Agenda item

Rochester South and Horsted

Formation of a lit paved runway with parallel grass runway, formation of grassed bund, re-siting of helipad's, erection of two hangars, a hub building with control tower and associated building, erection of fencing and gates, formation of associated car parking areas, fuel tank enclosure, family viewing area and a memorial garden (detailed submission) plus demolition of a range of structures and removal of portable structures. 

Discussion:

At the commencement of considering this planning application there was a 5 minute adjournment to enable Members of the Committee to read the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Planning Consultant outlined the planning application in detail and explained that an airport had been sited at this location since the 1930’s. He outlined the existing facilities at Rochester Airport, and the reasons for the planning application. In particular, he drew attention to the existing grassed runways and explained the limitations on use of these grassed runways during inclement weather.

He confirmed that as a section of the site was located in Tonbridge and Malling, a separate planning application had been submitted to Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council for determination.

He explained that the applicant was seeking to replace the existing 830 metre long grass track runway 02R/20L (referred to as 02/20) with a hard runway which would be lit by surface level lighting. As a consequence of the provision of a new hard runway, the airport’s second grass runway 16/34 would be decommissioned, leaving an area of approximately 10.77 ha within the airport’s grounds that would no longer be required for airport operations.

The Committee was advised that runway 02/20 had been selected as the grassed runway to be paved owing to its orientation as runway 16/34 was a cross wind runway.

Using plans displayed at the meeting, the Planning Consultant outlined other elements of the proposed scheme including the resiting of the existing helipads, the siting of the proposed hangars which would replace existing structures on the application site and provision of a hub building with control tower.

It was explained that there was currently no limitations placed upon the number of aircraft movements at Rochester Airport but, in reality, the airport could not be used for a full 12 months owing to inclement weather and the grass surfaced runways. Should the planning application be approved, the applicant was intending to limit the number of aircraft movements to 40,000 per annum but had stressed that with use of the runway being extended to a 12 month period, such movements would be spread over a wider time period. In addition, the applicant was proposing to limit the hours of use of the airport, details of which were set out on page 35 of the agenda.

It was stressed that the applicant had no intention of changing the character of the airport or the type of planes using the airport and that the length of the runway would prohibit use of the airfield by larger turbo fan aircraft.

The Planning Consultant confirmed that the application had been assessed by an independent acoustic company and that in addition, given the specialist nature of assessing aircraft noise, the Council had appointed external consultants to undertake an independent assessment of the acoustic report. In addition, Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council had appointed an external consultant to undertake an assessment of the noise implications of the application. It was confirmed that when the original and revised acoustic assessments prepared for the applicant had been assessed by the Council’s external consultants, whilst there had been some difference in opinion in relation to the interpretation of aviation policy, as it related to noise, the Council’s external consultants had advised that the proposed development was unobjectionable in noise terms.

The Planning Consultant drew attention the supplementary agenda advice sheet and in particular proposed condition 17 which required the words ‘per annum’ to be inserted after the word basis to read as follows:

17.Aircraft movements shall take place only between hours of 07.30 to 19.30 on Mondays to Fridays and 08.30 to 17.30 on Saturdays and Sundays and on public holidays, with an evening extension to dusk or 21.00 for aircraft kept by their pilots at the airport.  Out of hours movements may also take place: when required by the emergency services or military; and on up to 100 times on a pre-arranged basis per annum.

In addition, he referred to the proposal section of the report and advised that the fourth sentence of the first full paragraph on page 25 required amendment so that reference to the existing runway category read 2C and not 2B and in the same paragraph in the last sentence, the runway length distance should read 830 metres.

He referred to the section on the supplementary agenda advice sheet headed ‘Representations’ and advised the Committee that as a similar planning application was being processed through Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, both local authorities had shared information on representations received. Therefore, additional representations received via Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council from Burham Parish Council and Wouldham Parish Council were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition, the Committee was informed that since despatch of the agenda, five additional letters of objection and two additional letters of support had been received details of which were also summarised on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee was informed that the applicant had submitted comments in response to third party representations and full details of these along with Officer’s comments on the additional representations was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet with particular reference to accuracy of noise modelling and public safety zones.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Turpin as Ward Councillor spoke on the planning application.

Councillor Turpin informed the Committee that he intended to read out a submission from one of his constituents on behalf of local residents following which he would address his own concerns with the planning application.

In reading out the submission from a constituent, Councillor Turpin advised that objectors had a number of concerns with the planning application and had asked that in determining the planning application, the Committee have regard to the following:

·        Safety

·        Nuisance

·        Privacy

·        Educational Impact

·        Pollution

A summary of the points raised by the objectors included:

·        The proposal as submitted would concentrate aircraft using Rochester Airport on a single flight path over a residential area and this would result in the erosion of privacy for those living beneath the flight path.

·        The proposal would result in an increase in flying activity at the airport and would therefore increase noise disturbance for local residents including on Bank Holidays.

·        A local school was located approximately 600 metres from the runway.

·        There had been no public consultation on the proposals.

·        The safety of residents had been ignored.

·        The Officer’s report had not produced a balanced argument.

·        The National Planning Policy Framework required a local authority to consider public safety but this had not been taken into account.

·        The case officer had a lack of understanding as to the location of the start of the runway.

·        No site visits had been undertaken by Members of the Committee and therefore they were blind to the affect that this application would have on local residents.

·        The Land Tribunal may allocate compensation under the Compensation Act.

Councillor Turpin then addressed the Committee with his own representations as Ward Councillor and expressed concern that Ward Councillors for Rochester South and Horsted had previously lobbied for the number of aircraft movements be capped at 38,000. However, the report placed before the Committee for determination recommended that the number of aircraft movements be capped at 40,000. He requested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, the number of aircraft movements be capped at 38,000.

He advised the Committee that whilst he was generally in support of the planning application he would like the Committee to ban the use of microlights and gyrocopters at the airport as they were noisy and slow and were therefore the type of aircraft that generated the majority of noise complaints. If this was acceptable to the Committee, he suggested that users of microlights and gyrocopters be given a 2 year period to enable them to find alternative premises.

The Committee discussed the planning application having regard to the concerns expressed by the Ward Councillor and those put forward by him on behalf of objectors.

It was suggested that prior to determining the planning application a site visit be undertaken.

Decision: 

Consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.