York Aviation
HAMBLETON DISTRICT COUNCIL
BAGBY AIRFIELD - ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Final Report
February 2011
Originated by: Richard Connelly
Dated: 9th February 2011
Reviewed by: Louise Congdon
Dated: 9th February 2011 York Aviation
HAMBELTON DISTRICT COUNCIL
BAGBY AIRFIELD - ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Contents
Page
1 BACKGROUND...... 1
2 NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 3
3 HISTORIC AND CURRENT OPERATIONS ...... 10
4 IMPLICATIONS OF COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTS...... 23
5 IMPLICATIONS OF THE TOTAL SCHEME ...... 28
6 PLANNING CONTROLS AND CONDITIONS ...... 31
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 38
APPENDICES
A York Aviation Experience in General Aviation
B List of Documents
C Plan of Alternative Airfields
Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
1 BACKGROUND
1.1 York Aviation LLP (YAL) was commissioned in January 2011 by Hambleton District Council (Hambleton DC) to provide expert aviation advice in relation to Planning Applications submitted by Bagby Airfield in North Yorkshire. The applications have each been refused planning permission and appeals have been initiated by the Applicant1. The appeal is due to be heard at a Public Inquiry in March 2011. This report has been prepared for Hambleton DC in order to provide an understanding of the implications of the works and to assist the Public Inquiry. In Appendix A we set out our experience of working in General Aviation.
1.2 In order to undertake this study, we have reviewed relevant documents provided by Tim Wood, Development Manager at Hambleton District Council, which are listed in Appendix B. We have also undertaken a site visit in late January and spoken on site with Steve Hoyle, Airfield Manager, and also representatives of two of the businesses based on site, Graham Fox Maintenance and Swift TG Maintenance.
1.3 Additionally, we have drawn upon previous studies that we have undertaken in relation to General Aviation, including consultations with airfields and operators within the sector. To support these, and to probe specific queries in relation to these applications, we have undertaken further consultations with airfields and also with a provider of runway matting of the type used on site and which forms part of the applications.
1.4 The developments proposed are:
4 Extension to an aircraft hangar (an increase of 198m2);
4 New maintenance workshop (804m2);
4 New fuel stops with capacity for 40,000 litres of Avgas and 40,000 litres of JET-A1;
1 We are aware that the forthcoming Public Inquiry will also consider enforcement action being taken by the Council against a number of developments at the Airfield which have been implemented without planning approval. For simplicity, this Report refers to the works dependent on the Planning Applications regardless of whether such works are covered by an Enforcement Notice or not.
York Aviation LLP 1 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
4 Five new hangars of 300m2 (of which one has been built already);
4 One new hangar of 520m2;
4 Replacement clubhouse including 3 overnight en-suite rooms.
2 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
2 NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT
2.1 With any significant development, or redevelopment, at an airfield or airport, it would be expected that as part of the Planning Application there would be a clear justification for the works set out. In our experience, applications of this nature should include:
4 Comparative projections of movements, both with and without the proposals;
4 Some form of business case, to justify the need and explain what each facility will be used for, including the likely demand for such facilities;
4 The alternatives available to meet the need; and
4 Some explanation of benefits to the local community.
2.2 In the case of the Bagby Airfield applications, we do not believe that the Applicant has provided sufficient justification to understand fully the impacts of the proposals in total, nor the benefits to be derived or the implications of each individual element of the proposals. Whilst the Applicant has submitted some information in support of an assessment of current (or baseline traffic), this appears to be inadequate and potentially unsound as discussed in Section 3 of this report.
2.3 Whilst we will consider the possible effects of the development in terms of operations in later sections of this report, it is appropriate to consider the possible need for the overall development at this point.
York Aviation LLP 3 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
2.4 Following discussions with Steve Hoyle, we understand the airfield is currently a loss-making concern, which is consistent with the position at many smaller airfields. The number of based aircraft, and therefore the income from these, has been reducing over time as we will discuss further later in this report. Prima facie, therefore, the Applicant must see benefits from spending significant sums of money on this development rather than retaining the status quo. In order for there to be a business case for the development, the Applicant must have an expectation of reducing losses, attaining break even or, potentially, moving the Airfield into profit. By necessity, this would imply increased movement activity at the Airfield, as profit is likely to be driven by growth in airfield activity.
2.5 The proposed developments could alter the financial position as a result of one or more of the following:
4 The new hangars will be perceived to have a higher value to users, thereby increasing hangarage income from resident aircraft displaced from existing hangars;
4 The current option for outside aircraft storage will be removed, leading to higher storage charges from the limited number of aircraft which are currently parked on the grass areas;
4 The new hangars will increase the number of based aircraft;
4 The maintenance firms based on site, and paying better commercial rates for their hangars, require more hangarage in order to expand their operations;
4 The matting provided on site could lead to an extended season or bring improved reliability, which in turn could lead to more users being willing to base aircraft at Bagby, or at least could make it more attractive to visitors including those using the maintenance facilities, leading to increased landing charges2;
4 More structured refuelling facilities would encourage greater use, particularly in relation to refuelling helicopters with JET-A1 fuel leading to increased income; and
2 Based aircraft are not charged individual landing fees. They pay for their hangarage/parking costs for the year and are permitted unlimited flights with no further charges. Therefore improvements in reliability will not benefit the Airfield from these activities unless the total number of based aircraft can be increased.
4 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
4 The new club house would be attractive to potential new members and encourage an increase in membership, including revenue from overnight stays.
2.6 Whilst not all of the above sources of potential income would involve increased flying over the existing level, many of them do. Without further explanation from the Appellant as to the need for the proposed developments, we can only conclude that there will be some increase in flying (when compared to the current existing level of use) as a result of the development. Otherwise there appears to be no commercial logic for the works.
2.7 During the site visit, we spoke with the two maintenance firms based on site, Graham Fox Maintenance and Swift TG Maintenance. Graham Fox confirmed that they would like to expand and they understand the allocated area within their replacement hangar will increase their capacity to 3 aircraft. Although the Company parks some aircraft outside, these tend to be aircraft which are with the Company for prolonged periods and so are unlikely to take up the new maintenance bay in the new hangar. Therefore the new maintenance bay will allow expansion of the business and this will lead to an increase in movements.
2.8 Swift TG Maintenance also expressed a desire for increased facilities, both for maintenance but also because they are involved in the manufacture of aircraft3 and would like to be able to consolidate all of their activities onto one site, especially as the current aircraft factory at Kirkbymoorside no longer has an operational runway4. Swift indicated that they would need additional hangarage for the aircraft construction and a paint shop, but that such activities are likely to fall outside of the permitted uses of the new hangars. However, such activities would support additional employment in the locality. These activities would also require a hard runway for high speed aircraft trials and, as this is not to be provided at Bagby, it is unlikely that they would consider manufacturing aircraft in this location.
3 The Europa Aircraft, www.europa-aircraft.com. 4 Currently the aircraft are sold as kits which buyers assemble themselves, however in order to sell their aircraft in greater numbers, Swift TG would like to produce ready-built aircraft themselves.
York Aviation LLP 5 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
2.9 Furthermore, Swift indicated that, despite the addition of the matting, they have lost some maintenance work (particularly during the winter) as aircraft owners have experienced difficulties with the grass taxiway which does not have the geo-textile matting, and therefore does not necessarily support operations in the same weather conditions as the improved runway. This suggests that the developments as proposed may not be adequate to support expansion of activities by Swift.
2.10 Overall, the justification for the proposed developments is unclear, over and above the increased hangarage for Graham Fox Maintenance and some scope to increase based aircraft, if there is demand. It is not clear to us that this would be sufficient to cover the cost of the development in the light of the limited information supplied by the Applicant upon which to assess the impact of the developments.
