Agenda item

Members had requested information concerning existing permitted development rights at Biggin Hill Airport.  The report outlined national provisions that grant aviation permitted development rights, derived from Part 18 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GDPO) and explained the use of permitted development at the airport.

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners had submitted a letter of support on behalf of Biggin Hill Airport Limited, the contents of which were conveyed to Members (attached hereto as Appendix 2).  Members’ attention was drawn to the Consultation and Notification Agreement formally entered into between the airport and the Council in November 1996.  The Agreement provided a basis for undertaking public consultation, addressing concerns raised during consultation and identified a number of sensitive locations where the airport had agreed not to exercise its permitted development rights.  The Agreement also provided clear procedures for taking forward developments with appropriate safeguards.

The Chairman reminded Members that the General Permitted Development Order applied  to all airports.

Referring to paragraph 7 (page 179), Councillor Richard Scoates asked if both buildings would still be covered under the GDPO provision if the airport decided to keep the original fire station in tact and build another.  The Chief Planner responded that as long as the both buildings fell within the GDPO then that would be acceptable.  Councillor Scoates then queried what would happen if the new station proved to be an overdevelopment.  He was reminded that the Council could not consider the merits of a proposal which is permitted development.  Finally, Councillor Scoates enquired what, if anything, would make the fire station exempt from permitted development. The Chief Planner replied use for non-operational purposes would render the development outside of the GDPO.

Councillor Mellor referred to paragraph 15 (page 181) which stated: “Members should be aware that removing permitted development rights using an Article 4 Direction may raise issues of financial compensation, since the airport operator is effectively being denied rights that are usually granted by the GPDO.”  Councillor Mellor emphasised his concern that unless removal of permitted development rights was sought under an Article 4 Direction, then as South Camp and the developments thereon (including the fire station and the new Rizon Hangar) were specifically excluded from the Green Belt, all works undertaken would be permitted by virtue of the GPDO, giving the owners a free reign to do as they wished.

The Chief Planner responded that South Camp does lie within the operational area of the airport and that Article 4 Directions apply to any category of permitted development not just at airports.

Councillor Charles Joel agreed with Councillor Mellor and referred to Clause J - Interpretation of Part 18 (page 187).  Councillor Joel said that as the content of the interpretation related to the airport, it would appear that the airport would be free to do virtually anything it wished and that the Council’s hands were tied.

Councillor Mrs Anne Manning found both the report and the letter from Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners to be useful.  The Council played a dual role as both Local Authority and owners of the land and as such, in the interests of all concerned, she suggested that an opinion on permitted development, the lease and the Unitary Development Plan be sought from Counsel.

The Chief Planner replied that although he understood Members’ frustration, Counsel’s only remit was planning and would not be able to undo permitted development rights.  He would, however, seek Counsel’s opinion as suggested. 

Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP commented that requests for landlord’s consent were often submitted to the General Purposes and Licensing Committee for consideration. He observed that consent should not be unreasonably withheld and pointed out that the airport was in situ long before the land was designated as Green Belt land.  He thought it would be a waste of public money to seek Counsel’s advice and urged against such action.

The Chief Planner confirmed that landlord’s consent would be needed irrespective of whether the development was permitted development or not.

Councillor Mrs Manning emphasised that the airport needed to be successfully run as it was located on a hill, on the edge of the Borough and on Green Belt land.  She also felt that the issue of compensation payments around Article 4 Directions was a threat.

Councillors Dean and Mrs Manning recommended (and it was agreed by Members) that the Council should seek further clarification on any subsequent permitted development consultation which raised concern.

RESOLVED that:

1)  the 1996 Consultation and Notification Agreement between the airport and the Council be endorsed; and

2)  clarification be sought on any subsequent permitted development consultation which raised concern.