B. PLANNING

1.1 This paper covers planning issues. It aims to give practical advice to both officers and Members who are faced with a General Aviation (GA) related proposal or unauthorised activity, but who lack an in-depth knowledge of the issues most likely to arise. The paper explains the various stages of determining an application, the expediency of taking enforcement action and the appeal process. The information is based upon personal experience of development control within local authorities and aims to answer the questions most likely to be raised.

1.2 Much of the advice and information is based on a study of some 59 planning applications and 50 appeals relating to GA issues over a five year period to March 1994. This analysis was funded by the GAAC and is referred to throughout the text as the Study.

1.3 It must be stressed that legislative changes and/or new Central Government advice may invalidate parts of this paper. Such changes need to be monitored to ensure continued accuracy. You are also advised to check whether an updated version of this document has been published.

2.1 Unlike its European counterparts, the UK has no unified national policy on aerodromes, with elements of policy relating to different aspects of aviation found in several Acts of Parliament. The Civil Aviation Act 1982 relates, inter alia, to safety issues but excludes planning matters. These are more properly dealt with by way of the planning legislation.

2.2 Central Government advice regarding aviation issues can be found in various PPGs and Circulars. It is not the purpose of this paper to quote all the relevant sections, but officers and Members should be aware of the general thrust of Central Government policy embodied in the following:

PPG7: The Countryside and the Rural Economy

PPG13: Transport (paras 5.32 - 5.36 inclusive)

PPG17: Sport and Recreation (para 55)

PPG18: Enforcing Planning Control

PPG24: Planning and Noise

RPG9: South East (para 6.35 - 6.40 inclusive)

Brief references are also made to aviation in RPGs 2, 3 and 4

Circ  15/88   Environment Assessment (para 2.8)

Circ 2/92     Safeguarding Aerodromes (para 9)

2.3 Circular 15/88 requires an environmental assessment to be made in respect of proposals incorporating runways in excess of 2,100 metres in length if the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment. This is a very long runway by normal aviation standards. It is implied, by omission, that there is unlikely to be a need for an environment assessment in respect of the type of aviation related proposal addressed in this paper.

2.4 The Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (GDO) sets out permitted development rights. The following parts are relevant:

Part 4 refers to temporary buildings and uses and is more often cited in respect of GA activity outside the curtilage of a building “for any purpose for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year...... and the provision on the land of any moveable structure for the purpose of the permitted use”. Use of land as an airstrip falls into the “28 day” category and many operations commence on this basis. Provided the land is used for take-offs and landings for no more than 28 days per year the operation falls outside planning control. (However, it would be regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority {CAA} regarding such matters as air safety.) Any associated buildings (other than moveable structures) or engineering operations would need separate planning permission. Such rights can be removed by means of an Article 4 Direction. However, full account should be taken of advice embodied in Circular 22/88, with permitted development rights being withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances and where there is a real and specific threat.

Part 6 removes agricultural permitted development rights in respect of structures over 3m in height within 3 km of the perimeter of an aerodrome.

Part 18 relates specifically to airports. Generally, these permitted development rights are more appropriate to larger scale operations but may be relevant to GA in a few cases.

2.5 In other circumstances, including those where the take-off or landing of helicopters or aeroplanes is ancillary to the main use of land, for example a hotel, business or conference centre, a specific permission may not be required. This also applies to use of land within the curtilage of a dwelling (para 18, Annex 3 PPG 24 also refers.) However, if the use intensifies to an extent that it becomes a nuisance, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) could consider making a Discontinuance Order. However, such action should be exercised with caution as compensation would be payable for the loss of existing use rights.

2.6 It is considered that most GA aerodromes are “sui generis” ie do not fall within any specific Use Class. However, Class D2 of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 does make provision, inter alia, for “...indoor or outdoor sports or recreation, not involving motorised vehicles...” There is a view that aircraft are not “vehicles” and all leisure flying activity must therefore fall within Class D2 (para 18.2 of Development Control Handbook refers.) LPAs should be aware of this view, but it is rarely an issue, as the majority of cases relate to a material change of use from agricultural land.

