Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Nigel Davies, an objector. Mr Davies stated he is the owner of March Airfield and Chief Flying Instructor and whilst he has no objections to the application in principle it is just the location where the application is being proposed. He referred to a diagram on the presentation screen which shows to the northern end of the application site there is adequate room to put the same proposal without any disturbance, interference or safety risks to the airfield giving them a clear 500-foot safeguarding area which was put in place by the LPA and themselves in 2021.

 

Mr Davies referred to another diagram on the presentation screen which demonstrates, unlike the previous meeting where someone showed an approach to his airfield in a straight line which is incorrect information and more used by a normal airfield with heavier aircraft, with paragliding they have to come into a circuit off the circuit pattern around the airfield then they have to lose height prior to landing. He continued that as can be seen by the figure of eight diagrams this illustrates where currently they would undertake the figure of eights to lose height prior to landing in the field, making the point that they are a school, not just an airfield, so this happens regularly.

 

Mr Davies stated there is a predominant wind direction of a westerly direction for the UK so the majority of its flights would come in on this approach and if you take into consideration where the proposal is this is directly overhead of the proposed building, which is why if it is put to the north of the site it would be in a safe area unobstructed to themselves. He referred to the CAA letter that was received prior to the last meeting that will stop any heat or wind turbulence from the proposal being in the exact position it is put currently.

 

Mr Davies referred to the diagram on the presentation screen showing the circuit pattern around the school so when students take off they then increase height to do a circuit above 500-foot around the airfield prior to yet again coming back on the circuits doing figure of eights to lose height prior to landing, which is why they require the 500-foot safeguarding area. He stated that official Government legislation documents cap 738 of the CAA outlines the regulations and safety guidance that they have to apply to which is the 500-foot rule and this in the aviation industry is known as the 500-foot bubble, it is an area around an airfield, it is safeguarded and they cannot fly below 500-foot unless they take off or land and within that people, obstacles, vehicles or vessels cannot be flown over.

 

Mr Davies showed on the presentation screen the 500-foot legislation rule, which can also be found in the new SERA document .0005, Section F, which highlights all the new European 500-foot regulations as well. He emphasised that 500-foot is so important to them for safety, they cannot fly within structures, people, vehicles or vessels and by allowing this application in its current location, physically it would make them break the law.

 

Mr Davies expressed the view that there is plenty of room to the north within the plot to put the proposal and he does not have an issue with the applicant building there but the issue is he has sought planning permission 3 times to build his business over 16 years, which has been granted, but if this is successful in the current location he feels his business will be shut down.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Davies as follows:

·       Councillor Marks stated that he visited the site yesterday and asked if he classed himself as an airfield? Mr Davies responded that they are officially March Airfield and are on all the CAA air charts and maps.

·       Councillor Marks stated that some of the reports refer to the CAA referring back to the governing body and asked does Mr Davies’ governing body give them the legislation or is it via the CAA? Mr Davies responded that the CAA is their governing body and they fly by the air law.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that they have no airfield signs up. Mr Davies responded that aircraft do not drive to his airport, they fly in. Councillor Marks expressed the view that there should be warning for traffic as the last time this was considered Mr Davies said he had to be in control of all and give warnings but there are no signs up on the roadside to say this is an airfield. Mr Davies responded that if you visited Holbeach Fenland Airfield there are not signs there but there are windsocks which are clearly marked. Councillor Marks stated that this is not directly by the side of the road. Mr Davies responded that the windsocks can be seen from the bypass. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that if there is an airfield beside the road and it could be a hazard and there are vehicles and lorries going along this road, when last time he said he needed full control, he has not got that control. Mr Davies responded that if it is required, he would put signs up. Councillor Marks made the point that he does require it, but it does say this on the net.

