Agenda item

Erection of aircraft hangars (resubmission) [Heslington Ward]

Members considered a major full application submitted by Elvington Park Ltd for the erection of aircraft hangars (resubmission).

This proposal has a long planning history and is now the subject of an appeal against non-determination by the Council. In such circumstances it is no longer possible for the Council to determine the application. The purpose of the report is to establish the formal attitude of the Committee to the proposals for use in the forthcoming Public Inquiry.

Officers updated that an additional reason for opposition would be added in relation to Nature Conservation. The site was a very important one in relation to grassland and birds and an increase in development and aircraft movement would be detrimental. A full and detailed assessment of the wildlife and grass types on the site had been requested from the applicants but the information had not yet been provided. Further details for the reasons for this opposition are shown in the resolution below.

The following updates were also reported:

·        In relation to paragraph 1.2 of the report the Planning Inspectorate had confirmed that the Appeal would take place.

·        The Highways Development Team had provided further comments as follows:

·        They were unable to comment on the access roads as drawings were not available

·        In relation to Halifax Way – a sight line can be achieved northwards but the sight line to the south is obscured by overgrown vegetation.

·        The Traffic Impact Assessment showed that there were currently adequate parking spaces but there were doubts if any growth could be accommodated. The Applicant had been asked to submit further supporting evidence.

·        No extra problems are envisaged at the Halifax Way/Elvington Lane Junction

·        Sustainable transport options are limited at this site

·        Additional traffic movements on the Grimston Bar roundabout would be less than 5%. Anything over 5% would create severe concerns.

In light of the above refusal reason number 3 would be amended as detailed in the resolution.

The following additional representations had been received:

·        A letter had been received from the planning consultants; this was circulated to Members at the meeting.  The letter raised points in relation to the report that had submitted to the Planning Committee. In response the officer explained that, notwithstanding several letters from the Council requesting further information, there were still matters outstanding. Figures on past and anticipated future aircraft movements are especially needed.

·        A letter of support had been received from a resident of Dunnington   who welcomed the proposals and believed that they would create an opportunity for bringing highly paid and skilled jobs to the area. The letter also expressed the view that the flight paths would not affect many people.

·        A letter in objection had been received from a local resident who raised concerns regarding noise, loss of amenity, environmental matters and increases in air traffic.

·        An e-mail in objection had been received. This raised points in relation to the proposals being a ‘blot on the landscape’, especially the size of the proposed hangars.

·        A letter of objection had been received from Councillor Alexander (Prospective MP for York Outer). He stated that the application did not give details of the resultant air operations that would be carried out from the proposed new 70,000 square foot of hangars.

Representations were received in objection from a resident of Heslington who expressed the view that there were no special circumstances for development within the Green Belt.

Representations were received in objection from a resident of Dunnington who believed the proposals would lead to serious noise pollution for the surrounding villages. He was concerned that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been submitted and was also concerned that should a flying school  set up business there this would create a significant number of low flying aircraft practicing manoeuvres thus exacerbating noise pollution.

Representations were received in objection from another resident of Dunnington in relation to the proposals.

Representations in objection were received from Elvington Parish Council who thought that the importance of the airfield was overstated, the applicant’s business case was not strong enough and there were no special circumstances to allow this development to take place in the Green Belt.

Councillor Jamieson-Ball spoke in objection to the proposals. He said that there were many unanswered questions and the case for ‘special circumstances’ had not been proven. He also stated that there would be an ecological impact, noise pollution and traffic problems.

Members asked the Countryside Officer how long some of the birds had been in habitation on the site and he responded that this was not known as they had not yet been able to carry out a survey.

Discussions were had in relation to the Heslington Village Design Statement and whether this was applicable to the proposed development.

RESOLVED:             That the formal attitude of the Committee to the proposals is as follows:

                                    That the application be opposed for the following reasons:

1.      There is a presumption against inappropriate development of this type, scale, location and design in the Green Belt. Evidence of ‘very special circumstances’ which might justify overcoming this presumption has not been satisfactorily produced in this case. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies GB1 and GB13 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan approved April 2005 and the advice in PPG2 (“Green Belts”).

2.      The appearance of the proposed development by reason of its size, location and design is considered to be visually inappropriate in this area of open countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy GB1 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan approved April 2005 and the advice in PPS7 (“Sustainable Development in Rural Areas”).

3.      There would be concerns If traffic flows increased  by more than 5% then problems of poor access and traffic on the wider road network would result, contrary to the requirements of Policy SP8 of the Development Control Local Plan approved April 2005.

4.      Insufficient information had been provided to allow the noise impact of the proposed development to be assessed satisfactorily. In the absence of such an assessment it is anticipated problems of excessive noise will result to the detriment of nearby residents and contrary to the requirements of Policy GP1 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan approved April 2005.

5.      Insufficient information had been provided with regard to the nature conservation interest of the land to enable the impact of the proposal to be fully assessed or mitigated for satisfactorily at a local, national and international level. In the absence of such an assessment there could be a loss of biodiversity value contrary to guidance in PPS9, the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy and Policies NE4a, NE5a and NE7 of the Draft Local Plan.

REASON:                  To establish Members’ attitude on the application for the forthcoming Public Inquiry.

[Cllr Reid took the Chair for this item as both the Chair and Vice-Chair had declared personal and prejudicial interests in this application].