|
GAAC Newsletter
March 2002
This Issue
Editorial
: The GAAC
South Cambridge
Planning:
Another Threat: 'The 28 Day Rule'
Structure Plans
Brussels Transport Policy
Freedom to Fly
Aerodromes
Noise Suppression Kits
CAA Safety Evenings
Putting the Record Straight
Finance
AGM
Editorial
As there
was hardly a clamouring mob at the gates of the office on 21 January volunteering
to take on any of the Secretary/Editor/Fund Raiser/Web Co-ordinator tasks
that your Editor currently performs, he is saddled with producing one
more Newsletter. And there is plenty to report.
There is good news in the report on the outcome of the South Cambs. Inquiry,
but a further threat has arisen in that the "28 day rule" is
now under threat.
See the item on page 2 and please respond.
Good News
from South Cambridge
Rejection of South Cambs proposals to stifle GA
Former Board member Peter Kember has reported on the successful outcome
of the South Cambs. Local Plan Inquiry. I make no apology for giving more
than one column to this important topic.
Peter Kember reports: 'There is little doubt that the Inspector's conclusions
are wholly supportable by the aviation community. They deserve to be widely
publicised in recognition of the commitment made by the GAAC and others
to fight the first attempt ever made by a local planning authority to
control aviation and flying in their district.'
It is also gratifying to note the Inspector's recommended policy for GA
activity, which accords with that drafted by our Planning Adviser, Anna
Bloomfield, and used in presentation of the GA case.
The South Cambs original policy for 'Small Airfields' required:
i) the need for an airfield management plan including flight protocol,
aircraft identification, ground management procedures and an airfield
liaison committee;
ii) impact of runway lights to be considered;
iii) views of the airfield to be screened;
iv) measures to protect users of rights of way affected by or close to
the airfield;
v) absolute maximum of 40 take offs per day in any case, with a reduction
where needed for other reasons;
vi) an environmental impact analysis;
vii) runway design and orientation to avoid houses/workplaces by 1000
ft during take off and 500 ft when landing;
viii) aircraft to be limited to fixed wing, propellor driven, maximum
2 engines with certificated total power output of 190 kw (about 250 bhp);
ix) limited hours of operation (daylight hours with maximum of 0830 to
1830 hours weekdays - 0900 to 1830 hours Saturdays, 0900 to 1400 hours
Sundays and public holidays);
x) number of aircraft based to be limited to twice the permitted daily
take-offs.
Of the need for the above policy the Inspector has stated:-
"These policies generated by far the greatest volume of objections"
(3043 in total)
"It was suggested on behalf of the aviation objectors that there.
is no need for a highly detailed and very prescriptive policy, on small
airfields
"I understand what the Council seeks to achieve by these policies.
However, the established and/or permitted uses of the various 'small airfields'
are characterised by a wide variation in the existing nature and scale
of their use and in their likely potential for expansion without planning
permission, They also vary considerably in their locations in relation
to nearby noise-sensitive development, the transport infrastructure, and
areas of highest rural tranquility. In my view it is fundamentally over-ambitious
and unrealistic to expect to be able to devise a policy which can be universally
applied to all the smaller airfields in the amount of detail set out in
the local plan.
"I consider that the policies contain an inappropriate level of detail,
seemingly based too much on the individual circumstances of a single appeal
case. They contain too much prescription and too little flexibility and
are more likely to prove to be a millstone than a workable model.
"I do not believe that the Council would be able to apply the policies
in the universal way that appears to be envisaged. Airfield proposals
are almost certain to raise controversial issues in one way or another.
Consequently, if application of the present policies were to be attempted
it seems to me inevitable that this would soon be challenged through the
appeal process. The material considerations represented by, the unique
circumstances of the individual site and the particular nature of the
proposal would then need to be set against the inflexibility of the policies.
In my view this could well give rise to a more lengthy and costly appeal
process than if a more neutral policy were to be adopted in the first
place.
"The aviation objectors generally do not dispute that recreation
is, and will probably remain, the major element of use at the smaller
airfields. However, there could be, and are, other acceptable uses at
such sites, relying on association with a particular airfield or the individual
mix of uses based at it. It is fundamentally difficult to try to use terms
like 'directly incidental', 'ancillary' or 'associated' (all of which
need to be susceptible of precise legal interpretation) in the context
of a generally applicable local plan policy. These objectors also consider
it wrong to attempt to apply Government policy to restrict appropriate
commercial uses. In their view it is the noise generated by the activity
that is significant, not the motivation of the pilot or passenger. Whether
a particular flight is recreational or commercial, the noise implications
are the same. In that connection it is more important to control the number
of take-offs rather than their 'type'.
"I agree that many of the references in these paragraphs are confusing
and sometimes appear to be predicated on sources of control that do not
exist. On the whole I consider that most of this material should be deleted."
