THE CABINET
5 JUNE 2017
Subject: Wellesbourne Mountford Airfield
Lead Officer: David Webb/David Buckland
Contact on 01789 260100/260425
Lead Member/
Portfolio Holder: Councillor C Saint
Summary
The purpose of this report is to consider representations received following a consultation on an Article 4 Direction made by the Council with immediate effect on 14 December 2016, which removed permitted development rights to demolish buildings at Wellesbourne Mountfield Airfield, and to consider whether the Direction should be confirmed.
Recommendation
That a Direction made with immediate effect on 14 December 2016 under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 to remove permitted development rights to demolish buildings at Wellesbourne Mountford Airfield be confirmed.
1 Background/Information
1.1 On 12 December 2016 consideration was given by The Cabinet to a joint report of the Head of Paid Service and s151 Officer which recommended that the Council make an Article 4 Direction with immediate effect to remove permitted development rights to demolish buildings at Wellesbourne Mountford Airfield (“the Airfield”).
1.2 The report also recommended that, subject to Council approving an appropriate amendment to the Policy and Budgetary Framework, authority be given to the Head of Community and Technical Services in consultation with the Leader and the Head of Governance and Democracy to (a) enter negotiations and take any necessary further steps with the owners of the site to agree the purchase of the site and (b) in the event that (a) is not achievable, to commence and take any necessary further steps to compulsorily purchase the site in accordance with s226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
1.3 The Airfield is an important employment and recreation site within the District and the Council’s adopted Core Strategy is supportive of associated aviation activity and seeks to retain and support the enhancement of established flying functions and aviation related facilities.
1.4 The December report notes that the Council was aware that the owners of the Airfield, the Littler family, had entered an agreement with Gladman Developments Ltd, who wish to promote the land predominantly for housing purposes. It was noted that the site is not allocated for housing in the recently adopted Core Strategy and the proposals could lead to loss of jobs and the removal of the recreational aviation activity.
1.5 The report also notes that the Council had become aware that eviction notices had been served on all the current tenants of the site and that an application had been submitted to the Building Control department of the Council, under section 80 Building Act 1984, to undertake the demolition of buildings on site. This demolition could have been undertaken without the grant of planning permission using permitted development rights.
1.6 The Council can make an Article 4 Direction with immediate effect where it considers that the development which would be permitted development but for the Direction would be prejudicial to the proper planning of their area or constitute a threat to the amenities of their area.
1.7 Given the perceived threat of imminent demolition and the economic importance of the Airfield as expressed in the recently adopted Core Strategy, The Cabinet resolved to make an Article 4 Direction with immediate effect (“the Direction”). Cabinet considered it was reasonable and appropriate that the Airfield be retained to assist in delivering an increase in economic prosperity in helping to maintain jobs for residents and supporting businesses to grow and expand.
1.8 The Direction was made on 14 December 2016. The Direction was duly advertised in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (“the Order”). The Council invited representations on the Direction until 31 January 2017. The Direction will expire on 14 June 2017 unless confirmed by the Council.
1.9 Schedule 3 of the Order states that in deciding whether to confirm the Direction, the local planning authority must take into account any representations received during the period which ended 31 January 2017.
Representations received
1.10 Objections to the Order: The Council received a letter dated 27 January 2017 written by Smith Partnership Solicitors on behalf of those with a freehold interest in the Airfield (including Littler Investments Ltd, John Littler, Florence Currie, and Gladman Developments Ltd (who have a contractual agreement with the landowners to promote the site for development). The letter sets out an objection to the Direction and submits that the Council should resolve not to confirm the Direction. A copy of the letter is enclosed at Appendix 1. In summary, the letter makes the following points:
1.10.1 Permitted development rights form an important part of the statutory planning system, ensuring that owners of property are able to freely and lawfully carry out a wide range of operations which, whilst falling within the definition of ‘development’, do not require planning permission;
1.10.2 By virtue of Part 11(B) of Schedule 2 of the Order, the Government considers that the demolition of a commercial building (which is not listed or within a conservation area) should ordinarily be permitted development. Whilst a process of prior approval is required to be undertaken, the matters to be considered are very limited and the Secretary of State has made clear that the process should not replicate the planning application system;
1.10.3 Government guidance makes clear that there must be justification for both the purpose and extent of an Article 4 Direction. Guidance is also clear that Article 4 Directions should be used sparingly, setting the test that their use should be limited to situations where this is necessary to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of the area. The potential harm that the Direction is intended to address should be clearly identified;
1.10.4 Further, guidance makes clear that a higher test of justification is required in circumstances of the instant case. It states that there should be a particularly strong justification for the withdrawal of permitted development rights relating to cases where prior approval powers are available to control permitted development. Guidance is also clear that non-immediate Directions should be used in most circumstances, stating that the circumstances in which an immediate Direction can restrict development are limited. Immediate Directions can only be made where the development presents an immediate threat to local amenity or prejudices the proper planning of an area. In all cases the local planning authority must have already begun the consultation processes towards the making of a non-immediate Article 4 Direction;
1.10.5 The Cabinet decision on 12 December 2016 was made with no prior consultation. The Council was making an important decision which had considerable consequences for the landowners of the site (withdrawing rights from them to peaceably use their property as they were permitted to) and which the Council themselves considered had potential financial consequences for local taxpayers, should compensation be payable;
1.10.6 The decision was based on a false premise (that the matter was urgent) and upon a report which was absent of any credible evidence base and contained a number of factual inadequacies;
