Former Board member Peter Kember has reported on the successful outcome of the South Cambs. Local Plan Inquiry.

He 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, AOPA 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 it) any case, with a reduction where needed for other reasons
vi) 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 o 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 it 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 Councils policy, which is not easily paraphrased. The whole report can be viewed on the South Cambs. Web site at: www.scambs.gov.uk

GAAC
8 February 2002

Education