Mr M Scott, Bagby Airfield, Bagby, Thirsk, North - Hambleton District ...

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

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

Appeal by Mr M Scott against the refusal of planning permission and 

service of Enforcement Notice relating to development at Bagby Airfield. 

PROOF OF EVIDENCE 

By 

Tim Wood 

Hambleton District Council 

Planning Inspectorate Reference 

APP/G2713/A/10/2136646/NWF 

APP/G2713/A/10/2123183/NWF 

Local Planning Authority References 

Local Planning Authority Enforcement Notice 

10/01272/FUL 

09/03959/FUL 

09/04039/FUL 

09/00026/ENF_A 

March 2011 

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

Contents 

Page Subject 

5 Introduction 

6 Overview 

12 The Appeals 

15 The main appeal 

16 Planning Policy Background 

17 Regional Spatial Strategy 

17 Hambleton LDF Core Strategy 

18 Hambleton LDF Development Policies 

19 Allocation Document 

20 Consideration of National Planning Policy Guidance 

20 PPS1 

21 PPS4 

24 PPS4 and the PPS1 supplement on Climate Change 

26 PPS7 

27 PPG13 

30 PPG18 

30 PPG24 

33 Consideration of the Hambleton Local Development Framework 

Core Strategy Policies 

33 Exceptional case test CP1, CP2, CP4 

35 CP15 

36 CP16 

37 CP21 

37 Consideration of the Hambleton Local Development Framework 

Development Policies 

37 DP1 

38 DP25 

38 DP30 

39 DP44 

39 Lawful Use 

40 What evidence do we actually have? 

41 Continuous use of the airfield 

42 Evidence from external source – As stated on the application 

forms 


43 Evidence from external source - Flight data provided with the 

2008 application 

43 Survey data from August 2008 

43 Planning Statement with the 2010 application 

45 Assessment by Mr Thomas Brown of the 2008 movements 

report 

46 Flight numbers reported by others 

46 The parameters to flight numbers 

48 Legal opinions 

49 Conclusions on lawful use 

53 Recent and Related Planning Applications 

53 Issue based assessments 

53 Amenity 

57 Business Case 

61 Landscape 

65 Visual impact from Bagby Lane 

65 Visual impact on Play Area and Open Space, Bagby 

Lane 

66 Conclusions on visual amenity 

66 Use of Bagby Lane by HCV’s associated with Bagby Airfield 

67 Conditions 

67 Enforcement Notice 

68 The Ground A appeal 

68 The Ground C appeal 

69 The Ground F appeal 

70 The Ground G appeal 

70 Conclusion 

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

Table 2 Lawful flight numbers 


Appendices to this Proof 

1 York Aviation statement 

2 Planning history narrative and copy documents 

3 Buildings with planning permission – table and plan 

4 Buildings and structures without planning permission but immune from 

planning enforcement action – table and plan 

5 Buildings and engineering operations the subject of the 2009 enforcement 

notice – table and plan 

6 Building, use and engineering operations not included in the 2009 

enforcement notice 

7 Structure not requiring planning permission 

8 Composite plan of those in appendices 4 - 7 

9 Planning Committee report 

10 The 2010 decision notice 

11 Commentary on the Cala Homes decision 

12 Extent of Lawful Airfield the 1976 application site boundary (planning 

committee report appendix 3 plan also shows this information) 

13 The extended north south runway – (planning committee report appendix 5 

shows this information) 

14 Legal opinion David Cooper 

15 Legal opinion Lockhart Mummery on instruction from David Cooper 

16 Legal opinion Walker Morris on instruction from Signet planning for the 

appellant 

17 Legal opinion Martyn Richards 

18 Assessment by Thomas Brown 

19 High Court Challenge to the Allocations document by Mr E Barker 

20 Hambleton District Council - Enforcement and Compliance Policy (June 2008) 

21 Aerial photograph of Bagby Airfield circa 1995-1997 

22 Bus Routes and timetables 

23 Bagby distances to nearby settlements 


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

Appeal by Mr M Scott 

STATEMENT OF 

Mr. Timothy J. Wood 

on behalf of the Local Planning Authority 

Introduction 

1. I am Timothy John Wood. I am the Development Manager employed by the 

Local Planning Authority (LPA). My qualifications are BSc (Hons) Environment 

Planning and I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I have been 

employed as a planning officer with Hambleton District Council since 1989. 

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

3. My evidence addresses those national and development plan policies and 

other material considerations relevant to assessing the merits of the proposed 

development. The main issues covered relate to: the impact of the operation of 

proposed airfield development on amenity of the neighbouring population, the 

lack of support that the proposal would give to sustain the rural community and 

the harmful impact of the proposal on the visual amenity of the landscape. 

4. York Aviation has been commissioned by the Local Planning Authority to 

provide expert advice in relation to General Aviation. The York Aviation 

statement appended to this proof (Appendix TW1) demonstrates that the 

unauthorised development will have already given rise to a significant 

deterioration in the amenity of the neighbouring population and the proposal has 

potential to further harm the amenity of population due to the increased use of the 

airfield. 

5. Joy Swithenbank, Environmental Health Officer at Hambleton District 

Council will appear as an expert witness in relation to noise impact also due to 

the rise in the number of aircraft movements at the airfield that has arisen from 

the unauthorised development and which would further increase as a 

consequence of the development proposed. 


6. I prepared a report to the Planning Committee (Appendix 9) which 

proposed a grant of planning permission. My professional view has not changed. 

As I made explicit in my presentation to members of the Planning Committee 

there is more than one means of controlling the future activity at Bagby Airfield. 

Either approval subject to appropriate conditions or refusal of the planning 

applications and enforcement of the breaches of planning control could address 

the impacts of the current and future operation of the airfield. I considered a 

balanced planning judgment was required in determining the application. On 

balance, Members of the Planning Committee refused planning permission and 

my evidence seeks to explain and support the decision of the Planning 

Committee. 

7. Overview 

8. The Appeal Site (“the Site”) has an area of 17.82 hectares (44.03 acres). At 

one time, the Site was part of an agricultural holding. The extent of land used as 

the airfield has changed overtime. Initially the grass landing strip extended 

further west than is currently the case and was extended eastwards in April 1999. 

A summertime aerial photograph (Appendix 21) taken sometime between 1995 

and 1997 from a position to the south west of the airfield shows the western end 

extending further that it does at present and further than was shown in either the 

1976 or 2010 application site boundaries (see Appendix 12), the eastern 

extension stated to have first been in use on 1 st April 1998 is evident. The aerial 

photograph also shows the land in the position of the current north south runway 

to be in cultivation and not available as a grass runway. The central area of the 

airfield has a longstanding use as an airfield. It was first used as a base for flying 

activity around the beginning of the 1970’s. A planning permission was granted 

on 29 July 1976 on a personal basis to two local pilots Mr Whiting and Mr J P 

Lassey. The description used was “Increased use of an existing grass airstrip for 

private flying”. Subsequent approvals have consolidated the use of the land as 

an airfield by the addition of hangars and facilities for refuelling and club house. 

Other activities have been undertaken at the airfield including the servicing and 

repair of aircraft though no planning permission has been granted for such use. 

9. Beyond the boundaries of the site the land is in agricultural use except for 

the children’s play area which is located to the northern edge of the site. The 


play area incorporates fixed pieces of equipment some of them raised above 

ground level as well seats and landscaped grounds to provide a high quality of 

visual as well as recreational amenity to the play area. The recreational facilities 

include equipment and facilities to cater for a range of ages from the young child 

to teenager 

10. The village of Bagby is mainly to the north and north east of the appeal site. 

There are also dwellings to the south and south west of the appeal site that are 

affected by activities at the airfield. Flying activities arising from the operation of 

the airfield also impact upon a wider area of villages within the Vale of York 

particularly to the south of Thirsk. 

11. The proposal is to demolish all of the old buildings on the Site except for the 

largest aircraft hangar and replace them with a new range of hangars and 

clubhouse and form new access to the site. Two modern hangars will also be 

retained. The scheme would result in a mixed use development comprising 

airfield club house and other airfield facilities including aircraft maintenance. 

12. During the growth of the airfield, applications have been made for the use of 

the grass air strip and for the construction of hangars and fuel. Full details of the 

history are contained in the Appendix 2. This Appendix provides copies of the 

Decision Notices and a narrative relating to the proposals. 

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

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

Date of 

decision 

Planning 

reference 

number 

Details of the scheme 

27.09.1973 4/3/2568 Construction of a light aircraft 

hangar in OS field 124 and the 

use of the grass runway for light 

aircraft. 

Outcome 

Granted 

(OS field 124 was a strip of land 


north west of parallel to and 

adjoining fields 125 and 123) 

29.07.1976 2/9/15PA Increased use of an existing 

grass airstrip for private flying at 

OS Fields 125, 123 and 86 

Bagby. 

Personal to Mr Whiting and Mr 

Lassey 

No more than six take-offs and 

landings shall take place in any 

one week and these shall be 

restricted to between the hours 

of 0600 and 2300 

29.05.1980 2/9/15A/PA Increase in use of an existing 

grass airstrip for private flying at 

OS 125, 123 and 86 Bagby. 

Personal to Mr Lassey, aircraft 

owned by him or on site with his 

authority 

No more than 40 take-offs and 

40 landings in any one week 

between the hours of 0600 and 

2300 

20.06.1986 2/86/009/0015B Variation to allow 200 flights per 

month 

01.09.1986 2/86/009/0015C Construction of a clubhouse 

and 5 hangar buildings 

01.09.1986 2/86/009/0015D Variation to allow 60 take-offs 

and 60 landings in any 7 day 

period 

06.11.1986 2/86/009/0015E Retention of existing hangar 

buildings 

Personal permission to Mr 

Lassey 

Granted 

Granted 

Refused 

Refused 

Refused 

Granted 


Personal condition removed on 

appeal 

A note in the appeal statement 

in respect of the appeal against 

the personal permission 

condition states that the 

application 2/86/009/0015C was 

refused by virtue of the 

inclusion of the clubhouse, this 

application did not include a 

clubhouse and Members were 

of the opinion that a refusal of 

consent for the hangar buildings 

only was not justified subject to 

a condition requiring the 

removal of the buildings when 

the use as an airfield ceased. 

04.11.1986 2/96/009/0015F Siting of a portakabin for use as 

an office/aircraft control facility/ 

toilet/ restroom 

Personal permission to Mr 

Lassey and those using the 

facility with his authority 

26.06.1987 2/87/009/0015G Construction of an aircraft 

hangar 

06.05.1988 2/88/009/0015H Construction of an aircraft 

hangar 

01.06.1989 2/89/009/0015J Installation of an underground 

fuel storage tank and a fuel 

pump 

Granted 

Refused 

Granted 

Granted 

Only to be used for the 

refuelling of aircraft and shall 

not be used for any other 

purpose not ancillary to the use 

of Bagby Airfield 


27.07.1990 2/90/009/0015K Construction of a building for 

the storage of light aircraft 

22.08.2005 2/05/009/0015N Change of use of agricultural 

building to agricultural and 

aircraft hangar 

17.05.2006 06/00482/FUL Construction of an aircraft 

hangar 

Granted 

Granted 

Granted 

16.10.2008 08/01109/FUL Construction of replacement 

clubhouse with leisure facilities 

“2008” scheme and 

accommodation, 

construction of 7 hangars with 

associated works, extension to 

existing hangar, siting of 4 wind 

turbines, new vehicular access 

and landscaping works 

28.04.2009 09/00231/FUL Revised application for the 

construction of replacement 

“2009” scheme clubhouse with leisure facilities 

and 

accommodation, 

construction of a workshop, 6 

hangars with associated works, 

extension to existing hangar, 

siting of 4 No 3 metre diameter 

hangar roof mounted wind 

turbines, new vehicular access 

and landscaping works 

09.02.2010 09/03959/FUL Retrospective application for 

provision of geo-textile matting 

and concrete apron 

10.02.2010 09/04039/FUL Replacement helicopter landing 

pad and jet fuel stop facility 

03.09.2010 10/01272/FUL Revised planning application 

on Bagby Airfield comprising an 

“2010” scheme airfield clubhouse with three 

Withdrawn 

Refused, 

Appeal 

withdrawn 

Refused, 

subject of 

this appeal 

Refused, 

subject of 

this appeal 

Refused, 

subject of 

this appeal 


edrooms new/extended 

hangars with concrete aprons, 

new workshop/maintenance 

hangar artificial matting area on 

main runway relocated fuel line, 

access and car parking 

15. The buildings on the airfield that have the benefit of planning permission are 

contained in the table and plan at Appendix 3. There are other buildings and 

structures on the airfield that do not have planning permission but have been in 

existence for more than 4 years and are therefore immune from planning 

enforcement action these are contained in table and plan at Appendix 4. 

16. A further group of building and engineering operations on the airfield do not 

have planning permission, have not existed for more than 4 years, are not 

immune from planning enforcement action and have been the subject of a 

planning Enforcement Notice. These building and engineering operations are 

detailed in the table and plan at Appendix 5. 

17. In addition to the works in the Enforcement Notice the installation of a 

package treatment works to serve a static caravan that has been used for 

residential occupation but which is now vacant, the residential use of the static 

caravan, the Air Ambulance restroom toilet and package treatment and hangar A 

do not have the benefit of planning permission. These are contained in the table 

and plan at Appendix 6. 

18. The siting of the air ambulance restroom is currently considered to be a 

chattel and does not require planning permission the position of the restroom is 

shown on the plan at Appendix 7. 

19. A composite plan showing all of the above information together with the 

extent of the 2010 application site boundary and orientation of the east west 

runway with the labels 06/24 and the north south runway with the labels 15/33 is 

provided at Appendix 8. 