2.11 Our discussions with the Airfield did not bring to light direct examples of the demand for the facilities, suggesting that the development may be speculative, i.e. if facilities are built, the Airfield may be able to attract operations from other airfields. We are not aware of excess demand for such facilities within the region, nor has evidence of such demand been provided by the Appellant. However, it is probable that high quality new facilities would attract aircraft away from other airfields, although this does not necessarily constitute need for the developments, merely it would bring displacement of activity from one airfield to another.
2.12 On this basis the Planning Authority would need to consider the benefits of the proposal to be relatively low
Alternative Airfields
2.13 In justifying the need for the development, it would also be expected that the Applicant would provide evidence to demonstrate that there is a requirement for the facilities which could not be met at alternative airfields in the vicinity. This is difficult in the absence of any clear statement as to the intended use of the new facilities or the locations from which such need might be derived.
6 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
2.14 We have undertaken a review of airfields within a 20-mile radius of Bagby Airfield to assess whether any alternatives exist. Our choice of 20-miles is on the basis that this may be an acceptable driving distance for aircraft owners to travel to their aircraft. However, it must be recognised that the alternatives for maintenance facilities may be extended over a wider area because many of the aircraft will fly in for maintenance and so the location of the facility is less critical to the home location of aircraft owners. Table 1 provides an overview of the assessment in relation to known airfields in the area. A plan of the locations of the alternatives is provided in Appendix C, showing their location in relation to Bagby Airfield.
York Aviation LLP 7 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
Table 1: Assessment of Local Alternative Airfields Airfields Within 10-Mile Radius of Bagby Airfield/Airport Description Comments as Alternative Dishforth Army Helicopter Base Unsuitable due to Military Use Felixkirk Grass Runways, Limited Limited scope to attract away Hangarage from Bagby as facilities to lessor standard Husthwaite Grass Runways. Limited Lack of apparent facilities would information. suggest no scope to attract away from Bagby South Otterington Limited Information Lack of apparent facilities would suggest no scope to attract away from Bagby Sutton Bank Gliding Airfield. Powered Limited scope to attract away flight in order to launch from Bagby due to the intensive gliders. Limited acceptance gliding activity of visiting powered aircraft Topcliffe RAF Base, used for gliding. Limited as no fuel and hangarage Concrete runways is available for civilian use Airfields Within 10-20 Mile Radius of Bagby Airfield/Airport Description Comments as Alternative Fadmoor Grass runways. Avgas Could provide some alternatives available. Runways of better although there appear to be some length than Bagby. Limited Planning Conditions on the use of hangarage the site which may make new hanagarage difficult to obtain and would be necessary for further growth. The grass runway, whilst free draining would offer little benefit over Bagby
Kirkbymoorside Runways now removed Not suitable for flying after the removal of the runways by new owners, Marshall Aerospace Leeming RAF Base, used for fighter Not suitable for civilian use jets Linton on Ouse RAF Base, used for high Not suitable for civilian use intensity training. Wombleton Asphalt runway available Could be an alternative to Bagby with further enhancements to hangarage. The hard runway would provide more reliable year round operations for maintenance providers Source: Pooley's/York Aviation
8 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
2.15 The greatest scope for alternative airfields is between 10-20 miles from Bagby, and in particular at Wombleton Airfield which would offer significant benefits over Bagby due to its Asphalt main runway. The amount of hangarage is limited though and so growth as an alternative airfield would be likely to require development through the Planning Process.
2.16 Within Yorkshire there would be other suitable alternative airfields for maintenance and other uses. The refuelling of helicopters which are flying north/south could take place at a number of locations within the region. Sherburn-In-Elmet is one of the most established airfields within the York area and includes hard runways and extensive facilities. Currently there are limited maintenance facilities on site, suggesting opportunities for growth of this sector.
2.17 Access to major airports has become more restricted for General Aviation aircraft. We understand that this is the case at Leeds/Bradford International Airport where such activity tends to now be restricted to the higher value end of the business, such as corporate jets. The growth of this airport has increased the conflict between General Aviation and Commercial Air Transport. However, at Durham Tees Valley International Airport, it could be argued that the recent decline in passenger traffic may have led to increased opportunities for growth of General Aviation activities. Given the quality of the runways and the reliability these bring, it could be considered that this airport may provide a good alternative for aircraft maintenance and also helicopter refuelling.
York Aviation LLP 9 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
3 HISTORIC AND CURRENT OPERATIONS
3.1 As outlined in Section 2, it would normally be expected that such an Application would contain information related to the lawful and/or baseline use of the facility and how that may change with and without the facilities proposed. There appear to be conflicting views between residents and the operator over the level of current activity at the Airfield, notwithstanding the movement survey and other estimates submitted by the Applicant based on sample activity. In assessing the need for, and impacts of, the proposed developments, it is therefore necessary to try to understand the number of aircraft movements previously and currently generated.
3.2 In 1980, the Airfield was granted permission to operate 80 weekly movements (equating to 40 departures and 40 arrivals). Evidence provided by the applicant is that the airfield currently generates greater than 80 movements per week over certain periods of the year. The grass runway means that during wet periods and during the winter the airfield may be unsuitable for flying for certain days, weeks or extended periods, accepting that the geo-textile matting may have reduced the impact of weather, as will be considered further in Section 4. The consequence of this is that it is not possible to simply determine the number of annual movements by multiplying the weekly movements by 52 weeks of the year.
3.3 In the records of flying activity provided by local residents to Joy Swithenbank at Hambleton District Council5, it is clear that residents do not dispute that there are more than 80 movements per week. For example in record number 6, provided by the residents of Green Leas, there are 50 departures recorded in the week commencing Saturday 11th April 2009. If it is assumed that there are an equal number of arriving aircraft then this amounts to 100 movements in this one week. The same residents provided evidence of 61 departures two weeks later, despite no flying on the Tuesday and the residents being away for two mornings and therefore not noting all of the movements. This would equate to 122+ movements in a week in April.
5 Bagby Airfield Activity, featuring observations 4th April – 5th July 2009, Joy Swithenbank.
10 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
Airfield Assessments of Flying Activity
3.4 In support of the Application, the Airfield has set out some information about the level of movements for a period since 1999. This has been done through two supporting documents.
3.5 In June 2008, Paul Pritchett provided an assessment of aircraft movements based on fuel sales6. He estimated the total movements for 2003 based on selected sources of data and then reviewed how much fuel was sold for that year to calculate the total fuel sold per movement and then using this figure to undertake a pro-rata calculation to estimate the number of movements in 2007.
3.6 Calculating the total number of movements was undertaken using the following steps:
4 by reviewing log book data for 2003 for selected pilots and a selected single aircraft7 and then using this to calculate average flight times and applying these to all based aircraft/pilots;
4 by using visitor logs and fuel sale logs for visiting aircraft to calculate the average number of visiting aircraft;
4 by including an allowance for the maintenance facilities based on the records of flights generated by them; and
4 assessing the level of fuel sales in 2003 and then assuming that the ratio of flights to fuel sales was constant to 2007 and extrapolating forward to estimate the total flights in 2007.
3.7 Mr Pritchett then also provided a reasonableness check of the results of the above figures by using assumptions in relation to average fight times, aircraft fuel consumption rates and average fuel uplifts to estimate the likely number of movements for the level of fuel sales.
6 Bagby Airfield Movements Report, P.A. Pritchett BSc ACA, 16th June 2008 (incorrectly dated 16th June 2006). 7 G-SKYC
York Aviation LLP 11 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
3.8 Whilst this methodology may be used to provide an assessment of the number of movements, in this case we believe that the calculation is not accurate because of the specific assumptions and data used within the assessment.
