclipse, the latest model Cessna 182, the Piper PA46 Malibu Meridian, the Vans range of ‘RV’ aircraft and the Cirrus SR20 and
28 SR22. Modern aircraft typically have smaller wheels in order to reduce drag and improve fuel economy. The downside to this is the need for better stabilised runways because the smaller the wheels the more likely an aeroplane is to get bogged-down in soft grass/mud.
3.9 In order to encourage the widespread use of new generation aircraft it is important that aerodrome operators are free to encourage new types to replace the older inefficient types. It is in everybody’s interest that, where there is a choice, the new, quiet and fuel efficient aircraft should be used in preference to old designs. But there is a cost to this. The new generation of aircraft designs featuring sophisticated avionics systems require hangarage and technically more-advanced and better- equipped maintenance organisations to support them. Some of those engaged in the design and manufacture of the new generation of light aircraft have written to me in this respect and these letters are reproduced at Appendix PK16. Such organisations really need modern, thermally insulated buildings over the draughty and inefficient hangars constructed in the 1940s, or the converted farm buildings seen at many of the smaller aerodromes.
3.10 Modern means of air travel can only be viable if the smaller airports and aerodromes are available for use by the new generation of aircraft. Aerodromes like Bagby can provide for, benefit from, and effectively pass on those benefits to local residents in the attraction of quieter, new generation, light aircraft. The Aerodrome has the considerable advantage of being located close to major towns, businesses and the attractions of the North York Moors.
Helicopters 3.11 Helicopters are a vital part of GA in the UK. The CAA Strategic Review refers to the growth in the use of helicopters particularly for business use. According to the CAA (Appendix PK15) the number of helicopters registered in the UK has risen sharply from 527 in 1985 to 1428 by 2010, almost a threefold increase. Utilisation of helicopters has also increased steadily over the last decade, as measured by flying hours.
29 3.12 Modern helicopters have an important short distance and feederliner role to play which benefits local users, businesses, tourist attractions and the local economy. Feederliners link from small airfields to the larger airports for onward transport. Typically helicopters have a limited range and need to refuel relatively more frequently than aeroplanes. They can easily be integrated with other fixed wing aircraft although it may be necessary for noise reasons to consider alternative arrival and departure routes, as I have recommended in this case.
3.13 Because of their vertical take off and landing characteristic helicopters can land anywhere albeit with the knowledge and permission of the landowner. There is normally no planning control over a helicopter which operates from a residential curtilage. But this freedom to use unsupervised sites can affect local amenity.
3.14 Because of their point to point transportation ability and the time savings which can be made as a result, a helicopter facility at Bagby is important to local businesses and the security and health of the local population. Bagby provides transit and refuelling facilities for helicopters including those operated by the police and the air ambulance services. The Yorkshire Air Ambulance helicopter is a regular visitor to Bagby Aerodrome. The recent letter from the Yorkshire Air Ambulance (YAA), which I have reproduced at Appendix PK17, reveals the importance of a helicopter facility at Bagby Aerodrome. There are other nationally important activities such as the aerial inspection of gas pipelines and national grid electricity lines which require helicopters to be used. By accommodating helicopter flights and by the provision of air traffic and fuel supply facilities at Bagby Aerodrome, the safety of local air traffic would be enhanced. It would avoid helicopters having to use unsupervised sites in poor locations.
3.15 Helicopters, particularly those used for business purposes and by the military, police, ambulance and security services are often operated in marginal visual flying conditions, when visibility or a low cloud base is less than would be required for fixed wing aircraft flights. In these circumstances it is preferable that such helicopters should be in communication with an air/ground radio operator and route via, or to and from, an established aerodrome where they can be refuelled. Safety is
30 significantly greater and amenity is improved particularly where there is an agreed noise abatement route to a helicopter landing area on an aerodrome.
3.16 Being sophisticated machines, often with exposed mechanical parts, which can easily be damaged by poor weather it is important that hangarage is available. Helicopters are very demanding of space - a single helicopter takes up the space of at least 4 fixed-wing light aeroplanes. Helicopters need a stabilised pad such as a concrete apron so that they do not dig into soft grass and topple over when starting up or stopping the rotor, or send flying loose items from unstabilised surfaces.
3.17 Without the existing facility at Bagby Aerodrome helicopters would be likely to operate from dispersed or private sites. The use of dispersed sites by helicopters is much less satisfactory than the regulated use of established aerodromes for the reasons given above. The use of private sites lessens air safety, increases local noise levels, often in sensitive areas and diminishes the benefits of collectivism, as in the supply of special fuels.
3.18 The increase in the business use of helicopters, the expansion in the UK fleet of helicopters, the public disquiet to dispersed sites near to operators’ homes and workplaces, and the development of newer, more sophisticated helicopter designs (incorporating, for example “NOTAR” or no tail rotor technology) means, increasingly, that helicopters should be encouraged to operate from established aerodromes where the full range of services can be provided, and where noise abatement procedures will apply.
3.19 Bagby should be given the opportunity to upgrade its facilities to meet the needs of GA in the 21st century. It is in everybody’s interests that the Aerodrome is able to safely and securely store the more technically - advanced and much quieter aircraft now being supplied. It is important also that the operating crew of such aircraft should be given modern facilities to recuperate from flights, and to plan their trips in appropriate working conditions with all technical aids available to improve flight safety.
31 Considerate Flying 3.20 The GAAC encourage considerate flying practice as illustrated in their leaflet at Appendix PK18 entitled “More Considerate Flying”. One of the ways of ensuring good flying practice with a consideration for others involves the use of the PPR or Prior Permission Required procedure, whereby a pilot must first obtain permission to fly to an aerodrome before setting off or landing. The PPR procedure enables a viable briefing to be given to visiting pilots on noise control and other requirements of the Aerodrome. It is an effective method for addressing noise abatement and safety concerns.
