Agenda item

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

Application Number	FUL/MAL/16/01142
Location	Stow Maries Aerodrome Hackmans Lane Cold Norton Essex
Proposal	Planning Application for operational arrangements for the use of the Airfield at Stow Maries  Great War Aerodrome including hours of operation, restrictions on the number of take-offs and landings, and arrangements for Special Public Event days.  The arrangements to be as follows: ·     The airstrip to be used by fixed wing and propeller driven aircraft; helicopters, apart from emergency services machines, may only use the site in the event of emergency or during Public Event days ·     Take-offs and landings only after 08.00 hours and no later than either 20.00 hours, or sunset whichever is earlier ·     In the Winter months (November to April inclusive) there shall be no more than 25 landings and 25 take-offs per day ·     In the Summer months (May to October inclusive) there shall be no more than 25 landings and 25 take-offs on weekdays ·     In the Summer months (May to October inclusive) there shall be a maximum of 50 landings and take-offs per day at weekends and bank holidays apart from Special Public Event Flying  days when maximum landings and take-offs are increased to 75 take-offs and 75 landings per day
Applicant	The Trustees - Stow Maries Great War Aerodrome Trust
Agent	Ms Sarah Threlfall - TMA Chartered Surveyors
Target Decision Date	24.01.2017
Case Officer	Yee Cheung, Tel: 01621 876220
Parish	COLD NORTON
Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council	Major Application Member Call In

 

The Chairman advised that he proposed to deal with Agenda Items 14 and 15 together as they related to the same site.  This was agreed.

 

It was noted that this application had been referred to the Council for determination by the North Western Area Planning Committee who had considered it at its meeting on 12 June 2017.

 

The Members’ Update, circulated at the meeting, detailed the following information received since publication of the Officers’ report:

·                 Further clarification of the proposed Section 106 legal agreement.

·                 In light of concerns raised regarding the visibility splay detailed in condition 4 it was suggested that this be changed to a Grampian Condition, in the interest of proper planning.

·                 Six further letters of objection had been received and the reasons for objection were set out in the Update.

·                 A consultation response had been received from Natural England (NE) and their comments were summarised in the Update. 

·                 Additional supporting information had been received from the Applicant. 

·                 In light of the recent consultation response from NE an amendment to the recommendation was detailed which included amendments / additions to the Heads of Terms and Conditions.

 

Members received a very detailed presentation from Officers which included a presentation from the Environmental Health and Licensing Manager regarding noise.  Following the Officers’ presentation an objector Mr Flemming, Councillor Hollington on behalf of Stow Maries Parish Council and the Agent, Mr Mathews addressed the Council.

 

Councillor M FL Durham, Leader of the Council, supported the application making reference to the significance of the Aerodrome in the District and proposed that it be approved, contrary to Officers’ recommendation.  In accordance with Procedure Rule No. 13 (3) he requested a recorded vote.  This was duly seconded.

 

Councillor D M Sismey commended the work of Stow Maries Aerodrome (SMA) and its restoration.  He raised a number of concerns with the proposed application and in particular the proposed 22 fold increase in the number of flights permitted and the effect this would have on noise and neighbours.  Councillor Sismey opposed the Leaders’ recommendation and made an alternative suggestion regarding a gradual increase in intensification.

 

Councillor Miss S White, a Ward Member, agreed with the comments of Councillor Sismey and advised the Council of the concerns raised by the North Western Area Planning Committee namely noise, nature and pollution.  She highlighted further concerns she had with the proposal.

 

A lengthy debate ensued with Members speaking both in favour and against the proposal.

 

In response to a number of questions raised Officers provided the following information:

·               The Environmental Health and Licensing Manager advised that his understanding was that the 200ft display area was over the airfield, but clarified he had not spoken to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) about this.

·               The Group Manager - Planning Services explained that proposed condition 17 related to the first anniversary of approval and Members could amend the condition to require that if not met the application was brought back to the Council, but he raised concern as to what the clarity of such a change would be.

·               The 8,000 movements related to total movements and this was not capped in relation to the type of movement.

·               If Members wished a temporary consent could be applied but consideration had to be given to the impact of this.

 

Following a lengthy debate Councillor D M Sismey proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation.  The Chairman advised that he would deal with the proposal from the Leader of the Council first.

 

Councillor Durham referred to the significance of this site and how if mindful to refuse the Council must have valid reasons.  He commented that many airports were given a maximum number of movements this did not mean that they used them.

 

During the debate, Councillors D M Sismey, Mrs M E Thompson and Miss S White raised points of clarification in relation to comments they had made.