3.9 In our view, the first of the errors in the calculation arises because of the log books used by Mr Pritchett. The pilots' log books relate to commercial pilots who fly more frequently and whose activities do not represent operations by the majority of pilots based at Bagby8. A further issue is the use of the log book for the aircraft G-SKYC, which is not reflective of general aircraft use because this is a high performance aircraft used professionally for aerobatics competitions. As a consequence, this aircraft flies a large number of short flights as it is used for intensive bursts of training.
3.10 Combined, the use of the selected pilots’ and aircraft log books has led to the assumption by Mr Pritchett that the average flying time for aircraft from Babgy is 34 minutes9, whereas we believe this is likely to be higher for other based aircraft/pilots (which we illustrate later in this section).
3.11 Using this 34 minute assumption and working on the basis that other based pilots (i.e. ‘Flying Members’, not ‘Commercial Flying Members’) do just the minimum number of hours to maintain their licence (6 hours)10, Mr Pritchett has estimated that this will lead to 10.6 flights per year or approximately 21 movements per annum per other based pilots). However, based on consultations, we believe that this figure is incorrect as the average flying time for these pilots is likely to be higher as they will not undertake short bursts of aerobatic training and are more likely to fly to other airfields or on longer sightseeing flights in good weather. If this average flight time figure is adjusted to 1-hour then this equates to only 6 flights per year, or 12 total movements per pilot, reducing the total number of movements by nearly half.
8 Flying club membership includes ‘Flying Commercial Members’ and ‘Flying Members’, with the former involved in professional flying either from this airfield or elsewhere, whilst Flying Members hold Private Pilots Licences and do not fly professionally. 9 Bagby Airfield Movements Report, P.A. Pritchett BSc ACA, 16th June 2008 (incorrectly dated 16th June 2006), Page 4. 10 Ibid Page 5.
12 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
3.12 Mr Pritchett has also gone on to assume a further 50% increase to the hours of flying members in order to represent a ‘likely’ usage (to reflect the fact they are likely to do more than the minimum number of hours). If this same assumption is used for the longer flight times then this would lead to a total of 9 hours per year per pilot, amounting to 18 movements rather than 16 hours or 32 movements under Mr Pritchett’s calculation. For the 103 flying members registered in 2003, Mr Pritchett has calculated movements of between 2,163 and 3,244, whereas if an average flying time of 1 hour is used, this drops to a figure of between 1,263 and 1,854.
3.13 Mr Pritchett also relies on the assumption that all flying by members is undertaken from Babgy Airfield, which may not be the case as some pilots may not be owners, or indeed shareholders of an aircraft at the time of membership, and so they may hire aircraft from alternative airfields in order to fulfil their flying requirements.
3.14 In order to undertake the ‘Reasonableness Check’ Mr Pritchett carries forward the assumed average flight time of 34 minutes and also makes the assumptions that:
4 the average fuel uptake during a refuelling is 60 litres; and
4 by assuming an average fuel consumption of 30 litres/hour flying for aircraft using Bagby.
3.15 We have already highlighted that we believe the flying time is incorrect and we also believe that Mr Pritchett’s assumptions about fuel consumption may also be incorrect. Using evidence provided of fuel sold over a week in August 2007, he finds that the average uplift per refuelling was 60 litres. However, this does not necessarily reflect the needs of the aircraft users, and we believe that more fuel may have been used on each flight than assumed by Mr Pritchett, as we go on to explain below.
York Aviation LLP 13 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
3.16 Our view of this is reinforced by Mr Pritchett’s own findings from the check, that simply dividing the fuel sales by 60 and assuming a fuel consumption rate of 30 litres/hour equates to more annual movements than he has calculated earlier in this analysis11. Mr Pritchett notes that the simple check calculation could be incorrect because of12:
4 higher fuel consumption per flying hour than assumed;
4 average flight times being greater than 34 minutes; or
4 the previously calculated number of flights being too low.
3.17 He concludes that is likely to be a mix of the latter two because he assumes that the dominance of Microlights, Cessna 150 and T67M Firefly flights at the Airfield means that the average fuel consumption rate is likely to be accurate. Hence, at this point, he revises the assessment on the basis that the average flight time is likely to be greater than the 34 minutes, with which we concur.
3.18 However, we also believe that Mr Pritchett may have incorrectly assumed the fuel consumption average is 30 litres/hour for the following reasons:
4 This analysis does not account for larger aircraft such as the Piper PA- 28 and the Diamond Twin-Star;
4 It does not reflect the higher fuel consumption associated with helicopters, such as the Robinson R44;
4 This does not reflect the nature of the flying undertaken by the dominant aircraft on site, the T67M Firefly G-SKYC; and
4 We do not know the average flight time of visiting aircraft that refuel at the airfield and these may not reflect the average uplift requirements of based aircraft.
11 Bagby Airfield Movements Report, P.A. Pritchett BSc ACA, 16th June 2008 (incorrectly dated 16th June 2006)., Page 7. 12 Ibid, Page 7
14 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
3.19 The documented fuel consumption rates13 shown within Mr Pritchett’s assessment imply that the Cessna 182, using 60 litres/hour, is at the highest end of the consumption scale, however there are a number of other based aircraft with greater fuel consumption, and so the average is not between 11- 60 as implied in his analysis.
3.20 In assuming that the T67M uses 28.4 litres/hour, Mr Pritchett has not accounted for the short burst operations of G-SKYC which will use fuel at a higher rate than the average quoted. This is because the 28.4 will refer to the average over a flight, allowing for take-off, cruise and then landing. Out of these, the take-off is the most fuel intensive period, with the cruise and landing using less fuel. Fuel consumption rates are typically averaged over an hour’s flight. However, given the shorter flying times for G-SKYC, the average fuel consumption will be tilted towards more frequent fuel-thirsty take-offs than the documented average consumption, nor is the fuel consumption of this aircraft likely to be representative of the cruise fuel consumption because the aircraft is used regularly for aerobatics flying which requires a lot of full power manoeuvres and as such may be more fuel intensive even than take-off.
3.21 Consequently, whilst Mr Pritchett asserts that the frequency of flights by this particular aircraft will reduce the overall average fuel consumption for the Airfield, we would highlight that it likely does the opposite and indeed increases the average.
3.22 Furthermore, if the average flight time is higher as asserted by ourselves and Mr Pritchett, then the fuel uplift per movement will also be higher as the aircraft will consume more fuel on each flight, thereby also reducing the total number of movements compared to those assessed by Mr Pritchett in the first part of his assessment.
3.23 If it is concluded that the average flight time was too short and the average fuel consumption too low then, contrary to Mr Pritchett’s assessment, the number of movements would be lower than his initial calculation, not higher14.
13 Ibid, Page 7. 14 Ibid, Page 8. Mr Pritchett states that the results of this check mean the original analysis was probably understated.
York Aviation LLP 15 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
3.24 Mr Pritchett undertook a further analysis in December 2008, appended to the Planning Statement produced by Signet Planning in May 201015. This is a different method of analysis in which a strict regime of logging aircraft movements was undertaken over a month period in August 2008 and into September 2008. The results from this are used to justify the results from the June 2008 study.
3.25 The survey showed that over the month period, excluding a Fly-In day, there were 644 movements over 31 days. He has then pro-rata divided the number of movements by 31 days and then multiplied this by 365 days in a year to get to the average movements figure of 7,583 movements in a year. Whilst Mr Pritchett does note that there was some relatively poor weather for August during the survey period, it is clearly inaccurate to simply multiply up summer figures to give an annual total as the summer is recognised by the Airfield, and indeed by Mr Pritchett in his earlier analysis, as being a peak of operations with movements reducing substantially during the winter months.