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

Parish Council 

The Appeals 

21. As detailed in the planning history at Table 1 above there have been 3 

applications submitted for comprehensive redevelopment of the airfield. The first 

the “2008 scheme” was withdrawn, the second the “2009 scheme” and third the 

“2010 scheme” were both refused planning permission. The “2009 scheme” was 

a “Revised application for the construction of replacement clubhouse with leisure 

facilities and accommodation, construction of a workshop, 6 hangars with 

associated works, extension to existing hangar, siting of 4 No 3 metre diameter 

hangar roof mounted wind turbines, new vehicular access and landscaping 

works” 

22. The appeal following the refusal of the “2009 scheme” has been withdrawn. 

The 2009 scheme was refused planning permission for the following reasons: 

1. The proposals are contrary to PPS 1 and the Local Development Framework 

Policies CP1, CP2, CP4 as it has not be shown to be necessary to meet the 

needs of tourism and that the hotel facilities could not be located with the 

Development Limits of a settlement in the hierarchy defined at CP4. 


Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1 and DP25 as it is not small in scale and has not 

been demonstrated to support the local economy which in turn would help sustain 

rural communities. Approval of the additional facilities would be likely to give rise 

to harm to the amenity of residents in the vicinity. 


Policies CP16 and DP30 as the proposal would harm to the character and 

appearance of the landscape. 

4. The proposals are contrary to the Local Development Framework Policies 

CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1 as approval of reinforcement to the runway, hardstanding 

and surfacing of the runway would increase the number of flights and weather 

conditions underwhich the runway could be used and which would fail to 

adequately protect the amenity of residents in the vicinity, particularly with regard 

to noise and disturbance as required by DP1. 

23. There are, therefore, 4 appeals which are detailed in this proof of evidence. 

Three of these relate to the three refusals of planning permission and the fourth 

in respect of the Enforcement Notice 


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

Inspectorate are:- 

The matting and concrete apron application 

(i) 09/03959/FUL following the refusal of a retrospective application for provision 

of geo-textile matting and concrete apron. 

Reason for refusal: 

1. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Framework Policies CP1, 

DP1 and CP4 as retrospective approval of geo-textile matting reinforcement to 

the runway and a concrete hangar apron would increase the number of flights 

and weather conditions under which the runway and hangar 'A' access could be 

used and which would fail to adequately protect or enhance the amenity of the 

population, particularly with regard to noise and disturbance as required by DP1. 

The refuelling facility application 

(ii) 09/04039/FUL following the refusal of an application for a replacement 

helicopter landing pad and jet fuel stop facility 

Reasons for refusal: 

1 The proposal is contrary to PPS7 and the Local Development 

Framework Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1 and DP25 as it has not been supported 

by a business case that demonstrates that support will be provided to the local 

economy which in turn would help sustain rural communities. 

2 The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Framework 

Policies CP1, DP1 and CP4 as the provision of an additional helicopter landing 

pad and jet refuelling facilities would increase the number of rotary wing flights 

that could be accommodated at the airfield which in turn would fail to adequately 

protect or enhance the amenity of the population, particularly with regard to noise 

and disturbance as required by DP1. 

3 It is considered that the proposal is contrary to Local Development 

Framework Policies CP1 as it would generate an adverse traffic impact on the 

local population due to the increased levels of heavy commercial vehicular 

access anticipated to be necessary to service the jet fuel stop, the access route 

to which is not defined. 

4 The proposal is contrary to PPS23 and Local Development 

Framework Policies CP1 as no details have been provided to demonstrate that 

the proposal will not give rise to spills that could pollute ground and surface water 

and no details have been provided to mitigate the risk of damage leading to a 

pollution event. 


(iii) The 2009 Enforcement Notice relating to 

(1) Without planning permission the unauthorised operational development 

comprising the construction of the aircraft hanger as shown edged blue and 

identified as hanger E on the attached plan. 


comprising the concreting of the apron to aircraft hanger E as shown edged 

green on the attached plan. 


comprising the concreting of the apron to the aircraft hanger marked A as shown 

edged pink on the attached plan. 


comprising the concreting of part of the main east west runway as shown edged 

yellow on the attached plan 

(5) Without planning permission the unauthorised engineering 

works/operational development comprising the installation of plastic geo-textile 

matting on the main east west runway as shown edged orange on the attached 

plan. 

The 2010 comprehensive redevelopment 

(iv) 10/01272/FUL following the refusal of a revised planning application 

comprising an airfield clubhouse with three bedrooms new/extended hangars with 

concrete aprons, new workshop/maintenance hangar artificial matting area on 

main runway relocated fuel line, access and car parking 

Reasons for refusal: 

1. The proposal is contrary to PPG24 and the Local Development Framework 

Policies CP1, DP1, CP4, CP21 and DP44 as the proposed development would 

give rise to a number of aircraft movements at the airfield that would fail to 

adequately protect or enhance the amenity of the population, particularly with 

regard to noise and disturbance as required by Policy DP1. 

2. The proposal is contrary to PPS4 and the Local Development Framework 

Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, CP1 and DP25 as it has not been supported by a 

business case that demonstrates that support will be provided to the local 

economy which in turn would help sustain rural communities. 

3. The proposal is contrary to PPS1 and PPS7 and the Local Development 

Framework Policies CP16 and DP30 as the proposal would have a harmful 

impact on the visual amenity of the landscape. 

25. The main application is the last of these; 10/01272/FUL which was 

registered as a valid application on 27 May 2010 having been received by 


Hambleton District Council on 18 May 2010. The 2010 proposal sought a 

comprehensive redevelopment of the site and included within it a repeat of the 

works sought by the first and second applications listed above as well as the 

works that were the subject of the Enforcement Notice. 

26. The main appeal 

27. The existing use of the Site was described in the “2010 scheme” application 

forms as “airfield, aircraft parking, storage, repair, maintenance, refuelling, aircraft 

hire, flying lessons, training, clubhouse with bar and dining facilities.” 

28. The application was accompanied by the following:- 

a. Planning Support Statement 

b. Statement of community involvement 

c. Design and Access Statement 

d. Landscape visual assessment 

e. Phase 1 Habitat and protected species survey 

f. Site location plan 

g. Landscape masterplan 

h. Site plan existing and demolition 

i. Survey photo’s existing hangars 

j. Proposed hangar plans, elevations and sections 

k. Proposed fuel stop elevations and plans 

l. A statement on sustainability 

m. An aircraft movement survey 

n. A site investigation report 

o. A flood risk/drainage report 

29. The application as already noted was a revised application. Being a 

replacement of application 08/01109/FUL that was withdrawn and application 

09/00231/FUL that was refused planning permission. The revised scheme was of 

reduced size as it removed the swimming pool, spa and leisure facilities and the 

restaurant and hotel bedrooms from the first scheme. 

30. The application was the subject of a member site visit and was resolved to 

be refused at the Planning Committee meeting on 19 August 2010 and refused 

by Decision Notice issued on 3 September 2010. 


31. A holding direction was issued by the Government Office for Yorkshire and 

the Humber on 17 August 2010 directing that the application was not to be 

granted permission without special authorisation. The Direction was issued to 

enable the Secretary of State to consider whether or not he should direct under 

Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the application 

should be referred to him for determination. 

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

33. The Decision Notice at Appendix 10 states that: 

1. The proposal is contrary to PPG24 and the Local Development Framework 

Policies CP1, DP1, CP4, CP21 and DP44 as the proposed development would 

give rise to a number of aircraft movements at the airfield that would fail to 

adequately protect or enhance the amenity of the population, particularly with 

regard to noise and disturbance as required by Policy DP1. 

2. The proposal is contrary to PPS4 and the Local Development Framework 

Policies CP1, CP2, CP4 and DP25 as it has not been supported by a business 

case that demonstrates that support will be provided to the local economy which 

in turn would help sustain rural communities. 

3. The proposal is contrary to PPS1 and PPS7 and the Local 

Development Framework Policies CP16 and DP30 as the proposal would have a 

harmful impact on the visual amenity of the landscape. 

34. The details of earlier applications and a synopsis of the history of Bagby 

Airfield which is pertinent to the appeals is at Appendix 2. 

35. Planning Policy Background 

36. Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) requires that 

if regard is to be had to the development plan in any determination, that 

determination shall be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations 

indicate otherwise. Section 38(5) requires that where policies in the development 

plan conflict the conflict must be resolved in favour of the last adopted document. 

37. The development plan for Hambleton comprises: 


(i) The Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and The Humber to 2026 

(Published May 2008) 

(ii) The Hambleton Local Development Framework Core Strategy April 

2007 

(iii) The Development Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) 

adopted February 2008 

(iv) The Allocations Development Plan Document adopted December 

2010 

38. Regional Spatial Strategy 

39. At the time of the determination of the main planning application on 3 rd 

September 2010 the Regional Spatial Strategy had been deleted as a material 

consideration following the letter from the Secretary of State. Since that date the 

document has been reinstated following a High Court challenge. The judgment in 

the High Court to the latest challenge from Cala Homes has confirmed that the 

Government’s intention to do away with regional strategies is a material 

consideration when making planning decisions. (See Appendix 11 for a 

commentary on the Cala Homes decision). 

40. There were no Regional Spatial Strategy policies referred to in the 

deliberations on the applications or reasons for the service of the Enforcement 

Notice or preparation of the Statements of Case. No direct reference is made in 

the preparation of this Proof of Evidence to the Regional Spatial Strategy. The 

Regional Spatial Strategy was in place at the time of the preparation and 

adoption of the three Hambleton Local Development Framework documents and 

is quoted throughout those documents. Accordingly, the Local Planning Authority 

consider that the Regional Spatial Strategy has been implemented in the local 

context by the adopted parts of the Local Development Framework. 

41. Hambleton Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted 

April 2007) 

42. The Core Strategy presents the overall spatial strategy for development in 

Hambleton to 2021, setting out how development is to be distributed 

appropriately during that time. Five sub areas were identified in the Core 

Strategy as well as a settlement hierarchy which would accommodate the 


identified level of development. The Core Strategy was submitted to the 

Government for Examination on 17 February 2006 and the Examination Hearings 

were held over 7 days between 10-20 October 2006. The Inspectors Report was 

received on 19 February 2007 and the Council adopted the Core Strategy on 3 

April 2007. 

43. Spatial Principle 1 of the Core Strategy defines an “area of opportunity” 

which is drawn in a very simplistic style to encompass the Thirsk area, the 

southern part of the Northallerton area and the eastern part of the Bedale area. 

Bagby lies within the Thirsk Sub Area and appears to be at the very south 

eastern edge of the “area of opportunity”. The Core Strategy defines at 

paragraph 3.4 that the area is “Reflecting the scope for development, in particular 

based on its accessibility scale of existing facilities and relative lack of 

development constraints, and consistent with the RSS strategy, this is the area 

where most housing and employment related development will take place”. 

44. Hambleton Local Development Framework Development Policies DPD 

(with proposals map) (adopted February 2008) 

45. The Development Policies document was submitted on 25 August 2006 and 

the Examination Hearings took place over 7 days between 5 and 28 June 2007. 

The Inspector's Report was issued on 15 November 2007. The Council adopted 

the Development Policies document, with the Inspectors recommended 

amendments, on 26 February 2008. 

46. The DPD provides further clarification and detail to the broad spatial policies 

set out in the Core Strategy. The adoption of the Core Strategy and 

Development Policies replaced all the ‘saved’ policies of the Hambleton District 

Wide Local Plan 1999 Policies with the exception of Policy L1 – Development 

Limits. Policy L1 was replaced on the adoption of the Allocation Document on 21 

December 2010. 


47. Hambleton Local Development Framework Allocation Document DPD 

(with Proposals Map) 

48. A call for potential sites for allocation was undertaken in 2004 and in excess 

of 800 sites were received. Sites were then categorised in terms of suitability by 

applying the spatial strategy set out in the draft Core Strategy – particularly Policy 

CP4, the sustainable settlement hierarchy. Assessment of sites were undertaken 

and, in line with CP4, sites located in the Principal Service Centres, Service 

Centres and Service Villages were then taken forward and considered at the 

Issues and Option consultation stage in November 2005. 

49. Following the results and responses of this consultation, an overall 

approach to spatial options was explored for each of the five Service Centres in 

Hambleton (including the Principal Service centres of Northallerton and Thirsk). 

As a result of this further work the preferred options (and rejected ones) for each 

settlement were set out at the Preferred Options consultation stage in October 

2007. Preferred allocations in Service Villages were also identified along with 

rejected options with reasons given for inclusion or rejection. 

50. Responses to this consultation were considered and lead to the publication 

of the Proposed Submission Allocations document in January 2009. 

Representations were received on this and as a result of particular 

representations a re-run of the Proposed Submission period for representations 

was undertaken and took place in October 2009. 

51. The Submission Allocation document was submitted to Government on 18 

December 2009 for Examination. Hearings took place over 8 days between 212 

and 27 May 2010. The Inspectors Report was published on 1 September 2010 

and the Council adopted the Allocations Document on 21 December 2010. 

52. A legal challenge to the Allocations Document was lodged with the High 

Court dated 1 February 2011. This relates to the allocation of a mixed use site at 

Thirsk and, in particular, the consultation process leading up to the submission of 

the document and the attempt by Government to revoke the Regional Spatial 

Strategy. The challenge is being defended by the Local Planning Authority. The 

validity of the allocations document is not considered to be relevant to this Appeal 


and, in any event, the document should be treated as adopted, until such time as 

the Courts rule otherwise (given the presumption of regularity in administrative 

decision-making). 

53. Consideration of National Planning Policy Guidance 

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

• PPS1 

• PPS4 

• PPS7 

• PPG13 

• PPG18 

• PPG24 

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

Development 

56. PPS1 is relevant as it sets the General Principles for achieving sustainable 

development. The Governments objectives for the planning system are that 

“Good planning is a positive and proactive process, operating in the public 

interest through a system of plan preparation and control over the development 

and use of land.” (paragraph 2). PPS1 provides the Government’s overarching 

policy on Social Cohesion and Inclusion, Protection and Enhancement of the 

Environment, Prudent Use of Natural Resources Sustainable Economic 

Development and delivery of sustainable development through amongst other 

things good quality design and community involvement (paragraph 4). 

