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.

295. Conclusions on visual amenity<br />

296. The development would impact upon a range of receptors, from those<br />

people using the local highway network on foot, cycle, horseback, from cars and<br />

other vehicles, either travelling slowly on <strong>Bagby</strong> Lane or greater speed on the<br />

A19. The wide age range of users of the open space at the west end of <strong>Bagby</strong><br />

would experience the development during leisure activities. The residents of<br />

some neighbouring properties would also experience from their homes and<br />

gardens the increased visual impact of the development.<br />

297. The users of the open space area and pedestrians on <strong>Bagby</strong> Lane are<br />

considered to have the greatest sensitivity to the changes as they spend most<br />

time in locations from which the airfield is visible and are also subjected to the<br />

noise impacts of aircraft engines which draw particular attention to the visual<br />

impact of the airfield.<br />

298. The magnitude of the visual impact of the new developments is considered<br />

to be significantly greater than the magnitude of the visual impact of the lawful<br />

development causing intrusion in to an agricultural landscape.<br />

299. The mitigation measures proposed would enhance the landscape but would<br />

not overcome the visual intrusion from some of the principle vantage points.<br />

300. Overall the development of the airfield as proposed would result in a<br />

harmful impact on the visual amenity of the landscape.<br />

301. Use of <strong>Bagby</strong> Lane by HCV’s associated with <strong>Bagby</strong> <strong>Airfield</strong><br />

302. The 2009 (09/04039/FUL) application for the provision of a new refuelling<br />

point was refused permission. The application did not include details of the<br />

access to be used. The scheme did not clarify whether the intention was to<br />

access via the existing access within the village next to the dwelling “Milford” or<br />

whether some alternative route was intended. If the intention was to access via<br />

the existing indistinct access track next to “Milford” concerns regarding the<br />

suitability of the access in terms of highway safety, amenity of neighbours and<br />

the quality of the environment due to the increase in large commercial vehicles in<br />

the village street remained.<br />

<strong>Hambleton</strong> <strong>District</strong> Council - Tim Wood – Proof of Evidence - 66 -

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!