 

The Chairman then put to the Council the proposal in the name of Councillor Durham that the application be approved subject to a Section 106 Legal agreement as set out in the report and in accordance to the earlier request for a recorded vote, voting was as follows: 

 

For the recommendation:

Councillors B S Beale, Mrs P A Channer, R P F Dewick, M F L Durham, M W Helm, R Pratt, N Pudney and S J Savage,

 

Against the recommendation:

Councillor Mrs B F Acevedo, E L Bamford, A T Cain, I E Dobson, P G L Elliott, Mrs B D Harker, B E Harker, M S Heard, Mrs N G F Shaughnessy, Rev. A E J Shrimpton, D M Sismey, Mrs M E Thompson and Miss S White.

 

Abstention:

Councillor H M Bass

 

This motion was declared lost.  The Chairman advised that if Members intended to refuse the application reasons for refusal were required.

 

Councillor B E Harker proposed that the application be refused for the following reason:

 

The flightpaths around the aerodrome have occupiers of properties and businesses which currently enjoy a quiet rural aspect and amenities.  The intensification of air traffic movements with the associated noise would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the current and future occupiers of these properties and businesses.  The applicant’s noise screen report is not considered to have accurately assessed the impact of the associated noise upon the amenities of the current and future occupiers of the dwellings.  As such the development is considered contrary to policy BE1, paragraph 123 of the NPFF and policies D1 and D2 of the LDP.

 

The Chairman advised that Members were not qualified to claim that the noise screen report was inaccurate. 

 

The Group Manager - Planning Services informed the Council that reasons for refusal had to demonstrate harm and provided detailed information in respect of this making reference to guidance from the Environmental Health and Licensing Manager on this application and a recent appeal decision.  He reiterated the concerns of the Chairman regarding inclusion of the noise report in a reason for refusal.  The Officer reminded Members that matters regarding access, flight paths etc. were not a material consideration for the Council and it was necessary to demonstrate harm within any reason for refusal.  Having taken into account the comments raised by Members during the debate the Group Manager - Planning Services advised that if they were so minded a reason for refusal relating to how the increase in numbers and intensification of numbers would result in an impact on the amenity could be considered.

 

Members debated the reason for refusal suggested by Councillor Harker and the advice of the Group Manager - Planning Services.

 

Councillor Sismey proposed that reference to noise could be included in a reason for refusal and outlined his reasoning behind this.  The Environmental Health and Licensing Manager advised that careful consideration would be required if this proposal was agreed.

 

It was clarified that special event days would be controlled through a condition if the application was approved.

 

Councillor Sismey seconded the proposal of Councillor Harker subject to him amending his proposal in line with the comments from the Group Manager - Planning Services.

 

Councillor P G L Elliott raised a point of order that the vote should be recorded.

 

Following further discussion, the Principal Planner – Major Applications (Strategic Sites) offered clarification on the reason for refusal having taken into account the earlier proposal of Councillor Harker and comments made.  He suggested that the reason for refusal could refer to the development by virtue of its intensification of use within a quiet rural area having a detrimental impact on amenity of local residents contrary to Policy BE1 of the Local Plan and Policies D1 and D2 and that the final wording of the reason was to be finalised by Officers.  This was agreed.

 

The Chairman then put the proposal of refusal for the reason detailed by the Principal Planner – Major Applications (Strategic Sites) and in accordance to the earlier request for a recorded vote, voting was as follows: 

 

For the recommendation:

Councillor Mrs B F Acevedo, E L Bamford, A T Cain, I E Dobson, P G L Elliott, Mrs B D Harker, B E Harker, M S Heard, Mrs N G F Shaughnessy, D M Sismey, Mrs M E Thompson and Miss S White.

 

Against the recommendation:

Councillors Mrs P A Channer, M F L Durham, M W Helm, R Pratt, N Pudney and S J Savage.

 

Abstention:

Councillor H M Bass, B S Beale and R P F Dewick.

 

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1          The development would take place in a relatively quiet and tranquil rural location. The proposed significant increase in flight movements from that what is approved at this time of 360 movements per annum, to the proposed maximum of 8,000 movement per annum, is considered to result in a detrimental impact on the area and on the existing residential amenity due to a substantial increase in the number of disturbances.   The proposal would significantly and unacceptably change the character of the surrounding area and therefore the development is considered to be contrary to Policies D1 and D2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and Paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework in that the impact of the increased flight movements would adversely affect the tranquillity of the rural area.

 

Councillor Rev. A E J Shrimpton left the meeting during this item of business.