3.26 Indeed in the earlier assessment Mr Pritchett stated categorically that August was a peak month in 200316, and therefore by implication this suggests that the 644 is a peak, not an average for the year. In the earlier analysis, Mr Pritchett identified that August made up 13.58% of annual movements, although he did not rely on this for calculations at that time. If this same ratio were applied to the 644 movements of August 2008 then this would suggest in the order of 4,742 total annual movements of based, visiting and maintenance related aircraft. This lower figure is consistent with our view that throughout his first assessment Mr Pritchett has made incorrect assumptions, and that the overall number of movements was less than calculated by Mr Pritchett.
3.27 The same survey illustrated that over a 7-day period at the peak of the season, there were an average of 145 total movements.
15 Planning Statement in Support of Revised Planning Application at Bagby Airfield, Signet Planning, 17th May 2010, Appendix 1. 16 Bagby Airfield Movements Report, P.A. Pritchett BSc ACA, 16th June 2008 (incorrectly dated 16th June 2006), Page 8.
16 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
York Aviation Assessment
3.28 Due to the lack of clear information, it is impossible to determine the current or historic movements associated with the Airfield. However, we have considered some of the issues related to movements to illustrate that the analysis provided by the Airfield is unlikely to be adequate to assess the Planning Application and indeed may be exaggerated as a baseline against which to consider the impacts of the proposed developments. We have provided estimates of movements in 2008 and at the present time because there is data available for these periods, not because these necessarily represent the peak of operations at the Airfield which may have occurred in other years.
3.29 During the site visit, we accounted for approximately 30 based aircraft, and was informed by the airfield staff that in total there are currently 33 aircraft based on site, mainly in private or syndicated ownership. There do not appear to be any aircraft dedicated to flying training, although some on site could be used in this way with appropriate instructors. During a consultation with Bagby Airfield for another project in 2008, we were informed that there were 50 based aircraft (including Microlights) and that flying training did take place at that time. The letter of June 200817 from Paul Pritchett suggested there were 44 aircraft based on that site at the time. On this basis, there appears to have been a reduction in based aircraft since 2008, which is consistent with discussions held during my site visit which revealed there had been a reduction in Club Membership as well. One reason for this may be the requirement for some aircraft to be parked out in the open, which is increasingly not favoured by owners for insurance reasons.
17 Aircraft at Bagby 2008, Paul Pritchett to Tim Wood, 18th June 2008.
York Aviation LLP 17 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
3.30 In undertaking previous assessments of movements associated with General Aviation airfields18, we estimate that typically a privately owned aircraft will fly in the region of 50 hours per year, and that an average flight will last 1-hour19. This would suggest 2 movements for each hour of flying, or 100 movements per year per aircraft. However, for syndicated aircraft, where multiple owners fly a single aircraft, the hours can be higher. In our previous studies, we calculated that averaging out the single owner aircraft and those in syndicates at a typical airfield each based aircraft would generate approximately 125 movements per year. To put this into context in the local market, we consulted with Sherburn-In-Elmet Airfield20 who confirmed that this accorded with their local experience. Similarly, during the site visit I consulted with Graham Fox Engineering who confirmed that most of the aircraft they service come in once per year for a 50-hour check, i.e. they fly a total of 50 hours per year.
3.31 Using this 125 movements per annum per based aircraft average, we estimate that, in 2008, there would have been 5,500 and 6,250 depending on whether it is assumed there were 44 or 50 based aircraft. On the current based figure of 33 aircraft, this would amount to 4,125 movements per annum by based aircraft. However, this may overstate the number of movements at Bagby as the assumption of 125 movements per year typically relates to airfields with hard runways which can operate more reliably year- round. It would be reasonable to assume that based aircraft are unable to achieve this level of movements due to ground conditions at Bagby. It is difficult to be precise on how much of a reduction would need to be applied, but if we assume 3 flights per fortnight for the summer season (30 weeks) then this would amount to 45 hours and 90 movements per annum per based aircraft. In 2008, this would have generated between 3,960 and 4,500 movements, whilst based on current based aircraft numbers this would amount to 2,970 per annum.
18 Compiled through consultations with Sywell, Oxford Kidlington, Gloucestershire Airport, Dunsfold, Sheffield Flying School and AEROS Maintenance in 2008 and supplemented by consultations with Sherburn-In-Elmet and Manchester Barton in 2011. 19 Although some flights can be considerably longer, there are also many short flights. 20 Consultation with Chris Stringer, CFI at Sherburn-In-Elmet Airfield on Wednesday 2nd February 2011.
18 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
3.32 This of course only applies to the aircraft based on site, and does not include visiting aircraft or those arriving to use the two maintenance companies based on site. Through previous consultations, we found that a typical aircraft bay for maintenance could generate in the region of 285 movements per annum, which would amount to 1,140 movements per year for the 4 bays available currently at Bagby Airfield. However, once again this is based on GA airfields with hard runways and could require some reduction to reflect the grass runway. During our consultation with Graham Fox Engineering, it was highlighted that there were ways of operating throughout the winter, but that there were occasional closures which essentially left them unable to accept or depart aircraft.
3.33 Within his analysis, Mr Pritchett showed that Graham Fox’s business generated around 200 flights (and therefore presumably 400 movements) per year21, which is slightly below the estimate we use suggesting our analysis would be at the upper end of the scale and is consistent with our discussions with the firm. Additionally, Graham Fox highlighted that whilst he does serve some aircraft based on the Airfield, much of his business is for aircraft based elsewhere in the North of England and Southern Scotland.
3.34 In respect of the number of visiting aircraft, this is extremely hard to gauge as it varies by the attraction of individual airfields. Within their assessments of movements, the Applicants indicated that an average of 11 movements per week out of 95-129 movements were by visitors22, leading to an estimate of between 9% and 12% of total movements being by visitor aircraft. This fits with a view we formed in relation to previous work based on our consultations in 2008.
21 Bagby Airfield Movements Report, P.A. Pritchett BSc ACA, 16th June 2008 (incorrectly dated 16th June 2006), Page 4. 22 Planning Statement in Support of Revised Planning Application at Bagby Airfield, Signet Planning, 17th May 2010, Appendix 1, Page 23
York Aviation LLP 19 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
3.35 As highlighted earlier, we would not attempt to put a definitive figure on the number of movements currently, or historically, generated by the Airfield. However, if we consider the total movements based on our assessment, it would suggest of the order to 4,567 current total annual movements assuming the full volume of maintenance related movements as a topside estimate. In addition, it must be recognised that G-SKYC does undertake substantially more movements per annum than a typical private or syndicate owned aircraft, which could potentially lift the number of movements by in the region of 1,000 per annum, giving a best estimate of the total number of annual movements currently at 5,600, excluding the movements associated with the three Fly-In days. It should be stressed that this is not evidence of use. Rather, it is a means of assessing the level of use, using our experience of different airfields.
3.36 In 2008, when based aircraft numbers were higher than present, we calculate that, with the topside estimate for maintenance included, the annual movements would be in the region on 6,070. This is compared to the incorrectly calculated figure of 7,583 put forward by Mr Pritchett for 2008, and his figure of 10,195 calculated in the earlier assessment for 2007.
