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

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.
Summary of
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

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 the Development Manager employed by
Hambleton District Council since 1989 the Local Planning Authority. My
qualifications are BSc (Hons) Environment Planning and I am a member of the
Royal Town Planning Institute.
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 is appended to the proof (Appendix 1) and 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 impacts.
6. I prepared a report to the Planning Committee (Appendix 9 of my proof)
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.
The Appeal Site
7. The Appeal 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. The extent of the airfield is shown on plans
appended to my proof. (Appendix 8)
8. 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. A children’s play area is to the north of the
airfield. The surrounding land is in agricultural use.
9. The planning history of Bagby Airfield starts in 1973 and through the 1970’s
and 80’s buildings and facilities where added to the airfield. During the 1990’s
only one proposal was made for an additional aircraft hangar. Since the
millennium proposals have been made for additional hangar space and since
2008 a series of proposals for comprehensive redevelopment have been made
resulting in the scheme that is now at appeal.
10. A planning Enforcement Notice was served in 2009 following a breach of
planning control in respect of the construction of an aircraft hangar and hard
surfacing of the runway and aprons to hangars and the provision of matting on
the east west runway.

The Appeal Proposals
11. The appeal proposal is a comprehensive scheme 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 a new clubhouse and form a new access to the site.
A new refuelling point for helicopters and the retention of runway matting and
hard-surfacing is also included. 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. The application 10/01272/FUL was refused planning permission on 3
September 2010 for the following reasons
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.
13. A synopsis of the planning history is contained in appendix 2 to the proof.
14. The appeal proceedings also relate to 2 applications refused in 2009 for
matting and concrete surfacing and a refuelling facility and an appeal against the
2009 Enforcement Notice.

Planning Policy
15. National and Local policies relating to the appeals are as follows
Table 1 National and LDF Policies
National policies Hambleton Local
Development Framework
• PPS1
Core Strategy
• PPS4
• PPS7
Policies
CP1
CP2
CP4
CP15
CP16
CP21
• PPG13
• PPG18
• PPG24
Development
Policies
DP1
DP25
DP30
DP44
Plan
16. PPS1 requires Planning Authorities to promote sustainable development
and amongst other things requires protection of the environment, good design to
reduce the nee for travel. PPS4 requires Local Planning Authorities to adopt a
positive approach towards Economic Development. A series of tests are set
relating to carbon dioxide emission limits and resilience to climate change,
accessible transport systems (also included in PPG13), high quality design,
development that meets local economic and social objectives, finally considering
the impact on local employment. PPS4 acknowledges that new employment in
the countryside can be the most sustainable option and that not all new
employment development should or could be in the most accessible locations.

17. PPS7 relates to Sustainable Development in Rural Areas whilst much of its
content in respect of economic development has been replaced by PPS4 it
requires landscape protection and protection of the environment.
18. PPG13 sets out the Governments policy on transport. It promotes
sustainable transport, accessible and safe, a reduction in the need for travel
especially the reliance on the car. Planning authorities are to recognise that
small scale developments in the countryside may still be acceptable. PPG13
does not provide detailed specific guidance on General Aviation matters.
19. PPG18 guides the approach to be taken on Enforcing Planning Control and
has informed the approach of the Council.
20. PPG24 advises at paragraph 2 “The impact of noise can be a material
consideration in the determination of planning applications.” PPG24 provides on
the noise impacts from aviation sources and at paragraph 10 “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.”
21. The Local Development Framework sets the planning policies for
Hambleton. For new development in rural locations policies CP1, CP2, CP4
advise on matters of principle. From the Strategic Objectives that includes: “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” this message is of protecting amenity is reinforced through all
of the LDF particularly in respect of amenity in Core Strategy CP1 and
Development Policies DPD DP1.
22. CP15 and DP25 provide policy on employment development and the
approach to be taken. CP16 and DP30 set policy on landscape issues and CP21
and DP44 on protecting population from the effect of noise. These follow the
National policy of Government and give it local relevance.
23. The Lawful Use of the airfield is explained with reference to the history of
built development, engineering works and uses found at the airfield for a

continuous 10 year period. Written evidence of the airfield is limited, physical
evidence on site provides some detail and assessment of current activity is also
informative.
24. Whilst the burden of proof in demonstrating a lawful use rest with the
appellant certain information has been establish. 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 a 10 year period.
25. There has been continuous use of the land as an airfield for more than 10
years. It has some hangars, a club house facility and refuelling point, and other
facilities, some with the benefit of planning permission and some without, some
may be immune and some may not require planning permission.
26. The statement by York Aviation and the methodology they advise regarding
splits in summer and winter flying allows a conclusion to be reached on the lawful
flight numbers which exclude the club fly-in days.
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
27. There are 3 issues pertinent to this appeal – amenity, business case and
landscape.
28. The amenity impacts particularly of aircraft take-off and landing are severe,
it harms the peace and tranquillity for residents of Bagby and the other the
neighbouring villages and isolated dwellings.

29. The movements of large numbers of aircraft in fine summer weather
conditions, when residents are enjoying outdoor leisure time appears most
harmful to amenity; this impact is especially significant when larger helicopters
are involved. The early or late flying of aircraft have been reported to wake
people in houses in Bagby and is a clear demonstration of an impact that is
unacceptably affecting the amenity of the local community contrary to National
and LDF policies.
30. The lack of a business case prevents a full understanding of the impact of
the scheme on the local economy. Without proper detail the scheme can not be
shown to contribute to the Governments objectives for a sustainable economy or
assist in the growth of the rural economy and may harm other local business due
to the noise impacts arising from the airfield.
31. The landscape impacts of the proposal would be to cause harm to the
visual amenity of the landscape as the new structures proposed would be visually
intrusive from vantage points around the airfield and would not be readily
assimilated within the landscape. Movement of aircraft draws the eye to the
airfield and the mitigation planting scheme proposed would be unable to address
all of the impacts.
32. Planning conditions have been proposed to assist the Inspector and without
prejudice to the case made in the proof of evidence. These are in a Statement of
Common Ground and are to address the impacts and help to achieve compliance
with the National and Local policies and circumstances of the site as noted in the
written evidence and as may be heard at the Inquiry.
33. An Enforcement Notice was served in 2009 in respect of hard-standing,
matting and a new hangar at the airfield. The impacts of these unauthorised
works are common to the impacts from the comprehensive scheme. Removal of
the unauthorised works is necessary to restore the airfield to its former lawful
condition and to address the harmful impacts which have arisen. The Council
consider that a 3 month period is sufficient to undertake the necessary works.

Conclusion
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. In the light of the above considerations, the appointed Inspector will be
respectfully requested to dismiss the appeals.