3.21 Another method is in the design of the circuit to an aerodrome. Bagby Aerodrome has considered the proximity of the local village in designing the Aerodrome’s circuit pattern for fixed wing aircraft. Currently the full circuit takes approximately 5 minutes from take off to touchdown and is flown at 800 ft Above Ground Level (AGL). The aerodrome has a left hand circuit to runway 24 and a right hand circuit to runway 06, taking air traffic away from the village.
3.22 Although the Bagby PPR and Circuit Procedure has been designed to minimise noise disturbance from fixed wing aircraft, I have considered the possibility for improvements to reduce the impact all types of aircraft on the nearby village. One method is to insist that an incoming aircraft does not join the circuit by arriving overhead the aerodrome.
3.23 I recommend that there should be no overhead join, that the circuit should be raised to 1000 ft AGL, and that the circuit should be longer, so as to route aircraft further from nearby Bagby village. This is shown on my plan at Appendix PK7. The arriving aircraft would join the circuit on the downwind leg, well away from the village. The ban on an overhead join and the increased size of the circuit would reduce noise levels at Bagby Village. The proposed circuit would take approximately 7 minutes to fly. This is slightly longer than circuits at most of the aerodromes in the UK which normally remain within 1-2 nautical miles of the aerodrome. Removing the overhead join, lengthening the circuit and raising the height would be likely to reduce significantly the number of circuits in a typical revalidation/training session, and thus reduce the potential for noise disturbance.
32
3.24 Furthermore, there is the potential for military aircraft, mostly flying to and from RAF Topcliffe and civil air traffic which currently passes overhead Bagby Aerodrome, as shown on my plan at Appendix PK7 to be routed further north. The local community would not then have to experience transitting air traffic as well as air traffic into and out of Bagby Aerodrome. This improved flight protocol would best be achieved through the operation of an Aerodrome Joint Consultative Committee (JCC).
The Joint Consultative Committee 3.25 The Department for Transport promote the idea of JCCs to consider all matters relating to the operation of an aerodrome, including safety and amenity. The route taken by transitting aircraft, such as the military air traffic using RAF Topcliffe would be a matter for negotiation between the JCC and the particular authority involved, in this case MOD. Once a suitable route and a noise control procedure has been agreed it would be promulgated through publication in the UK Air Pilot and in the various flight guides. I recommend a JCC in this case and I have suggested a suitable method for setting one up by means of a Section 106 Obligation. The current DfT Guidelines on JCCs is exhibited at Appendix PK1.
3.26 The JCC is also the ideal vehicle to review the operation of the Aerodrome’s Flight Protocols and Pilot Disciplinary Procedure which I have prepared. It is important that members of the public who are disturbed by a particular flight, manoeuvre or practice should have the opportunity to complain to the Aerodrome concerned, and for the Aerodrome to investigate and take action against the culprit where appropriate. Bagby proposes to adopt such a procedure and with the new JCC which I am recommending, would have a duty to provide information to the JCC as to any complaint investigations and actions which have taken place.
3.27 The JCC would also receive reports from the Aerodrome on aircraft movements, complaints, and action to be taken to ensure compliance with agreed flightpaths and noise abatement procedures. The JCC would also be privy to information on disciplinary procedures to be taken against a particular pilot who fails, repeatedly, to follow procedures. The JCC would comprise of representatives of all groups
33 involved in, and affected by an aerodrome. The adoption of a JCC can reduce the number of complaints made to LPAs and increase the synergy between an aerodrome and the local community. Certainly this is my experience of having advised on JCCs at many aerodromes including Little Gransden (Cambridgeshire) and Sywell Aerodrome (Northamptonshire). At Appendix PK19 I have included two letters, one from the operator of Little Gransden Aerodrome, the other from the Deputy Chairman of the Biggin Hill Airport Joint Consultative Committee which endorse my views on the benefit of such Committees.
3.28 One of the local concerns in this case is the incidence of aerobatic practice carried out overhead the Aerodrome creating noise and disturbance for local residents. There are many reasons why such practice should take place close to an aerodrome but I see no overriding reason in this case for aerobatics to take place directly overhead Bagby. I recommend that controls be adopted through the mechanism of a JCC specifically to address aerobatics.
34 4.0 PROPOSED FACILITIES
Hangarage 4.1 The scope and size of the proposed hangarage and maintenance facilities have been described elsewhere, notably at paragraph 1.23 and 1.24 of my evidence and by the appellants planning and landscape witnesses. I shall concentrate on the aviation aspects of the proposal. I have already described in Chapter 3 the changes which are taking place in GA worldwide, and in the UK. CAA licensed aerodromes are in decline whilst in the UK the GA fleet is increasing rapidly. Aircraft are, becoming move environmentally friendly and quieter whilst improvements in engines, propellors and avionics, in radios, in satellite navigation systems and flight instrument displays have demanded newer and better maintenance facilities. The days of the licensed engineer operating from a converted agricultural barn are coming to an end.
4.2 In my 20 or so years of specialising in aviation planning matters I have advised a number of aerodrome airport operators on the new buildings/technology which is necessary to meet the needs of GA in the 21st century. I have been involved in such successful developments at Turweston, Sywell, Biggin Hill, Nottingham, Perranporth and my own aerodrome in the past 5 years. I am not surprised to see the new owner of Bagby Aerodrome wanting to improve his aerodrome given the popularity of fuel efficient and quieter aircraft.
4.3 The net increase in hangarage proposed at Bagby Aerodrome, including hangar E which is being enforced against, will provide space sufficient to accommodate about 8 aeroplanes or 2 to 3 helicopters. Because of the high costs of operating a helicopter (approximately 4 times that of an aeroplane) for private recreational use the aeroplane will always predominate over the helicopter.
4.4 The increasing sophistication of modern aircraft, and modern avionics/flight data systems in older aircraft will increasingly mean that light aircraft will need to be stored in purpose built hangars. In such hangars humidity levels can be stabilised to avoid the very real danger of dampness affecting solid state low voltage/high current electronic systems.
35
4.5 Maintenance organisations, such as that seen at Bagby need now to be able to offer computer controlled test equipment, such as that used by the motor industry for 20 or more years. All high technology equipment of this type needs to be installed in heated, and well insulated buildings in order to minimise false readings.