3.1 Two successive Ministers for Aviation have made it clear that GA related matters are not the province of Central Government, but are more properly handled by Local Government. However, recently issued guidance has demonstrated that Central Government is increasingly recognising the social and economic benefits of GA. This needs to be clearly reflected in development plan policy, the importance of which has been confirmed by S.54A of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

3.2 It is therefore important that GA related policies embodied in the development plan are carefully phrased to ensure that subsequent applications are assessed correctly. GA related policy is likely to fall into three main categories:-

i) general statements of strategic policy regarding aviation issues;

ii) more locally based general policy regarding aviation related proposals within a specific borough or district; and

iii)  specific policies drawn up in respect of an existing airstrip or aerodrome.

3.3  A survey was undertaken of 50 District and 11 County Councils throughout the UK in order to assess attitudes to GA in the development plan. Many failed to recognise the existence of a GA aerodrome/strip in their areas and several were uncertain what they actually were (reinforcing the need for this advice). Of those District/Borough Councils who acknowledged that an airstrip/aerodrome did exist within their boundary, less than 50% had any GA related policy (general or specific) in the Local Plan. Of those included, many policies tended to dwell on the more obvious negative elements such as noise and failed to acknowledge any positive benefits to an area. The situation was little better at County level, with just over 50% of those authorities surveyed incorporating any GA related policy in the Structure Plan. It was apparent that attitudes varied enormously, with some Boroughs and Countries being negative whilst others took a more balanced view. One authority with no current GA policy is even actively seeking a suitable site for an aerodrome via the Local Plan process.

3.4  It would be unrealistic, and unreasonable, to expect all development plan policies to support GA unreservedly. It is more reasonable to hope that officers and Members will at least recognise both the existence of and need for GA operations in their area and understand that a balanced view must be struck, in accordance with Central Government advice.

4.1    Some civil and military aerodromes are officially safeguarded on the basis of their national importance. LPAs are issued with these safeguarding maps by the CAA or Secretary of State for Defence, as appropriate. Para 9 of Circular 2/92 suggests that operators of licensed and unlicensed aerodromes and sites used for other activities such as gliding or parachuting also should take steps to:-

“protect their locations from the effects of possible adverse development by establishing an agreed consultation procedure between themselves and the Local Planning Authority. One more method....is to lodge an “unofficial” safeguarding map with the Local Planning Authority”.

Many aerodromes are already referred to on safeguarding maps, but LPAs should consider whether any additions should be made. The CAA can offer advice regarding such maps and this offer should be taken up if and when circumstances demand.

4.2  Agricultural development, within 3 km of the perimeter of an airfield is restricted in height by virtue of Class 6 of the GDO (para 2.4 refers). Other developments can also have a direct or indirect bearing on the continued operation of an existing aerodrome. These could include proposals for erection of a telecommunications mast or pylons, construction of a new road or development likely to attract birds (such as reservoirs) which could affect aircraft safety. Futhermore, permissions granted in close proximity to an existing aerodrome can lead to potential conflict. This may seem obvious. However, cases have been documented where residents move into new homes built close to an aerodrome. Then they may start to complain about an activity that has operated lawfully for decades prior to their occupation. Repeated complaints could lead to the imposition of constraints upon the operator which may ultimately threaten the aerodrome’s viability. A Safeguarding Map may therefore be a valuable tool not only in protecting the aerodrome’s position, but also in drawing attention to its existence for the benefit of furture residents.

5.1  This paragraph looks at various types of GA related application and examines specific issues arising in each case, where relevant.

5.2  Re-opening a World War II airfield

The suitability of former World War II airfields for continued aviation activity is commented on by one Inspector who stated in the context of a proposal at Hibaldstow Airfield:

“The flying of private aircraft for personal enjoyment is undoubtedly a leisure activity. Providing that such a pursuit does not adversely affect other important planning interests, there can be a few more suitable places for it than an old airfield”.

(DOE ref. T/APP/J2020/A/92/211205/P2)

Applicants may claim that existing use rights apply but in many cases the former use has been abandoned. A new planning unit may have been formed. Attempts to fly microlights from Bovingdon Airfield several years ago failed on appeal after a nine year gap during which the site had been used for agriculture (Chiltern/Dacorum DC). In a second example, an Established Use Certificate was not granted for the use of part of Enstone Airfield for light aircraft and gliders, as the use had effectively been abandoned (W. Oxon DC). A third example relates to Tilstock, where the inspector commented:-

“I have no doubt that on the appointed day at Tilstock, although no longer operational for flying, was capable of being brought into use.... I consider that the return to agricultural use after 1962 would have been a new chapter in the planning history of the airfield and a resumption of flying activities after that time would have required planning permission. I am also of the view that even if the land had not reverted to agricultural use, the original use as a government airfield would have been fundamentally different to use as a private airstrip sufficient to amount to a material change in the use of land requiring planning permission.”

