Tatenhill Airfield (EGBM) - Planning Appeal!

[Tiddles]

BACKGROUND:
At a time when many airfields are being closed the pilots of East Staffs Flying Club were very pleased to hear that the owners of Tatenhill Airfield (EGBM) were looking to improve the facilities that are available.
Those of you that have visited Tatenhill will know that the current facilities are run down with the 'very friendly' club house consisting of a small Portakabin and the administration also being in prefabricated buildings.
The landowner, working with the airfield operator (Tatenhill Aviation) and East Staffs Flying Club, have applied to the local council to knock down the current maintenance hangar, tower, admin buildings and other derelict buildings on site and replace them with a purpose built facility which will include a new tower, clubhouse, taxiway and eight hangars. These will be used for the existing maintenance and avionics business as well as providing somewhere for owners to keep their planes which, to date, have had to be left outside. The new taxiway will also mean that it will no longer be necessary to backtrack on the runway when the grass is muddy!
Since the application was submitted there were a number of inaccurate reports in the local press suggesting that these minor improvements, which merely redress years of underinvestment, will result in the airfield being used for passenger or freight operations despite the fact that there are no landing aids, and is too close to East Midlands to be financially viable. The owner and operator have tried to communicate that they are only seeking to improve the facilities for General Aviation. However, there have been a significant number of concerns raised by locals generated by this misinformation and the council seem minded to decline the application which is a pity as the airfield generally has good relations with its neighbours and there are minimal complaints.
CURRENT SITUATION:
The inital Planning submission was rejected by the Planning Committee.
However, after careful evaluation, the landowner has decided to appeal against this decision and we now have some time available in which we can generate some additional support to counter the misinformation that has been spread. We would therefore be grateful if you could write to the Planning Inspectorate to express your personal views and support for this application.
Every letter or will help to redress the balance so please spend a few minutes assisting us.
The letter (in triplicate please) would need to be sent, to arrive no later than 13 February, to:
Planning Inspectorate,
Room 3/18b,
Temple Quay House,
2 The Square,
Temple Quay,
Bristol,
BS1 6PN
Quoting their reference number APP/B3410/A/06/2031746/NWF.
I appreciate that this is a lot to ask in terms of effort required to write the letter but your support would be much appreciated.
Make a point to visit us soon - the runway has now been extended to 1190 metres. The cafe is open Friday-Sunday, also a 'free landing' voucher in one of the mags this month (January).
thanks
Mike

[Tiddles]

Here is some supporting information.

Here is the link to the original planning submission plus outline drawing:

http://www2.eaststaffsbc.gov.uk/MVM....CR20723010.doc

Here is the reasoning for the rejection:

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT AND REGENERATION
MAHMOOD AZAM, B Eng (Hons), MSc, MIED
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
REFUSAL OF PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT
Date valid application received: 29/03/2006 Application No: PA/20723/010
Name and address of Agent
Fisher German
2 Rutherford Court
Staffordshire Technology Park
Stafford
ST18 0AR
Name and address of Applicant
The Duchy of Lancaster
Tatenhill Airfield
Newborough Road
Needwood
Staffordshire
EAST STAFFORDSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL in pursuance of powers under the above mentioned Act hereby REFUSES to permit:
Erection of a part single storey, part two storey, part three storey detached building to form administration and control building, erection of six detached and two linked aircraft hangars, with associated access, car parking, hardstanding and landscaping, Tatenhill Airfield, Newborough Road, Needwood, Staffordshire in accordance with the submitted documents and plans, for the reasons specified hereunder:

1 The proposed development, in particular hangars 5-8, is considered to be contrary to Local Plan Policy En1, in that, without adequate evidence to justify the need for a development of the scale proposed, it is not essential to the efficient working of the rural economy, is not appropriate in the countryside and nor does it provide facilities for the general public or local community which are readily accessible on foot or by public transport. Hangars 5-8 therefore constitute an unwarranted visual intrusion in the countryside contrary to Policies En1 and En16 of the East Staffordshire Local Plan, Policies D4 and NC1 of the Structure Plan, Policy NE1 of the Revised Deposit Local Plan and the provisions of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

2 Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to enable the Local Planning Authority to fully assess the effects of the proposed development upon the ecology of the area, and therefore without this the proposal is contrary to East Staffordshire Local Plan Policies En13 and
En14, Structure Plan Policy NC8, and the provisions of PPS9: Biodiversity and Ecological Conservation.

3 The application does not include a Flood Risk Assessment as required by the Environment Agency and therefore the Local Planning Authority has not been able to make an informed decision on the proposal. The proposal may present a significant flood risk from the generation of surface water
run-off. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy En44 of the East Staffordshire Local Plan, policy NE29 of the Local Plan Review 2nd Deposit and National Planning Policy Guidance Note 25.