·       Councillor Imafidon referred to the figure of eight base leg take-off and landing and understands that they have to come in from a particular direction when they come into land. Mr Davies responded that the diagram shows an example of a westerly take-off and landing. He stated that they can take off in any direction on the compass, but he has shown the predominant wind direction in the UK, which is westerly, but they always have to land into wind and take off in the wind.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked if the figure of eight loop has to be in that particular location and can it be moved further backwards or in either direction? Mr Davies responded that the lines of a circuit are take-off, cross wind, downwind, base leg approach and the reason they do a figure of eight close to the airfield is because if they mess it up, remembering these are students, they can still glide safely into the airfield. He added that if they did this in the fields to the east for example and they messed it up they would land in the field next to them and not the airfield. Mr Davies stated that it is always undertaken on a base leg side so the turns and manoeuvres are at a safe height and at any point he could get them to peel off and land because they have made a mistake or are too low. He continued that if it was in a field to the east side it would mean they would land out of the airfield.

·       Councillor Benney questioned that if all this space is needed why did he not buy all the land around it? He further questioned how it sits with the CAA in terms of flying over other people’s land if that much space is needed and surely the airfield is not big enough? Mr Davies responded that this could be said with any airfield and the problem they have is because they are ultra light aircraft they do not move fast, with the maximum speed being 25mph so they float about a lot longer and they have never had a problem in the 16 years they have been operating so he does not see why they should have a problem now. He made the point that they are one of the biggest schools in the country and draw customers in from all over the country, being recognised by the CAA as a qualified quality safe training school and all they are asking is to stay safe and keep their operation active. Mr Davies made the point that Chatteris Airfield will be lost soon and airfields are really rare currently, with his airfield being a big community gatherer for getting pilots in the air as a training school.

·       Councillor Marks stated, from visiting the site, he has a tall green building and a house within the airfield zone and asked how is this safe and why the novice pilots will not hit those buildings instead of a building that is 500 feet away? Mr Davies responded that they do not do circuits over the house or the airfield, but around the airfield and he controls his pilots, they are all on radio and there is no conflict with his property and his buildings with what his pilots do. He feels that members are missing the point that the CAA wrote about the turbulence caused by buildings and having buildings directly on the figure of eight coming into land where they are losing height and can legally fly below 500 feet being affected by heat and turbulence, questioning whether members want the responsibility of somebody’s wing collapsing and being impaled on palisade fencing or harmed or killed because it should not be there and his business should be safeguarded, with them being an airfield and there being laws no different to not building a house on a roundabout on a highway. Mr Davies expressed the opinion that you cannot do silly things and interfere with aircraft, with aircraft having more rules in this country than the highways have. Councillor Marks made the point that it has been said that the circuits could be moved and he is control of his pilots and asked why cannot he be in control of the pilots further afield? Mr Davies responded that the pilots need to land in an airfield and to do that they have to circuit and undertake base legs turns as he has illustrated. He stated that the direction can be moved as in around the circumference but not out.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked at what height do the pilots come in and do they look before they land? Mr Davies responded that they can come in from any height they want onto a circuit but they would lose height on the circuit to 500-600 foot and then they would start losing height from that point to line up for landing. He made the point that the lower the aircraft is, the more susceptible it is to turbulence and these size buildings and the angles and positions they are placed would be a major hazard to his aircraft, particularly as they are not fixed wings and they are made of fabric, being susceptible to turbulence and heat rotor, which is why they do not fly in the day in the Summer and they fly in the mornings and evenings as it is too thermic and how sensitive the aircraft are. Mr Davies stated he is not being awkward, and he does not want Mr Venni not to develop, it is up to him, but he did say from day one that he needs to be outside his 500-foot area.

·       Councillor Connor referred to it being said that the airfield is very busy and people attend from all over the country and asked how many clients he has got in a general working week? Mr Davies responded that this time of year they are quiet because they have had bad weather and currently they have 47 students on the book and if you look at the objections you will see where these come from as far as near Scotland, Wales, London, the East Coast but very few people locally. He expressed the opinion that they get a lot of people because of their reputation for safety with people travelling past 2-3 schools to come to them and they just want to maintain what they do and keep the business strong. Mr Davies stated that the safeguarding was put in place in 2021 and he does not understand why he is faced with this and he does not need this stress in his life.

