Latest on the 28-day rule?

[IO540]

One day I might end up trying to flatten a 800m field somewhere....

AIUI, one can buy a field, anywhere, and operate from it 28 days in any one year. Is this true for a conservation area also? Does one have to live in a house attached to it?

What if one buys two fields; does that give you 56 days of flying a year? If not, how far apart do they have to be? Obviously this will work if they are far enough apart.

What about a small hangar? There is the usual planning business (which I know well, from a house extension context) but having a shed on wheels seems to work for horse shelters; these seem to withstand enforcement orders quite well.

[Flyin'Dutch']

You can use a field for as many days as you like until someone informs the planning authorities.

The rules state you can only use a field for something else than its original use for 28 days or less.

Yup you can use different fields and in principle multiply the amount of days you can use it, but, I think if you want to play that card that you will nark them off pretty quickly and make them hellbound to close you down.

How? Well by keeping an eye on you and make sure that any transgression is met by whatever enforcement action they have.

If you use the field for 10 years without having any objectors you can apply for a change of use which should be 'easily' obtained.

Dunno if it is different for conservation areas. Hazard a guess it would and you are probably less likely to get away with going unnoticed.

Buildings. Those associated with the use of the field should be not too difficult. Farmbuildings for farmland.

[maggioneato]

The strip I fly from operated under the 28 day rule, then someone complained. We were then "invited" to apply for planning permission. Change of use from agricultural land to airstrip. It opened up a whole can of worms. Noise assessments, objections from the locals, half of them didn't even know the airstrip was there before the press splashed the shock, horror of an airstrip in the area. Public meetings. Petitions, for and against. Lots of hassle. Planning was granted for 12 months with restricted movements and hours, then after the 12 months, permanent permission was granted, still with extended restricted hours and increased movements. Even the wind sock was included in the grant of change of use. :rolleyes: It only takes one to put a spanner in the works under the 28 day rule. The planning officer was fair and did his homework. So sucessfull outcome for us. Having flown previously from a busy commercial airfield, I feel privileged to fly from a private strip. I hasten to add the strip doesn't belong to me. I wish.

[denhamflyer]

I live in a conservation area, and when we moved in I spoke to the planning people and they sent me a list of "things you cant do". Flying aircraft was NOT one of them. It was primarily about building so I dont think your hanger would not get very far.

The argument over two fields would probably go down to the land registry, if they were the same land then you would be caught out. Just the same as saying for this 28 days I will use the left side of the field and next 28 the right side. BUT if they are seperately registered pieices of land then the rights etc. would be independent. I am not a solicitor so you may want to check that, but I do have several peices of land around my house, each with there own registration and completely different use/restrictions.

Having said all of that it will only take ONE person to start making a fuss - and in a conservation area, you are almost by definition going to have one...( got the tee-shire :ugh: )

[shortstripper]

Don't take my word as gospel but ...

If you buy a field with the intention of using it as a strip, the 28 day will not apply as that is its primary use. Unless you have another ligitimate primary use, it would be better to either rent a field from a farmer or rent the farmer your field, but have a strip in it. The 28 day rule when applied to agricultural use, applies to the holding and not on a per field basis, so sorry, it is 28 days only. However, as mentioned most of us operate normally without problems until someone starts counting. That is one of the reasons most strip owners are not always welcoming to other pilots flying in without strict PPR.

Hope this helps ... SS

[IO540]

Yes thank you all; a good start.

Looks like buying say 20 acres of agri land (quite cheap) and renting back most of it to farmer(s) is the way to go. A runway is probably less than 1 acre. A shed which can be made very secure (without it being obvious from the outside) would be necessary since a plane sitting in the open will soon be vandalised.

Has anybody looked at surfacing? Presumably that would not be allowed, but what about that stuff with holes in it so the grass comes through?

Actually just grass should be fine. AFAIK there is no reason why, for light use, a grass strip should not be flat as a pancake.