Opposition to Current Flying Activity
3.37 It is clear that some of the local residents of Bagby (and surrounding areas) have concerns over the current level and nature of operations at the Airfield. In reviewing the records of flying activity provided by local residents to Joy Swithenbank at Hambleton District Council, it is clear that there are a number of key issues, these include:
4 The general level of flying activity, with some references made to the 80 per week movement limit;
4 Helicopter operations, and in particular the process of hot-refuelling, where helicopters are re-fuelled with their engines running;
4 Aerobatics flying activity associated with some based aircraft; and
4 Flying training and circuits.
20 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
3.38 It is not part of our brief to assess these complaints or the implications of flying activity on the lives of residents. We confine our comments here to the nature of airfield operations giving rise to these complaints. In particular, the residents indicated that they were annoyed by aircraft noise and general movement levels, with particular concern being expressed over the perceived higher risks associated with aerobatics activity.
3.39 When analysing the complaints, it needs to be borne in mind that the area is subject to a high level of flying activity, both from nearby RAF bases, but also from other licenced and unlicensed airfields. It appears to us that some of the movements recorded by residents may not be directly associated with Bagby Airfield. This is a common problem with airport complaints data.
3.40 Nonetheless, the local residents have valid concerns. It appears to us that the Airfield may not always behave as a good neighbour in the way that we have seen at other airfields. Within the Pooley’s Flight Guide23, the Airfield makes it clear that there must be no overflying of the villages of Bagby and Thirsk, and that circuits are to be flown to the south of the Airfield24. However, records by the local residents and one of the consultees on site indicated that these policies are not rigidly adhered to.
3.41 Ironically, it is possible that measures put in place to help reduce the noise impact through take-offs and landings may actually put further pressure on airborne noise. Typically take-offs are made in a westerly direction on runway 24, and landings are made in the opposite direction on runway 06. As a result, there is not the usual one-way circuit pattern around the Airfield and the potential for conflicts may mean that some aircraft may need to turn sharply right on take off to avoid a landing aircraft.
23 Published annually, Pooley’s Flight Guides contain detailed information regarding each significant airport/airfield in the UK 24 The circuit for the airfield does not necessarily imply aircraft repeatedly circling the airfield. In many cases pilots will enter the circuit to approach an airfield, or will enter the circuit on departure and then leave this in order to fly in their preferred direction.
York Aviation LLP 21 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
3.42 One aircraft in particular appears to dominate these complaints, that being G- SKYC, which as a high performance aircraft is known to climb steeply and make rapid turns away from the Airfield, including in the northerly direction over the village. The aerobatic activity over the airfield is clearly regarded as a nuisance by residents and this type of activity can be quite intrusive. It is not absolutely clear how much of the aerobatic activity takes place above the airfield and how much takes place away from Bagby. During the site visit, it was indicated that the aerobatic flying over the airfield typically only lasts 6-8 minutes when the pilot is practising a specific routine with a coach on the ground and that, outside of this, the pilot aims to undertake aerobatic activity elsewhere. This would be logical as aerobatics activity does not mix well with general movements. Nonetheless, given the uncertainty around the pattern of such operations, it would seem sensible to ensure the Airfield lays down some firm policies in relation to this activity. This will be discussed further in Section 6 of this report.
3.43 Helicopter activities bring variable difficulties for the residents. These aircraft are typically louder and more intrusive than fixed wing aircraft and are less likely to adhere to formalised approach and departure routes. The issue of hot-refuelling, i.e. where aircraft are refuelled with their engines running, has been highlighted as a particular concern by residents due to the prolonged period of continuous engine noise. These are legitimate concerns for which better controls may need to be put in place.
3.44 In some of the complaint letters and records, there is reference to flight training taking place, and that this is not permitted as the airfield is unlicensed. Whilst this has previously been the case, in April 2010 this requirement was removed and training is now permitted from unlicensed facilities.
3.45 Overall it appears that whilst policies are in place to protect the village of Bagby, these are not always adhered to. As with the aerobatic activity we believe that more certainty could be provided to the residents through planning controls such as Planning Conditions and Section 106 agreements, and again these will be considered in Section 6 of this report.
22 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
4 IMPLICATIONS OF COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTS
4.1 We understand that three elements of the overall proposals have already been completed which are now subject to Enforcement Notices. We understand these to be:
4 Development of Hangar E from the overall proposals;
4 Provision of concrete apron to the front of Hangar E;
4 Provision of concrete apron to the front of Hangar A;
4 Provision of extended concrete to part of the main East/West runway; and
4 The installation of the geo-textile matting on the main East/West runway.
4.2 Clearly, each of these works has been carried out in order to support some function at the Airfield for which facilities were previously deemed inadequate.
York Aviation LLP 23 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
4.3 On the first of these developments, Hangar E, this facility is used to house the Homeserve helicopter which is used as a private commuting aircraft for transporting the CEO of Homeserve between the company’s offices in the West Midlands and his home in North Yorkshire. As each of the other hangars is fully occupied, then it is likely that without this hangar this aircraft could not be based at Bagby and consequently most, if not all, of these movements would not have arisen without the development. Similarly the concrete to the front of this hangar may be considered essential to these operations as the based aircraft is on skids25 not wheels and so will need to be pulled out onto a firm surface with a wheeled unit. If the concrete area was not provided then the grass outside the hangar would be vulnerable to damage and rutting’ due to the type of wheeled-unit needed to move the helicopter putting large loads on intense areas of grass, which would lead to unreliability which in itself would restrict the number of movements possible from the hangar.
4.4 Similarly the new concrete area in front of Hangar A will have the same effect. Although Hangar A is used for general aircraft storage, it is anticipated that the concrete area is used by helicopters landing to refuel. By removing the unreliability of operations due to wet ground, the Airfield has opened the facility up to the potential for more movements.
4.5 During the site visit, it was highlighted that the additional concrete added to the hard area of the main runway was put in place to help road tankers delivering fuel to turn without impeding the operations of Swift TG or having to drive on grass (and potentially get stuck). These vehicles which are taking advantage of the turning area are delivering JET-A1 fuel to the fuel bowser stored on the southern side of the runway. Potentially, the vehicles could turn on the existing tarmac area to the front of the Swift TG hangar, but occasionally this area has aircraft parked on it, and so they are not able to turn on these occasions.
25 Skids are rails on which the aircraft sits rather than a conventional wheeled undercarriage and are typical of many helicopters.
24 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
4.6 It could be argued that once again this has led to an increase in movements because if the JET-A1 could not be delivered then helicopters would not be able to stop and refuel. However, in practice, it is unlikely that this would be the case. It is more probable that if the extra turning area was not provided then there would have to be more planning put in place to ensure the area to the front of the hangar is available at delivery times. This may be an inconvenience to Swift TG and so the extra concrete does no more than to ease operations on the site.
4.7 The matting on the runway is identified in the Signet Planning Statement26 as allowing safer and quieter take-offs and landings, particularly when the runway is wet. The Planning Statement disputes that the effect of the matting is to increase movements.
4.8 In order to better understand the reasons for airfields to lay the matting, we spoke with S2T Aviation, a supplier of this type of matting27. It was highlighted that such matting acts as an insurance policy against periods of wet weather, allowing operations on waterlogged or soft ground where the aircraft would normally dig into grass. The consultation revealed the following important elements:
4 The matting does not allow operations by heavier aircraft than could use the same grass runway; because:
− The ground under the runway still needs to hold up and would undermine the matting if it could not handle heavier aircraft;
− The matting provides no real benefit on very dry summer grass runways and so the maximum weight of aircraft would still be determined by the capability of the grass airfield;
4 The matting does allow an extension of the flying season, or at least brings greater reliability through the winter, because it prevents the surface of the ground from being damaged/becoming rutted and muddy, and it provides more friction than wet grass airstrips;
26 Planning Statement in Support of Revised Planning Application at Bagby Airfield, Signet Planning, 17th May 2010, Page 7 27 Telephone conversation with Trevor Archer on Wednesday 26th January 2011
York Aviation LLP 25 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
4 The extra friction and hard surface of the matting can improve runway performance28 as aircraft will have more grip and can accelerate more quickly, and potentially with less power29. This makes the noise footprint more like that of the summer months; and
4 The matting does not generate any more noise than hard ground on a runway in the summer.
4.9 In discussion, airfield management said that it considers the matting to bring operational reliability and improvements in safety. This is clearly true, but we believe this has the potential to increase overall movements for the following reasons:
4 If the Airfield is safer in wet conditions, it will encourage more people to fly at times they may not ordinarily have done so because they will not risk damage to their aircraft (or injury to themselves) to the same extent, particularly inbound aircraft for maintenance etc; and
4 If the season is extended and Airfield closes less often there is, by default, more opportunity for flying to take place. It would be naïve to suggest that flights made possible by the new matting in wet conditions would simply divert away from flights in better conditions.