4.6 The changes in aircraft maintenance which are likely as a result of the adoption of European wide regulations, as the CAA cedes authority to EASA, will necessitate new and better space standards. Typically in the past a CAA recognised M3 maintenance organisation could expect to accommodate four aircraft in a 400 sq metre hangar. Whilst light aeroplanes are not increasing in size, the additional equipment, better space standards envisaged, and larger parts and document inventory are likely to mean that a modern 400 sq metres maintenance hangar will only be able to accommodate 3 to 4 aircraft at the most.
4.7 Whereas at Bagby I have seen two aircraft squeezed into less than 200 sq metres of RSM facility and seven aircraft parked in the open waiting for maintenance (total 9), the proposed RSM facility of 800 sq metres should be able to accommodate about 5 aircraft.
4.8 The net increase in hangarage (where no maintenance is proposed) at just over 800 sq metres, would enable the storage of about 8 aircraft of the types which are currently seen stored in the open.
4.9 The additional maintenance space and hangarage space proposed is likely to be attractive to those with the more sophisticated aircraft which need to be kept in hangars for the reasons I have described. In time this would result in the phasing- out of the older, noisier and slower flying aircraft currently based at Bagby Aerodrome. Such a change would benefit the amenity of the local area and the perception of air safety.
Clubhouse 4.10 The proposed clubhouse features a lounge, a bar and dining area, kitchen and store, male and female toilets including a disabled WC, a plant room, a staff office shower
36 and WC, a bar store, a control tower, administration office, linen cupboard and 3 bedrooms each with en-suite facilities. Only the bedroom accommodation is unusual to see on a small aerodrome, although I know from my own experience of the need for a limited amount of on-site bedrooms because of the sudden arrival of poor weather, or delayed meetings.
4.11 There is a very good argument to provide bedrooms on an aerodrome. Visiting pilots who fly on business, for example carrying out pipeline inspections, will typically base their aircraft at a convenient aerodrome for 3 to 4 days whilst the region is surveyed. The facility of bedroom accommodation and a meal on site would reduce the number of vehicular trips which otherwise would need to be made to and from the site. Recreational pilots, touring the locality and perhaps the North York Moors would be able to stay conveniently on site. Other pilots, having short period maintenance performed on their aircraft, would be able to stay overnight, thus saving vehicular trips to hotels in the locality.
Related Development 4.12 The concrete aprons, runway reinforcement, fuel facility, vehicular access and car parking are all part of a package of improvements to enable Bagby Aerodrome to offer improved facilities for GA in the 21st Century. The new generation of aircraft are arriving and the infrastructure necessary to serve them is vital if the public benefits of such aircraft are to be realised.
37 5.0 AERODROMES IN YORKSHIRE
Analysis of Alternative Aerodrome Sites 5.1 At paragraph 1.9 of this evidence I refer to my having visited or researched all of the ten aerodromes in Yorkshire which provide a service for GA. I have prepared a spreadsheet of the aerodromes surveyed and this appears at Appendix PK20. The principle features of the 10 aerodromes follow.
5.2 Bagby enjoys good accessibility via the A19 and Thirsk to the North York Moors, it has a main and a crosswind runway, aviation fuel for piston-engined aircraft and turboprop aircraft including helicopters, it has a basic air-ground radio service, it enjoys the facilities of a village nearby and lies close to the edge of the “area of opportunity” which is one of the three spatial principles set out in the LDF. I address planning policy issues insofar as my expertise is concerned in the next section of my evidence. The site has no designated landscape constraints.
5.3 Breighton Aerodrome is of a similar size to Bagby with basic facilities but lacks a crosswind runway. It lies in an area of flood risk and adjacent to the Lower Derwent Valley Policy Area. At approximately one hours drive from the North York Moors, it is poorly located for those wishing to visit the attractions of the National Park. It has developed to become the home to a number of historic aircraft types.
5.4 Elvington is a large aerodrome with a long paved runway and no air/ground radio service or aviation buildings of any sort, other than an aircraft museum. A proposed development for GA, in the form of hangars, an air traffic control office, café and fire station was refused planning permission on appeal in January 2009 for site specific ecological reasons. Given the recent appeal decision and the fact that Elvington lies in the York Green Belt it is considered unlikely to be suitable for the type of development proposed at Bagby.
5.5 Felixkirk has a single grass runway which is poorly drained, no air/ground radio service, no maintenance facilities, and no aviation fuel on site. It is the base for
38 Sportair UK who sell microlight aircraft, and is unlikely to be suitable for development as a recreational GA aerodrome.
5.6 Fishburn has a single grass runway, with crops growing to the runway edge. It has a basic air/ground radio facility and avgas fuel for piston engined aircraft. There is no maintenance facility on site. The site is located more than 80 kilometres from the North York Moors. Given the proximity of agricultural produce it is unsuitable as a site for development as a permanent GA facility.
5.7 Full Sutton has a single grass runway, a basic air/ground radio service, aircraft maintenance, avgas fuel and a clubhouse. It is located next to a high security prison and is over 60 kilometres from the North York Moors. It has poor road access.
5.8 Pocklington is a run down, former wartime aerodrome lying close to an industrial estate. It is used by the Wolds Gliding Club. Gliding activities, involving winch- towing of gliders, cannot easily be integrated with GA air traffic, particularly with where there are visiting pilots who may be new to the area. The site is unsuitable for development.
5.9 Rufforth lies over 40 kilometres from the North York Moors, has a similar character to Pocklington and is inappropriate for GA traffic because of the activities of the York Gliding Centre and a gyrocopter training school based at the site. It is located in the York Green Belt which is very strong planning constraint.
5.10 Sherburn in Elmet Aerodrome is potentially suitable for limited expansion but serves South Yorkshire.
5.11 Wombleton, like Pocklington and Rufforth, is a former wartime aerodrome but now with limited length runways and a run down character. There is no air/ground radio service, no maintenance facility and no aircraft fuel available on site.