(DOE ref. T/APP/C/92/N3210/622164-7)

5.3  Formation of aerodrome/airstrip

An applicant who wishes to operate a new grass airstrip or aerodrome in excess of 28 days per annum, not ancillary to another main use of the land, would normally need planning permission. Proposals usually relate to training, business or leisure activites. The key issues raised in assessing such proposals are examined in detail in para 6. However, an example can be given, such as Sorbie Field, NE Fife, where the Inspector allowed an appeal for a new grass airstrip for a temporary period (Scottish Office ref. P/PPA/FC/198).

Many sites have been operational under permitted development rights and operators have wished to extend the use beyond 28 days per annum - an example being Broxton, Chester where an appeal was allowed.  (DoE ref T/APP/X0605/A/87/80510/P2).

5.4 Construction of ancillary buildings and/or other structures

Proposals for new buildings or other structures normally relate to a planned change in the use of an airstrip/aerodrome, for example an increased number of aircraft necessitating additional hangarage. However the proposal must only address any likely impact upon the surrounding area as a result of the alterations. A proposal for a new building should not be used as an opportunity to impose conditions upon an existing operation. In the case of Denham Aerodrome, the inspector expressed sympathy with residents regarding noise issues, but he was only able to concentrate on the impact of a proposed building extension.

(DOE ref. T/APP/N0410/A/88/084904/P5).

5.5  Closure of an aerodrome through redevelopment

When assessing proposals, it is acknowledged that LPAs can only determine the application before them. An authority has no direct control over issues such as aerodrome closures except when dealing with aerodromes in their ownership. However, it is worthwhile remembering that alternative uses of existing (or proposed) aerodromes could be less acceptable to local residents. This is borne out by local opposition to the closure of West Malling Airfield and Ipswich Airport where residents preferred their ‘green’ character and appearance to a built form of development with an associated increase in road traffic.

5.6  New uses for US airbases

This issue is currently to the fore, and its importance is recognised in Central Government advice - para 5.36 of PPG 13 refers. When preparing development briefs for US air bases, LPAs should give careful consideration to the possibility of allowing continued flying. The runways and unobstructed approaches are a valuable and irreplaceable asset which should not be overlooked in planning their long term future.

5.7  Lawful Development Certificates (LDCs)

Applications for LDCs in respect of longstanding aerodromes and airstrips should, in theory, be determined having regard to the weight and validity of evidence presented, not the merits of the cases. Unfortunately this does not always happen. Two examples have come to light where LPAs have attempted to impose conditions on LDCs relating to airstrips. These were rejected by the airstrip owners and, following lengthy negotiations, the conditions were not imposed. The message is clear - LDCs are not a vehicle through which restrictions can be imposed upon a longstanding operation. Any attempt to do so would involve time consuming, but ultimately abortive, work.

6.1 The study identified the following key issues during the determination of GA related planning applications:-

Other issues arising included conflict with development plan policy, loss of agricultural land, provision of recreational facilities and impact on local economy.

6.2  Noise/residential amenity

Not surprisingly, noise (or at least its impact upon the surrounding area) emerged as the key issue in determining a GA related proposal. The issues is the subject of a separate paper (Part C).

6.3  Visual amenity

This is an important issue, especially in protected landscape areas. Care should be taken when assessing likely “harm” and it is important to distinguish between the uses of land, for example, for the storage of aircraft, take-offs/landings and parachute drop zones, and the physical structures placed thereon for example, hangars and control rooms. It is necessary for LPAs to demonstrate how harm has been caused as any subsequent appeal may be hard to defend. In one example, the Inspector commented that:-

“No evidence was led by the Council to show that the use of powered aircraft.... would cause any detriment to the visual or landscape qualities of the Special Landscape Area or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty....”

(Welsh Office ref. P/14/397).