4.10 Both maintenance firms on site identified that the matting has brought more stability to their operations by extending the season of peak operations and allowing more reliable operations throughout the remainder of the year. In the case of Graham Fox, this was considered beneficial but not crucial as, prior to the matting being in place, they had still got aircraft in and out during the winter but had to time it to coincide with appropriate weather conditions.
28 S2T Aviation claim that it can reduce by half the runway length needed for some aircraft on wet runways. 29 On wet grass runways aircraft must operate towards the top end of their power performance in order to get to the speeds necessary for take-off.
26 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
4.11 For Swift TG, the matting is almost essential as the nature of the aircraft they serve often means they are often more valuable than those maintained by Graham Fox and, therefore, the owners demand greater operational safety and better reliability. In this respect, the matting must be considered to increase the number of movements associated with Swift TG because without it they would not be able to retain certain customers. This is highlighted by the fact that recently Swift TG have lost some maintenance customers as they have been unhappy with the remaining infrastructure, notably the grass taxiway and have chosen not to use Bagby during the winter.
4.12 Having experienced a reduction in the number of based aircraft, it is probable that even if the matting has resulted in increased movements by each based aircraft, it has not brought traffic levels back to those experienced with 44-50 based aircraft in 2008. However, once the new hangar facilities are constructed, and potentially additional based aircraft attracted, it seems likely that the provision of the matting will result in higher movements than would otherwise be the case.
4.13 In the absence of clear information regarding the Applicant’s future intentions in terms of attracting additional aircraft, it is possible that a movement cap may serve to negate the benefits of having installed the matting30. However, the provision of the matting, extending the operating season, means that movements within any annual cap, would be spread more evenly over the year, less dominated by the absolute summer peak. This may have some benefits in terms of nuisance to nearby residents.
30 Planning Statement in Support of Revised Planning Application at Bagby Airfield, Signet Planning, 17th May 2010, Page 7
York Aviation LLP 27 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
5 IMPLICATIONS OF THE TOTAL SCHEME
5.1 In addition to the works already completed there are a number of other elements of the applications and subject to appeal. These are:
4 Extension to an aircraft hangar (an increase of 198m2);
4 New maintenance workshop (804m2);
4 New fuel stops with capacity for 40,000 litres of Avgas and 40,000 litres of JET-A1;
4 Five new hangars of 300m2 (of which one has been built already);
4 One new hangar of 520m2;
4 Replacement clubhouse including 3 overnight en-suite rooms.
5.2 There are also a number of other aspects to the applications, covering surface access, landscaping and ground works. It is not part of our brief to assess the adequacy of these measures.
5.3 Once again, assessing the impact of each of the proposed development is to an extent speculative due to the lack of information related to probable uses supplied as part of the Application. There are also interactions with already completed works as discussed in Section 4 of this report.
5.4 With respect to the clubhouse, it is not clear why such a large replacement building is being proposed. The club membership has dwindled in recent years, dropping from 130 in 200831 to around 60-70 members currently32. It is possible that the separation of some internal facilities, such as the restaurant from the bar, may account for a significant increase in floor space, but it is more likely that the facility is designed to allow an increase in club membership. Given previous membership levels, this would seem plausible, but would bring about extra flying over the current levels.
31 Bagby Airfield Movements Report, P.A. Pritchett BSc ACA, 16th June 2008 (incorrectly dated 16th June 2006), Page 5 32 As discussed during the site visit
28 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
5.5 The hangarage to be provided will lift the floor area from 3251m2 to 4283m2, an increase of 1032m2, or 32%. Prima facie, this appears to be a large increase in hangarage. We would concur with the statement by the Applicant that aircraft on site are likely to require between 80-100m2 of space each, and indeed the current 198m2 Hangar A housed two aircraft at the time of my visit and would be deemed as full.
5.6 It is necessary to consider the proposed use of each hangar to determine the possible effects on the Airfield. In the main, the hangars are proposed for aircraft storage. The exceptions to this are:
4 Hangar B, which will have half of its floor area available for aircraft maintenance and half available for storage. This is the current arrangement and so will lead to no change;
4 Hangar D, which will have half of its floor area given over to Graham Fox and the remaining half available for aircraft storage (possibly for use by the owner).
5.7 We already anticipate an increase in capability for Graham Fox as a result of this proposal and consequently, with most of his business being for non- based aircraft, it is only fair to assume that this will lead to some additional growth in movements.
5.8 There will therefore be almost 3,500m2 for aircraft storage. The Applicants have appropriately suggested that, based on a range of 80-100m2 per aircraft, there will be space for between 35-45 aircraft on site.
5.9 With approximately 30-33 aircraft based on site currently, the new hangarage would provide relatively limited additional storage at the lower end of the estimate, and providing aircraft currently parked outside are brought into the hangars. It seems likely that this could happen for two reasons:
4 There is an increasing desire by aircraft owners to park their aircraft in hangars rather than in the open. Part of this appears to be the result of pressure from insurance companies; and
4 The existing grass parking area to the south of the runway may present an obstacle for the proposed helipad at the western end of the hangars.
York Aviation LLP 29 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
5.10 It is likely that as a measure to prevent uncontrollable growth, a planning condition could be considered which would prevent the storage of aircraft outside.
5.11 With 30-33 aircraft, the movements are likely to remain below the peak levels that may have been experienced at the time when there were 44 based aircraft on site, even allowing for any increase associated with the matting. However with 45 aircraft on site, there is potential for movements to reach the same level as previously seen, and these could be bolstered by both the extra maintenance facilities available to Graham Fox, and the extra reliability of the matting on the runway. On this basis, it is impossible to see how the movements would not grow over historic levels without some form of movement cap control which will be considered in Section 6..
5.12 In relation to the fuel storage and distribution points, it would appear to us that the Avgas point, whilst closer to the village is unlikely to generate any significant issues in itself, particularly as most of these aircraft will shut down their engines to refuel. The only possible downside of this location is that it may increase the amount of taxiing on site. Currently, many of the aircraft are stored close to the fuel facility, or at least pass it on their way back to their hangars. With the new provision of hangars to the south of the runway this will mean dedicated taxiing to the north of the runway for fuel. Given that some of the residents have highlighted taxiing aircraft as a problem then this could give rise to further concerns.
5.13 The relocation of the JET-A1 fuel storage facility, and the associated helipad should help reduce the impact on the village of noise associated with helicopter movements, albeit they will be displaced closer to properties at the western end of the airfield. The proposed location may also allow better controls to be placed on the approach and departure paths of these aircraft, which will be considered in Section 6.
30 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
6 PLANNING CONTROLS AND CONDITIONS
6.1 In considering potential planning controls over any development at Bagby, it is necessary to consider the options available to the Planning Authority and Planning Inspectorate. Importantly, it must be noted that it is not possible to impose planning conditions in relation to aircraft once they are airborne as they fall under the Air Navigation Order once in the air. Therefore planning conditions can only be used to control the overall operation of the facility, or the way aircraft behave on the ground. Also, the imposition of conditions must relate directly to the implications of the development (see Circular 11/95). Hence, the importance of being clear what those implications are.