5.12 In conclusion, Bagby is the most suitable aerodrome to serve the needs of GA in this location in North Yorkshire. There is no alternative aerodrome which is able to provide the facilities needed in this area.
39 Bagby Constraints 5.13 Bagby Aerodrome is a small GA aerodrome. In the continuum which ranges from the major international (hub) airports like Heathrow down to the smallest flying site – the farm strip, Bagby lies closer to the bottom than the top. However it has a role to play for GA as this sector is increasingly displaced from the regional airports to make way for CAT.
5.14 However because of a number of factors Bagby Aerodrome is limited in its ability to expand any further than is proposed by the current appeals. It is constrained by the ownership extent, topography including hedgerows and tree belts, by the predominantly grass surface of the runways, by the length and width of runways, the size of the existing and proposed buildings and the proximity of the A19 trunk road.
5.15 The Aerodrome has only ever been able to accommodate the smaller GA aircraft such as proprellor driven single and light twin engined aeroplanes and helicopters. Because of the limited length of the main runway and its slope the Aerodrome would not be able to cater for jet engined aircraft. The proposed development represents a logical development of Baby Aerodrome to enable it to reach its full potential for GA and to meet the needs that cannot properly be met on other aerodromes in the North Yorkshire area. However the Aerodrome is constrained in so many areas that it is unlikely to be able to develop significantly beyond the present proposal.
40 6.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY (AVIATION)
6.1 At the present time given that the Localism Bill has yet to pass into statute, the Development Plan (DP) for this area must be considered to comprise of The Yorkshire and Humber Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 (RSS) adopted in May 2008 and the Hambleton District Council – Local Development Framework – Development Plan Document Core Strategy adopted in April 2007 (LDF CS) and Development Policies adopted in February 2008 (LDF DP). Mr Robert Meek is to give evidence on the DP and I do not intend to duplicate his work.
Regional Spatial Strategy 6.2 There is however an issue concerned with RSS Policy T6 (exhibited by Mr Robert Meek in his appendices) which I need to address because it is this DP policy which is said to be concerned with airports and airport-related development, as defined in paragraph 7 of Annex B to PPG13 (paragraph 13.32 on page 195). When I gave evidence at the public inquiry into the multiple hangar development proposed for Elvington Aerodrome, near York in late 2008, I agreed with my opposite number, an aviation planning consultant speaking for York City Council, that policy T6 applies with as much force to aerodromes as it does to airports, that the term “airports” would embrace aerodromes as defined by the Town and Country Planning (GPD) Order 1995, and that many of the planning considerations which apply to airports also apply to aerodromes even though the scale is clearly different.
6.3 RSS Policy T6 sets out certain considerations in respect of airport development and expansion. In my view the following T6 criteria are relevant considerations in this case: 1. Contribution towards an overall strategy of achieving better access, etc 2. Contribution to the regeneration requirements of the local and regional economy, etc 3. Fully meets the principles of sustainable development, etc 4. Reducing surface travel distances, etc 5. Making best use of existing transport infrastructure, etc
6.4 I consider that the development proposed for Bagby Aerodrome would meet the Policy T6 criteria identified above. The development would contribute to better
41 access at an existing, lawful aerodrome, it would regenerate the Aerodrome with benefits to the local economy, by the creation of 10 local jobs, as identified by Mr Robert Meek in his proof at paragraph 8.7(c), and the purchase of local goods and services. It would reduce surface travel distances and make the best use of an existing air transport facility, which has grown to meet the local demand for aviation facilities. This is the sustainable option to the alternative of a wholly new aerodrome located elsewhere in the area, or investing in another existing site that is constrained and cannot meet the same potential as discussed above.
Local Development Framework 6.5 LDF CS Policy CP4 (i) is particularly relevant to this case and Mr Robert Meek has included a copy in his appendices. The CP4(i) policy test for development is as follows:
(i) “It is necessary to meet the needs of …… recreation, tourism and other enterprises with an essential requirement to locate in ….. the countryside and will help to sustain a rural economy”
6.6 The proposed development is designed to meet the need for recreational flying and tourism by an enterprise which is already located in the countryside and which realistically is properly located in a rural area. Aerodromes, by their nature, should only be located in the countryside away from centres of population. Bagby Aerodrome has the advantage that it is in a rural area close to, but not within a rural community. The local community can provide a supply of labour and limited range of services such as food, linen, cleaning and maintaining the buildings. Hangarage, sensibly, can only be located on an aerodrome, and the repair, servicing and maintenance of aircraft obviously requires an aerodrome location.
6.7 The proposal was screened for Environmental Assessment by the LPA in respect of the earlier, larger project which included a hotel, the Secretary of State directed that the scheme did not constitute EIA development.
6.8 The proposal represents the part redevelopment of an existing lawful use which is located in and contributes to the economy of a rural area.
42
6.9 The Aerodrome has a clubhouse, with a café and toilets, a number of substantial hangars, aircraft maintenance facilities, an ICAO code (EGNG) enabling easy flight planning for international flights, a dedicated air/ground radio frequency (123.25 mhz), a local Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS) to ensure safety for transitting aircraft, and the availability of an alternate to the main runway when the wind speed and direction is unfavourable.
6.10 This represents a very significant investment in air transport/recreational infrastructure already. The fact that the Aerodrome has attracted such infrastructure, and demand for facilities is evidence of a substantial need in this part of Yorkshire. The proposed development would facilitate the aspirations of DP policy.
43 7.0 AVIATION POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 National Policy “The Future of Air Transport” Government White Paper The Government White Paper on The Future of Air Transport was published in December 2003. It recognises the importance of air travel to the national and regional economy and prosperity at the same time as seeking to reduce and minimise the impacts of airports on those who live nearby. The White Paper requires that best use be made of existing capacity in order to minimise the need for new airport development.