57. PPS1 requires that Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and 

inclusive patterns of urban and rural development which identifies at paragraph 5 

the three themes of sustainable development, economic, social and 

environmental both combined and individually. “Protecting and enhancing the 

natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, 

and existing communities” is the third bullet point of paragraph 5, signalling the 

importance to the nation of the countryside. Paragraph 17 reinforces the 


message from paragraph 5 under the heading of “Planning for Sustainable 

Development” it states that “The Government is committed to protecting and 

enhancing the qualities of the natural and historic environment, in both rural and 

urban areas”. Paragraph 33 advises that “Good design ensures attractive usable 

durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable 

development. Good design is indivisible from good planning.” 

58. The policy in PPS1 is relevant in this case with regard to the protection of 

the environment, particularly the protection of the environment for the benefit of 

the local population, locating development in places that reduce the need for 

travel, and in so far as it demands good design. 

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

Economic Growth 

60. PPS4 “Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth” sets Government policy 

both in respect of Plan Making and Development management policies and 

includes policies relating to the determination of planning applications for 

economic development in rural areas. 

61. PPS4 requires Local Planning Authorities to adopt a positive approach 

towards planning applications for economic development. Policy EC10 

Determining Planning Applications for Economic Development and EC12 

Determining Planning Applications for Economic Development in Rural Areas are 

particularly pertinent. 

62. PPS4 Policy EC10.2 requires applications to be assessed against 5 factors. 

The first of these relates to limiting the emission of carbon dioxide over the 

lifetime of the development and minimising the vulnerability of and resilience to 

the effects of climate change. The application provides advice that the clubhouse 

would utilise techniques to minimise energy use and the energy embodied in the 

building. No measurement has been attempted with regards limiting the 

emissions of carbon dioxide over the commercial aircraft maintenance space or 

the other aircraft hangars. Other than a presumption that modern aircraft are 

more fuel efficient and that the increased amount of hangar space will be 

occupied by more modern aircraft, which could pro rata produce less carbon 


dioxide than older aircraft, which have previously been kept outside, there is no 

link that can be logically drawn between the expansion of hangar space and the 

Government's commitment to limiting carbon dioxide emissions. 

63. The development proposals, when considered against the target to 

minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to the effect of climate change 

(PPS4 EC10.2), show a reduction in vulnerability to disruption caused by the 

weather to the operation of the airfield by the provision of additional areas of hard 

surfacing to both the runway and hangar aprons and matting reinforcement to the 

runway and taxi-ways to both aircraft hangars and refuelling points. 

64. The second element of PPS4 EC10.2 is “the accessibility of the proposal by 

means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car and the 

effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) 

after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured”. As 

noted above there are significant obstacles to the accessibility of the site by 

walking and cycling other than for staff or visitors travelling between the site and 

locations within Bagby village. The site is not served by any meaningful level of 

public transport that would be a viable means of access to work. 

65. Bagby is served by buses on three routes, Services 58, 59 and M11. 

Service 58 runs from York – Thirsk – Northallerton and returns provides at most 4 

buses per day the stop is at Bagby Lane End on the side of the A19 a distance of 

about 1 kilometre from the residential part of Bagby. Service 59 provides a circuit 

of villages south east with access to Thirsk. It provides 4 return buses per day 

with the earliest arrival in Bagby from Thirsk at 09:58 and the last departure from 

Bagby to Thirsk at 18:22. Service M11 runs from Northallerton to Helmsley 

through the village of Bagby and is limited to 3 buses in each direction per day at 

weekends only from 28 th March to 31 st October and everyday during the last 

week in July and all of August. (Appendix 22 provides copies of the 

timetables for these services). 

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

access to the site. 

67. The third element of PPS4 EC10.2 is “whether the proposal secures a high 

quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving 


the character and quality of the area and the way it functions”. The proposal 

incorporates a series of components which differ in design quality and impacts on 

the character and quality of the area. Whilst the design quality of the built form of 

the clubhouse is not challenged overall the scheme does not make a positive 

contribution to the area. The range of aircraft hangars causes a harmful intrusion 

on the visual amenity of the landscape. The scheme does not present significant 

opportunities for inclusive design as it is plainly designed with the purpose of 

serving the aviation user or enthusiast and is not a facility that would be used by 

all in the community. The operation of the airfield with increased capacity would 

cause harm to the function of the area as the level of noise disturbance would 

rise as increased use is made of the airfield facilities. 

68. The fourth element of PPS4 EC10.2 is “the impact on economic and 

physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and 

social inclusion objectives”. The proposal does not quantify the economic 

regeneration effects that may flow from it. The area is not deprived and the 

schemes will not address and social inclusion objectives. The most recent data 

from Office of National Statistics Nomis at (2001 ward level) shows the 

unemployed to be 3% of the population of the White Horse ward compared to the 

Hambleton Average of 3.1% and National average of 5.7%. The year ending in 

June 2010 shows the Hambleton unemployment figure at 4.5% and the National 

figure to be 7.7%. 

69. The final element of PPS4 EC10.2 relates to “the impact on local 

employment”. There is a lack of detail of regarding the impacts on local 

employment. As noted in the reason for refusal (10/01272/FUL) the scheme was 

not supported by a business case to demonstrate what support would be 

provided to the local economy. 

70. EC12.1a provides local planning authorities with additional policy on 

Determining Planning Applications for Economic Development in Rural Areas. 

Policy EC12 starts by supporting the re-use of buildings in the countryside for 

economic development purposes and goes on to set out four elements in 

considering proposals for economic development. The first of these is whether 

the proposal enhances the vitality and viability of market towns and other rural 

service centres. The proposal contains no detail that demonstrates any 

significant means to enhance the vitality or viability of a market town or rural 

service centre. The nearest market town is Thirsk about 3km distant. There are 


no nearby rural service centres, the nearest are Carlton Miniott and Topcliffe both 

about 7km’s distant. 

71. The second element of EC12.1b relates to small scale economic 

development where it is the most sustainable option. Whilst the number of 

people employed at the airfield is not detailed the scale of the buildings are not 

small in scale. There is no evidence to suggest that there are unemployed 

people who would wish to be employed at the airfield or that the developments 

would bring about new jobs for local people. The proposal is therefore 

considered not to benefit from the presumptions set out relating to locations that 

are not readily accessible by public transport sometimes still being acceptable. 

Plainly the nature of the proposals for aircraft hangars and clubhouse is not ‘footloose’. 

Its location is fixed by the relationship with the existing airfield. The 

remaining elements of EC12.1 relating to the impact on the supply of employment 

sites and conversion and reuse of buildings and are not pertinent to the appeal. 

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

Supplement to PPS1. 

73. PPS4 EC10.2 also makes reference to Paragraphs 9 and 42 of the 

Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1. The paragraphs refer to 

plan making and the determination of planning applications respectively. The 

Supplement to PPS1 sets out at paragraph 9 the “Key Planning Objectives” that 

should be embodied in spatial strategies. The objectives include an aim to 

“deliver patterns of urban growth and sustainable rural development that help 

secure the fullest possible use of sustainable transport for moving freight, public 

transport, cycling and walking; and which overall reduce the need to travel, 

especially by car.” 

74. The proposals for development at Bagby Airfield do not contribute 

significantly to any of the Key Planning Objectives of the climate change 

supplement to PPS1. As it makes no contribution towards sustainability, it does 

not provide any information to show that new jobs for local people will be created 

and will not provide services or infrastructure to meet the needs of the local 

community, does not lead to a reduction in emissions, does not reduce the need 

for travel, it does provide some reduction in vulnerability and resilience to climate 

change as noted in the previous paragraph, does not conserve or enhance 

biodiversity in any significant way, does not reflect the needs or interests of 


communities and enable them to tackle climate change and it does not 

encourage business competitiveness and technological innovation. The proposal 

does not achieve more than one of the Key Planning Objectives of the Planning 

and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1. 

75. At paragraph 42 of the Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1 

a further 7 objectives are set out for consideration when determining a planning 

application. The 7 objectives relate to decentralised energy supply, minimising 

carbon dioxide emission through careful consideration of a wide range of design 

measures, delivery of high quality local environment, providing open space, use 

of sustainable drainage systems, provide for sustainable waste management and 

sustainable transport. 

76. The proposed clubhouse building meets some of the objectives set out as it 

seeks to comply with the Development Policies DPD Policy DP34 requirement for 

energy efficiency and has scope within the site to orientate the building to 

maximise solar gain and proposes drainage of the clubhouse building by means 

of a sustainable drainage system. No such measures are proposed for the 

hangar buildings. 

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

the objective to: 

“create and secure opportunities for sustainable transport in line with PPG13 

including through 

- the preparation and submission of travel plans.” 

No travel plan has been submitted. 

78. The paragraph 42 of the PPS1 supplement concludes the objective of 

sustainable transport by expecting new development to include: 

“providing for safe and attractive walking and cycling opportunities including 

where appropriate, secure cycle parking and changing facilities; and an 

alternative approach to the provision and management of car parking.” 


79. The location of the appeal site could only be an attractive walking and 

cycling destination for staff or visitors who live within the village or immediately 

adjoining the village of Bagby. The distance to other centres of population is too 

great for pedestrians, and is also unviable for cyclists due to volume and speed of 

traffic on the road network and lack of a cycle-way to make longer journeys to 

surrounding villages or the town of Thirsk viable. It is acknowledged that the 

scale of development proposed could not in its own justify the provision of offroad 

cycling routes. 

80. The provision and management of car parking is not considered to be a 

determining factor in this scheme and the amendments made to PPG13 in 

January 2011 would reduce the weight that could be applied in any case. 

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

Rural Areas 

82. PPS7 is relevant as it guides development in rural areas, whilst some 

elements of PPS7 have been superseded by PPS4. PPS7 restates the kep 

principles stating that “Sustainable development is the core principle 

underpinning land use planning”. It also notes support in general for the re-use of 

previously developed (“brownfield”) site in preference to greenfield sites, and that 

“development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping 

and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and 

local distinctiveness” (PPS1 paragraph 1(vi)). 

83. The scheme does not respect the visual amenity of the landscape and is 

therefore contrary to this last element of the key principles of PPS7. At 

paragraph 14 of PPS7 are the words: 

“Whilst much of the land use activity in the countryside is outside the scope of the 

planning system, planning has an important role in supporting and facilitating 

development and land uses which enable those who earn a living from, and help 

to maintain and manage the countryside, to continue to do so.” 

84. At paragraph 15 PPS7 adds that: 


“Planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and character of 

the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, enhanced. 

85. Paragraph 14 makes reference to both landscape protection and to the 

human dimension. The 2010 appeal scheme shows blocks of new landscape 

planting which would restore some elements to the local landscape that have 

been lost through time. However the appeal schemes have not been shown to 

support those who earn a living from the land. No support has been given from 

neighbouring landowners or those working in the countryside stating that the 

development at Bagby Airfield would assist their business or assist in them to 

maintain or manage the countryside. The only comments made by those 

operating businesses based in the countryside have commented upon the impact 

of aircraft noise disturbing livestock and endangering staff and the impact upon 

the peaceful enjoyment of the countryside for visitors to holiday accommodation 

and for residents alike. 

86. Paragraph 34 of PPS7 ‘Tourism and Leisure’ recognises the importance of 

tourism and leisure activities to many rural economies. It notes “As well as 

sustaining many rural businesses, these industries are a significant source of 

employment and help to support the prosperity of country towns and villages, and 

sustain historic country houses, local heritage and culture.” The proposals at 

Bagby Airfield have as set out by the operators of tourism businesses threatened 

the livelihood rather than supporting them, as a consequence of the intrusive 

level of noise. 

87. Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) - Transport 

88. PPG13 provides the Government’s policy on transport. It sets out as series 

of objectives at paragraph 4. 

“4. The objectives of this guidance are to integrate planning and transport at the 

national, regional, strategic and local level to: 

1. promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving 

freight 

2. promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by 

public transport, walking and cycling and 

3. reduce the need to travel, especially by car 


5. This guidance sets out the circumstances where it is appropriate to change the 

emphasis and priorities in provision between different transport modes, in pursuit 

of wider Government objectives. The car will continue to have an important part 

to play and for some journeys, particularly in rural areas, it will remain the only 

real option for travel.” 

89. At paragraph 40 entitled Rural Areas PPG13 recognises the reliance on the 

car as a key means of transport however it still argues that new traffic generating 

development should take place in the most accessible locations or where 

accessibility will be improved as a result of new measures. Public transport is still 

of some potential value as are walking and cycling but guides at paragraph 43 

that Local Planning Authorities “should not reject proposals where small-scale 

business development or its expansion would give rise to only modest additional 

daily vehicle movements, in comparison to other uses that are permitted on the 

site, and the impact on minor roads would not be significant.” 

90. In this case the extent of increase in vehicle movements is not known and 

whilst the scale of the built development is large the number of jobs created is 

also not known and may not result in a significant increase in vehicle movements. 

A proportionate response is required by PPG13 noting that the developments 

with larger numbers of employees have a greater need to be in accessible 

locations. 

91. Bagby Airfield is poorly located in terms of accessibility to centres of 

population without reliance on the use of a car, Appendix 23 shows Bagby in its 

wider context and notes the distances to surrounding settlements. The links for 

pedestrians are too long, for cyclists the road conditions are not favourable and 

public transport facilities are inadequate to cater for the needs of staff or visitors 

to the airfield. No travel plan has been promoted by the appellants to address the 

access issues to the airfield. Accordingly increasing the businesses and the 

number of employees at the airfield would not sit well against the policy of 

PPG13. 

92. PPG13 Annex B paragraph 4 says that Local Planning Authorities will need 

to consider (second bullet point) 

“the role of small airports and airfields in serving business, recreational, training 

and emergency services needs. As demand for commercial air transport grows, 

this General Aviation (GA) may find access to larger airports increasingly 


estricted. GA operators will therefore have to look to smaller airfields to provide 

facilities. In formulating their plan policies and proposals, and in determining 

planning applications, local authorities should take account of the economic, 

environmental, and social impacts of GA on local and regional economies.” 

