South Moor Farm Airstrip - Not Again!!

Come on in for general chat and POLITE banter between LAA members

Moderators: John Dean, Moderator

Post Reply
r_w_walker
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:10 pm

South Moor Farm Airstrip - Not Again!!

Post by r_w_walker » Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:27 pm

South Moor Farm Airstrip.

Sorry after five attempts it seems the NYMNPPA will never approve an airstrip for public use.

I have prepared a new application myself. The main change being that I am applying for sole use by myself and use in an emergency. (The strip was offered for use during the current Coronavirus situation after a request from the Flying Farmers association, but not used.)

As forum users will not be able to use it I do not expect any support.

However if I obtain planning permission I will be supporting other airfields by flying to them. The money saved by storing my aircraft in my field rather than paying for another field will be donated to the Yorkshire Air Ambulance

If you do want to offer any support here is the link to the application.

http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/N ... I=PLANNING

Click “Add Comments Here” to add comments.

For new forum members:-

History, ignore if you have read it all before!

I used my field as an air strip in 2016 and 2017 under the 28 day permitted development rule.

In 2013 I applied for planning permission for an air strip which was refused for various reasons by the North York Moors Planning Authority.

After the appeal against that decision a Planning Inspector discounted all the reasons apart from one. That being the size and type of storage building requested. He also said I could use the field as an air strip for 28 days per year without planning permission.

In 2014 I applied again but the storage building now looked like a sheep shed near the existing barns. I am a sheep farmer so thought this should be acceptable. The planning authority refused on the same grounds as the first application.

The planning inspector at the second appeal agreed with the first planning inspector and I was awarded costs against the planning authority on most of the reasons for refusal. However he again thought the storage building was not suitable so dismissed the appeal.

Two planning inspectors had now agreed that the only reason to refuse permission was the type and size of the storage building.

So for the third application in 2015 the building was removed from the application.
It was again refused on exactly the same grounds as before.

The planning inspector at the third appeal agreed with the other planning inspectors and I was awarded costs against the planning authority on most of the reasons for refusal. However now the planning authority stated they were concerned about protected bird species which might be affected. The planning inspector dismissed the appeal on the grounds that there was insufficient information about the effect on birds.

A bird survey was commissioned for the fourth application in 2016 looking at two species Goshawk and Nightjar which the planning authority had targeted. The survey concluded that although the habitat near the strip was suitable there was no evidence that the birds were affected by aircraft. However the planning authority again refused permission but this time only on the bird issue.

A further bird survey was carried out in April 2017 after flying from the strip had started.
The survey revealed that goshawks were flying near the strip but again concluded that there was no evidence of harm.

The National Park Authority also started an Article 4 directive which came into effect April 2018 stopping use of the field has an air strip.

The planning inspector for the fourth appeal hearing again dismissed the appeal because he felt there was insufficient evidence on the birds and re introduced concerns previous inspectors had found acceptable. Letters of support and evidence from an air field manager and wild life photographer that birds were very happy to be near aircraft seemed to be ignored. The decision came very quickly, within one week, which suggests the bulk of the planning inspectors report was written before the hearing.

The planning authority seems very determined to stop my air strip despite two similar air strips operating in the National Park. They also have a very busy gliding site at Sutton Bank, which uses powered aircraft to tow gliders. They have approved several planning applications for expansion at Sutton Bank so I do not understand their opposition.

There is a local opposition group over 1 mile away where one of the planning committee members lives. The planning committee member is not part of that group and always leaves the committee room when my application is being discussed.

The air field was in use from October 2016. The air strip was used for 25 days out of 28 permitted, for 20 take offs and 20 landings during 2017.

This was stated during the fourth appeal hearing and nobody said there were any complaints or noticeable effect on birds.

A new planning consultant prepared a fifth application in 2019 and submitted for pre application advice.

Never submitted due to very negative response from NYMNPPA. Who thought there was still not enough evidence on impact on birds!

That planning consultancy could not see any way forward.

I have prepared a new application myself. The main change being that I am applying for sole use by myself and use in an emergency. (The strip was offered for use during the current Coronavirus situation after a request from the Flying Farmers association, but not used.)
Robert Walker
040118

Post Reply