7.2 “The Future of Air Transport” Progress Report The Progress Report of December 2006 informs that the Government is committed to making much better use of existing airport capacity, (paragraph 1.1) through a process of improvement and modernisation (paragraph 1.12). Aviation, the Report states has an important role to play in the future, in developing the UK economy (paragraph 1.14). Industry is said to be delivering improved more fuel efficient aircraft, common reporting of CO2 emissions, and improved fuel efficiency of operators.
Aviation Planning Guidance 7.3 PPG13 - “Transport” (updated November 2010) addresses aviation planning matters. PPG13 (Annex B Para 5) requires local Planning Authorities to consider:
“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 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”.
44 7.4 PPG13 (Annex B Para 6.1) also requires local authorities to:
“identify and where appropriate protect sites and surface access routes both existing and potential (including disused sites), which could help to enhance aviation infrastructure serving the regional and local area”.
The PPG (Annex B Para 6.2) also informs local authorities that they should “avoid development at or close to an airport or airfield which is incompatible with any existing or potential aviation operations”.
7.5 PPG24 - “Planning and Noise” (September 1994) makes it clear that the impact of noise is a relevant planning consideration, and that conditions may be imposed on many development proposals (including aerodromes) enabling the proposals to proceed where it would, otherwise be necessary to refuse permission.
7.6 The Acoustic Consultant to Bagby Aerodrome Mr Douglas Sharps will be addressing the significance to this case of the advice in PPG24.
7.7 Bagby Aerodrome is not presently constrained by planning conditions or a Section 106 Obligation. The proposed development does represent the redevelopment and enlargement of existing facilities and in these circumstances I consider that planning conditions should be imposed if the development is to be approved.
45 8.0 THE FUTURE FOR BAGBY AERODROME
8.1 Bagby Aerodrome needs to upgrade its facilities if it is to play a key role for GA in this area in the 21st century. If the Aerodrome is not to be given the planning permission that it needs, the future is not an attractive one for the reasons that follow:
(i) There is likely to be a lack of investment in the buildings and facilities, resulting in a gradual decline in their appearance.
(ii) The Aerodrome would fail to attract the new, quieter and more sophisticated aircraft types now being made in Yorkshire, and elsewhere in Europe and the USA. Older and noisier aircraft types would predominate.
(iii) There is unlikely to be a material decrease in the number of aircraft based at, or using the Aerodrome, because the older types do not, in time, disappear, but are instead, added to by collections of historic aircraft which, typically, are very much noisier than the newer types.
(iv) There is likely to be a greater tendency to seek enhanced revenue generating opportunities such as temporary open air markets (as seen at North Weald Aerodrome in Essex) and discounted aviation fuel to attract visiting aircraft.
(v) In addition, the lack of an investment programme, would not provide an incentive for the Aerodrome to control the numbers of aircraft movements by weight or type, the number or routing of helicopters, aerodrome hours of operation, and to promulgate a flight policy in the way that I describe, enforced by a Joint Consultative Committee as recommended by the DfT.
8.2 Given the state of the UK economy and the latest Planning Policy Statement PPS4, the need has never been greater to encourage small businesses to grow so as to become more productive, and to contribute more to the local and national economy.
8.3 If Bagby Aerodrome is to play the role that it can and to offer the benefits that it could in the future, it needs to provide new and better facilities in the manner proposed. Given the new generation of more fuel efficient and quieter aircraft there are significant public benefits arsing from investment in the infrastructure for such aircraft.
46 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A Way Forward 9.1 Bagby Aerodrome is a lawful aerodrome presently unconstrained by planning conditions or other planning controls as explained by Mr Robert Meek and accepted by legal and planning officers of the LPA in their report to committee. The aerodrome plays a valuable role in the provision of GA facilities in North Yorkshire, it is the home to 39 aircraft with pilots flying their aircraft in for fuel, for maintenance, and for their own refreshment in the clubhouse.
9.2 It is ideally placed to provide improved facilities for GA in the countryside of North Yorkshire whereas other aerodromes which I have studied are not.
9.3 National Planning Policy, Regional Spatial Strategy and the Local Development Framework Core Strategies recognise the need for facilities, that need a countryside location such as aerodromes. Planning policy guidance refers specifically to the increasing dispersal of GA to the smaller airports and aerodromes.
9.4 The refusal of the LPA to grant planning permission for the proposed development (contrary to the advice of the Officers of the Council) and the LPA’s decision to serve an enforcement notice requiring the removal of hangar E, the concrete apron to hangars A and E, the concrete and matting on the main runway will not as a matter of fact, enable any degree of planning control to be imposed over aircraft movements and their noise impact. Only on the grant of planning permission with appropriate conditions would Bagby Aerodrome become subject to a planning control regime which would protect and enhance the amenity of the area. The public have a right to expect that aerodromes are properly controlled and these appeals provide the opportunity to impose planning conditions and a proper control regime.
9.5 In order to provide a framework in which the Inspector can have confidence that the proposal would help to deliver the aspirations of the Development Plan and other material benefits without any potentially harmful consequences I am recommending a set of planning conditions and a Section 106 Planning Obligation (or
47 Undertaking). Firstly I will address the planning conditions recommended by the Planning Officer to the Planning Committee at the meeting in August 2010.
LPA Planning Conditions Comments 9.6 The Officers Report on application 10/01272/FUL which was presented to the Planning Committee on 19th August 2010 reached a conclusion similar to mine. The lawful use point and planning policy considerations appear on pages 20 to 23 inclusive, the new fuel installation is described on page 23, the reinforcement of the East West runway (runway 06/24) on page 23, and safety considerations on page 25. Recommended planning conditions are set out from pages 34 to 38 inclusive.
9.7 Insofar as the recommended planning conditions address issues within my sphere of expertise I have the following comments to make.
LPA Condition 21 The limit of 750 aircraft movements per month cannot be justified by reference to the national planning guidance on the control of aircraft noise. The evidence of Mr Douglas Sharps for the appellant is that a maximum of 1000 aircraft movements per month can be justified by reference to the normal criteria in this respect. I am familiar with the criteria used by Mr Douglas Sharps which represents the industry standard which is regularly featured in planning decisions on aerodromes of this scale.
