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

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.
Hambleton District Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 57 -