6.4  Related highway matters

The road traffic implications of most small scale GA aerodromes are minimal yet the issue features frequently during determination of such applicants. Dependent upon the likely level of traffic increase, the relevant highway authority may impose requirements upon the applicant. Para 4.7, Part A -General Aviation - also refers).

6.5    Need for facility

Any application submission is likely to try and prove need for a new GA facility. The area of search for suitable alternative sites will depend upon the scale of the proposed operation and its particular characteristics. As an example, it would be unreasonable to expect parachuting facilities to be made available within every Borough or District Council boundary as the sport is specialist. However, there may well be a much more localised need for a business based airstrip which could be proven. Advice regarding need for a facility can be sought initially from the GAAC.

6.6   Countryside protection

It is inevitable that in the vast majority of cases proposals for new GA facilities will be located in the countryside. The level of countryside protection, through local and national policy, will undoubtedly affect determination of any application. The study revealed that some 70% of applications and appeals were refused or dismissed, where sites fell within sensitive areas such as AONB or National Parks. That still leaves 30% of proposals which were successful, where other factors come into play. Para 3.9 of PPG7 indicates that the test of need (para 6.5 also refers) is significant in sensitive areas, when “only proven national interest and lack of alternative sites” can justify an exception to the general restraint policy. However, “it will be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the area”. It is apparent that the countryside protection issue needs to be examined in much greater detail than the obvious potential impact upon an area. This must be carefully weighed against other wider issues.

6.7 Air safety

Air safety is not a direct planning consideration and professional advice should be sought from the CAA if this issue arises. (Hansard 16 July 1990). In respect of a proposed grass strip at Sorbie Field, Strathivie, which was previously refused permission on air safety grounds, the Inspector concluded that “Matters relating to the flight of aircraft are subject to regulation only by the Civil Aviation Authority. (British Airports Authority v Secretary of State for Scotland SC1979, pages 200-226).”

(Scottish Office ref. P/PPA/198).

The distinction between the use of land as an air safety consideration controllable under planning procedures and the use of air space outside planning control is set out in the following appeal extract relating to Chilbolton:-

“it is submitted that air safety is not a proper planning consideration because the aircraft is no longer related to any parcel of land once it is in the air. When airborne it is under the control of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) through the Air Navigation Order (ANO)....

I accept that the safety of aircraft is the subject of other legislation. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the use of a piece of land may have an impact on air safety, I consider that this can be a planning consideration. The location of development and the use of land is controlled through planning legislation and not air safety regulations.”

(DOE ref. T/APP/C1760/A/91/192383/P7)

6.8  Development Plan policy

Paragraph 3 sets out the current situation regarding Development Plan policy making in respect of GA. It is hoped that this paper will enable policy makers to view GA in a balanced way by highlighting issues to be considered, both negative and positive.

6.9  Loss of Agricultural land

Although occasionally raised in the context of a GA related proposal, this is rarely a problem as many grass airstrips can, and do, co-exist with grazing animals. Furthermore, unless a hard runway is proposed, land is not permanently lost to agriculture. The recent introduction of a MAFF Study Group directed at examining proposals which result in the loss of good quality agricultural land could, however, increase the ‘profile’ of this issue in decision making. Certainly, in the recent appeal decision relating to Telford Skypark, this issue was of considerable importance and was one of the key issues in dismissing the appeal. (DOE ref. WMR/P/5362/223/3)

6.10 Recreation

The benefits accuring to an area through provision of a recreational element of GA are referred to more fully in Section A. A convenient summary of the national air sports situation can also be found in a Sports Council Study “Providing for Air Sports” (Study 35, August 1989). In relevant cases, this may prove helpful to LPAs when considering GA proposals with a recreational element.

6.11  Local economy

The benefits an aerodrome can make to the local economy through the “multiplier effect” of direct and indirect employment opportunities need careful examination. It is acknowledged that this may be a difficult element to quantify effectively, especially within the time constraints imposed upon authorities to determine planning applications. However, a study of this issue has been prepared. If further information is required, please contact the GAAC.