93. The business reality for the commercial aviation sector has not been one of 

continuing growth. The policy statement appears dated and is indeed more than 

10 years old. The global economy, security and environmental factors have all 

reduced demand for commercial aviation such that the anticipated pressures on 

larger or regional airports has not arisen. The lack of need for increased capacity 

together with the changed emphasis in Government towards controlling carbon 

dioxide emissions in response to the need to respond to the threats arising from 

climate change undermine the basis for this policy statement. 

94. Most of the remaining guidance in PPG13 Annex B relates to airports of 

much larger scale than the proposals at Bagby. However, reference is also made 

to the need to very carefully consider the environmental impacts of aviation and 

that advice on noise is given in PPG24. 

95. There are two transport issues of detail: 

(i) the movement of aviation fuel to the site by road along Bagby Lane 

and the safety of the junction of Bagby Lane; and 

(ii) the A19 and its suitability to accommodate increased traffic flows and 

the potential for increased hazards to drivers from low flying aircraft on 

either arrival or departure from the airfield. 

96. The movement of aviation fuel to Bagby Airfield is currently via a narrow 

unmade road between residential property in the village street. At paragraph 46 

of PPG13 it is noted that 

“Freight movements, particularly those serving developments near to residential 

areas and in town centres, are often restricted in their hours of operation, through 

the imposition of conditions, because of concerns over disturbance to residents.” 

97. The removal of airfield traffic particularly HGV’s from the village would 

benefit neighbours and the users of the facilities at the play park. The appeal 

scheme would achieve some benefits over the current arrangement in this 


espect. Concerns have been raised by residents of Bagby that the use of Bagby 

Lane for additional HGV traffic is unacceptable due to its width, alignment and 

current traffic levels. This view is not supported by the Local Highway Authority 

or the decision of the Local Planning Authority. 

98. The second issue relates to the safety of the junction of Bagby Lane and 

the A19 and the safety issue of low flying aircraft. The Local Highway Authority 

have not raised concern to the operation of the Bagby Lane – A19 road junction 

or the capacity to accommodate additional manoeuvres or the proximity of the 

end of the runway with the A19 and the safety implications which may arise. It is 

well established that drivers have many potential distractions one of which is low 

flying aircraft, others include the movement of wind turbines but such distractions 

are not a justification for the refusal of planning permission. 

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

100. PPG18 provides Guidance on the Enforcement of Planning Controls this, 

together was the Circular advice in 10/97 Enforcing planning control – legislative 

provisions and procedural requirements, and local policy document Enforcement 

and Compliance Policy (June 2008) has determined the approach taken to recent 

Enforcement decisions at Bagby Airfield. 

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

102. PPG24 establishes General Principles at paragraph 2 that “The impact of 

noise can be a material consideration in the determination of planning 

applications.” It notes the difficulties of reconciling some uses with noise 

generating uses and draws the examples of residential use and air transport. 

Noting that “new development involving noisy activities should, if possible be 

sited away from noise-sensitive land uses.” Paragraph 2 also guides “Where it is 

not possible to achieve such a separation of land uses, local planning authorities 

should consider whether it is practicable to control or reduce noise levels, or to 

mitigate the impact of noise, through the use of conditions or planning 

obligations.” 

103. Paragraph 4 of PPG24 with reference to the preparation of policy 

documents guides that “Area-specific noise policies may be useful in some 


circumstances and, in such cases, the relevant boundaries should be illustrated 

on the proposals map. However, it will generally be inappropriate for proposals 

map to show detailed noise contours as noise emissions may change 

significantly over time (eg, in the case of an aerodrome, operational changes may 

lead to significant variations in the impact of noise on those living in the area).” 

104. PPG24 identifies housing, hospitals and schools as noise sensitive 

developments. It also introduced the concept of Noise Exposure Categories 

(ranging from A - D) to help local authorities consider applications for residential 

development near transport related noise sources. The policy specifies that the 

Noise Exposure Categories cannot be used in the reverse to consider new 

transport related applications near to existing residential development. 

105. At paragraph 10 PPG24 requires that “local planning authorities must 

ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. 

They should also bear in mind that a subsequent intensification or change of use 

may result in greater intrusion and they may wish to consider the use of 

appropriate conditions.” 

106. Paragraph 11 of the guidance identifies that some sources of noise have 

characteristics that require special consideration and notes particularly that the 

noise from aerodromes is likely to include activities such as engine testing as well 

as ground movements. Similarly noise sensitive development requires particular 

protection through the night time period as noted at paragraph 12. 

107. Noise can have a serious effect on the welfare of livestock and wildlife and 

special consideration is warranted whether development may impact upon 

protected sites and upon the quiet enjoyment of a National Park as set out in 

paragraphs 20 and 21. It is considered in this case that the noise impact of 

activities at the airfield will not cause a significant impact upon the land uses in 

the North York Moors National Park. 

108. In Annex 3 to PPG24 paragraph 7 advises on the use of forecast contours 

for small aerodromes and notes that local planning authorities should not rely 

solely on Leq where this is based on less than about 30 movements a day. 

Paragraph 7 specifies that: 


"Local planning authorities should also be aware that in some circumstances 

the public perceive general aircraft noise levels as more disturbing than 

similar levels around major airports.” 

109. It is considered that the general quietness of the countryside around Bagby 

is such that the level of disturbance from aircraft noise would indeed be greater 

than a similar level measured at a major airport and that the lack of regulation on 

the use of the airfield both on the ground and in the air increases the impact upon 

the community and the environment. 

110. The particular impact from helicopter movements is noted and draws out 

the greater noise disturbance that can be caused by helicopter movements, that 

the noise characteristics are differ from that of fixed wing aircraft and is often 

regarded as more intrusive or more annoying by the general public. It states that: 

“The noise exposure categories should be applied with caution”. 

111. The guidance in PPG24 Annex 3 notes that planning applications for 

helicopter landing/take-off facilities should be accompanied by information about 

the proposed take-off/landing flight paths and air traffic routes where appropriate. 

Preferably, these paths should have been discussed and agreed in principal with 

National Air Traffic Services (NATS) beforehand. Where such information does 

not accompany the application, but is considered necessary, the local planning 

authority should request it and suggest that the applicant has discussions with 

NATS. 

112. At the time of the applications flight path information was not supplied. No 

formal request was made for the information to be supplied. 

113. Hambleton Local Development Framework Policies 

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

Core Strategy Policies 

CP1 

CP2 

CP4 

CP15 


CP16 

CP21 

Development Plan Policies 

DP1 

DP25 

DP30 

DP44 

115. Consideration of the Core Strategy Policies 

116. The Core Strategy defines the Strategic Vision and Policies for Hambleton 

and includes a Spatial Strategy for the District and Strategic Spatial Policies. The 

Core Strategy aims to achieve sustainable development by use of a settlement 

hierarchy. Bagby is not identified within the settlement hierarchy (Policy CP4) 

which means that it is not considered to be a suitable location for additional 

housing or employment development other than in the instances of development 

that is an exceptional case under the terms of Policy CP1 and CP2 and is one of 

the six circumstances identified in Policy CP4. This is the ‘exceptional case test’. 

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

118. Policy CP4 recognises that there must be exceptions to this principle of 

excluding new development from the countryside, for example where there is an 

essential requirement to locate in the countryside. Essentially the purpose of 

CP4 is to exercise strong restraint on development in locations outside the 

sustainable settlement hierarchy (second paragraph of CP4). Restraint is applied 

through three tests, all of which must be met to justify development. 

119. Test One: “Exceptional Case” in terms of CP1 and CP2. Making an 

“exceptional case” does not mean showing how a proposal meets the criteria and 

provision of CP1 and CP2. The Plan states that the benefits sought by CP1 and 

CP2 are more likely to be achieved by locating development within the 

sustainable settlement hierarchy (Core Strategy paragraph 4.1.9). The 

assumption is that development in locations outside the sustainable settlement 

hierarchy would likely to be contrary to CP1 and CP2. “Exceptional Case” 


therefore means providing evidence as to why a proposal that does not comply 

with the intentions of CP1 and CP2 should be permitted. 

120. CP1 is a very general policy providing fundamental criteria to be applied as 

a starting point to all developments aimed at ensuring all development is 

sustainable and located to help promote sustainable communities. The 

“exceptional case” in terms of CP1 is, therefore, about providing evidence as to 

why development should be located in a less sustainable location. 

Consequently, the aim should be to assess how serious a breach of CP1 a 

proposal is, which should be weighed against the “exceptional case”. 

121. CP2 is another broad policy which sets down the LDF’s intention toward 

transport and accessibility. CP2 aims to ensure that all development is located so 

as to minimise the need for travel, particularly by private car. The “exceptional 

case” in terms of CP2 is, therefore, about providing evidence as to why a 

proposal which would be contrary to the intentions of CP2 (i.e. a proposal which 

would increase the need for travel) should be permitted. Again, the aim should 

be to assess how serious a breach of CP2 a proposal is, which should be 

weighed against the “exceptional case”. 

122. In applying Test One; the proposals at Bagby Airfield are considered to 

represent a severe breach of CP1. As explained in detail later within this Proof, 

the proposed development represents a use of land which is harmful to the 

amenity of neighbouring communities, which has not demonstrated support for 

the local economy and which will erode the character of the local landscape and 

the wider countryside. The proposals breach all three strands of sustainable 

development, social, economic and environmental. 

123. The distances to the neighbouring settlements and the infrastructure 

available for pedestrians and cyclists, the absence of public transport and the 

nature of the proposed use are such that the site will be highly likely to be mainly 

accessed by use of the car. Consequently, the proposed development is 

considered to represent a severe breach of CP2. 

124. In light of the above considerations, it is considered that the proposals fail to 

demonstrate that this development is an exceptional case in terms of CP1 and 

CP2 and thereby fail to satisfy Test One. 


125. Test Two: is more straightforward, it means being able to meet at least one 

of the criteria i) to vi) in CP4 and provide the evidence to prove this. This is 

additional to the policy test to demonstrate an exceptional case. 

126. There are two potential criteria in CP4 against which the scheme can be 

considered. These are criteria (i) and (vi); 

• the scheme fails the tests of criteria (i) because the development is not 

necessary to meet the needs of the industries listed in the policy and the 

scheme has not demonstrated how (if at all) it will help to support a 

sustainable rural economy. 

• in respect of criteria (vi) the scheme fails because there is no requirement 

for social and economic regeneration in this area. Further, no evidence 

has been supplied as to how it will support such regeneration. The extent 

and quality of such evidence must mean something more than modest 

increase in employment and expenditure in the local economy or else the 

policy would not act as a meaningful constraint on development in this 

area. It is a policy allowing exceptions and there is nothing exceptional 

about this development. 

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

128. Test Three: requires proposals not to conflict with the environmental 

protection and nature conservation policies of the LDF (final paragraph of CP4). 

129. Subject to appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures, the 

proposed development will not have a detrimental impact on ecology. The 

proposals will inevitably have an undesirable impact on the character and 

appearance of open countryside as explained in the landscape section of this 

proof. Noise is an environmental impact, the scheme causes noise and harm to 

the environment most notably the living conditions of the local population. 

130. In light of the above considerations, Test Three fails. Accordingly, the 

development fails to comply with policies CP1, CP2 and CP4. 

131. CP15 is a permissive policy supporting rural regeneration. It identifies a 

range of opportunities to support the economy of rural communities. The policy 


includes support for the following which are to varying extents relevant to the 

appeals: “i retention or expansion of appropriate businesses outside of the 

Service Centres and Service Villages;”, “v appropriate tourism related initiatives, 

including schemes which improve the accessibility of tourist asses both within 

and outside the District;” and “recreation uses appropriate to a countryside 

location;”. 

132. Policy CP15 carries with it an overarching requirement that development 

proposals be designed to be sustainable, consistent with the other policies of the 

Local Development Framework, not conflict with environmental protection and 

nature conservation policies and should provide any necessary mitigating or 

compensatory measures to address harmful implications. The policy makes the 

explicit links back to CP1 and to CP17 ‘Promoting High Quality Design’. 

133. The operation of a General Aviation airfield is a use that is appropriate to a 

countryside location as it could not conceivably be located within a Service 

Centre or Service Village due to lack of space in such settlements. Setting aside 

the particular characteristics of Bagby Airfield the operation of an airfield such as 

Bagby Airfield can be considered an ‘appropriate’ business in a position outside 

of a Service Centre or Service Village. The operation of garage and machinery 

repair businesses are a common feature in the countryside both serving the 

residential rural community and the agricultural sector. Aviation repairs and 

servicing are comparable in character to agricultural engineering uses and are 

appropriate in principle to a location adjacent to an airfield due to the relationship 

between the place for the parking and operation of aircraft. The policy CP15 

allows support to be given to developments for tourism and recreation purposes. 

Retention of an aviation repair business of appropriate scale can be supported by 

the terms of the policy subject to the safeguards for protecting the environment. 

134. CP16 supports development which will preserve or enhance the natural 

and man made assets, which in the case of Bagby Airfield is translated in to 

seeking the preservation or enhancement of the open countryside, its landscape 

character and appearance. The policy offers support to schemes that will 

improve the natural environment but also goes further in stating explicitly types of 

development which will not be supported which links to the Government's policies 

in PPS7 and PPS9. Also required by CP16 is mitigation and compensatory 

measures to address potential harmful implications of development. 


135. CP21 requires “Development and service provision must seek to ensure 

that communities and the environment are not adversely affected by the actions 

of natural or other forces.” The policy goes on to require specifically that 

“Proposals must take particular account of the need to: ii) mitigate development 

from the consequences of pollution, noise or hazardous activities.” 

136. The requirements of CP21 in respect of pollution, noise and safety are 

underpinned by the words of CP1 which advises that “Proposals will be 

supported if they promote and encourage or protect and enhance iii) the health, 

economic and social well-being, amenity and safety of the population.” Whilst 

both of the Core Strategy policies note the types of development that will be 

supported they do not state that proposals which fail to meet the requirements 

will be refused automatically as the policies must be considered in the round and 

the issues weighed appropriately in reaching a decision. 