·       Councillor Connor stated that in the past few weeks he has been down this awful road and he has not seen anyone having lessons or flying. Mr Davies responded that this year to date they have had 6 days on the floor training and 4 days flying due to how bad the weather has been.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mark Venni, the applicant, and Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Venni stated that he was asked to go away and find out further information about safety and he contacted the CAA, who never responded to him, and then he contacted the British Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association which are part of the governing body for the CAA and received a letter and report from the Senior Technical Officer. He continued that this officer says on safety the air navigation law is that no aircraft shall fly closer than 500-foot to any vessel, vehicle or structure unless they are landing and taking off and from a legal perspective this specifically allows and appears straightforward to operate a circuit pattern which maintains a safe separation distance from the structures, confirming this is doable.

 

Mr Venni continued that, in this officer’s opinion, the airfield operation should be possible to manage in a way that mitigates any risk to safety and complies with the letter of the law. He added that this officer feels that when taking off to the east circuits towards his land they should be able to bank right, ie turn south after a climb out, which would be doable.

 

Mr Venni made the point that before he came to committee he spoke to Mr Davies and asked him what would be safe and doable and this proposal is as a result of those discussions, with the agent also speaking to him, with Mr Davies being happy then and now deciding he is not. He stated that the majority of his buildings are over 500-foot away and they are smaller than Mr Davies buildings, with the trees behind his proposed house being much higher than anything around here.

 

Mr Venni expressed the view that Mr Davies has planning permission for shepherd huts and hardstanding along the side and the back of his airfield, so he is prepared to land over these. He stated that he could change the fence if required and in relation to noise, he has been down to the site quite a lot and seen flying two or three times in the last 8-9 months and you cannot really hear them, and it is nice to see them flying around.

 

Mr Venni stated he will do what he needs to do but the plans have been produced so they are safe as he does not want anyone to get hurt either.

 

Mr Hall stated that the applicant is happy to sign the legal agreement for a self-build dwelling, Mr Venni owns the land and will be building the dwelling himself and will live in this occupational dwelling if approved. He referred to October’s meeting when the application was deferred for additional information from the CAA, which were contacted and nothing has been received back from them, his understanding was that there were no concerns from members on the other four reasons for refusal, purely the one that the applicant has spoken about.

 

Mr Hall stated that a flood risk assessment has been submitted and the applicant needs a yard and a shed with this occupational dwelling, with this sort of development not being available in town and space is required. He added that the owner wants Mr Venni’s existing yard in Elm Road back, so he has to vacate this yard.

 

Mr Hall stated that the proposal would be set back 100 metres from Cross Road so it would not be detrimental to the street scene. He referred to the objector’s diagram showing the figure of eights but to be clear to members within that 500-feet there are already buildings that Mr Davies owns and he has planning permission for various pods at the end of the runway so there are building well within that 500-foot, which whilst he understands that Mr Davies controls them, they are buildings and structures and they do not move.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Venni and Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the mention of pods and asked how many pods are going to be situated there? Mr Hall responded that at the western end there will be 3 and along the northern face there are pitches for touring caravans with an access along that side and bin storage.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked what kind of notice has Mr Venni been given for his Elm Road site? Mr Venni responded that he should have already vacated but because of what has happened, the owner is helping him, but he does want his yard back as he wants to develop it so as soon as possible otherwise he will have to find somewhere else to go.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the leylandii trees at the back of the site and asked if they will be taller than the properties being suggested? Mr Venni responded in the affirmative.

·       Councillor Imafidon referred to containers being stored on the site and asked if they were going to be stacked on top of one another? Mr Venni responded that they would not be.

·       Councillor Benney referred to the mention of Mr Venni speaking to Mr Davies before submitting the application and asked if this was a favourable outcome as it seems that an awful lot of trouble has been made for someone to change their mind halfway through. Mr Venni responded that he did speak with Mr Davies, he wanted his building in the corner opposite Mr Davies’ property but he said it could interfere with landing so it was moved over and then Mr Hall spoke to Mr Davies and he was happy with that but now Mr Davies does not want to hear someone else’s noise.