Currently I have a good setup which I am very happy with but I think most airfeld owners have half an eye (or even a whole eye) on closing the airfield and developing it... The particular field in question would be a huge prize; maybe 1000 houses and the local authority is pretty corrupt.

It's good to keep an eye on options. There are loads of private strips but even those that support several planes and have established use tend to be relatively closed communities which offer zero chance to a newcomer who hasn't been drinking with the rest of them for the last 20 years. Also most have a strong preference for short-field types e.g. Maule etc. I found this out several years ago. It's almost a masonic type community in some cases.

[maggioneato]

10540. The stuff the grass grows through I was told is not suitable for a strip that gets scarified. Not convinced about private strips being a closed shop, after all, I got PPR for the strip I mentioned in my previous post and more or less stayed. We help out with things that need doing around the strip, have BBQ's etc. It's just a question of finding what you are looking for. I wasn't even looking for anywhere, it just happened.

[shortstripper]

An experienced single owner stands a chance of getting into a shared strip, far less so a group ... but it's not impossible. An agricultural shed can be used to store an aeroplane, but a shed used to contain aeroplanes is a hangar. A hangar that is not permanent is ok normally (some very odd planning laws apply, and I'm no expert).

SS

[slim_slag]

I would say that in general, if the council has made the effort to include something in a conservation area they will make the extra effort to "protect" it. When passing an idea by Planning round here the first thing they look up is whether the property is in green belt or a conservation area, if it is either/both then they become negative really quickly. Must be quite some conservation area to include a field large enough to put a strip, round here the conservation area stops at people's back fences.

What appears to be most important to me when an unknown entity first asks to fly into private strips is the type of plane you will be arriving in and not the person flying it. If it's a taildragger you will get a warmer welcome, but of course if you behave like an ass then you won't get invited back. I am sure there are many reasons for that and if you are flying a nosedragger you just have to live with it.

[slim_slag]

Just found the relevent part of the local plan for these parts

CONSERVATION AREAS
PLANNING PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING CHANGES OF USE AND ALTERATIONS OR EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS WITHIN A DESIGNATED CONSERVATION AREA, OR OUTSIDE OF BUT AFFECTING ITS SETTING, OR VIEWS INTO OR OUT OF THE CONSERVATION AREA WILL ONLY BE GRANTED WHERE:
a) THE PROPOSAL WOULD PRESERVE OR ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF THE CONSERVATION AREA BY VIRTUE OF ITS USE, DESIGN, SCALE, SITING AND MATERIALS;
b) THERE WILL BE NO ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE FORM OF THE CONSERVATION AREA, INCLUDING ITS OPEN SPACES (INCLUDING GARDENS), THE POSITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND NOTABLE FEATURES SUCH AS GROUPS OF TREES, WALLS AND OTHER STRUCTURES; AND
THERE WILL BE NO LOSS OF PART OR ALL OF AN OPEN SPACE WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO THE CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF THE CONSERVATION AREA.

I suspect simlar wording is in all local plans. So having read that, I would say the chances of getting a field converted to a strip would be slim to none. I think it's more likely that any field would not be in a conservation area, but of course I don't know which conservation area is being discussed. If it's in green belt then I bet similar hurdles would apply, but the above says that even a field outside of a conservation area would be similarly restricted if it would affect the setting of the conservation area. i.e if you could hear the aircraft I think it could be argued it would affect the setting.

[IO540]

In this case, PP would not be sought. There is little chance of getting it, due to well organised local opposition to anything bigger than a water butt.

However, the field would most likely be outside the conservation area.

One way to play it would be to buy two well separated fields, which would give you 1 day of flying per week no matter how accurately the locals are counting, and perhaps apply for PP for one of them - a bit like overhauling only one engine at a time on a twin :)

Does anyone know what kind of evidence the locals need to collect to support > 28 days a year of operation? Presumably they have to collect evidence for at least 1 year before much can be done. To do this properly (in a case of vandalism for example; I am familiar with one such scenario) one would need a video collected by an unconnected 3rd party (a private eye, usually) and handled correctly to ensure that evidence can't be tampered with.