137. Consideration of the Development Policies 

138. The Development Policies DPD provides further details to assist the 

delivery of the Core Strategy. 

139. Development Policy DP1 

140. The detail in Policy DP1 “Protecting Amenity” is of particular significance to 

these appeals. The policy DP1 supports CP1 which aims to achieve Sustainable 

Development. It is, given the duty for Town and Country Planning to achieve 

Sustainable Development, a policy that is applicable to every element of the each 

of the appeals. The words of the policy start by defining that: “All development 

proposals must”, this is not a policy that can lightly be outweighed by other 

considerations. The decision maker is therefore very clearly directed by the 

words of the policy that the protection of “amenity particularly with regard to 

privacy, security, noise and disturbance, pollution (including light pollution), 

odours and daylight” must be given a high priority in the decision making process. 

In this instance the policy is requiring that the development must protect amenity 

with particular regard to noise and disturbance. 

141. The second and third of the three elements of DP1 relate to the amenity 

needs of occupants and users of development and the importance of amenity 


space about buildings and must not unacceptably affect the amenity of residents 

or occupants. Other than the final clause of the policy these elements are of very 

limited significance to these appeals. The final clause requires that development 

must “not unacceptably affect the amenity of residents or occupants” 

142. The links from DP1, to CP1’s reference to social well-being, amenity and 

safety, and the Strategic Objectives “to ensure that all development is 

sustainable, enabling people to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better 

quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations” is 

clear. 

143. DP25 Rural Employment 

144. The policy supports employment development in the countryside. It 

requires that schemes be small in scale, that they re-use or extend existing 

buildings or uses, are not capable of being within Development Limits of a 

settlement, are supported by a business case that shows how the development 

will support the local economy and that it would not harm the economy of one of 

the market towns in the District. 

145. The policy supports the objective of providing most new development in 

accessible locations, but also takes account of the need to ‘grow’ the rural 

economy. The justification to Policy DP25 in requiring developments to 

demonstrate the business case notes that this will allow the decision maker to 

establish the benefits of the scheme in relation to sustaining local employment 

and the rural economy. The benefits which could be found in the business case 

linking to the local economy are noted in DP25 to include provision of local 

employment opportunities, scope to sell local produce and provision of services 

to local communities. 

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

147. The policy context is provided by RSS ENV10 and PPS7 and seeks where 

possible to enhance the openness, intrinsic character and quality of the District’s 

landscape. The District has a wide range of landscapes from the North York 

Moors National Park, Howardian Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 

through to the non designated landscapes of farming and forestry to the former 

World War airfields some of which have been developed as industrial sites. 


148. As the policy notes “Throughout the District design and location of new 

development should take account of the landscape character and its 

surroundings and not have a detrimental effect on the immediate environment 

and on any important long distance views.” 

149. The guidance in the justification to the policy requires that proposals which 

will have an impact on the landscape should address the intrinsic character of its 

surroundings and seek where possible to retain and strengthen the intrinsic 

character of areas. 

150. DP44 Very noise activities 

151. The policy provides guidance to prevent new dwellings and other noise 

sensitive uses from locating in noisy locations and also directs noise generating 

development away from noise sensitive locations. The areas around the military 

airfields of Linton on Ouse and Leeming have been designated as noise 

exclusion, restriction and insulation zones in recognition of the circumstances in 

those locations. No other such zones exist in the District. Lesser noise levels 

are considered under policy DP1 Protecting Amenity. 

152. The level of noise generated by many uses which are disturbing are 

infrequent and/or short term such as from certain outdoor entertainments or from 

industrial processes. The level of noise and impact upon communities from 

airfields can extend beyond matters of amenity and can raise health problems 

and interference with sleep justifying a separate policy to deal with the issue. 

The context of the policy is provided by PPG24 and in turn to the World Health 

Organisation policy and guidance. 

153. Lawful Use 

154. An understanding of the lawful use of the site is essential as it gives an 

understanding of the existing controls over activity at the airfield and determines 

the fall back position in the event of a refusal of the planning appeals and 

upholding the 2009 Enforcement Notice. 

155. It is plain that evidence of the lawful use is limited. The written evidence is 

mainly given in the planning application and planning enforcement records. 

Some of this detail is contained in the documents supporting the planning 


applications and some is derived from site visits during the process and 

investigation of cases. 

156. Evidence comes from external sources, aerial photography and accounts 

given on a variety of web sites. Further information comes from the developers’ 

assessment of the fuel records and flight logs. A large volume of anecdotal 

evidence has been supplied by residents in the area. 

157. No single detailed record exists of activity at the airfield. The flight logs kept 

by the operators of the airfield were acknowledged to be completed on a 

voluntary basis and were known to not include records of many of the pilots 

based at Bagby. The records in the flight log mainly recorded the movements of 

visitors to the airfield. 

158. What evidence do we actually have? 

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

Date of site Primary purpose of the visit 

visit 

21/02/2008 Statement of Community Involvement 

event at the airfield Club House prior the 

2008 application 

23/05/2008 Site notices for 2008 application 

23/06/2008 Members site visit for the 2008 

application 



application 

09/04/2009 Enforcement investigation into runway 

lighting/alignment lights. 

04/08/2009 Enforcement investigation into the laying 

of concrete to the north of Hangar E to 

enable use of heli-lift 

05/11/2009 Enforcement investigation relating to the 

air ambulance installations and general 

update of conditions on site 

12/01/2010 Site notices for the 2009 minor 

applications geo-textile, aprons, heli-pad 

and fuel application 


02/03/2010 Enforcement investigation regarding new 

'canopy' over door of Hangar E 

06/04/2010 Enforcement investigation Second 

survey visit 



application 

11/01/2011 Enforcement investigation – engineering 

operations 

160. The evidence from the planning applications shows the extent of the land 

used for the purpose of an airfield to be as shown on the plan at Appendix 12 

until an extension was formed to the east west runway. It is recorded that the 

extended east west runway was first used on 1 April 1998 and became immune 

from enforcement action 10 years later on 1 April 2008. The full extent of the 

east west runway is shown on the plan at Appendix 13. 

161. The aerial photographs and web data search results confirm the extent of 

the airfield and show the removal of the hedgerow at the northern end of the 

north south runway in 2005. This extends the north south runway on to a piece 

of agricultural land that had not previously been part of the airfield. The extended 

part of the north south runway is shown on the plan at Appendix 13 

162. The largest hangar ‘B’ has been provided with new internal insulation, new 

floor screed and provision of internal divisions to form office and stores and now 

used as an aircraft maintenance building. However these internal works to a 

building fall outside the definition of development. 

163. Yorkshire Air Ambulance occupies the site with a portable rest room 

building and portable toilet facility plumbed in to mains services and operating as 

a satellite to their West Yorkshire base. The portable building arrived on site on 

or about the 13 th August 2009. This is considered a chattel ancillary to the 

function of Bagby as an airfield and the use does not require planning 

permission. The provision of a separate package treatment works for the waste 

water from the rest room and toilet is an engineering operation that requires and 

does not have planning permission. 

164. Continuous use of the airfield 


165. The operation of flying from the airfield appears to have continued since the 

first use by Messrs Lassey and Whiting without a break. Other ancillary activities 

have been undertaken at the airfield for a continuous period in excess of 10 

years. 

166. On each occasion that I have visited the airfield I have seen light aircraft 

parked outside, use of a workshop for maintenance, a club house for use of 

members a member of staff on site and the airfield has been in use. 

167. During the period of my visits additional facilities have been provided 

without the benefit of planning permission and are detailed in the Enforcement 

Notice. Other facilities have been refurbished and new facilities have been 

provided which appear at this time to not require planning permission. 

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

application forms 

169. In 1976 application forms described the use of the land as ‘farming’, by the 

1980 application the description was “private flying of ultra-light aircraft, hangar 

with 9 a/c (understood to be an abbreviation for aircraft) and 6 permitted take-offs 

and landings per week but primarily agriculture”. The 1986 planning application 

form referred to the use of the land as being an ‘airfield’. 

170. The application details draw no clear distinction between the types of 

aircraft operating from Bagby Airfield. It is known that the first aircraft using the 

grass strip were described as ultra light, subsequently other aircraft have been 

introduced to the airfield. A list of aircraft based at the airfield on 18 June 2008 

included 5 micro-lights, 2 helicopters and 37 fixed wing aircraft. Fixed wing 

aircraft predominated as recently as 2008. 

171. The Council commissioned a study by aviation specialists York Aviation to 

consider a range of aspects relating to the airfield. Their report is appended to 

this proof of evidence. The findings of the York Aviation report support the 

reports of others that few records exist of movements at the airfield and that an 

inaccurate analysis of the movement levels has been provided by the applicant 

and that these probably overstate the activity historically at the airfield. The 

statement from York Aviation is at Appendix 1. 


172. Evidence from External Sources – flight data provided with the 

applications data supplied with the “2008” application 

173. More recently the planning applications have been submitted with 

supporting planning statements and appended statements of aircraft movements. 

In June 2008 a report was submitted setting out the number of flights based on 

the records of fuel sales and some records of some of the pilots based at Bagby 

Airfield. Detailed commentary on the June 2008 report is contained in the York 

Aviation report at Appendix 1 to this proof. 

174. Survey data from August 2008 

175. A survey of aircraft movements was undertaken in August 2008. This 

recorded 644 movements during the period 7 August 2008 to 7 September 2008. 

24 th August 2008 was a club ‘fly-in’ day and was excluded from the count. The 

survey recorded flights during 31 days, which gives a daily total of 20.7 flights per 

day during that month and thus 145.4 flights per week. Various conclusions are 

drawn from the survey and attempts have been made to extrapolate the data of 

the August 2008 survey to give average numbers of flights over a range of 

weekly, monthly and annual periods. The substantial differences in the number 

of flights through different times of year creates complications when attempting to 

define the number of flights that have occurred during other times of the year 

based only on a one month summer survey. The conclusions of the data 

analysis are challenged by residents of Bagby and are the subject of comment in 

the appended York Aviation report. 

176. Inevitably the level of use of the airfield will be the subject of evidence at the 

Inquiry. The Local Planning Authority considers that it will only be at the end of 

the inquiry that a final and settled view of the evidence can be reached 

177. Planning statement with the 2010 application 

178. The 2010 application planning statement at page 22 claims that “Although 

the evidence is incomplete, it is possible to estimate that the average number for 

weekly flights from known residents’ logs over the past 10 years has been 53 

flights per week. This figure should, however, be increased to take account of 


the unrecorded element of flight logs through absentee pilots and also to take 

account of the multiple take offs and landings of pilots flying circuits. A 

reconciliation of the recorded movement data in 2008 suggests that the best 

estimate that can be made of the ‘unrecorded residents’ movements is between 

20 and 25 movements per week.” An additional allowance is made in the 

planning statement for “maintenance” flights, “known visitors” and “visitor 

refuelling” to reach a total of between 95 and 129 flights per week. On page 23 

of the planning statement the appellant notes “Bearing in mind the August 2008 

survey results of approximately 150 movements per week (on average), this 

would tend to suggest that the estimates that have been built into the unknown 

elements of the overall movement survey may be conservative.” 

179. The survey did not record 150 flights per week as noted in the planning 

statement but an average of 145 flights per week. 

180. In the introduction of the Movements Survey prepared by Paul Pritchett on 

behalf of the appellant a statement is made that “based on empirical evidence 

that indicated likely movements upwards of 7525”. Dividing an annual figure of 

7525 provides a weekly average of 144 flights. My experience, based on 

observation during site visits to the airfield and during visits to other properties 

around the Bagby area and the comments of staff at the airfield, is that 

summertime weekends have a much greater level of activity than summertime 

weekdays, spring, autumn and particularly winter periods. If the accuracy of the 

August 2008 survey is accepted, complete with the caveats about unusually wet 

and cloudy weather during the survey period, then the average number of flights 

outside of the summer months is likely to be lower, or substantially lower than 

during the survey period. 

181. I consider that the flight numbers at the airfield vary substantially due to the 

seasonal weather and daylight. The winter time period with days when no fixed 

wings flights will be possible due to snow, ice, fog and waterlogged ground will be 

greater than occurs in the spring, summer and autumn where snow and ice are 

less likely. 

182. Data is available on the level of rainfall but no comparative data appears to 

be available to record ground conditions and the safety of landing fixed wing 

aircraft on a grass airstrip. 


183. Some weeks in winter will see no flights possible. In summer months 

including the ‘fly-in’ days the weekly flight number may be in excess of 300. 

184. The provision of matting and concrete on the east west runway and 

concrete aprons to the hangars prior to the August 2008 survey will have enabled 

aircraft movements that would have otherwise been more difficult or impossible. 

These facilities allow for an increased number of movements. 

185. The appellant’s Movement Report notes that the level of rainfall in August 

2008 was 152% of the average. Despite this level of rainfall there was only day 

during the survey period when no fixed wing aircraft landed. It is not revealed 

whether this was as a consequence of low cloud, fog, ground conditions or other 

causes. 

186. The underlying data (fuel sales receipts or account statements and copies 

of pilot or airfield logs) for the estimates of flight movements have not been 

supplied to the Local Planning Authority. 

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

188. A detailed assessment of the data supplied in the Movements Report was 

undertaken by village resident Mr Thomas Brown in 2009 and updated in 2010. 

His assessment tests the assumptions in the Movements Report and shows a 

series of weaknesses in common with those found by York Aviation. 

189. In particular attention is drawn to the conclusion that the peak of fuel 

purchased from the supplier Air Total in 1999 was probably due to the fact that 

this is when a new tank was purchased and the reasonable assumption is made 

that it was filled from empty with 40,000 litres of fuel. The purchase of 60,000 

litres of fuel from the supplier probably shows sales of little more than 20,000 

litres with the tank remaining full at the end of the year. A suggestion of the sale 

of 60,000 litres would significantly distort the figures. 