6.2 It is possible to seek ‘Best Endeavours’, perhaps through a Section 106 Agreement, to control airborne movements through the Airfield operator who can specify the way in which they would like aircraft to operate when using the Airfield. However, it is still not possible for the Airfield to control completely the behaviour of pilots for the same reason that it is not possible to apply Planning Conditions. Therefore, the Airfield can only control airborne activity through sanctions against pilots who knowingly or repeatedly do not adhere to the policies. By seeking to control this behaviour through a Section 106 Agreement, the Applicant would be obliged to ensure they apply controls to their operations.
6.3 This would not mean an absolute guarantee of all movements adhering fully to the prescribed flight procedures for a number of reasons, including:
4 Pilots unfamiliar with the Airfield may not identify landmarks correctly, particularly if these are used as waypoints;
4 Pilots need to be able to take actions to ensure their safety and the safety of ground users which may mean in exceptional circumstances they will need to deviate away from the flight procedures;
4 Inexperienced pilots, particularly those still building their operational hours, may not follow flight procedures with complete accuracy as their priority may be focused elsewhere until they gain more confidence and skills.
York Aviation LLP 31 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
6.4 It would be assumed that the first and last of these reasons would not apply to experienced pilots based at Bagby, who will generate the majority of movements. These pilots may have to deviate away from the flight procedures in exceptional circumstances where aircraft performance, flight safety or weather conditions require it, but that there should be no reason for this to be a regular occurrence. In particular, if procedures were more tightly enforced by Bagby Airfield, then the most experienced pilots, such as the owner of G-SKYC would have very little reason to fly in any way other than that set by the Airfield.
6.5 With these points in mind, we have reviewed the Planning Conditions proposed by the Applicant and consider further measures for control which could bring some certainty of operations to the local residents.
6.6 The Applicant outlined a number of proposed conditions that they would be happy to accept, these were:
4 Exclusion of aircraft activity from an area to the north side of the East- West runway;
4 An overall restriction on annual movements to 8,320, equating to 160 movements per week, with the option to ‘bank’ unused movements to allow for peaks in the year;
4 A comprehensive system of monitoring flight activity which would be available to the Council and the Consultative Committee (see below);
4 A restriction on the number of movements by helicopters to 15% of the total;
4 A restriction on weekend movements by helicopters (except on Fly –In days) to no more than 16 movements;
4 No more than two helicopter movements after 9pm at night, and none after 11pm. No movements before 7am;
4 Restricted use of runway 15/33 to four movements per week and in emergencies;
4 No movements between 11pm and 7am the following morning, except in emergencies;
32 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
4 Restricted use of the three bedrooms for those using the Airfield;
4 Restricted use of half of Hangar B and half of Hangar D for businesses involved in or servicing the aviation sector;
4 Prevention of any hard surfacing of runway, and the extension of the matting not to be provided until movement levels have been agreed33;
4 A restriction to a maximum of three Fly-In days per year, with movements on these days excluded from the overall and weekly movement limits;
4 A restriction to prevent the Airfield being used by fixed wing jet aircraft;
4 Establishing a Consultative Committee to comprise District and Parish Council, Airfield (and possibly other) representatives which will establish a code of conduct for flight procedures and practices covering: − Restrictions on aerobatic flying over the village;
− Definitions of where circuits should be flown;
− System of warning for pilots who breach the Code of Conduct;
− Banning pilots who repeatedly breach the Code of Conduct;
− Reporting pilots who repeatedly break the Code of Conduct to the CAA.
6.7 We believe that the conditions proposed by the Airfield are well thought through in principle and overall would go a long way to controlling activity at the Airfield, in a manner which is capable of enforcement by the Planning Authority.
6.8 Circular 11/95 sets out the tests which must be passed for Planning Conditions to be imposed and which are particularly important in the context of this application and appeal.
33 Clearly the retrospective application and enforcement notice in relation to the matting means that this is difficult to now determine.
York Aviation LLP 33 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
6.9 Clearly one of the most significant conditions is to re-establish a movement limit for the Airfield as previous limits lapsed with the change in ownership and given the passage of time. Given the uncertainty over historic movement levels, it will be difficult to establish what the movement limit should be in relation to these. Our earlier analysis would suggest that there is insufficient certainty in the way the Appellant’s calculations have been undertaken to allow these to be used as the basis for determining the movement levels. It is therefore for the Planning Authority to decide what they believe to be acceptable based upon the information provided by the Appellant.
6.10 It will be important that detailed records will be kept of movements, and we would suggest that weekly or monthly statistics should be provided to the Planning Authority as part of a S106 Agreement to ensure movements can be monitored in more detail than previously.
6.11 A further control on movements can also be put in place through restrictions on outside parking of aircraft. By not allowing this, except for limited storage by the maintenance companies, would ensure that the known aircraft storage capacity of the Airfield can be understood, and in the levels discussed in Section 5, i.e. 35-45 aircraft.
6.12 The restrictions proposed in relation to helicopter movements appear a good compromise. Once again, a general lack of historical data or forward forecasts mean that understanding whether the restrictions on overall movement levels and evening/weekend movements are appropriate, and whether this provides scope for additional growth for these activities, is not entirely clear. We note that between the submission of the Signet Planning Statement in May 2010 and the Committee Report being compiled in August 2010, negotiations had led to some reduction in the maximum level of activity proposed by helicopters and greater restrictions on weekend movements. It may be interesting to establish whether tighter time restrictions could be added for weekend helicopter movements, i.e. no movements outside of the period 8am-7pm; the smaller this window of operation, the greater the benefits to the local community.
6.13 During the site visit, we also tested the possibility of no hot refuelling of helicopters with the Airfield and they agreed that if this was imposed a condition it could be implemented easily. We would therefore suggest that this be added as a condition if approval is to be granted as this would remove many a significant operation of concern to local residents.
34 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
6.14 The establishment of a Consultative Committee with whom new Flight Procedures will be established is a sensible suggestion as a condition by the Airfield. This is good practice and a number of other airfields we have consulted with operate such committees, which help them to be good neighbours. The suggested areas for the development of new operational practices and procedures appear sensible. Furthermore, the development of such practices and procedures, and their agreement by the Council, could form part of a S106 Agreement as highlighted earlier in this section. It is probably not sufficient to allow the Consultative Committee to try to enforce these operations due to apparent levels of tension directed towards to Airfield, and so the S106 Agreement would bring some greater level of control and certainty.
6.15 We are not in a position to propose specific flight procedures as these require to be developed with greater knowledge of the airspace and operational restrictions. It will be important that safety is maintained at all times. Areas to be considered would include:
4 We consider that there may be merit in revisiting the runway use pattern, i.e. the use of Runway 24 for departures and Runway 06 for arrivals. As identified earlier in this report, this makes the setting of the circuit difficult and indeed difficult for aircraft to keep to, particularly on departure, which may be generating overflying of the village or at least manoeuvres which bring aircraft unnecessarily close to the populated area. This suggestion would need to be considered in detail because whilst residents may benefit from the security of no movements over the village, they may feel they will miss out with regards to increased noise during take-off and landing at the ‘24’ end of the main runway. Consideration of this proposal would require the airfield to identify the prevailing winds which would indicate the most likely direction of operations. If this would lead to the majority of landings being downhill (i.e. on Runway 24) or take-offs being uphill (i.e. on Runway 06) then it would be necessary for the Airfield to establish whether this is practical operationally for the aircraft based on site.
