Agenda item

To consider the planning application and recommendations of the Chief Executive (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

The Officer presented the report of the Chief Executive on this planning application in conjunction with the report for Agenda Item 6 and the Group Manager for Planning Services advised Members that the second Members’ Update produced did not add any additional information.  It had been produced to clarify the report to Members and should be read in conjunction with it.  In particular, the second Members’ Update:

·       Listed all proposed conditions and not just those that had been amended;

·               Highlighted the maximum amount of take-offs and landings;

·               Highlighted that the site was already an aerodrome;

·               Clarified that a maximum of 12 movements (i.e. take-offs and landings) per day had originally been imposed.

He reminded Members that the scheme before them must be assessed on what it proposed and just because proposed movements would increase did not automatically mean that there was harm.  The Group Manager for Planning Services then read out paragraph 1.8 of the second Members’ Update for the benefit of Members which dealt with noise.

Mr P Brady, an Objector, of The Planning Law Practice, Wood End, 20 Oaklands Park, Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, Mr S Hollington from Stow Maries Parish Council and Mr T Matthews, the Agent, then all addressed the Committee.

Following this the Chairman asked the Environmental Health and Licensing Manager to explain the law on noise.

The Environmental Health and Licensing Manager advised that noise was an important and emotive part of airfield planning applications and, once permission had been granted, then noise would fall outside the scope of statutory nuisance which would mean that neither the Council nor the Civil Aviation Authority would be able to take any action.  Therefore, it was important to get the noise aspect right at the planning stage.  However, ground noise was different and if the airfield was to develop as a maintenance base or similar, then the Council could deal with noise associated to that.

The Environmental Health and Licensing Manager advised that if noise was above the lowest observed significant effect level, then noise should be controlled by conditions.  However, that would not necessarily be sufficient to refuse an application.  When the highest observed significant effect level was reached then a development should not go ahead unless it could be mitigated.  The more the highest level was exceeded, then the more it would lean towards refusal.

Councillor J P F Archer, a Ward Member, was in agreement with the objector and was of the opinion that the Council was trying to expand the aerodrome too much and that the roads in the vicinity could not cope with the potential increase in traffic.  Furthermore, he considered that there would need to be increased storage for aircraft as the storage currently there was not sufficient.  Councillor Archer was not in support of approving this application and felt that the decision made by this Committee in 2009 was correct.  Any expansion of the aerodrome needed to be managed sensibly and the site was not big enough to warrant a massive influx of aircraft or visitors.

In response to a technical question on noise, the Environmental Health and Licensing Manager advised that aircraft noise was dealt with on a long term average which came from national guidance.  The noise would be assessed over working days, whereby each aircraft movement was measured, the level was condensed to a one second movement and the movements were added together to get the daily allowance.  By way of clarification, unless the minimum level of noise was exceeded then any changes in noise level would not be relevant.  The consultant’s approach to assessing noise was considered to be sound.

Members raised concerns about this application being submitted for determination by this Committee as it was a complicated and significant application for the Council.  Stow Maries aerodrome was one of the most significant attractions in the District and had the potential to become even more significant.  Whilst the tourism that could bring to the district must be welcomed, it must be balanced with the demands on infrastructure etc.

Councillor M F L Durham, CC proposed that this application be deferred to be considered by full Council and this was duly seconded.

The Group Manager for Planning Services advised that this application was before this Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation.  Decisions by area planning committees should be made on behalf of the Council as a whole and should be based on policies and any demonstrable harm for the District.

Members voted in favour of this application and application LBC/MAL/16/001143 – Stow Maries Aerodrome, Hackmans Lane, Cold Norton, Essex – being determined by full Council.

Councillor J P F Archer requested that his vote against this proposal be recorded.

RESOLVED that both this application and application LBC/MAL/16/01143 – Stow Maries Aerodrome, Hackmans Lane, Cold Norton, Essex – be referred to full Council for determination.