190. A full copy of the report by Mr Brown is appended to this report. Appendix 

18. The report has been appended because it shows that there is a conflict in the 

evidence between local residents and the appellant. Further, different 


conclusions can (and have) been made on the submitted evidence. It is very 

difficult to resolve such evidential conflicts, which can best be resolved at the 

Inquiry, when all the evidence has been heard and tested 

. 

191. Flight numbers reported by others 

192. The acoustic reports submitted in support of the planning applications also 

include a statement of flight numbers, there is no reason to suggest that the 

authors of those reports had access to any additional detail regarding the number 

of aircraft movements. Accordingly the figure quoted by A E Charles 5000 flights 

per annum (100 week) in the noise assessment for the ‘2009’ application offers 

no clarity on the number of flights. His noise assessment regarding the level of 

noise generated by the airfield and the disturbance caused to residents similarly 

has little significance as the basis for the assessment is flawed. 

193. Large numbers of residents of Bagby and surrounding villages have 

reported the increased number of flights from the airfield. These were detailed in 

the report to the Planning Committee. The volume and consistency of the views 

expressed add considerable weight to the evidence of increasing numbers of 

flights and increased disturbance from aircraft, particularly from aerobatic flights 

and from helicopters that do not follow the approach and circuits set out in the 

airfields details for airmen. No resident has produced a reliable record of flight 

numbers for either an extend period or defined stage during the history of the 

airfield. 

194. The parameters to flight numbers 

195. If the appellant considered that the 2008 survey data was significantly 

flawed due to the un-seasonally cloudy and wet weather they could have 

undertaken additional survey work. The absence of additional survey work by the 

appellant and the lack of any evidence that would suggest a higher monthly figure 

than 644 (which is recorded in the August 2008 survey) suggests to me as a 

matter of logic that the monthly total (excluding special events such as a fly-in 

day) is no higher than 644. Taking the 644 monthly figure divided by 31days and 

multiplied by 7 to give a weekly figure gives a summer time peak period weekly 

total of 145.4 movements. 


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

or autumn movements. 

197. Assessment of flight numbers at the airfield starts with the landmark 

decision in 1980 to allow 40 take-offs and 40 landings per week. As 2 

applications were made in 1986 to increase the flexibility and numbers of flights 

from the airfield is reasonable to conclude that at that time the airfield were 

operating at (or close to) the limits of 80 flights per week. The fact that the June 

1986 application sought to increase from 40 take-offs and 40 landings per week 

to 200 flights per month (assumed to relate to 200 take-offs and 200 landings per 

month) suggests that the banking of flights from one week to the next was 

considered to be valuable at the airfield. Clearly the difference between 40 takeoffs 

per week and 200 flights per month, in 5 week month is only one of flexibility 

rather than total numbers of aircraft movements as the 40 take-offs per week is 

200 take-offs per month. 

198. The absence of complaint or further requests or an appeal suggests that the 

airfield settled to operate within the 40 take-off 40 landing limit of the 1980 

permission until at least the end of the 1980’s. The provision of additional 

hangars at the airfield may suggest that activities may have increased beyond the 

1980 limit. No evidence is available to show number of aircraft housed in 

hangars at Bagby has compared to those kept in the open and how trends for 

hangar storage may have changed in recent years and how the two types of 

storage affect the number of flights made. The evidence of York Aviation 

(Appendix 1) is clear that the current trend for housing aircraft in hangars is an 

indication of increased usage. 

199. The peak periods noted by the appellant have not been shown to be 

consistently high levels for a period of ten years or more. The evidence relating 

to the busiest periods at the airfield would not generate a lawful use at the 

highest level. The lawful use is the level that can be shown to have existed 

throughout the ten year period. 

200. This approach suggests that the lawful number of flights at the airifield will 

be at or above 80 flights per week. Great caution must be exercised with regard 

to the total number of flights per year as the seasonal variation must be 

substantial. The statement of York Aviation suggests that the winter movements 


will be half those of the summertime and that the numbers in the shoulder months 

will be less than the summer months. 

201. In the absence of any more reliable data the 2008 survey can be used as 

an indication of the maximum number of flights that can be achieved under the 

current physical condition and management regimes at airfield. 

202. Expert opinion from York Aviation suggests that the proposals would 

increase the capacity to store aircraft and would increase the attractiveness of 

the airfield to users and would therefore lead to an increase in flight numbers. 

203. An operator Diamond Executive Aviation previously operated from Bagby 

Airfield but as the airfield could not offer consistently good conditions for take-off 

and landing the business moved to Retford/Gamstone airfield. However other 

aircraft remain available to hire by licensed pilots 

204. From the information available I consider that the weekly flight numbers ar 

Bagby Airfield from the lawful use would be less than that which currently exists 

as some of the existing aircraft movements are generated by aircraft that are 

stored in hangars that do not have planning permission and that there 

movements are facilitated by hard surfacing that also is without planning 

permission. 

205. Robust assessment of the evidence available as been undertaken by York 

Aviation and this records the potential levels of use of the airfield but this still is 

not evidence of actual use. 

206. Legal opinions 

207. Legal opinion has been expressed and submitted to the Council in the runup 

to the determination of the ‘2010’ application. 

208. The first legal opinion was prepared by David Cooper solicitor acting for the 

pressure group “Action4Refusal”. This opinion was received on 14 July 2010. 

The opinion is set out at Appendix 14. 


209. A further legal opinion was submitted on instruction from David Cooper by 

Mr Lockhart-Mummery QC. This was received on 13 August 2010 and is at 

Appendix 15. 

210. A rebuttal to the opinions of Mr Lockhart-Mummery QC and David Cooper 

was submitted by solicitors Walker Morris acting on instruction from the agents 

for the applicant. This was received on 18 th August 2010 and is at Appendix 16. 

211. A legal opinion was prepared by Martyn Richards – solicitor for Hambleton 

District Council, this was received on 18 th August 2010 and is at Appendix 17. 

212. Section 171A and B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out 

the time limits for enforcing a breach of planning control. In the case of the 

developments at Bagby Airfield all of the alleged breaches relates to a breach of 

planning control consisting of the carrying out of operational development and the 

four year time period imposed by Section 171B(1) applies. As set out in Section 

172 the Planning Authority have found it expedient to issue an enforcement 

notice having had regard to the provisions of the development plan and other 

material considerations. 

213. Conclusions on the Lawful Use 

214. I consider that the burden of proof in demonstrating a lawful use as a 

fallback position is firmly with the Appellant. This is equivalent to the position if 

an application was made under s.191 (Circular 10/97, Annex 8 paragraph 8.12). 

The relevant test is the “balance of probability”, and Local Planning Authorities 

are advised that if they have no evidence of their own to contradict or undermine 

the Applicant’s version of events, there is no good reason to refuse the 

application provided the Applicant’s evidence is sufficiently precise and 

unambiguous to justify the grant of the certificate (paragraph 8.15). In this case, 

the appellant's evidence contains considerable ambiguity lacks precision. It is 

also contested by local residents. 

215. The Lawful Use of much of the appeal site is as an airfield. The landing and 

take-off of aircraft is known to have taken place from the Runway 06/24 (also 

known as the east-west runway) and the storage and parking of aircraft on land 

either side of the runway for a period in excess of ten years. (Appendix 8) 


216. The use of a building as a club house and an adjoining building for 

purposes of aircraft maintenance and repair together with other buildings as 

aircraft hangar facilities has also existed for a period in excess of ten years. 

217. Most of the Runway 15/33 (also known as the north-south runway) lies 

within the area that has been used for the purposes of an airfield but the northern 

most element (about 45 metres) shown on drawing 4085-CH-SK-02 extends in to 

land that has not been used for a continuous period as part of the airfield and the 

entirety of the Runway 15/33 north of the margins to Runway 06/24 has within the 

last ten years been used for the purposes of agriculture. (Appendix 8) 

218. Land to the northern side of the Runway 06/24 between the margins of the 

existing airfield buildings and the margins of Runway 15/33 has been used for the 

purposes of agriculture and has not formed part of the airfield. (Appendix 8) 

219. A plan showing the extent of land that has been in use for the purposes of 

the operation of an airfield is appended at Appendix 8 

220. The lawful use as an airfield includes the provision of an above ground fuel 

bowser as a chattel as well as underground fuel store and above ground 

dispensing equipment following the grant of planning permission under reference 

2/89/009/0015J 

221. Numerous buildings on the airfield which were granted planning consent 

were not subsequently built in complete accordance with the approved plans. 

Most of these buildings have been on the appeal site for more than 10 years and 

are considered to be immune from enforcement action. Others however are not 

immune from enforcement action. The Enforcement Notice served on 28 

September 2009 refers to those breaches which the Council consider are 

significant and justify action on the part of the Council. Other breaches exist but 

have been considered to not justify enforcement action at this time. 

222. The series of plans Appendix 3 to 7 show the building and engineering 

operations which are lawful and those which are not and those which were 

included in the 2009 Enforcement Notice. 


223. The details set out by the appellant in their application for planning approval 

for the 2010 scheme stated that the existing use of the site was for “airfield, 

aircraft parking, storage, repair, maintenance, refuelling, aircraft hire, flying 

lessons, training, clubhouse with bar and dining facilities.” The use of the site for 

aircraft hire, flying lessons, training have not been established as lawful uses. 

The uses are however uses that may be anticipated to operate from any airfield 

and the matter of whether they require planning permission is therefore a matter 

of fact and degree. No evidence has become available to the Council to 

demonstrate that on the balance of probability that the level of use for aircraft 

hire, provision of flying lessons or training have reached a level that requires 

planning permission for a change of use. 

224. Change of use frequently is a gradual process, involving fluctuations in 

intensity and shifts in precise location. Pinpointing the date of a breach of 

planning control is often, therefore, difficult. In such cases, the only effective test 

is to compare the present use with the previous use, or (as in this case) the use 

in the base year (ten years prior to the date of the application) and assess 

whether there has been any material change in use. This test was expressly 

endorsed in Thurrock BC v. SoSE [2001] EWHC Admin 128 

225. The lawful use of Bagby Airfield is as an airfield subject to the limitations of 

the physical extent, condition and facilities at the airfield and those uses and 

activities that have existed throughout the last 10 years. 

226. The physical limitations include the size of the runway, its width and length, 

gradient, drainage and surfacing, all of these have been noted to have changed 

overtime, with particular importance are the additional matting on the runway and 

provision of hangar. These are in breach of planning control and subject to the 

2009 Enforcement Notice. The nature of the use has changed as a consequence 

of the physical changes. The use of hangars for storage of aircraft and for 

maintenance has the potential to change the character of the use. 

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

228. Some important changes occurred in 2007 with the laying of matting and 

provision of concrete section to runway and apron. Construction of additional 


hangar space and refurbishment of the existing hangar B together has the 

potential to increase the number of flights particularly during the winter months. 

229. As noted by the manufacturers of matting and by a user of a Pilot Web 

forum “there is black plastic mesh that has been laid down into the runways 

surface to help with drainage and serviceability during the winter months which 

may look like tarmac…” (Flyer Forums 4 th June 2007) The appellant’s response 

to the 2009 Enforcement Notice records that the laying of the matting and 

concrete took place within the 4 year period preceding the service of the notice. 

230. The works represent a significant investment in the infrastructure at the 

airfield. It is reasonable to conclude that the investments are a business 

proposition and that they should provide a financial return to the investor. To 

achieve increased income additional visits would be required to allow uplifts of 

fuel, provision of servicing repair, modification or other aero engineering 

activities, provision of hospitality, training or other commercial and social 

activities. The development proposals would result in increased activity above 

that which is lawful at the airfield. 

231. Drawing any conclusion on the number of flights per year over the last 10 

years is made more difficult by the changed facilities at the airfield. It is likely that 

the lawful number of flights annual is in the order of 4567. This is the figure 

quoted by York Aviation (Appendix 1 Section 3) as the total movements excluding 

those of G-SKYC which York Aviation note may give rise to a further 1000 

movements per annum. However the records available do not show G-SKYC (or 

a similar alternative aircraft) to have operated consistently from Bagby Airfield for 

all of the previous 10 years and therefore should be excluded from the lawful use 

figure. 

232. Following the methodology in the York Aviation report with the assumption 

of splits between summer time and winter time flying (excluding the fly-in days) 

the following conclusion can be reached. 


Table 2 - Lawful flight numbers 

Weeks in season Aircraft movements Adjustments in 

proportion of 

flights by season 

Summer 30 3342 100% 

Winter 22 1225 50% 

Annual total 52 4567 

233. Recent and Related Planning Applications 

234. The planning applications were submitted by the same applicant in 2007 

and 2008 which were withdrawn and refused respectively. Two applications 

submitted in 2009 seeking retrospective approval for provision of geo-textile 

matting and concrete apron (LPA reference 09/03959/FUL) and a replacement 

helicopter landing pad and jet fuel stop facility (LPA reference 09/04039/FUL) 

both were refused. The Planning Inspectorate notified the Council on 7 October 

2010 that the appeals against the 2009 refusals and the Enforcement Notice 

would be taken jointly with the 2010 refusal for the comprehensive scheme. The 

2010 scheme repeated the detail of both of the 2009 applications. The evidence 

I present therefore deals with the matters together by issue and does not proceed 

through the issues of each appeal separately. 

235. ISSUE BASED ASSESSMENT 

236. Amenity 

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

Swithenbank. 

238. The operation of Bagby Airfield impacts upon amenity of the area. Noise 

from the operation of aircraft particularly harms the peace and tranquillity for 

residents of Bagby and the other the neighbouring villages and isolated 

dwellings. 


239. The noise of fixed wing aircraft is largely due to take-off, departure and 

ground movements; and to a lesser extent arrival. Helicopter movements cause 

noise in all aspects of take-off, departure, arrival and landing. Prolonged ground 

movements and low hovers are particularly intrusive. 

240. The operation of an airfield is expected to give rise to some degree of noise 

and disturbance with this being particularly noticeable to the population living 

close to the Runway and those living close to or under the approach and 

departure routes. 