[shortstripper]

I suspect simlar wording is in all local plans. So having read that, I would say the chances of getting a field converted to a strip would be slim to none. I think it's more likely that any field would not be in a conservation area, but of course I don't know which conservation area is being discussed. If it's in green belt then I bet similar hurdles would apply, but the above says that even a field outside of a conservation area would be similarly restricted if it would affect the setting of the conservation area. i.e if you could hear the aircraft I think it could be argued it would affect the setting.

I don't see that the above would preclude using a field in a conservation area as an airstrip? If it's agricultural land the 28 day rule will still apply, so it would be better to use that rule. If you want to seek PP wait ten years and hope nobody objects in the meantime. A new built hangar would probably be out, but using an existing agricultural building (shared with say, stored machinery) would have no different visual impact ... nor would the strip itself, so where's the problem?

One way to play it would be to buy two well separated fields, which would give you 1 day of flying per week no matter how accurately the locals are counting, and perhaps apply for PP for one of them - a bit like overhauling only one engine at a time on a twin

If you buy the fields IO540 and they are restricted to agricultural use, you would need to apply for an agricultural holding. Unless the fields really are WELL separated, they would come under the same holding number and be classed together. In essance, buying an agricultural field means you are setting yourself up as a farmer, and that requires you to be registered, hence my advice to try to rent if you can. I'm no land expert, just a farm manager so seek appropriate advice from a land agent or true owner/farmer.

Does anyone know what kind of evidence the locals need to collect to support > 28 days a year of operation? Presumably they have to collect evidence for at least 1 year before much can be done. To do this properly (in a case of vandalism for example; I am familiar with one such scenario) one would need a video collected by an unconnected 3rd party (a private eye, usually) and handled correctly to ensure that evidence can't be tampered with.

With the greatest respect, this smacks of going in all guns blazing, expecting trouble and most likely getting it. IMHO, this is the wrong attitude! I can understand that if you are investing you want to be prepared, but it may be the wrong mindset. Most successful strips work on a softly softly approach. Don't advertise the fact you're there, take off and F**k off (don't buzz your mates who live two fields away ect) and when someone objects don't become defensive. It's better to visit them, apologise for their inconvieniance and explain what, why and when you fly. Ask if they'd like a trip around, or a photo of their house, or even a phonecall to warn them when you're flying. I know this sounds like grovelling .... but it works! If no OFFICIAL complaints are made within 10 years, you have reasonable chance of getting PP based on your use (which at that point is advantageous to have been more than 28 days/year). An objector can count movements (an they will if provoked) but if this doesn't tally with your movement records (yes you have to keep a booking in/out book) then they will have to prove that you used the field more than 28 days. I suppose, supportive witnesses, photographic evidence ect would all count.

SS

[Twiddle]

For a hangar, check out the macgregor (mcgregor?) poly tunnels, no planning permission required apparently as they are temporary structures.

Presume that elsewhere in the world they have 12 feet sheep to house?:\

[IO540]

Thank you for the guidance, SS. The trick would be to know the worst case (i.e. be prepared for the worst) and then do exactly as you suggest (grovel so it doesn't happen). I've been involved with planning, planning committees and the uner the table crookery that goes on, so being prepared for the worst is a good idea IMHO.

This kind of thing is a long term strategy, for years ahead. One can't just take a drive and, hey, here's a nice field! It could take years of looking to find one (South East). Especially if one is doing it when your local airport has just shut, in which case a whole load of people (many far wealthier and far better connected than myself) will be trying the same thing.

I am sure it's all been done before...

Two fun ideas to chuck in: an underground hangar, and an NDB & DME activated by a text message :) Naturally one would have a GPS approach also.