Thanks
Mike

[STATSMAN]

As Tiddles has posted could everyone help us. I travel some 60 miles to fly from Tatenhill a great place, with great people and Margaret does wonderful bacon butties at the weekend. With are newly extended runway(now 1190m) we have the start of major GA airfield for the East Midlands area. New buildings hangers and taxiway it could a first class airfield.

Statsman

[Croqueteer]

If Tatenhill is flooded, then the government has long since disappeared. Not much of a sacrifice to ask of you, Mike?

[tacpot]

Tiddles

The reasons for the rejection are for the most part are unfair, and I've written a letter of protest. But some elements of the reasons are valid, but could be countered by changes to the Application.

Can you tell us if anything is being done to address the reasons for the rejection?

tp

[Tiddles]

Thank you for the support - much appreciated.

The Duchy have addressed a number of the concerns, I am led to believe that there were some 'questionable' aspects of the process employed by the Council.

[tacpot]

It did occur to me that the 'flood' issue was real - significant rainwater runoff from the hangers, taxiways and inter-hangar apron areas appears likely during heavy rain.

One innovative solution would be to capture the rainwater from the hangar roofs to use for washing the aircraft. It wouldn't take much more than some very large water butts and appropriate filters and first-flush devices. (see http://www.rainharvesting.com.au/fir..._diverters.asp) This might reduce the water rates for the airfield, and would reduce the drainage requirements by roughly half. Other drainage measures such as a drainage system with a significant internal storage capacity could also help alleviate any flooding risk.

Best Wishes

tp

[Tiddles]

Many thanks for an innovative solution tp.

[cotterpot]

A flood risk assessment is concerned with the area in which the buildings are constructed, not the water that runs off. You would be expected to deal with the runoff from the buildings and hardstanding/taxiways as a requirement of building regulations i.e to a soakaway, storm drain or an approved water course or some such thing.

[SkyHawk-N]

You could try calling in a wildlife charity to carry out an environmental assessment of the area (RSPB? etc). The bio-diversity can probably be greatly improved by spending a modest amount on plants, bat boxes, etc. Also the way that the grass areas are managed can also have a big beneficial effect. Doing this as part of the development can greatly improve the ecology that is currently there and will address point 2 in their objections.

PS. Make sure you don't have Great Crested Newts in the area!

[Croqueteer]

I stand by my original post. Every direction from Tatenhill is downhill! Note the name. Planners just love to look for irrelevant problems, flora and fauna are classic, in fact they just love airfields and motorway verges and such like.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Originally Posted by Tiddles

Every letter will help to redress the balance so please spend a few minutes assisting us.

Sorry to disappoint, but that's exceedingly unlikely to be true.

Planning decisions (when done properly, which inspectors usually do even if the committee gets it wrong) are not popularity contests.

What matters is raising issues that matter under planning law. Once such an issue is raised, it doesn't matter a damn whether it has been raised by one person or a thousand people. Letters saying "I support/object to this proposal because I think it is a good/bad idea" are worth exactly nothing at all whatsoever.

[cotterpot]

Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat

Sorry to disappoint, but that's exceedingly unlikely to be true.
Planning decisions (when done properly, which inspectors usually do even if the committee gets it wrong) are not popularity contests.
What matters is raising issues that matter under planning law. Once such an issue is raised, it doesn't matter a damn whether it has been raised by one person or a thousand people. Letters saying "I support/object to this proposal because I think it is a good/bad idea" are worth exactly nothing at all whatsoever.

Spot on - if you are going to object it has to be on an issue contained in planning guidelines or some other policy (environment) of the Council.
Councils often 'disapprove' a development because they don't have the b@lls to make the decision themselves and don't want to risk upsetting the electorate - 'it wasn't us it was the Inspectors'

[Justiciar]

I have represented appellants at a number of planning appeals over the years and the last two posters are absolutely correct. What matters are the issues arising from planning guidance and the local plans. Talking about a decision being "unfair" takes the matter no further. It seems that the local authority have raised significant issues in relation to local plans and guidance which the Appellants must address if they are to stand any chance. Part of the refusal relates to lack of information, which the Appellants can address by getting the necessary assessments. These points and the issue of need really should have been addressed in the initial application.

[Whirlybird]

People, numbers DO count, at least sometimes. Where I used to live, someone wanted to build a huge windfarm overlooking our beautiful valley. Never mind the details, but after a local campaign, all 50 councillors received over 100 letters each!!! Some were articulate and argued specific points, others just said they didn't want to see a windfarm out of the window - I know, I advised people on what to write, since some could barely put pen to paper. 80 of us went to the meeting and completely filled the gallery. They changed the order of things to put the windfarm first, since they knew why we were there. And they turned it down unanimously, saying it was due to the quite overwhelming local objections, and they felt we had suffered enough. They then addressed the gallery, saying we were welcome to stay, but they'd have a short break since they thought we probably all wanted to go. We filed out in a dignified manner, to sympathetic stares...and then celebrated!!!!

