SAVE BAGBY AIRFIELD FROM CLOSURE

[flybymicro]

Bagby Airfield (EGNG) has been hit with an unprecedented 14 Planning Enforcement Notices by the Local Authority, designed to ensure its closure.

We need your support to keep Bagby Airfield's facilities open and protect the 15 jobs there.

Please spare an hour or 2 of your time on Tuesday 22nd May 2012 to show your support at the Appeal Hearing at Hambleton District Council, Civic Centre, Stone Cross, Northallerton, DL6 2UU at 10am or click on the link below to comment on this case and register your support on the planning portal at Case Summary for APP/G2713/C/11/2165522 (http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2165522&coid=2099730)

We need to show Hambleton District Council that the Airfield has the support of its users and the wider community so please pass this information to anyone who may be moved to support us.

Be certain of one thing - if the planning authority are successful in their enforcement action a precedent will have been set and other local and national airfields may find themsleves at risk from closure too.

If you'd like a poster to display at your local airfield please email us at [email protected] and we'll email you one.

Transport will be provided from the Airfield to the Appeal Hearing venue if you wish to fly-in.

A buffet will also be provided at the Airfield for those who attend the hearing to lend their support.

Thank you

Steve Hoyle
Airfield Manager - Bagby (EGNG)

[nouseforaname]

posted my bit on the council site....wish you luck with the case and hope you have got AOPA on your side we found them very good when hit with a simliar issue at a similar sized airfield near us down south.

[SDB73]

Good luck with this. I've submitted my comments also.

[MrFusion]

I have submitted some comments as well, good luck.

[Maoraigh1]

I've also put something in. Am I right in thinking today is the last day for submissions?

[soaringhigh650]

The theatened "closure" of this little airport only goes to show that its users have failed to engage with the majority of local residents and the local government.

Is this being run like an exclusive private club?

If the locals can see how flying can be accessible to all and how this little airport adds value to the community, both socially and economically, then we wouldn't be where we are today.

[The Heff]

How can one get that message across?

Flying is going to be seen as a rich man's hobby because it is expensive, and its easier to believe that PPL pilots are ex-public schoolboys who simply inherited their wealth, rather than common John Smith's who have saved up their pennies and committed themselves to finding funds, completing the training, &c. Its going to be a difficult task to dispel the rich man image.

However, I can empathise with NIMBYs raising complaints against Bagby, because the Thirsk residents have to contend with the RAF flying out of nearby Topcliffe as well; and then there were the rumours about Bagby expanding into an international airport, which must have put the cat amongst the pigeons!

[gasax]

I have submitted some positive support - I wish it were not necessary - both from the point of view of local opposition and from the planning law aspects.

I doubt such positive support will have any impact - again under the planning laws the judgement is made on the basis of whether or not the rules have been followed. How or why Bagby have a runway and numbers of buildings without planning permission is the crux of the issue - and the one which it is very likely to see successful planning enforcement action taken.

At the end of the day most councils have a lot of people who to put it kindly, have 'time on their hands'. Make monkeys of them and you give them a mission, if that mission has support from the local residents then things do not look good.

[Justiciar]

I seem to remember there was an earlier partially successful planning appeal but that certain permissions were refused for some developments carried out without consent. I would guess that the Enforcement Notices relate to the part of the development for which permission was refused on appeal. If the appeal is being heard in May then this matter has already been pending for many months, given the time it takes to lista public enquiry. The operators have not done themselves any favours by continuing uses for which they did not have permission.
Submissions from members of aviation forums will have zero impact on the planning inspector unless they address planning issues.

At the end of the day most councils have a lot of people who to put it kindly, have 'time on their hands'. Make monkeys of them and you give them a mission, if that mission has support from the local residents then things do not look good.

How very true. The sensible approach is to keep a very low profile and not to p*ss everyone off by deliberately flouting planning decisions or by carrying out development with no consent at all.

On looking at the original decisions the Enforcement notice was quashed so these must be new notices in respect of further breaches of planning control. Are they for developments previously refused on appeal?

[Fake Sealion]

Just added my support on the website.

If Bagby ceases to operate it is very likely my flying will cease too.:mad:

The locals half a mile away will then be spared the horrendously deafening offensive roar of my 80hp Rotax once per month!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Good luck at the hearing!

[N707ZS]

Never been the same since Phil retired. Still, hope it stays open.

[SFCC]

I've added my name too, but only because the previous incumbent has gone. what a prize **** he was!:ugh:

[petercharles1948]

Please explain why Mr Scott the owner, has withdrawn a number of the appeals during the enquiry? Is it as you say or are you hiding something? I believe we are being hoodwinked by the airfield especially as no updates on their website for over a year. Interesting reading the 94 page document. Wanting 10,000 flights per year on average and saying the north south runway was in use in 2001 when the pylon was only removed in 2006 which I recall crossed this area? Not helping our cause.....

I would have supported yourselves but feel let down by the owner who seems to have lost the plot and created a mountain out of a mole hill for us 'hobby pilots' who just want to enjoy flying. Shoud have kept quite not a bull in a china shop. Thanks!