LPA Condition 22 It follows that if the maximum upper limit of 1000 aircraft movements per month is appropriate, the annual limit should be in the order of 8300 aircraft movements, based upon the assumption of about 250 (VFR) flyable days per annum.
LPA Condition 23 The limit of 24 helicopter movements is not justified given the benefit of the helicopter routes which I have identified in the Flight Protocol at Appendix PK7. With the adoption of such routes and their enforcement through the proposed complaints procedure and Joint Consultative Committee the limit should be set using the proper criteria identified by Mr Douglas Sharps.
48
In any event the condition should be prefaced “except in an emergency” to provide for aeronautical emergencies and the life saving operations of the Yorkshire Air Ambulance.
LPA Condition 24 The limit on helicopter movements at the weekend is not necessary given the proposed helicopter routes, the proposed ban on helicopter training and ‘hot refuelling’ of helicopters. The Yorkshire Air Ambulance should be excluded from any limitation.
LPA Condition 26 The proposed limitation on helicopter movements between 9 pm and 11 pm should, for all of the reasons explained above, be prefaced with “except in an emergency”. The Yorkshire Air Ambulance should be excluded from any limitation.
LPA Condition 28 The limitation of aircraft movements on runway 15/33 is accepted as being reasonable but should be prefaced with “except in an emergency”.
LPA Condition 30 RSM floorspace is being examined at the inquiry and there should be no need for a further stage in the planning process for RSM.
LPA Condition 34 Accepted as being reasonable in principle but outwith the advice in Circular 11/95 and the period of 2 months for the JCC is too short. A Section 106 Obligation is a more appropriate method of securing compliance.
LPA Condition 35 The condition which I recommend uses the AML phraseology which Inspectors and the Secretary of State has adopted for other aerodromes with which I am familiar.
49 LPA Condition 36 This condition would not permit of pilot basic maintenance where necessary, prior to flight and could therefore endanger the safety of a flight.
9.8 Appellants Proposed Planning Conditions (Aviation) Implementation 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
Aircraft movements 2. A log of all Aircraft Movements (A/C Ms) shall be maintained at the Aerodrome. The log shall record the runway in use and details of all flights including aircraft type, registration, name of pilot in command and time and date of arrival/departure. A “touch and go” movement is to be identified and shall count as 2 A/C Ms. The log shall be kept up to date and made available to an authorised officer of the local planning authority within 2 working days of a written request for inspection. The log shall also be made available to the meetings of the Aerodrome’s Joint Consultative Committee.
Note: This is a typical planning condition for an aerodrome catering for GA air traffic.
3. Except on upto 3 days per calendar year when upto 350 aircraft movements may take place at an organised flying event which has been previously notified in writing to the LPA and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA beforehand, the total number of aircraft movements shall not exceed 100 per day and 1000 per calendar month.
Note: This condition is recommended to ensure that aircraft movements are limited to levels where noise effects are likely to be minimal. The maximum daily limit is unlikely to be reached on a regular basis but it does reflect the appropriate noise criteria recommended by Mr Douglas Sharps.
4. Except in an emergency the total number of aircraft movements on runway 15/33 shall not exceed 4 per week.
50 Aircraft Weight 5. Except on upto 3 days per calendar year or in an emergency the development hereby permitted shall not be used by any civil registered aircraft exceeding 5,730 kg Maximum Take Off Mass (MTOM) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.
Note: This is a condition which would enable the Aerodrome to be used by private pilots and would prevent the development from being used by aircraft typically used for commercial air transport of passengers or bulk freight.
Repair, servicing and maintenance 6. The hangars proposed to be used for the purposes of the repair, servicing and maintenance of aircraft as shown on the layout plan attached to the Statement of Common Ground, shall only be used for such purposes and for no other purpose except with the prior written permission of the LPA.
Hours of Operation 7. Aircraft movements at Bagby Aerodrome shall only take place between 0700 hours and 2100 hours except in an emergency.
Helicopters 8. No helicopter pilot training shall take place from or at Bagby Aerodrome. 9. Except in the event of an emergency no more than 10 helicopter movements (a helicopter movement being defined as a landing, touch down or taking off) shall take place on any one day except on Flying Event Days when the maximum number of aircraft movements including helicopters shall be no more than 350. The operations of the Yorkshire Air Ambulance shall be considered to fall within the category of emergencies. 10. Helicopters shall shut down their engine(s) during the process of refuelling at Bagby Aerodrome.
51 Aerobatics 11. No aircraft shall take off from Bagby Aerodrome for the purposes of performing aerobatics overhead the Aerodrome or within a circle radius 2.5 nautical miles therefrom.
Jet Engined Aeroplanes 12. Except in an emergency Bagby Aerodrome shall not be used by jet engined aeroplanes.
Joint Consultative Committee 9.9 Some desirable controls are addressed in the Section 106 Obligation which I recommend should include the following heads of terms:
A. Bagby Aerodrome Joint Consultative Committee
(i) Within 6 months of the Commencement of Development the subject of the main planning appeal the Owners shall:
Identify in consultation with the Council (taking into account any responses made by the Council) the Interested Organisations who are to be represented on the BAJCC; and
Establish the BAJCC in accordance with this paragraph.
(ii) The BAJCC shall be established in accordance with the Guidelines for Airport Consultative Committees issued by the Department for Transport.
(iii) Subject to paragraph 1.4 the BAJCC will consist of one representative from:
Any user of the aerodrome;
Any local authority into whose administrative area the Land falls; and
Each of the Interested Organisations identified above.
(iv) The Owners may from time to time identify in consultation with the Council (taking into account any responses made by the Council) additional interested organisations who are to be represented on the BAJCC. 52
(v) With effect from the Commencement Date the Owners shall at any time when any part of the Development is in use pursuant to the Planning Permission provide for the use of the representatives specified in sub-paragraph 1.3 and 1.4 adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management of or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests.
B. Bagby Aerodrome Flight Policy
(i) Before first use of the Development the Owners shall submit to the Council for the Council’s approval a draft BAFP based upon the plan marked Appendix PK7.
