HELP NEEDED- Please.

[billiboing]

Enstone Airfield is under threat from a planning application to build industrial units on the airfield.

Whilst I am not connected with Oxfordshire Sport Flying, the loss of YET another airfield really needs your support. Next time it could be your flying field.

Please guys ( and gals) can we all support the three flying clubs there and email an objection.

Objections can be sent by letter to:

Head of Planning Services,
West Oxfordshire District Council,
Elmfield,
New Yatt Road,
Witney
OX28 1PB

or by e-mail either direct to the Planning Officer [email protected]
or to [email protected]

Whichever method is used, the application number must be quoted – 11/0607/P/OP

There are limited grounds on which you can object to the application (for example, the
Council is not obliged to ensure that there are airfields available, so merely objecting
because Enstone would no longer be able to operate as an airfield is not enough).

However, valid grounds for objection could include the loss of jobs at the airfield
(there are 3 flight schools at Enstone), the environmental and visual impact on the
countryside, increased traffic on the local roads, the fact that there would appear
to be no need or demand for more industrial units in that area and the detrimental
effect that the loss of the airfield would have on the local economy (people using or
visiting Enstone regularly use the local garage, shops, pubs and Heythrop Park Hotel).

PLEASE DO IT!

Also you can support the airfield by flying in and putting something into the fighting fund by landing there!


Many thanks

[Gertrude the Wombat]

valid grounds for objection could include

the loss of jobs at the airfield (there are 3 flight schools at Enstone)

Loss of employment through change of use might well be a valid local planning issue, in which case it would aid credibility to quote the policy number in any objection. The risk is of course that the applicant will claim that the new use will provide the same number of jobs, or even more, thus eliminating this as a ground for objection.

the environmental and visual impact on the countryside

That's almost certainly worth trying, there's bound to be policies in this area.

increased traffic on the local roads

The local transport authority will have been consulted on the application. If they have problems with increased traffic then this one will be worth trying; otherwise, objecting to a planning application on traffic grounds when the local transport authority have said there isn't a problem very rarely has any chance of success. (I personally have seen it work exactly once, after several years of sitting on planning committees. And even that one occasion might simply have been because the applicant didn't appeal.)

the fact that there would appear to be no need or demand for more industrial units in that area

This is not usually a planning issue - if someone wants to start a business for which there's no demand that's their problem, nothing to do with the planning system. Unless, again, there's a specific local policy, in which case quoting its number in the objection would considerably aid credibility. If you do want to run with this one, "appear to be no need" isn't enough on its own, you need evidence; the planning authority might have done an employment land survey within living memory, that might have the figures you need, eg if it says that 10% of existing light industrial units have been unused for three years despite being actively marketed then that would be good evidence.

the detrimental effect that the loss of the airfield would have on the local economy (people using or visiting Enstone regularly use the local garage, shops, pubs and Heythrop Park Hotel)

Direct loss of employment through change of use might well be a valid local planning issue, as noted above, with the risk noted above. It's less clear to me that indirect loss of employment will work - it'll certainly need clear evidence, eg statistics from the hotel saying how many people have flown in who would not otherwise have stayed there, and how many jobs they would lose if this business ceased. However the applicant, if properly advised, would simply put in a counter bid saying that all the salesmen visiting the new industrial units would be staying in the hotel which would result in increased employment.

Also, whilst

the Council is not obliged to ensure that there are airfields available

is true in general and might well be true in this particular case it might not be universally true, as it depends on exactly what is written in the local planning policies, so it might work in other places.

There is no substitute for studying the local planning policies and coming up with planning reasons, with policy numbers, to support objections.

And, as always, the number of objections doesn't matter. If one person raises a valid objection to an application on planning grounds this has the same effect (on a correctly operated planning department and committee) as a thousand people making the same point.

[billiboing]

and if people could indicate on here if they have sent an objection that would be great. Likewise- the council have said they are willing to accept objections in any any format- so if you want to object please also consider replying to this thread stating the reason why you object!

Many thanks guys

[Sir George Cayley]

Having gone to the West Oxon Planning web site and searched using the application number my jaw dropped on seeing the outline plans and supporting statements.

I'd encourage everyone to have a look.

="http://planning.westoxon.gov.uk/documentviewer/documentslist.aspx?PK=848351&APPNUMBER=11/0607/P/OP

The siting of the development might, in some peoples opinion, verge on mendacious. There appears to be many other solutions to this quite small development in the context of the land demised to Lomond Holdings.

There is however an interesting statement buried in the lengthy supporting documents. It refers to the upcoming redrawn structure plans and Lomond's view on its outcome.

If I read it right this is a preemptive strike to put a mark on the ground. I'd appreciate some with a longer attention span to look at this and agree or otherwise.

All in all I think someone doesn't want aviation there anymore.

Sir George Cayley

[Jan Olieslagers]

Your honour might wish to reconsider that URL

[Mark 1]

How about this (http://planning.westoxon.gov.uk/documentviewer/documentslist.aspx?PK=848351&APPNUMBER=11/0607/P/OP)

[goldeneaglepilot]

Its very sad that Enstone is under such threat. It's easy to see from the plans with the proposal that such development could be done in a way that preserved the main runway. It's obvious from the plans that the owners either do not understand GA flying or simply want to restrict flying at the site to types which can operate from grass.

This is from the planning documents, it's obvious that the applicant wants it to look as if they have considered flying activities:

1.8 The leisure activities in the main involve recreational flying of light
aircraft and microlights, which has led to the further approval of
workshops and hangers on the north side of the airfield perimeter
and at the eastern end of the main runway within the Great Tew
Estate. Although the proposed development involves a middle
section of the main runway it should not affect the flying rights of the
Clubs that operate from within the Great Tew Estate or from the
established grass strip north of the main runway. The other
recreation activities that have been approved involve off-road motor
sport activities.

Perhaps an effective method of objection would be to show the need for the runway for the clubs to continue as per today's use. The development could be moved to allow co-existance.