The list below is a record of advice the Planning Inspectorate has provided in respect of the Planning Act 2008 process.
There is a statutory duty under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application and to make this publicly available. Advice we have provided is recorded below together with the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice and the project it relates to. The privacy of any other personal information will be protected in accordance with our Information Charter which you should view before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.
Note that after a project page has been created for a particular application, any advice provided that relates to it will also be published under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the relevant project page.
Advice given between between 1 October 2009 and 14 April 2015 has been archived. View the archived advice.
Enquiry
I am a bit puzzled as I can't see how RiverOak can acquire the whole airport if they claim they are only altering it. Thee environmental info said that the runway is only been resurfaced, not lengthened or changed (so no planning needed). The runway isn't incidental - it's fundamental - so not sure how main parts that are not being changed can be included under clause 6.
I could see how they could try to acquire the runway if they were claiming that whole thing is a new airport but they're not. Does this not mean that only existing airports can do DCOs for alterations, and if not, does that not mean every airport in the country could be at risk of hostile takeover by someone else with a plan to increase the size?
Advice given
“I could see how they could try to acquire the runway if they were claiming that whole thing is a new airport but they're not.”
Any airport would be unable to engage the thresholds in s23(5) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) without an operational runway.
“Does this not mean that only existing airports can do DCOs for alterations…”
Only an existing airport, in land use terms, could engage s23(4) of the PA2008.
“…and if not, does that not mean every airport in the country could be at risk of hostile takeover by someone else with a plan to increase the size?”
It does not have to be the airport owner/operator that applies to alter an airport under s23 of the PA2008.
