Mr M Scott, Bagby Airfield, Bagby, Thirsk, North - Hambleton District ...
Mr M Scott, Bagby Airfield, Bagby, Thirsk, North - Hambleton District ...
Mr M Scott, Bagby Airfield, Bagby, Thirsk, North - Hambleton District ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
209. A further legal opinion was submitted on instruction from David Cooper by<br />
<strong>Mr</strong> Lockhart-Mummery QC. This was received on 13 August 2010 and is at<br />
Appendix 15.<br />
210. A rebuttal to the opinions of <strong>Mr</strong> Lockhart-Mummery QC and David Cooper<br />
was submitted by solicitors Walker Morris acting on instruction from the agents<br />
for the applicant. This was received on 18 th August 2010 and is at Appendix 16.<br />
211. A legal opinion was prepared by Martyn Richards – solicitor for <strong>Hambleton</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Council, this was received on 18 th August 2010 and is at Appendix 17.<br />
212. Section 171A and B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out<br />
the time limits for enforcing a breach of planning control. In the case of the<br />
developments at <strong>Bagby</strong> <strong>Airfield</strong> all of the alleged breaches relates to a breach of<br />
planning control consisting of the carrying out of operational development and the<br />
four year time period imposed by Section 171B(1) applies. As set out in Section<br />
172 the Planning Authority have found it expedient to issue an enforcement<br />
notice having had regard to the provisions of the development plan and other<br />
material considerations.<br />
213. Conclusions on the Lawful Use<br />
214. I consider that the burden of proof in demonstrating a lawful use as a<br />
fallback position is firmly with the Appellant. This is equivalent to the position if<br />
an application was made under s.191 (Circular 10/97, Annex 8 paragraph 8.12).<br />
The relevant test is the “balance of probability”, and Local Planning Authorities<br />
are advised that if they have no evidence of their own to contradict or undermine<br />
the Applicant’s version of events, there is no good reason to refuse the<br />
application provided the Applicant’s evidence is sufficiently precise and<br />
unambiguous to justify the grant of the certificate (paragraph 8.15). In this case,<br />
the appellant's evidence contains considerable ambiguity lacks precision. It is<br />
also contested by local residents.<br />
215. The Lawful Use of much of the appeal site is as an airfield. The landing and<br />
take-off of aircraft is known to have taken place from the Runway 06/24 (also<br />
known as the east-west runway) and the storage and parking of aircraft on land<br />
either side of the runway for a period in excess of ten years. (Appendix 8)<br />
<strong>Hambleton</strong> <strong>District</strong> Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 49 -