A council which has ploughed taxpayers’ money into defending its decisions over a rural airstrip at several public inquiries has been warned to prepare for a further appeal hearing as it refused extensions and improvements to the airfield’s facilities.
Hambleton District Council’s planning committee rejected a restrospective application to extend a hangar at Bagby Airfield, near Thirsk, by 12 metres more than had been approved two years ago, as members voiced frustration over the continuing dispute between the airfield’s owner Martin Scott and some local residents.
The long-running row has centred on noise levels from the airfield, which is between the villages of Bagby and Thirkleby.
Councillor Andrew Robinson told members the villagers and the airfield had peacefuly co-existed until Mr Scott bought the airfield.
He said: “He puts planning applications in and does something completely different every time and then he ends up winning on appeal or the council granting on a restrospective application.”
The meeting also saw an application to retain two temporary hangars, which should have already been demolished, for a further two years rejected because Mr Scott had provided an insufficient business case outlining the need for the hangar space.
However, a decision over a third planning application by Mr Scott, involving an extension of the concrete section of the runway and reinforced 200-metre long geo-textile matting, was deferred to enable him to provide more comprehensive reasons why the runway changes were necessary.
Ahead of members voting to defer the runway application, councillors urged officers to prepare for Mr Scott to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the other decisions, triggering a further inquiry.
Planning officers told the meeting the changes to what had been agreed two years ago must be expected to increase air movements at the airfield, which could result in greater levels of disturbance to residents.
Sandra Langthorne, of Bagby and Balk Parish Council, said the business plan submitted with the applications had insufficient information for them to be granted.
She said: “It does not even illustrate any economic benefits or justification for the larger hangarage.”
Mrs Langthorne said: “The parish council are not confident that the planning conditions are actually working when dealing with the airfield as they have proved unenforceable in the past.”
The meeting heard Thirkleby Parish Council had not offered any comments on the applications as it felt its views would be overlooked.
However, an agent for Mr Scott highlighted that aircraft movements at the airfield had already been capped at 8,440 a year, a level that had been considered to be acceptable.
He stressed the applications were about safety and general improvements rather than expanding the airfield’s infrastructure to cope with more and larger planes, as objectors had claimed.
He also emphasised there was only a certain type and weight of aircraft that were allowed to use the airfield.
The agent dismissed claims Mr Scott had simply ignored the approved plans and questioned why the council was asking the prove a business case for each improvement, saying it would be an impossible task. He said the approved application to revamp the airfield in 2019 had been supported by a thoroughly reviewed business case.
He added the council was refusing the developments due to the requirement for full business cases, a policy that would be obselete in a few months time due to government and Local Plan changes..
The meeting was told the concrete runway upgrade with was “an improvement for safety and the welfare of people using it”, which Councillor Bridget Fortune had to be of paramount importance. She said: “I don’t want my name putting against somebody’s death.”
Councillor John Noone said residents’ suggestions the airfield would eventually be home to jet planes were dubious.
Referring to the residents’ campaign, he said: “We’ve been drip-fed this thing over a number of years that everything they are doing there is to get further down the road of a bigger operation, whereas in this case, this is ongoing maintenance. We can’t stand in the way of maintenance if it’s going to make sure of the safety of the aircraft and people in it are taken care of.”
Be the first to comment