The Inspector
then concentrated on a systematic critique of each and every aspect of
the Council's policy, which is not easily paraphrased. The whole report
can be viewed on the South Cambs. Web site at: www.scambs.gov.uk
Planning:
Another Threat to General Aviation
At present,
planning law in England permits the temporary use of any land for any
purpose for not more than 28 days in any calendar year (although some
purposes are restricted to no more than 14 days in total). Many small
flying sites operate under this "28 day rule" and some larger
operations began in this very modest way.
The "28 day rule" is now under threat. As part of its far ranging
review of the entire planning system, Central Government is deciding whether,
or not, this rule should be allowed to continue. Interestingly, flying
activities have not been mentioned specifically as causing this need for
change although, in many cases, GA can fall under the "motor sports"
category.
It is apparent that the review has been driven by concerns about car boot
sales and temporary markets, motor sports such as stock car racing, and
clay pigeon shooting. Unfortunately, GA will be caught up in any changes.
Six options are set out in the Government's recent consultation paper
on the subject:
1. Retain the current situation.
2. Remove temporary use rights for all users.
3. Remove the 28 day "permitted development" rights for temporary
markets, all motor sports and clay pigeon shooting.
4. Reduce the number of days on which temporary markets, all motor sports
and clay pigeon shooting can operate without planning permission, to seven
days in any one year.
5. Introduce a size threshold above which "permitted development"
rights would be removed for temporary markets, all motor sports and clay
pigeon shooting. This appears to be aimed primarily at markets.
6. Introduce a notification procedure for events - again aimed at markets,
fetes and similar events.
Question
17 asks: "Which option for temporary use provision do you most favour.
Would you prefer an alternative option not set out in the paper?"
Question
18 asks: "Why do you prefer your chosen option?"
The consultation
paper sets out the pros and cons of each option but does not make any
recommendation.
The "28
day rule" is a very valuable planning tool which has been of benefit
to many over the years. Its loss would be very regrettable and should
be strongly resisted. Readers are therefore urged to respond to this consultation
paper and request that option 1 - for no change - be chosen. There are
no forms to complete. You simply need to answer Questions 17 and 18 and
send the letter to:
Development Control Policy Division
Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions
Zone 4/J3, Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU
For the attention of Mr Iain Clark
The deadline for submitting your views is 24th April 2002.
Please make your, and your organisation's, views known. If you do not,
one of the main benefits of the planning system for GA could well be lost.
Don't let that happen.
Structure
Plans
Anna Bloomfield, our Planning Co-ordinator, has updated the guidance note
on Structure Plans in which she describes their function and their relevance
to aviation. She goes on to suggest what action you might take and outlines
the framework of the type of policy that we believe should be incorporated
into any structure plan if GA is to survive in that area:
"The establishment of flying sites for all types of aviation activity,
or changes to operations at existing sites, will be considered on their
merits having regard to the following:
1) the economic
and employment advantages arising.
2) the broadening of the range of recreation provision available within
the County/Region.
3) The likely impact upon residential and other noise sensitive properties
in the immediate vicinity (i.e. under flight paths and circuits), by virtue
of noise and disturbance.
4) The benefits to services such as the public utilities.
5) The site's role in the overall transport infrastructure of the County/Region,
having regard to sustainable development issues.
6) Visual impact.. Restrictions upon the number, type and times of movements
would be the subject of conditions attached to any grant of permission
as required in the specific circumstances of the case and in negotiation
with the operator, having regard to the economic viability of the site."
However this
general wording may need to be modified to meet individual circumstances.
The full text of this note is available in the Planning section of the
GAAC Web Site www.gaac.co.uk
Brussels
Transport Policy
Strictly
speaking this should be headed: 'European Transport Policy for 2010: Time
to Decide' , but the so called White Paper is and reads as yet another
bureaucratic treatise from Commission officials. In it we are promised:
: 'A large number of political measures and instruments will be needed
to launch the process....... The measures advocated in the White Paper
are merely the first stages of a longer term strategy.'
One of the major objectives of the proposals is to constrain the growth
in air transport, which can only mean introducing distortions into the
market; a common aviation fuel tax for the EU area is one proposal, though
the UK government rejects this.
The text of the GAAC response can be found on our web site, but the general
message conveyed is that General Aviation has to be recognised as an essential
element of the Europe's national transport, business and leisure infrastructure
in any long term transport policy. On the taxation front we argue for
the imbalance between the tax on aviation gasoline and kerosene for domestic
flights to be removed by abolishing both.
In summary we
· registered objections to the threatened increase in centralised
bureaucracy that could only increase the cost of GA operations and generally
impair the competitiveness of EU countries.
· argued for a unified policy on aerodromes for the UK if it were
to fit in with any plans for rationalising transport within the EU area.