Please look toward Baxby airfield and only 10 minutes away from Bagby but 15 minutes closer to York.

[ak7274]

Unfortunately Charles being a pratt won't help your cause.

I would have thought that being from Ashford you wouldn't care less. Or have you too got an agenda?

How do you get it to be 15 minutes further from York? Only by Cycle, as the difference is 3.8 miles as verified by Google Maps and the last 2 miles is by minor road.

If you're going to quote your own version of fact, please ensure it is plausible.

I have no agenda as I fly into both Bagby and Baxby, nor do I have issues with either place. Do you?

[md 600 driver]

Peter Charles
AFAIK mr scott is a legal eagle. Specialising in planning so I suppose he knows the best way to get concent or what ever he is after

[whiterock]

I second that and would go so far as to say that the :mad: individual you refer to was the cause of the locals turning against the airfield in the first place. The most unpleasant man I have ever known. I hope sense will prevail and the Bagby of Phil's day can survive.

[airfieldagent007]

Read these results of the enforcement appeals links below

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.4479931&NAME=/Decision..pdf (http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.4479931&NAME=/Decision..pdf)
:E

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.4479934&NAME=/COSTS.pdf (http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.4479934&NAME=/COSTS.pdf)
:{

[airfieldagent007]

you shouldn't assume anything just because you don't like what your being told :=

I think you need to read this report as well

Local Government Ombudsman • Serious failure of planning administration for Bagby Airfield by Hambleton Council (http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2012/apr/serious-failure-planning-administration-bagby-airfield-hambleton-council/) :confused:

[Justiciar]

Unlike the civil courts you don't get an order for costs just because you have won. Costs are awarded only when the conduct of the appeals is unreasonable or they stood no reasonable prospect of success. Failing to notice that your evidence is inconsistent with your own case is fairly basic and frankly surprising, as is producing no evidence at all in support of a ground of appeal. The Inspector's assessment of the evidence on oath he heard is also fairly damning of those who gave it and the party who lead that evidence.

All very odd given that the appellant appears to be a solicitor!

[N707ZS]

I wonder if they got planning permission for all the movements to Wombelton from Bagby.

[airfieldagent007]

Like all commercial enterprises these days we have to comply with legislation whether that be planning or health and safety, there is nothing wrong with a thriving GA sector but it needs to be professional, Pilot magazine runs a section were we can vent our frustrations on the “men in their little yellow jacks” or the cost of the landing fees, there are reports of accidents were the cause is a sudden attack of hay fever or an un explained cross wind not a recognition of our own pilot contribution, if the GA sector is going to develop it needs grow up and look at the red tape all business have to comply with these days.:bored:

Bagby Aero club and now Bagby airfield was created by a few for the few but it now wants to be a commercial enterprise, yet from what I have read has never produced a business plan, it seems that every pilot there either runs an air taxi business or gives flying lessons, from what I have seen on the ground it’s operational systems are minimal and it’s health and safety practices inconsistent and inadequate and we won't mention the lack of planning!!:hmm:
It has attempted to present its self to the GA community as the wronged party but is in fact doing everything to put its self out of business and blaming the council and the residents in the process. So who are the real villains the local council? or GA community for supporting this operation and allowing Bagby’s disregard for legislation and regulations to be acceptable?:D

[ShyTorque]

So who are the real villains the local council? or GA community for supporting this operation and allowing Bagby’s disregard for legislation and regulations to be acceptable?

"Villains" for wanting an airfield facility to remain open?

The council was responsible for enforcing the legislation and regulations they put in place. How was a visiting pilot supposed to know they hadn't done so?

[Johnm]

it seems that every pilot there either runs an air taxi business or gives flying lessons, from what I have seen on the ground it’s operational systems are minimal and it’s health and safety practices inconsistent and inadequate

It would be interesting to know the antecedents of this poster. If an air taxi business is operating it would need an AOC, but could operate from quite basic facilities, Newmarket racecourse isn't very sophisticated. Flying training and general private flying need very few facilities to operate. I've seen commercial air transport operate in NZ from a busy mixed traffic airfield with no ATC, no ground staff just a lady pilot who loaded passenger bags herself!

[airfieldagent007]

So are you a local resident or a GA pilot, or both? Supporter or critic?

You are obsessed with labels, am I friend or foe? I have an interest in the aviation industry.;)
I joined this discussion to bring to you the results of the enforcement appeals at Bagby, something the creator, the airfield manager has chosen not to do.
As highlighted by other posters we can all see why, with inconsistent and inadequate evidence at the heart of Bagbys defence.
It is clear that Bagby airfield only exists because it consistently ignores planning and other regulations, you would like to think if pilots are running air taxi business from there they would have an AOC, however this is not the case they get around this by simply hiring the plane and the pilot.
Like in all industries you will get those who put profit before standards this is not acceptable in the aviation industry and the GA community will suffer for it if we allow operations like Bagby to exist alongside legitimate airfields like Sherburn.
The ombudsman’s report allows for a discontinuance order to be served on Bagby airfield this is a good result for the owner and the remaining business, they will all get compensated and the legitimately run airfields will benefit from the dispersed trade.
I for one will not be visiting Bagby again.:O