(ii) The Council shall expeditiously approve the BAFP
(iii) If the Council does not respond within 28 days of the submission of the BAFP by the Owner the BAFP shall be deemed to be approved
(iv) In the event that the Council:
Approves the BAFP with amendments which are not acceptable to the Owner; or
Rejects the BAFP as submitted pursuant to paragraph 2.2, the Owner may refer the matter for determination pursuant to Clause 4.
(v) The BAFP shall:
Incorporate policies to minimise aircraft noise generated within Bagby Aerodrome’s area of influence
Incorporate a particular policy to prevent an aircraft taking off for aerobatic practice overhead the Aerodrome or within a zone of 2 nautical miles radius – centred upon the Aerodrome.
53 (vi) As soon as practicable following the approval of the BAFP the Owners shall take the following steps to publicise the BAFP:
Notify the writers and publishers of flight guides used by pilots flying in UK airspace of the specific flight paths for the use of Bagby Aerodrome; and
Notify the owners and operators of aircraft based at Bagby Aerodrome of the specific flight paths for the use of Bagby Aerodrome
Arrange for a copy of the BAFP to be supplied to the BAJCC
(vii) With effect from the date of first use of the Development the Owners shall at any time when any part of the Development is in use pursuant to the Planning Permission maintain in full effect the BAFP and shall:
Take reasonable steps to notify the writers and publishers of flight guides used by pilots flying in UK airspace of the specific flight paths into and out of Bagby Aerodrome; and
Take reasonable steps to notify owners and operators of aircraft based at Bagby Aerodrome of the specific flight paths into and out of Bagby Aerodrome
Provide details of the BAFP to all visiting pilots when permission to land is requested
Make a copy of the BAFP available on the Aerodrome’s website
(viii) In the event of the first breach of the BAFP by a pilot the Owners shall issue a first warning to that pilot
(ix) In the event that a pilot who has received a first warning pursuant to paragraph 2.8 again breaches the BAFP within 1 year of receiving that first warning the Owner shall ban that pilot from flying from Bagby Aerodrome for a minimum period of one month and the circumstances of the ban shall be reported to the BAJCC
54 C. Bagby Aerodrome Complaints Policy
(i) Within 6 months of the first meeting of the BAJCC the Owners shall in consultation with the Council and the BAJCC (taking into account any responses made by the Council or as the case may be the JCC) adopt the BACP
(ii) The BACP shall contain procedures for reporting complaints about flights to and from Bagby Aerodrome and steps taken to resolve complaints to the BAJCC.
(iii) As soon as practicable following the adoption of the BACP the Owners shall take the following steps to publicise the BACP:
Make the BACP available on its website;
Make copies of the BACP available to members of the public on request; and
Provide a copy of the BACP to the owners and operators of aircraft based at Bagby Aerodrome
(iv) With effect from the Commencement Date the Owners shall:
At any time when any part of the Development is in use pursuant to the Planning Permission maintain in full effect the BACP;
Investigate any complaints received under the BACP and seek to establish in light of the date and time of the reported event, a correlation between the circumstances of he complaint and an arriving or departing aircraft; and
Not less than once in any six month period report complaints and steps taken to resolve and address complaints to the BAJCC and take into account any responses made by the BAJCC as a result of the submission of the said report
55 D. General
(i) The Owners may from time to time adopt amendments to the contents of the BACP but shall first consult the BAJCC and the Council and shall take into account any responses made by the BAJCC or as the case may be the Council
(ii) The Owners shall ensure that any operator appointed by the Owners enters into covenants with the Owners that it will comply with the terms of this Agreement
56 10.0 SUMMARY OF CASE
10.1 My name is Peter Kember and I am a town planner specialising in aviation planning work. I am a retired member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and a Member of the Royal Aeronautical Society. I hold a Private Pilots Licence and operate my own aeroplane from the aerodrome which I own with others in West Kent. I have advised on more than 80 different airports and aerodromes in the UK, many of which have Joint Consultative Committees to address issues of local significance. The DfT’s current guidance on JCC is exhibited at Appendix PK1 of my proof.
10.2 I have advised Mr Martin Scott, the owner of Bagby Aerodrome since June 2009. I am familiar with most of the aerodromes in Yorkshire including Bagby, which is shown on an extract of the Northern CAA Aeronautical Chart at Appendix PK2 of my proof of evidence.
10.3 The inquiry is in respect of a total of 3 planning appeals for development at the Aerodrome, and 1 enforcement notice. With a total of 20 appendices my evidence is concerned to substantiate 7 main submissions in respect of the appeals:
(i) The site has been in continuous use as an aerodrome, as defined by the GPDO, since at least 1986. (ii) The proposed development and that the subject of the enforcement appeal, represent works which are ancillary to the primary use of land as an aerodrome. (iii) The development enforced against is not, in the planning sense, harmful but brings an important benefit to the Aerodrome and the amenity of the area. (iv) General Aviation is an important contributor to the UK economy. The size of the UK fleet of GA aircraft has increased markedly in recent years and the focus needs to be on making the best use of existing, established aerodromes. (v) There is a quantitative need for additional GA facilities in Yorkshire and a qualitative need for improved facilities at Bagby Aerodrome.
57 (vi) The grant of planning permission with planning conditions and the Section 106 Undertaking which is offered would bring the Aerodrome under the ambit of planning control to the benefit of the area. (vii) If no planning permission is forthcoming, Bagby Aerodrome would not be able to contribute in any significant way to the economy of the area and the important amenity benefits which I claim would not be realised.
10.4 Bagby is an aerodrome as defined in the GPDO and has been included in the CAA’s UK Aerodrome Index since first published in 1986, as shown in Appendices PK3 and PK4. It caters for GA including recreational flying, ab initio, continuity and aerobatic training, and also business flights including flights for cable and pipeline inspection and police and air ambulance flights. The GAAC booklet explaining the importance of GA is reproduced at Appendix PK5.