1.10.7 The report failed to advise Members as to the tests set out in government guidance;
1.10.8 The Article 4 Direction was not considered by the Council to be justified in its own terms, but part of a ‘holding measure’ in expectation of the Council commencing a CPO for the site; There is nothing in policy or guidance to suggest it is appropriate to use an Article 4 Direction in this manner and such an approach would prove to be unjustified if the CPO was not pursued or was unsuccessful;
1.10.9 The Cabinet Report makes clear that a successful CPO is far from guaranteed. The Council would need to build a compelling case in the public interest. The financial situation the Council would face in the event of a successful CPO appears potentially perilous. There is the potential for the Upper Lands Tribunal to value the site at considerably above the Council’s valuation, at a stage where the Council would have no option but to pay whatever was determined. In short, the very considerable uncertainties around the prospects for any CPO indicate the inappropriateness of using the immediate Article 4 Direction as a ‘holding measure’;
1.10.10 The debate in The Cabinet seemed to proceed on the basis that the ‘bulldozers may roll’ at any moment. This was and remains wholly untrue;
1.10.11 A legal process under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is underway. Under s64 the tenants are entitled to continue in occupation until three months after the matter is resolved. A landlord is not able to demolish buildings which are lawfully occupied by tenants. The assertion of urgency was entirely false. On 25 November the landowners had confirmed in writing to the tenants that the flying function would continue until further notice. Had the Council communicated with the landowners this misapprehension could have been corrected;
1.10.12 The data reported in The Cabinet Report in respect of number of businesses operating and number of jobs associated with these businesses is wrong. Regarding the number of businesses, at present there are eight tenants who are carrying on aviation related business at the Airfield. A further two organisations (those running the museum and maintaining the Vulcan) are not involved in the present 1954 Act proceedings;
1.10.13 Regarding the number of jobs, Gladman Developments Ltd commissioned an Economic Impact Assessment. As part of this report, the number of jobs which were related to aviation related activities was estimated at 42 FTE. This report was submitted to senior planning officers of the Council in April 2015 and was unchallenged at that time. Modest changes may have occurred since this date;
1.10.14 The landowners took steps during 2015 and 2016 to ensure existing tenants were aware of the ending of the airfield operator’s lease, and had sufficient time to consider alternative options to continue their business;
1.10.15 Turning to the economic importance of the Airfield, no mention of the retention or development of the Airfield is mentioned in the section of the supporting text to Core Strategy policy AS.9 considering ‘Future Development Issues’;
1.10.16 The Council accepted that the Employment Land Study did not recommend that the established flying function of the airfield should be retained due to its importance to the local economy, so this reference was removed from the Core Strategy;
1.10.17 There was clearly an open channel of communication between the landowners and the Council, so it is not fair for The Cabinet report to say that there has been an absence of cooperation from the owners.
1.11 The Council received a letter from a Mr T Matthew on 20 December 2016 (letter dated 14 December 2016). A copy of the letter is enclosed at Appendix 2. In summary, the letter made the following points:
1.11.1 The country needs more housing not airfields. A few jobs will be lost but nothing in comparison to what would be made. Given the fact that compulsory purchase will cost millions for only a select few compared to thousands of people who will be rehoused with a safe home, it doesn’t make sense for the council to spending so much money to keep say 200 people happy, when in fact if housing will be built it will keep well over 1000 people happy;
1.11.2 The average person cannot afford to learn to fly, maintain a plane and keep flying year after year. It doesn’t make sense to purchase the airfield when we are in a housing crisis and need more houses.
1.12 Support for the Direction: The Council also received an e-mail in support of the Direction dated 27 January 2017 from Mike Roberts, Managing Director of Take Flight Aviation Limited. Take Flight Aviation are a flight training school and aircraft hire business operating 16 aircraft at Wellesbourne Airfield. A copy of the representation is enclosed at Appendix 3. In summary, Mr Roberts’ representation makes the following points relevant to the issue of whether or not the Direction should be confirmed:
1.12.1 The Airfield and its tenants employ over 200 people directly and there is an equally large number of indirect employment gained from these businesses. The Airfield has lacked serious investment and could easily be developed to create many more jobs;
1.12.2 Government policy to protect active airfields as part of a network of airfield is very clear. The Council is right to protect its local plan and should take the necessary action to do so;
1.12.3 With the long-term demise of the facility at Long Marston airfield and the announcement of the government backed garden village at the site this only further goes to support the need to retain the Wellesbourne facility which could accommodate any displaced aircraft from that site and increase revenue;
1.12.4 Wellesbourne Airfield and its businesses attract around 850,000 visitors a year, which is a significant proportion of the tourism trade of the District. In addition to the businesses and the historic nature of the airfield itself, the airfield is also home to two heritage sites, the museum and one of the last remaining working Vulcan bombers. The airfield is one of the busiest General Aviation airfields in the country with in excess of 70,000 annual movements. Not only does the airfield attract tourists, day-trippers and business flights by air, but the flights also attract thousands of visitors to the site to watch the aircraft arrive and depart. The local authority is right to consider the economic benefits of business and tourism that the airfield creates;
1.12.5 The airfield is the starting point for many people seeking a career in aviation. Take Flight Aviation has trained hundreds of pilots both for recreation and those that have gone on to pursue a career in aviation. The recreational facilities for pilots and visitors alike and educational facilities that the airfield provides should be protected. In addition to the already highly respected flying schools, both fixed wing and rotary, the airfield is also the base for a commercial school which offers training for professional pilots and hosts seminars that flying instructors from across the country attend. Given the airfield’s geographical location in the centre of the country, with investment, the airfield could become a centre of excellence in aviation education, providing further economic benefits to the District.