241. The time of day, day of the week, time of year and weather conditions are 

critical to the level of disturbance that is experience by the population. Aircraft 

movements during fine summer weekend afternoons being the most likely to give 

rise to disturbance as this is the time when the resident population are most likely 

to be seeking the peaceful enjoyment of their gardens and homes. 

242. The appeal proposal seeks to gain approval to a number of works that 

would result in increases in the potential number of flights due to the increased 

capacity and attractiveness of the facilities at the airfield to pilots either as a 

home base or to visit. 

243. The provision of surfaced and reinforced aircraft manoeuvring areas 

enables the movement of both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters during periods 

of wet weather when without hard surfacing or reinforcement the aircraft hangars 

would become inaccessible to aircraft. 

244. Two particular pieces of evidence relating to the difficulty of moving aircraft 

at Bagby Airfield during times of wet weather and soft ground conditions are 

available. The first of these is the unauthorised provision of a hard surface area 

immediately adjoining the apron of Existing Hangar E (see Masterplan drawing 

4085-CH-SK-02 and the Enforcement Notice plan area shown outlined Green). 

The appellant’s agent advised that the purpose of the extended hardstanding was 

to enable the use of a ‘helilift’ to transport helicopters from the position of land in 

to the hangar as the ‘helilift’ could not reliably travel over grass particularly when 

it was wet or soft. The reason given is that the ‘helilift’ could not achieve 

sufficient traction unless the surface was hard and even. Whilst the helilift is 

specialist equipment for moving helicopters with skids rather than wheels this is 


an example of changes at the airfield that may make it more attractive to pilots 

that would then give rise to additional helicopter movements which in turn are 

more intrusive than fixed wing aircraft. 

245. The second piece of evidence relates to an incident observed at the airfield 

during a site visit to survey the extended apron shown as Area 2 on plan at 

Appendix 5. An aircraft taxiing under its own power across the airfield from the 

refuelling point beside the club house using the reinforced tracks and crossing 

the Runway 06/24 became bogged down in soft ground. The use of a high level 

of power from the propeller failed to extract the light aircraft and required the 

combined efforts of tractor and manpower to remove the aircraft the margins of 

the Runway 06/24 and subsequently to tow it to the area used for the parking and 

storage of aircraft close to the position of the proposed Jet A1 Fuel Stop. Aircraft 

being parked in the hangars using reinforced taxi-ways gives rise to additional 

aircraft movements even during periods when the ground is soft. The provision 

of reinforcement to the taxi ways from the aircraft hangars to the refuelling points 

and with sufficient reinforcement to Runway 06/24 also enables take-off and 

landing along the 378.3 metres of reinforced and hard surfaced runway during 

wet and soft conditions. The removal of the reinforcement and hard surfacing 

would reduce the frequency of use of the airfield during periods when the ground 

is wet or soft. 

246. The increased reliability of the ground conditions that are suitable for the 

manoeuvring of aircraft together with the increased provision of aircraft hangar 

space would enable an increased use of the airfield and an increased attraction 

to airfield users of all types. York Aviation advises that the changes would 

provide increased reliability and that a growth of aircraft flight numbers would 

result. (Appendix 1 Section 5) 

247. The recreational airfield user would be more certain of the ability to fly to 

and from the airfield irrespective of the weather conditions in the preceding days. 

With more reliable ground conditions the commercial pilot would be more able to 

timetable flights to and from the airfield the make use of the airfield with less 

likelihood of needing to divert to other airfields. Both of these aspects would 

reasonably be expected to increase the number of flights to and from the airfield 

as a consequence of the provision of the reinforced matting and hard surfacing to 

the central section of the Runway 06/24. 


248. The ability to predict the ground conditions would also increase the 

attractiveness of Bagby Airfield as a place to host training and the fly-in social 

events that have been organised by the Flying Club based at Bagby Airfield. All 

these activities would be liable to increase the number of flights and inherently 

cause greater disturbance to the population. 

249. The parking of high value and older less valuable aircraft undercover would 

be achieved by the provision of additional hangar space and may make outside 

storage an unnecessary feature of the airfield. With the additional hangar 

facilities the trend towards lower numbers of aircraft being stored on the airfield 

may be reverse. It is known that aircraft are owned by syndicates as well as by 

individuals, accordingly increasing the number of aircraft based at the airfield can 

result in increased numbers of flights and activity at the airfield beyond that which 

would be expected from a single pilot. Increasing the number of aircraft can 

therefore lead to a marked increase in the number of flights. 

250. The increased facilities of the club house would also increase the attraction 

of Bagby Airfield as a place for the keeping of aircraft and the operation of airfield 

based businesses. 

251. The enhancements of facilities for helicopters are of particular concern to 

local residents due to the particular disturbance that they cause. The provision of 

a space for the refuelling of helicopters away from other activities at the airfield 

enables an increase in the use of the airfield as a refuelling point for helicopters 

that are in transit. There is little opportunity for the airfield management to 

sanction such aircraft from arriving or departing by routes that do not comply with 

the noise abatement procedures. A non technical assessment of helicopter 

movements suggests that they are perhaps at least 4 times more disturbing than 

fixed wing movements. Only the take-off of a fixed wing aircraft is likely to give 

rise to significant amounts of unavoidable noise, whereas all four aspects of 

helicopter movement (approach, landing, take-off, departure) generate significant 

amounts of noise that are to some extent unavoidable. In addition the rotor noise 

from a helicopter is a particularly intrusive type of noise that has been reported by 

residents to disturb sleep and interfere with the normal daily activities in the 

homes of Bagby residents. Noise that is sufficiently loud to disturb sleep 

patterns, wake a sleeping person, prevent sleep in an evening and disrupt daily 


life can not be defined as being “acceptable”. Such a level must therefore be 

“unacceptable” and contrary to the policy requirements of the Development Plan. 

252. Whatever method of measurement that is used to compare the noise at the 

airfield with a pre-determined standard the incidence of unacceptable impact on 

the neighbouring community is clearly stated by that community in response to a 

pre-application Community Involvement exercise, application consultation and 

ongoing correspondence since the determination of the 2008 application. 

253. The impact on amenity that is reported by the neighbouring community is 

based on the existing level of use. This is a level that is greater than would be 

achieved by the lawful use as the existing activity utilises the hard surfaces of the 

hangar aprons, the concrete section and matting on the runways which were 

constructed during 2007. The level of use is however lower than is anticipated if 

the scheme was approved as it does not provide the additional hangar space, 

new clubhouse or other facilities of car parking or overnight accommodation that 

would be available to a club member. 

254. It is logical to conclude that the investment proposed in the airfield would be 

expected to give a return to the investor. The range of facilities provided would 

provide a return by undertaking more business all of which can be anticipated to 

increase the level of movements at the airfield. The development proposals 

would result in increased activity above that which is lawful at the airfield. 

255. The increased number of fixed wing take-offs and helicopter movements 

would increase the amount of noise from the airfield. The extent of objection and 

complaint in the correspondence from residents of the village of Bagby and 

surrounding villages makes plain that the impact on their amenity from the 

unlawful development is at a level that is already “unacceptable”. To grant 

planning permission for the existing development, would be contrary to the 

requirements of DP1 which requires that “Developments must not unacceptably 

affect the amenity of residents or occupants.” The proposal is contrary to Policies 

DP1 and CP1 and the underlying Strategic Objective of the Core Strategy which 

seeks to ensure that all development is sustainable and enable people to enjoy a 

better quality of life. The proposal is also contrary to PPG24 paragraph 10 as it 

requires the local planning authorities to ensure that development does not cause 

an unacceptable degree of disturbance. 


256. Business case 

257. There is a lack of evidence to show how the scheme will support local 

businesses and lead to regeneration or growth of the local economy. 

Consideration has been given to the ‘business case’ by the Council’s consultants 

– York Aviation. The statement from York Aviation is appended to the proof at 

Appendix 1. 

258. The history of the airfield shows that it has grown from a base for hobby 

flyers operating at a small scale that appeared to be funded by the collective 

efforts of those using the airfield as their home base. The additional facilities 

provided at the airfield during the 1980’s and 90’s and the change in ownership at 

the end of the 90’s saw the airfield operated as small business by the new owner 

Mr Dundon. 

259. The appeal proposals seek to replace and enlarge the facilities. Many of 

the buildings erected during the 1980’s are of poor quality. Some of the earliest 

buildings have fallen into disuse. The workshop building alongside the clubhouse 

has provided a workspace for an aviation engineer. The appeal scheme would 

increase the amount of maintenance floor space and improve the quality of the 

facilities. 

260. No precise detail was given in the application documents of the nature or 

extent of the existing business and how it may contribute to the local economy 

which in turn would help sustain rural communities or facilitate regeneration. 

261. Similarly the ‘2010’ appeal scheme lacked detail of how the development 

would support the local economy again which in turn would help sustain rural 

communities. 

262. The requirement to understand the contribution a development may make 

to the local economy is routed in the Core Strategy of the LDF. The Core 

Strategy sets out the Strategic Vision and Objectives for the District. The sixth 

Strategic Objective is: 


“To support the growth of the local economy and rural regeneration in ways which 

are compatible with environmental objectives, and which deliver increased 

prosperity for the whole community 

- seeking to encourage the appropriate type of employment development that will 

provide the jobs needed throughout the whole of the District and to support the 

policies and initiatives of the Regional Economic Strategy. This will involve 

capitalising on the strengths of the District, in terms of location and accessibility 

and in terms of economic strengths, including the skills of the workforce – such 

as the potential to support the food industries cluster. It will also involve seeking 

to provide better skilled jobs locally to reduce the scale of out-commuting to work 

by Hambleton residents. These principles may have environmental implications, 

which may need to be mitigated and in part addressed through supporting 

creative approaches to economic development and rural regeneration that 

encompass all aspects of sustainable development. 

263. The Core Strategy acknowledges that the growth of the economy will have 

implications. The aim of achieving sustainable development requires a balance to 

be struck between the three strands of environment, economy and community. 

In the absence of any evidence to show the economic benefits that might be 

derived from the development little weight can be given to this strand of 

sustainable development. The severity of the impact on the community in 

respect of noise and disturbance arising from the activity associated with the 

airfield is better understood. The impact on the environment other than the 

visual impact of the additional buildings and some disturbance to domestic 

animals and wildlife is not of great significance. No protected species or habitats 

are significantly adversely affected by the proposed works (subject to the need 

for safeguards against pollution from fuel and oil spillages). 

264. It can be anticipated that the airfield provides some modest local benefit in 

terms of jobs and services bought in and that the replacement facilities would 

similarly have some benefits. However, the extent of jobs at the airfield 

anticipated to be created due to the development in the various disciplines of: 

administration, grounds maintenance, aircraft maintenance engineering, pilot 

work, and catering are not set out in the application. The suppliers of services to 

the airfield are similarly not stated. 


265. The provision of additional facilities particularly the provision of overnight 

accommodation would have the potential to detract from the viability of other 

businesses in the area such as the nearest hotel, The Divan Hotel on Sutton 

Road, and farmhouse bed and breakfast accommodation in the vicinity. However 

the scale of facilities sought in this application are not so large that the impact 

would be anticipated to be seriously harmful to the existing business. The 

appellant has previously set out that the facilities are intended to be a niche 

market attractive to those wishing to fly in and out of the airfield and that the 

facilities would not be made available to those who do not have business at the 

airfield. 

266. The operation of the maintenance business at the site has been expanded 

recently in to the existing Hangar B. The Hangar B has been refurbished and 

provided as a maintenance building. 

267. There is a caravan used for staff accommodation. This is an unauthorised 

use which the proposal shows is to be removed. No business case has been 

made for the provision of permanent accommodation on the site. The 

replacement clubhouse makes no provision for dedicated staff accommodation 

and in the event an approval should prevent use as a dwellinghouse. No 

evidence has been provided to show that a permanent residential presence is 

necessary for the purposes of the operation of the business or that the business 

could not be operated on a viable basis in the absence of residential presence. 

268. The operation of the site as a filling station for aircraft has the potential to 

give rise to a significant increase in noise. The layout of the site with a helicopter 

refuelling pad separate from the other facilities at the airfield has the potential to 

increase the number of fuel sales as the operation of the helicopter refuelling pad 

would result in less congestion than the current location of the Jet A1 fuel bowser 

just north of Hangar A. 

269. The change from the management of the land between the club house and 

the Runway 15/33 from agricultural use for cereal production to “existing grass 

land retained” suggesting a reduction in the farmed land. The removal of the land 

from agricultural production and maintenance simply as grassland would not 

benefit the local economy. It is acknowledged that depending on the land 


management practices employed the provision of an area of grassland could be 

beneficial to bio-diversity. 

270. No detail has been provided of the economic value of the training, and air 

taxi operations to the local economy. 

271. The proposals are therefore contrary to the Local Development Framework 

Policies CP16 and DP25 and PPS4 Policy EC10. The scheme provides no 

evidence of any meaningful reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The 

operation of General Aviation aside (which plainly is a contributor to carbon 

dioxide emissions but which is not the subject of the LDF policies or other 

National or Regional planning policy) the location and operation of the business is 

not in a sustainable location and will be likely to continue to be reliant upon the 

use of the car as a means of access for visitors and staff. The operation of more 

intensive aerial activity at the airfield would harm other business interests based 

on tourism or farming or keeping of other livestock. No evidence has been 

provided through the period of applications on how the schemes would assist the 

rural economy to grow. 

272. Landscape 

273. The landscape character of the area around Bagby is described in the 

submitted document by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd that accompanied the 

‘2010’ application. 

274. The methodology adopted which considers 

a. the policy basis, 

b. a baseline survey of receptors and their sensitivity, 

c. the magnitude of change caused by the design proposals 

d. the mitigation measures and enhancement opportunities and 

e. the overall cumulative impacts , is considered appropriate. 

