When Heslington Parish Council received the application for hangars on Elvington Airfield there was no supporting information relating to estimated flight and traffic movements or the environmental effect of such an application. We still remain opposed to the application for the erection of hangars for the following reasons.
Under Heslington's Village Design Statement we call for:
1. No further significant development of Elvington airfield should be consented to by the City Council, or even considered, without there first being in place a Masterplan or design
statement for the development of the airfield. This should set the airfield in its wider context and identify its longterm objectives so that it can be subjected to a public consultation
process.
2. This Masterplan should identify and anticipate all future development of the infrastructure of the site, together with anticipated growth of commercial, leisure and freight traffic over, say, the next 15 to 20 years, and provide full supporting economic, transport and environmental impact assessments.
3. It should undergo a full series of public consultations in accordance with Government policy guidance, which would include formal consultation with all impacted surrounding communities likely to be affected by the noise footprint and traffic growth, including Heslington.
These conditions have not been met. We do not have a clear idea what the intentions of Elvington Park are for future development of the airfield and what the environmental consequences of approval would mean.
We do not believe the road network on the east of York can cope with an increase in traffic which will no doubt be a result of extra traffic travelling to and from Elvington. We are already expecting extra demands on the road network from the University, Derwenthorpe and Germany Beck developments.
Elvington Park have proved to be an inconsiderate neighbour since taking over the site, which was backed up in court this June when they were ordered by York Crown Court to cease Formula One testing after years over excessive noise and an unwillingness to conform to the reasonable conditions set down by York City Council, showing total disregard for local residents concerns. We believe any expansion of air activities on the site will once again cause unreasonable disturbance to local residents in Heslington.
There is no evidence that refusal of the application will affect the commercial interests of the city. With airports already located in Humberside, Doncaster, Newcastle, Leeds/Bradford and Manchester the region is already more than amply served. This has been proved by the failure of Sheffield Airport, which despite being a much larger city than York could not continue as a going concern. York also already has a flying school at Rufforth.
In conclusion we do not feel there are any special circumstances which could justify the proposed development on Greenbelt land. A development which would inevitably have an intolerable effect on local life for the surrounding villages. And furthermore, due to the lack of information available at the time of application we feel the development has not faced adequate public scrutiny.
York Green Party also sent out the following press release:
York Greens have condemned the proposal to expand Elvington Airfield to accommodate up to 10,000 flights a year.
The Green Party's Heslington Spokesperson Andrew Collingwood will be among those people attending the public inquiry. He was quoted as saying:
"This expansion could be the thin end of the wedge leading to hugely increased air traffic in and out of the airport.
It will be an environmental disaster for York. It will pour traffic onto the road network in and around the South East of York, which is already unable to cope with all of the new developments at Germany Beck, Derwenthorpe and the University.
It seems incredible that with the possibility of the Arctic Ocean being ice-free during the summer within ten years, people can seriously contemplate a development that would drive a coach and horses through local carbon reduction targets. It's like sailing around in a ship trying to find an iceberg to crash into.
It will also be an economic disaster. The proposal will create a relatively small number of jobs that will be vulnerable every time there is another spike in oil prices. This is at the expense of noise pollution and traffic chaos that will blight the south east corner of the city and deter firms from locating there.
What we need are innovative, environmentally aware local businesses that will bring long-term jobs and prosperity to the city, not useless facilities that will be obsolete within twenty years."