6.12  Other issues

Although not referred to as key issues in para 6.1, some proposals raise unusual issues. The following, non-exhaustive, list gives examples which may prove helpful to LPAs faced with similar cases:-

-Impact on SSSI (and potential Protection Area for birds) Lydd Airport

(DOE ref. SE2/5281/21/40)

-Impact on users of public footpaths

Chilbolton (DOE ref. T/APP/C1760/A/91/192383/P7)

Ramsbury (DOE ref. APP/C/93/E3905/629285-6)

-Impact upon Views and Skylines (urban areas)

City of London Heliport (DOE ref. LRP219/K5030/07)

6.13  Aircraft type/use

The type of aircraft and/or the use to which it is put can also be a factor in determining an application. Part A, General Aviation amplifies the various types/uses which fall under the definition of GA. Many existing and proposed aerodromes accommodate a range of aircraft, e.g. a mix of uses such as leisure flying, training, parachuting and business flights. The Study (para 1.1) indicates that applications/appeals relating to certain aircraft types or uses have been more successful than others. It may be helpful to know that gliders and mixed uses achieve a higher than average success rate (approx 80% both at application and appeal stages). Microlights and helicopters prove most contentious at application stage based upon a poor past reputation. (Some 25% of applications are successful). This reputation lingers but is no longer justified, thanks to the introduction of much quieter machines. Officers and Members should take this into consideration when determining future proposals.

7.1 The planning application will have been advertised widely, having regard to advice embodied in Circular 15/92. The views of local residents are often keenly felt regarding GA related proposals. It is right, and indeed inevitable, that concerns will be raised in respect of new airstrip proposals or where alterations to an existing operation are proposed. Generally speaking, the three main concerns are:-

i)  all aircraft are excessively noisy;

ii)  aircraft will crash on houses; and

iii)  a small airstrip will be developed into a major airport

Understanding of a proposal can be offered through submission of a well prepared application - admittedly outside the LPA’s control, unless prior negotiations are undertaken. If objectors are also made aware of the range and type of conditions that can be imposed in order to limit an operation, some do actually become supporters.

7.2   LPAs will be well aware of the articulate and vocal minority who tend to object to applications of all types and the ‘NIMBY’ syndrome. Usually such a minority (consisting of as few as 3 or 4 people in many cases) establish an action group against a proposal and encourage those residents with no strong views to join, often thanks to alarmist and inaccurate propaganda. Jumbo jets may be introduced as a typical example!) The majority of residents usually have no objection and remain silent. Some will actively support the airfield and probably make their views known. It is difficult to judge the true weight of an objection when it can be based upon dissemination of inaccurate information but three avenues could be usefully explored, if time permits:-

i)  it would be helpful to assess the total population likely to be affected in any way by the proposal (noise being the most probable source). This can be compared with the actual number of objectors. In one case, at appeal, it was demonstrated that, despite their being over 300 objections to continued use of an aerodrome, this represented under 6% of the total population affected. The appeal was allowed.

7.2 ii) Frequently, submission of an application renders a site ‘high profile’ in the public consciousness and generates objection accordingly. In the cases of applications for renewals or variations of conditions, the level of objection generated by the proposal can be usefully compared with the number of complaints lodged during authorised operation of the aerodrome. This gives a better indication of genuine problems arising.

iii) Correspondents’ home addresses should be noted as some may not be local to the site. The GAAC is aware of one ‘local objector’ who has appeared at three GA related inquiries over 100 miles apart.

7.3 Some objections may be valid, and anyone who is genuinely affected has a right to be heard. It is simply the aim of this section to draw attention to the potential for facts to be distorted in what is often an emotive issue. This will help officers and Members assess both objections and letters of support, in as objective a way as possible.

8.1 Careful use of conditions on planning permissions can avoid unnecessary appeals not only against a refusal but also against a particularly onerous restriction. Advice embodied in Circular 1/85 is of fundamental importance and the six tests set out in para 11 of the Annex should be applied. PPG24 also gives examples of suitable planning conditions in Annex 4, with conditions 3-10 inclusive being particularly relevant to aerodromes and airstrips.

