Summary of PROOF OF EVIDENCE Joy Swithenbank ...

Summary of PROOF OF EVIDENCEJoy SwithenbankEnvironmental Health OfficerHambleton District CouncilIn respect of appeal at Bagby Airfield - March 20101. Three planning applications have been received regarding the comprehensivedevelopment of Bagby. 08/01109/FUL was withdrawn, 09/00231/FUL wasrefused and subsequently the appeal was withdrawn, 10/01272/FUL was refusedand appealed.2. The site is a rural airfield close to the Bagby and other villages in the surroundingarea. From 1980 the lawful use was 40 take offs and 40 landings per week. It islikely that in the last 10 years an increase in aircraft movement has occurredsupported by new and in some cases unlawful infrastructure to the site.3. In planning references 09/00231/FUL & 10/01272/FUL appellant has submittedtwo movement reports and acoustic schemes. These reports attempt todemonstrate the existing annual aircraft movements and correlate this use to acalculated average noise level over a 16hr period to represent the noise climatein the surrounding area.4. The appellant’s acoustician’s noise level was summarized as 57dB LAeq andcompared against noise categories detailed in Planning Policy Guidance NotePPG24 placing the airfield noise environment into NEC B category. Appellantdoes advise that in practice average noise levels would be likely to be lower,falling into category NEC A for which PPG24 advises that noise need not beconsidered as a determining factor. The appellant uses the guidance of PPG24and assumes that the development falls within category NEC A as a justificationthat no there will be no significant impact on the amenity of residents.5. In Annex 1 paragraphs 4 and 5 of PPG24 it advises that the use of the NECprocedure is only applicable where consideration is being given to a proposal tointroduce new noise sensitive receptors into an area with existing noise sources.The noise report submitted with the applications took the reverse approach whichis clearly stated in PPG24 to be wrong.6. Local residents allege recent increases in noise disturbance associated with keysissues of airfield activity such as helicopter movement, intensification overweekends, repetitive and peak noise levels from certain types of aircraft. Thisconcern has been supported by data provided by the appellant and datacollected by council officers.

7. From the methodology of the acoustic report numerous concerns were identifiedon how current annual flight movements have been determined and how theselevels have been extrapolated to reflect the surrounding noise environment. TheCouncil’s conclusion is that these levels do not reflect the existing noiseenvironment which is quieter and would warrant further survey work to correctlydetermine noise impact of the existing and proposed development.8. The proposed application seeks to further improve infrastructure to the site. Thiswill again allow increased use by General Aviation and cause additional noise tobe generated at the airfield, with particular impact on neighbouring residentsduring summertime weekends. The key noise sources relate to aircraftmovement, including helicopters, maintenance and refueling. This increasedactivity from the proposed development has not been assessed to determinewhat impact it will have on the amenity of local residents.9. Therefore it cannot be concluded that the proposal is compliance with relevantplanning policy statements and guidance in PPS1, PPG24, CP1 or DP1.