York Aviation LLP 35 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
The benefit that would be derived from this is a containable circuit to the south of the Airfield with no complications about joining or leaving due to traffic flying in the opposite direction. This would generate a set turn left on departure from Runway 24 or right from Runway 06, but would mean the only time there should be any deviation from this would be in circumstances where a pilot has to turn the opposite direction for safety reasons. Local residents would have to accept however that in strong winds the direction of runway operation may occasionally need to change.
The ability to use the circuit is particularly pertinent at Bagby because there can no ‘overhead joins’ to the circuit due to the airspace above the Airfield being Military Air Traffic Zone (MATZ) which means aircraft are likely at times to be forced to find any route possible into and out of Bagby.
4 Within Pooleys, there is no indication of flight procedures specific to helicopters and we would suggest that suitable routings be put in place to ensure they approach the helipad in a manner which causes the lowest possible impact on the village of Bagby. This may involve approaches to the helipad by overflying the length of the runway and then turning from the runway to the helipad. Again, it is suggested that the Airfield would have to consider what would best work in this location, although we know this type of procedure is imposed at other airfields.
4 A further consideration for flight procedures would be that departing aircraft must, once airborne, fly along the centreline of the runway until they pass the threshold at the opposite end. This would ensure no early turns, particularly if it is not possible to set all movements in a single direction. This would have implications for departures on Runway 06 as this may keep aircraft parallel to the village for longer, and again this operation would need to be considered with the Consultative Committee.
36 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
4 With respect to aerobatics, we would suggest that the Consultative Committee consider a scheme whereby aerobatic activity is not permitted at the Airfield except on a set number of occasions over a year. During consultations, it was highlighted that some airfields do not allow aerobatics within their Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) which is a radius of 2 miles from the centre point of the runway for licenced runways under 1800metres long. Whilst Bagby Airfield is not licenced, it would may be that the same principle could be adopted. Given the historic use of the facility for some aerobatic training it may not be suitable to completely restrict this activity as there are occasions when it is necessary to carry out short practice routines overhead of the Airfield. Therefore a limit on the number of occasions this can happen could be set, and the occurrence could be logged with the movement logs and provided to the Planning Authority weekly/monthly. This would also allow complaints to be dealt with by referring to the exact event.
We would suggest that under no circumstances should these activities take place over the village of Bagby, and perhaps a boundary line running along the northern edge of the main runway could be set as the most northerly point to which aerobatics can take place over the Airfield. Again this would require the detailed understanding of these operations to find a firm solution.
4 Finally, we would suggest that when aircraft carry out non-standard approaches and departures or do not follow flight procedures, every event must be logged and reported to the Planning Authority. This could be done as part of the overall monitoring of movements, although may merit a specialised form which could outline the nature of the event, the reason it occurred and any follow up from the Airfield to the pilot.
York Aviation LLP 37 Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 In assessing the potential development at Bagby Airfield, we have found that there has been significant confusion surrounding the current and historic movements at the Airfield and little indication of the impact on movements associated with the developments. We believe that an inaccurate analysis of the movement levels has been provided by the Applicant and that these probably overstate the activity historically at the Airfield.
7.2 We believe that the Application does not provide adequate justification of the need for development and that this makes it impossible to establish the impacts it will have. It is likely that there are alternative airfields and sites which could provide facilities to meet the needs of current or potential users of Bagby Airfield.
7.3 The works already completed, and subject to Enforcement Notices are likely to have caused some increase in movements due to improved reliability of the Airfield during poorer weather conditions. The overall number of movements may still not exceed some historic levels, but is likely to be higher than if the facilities were not in place i.e. the assumed baseline with the current level of based aircraft.
7.4 The provision of significant new hangar capacity could lead to further increases in based aircraft perhaps back to historic peak levels, which will therefore bring movement levels closer to probable historic peaks. The addition of matting to the runway could allow more movements for the equivalent number of based aircraft and so when combined with the hangarage there is a risk that movement levels will grow above what has been handled previously.
7.5 If approval is to be granted, we recommend that through Planning Controls, the Local Authority puts in place firm measures to control the activity of the Airfield both in the nature of operations and the level of activity permitted. We believe that the Airfield’s intention to set up operating procedures through consultation with a Consultative Committee is appropriate, but that the requirement to do so and to enforce the agreed procedures should be included as part of a Section 106 agreement to ensure the Airfield enforces correct flight procedures where possible.
38 York Aviation LLP Hambleton District Council Bagby Airfield Assessment
7.6 We believe that the movement calculations provided by the Appellant may not be robust and our view is that in 2008, the Airfield may have generated just under 6,100 movements in the year, and based on current operations is likely to generate around 5,600 movements per annum. We suggest that, as there are clear discrepancies and unknowns associated with movement levels, in determining a related Planning Condition, it is for the Planning Authority to determine the levels they feel are appropriate resulting from the Development.
7.7 Other than this, we believe that the Applicant has suggested a set of conditions which would be appropriate for this Airfield, and which are reflective of the nature of conditions imposed at other Airfields. We would recommend supplementing these with a condition preventing the external storage of aircraft except for limited use by the maintenance companies.
York Aviation LLP 39
APPENDIX A:
YORK AVIATION EXPERIENCE IN GENERAL AVIATION
• Cumbria Inward Investment Agency: Feasibility study of operating helicopter services from West Cumbria (2003-2004);
• St Helens Council: Feasibility study for the extension of operations at Haydock Park Racecourse airfield (2004);
• IDAS: Review of possible interaction between Barton (Manchester) Aerodrome and a potential housing development (2004):
• TAG Farnborough: Preparation of advice on the business aviation market in relation to the case for a planning application for an increase in movements at Farnborough Airport (2006-2007);
• Carter Jonas LLP: Viability and market potential assessment of Peterborough Connington Airfield on behalf of a potential investor (2007);
• Tewkesbury Borough Council: Assessment of Planning Application and appraisal of demand and need for expansion of facilities at Gloucestershire Airport (Business Aviation) (2008);
• North Somerset Council: Review of possible interaction between the Weston-super-Mare Helicopter Museum and a potential housing development (2008);
• Elvington Aerodrome: Preparation of evidence for a Public Inquiry into a proposed hangar development at the Airfield, near York (2008);
• Southeast of England Development Agency (SEEDA): To identify the current level of aviation activity at Lee-On-Solent Airfield and to assess the restrictions and constraints of airfield activity along with provision of forecasts for potential future growth (2010-2011)
APPENDIX B:
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
• Bagby Airfield Movements Report, P.A. Pritchett BSc ACA, 16th June 2008 (incorrectly dated 16th June 2006).
• Planning Statement in Support of Revised Planning Application at Bagby Airfield, Signet Planning, 17th May 2010
• Bagby Airfield Design and Access Statement, FPCR Environment and Design Ltd, May 2010
• Aircraft at Bagby 2008, Paul Pritchett to Tim Wood, 18th June 2008
• Air Traffic Movements Letter, Paul Pritchett to Tim Wood, 17th June 2008
• Bagby Airfield Activity, featuring observations 4th April – 5th July 2009, Joy Swithenbank
• Planning Committee Report for 10/01272/FUL, Mr T J Wood, 19th August 2010
APPENDIX C:
PLAN OF ALTERNATIVE AIRFIELD LOCATIONS
Bagby Airfield, Alternative Airfields
Key: 1: Bagby Airfield 2. RAF Dishforth 3. Felixkirk 4. Husthwaite 5. South Otterington 6. Sutton Bank 7. RAF Topcliffe 8. Fadmoor 9. Kirkbymoorside 10. RAF Leeming 11. RAF Linton on Ouse 12. Wombleton
Source: Microsoft MapPoint/York Aviation