OK, it's a very different issue. But I'll never again think that the individual can't get things changed.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Originally Posted by Whirlybird

People, numbers DO count, at least sometimes. Where I used to live, someone wanted to build a huge windfarm overlooking our beautiful valley. Never mind the details, but after a local campaign, all 50 councillors received over 100 letters each!!! Some were articulate and argued specific points, others just said they didn't want to see a windfarm out of the window - I know, I advised people on what to write, since some could barely put pen to paper. 80 of us went to the meeting and completely filled the gallery. They changed the order of things to put the windfarm first, since they knew why we were there. And they turned it down unanimously, saying it was due to the quite overwhelming local objections, and they felt we had suffered enough. They then addressed the gallery, saying we were welcome to stay, but they'd have a short break since they thought we probably all wanted to go. We filed out in a dignified manner, to sympathetic stares...and then celebrated!!!!

It is standard practice to re-order a council meeting agenda so that items for which members of the public are present are taken first, where this is possible - this is simply good manners. I do it routinely at meetings I chair.

And if a planning committee really did turn something down and give as the formal legal reason for the decision the numbers of local objectors, then the applicant would wipe the floor with them at appeal.

(Which is not to say that councillors might not have dressed up their decision, for electoral reasons, announcing it in the room as being due to "overwhelming numbers" whilst quietly putting a real planning reason into the minutes.)

[Whirlybird]

OK, but...councillors are human. Those of us who were articulate and knowledgeable enough had found some really planning objections, and put them in our letters. So they had those...but had to decide, one way or the other. Don't you think maybe the sheer number of letters they received might have helped them make up their minds? Doesn't it seem possible?

Of course a well-argued case is better than..."I live locally and I don't like it". But I still think that every little helps...maybe.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Originally Posted by Whirlybird

Don't you think maybe the sheer number of letters they received might have helped them make up their minds?

It might do - whilst I would argue against cotterpot's claim that councillors "often" make an untenable refusal so that they can blaim the resulting grant of permssion on the inspector, I'm not going to claim it never happens: I'd put it at "sometimes" rather than "often", and we do feel guilty about doing it.

And you never know, the horse might learn to sing. (IE, the inspector might actually uphold an untenable refusal.)

[Justiciar]

And if a planning committee really did turn something down and give as the formal legal reason for the decision the numbers of local objectors, then the applicant would wipe the floor with them at appeal.

Absolutely right. Whilst planning is perceived to be a populist issue, in reality it ia governed by the law and more importantly by planning guidance and local and county plans. Even if local councilors bow to local pressure the planning inspector will be quite unmoved by names on a petition. If the airfield does not address the planning issues its appeal will fail.

[IO540]

Which is not to say that councillors might not have dressed up their decision, for electoral reasons, announcing it in the room as being due to "overwhelming numbers" whilst quietly putting a real planning reason into the minutes

That is the same as forging the minutes of what was discussed at a meeting - something I have seen myself. The minutes I saw bore no relation at all to what was discussed. (I submitted an appeal, and at the same time submitted a very slightly amended application, which went through because the committee knew I would have almost certainly got both on appeal and they would have looked right pl0nkers).

Planning committees are a joke. I would recommend anybody doubting this to go to a few and sit through the whole 3 hours or whatever, and see peoples' applications torn apart by a bunch of local politicians who, for the most part, have never been to the site and most don't even understand a drawing. It's worse than a magistrates' court, and I could tell stories about 3 apes behind the bench. There are some smart ones but the vote goes on a majority...

Of course, what you won't know about is the crookery that goes on under the table, with crooked councillors doing deals to support/object to certain proposals, if certain other proposals are amended/withdrawn. (In fact this is turns out to be a useful tactic for an applicant if he knows a well connected planning consultant, who can do quiet deals like that; stuff which could not be done publicly due to councillor loss of face).

Anybody serious will forget the planning committee and be ready, from day 1, to continue straight to appeal, while perhaps submitting a revised application (a good tactic). Unfortunately an appeal is currently a 1 year wait, which is why the committee system stays in business. Where I live, 80% of committee refusals (where the planning officer approved it on planning policy) are restored on appeal - a complete joke. If the queue for appeal was 2 weeks, the whole ccttee system would be shut down.

The way to play the local system smartly is to submit an initial app which meets planning policy but is a bit ugly. The planning officer grudgingly approves it, the ccttee chucks it out of course (and all the objectors turn up thinking justice was done because they had their say), you put in an appeal and immediately submit an app for what you really wanted. (Obviously there was no need to spend too much money on detail design on the first app). The ccttee will then usually approve the 2nd app because they know they will look daft if you go to appeal and get both approved; the ugly one is invariably cheaper to build and many people do major developments just prior to moving out (to increase the house value) so they aren't bothered about living with it.

It's cynical but the system, comprising of so many have-a-go amateurs, has been created to be exploited in a cynical manner.