Planning consent is granted for a specific purpose, i.e., if consent is granted on a building for use as a restaurant, it shall continue to operate as such unless change of consent is applied for and granted. The owner of the property cannot convert the facility into residential accommodation without applying for change of use consent.
The way I understand the planning enforcement notice at Kemble is that the NIMBY's are suggesting that GA does not fit the original Planning Consent granted for Kemble, the specific wording of that planning document escapes me at this time, but I recall it included the wording 'maintenance and storage'. Kemble has Planning Consent to operate as an airport, but according to the NIMBY's GA does not fall into the category(ies) of aviation specified in the consent document.
If the argument from the NIMBY's at Kemble is regarded valid, i.e., GA is excluded from that specific Planning Consent and such operations have to terminate, my observation with regards Lee On Solent is that we have a good look at the specific planning consent. If the planning consent issued includes GA, and by the sounds of it the council is backing the GA side of the argument so I cannot believe it is not the case, the owner cannot exclude GA from the use of the facility without applying for Change of Use Consent?
Maybe not such a long shot in getting GA back at the airfield...