24.11.2014 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!