8.2 The following is a list of other conditions (in addition to those specified in PPG24) which have been imposed by officers, and Inspectors on appeal:

i)  Temporary permissions, usually for a minimum period of two to three years to gauge accurately the impact of an operation. (This may prove difficult to an applicant who needs to make long term investment but is sometimes the only way to appease local concern).

ii) Restrictions on times of take-offs and landings. Some conditions state times, eg no flights between 2100 - 0730 and some refer to one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset (this allows for seasonal variations and builds in flexibility). Allowance should also be made for later landings for aircraft returning from other places, possibly business flights. The condition should always make an exception for emergency landings. Such a condition could also impose different hours of operation at weekends and Bank Holidays to suit local needs.

iii)  Restrictions on aircraft type, for example fixed wing aircraft only, would preclude the use of helicopters.

iv) Restrictions on engine type, e.g. jets, piston-engines, turbo-prop etc, as relevant.

V) Restrictions on activities undertaken, e.g. no use of site for parachuting, public displays or as flying school. It is also possible to restrict aerobatic activity within a specified distance of the airfield perimeter but only by reference to the take-off/landing of aircraft used for that purpose.

Vi) Restriction on the number of aero-tow launches per day and on the power of towing aircraft (in gliding cases).

Vii) Take-off and landing directions to be controlled by reference to the preferred runway with restrictions on use of alternative runways except when wind, weather or other conditions make use of the other runway advisable on safety grounds.

Viii) Restrictions on ancillary maintenance and storage, for example within approved or existing buildings and hangars and subject to noise attenuation measures if deemed necessary.

ix)  Log books to be kept on site and made available for inspection on request and, insofar as it relates to environmental impact and not air safety, a manual to be agreed which sets out recommended flight paths, circuit patterns and other matters relating to the operational use of the aerodrome. (Para 8.6 also refers)

x) Assuming a restriction on the number of movements per annum, it is sometimes helpful to allow for special events such as charity “fly-ins” which would not count in the maximum permitted total of movements.

It should be stressed that this not an exhaustive list as different circumstances demand different approaches to ensure proper control over a proposed/existing operation.

8.3  Some conditions imposed, by both LPAs and Inspectors, do not achieve the desired effect. Such conditions may not be ‘ultra vires’ but they could prove to be unnecessary or impractical to operate. Examples can be given:-

i)  The maximum total weight authorised (MTWA) of an aircraft is often restricted by condition, usually based on the belief that increased weight leads to increased noise. This is not always true. A weight limit may prevent a very quiet, slightly heavier aircraft replacing a lighter, noisier one. Such a condition therefore needs to be treated with caution.

ii)  Conditions preventing the operation of larger aircraft are often unnecessary. Runway length will effectively preclude them operating from a particular site as they have very different requirements to smaller aircraft. Longer runways can increase the types of aircraft permitted to use an aerodrome. However, a number of aircraft requiring a longer runway may actually be quicker in operation and cause less noise disturbance. Therefore, care needs to be taken to ensure that this element is not overlooked.

8.4  Care needs to be taken to ensure that conditions are enforceable. The following appeal extract relating to Marston Moor airfield gives helpful examples:-

“I am not convinced that conditions which would seek to limit the proportion or number of movements by twin-engined aircraft, or aircraft being used for ab-initio training, could be imposed with reasonable expectation of enforcement. However, I accept that careful record keeping and monitoring....could assist limited....control. I consider that the practices and conduct of individual pilots, which could lead to variations in the impact of flying activities on the local population, are beyond control by planning condition. To some degree such practices are within the control of the aerodrome operator, and more more serious matters may be subject only to disciplinary action by the Civil Aviation Authority.”

(DOE ref. APP/C/91/A2715/680090-2 + 189128 (Annex)

The case of Glyndwr Soaring Club (Welsh Office ref. P14/397) may also prove helpful in deciding the enforceability of suggested conditions.

8.5   Some conditions may not be ultra vires but may cause serious harm to the financial viability of an existing or proposed operation. Careful thought should be given to conditions which attempt to prevent all movements on one day, for example Sunday. Aviation is weather dependent with some activities also being more vulnerable than others to climatic conditions. A further restriction could render an operation totally uneconomic.

8.6   Paras 18 and 33 and para 13 of Appendix B to Circular 1/85 make it clear that it would be unacceptable “to require that aircraft should only arrive or depart at an aerodrome on specified air routes. This condition deals with an activity which is regulated by quite different statutory provisions and may well be unenforceable if the aerodrome operator is not responsible for air traffic control....” Planning control does not extend to aircraft in flight (para 6.7 also refers).