275. The policies are not disputed, other than the omissions detailed below. 

Much of the survey work and sensitivity attributed is also agreed. The magnitude 

of change is considered to be understated and the value of the mitigation is 

considered to be overstated. 


a. The policy basis, 

276. The statement omits the full words of Local Development Framework Policy 

CP16 relating to the circumstances when schemes will not be supported. These 

missing words are significant as they say, “Development or activities will not be 

supported which: i. has a detrimental impact upon the interests of a natural or 

man-made asset.” The interest in this case is the open agricultural landscape, a 

man-made landscape but one which is largely open, and contains natural 

features. 

277. The FCPR statement although setting out in paragraph 1.1 to seek possible 

enhancements to Bagby Airfield makes no reference to Policy DP31 Protecting 

natural resources: biodiversity/nature conservation. This policy supports 

proposals to restore or create new habitats where they would contribute to the 

Biodiversity Action Plan and to the targets, priorities and enhancement proposals 

of the RSS. 

278. In the selective quotes from Policy DP32 General Design xviii is omitted. 

This reads “design should seek to retain existing important species and habitats 

and maximise opportunities for habitat enhancement, creation and management 

in accordance with Policy DP31. 

b. a baseline survey of receptors and their sensitivity 

279. The Detailed Character Assessment for Character Area 7 – York Road 

(FPCR report page 18) Agricultural omits reference to the prominence of the 

airfield from Moor Lane. From this position the sloping part of the east west 

runway and airfield buildings are the main built feature in the landscape. 

280. At 4.19 of the same report considering the Easterly view from the public 

footpath leading on to Bagby Lane reference is made to the glimpsed views in to 

adjacent fields including pasture within Bagby Airfield, The glimpsed views from 

Bagby Lane includes views of the main hangar ‘hangar B’ on plan in Appendix 4 

the buildings of Bagby Airfield 

281. Paragraph 4.21 of the report explains that from Viewpoints 9 and 10 views 

of the buildings within Bagby Airfield are only available from a short stretch of the 

A19. The views are achieved for about 300 metres, being the distance from the 


junction of the A19 and Bagby Lane to the position of Griffin Farm with only minor 

interruption due to a tall hedgerow. At 80 k/mph the hangars, club house and 

windsock around the airfield are visible for about 14 seconds to a 

motorist/passenger on the A19 in both southbound and northbound directions. 

The same claim of limited views from the A19 is made at paragraph 6.23 where 

the report makes reference to the impact of the new project. 

282. The FPCR report claims at paragraph 4.35 (page 27) that, “There are no 

negative impact upon the wider landscape character beyond its immediate 

context which is currently degraded by its utilitarian ramshackle structures and 

setting.” This statement avoids reference to the intrusion caused by the 

demolition debris that has accumulated at the south western end of the runway or 

the attention drawn to the site by the recently installed windsock. The existing 

buildings on the airfield are noticeable from positions that are up to a kilometre 

from the site. The existing buildings could not be described as enhancing the 

landscape, nor is the impact of the buildings neutral in the landscape. 

Accordingly it is considered that the impact of the existing buildings on the airfield 

is more significant than that claimed in the FPCR report and is clearly adverse. I 

consider that the existing buildings cause a slight adverse impact on the wider 

landscape and that the movement of the windsock and aircraft draw attention to 

the airfield such that the slight adverse impact is experienced by a greater 

number of people than would be the case of a similar group of agricultural 

buildings. 

c. the magnitude of impact caused by the design 

283. Section 6 of the FPCR sets out to assess the impacts of the project. The 

report appears to assess both the impact of the new landscaping work ten years 

after planting in combination with the impact of the building work. However the 

report concentrates on assessing the impacts on the landscape of the new 

planting works and makes little reference to the impacts arising from the 

additional building works. 

284. The new range of hangars on the south eastern boundary of the airfield 

would stand as a significant and solid barrier in the landscape. The grouping of 

buildings would not be of an agricultural character and would when viewed in 


association with the other airfield infrastructure would create a significant visual 

impact in a landscape otherwise dominated by agricultural use and woodlands. 

e. the mitigation measures and enhancement opportunities 

285. The provision of new blocks of broadleaf native woodland, re-introductions 

of hedgerows with hedgerow trees and formation of wetland areas would all 

benefit the quality of the landscape. The significance of the effects of the new 

landscaping works as set out in the FPCR report is rated between substantial, 

through slight, to negligible. The benefit of the landscaping scheme in isolation is 

not disputed. 

286. The change of surface colour to the existing hangar walls and roofs from 

the light colour to a darker tone would reduce the prominence of the buildings 

within the landscape. 

f. the overall cumulative impacts 

287. The impact on the landscapes within the character areas 3, 4, 7 and 9 

(FPCR Figure 6) is considered to be understated. 

288. The report gives no indication that full consideration has been given to the 

increasing ground level to the eastern end of the runway which is two metres 

higher than the position of the main hangar (hangar B). The increased ground 

level is such that the visual impact of the new hangars would be greater from the 

vantage points to the east, south and west. The impacts of the new works 

assessed at all of the near vantage points shown on Figure 7 of the FPCR report 

are considered to be greater than assessed in the report. The report states at 

4.33 that the new buildings would be “little different in scale or character from 

typical contemporary agricultural buildings such as those at neighbouring Griffin 

Farm”. However, buildings at farms normally are clustered in groups with a 

farmhouse and landscape features with outdoor storage and the paraphernalia of 

agricultural use such that they ‘settle’ in to the landscape. The buildings on the 

airfield are by function not arranged in a group as this would restrict access to 

aircraft, the paraphernalia that accompanies an airfield such a parked aircraft and 

windsock are not the normal features of the local landscape. The buildings and 

other structures will therefore appear conspicuous in the landscape. 


289. Visual impact on Bagby Lane 

290. No reference is made to the visual impact of the formation of the verge 

crossing and removal of existing hedgerow on Bagby Lane in order to form the 

`new access. The FPCR report refers at paragraph 6.3 that the new access 

would be “discrete”. The drawn details show the access of sufficient width to 

accommodate two way traffic comprising an HCV and another vehicle. A junction 

of sufficient size and construction to accommodate traffic of this type will be 

larger than the existing access in the village. It will require the removal of the 

rough grass verge and boundary hedge at the back of the verge. The proposal 

also includes a statement that gates will be provided at the access with fencing 

and new native hedge. Even when the hedge is mature the new crossing will be 

an urbanising feature beyond the western end of the village. 

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

292. The equipped play area on Bagby Lane is an important public space in 

Bagby. The space provides a range of functions including 

a. equipment within a fenced area for play for young children 

b. swings, balance beam, stepping stones, climbing net and other 

adventure play equipment for older children and 

c. skatepark and kickabout area for older children and teenagers. 

293. The open space also includes seating and picnic bench as an amenity for 

all ages of user and also has a village notice board, parking and recycling 

facilities. 

294. The proposed works on the airfield would all be highly visible from the play 

park particularly from elevated positions on play equipment. The boundary 

hedge to the play park is insufficiently high to obscure views of the airfield 

buildings. The magnitude of the change of the appearance of the airfield from 

open space from the approved condition and that sought in the application would 

be substantial with a significant adverse effect on the agricultural character of the 

landscape. 


295. Conclusions on visual amenity 

296. The development would impact upon a range of receptors, from those 

people using the local highway network on foot, cycle, horseback, from cars and 

other vehicles, either travelling slowly on Bagby Lane or greater speed on the 

A19. The wide age range of users of the open space at the west end of Bagby 

would experience the development during leisure activities. The residents of 

some neighbouring properties would also experience from their homes and 

gardens the increased visual impact of the development. 

297. The users of the open space area and pedestrians on Bagby Lane are 

considered to have the greatest sensitivity to the changes as they spend most 

time in locations from which the airfield is visible and are also subjected to the 

noise impacts of aircraft engines which draw particular attention to the visual 

impact of the airfield. 

298. The magnitude of the visual impact of the new developments is considered 

to be significantly greater than the magnitude of the visual impact of the lawful 

development causing intrusion in to an agricultural landscape. 

299. The mitigation measures proposed would enhance the landscape but would 

not overcome the visual intrusion from some of the principle vantage points. 

300. Overall the development of the airfield as proposed would result in a 

harmful impact on the visual amenity of the landscape. 

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

302. The 2009 (09/04039/FUL) application for the provision of a new refuelling 

point was refused permission. The application did not include details of the 

access to be used. The scheme did not clarify whether the intention was to 

access via the existing access within the village next to the dwelling “Milford” or 

whether some alternative route was intended. If the intention was to access via 

the existing indistinct access track next to “Milford” concerns regarding the 

suitability of the access in terms of highway safety, amenity of neighbours and 

the quality of the environment due to the increase in large commercial vehicles in 

the village street remained. 


303. Clarification of the access arrangements were not provided and it was 

therefore anticipated that the access route would be via the only existing 

vehicular access the unmade track adjacent to “Milford” and that this would result 

in increased use of the village street 

304. It was anticipated that most of the fuel delivery vehicles would arrive from 

either refinery or storage facilities to the north and would use the A19 to gain 

access to the site. Access to the village from the A19 would result in the passing 

of the play area and 7 houses on Bagby Lane before reaching the site access. 

305. Such a development would have been harmful to the highway safety due to 

the difficulty for an increased number of drivers, particularly those who may be 

unfamiliar with the “Milford” access to manoeuvre in to the site. The potential for 

manoeuvres elsewhere in the village if the access was missed would add to the 

loss of amenity to village residents. The position of the existing airfield access 

track requires all vehicles approaching from the west to pass the children’s play 

area and as such cross the footway that is used for children to access the play 

area. 

306. A new access outside of the village would overcome the highway safety and 

amenity concerns relating to the existing access but result in the other impacts 

noted earlier in this proof. 

307. Conditions 

308. The Council have set out in the Statement of Common Ground without 

prejudice to its opposition to the development a set of conditions which it is 

considered would be appropriate to regulate the use of the airfield in the event 

that the Inspector considers the development should be approved and the 

Enforcement Notice varied or upheld. 

309. Enforcement Notice 

310. The Enforcement Notice served on 28 th September 2009 related to five 

alleged breaches of planning control. 



comprising the construction of the aircraft hanger as shown edged blue and 

identified as hanger E on the attached plan. 


comprising the concreting of the apron to aircraft hanger E as shown edged 

green on the attached plan. 


comprising the concreting of the apron to the aircraft hanger marked A as shown 

edged pink on the attached plan. 


comprising the concreting of part of the main east west runway as shown edged 

yellow on the attached plan 

(5) Without planning permission the unauthorised engineering 

works/operational development comprising the installation of plastic geo-textile 

matting on the main east west runway as shown edged orange on the attached 

plan. 

311. The appeal was made on Grounds A, C, F and G. The appeal under 

Ground A for items (3) and (5) failed as the period for payment of the fee lapsed. 

Whilst a further application was made in respect of the matters alleged in the 

Enforcement Notice the Ground A appeal can not be revived. 

312. The Ground A appeal 

313. The Ground A appeal seeking the grant of planning permission in respect of 

all 5 breaches raises all the same issues for both the appellant and the Local 

Planning Authority as the appeal against the refusal of planning permission for 

the two 2009 applications and the 2010 application. The reason for the issue of 

the Enforcement Notice relates to the same issues as set out planning decision 

regarding a loss of amenity to local residents. No additional evidence is 

considered necessary beyond that set out in the earlier part of this Proof of 

Evidence. 

314. The Ground C appeal 

315. Section 57 (1) of the Planning Act requires planning permission for 

development. Section 55 defines “development” including at Section 55 (1) 

“development” means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other 

operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the 

use of any buildings or other land 


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

engineering operation. 

317. The appellant states that “In this respect, it is considered that the geo-textile 

matting is not development and therefore does not require planning permission, 

since it does not constitute an engineering operation”. 

318. The provision of matting to the east west runway involves the installation of 

an engineered product, a product that has been designed to be installed under 

the supervision of a suitably experienced engineer and with reference to the 

manufacturers’ specification. 

319. It is an engineering operation to install the matting involving engineering 

plant and equipment again with adherence to the manufacturers’ specification of 

installation, being an operation normally undertaken as a building activity or 

engineering operation depending on the scale of installation. In this case the 

installation is over a large area and was installed as an engineering operation. 

The installation of the matting is therefore development and is development 

which is not permitted by any General or Special Development Order. 

320. It is my understanding that the installation of the special reinforcement 

matting took place over the course of several days and that the work involved the 

use of specialist vibration rolling equipment as used in road building and other 

engineering works. To the best of my knowledge no other additional preparatory 

work was required before the matting was installed. 

321. The Ground F appeal 

322. The Notice requires the removal of the concrete from the main east west 

runway. The requirements of the notice do not specify the material to be used to 

reinstate the runway. It is understood that the ground was previously made up of 

hardcore overlaid with soil and a 4” deep heavy duty plastic reinforcement 

matting similar to the type installed to the east and west of the concrete. 

323. The notice does not require the re-instatement to a grass finish without the 

underlying hardcore or reinforcement matting. 


324. The Ground G appeal 

325. The period set out in the Notice for compliance with the requirements of the 

Notice is 3 months. The appellant seeks a long period of time. Nothing has been 

provided to indicate that a longer period of time would be necessary and to 

extend the period for compliance with facilitate an extension of the unlawful use 

of the airfield. 

326. Conclusion 

327. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to both National 

Planning Policy and Guidance and that contained within the Hambleton Local 

Development Framework. The development would, as set out in the decision 

notices, cause harm to the amenity of residents, the landscape and this is not 

offset by any economic benefits. 

328. In addition the works undertaken in breach of planning control, and the 

subject of the Enforcement Notice, cause actual harm to the resident population 

due to the disturbance caused by operations at the airfield and the visual 

intrusion of the development in the countryside. 

329. The harm arising from both the development in the Planning Applications 

and in the Enforcement Notice can not be overcome by the imposition of 

conditions. 

330. In the light of the above considerations, the appointed Inspector will be 

respectfully requested to dismiss the appeals.

Mr M Scott, Bagby Airfield, Bagby, Thirsk, North - Hambleton District ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?