Tatenhill Airfield (EGBM) - Planning Appeal!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's cynical but the system, comprising of so many have-a-go amateurs, has been created to be exploited in a cynical manner.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tatenhill Airfield - Planning Appeal!
All
Thanks for the comments/debate - think I am more depressed now!
We are not actively involved in the Planning meetings, we are 200+ members who fly from the airfield and want to support the land owner and airfield operator in whatever way we can. We could sit back and do nothing and wait to hear the outcome or we can lobby the planning committee - which at present is our referred option.
The first round I believe was not handled well but the appeal now has a barrister and airfield planning individual involved. There may have been some irregular processes employed the first time round that need to be addressed and challenged.
Thanks
Thanks for the comments/debate - think I am more depressed now!
We are not actively involved in the Planning meetings, we are 200+ members who fly from the airfield and want to support the land owner and airfield operator in whatever way we can. We could sit back and do nothing and wait to hear the outcome or we can lobby the planning committee - which at present is our referred option.
The first round I believe was not handled well but the appeal now has a barrister and airfield planning individual involved. There may have been some irregular processes employed the first time round that need to be addressed and challenged.
Thanks
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the link in this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258470) it is now clear that the rejection is pricipally due the fact that no clear justification for the use of hangers 5-8 was made (three potential uses were suggested).
The Planning Officer notes that "the applicant gives three possible end uses for these Hangars:
. covering parking for those aircraft that would formerly have been accommodated in the polytunnels now deleted from the application
. additional space for mechanical and engineering operations
. other industries using the hangar space with up to 5-10 further people being employed"
By specifying three potential uses, the Duchy appear to have conceeded that there is no clear justification for these hangers - if there was, they would have specificed this one particular end use and not mentioned the other two.
Having deleted the Polytunnels proposed for Aircraft storage, the first of these options appears the 'correct' end use that should be sought for hangers 5-8.
A business case can be made for hangers rather than poly tunnels on the basis of the lifespan of the 'building' and the premium that aircraft owners might be prepared to pay to have a more secure form of storage for their aircraft.
The Planning Officer notes that "the applicant gives three possible end uses for these Hangars:
. covering parking for those aircraft that would formerly have been accommodated in the polytunnels now deleted from the application
. additional space for mechanical and engineering operations
. other industries using the hangar space with up to 5-10 further people being employed"
By specifying three potential uses, the Duchy appear to have conceeded that there is no clear justification for these hangers - if there was, they would have specificed this one particular end use and not mentioned the other two.
Having deleted the Polytunnels proposed for Aircraft storage, the first of these options appears the 'correct' end use that should be sought for hangers 5-8.
A business case can be made for hangers rather than poly tunnels on the basis of the lifespan of the 'building' and the premium that aircraft owners might be prepared to pay to have a more secure form of storage for their aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting a barrister on the case is the best thing. Never forget that the presumption is for development.
Justiciar - yes it does work. I've done that trick, although more by accident than by design, and it worked brilliantly. It also eases subsequent applications because they know if they throw yours out for no good reason you will immediately appeal and make them look silly.
The planning system is designed to put hurdles in the way of ordinary people who then give up because they don't know how it works.
Justiciar - yes it does work. I've done that trick, although more by accident than by design, and it worked brilliantly. It also eases subsequent applications because they know if they throw yours out for no good reason you will immediately appeal and make them look silly.
The planning system is designed to put hurdles in the way of ordinary people who then give up because they don't know how it works.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It would save everybody a lot of trouble if applications refrained from playing silly b*gg*rs like that and simply applied for what they wanted to build.