8.7 In many instances a GA related proposal may not have been encountered previously. It could be “easier” to refuse the application rather than undertake research into relevant conditions. This may result in an unnecessary appeal. A key element is negotiation with the applicant to ensure that suggested conditions, or a legal agreement, are broadly acceptable and will not hamper the operation to such an extent as to make it unviable.

8.8  Where the LPA is unable to secure reasonable restrictions on the use condition only, it may enter into a planning agreement or obligation with the applicant, under S106 of the 1990 Planning Act (as amended). Consensus between the authority and applicant is essential. Several cases have emerged where airstrip owners have felt unable to sign agreements, usually for operational reasons. This has resulted in further time consuming negotiations. The aerodrome/airstrip operator may also, on occasion, offer a unilateral undertaking to propose a solution to a problem not resolved by planning condition. This can be offered to the LPA or Inspector/Secretary of State. If it appears that the unilateral undertaking is acceptable, there is no need for a decision to be deferred until agreement is reached. (Development Control Handbook Section 4.6 refers).

9.1 After seeking advice from consultants, considering letters of objection and support, weighing up the relevant issues and placing the proposal in a policy context, a balance must be struck and a recommendation made. It is not the purpose of this paper to suggest that GA related applications should be treated any differently to other proposals; to the contrary. The Study shows that GA related proposals are particularly unsuccessful at application stage with only 37% of those examined being permitted. This can be compared with the “major applications” average for England of 86% permitted (DOE, October-December 1993).

9.2 This surprising statistic suggests that LPAs may have given undue weight to the negative elements of a proposal (often endorsed by a large volume of objections) and paid insufficient regard to its positive aspects. This approach is often coupled with an understandable lack of knowledge of GA and its wider importance together with a limited awareness of the availability of a wide range of conditions to control development. In such circumstances, it is easier to refuse an application and allow it go to appeal, where the more remote Inspectorate can be “blamed” for any decision which is contrary to local objectors’ views. Incidentally, the balance is redressed on appeal (para 11.2 refers) which suggests that many GA related applications deserve more favourable consideration by LPAs at an early stage.

10.1  In accordance with advice embodied in PPG18, it is clearly preferable to avoid taking enforcement action and to negotiate with the owner/operator if at all possible. Assuming that matters have progressed beyond negotiation stage, the reasons for service of an Enforcement Notice should be examined. GA activity tends to find itself the subject of enforcement action for six main reasons.

10.2 Use of land in excess of the 28 day period permitted under the G.D.O.

In many cases this is an excess of enthusiasm rather than a deliberate intention to breach planning control. Depending on circumstances it may be possible to avoid service of an Enforcement Notice through clear explanations to the owner/operator of permitted development rights. Other examples are less clear-cut. In some instances applicants may attempt to circumvent the 28 day rule by using different parts of a large agricultural holding for the take-off and landing of aircraft, each apparently with their ‘permitted development’ rights intact. The planning unit needs to be given careful consideration in such cases. This issue has been examined in the context of Oaksey Park, Malmesbury, Wiltshire.

(DOE ref. T/APP/J3910/A/92/216959/P7).

10.3  Continued unauthorised use after expiration of a temporary permission

This often occurs as the applicant assumes that there will be no problems due to few, if any, objections having been raised about the operation over its period of permitted use. This matter is also covered in para 7.2 (ii). Negotiation with the applicant is important prior to deciding how to proceed.

10.4  Non-compliance with other conditions

As with all such cases (GA or otherwise) it will be necessary to make a careful judgment regarding the impact that non-compliance has upon affected parties. Any decision to proceed with enforcement action should be based upon such an assessment, preferably after discussion with the applicant.

10.5  Use of land for purpose(s) not expressly permitted

The issue of use of land for a parachute drop zone is sometimes raised. This matter was addressed in respect of Headcorn Aerodrome, where the issue was whether the parachute drop zone was permitted by implication under a 1977 permission and, if so, whether its scale of use remained within the terms of that permission. It was argued, by the LPA, that a previous Inspector recognised the drop zone as a separate use of land from the aircraft runways and, since parachuting activity was a relatively minor element at the time, the drop zone was not included in that 1977 permission. A subsequent Inspector commented as follows:-

“It appears to me that the term “parachuting” is reasonably interpreted as embracing the take-off, flight and landing of the parachute aircraft, the fall from the aeroplane and landing of the parachutists on the drop zone, and the related ground activities. Given that all these activities took place at the aerodrome in 1977 I agree with the appellants that it would have been perverse had the 1977 permission been intended to cover all of these activities with the exception of only the drop zone.”