 

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to Mr Davies having planning permission for pods and touring caravans and asked if this was taken into consideration with the CAA when the permission was granted? David Rowen responded that any relevant consultations would have been undertaken at the time of that application, but he cannot personally remember that application.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the application the objector put in originally which was for security reasons that was granted not for pods or anything else.

·       The Legal Officer drew members attention to the scenario in front of them, whilst there is a general rule that planning authorities cannot be liable for, if they properly grant planning permission, any subsequent events that might occur on that site, his concern having looked at the documents is that the CAA have not objected but they have raised a couple of safety concerns in particular heat coming off buildings and other concerns and the CAA also advised officers to listen to the licence holders views, which members have done today. He stated that if permission is granted and there is some sort of future incident or personal injury, he could not rule out that the Council might be liable should there be any kind of claim on the basis that the Council has instigated the development of a “hazard” on this site. The Legal Officer made the point that case law is very limited and there is no clear-cut answer it is a small risk that should there be some sort of future incident the Council might well be claimed against for damages.

·       Councillor Benney referred to there being a risk, making the point that flying is hazardous activity anyway and there are buildings around the site, which have been approved by the Council, so if anyone crashed into them would the Council be liable for that? He stated that he has also discussed with the Legal Officer about significance and questioned whether it was a significant risk and it is how that significant risk is interpreted. Councillor Benney made the point that the Council could be open to all sorts of claims for all sorts of things and the Council deals with these as they come along and whilst members have been informed of worst case, reiterated is this a significant risk? The Legal Officer responded that in terms of quantifying the risk he would say it is not significant but if it succeeds then it will be. He provided an illustration that there was a case about 20 years ago in the New Forest where the district planning authority approved a footpath which the Highway Authority said would be dangerous and entered into a 106 agreement for it to be built and subsequently he believes a motorcyclist was killed because of the danger of that footpath and the lack of sight lines and the council were held liable because they had been aware of the risk and they still granted planning permission for that development, which he acknowledged is an extreme example of what might occur. He stated that if pushed he would say it is a 10% risk that the Council might be held liable if there was some future incident.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that a footpath has been passed in Eastwood End that joins to the A141, which has an element of risk so if somebody got run over on that footpath would the Council be liable there and if looking at it in black and white where does the significance of the level of risk fall? The Legal Officer responded that the Council would not liable here unless the County were saying this is a severe danger and might result in accidents.

·       Councillor Connor made the point that the CAA are not saying it is dangerous or a severe risk, they are just making comments and not giving a judgement one way or the other. The Legal Officer responded that they are raising concerns, but they are not using the language of severe risk. He made the point that they are the proper consultation body, and the Council should take their views seriously.

·       Councillor Marks expressed confusion about whether the risk is due to the building causing thermals to make the pilot crash or the pilot is going to crash into the building. He asked, in relation to thermals and buildings, the owner of the airfield has already put up on his property a green shed which he assumes will give thermals and asked if there is any way the committee can say that the proposal is built with materials that should limit the thermals? The Legal Officer advised this is beyond his technical expertise but that is one of the risks the CAA has pointed out. David Rowen added that the comments from the CAA dated March 2025 talk about thermal energy and such energy is known to radiate upwards from surface-based infrastructure such as buildings, roofs, paved surfaces, metallic surfaces, glass surfaces and others so short of building the house out of plastic there really is not much scope to limit the materials.

 

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Benney stated that when this was considered previously he thought there are two different opposing views and he wanted to get to the bottom of whether this is right and pushed for the deferment because he wanted something from either party to make the right decision and would have liked to have seen something from the CAA that came back and said no this is dangerous and committee has not got this. He made the point that it has been stated that both parties were quite happy and then they are not all of a sudden and looking at the plan all of the aircraft movements are suddenly over this piece of land. Councillor Benney expressed the view that he does not know which side on this is right or wrong, he pushed for deferment last time when he would have been happy to approve it as it is a builder’s yard so why would committee not support it and these applications at committee are supported quite regularly because the Council is Open for Business and he does want to promote business in Fenland, and this is a Fenland business already in existence and it should be supported but equally the airfield is also a business which members supported but when he pushed for the deferment he wanted somebody to come back with some firm documents that said either way and he does not believe that members are any further forward as the deferment did not deliver what he hoped it would.