[slim_slag]

I don't see that the above would preclude using a field in a conservation area as an airstrip? If it's agricultural land the 28 day rule will still apply, so it would be better to use that rule

If it's in a conservation area then the council can remove permitted development rights under an Article 4 direction. I don't know enough about it to say whether they could issue such a direction if the field was outside the conservation area but close enough to affect the setting of the conservation area itself. I don't know whether they can use article 4 after you had started flying into a field.

The way I see it, planning permission is required if you wanted to 'convert' it to a strip, by convert I mean change of use. If you start trying to get clever with councils they might start getting clever back, who knows what they could do and they have more money than your average punter and often nothing better to do. TPOs are a favourite trick to stop people doing what they want. They may say that flattening the field is engineering work so you need permission, they may say going there to change the oil counts as one of the 28 days. As you say, best to keep it quiet. Best to use a field not near a conservation area in the first place, put it at the end of a farm track instead of a garden.

[shortstripper]

The way I see it, planning permission is required if you wanted to 'convert' it to a strip, by convert I mean change of use. If you start trying to get clever with councils they might start getting clever back, who knows what they could do and they have more money than your average punter and often nothing better to do.

The whole point of the 28 day rule is that you are not "converting" as in change of use! The field remains agricultural but is allowed to be used for another purpose on a tempory basis ... ie 28 days in one year. There is nothing clever involved, it's just a treasured "right" at the moment and would take a change of law to be removed. You're quite correct though, if provoked the local council could possibly find all sorts of "gotchas" to stop you using the field to fly from. Obviously if the field is not suitable in the first place then it's a non starter. Levelling a hill, removing hedges ect would of course would need planning consent and if asked why ... "so I can use the fierld to fly from" would be change of use! A strip in a suitable field doesn't need to be marked, fenced or in anyway "changed" (save perhaps mowing) is ok as there is no permanent change of use. In such a case the 28 day rule is perfectly acceptable as far as I'm aware. Obviously if it's a field in a city farm or other totally inappropriate area all bets are off!

SS

[slim_slag]

ss,

I suppose I should have made it clearer that I was responding to IO540's question "Is this true for a conservation area also?".

[Gertrude the Wombat]

In this case, PP would not be sought. There is little chance of getting it, due to well organised local opposition to anything bigger than a water butt.
Planning decisions, if made legally, are not a matter of popularity.

The only thing that a "well organised local opposition" can do to stop planning permission that would otherwise have been granted is to draw the planners' and councillors' attention to a planning reason for refusal that they'd all managed to miss for themselves.

If planning permission is refused and you suspect that this is because councillors are simply pandering to the votes of their local nimbys then appeal. The appeal inspectors are very robust about granting permission where it has been improperly refused.

[shortstripper]

I'm glad you've posted Gertrude ... It's reminded me that I've always wondered how the law stands with private water landing strips (or public water ones for that matter)? Say I won the lottery and bought a nice Scottish estate with a Loch? Or moved next to a large lake in the UK ... Is PP possible? Is there the equiv to the 28 day rule?

Any idea?

SS

[IO540]

Gertrude is 100% right.

Which begs the question: why are there not many more strips, or whole airfields with tarmac runways, than we have at present?

Is it because people don't know the planning rules, and get scared off when the planning committee chucks it out? Certainly that is the way the system works at present; it relies heavily on Joe Punter not knowing the process.

[Humaround]

IO540

Actually there are MASSES of private strips and farmstrips. If you keep a lookout and fly as low as i do :) you see new ones all the time.

Most of them aren't on the charts, and it's hard to find who owns them and therefore who to ask PP from.

it's the future of private flying!

[gasax]

Well short stripper the 129 numpties (venacular for the Scottish parliament) have made a piece of legislation giving the population the 'right to roam'. Effectively it gives public access to private (and state) owned land. Keep to the paths, shut the gates but a right to be there - so very different to 'down sauf'.

Landowners can apply for an exemption but at the moment they are being fought against pretty hard.