(DOE ref. APP/C/91/U2235/614206-7 et al)

It is therefore apparent that any permission embracing parachuting activity will include a related drop zone which may, or may not, fall within the boundaries of the aerodrome. It would be wise to establish the location of this drop zone in the context of any such proposal or potential enforcement action.

10.6 Intensification of use

On occasion, it is argued that uses of land have intensified to such an extent that amounts to a material change of use, requiring a fresh application. These cases can be complex as the breach is usually clear cut than in the other examples.

11.1  The vast majority of GA related appeals are dealt with by way of a Public Inquiry. (Of 50 planning and enforcement appeals analysed as part of The Study 92% were handled in this matter). The cost of attending a Public Inquiry, for both the authority and appellant, needs to be taken into consideration when determining an application. The route of granting a carefully conditioned permission is surely a more sensible and cost effective option than an ill considered hasty refusal.

11.2    LPAs should be aware of the success rate of GA related proposals at appeal. The Study indicated that 57% of all aviation related appeals were allowed. When enforcement related appeals were excluded, this figure rose even higher with 67% being allowed. It is apparent therefore that the success rate for such proposals is significantly higher than the “all appeals” average of 33.5% allowed. (DOE 1992/3).

11.3  The reasons for this high success rate cannot be fully explained, but it is suggested that local planning authorities generally adopt a negative stance at application stage. This may be based upon a, perhaps natural, misunderstanding of GA and the strongly expressed views of local residents. (Para 9.1 also refers). A more balanced case is sought, and achieved, by an Inspector on appeal. It is hoped that these papers will help to redress this balance and avoid the, possibly unnecessary, costs of going to appeal.

11.4  The Study examined key issues arising in the context of appeals and, not surprisingly, found that these were very similar issues raised at application stage (para 6 refers). The impact of noise remains a particular concern (referred to in 88% of appeals). There is no doubt that appeals relating to proposals in specially protected landscape areas, (particularly Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks) are more likely to be dismissed when compared to the aviation average. Only 29% of such appeals were allowed, reflecting policy constraints, but perhaps even this figure is higher than could have been anticipated. Where the impact of noise was highlighted as a key issue, 57% of appeals were allowed. This issue is examined in greater depth in Part C.

11.5 Turning to practical details, the vast majority of GA related Public Inquiries will involve presentation of technical evidence by noise expert witnesses on both sides. Indeed, there are many cases where the noise evidence takes precedence over all planning issues and it becomes a noise inquiry rather than a planning inquiry. Whilst in danger of stating the obvious, it is helpful to all parties if common ground can be agreed between both sides prior to the Inquiry.

12.1  The Study examined ten cases of applications for costs in respect of aviation related appeals. In three cases these were applied for by the LPA against the appellant. However, no awards of costs were made in any of these cases, emphasising the care that should be taken by authorities in determining applications. In nine cases of costs being applied for by the appellant the LPA, two were awarded. The reasons for the award of costs in one instance stated that :-

“The Council’s failure to produce substantive evidence to challenge that submitted on behalf of the appellant and the imposition of a condition which could not be shown to be necessary and reasonable by convincing evidence amounts, in my view, to unreasonable behavior....”

(Welsh Office ref. P/14/397).

12.2    It is, therefore, essential that claims such as loss of residential amenity due to noise are substantiated in full. It is not sufficient to rely upon the appellant to prove the case. A full professional assessment of impact on the locality must be made by the authority in the context of the planning application. This issue is examined in greater depth in Section C.

13.1  The main conclusions are:-

i)  The research Study undertaken as background to this paper suggests that GA related decision making can sometimes be over hasty, resulting in negative decisions based upon misunderstanding.

ii)  Such decisions frequently lead to time consuming and costly appeals, where an above average percentage of GA related proposals are allowed.

iii) It would be preferable, for all parties, if the number of appeals could be reduced, with the inherent benefits of time and cost savings.

iv)  It is hoped that this paper will help LPAs in the decision making process for the benefit of all concerned.

Education