·       Councillor Marks stated listening to both parties and agreeing with Councillor Benney it has not brought back a yes or no and it is still a gray area, with the Legal Officer saying there may be a 10% risk but is not saying definitively there is an issue. He referred to the plan that has been drawn with the figure of eights and feels that if the two parties had previously got together and decided that this was place the house was positioned, why suddenly has this changed and he cannot see the applicant wasting time, money and effort, with him having notice to be out of his current yard, so is confused as to why those plans have been drawn in the way they have been drawn now unless initially there was no problem. Councillor Marks acknowledged that these pilots are in training, but he feels they can move across slightly, with the owner of the airfield applying for permission initially because of security and he has erected a very big green building which must also emit thermals and there are other properties in the vicinity emitting thermals. He expressed concern that committee may be stopping a builder’s yard but believes there may be some mitigation and whilst he does not want to affect the airfield’s business, Fenland is Open for Business for other businesses as well, questioning that airfields are located all over the place and are there no buildings near them.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he visited the site yesterday and he is certain with the information that has been provided by the Legal Officer that a solution could be achieved and believes the figure of eight could be move slightly out so it would have nothing at all to do with the running of the business. He expressed the opinion that both parties could live in harmony and does not know why it has got to this point where the applicant and the objector are at loggerheads when something was previously agreed. Councillor Connor stated that he is leaning towards supporting the application.

·       Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that the figure of eight and the flight pattern of the aircraft as they come in is not a perfect line so he feels something could be altered because the buildings on the airfield itself must release thermals and create turbulence, if those do and there is a way for them to circle and land safely he does not see why they cannot do the same with this application.

·       Councillor Marks questioned what height the pilots drop to before they actually go onto the airfield as they still need to get onto the airfield so they must still be at some sort of height to get across the road and into the airfield. He referred to the previous application where Highways said 80% was attributed to congestion but 10% was attributed to safety but members still took the view to approve and, in his view, with regard to litigation this is in the 10% category, and he feels he is going to support the proposal.

·       Councillor Connor allowed the objector to respond to query of from the figure of eight what height the pilots are when they cross the road to land on the airfield. Mr Davies stated that when they break off the figure of eight they would be approximately 100-75 foot coming in depending upon the wind speed because if there is less wind they sink quicker.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that 75 feet is 22.86 metres so the building, against the conifers at the far end, would have a height of no more than 9 metres to the eaves so there would still be a 13 metre gap at worst. Matthew Leigh stated that the concern is not that the aircraft is going to fly into the building but the thermals coming off the building causing health and safety issues. He made the point that he is not an expert on thermals and he does not believe councillors are either so he would not be suggesting undertaking a calculation such as this and it be relied upon.

·       Councillor Marks stated that all he was trying to do was work out the height on average when coming into land, how far away these buildings are and the height of the building does come into this. Matthew Leigh responded that this is not the concern they have raised, it is not about the building being flown into but the thermals that comes from the building.

·       Matthew Leigh highlighted that there are five reasons for refusal and the debate has not dealt with any of those other issues.

 

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions and the entering into a unilateral agreement.

 

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as whilst they recognise the site is in an elsewhere location there is a justified and a need for the development to support an existing business that needs to relocate, it would be a struggle to find industrial land that does not lie in Flood Zone 3 and this can be mitigated against, and information has not been submitted to demonstrate that the existing airfield could not continue to operate in a safe and unconstrained manner.

 

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

 

(Councillor Mrs French registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Local Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council but takes no part in planning)

 

(Councillor Imafidon declared that he knows the agent, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

 

(Councillor Marks declared that he has been in contact with the agent over a Manea village issue, but is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

 

(Councillor Purser declared that he was not present at the previous meeting when this application was considered and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

 

(All members present registered, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application by the receipt of additional information from the agent)