· asked that silencing kits already certified for use by an EU
country should be available throughout the EU area without requiring separate
certification national authorities.
· supported any measures that would improve the efficiency of air
traffic control are so long as they did not incur additional costs on
non-commercial flights, in particular flights operating under visual flight
rules (VFR).
Freedom to Fly
Recently your President, Chairman and Secretary met the Chairman (Baroness
Dean) and the Campaign Director of the newly formed Freedom to Fly campaign
to establish a working relationship. Their concern is with air transport
rather than GA, but it is important that we ensure that wires are not
crossed.
Aerodromes - Enniskillen (St Angelo)
Despite representations from the GAAC and AOPA and local operators, the
local authority has decided to mothball the airport. This is despite the
fact that only recently the airport has been modernised with some £1
million being spent on resurfacing the runway.
However, efforts are still afoot for others to operate the aerodrome,
but on the Council's present plans the aerodrome will close in the near
future.
Aircraft Noise Suppression Kits
During a debate in the House of Lords our President raised the question
of the acceptability to the CAA of silencers certified in other EU countries,
without additional certification. The Minister at DTLR has advised that
in most cases the CAA does accept the assessment of the foreign airworthiness
authority, though further investigations are required if there are aspects
where our national regulations are different. This is more likely in the
case of aircraft imported from Germany because while almost every other
country - including the UK - adopts ICAO noise standards, the Germans
have adopted different standards.
The CAA claim to keep their involvement to a minimum. While any investigation
would normally be carried out once only for each combination of silencer
and aircraft type, that is a costly process. This leaves a number of questions
unanswered; these are being pursued.
CAA Safety
Evenings
Remaining safety evenings for the current winter season are scheduled
for:
Date Area Phone
4 March Newcastle 01912 861321
6 March Inverness 01667 462226
7 March Cumbernauld 01236 452525
23 March Little Snoring 01485 540340
27 March Cambridge 01223 373214
Putting
the Record Straight - Not a Crash Landing
There is less misleading reporting of aviation incidents than was once
the case, but one of our readers spotted a report in the Sevenoaks Chronicle
on 31 January and helpfully replied accordingly:
'Your front-page report (31 Jan) of the unfortunate flying lesson incident
near Biggin Hill is a fine example of the kind of misrepresentation that
those involved in flying have constantly to battle against. The headline
and picture caption cry out "crash" landing, while the picture
shows it to have been anything but, and the article calls it a "disaster',
which it clearly wasn't. The landing may well be described as a forced
landing, or an emergency, or even a drama, but a "crash" landing
is an inappropriate description for what was a perfectly-executed field
landing with both occupants walking away entirely unhurt. Tucked away
on p.14 in the editorial, you redeem yourselves slightly by praising the
pilot. However, you then stray off into anti-aviation territory again
by suggesting that this incident might be used to help prevent expansion
of activity at Biggin Hill. Consider this: deaths in light aircraft accidents
in the UK are only a dozen or so each year. Deaths and serious injuries
on our roads every year are about forty thousand. Does this produce hysteria
and prevent more roads being built? No. I urge you and all readers to
learn a proper perspective on what General Aviation is all about, and
stop being so instinctively negative.'
This is a
splendid example to follow if you should come across similarly misleading
reports.
Finance
The Financial year ended on 31 January and provisional figures show that
the loss over the year was contained at only £1,500, rather less
than was expected given the heavy expenditure on producing and distributing
the new pamphlet 'Why General Aviation?'. A reduction in expenditure on
consultancies - largely on planning work - had helped to reduce the size
of the possible deficit.
Donations for the current year have started to flow in to the office.
If yours was not amongst them let's hear from you soon. I must emphasise
that our activity depends entirely on voluntary donations and that all
are gratefully received.
Since the last Newsletter donations have been received from The Air League,
Aerobatic Displays Ltd, Bagby Aerodrome, Bebecar (UK), British Helicopter
Advisory Board, Bickerton's Aerodromes, B-N Group, The Britten Foundation,
Cabair, Cisavia, East Sussex GC, ELSEC, Fairoaks Airport, GAPAN, R Goode
Aerobatics, HBC Group, Historic Aircraft Assn, International Fellowship
of Flying Rotarians, Pawnee Aviation, PFA Gloster, Mid-Kent and Southern
Struts, Pilot Centre (Denham), Stampe Club, Staverton Flying School, Thistle
Aviation, UK Rans RV Squadron, Vintage Aircraft Club, Wingtask Ltd, H
Crush, L Durrell and I Walker. Many thanks.
Annual General Meeting
The GAAC
AGM will be held at 2pm on Friday 12 April 2002 at the Royal Aeronautical
Society, 4 Hamilton Place, London W1V 0BQ. All are welcome.
Member organisations may make nominations to the Board. To be valid these
must reach the GAAC office no later than Friday 22 March.
|