10.5 The Aerodrome has a main part-reinforced grass runway of 695 metres in length and a short ‘crosswind’ runway of 450 metres length. There is a down slope to the south on the main runway meaning that departures and arrivals are mostly to and from the south. The Aerodrome is operated in accordance with the current CAA guidance CAP793 reproduced at Appendix PK6.
10.6 There are currently 9 hangars, 5 of which are located on the south eastern side of the main runway at the furthest point from the village. There is a clubhouse, café and toilets, a maintenance hangar and 3 smaller hangars located on the village side of the site. The Aerodrome is currently home to 38 aeroplanes and 1 helicopter. The present buildings are mostly in a poor quality condition, some having been adapted from agricultural barns. The present arrival and departure air traffic routes are shown on my plan at Appendix PK7.
10.7 The Council Officers report which my colleague Mr Robert Meek refers to the evidence of CAA and other publications and the evidence of Messrs Lassey, Dudon, Kennet and Fox at Appendix PK8 is that the site was first developed as a Aerodrome in the 1970’s and has subsequently expanded in its range of buildings and facilities. An appeal decision at Appendix PK9 and the extract of the various pilot flight guides at Appendix PK10 lead me to conclude that the principal
58 features, and the scale of activities at the Aerodrome which we see today, as analysed by Mr Paul Pritchett in his report at Appendix PK11 were all in evidence more than 10 years ago and the use cannot be enforced against. My analysis follows that analytical procedure endorsed by the Elmsett Aerodrome Appeal Inspector, as seen in his decision letter at Appendix PK12. The reinforcement works, the subject of the Enforcement Notice, have contributed to public safety and bring the positive planning benefits which I have described and which are supported by the CAA’s safety sense leaflet reproduced at Appendix PK13.
10.8 The hard surfaces better support aeroplanes than a grass surface can and bring positive benefits to the public in reduction of aircraft noise. This view is supported by the Secretary of States Appeal decision letters which I have reproduced at Appendix PK14.
10.9 Whilst the proposed development is likely to lead to increased flights to and from the Aerodrome, the improvements would be likely to attract the new generation, fuel efficient and quieter GA aircraft now becoming more popular in the UK. The Aerodrome cannot be expanded to cater for anything other than GA aircraft because of physical and ownership limitations, the lack of terminal facilities for passengers, the proximity of military aerodromes and military airspace.
10.10 The majority of GA aerodromes in the UK are not licensed by the CAA but cater for the 20,000 or so GA aircraft of all types seen on the current UK register of aircraft, a summary of which appears at Appendix PK15.
10.11 Whilst the UK fleet of GA aircraft has doubled in the period from 1985 to 2010, the number of CAA licensed aerodromes is in decline because of high operating costs. 48 Aerodromes have closed in the past 10 years according to the GAAC. Over the past 15 years the UK has witnessed a revolution in light aircraft design with Yorkshire being prominent in the design and supply of newer, more fuel efficient and quieter aircraft types as described in Appendix PK16. If aerodrome operators are to remain in business and the public to benefit from the potential for the improved amenity afforded by new technology, aerodromes must greatly improve their facilities.
59
10.12 Helicopters are a vital part of GA with special characteristics which make them, potentially, to have a greater environmental impact. There has been a threefold increase in helicopters registered in the UK in the period from 1985 to 2010. Helicopters need the improved facilities planned for Bagby and with the improvements to the operating procedures I outline in my proof and at Appendix PK7, there is no reason why they should not be accommodated at Bagby. The importance of Bagby to the Yorkshire Air Ambulance helicopter is described in the letter at Appendix PK17.
10.13 The GAAC’s advice on Considerate Flying Practices, reproduced at Appendix PK18 has lead me to propose changes to Bagbys Flight Protocol including the prohibition of an overhead join to the circuit, the raising of the circuit height to 1000 ft AGL, the extension of the circuit and the opening of a fresh dialogue with nearby RAF Topcliffe to reduce the impact of transitting military aircraft. This dialogue is best addressed by a Joint Consultative Committee as recommended by the Department of Transport which can be promulgated by the Section 106 Undertaking offered by the appellant. That such procedures work is illustrated by the two letters which I have included at my Appendix PK19.
10.14 The proposed facilities at Bagby are described in Section 4 of my proof of evidence. The hangarage in necessary to replace old and outworn buildings, and the maintenance facility is needed to provide better accommodation for existing established Bagby organisations. The clubhouse represents a considerable improvement on that which already exists and the overnight accommodation would serve the interests of those having business in the locality, the needs of touring pilots including those carrying out local work or having their aircraft maintained at the site.
10.15 There are no realistic alternative sites in this part of Yorkshire as seen from my analysis which is summarised in a spreadsheet at Appendix PK20. The York Green Belt is a very strong planning constraint to development at Elvington and Rufforth Aerodromes and other potential sites are constrained either by size or by
60 their use for specialised aviation activities such as gliding etc, which do not easily mix with GA.
10.16 I deal with Development Plan policy at Section 6 of my proof. I consider that Bagby represents a sustainable location for the development the subject of the appeals. I also take the view that the proposed development would meet the needs of recreation, tourism and other enterprise which requires a countryside location as aviation activities clearly do. The Local Development Framework permits of development meeting such criteria.
10.17 Other aviation policy considerations are relevant to this case as I identify in Section 7 of my proof. Bagby Aerodrome has a future where it can benefit the local community and cater for the needs of new generation aircraft. This would require planning permission for the development proposed. The reasonable concerns of local residents are best addressed by a regulated planning regime, involving planning conditions, and a Section 106 Undertaking to enable the proposed Joint Consultative Committee to be set up, to control the Flight Policy (or Protocol) and the Complaints Policy which I have described in detail in Sections 8, 9 and 10 of my proof.
10.18 I suggest that this is both a sensible way and a reasonable way to bring this largely unregulated aerodrome under planning control. I therefore urge the Inspector to grant planning permission with the conditions which I recommend, and to quash the enforcement notice.
Peter Kember Dip TP MRTPI (rtd) MRAeS Consultant to Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
10th February 2011
61