HAving said that the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park tried to ban seaplanes. That has now gone away but they are still trying to use planning law against Loch Lomond Seaplanes using the 'change of use' argument. I'm not sure where the issue has got to but it is difficult to see that they can win this one as any facilities would have a multiplicity of uses, so picking out the floatplane use is not easy.

interestingly their noise report whilst highlighting the aircraft were quite noisy showed that people had a high tolerance to it - welcoming the comparartively unusual sight of a floatplane operating. In comparison the jet skis got near universal condemnation.....

So to answer the question - I think the 28 day rule can be applied to a loch - we'll see what the outcome is when its decided!

[xraf]

because people don't know the planning rules, and get scared off when the planning committee chucks it out? Certainly that is the way the system works at present; it relies heavily on Joe Punter not knowing the process.

Quite right!! Planning is NOT a 'black art' or at the whim of some self important local councillor (even though most think it is!) In reality, it is like any other piece of law there are rules and regs which are available to check ahead of time and determine what you can and cannot do.

Anyone can check the rules, arrange their affairs in accordance with them and feel confident at any enquiry or tribunal.

In fact, an entire industry built up around this idea in the 1980's and 1990's where people who owned large plots of land around their house were shown how to arrange planning permission for a small estate of houses (usually 4,6 or 8), sell to a builder with the PP in place and make loadsamoney!

This came to an end when the rules were changed but it took legislative action because they were simply following the rules.

So.. find out what your local rules are, follow them and worry not!!!:ok:

[slim_slag]

gasax,

Doesn't it depend on who owns the loch? Also I don't think the 28 day rule applies to commercial operations. Loch Lomand is in a national park so subject to special byelaws, they can ban stuff if they want, similar to how they banned speed boats on Windermere.

xraf, if what you say is true you would expect sucessful planning appeals to run at close to 0%. It's a bit higher than that you know :) The only reason it's not even higher is because people who know they would probably win on appeal don't bother in the first place because of the hassle and walk away before they get refused by planning. Round these parts the planning department (not the councillors who generally do as they are advised) have been known to make it up as they go along, though where you live might be different of course.

[IO540]

Where I live, about 80% of applications approved by the planning officer (i.e. not obviously contravening planning policy) but chucked out by the planning committee get approved on appeal.

Obviously this is not a proper statistical study because only the most determined people go to appeal. The queue for the Bristol inspector is currently 12 months, and this is what gives the planning comm. most of its apparent power. If the appeal queue was short, the planning committee system would be mostly redundant.

There are various clever ways around failing twice in the ccttee, e.g. putting in an initial application which is visually unattractive and immediately that fails (which it usually will) you put in an appeal and immediately put in an appl for the one you really wanted. The ccttee is then faced with a fait accompli because they know you will probably get both on appeal and they will end up looking stupid.

When I started this thread I knew nothing about the 28 day rule and if I was pursuing something I would get a specialist. I know a very good one; he works at £200/hour+VAT and is used by various property developers. He is a very smooth operator; used to be head of Planning for a local authority :)

[gasax]

Hi Slim,

The commercial aspects are as far as I know no different in planning law. Hence the car boot sales, motor sport events etc which are commercial activities are presently exempt under the 'temporary developments - 28 day' arrangements.

Who owns the loch makes no difference - unless it is an organisation such as the National Park - who as you rightly say can make their own rules (remember that persons who do not own the land can apply for planning permission on that land) - but provided the National Park complies with general planning law although they are allowed to give much greater weight to preserving amenity, character etc.

[slim_slag]

Fair enough on the commercial use gasax. On the 'right to roam' in scotland you mentioned, even if you get planning permission to use somebody elses property, do you have the 'right to roam' with a mechanical device like an airplane? I thought the right to roam was restricted to humans and their hounds.

I know a very good one; he works at £200/hour+VAT and is used by various property developers. He is a very smooth operator; used to be head of Planning for a local authorityThere is somebody round here who can allegedly get your plans through for a one off payment of £3000 cash. Not as smooth but equally effective.