Heliport condition changes at Penzance Heliport Jelbert Way Penzance

What was proposed

The application sought changes to heliport conditions, including a 2-decibel noise increase, earlier engine testing, revised Sunday hours and removal of noise monitoring.

“Planning permission is sought to vary conditions attached to the existing permission for Penzance heliport. The changes would allow a slight increase in the maximum noise of the helicopters, allow engine testing to start at 07:30 on three days a week and change the hours that flights can take place on a Sunday. It is also proposed to remove the condition that required noise monitoring to be carried out by the applicant.”

“The noise monitoring condition was not complied with in full. The applicants argue that the heliport has operated for a number of years. Also, the additional noise report submitted with the application shows that noise levels are consistent with the those provided when permission was first granted for the heliport. Therefore, the need for monitoring is no longer required. The purpose of the condition was to check that the initial modelling was robust.”

Officer report

The site and existing use

The heliport is an established year-round operation, and its principle was already accepted through the existing planning permission.

“The planning application needs to be assessed against the Development Plan policies and any other material considerations. The key issues are:”

“The heliport is well established and operates year-round. If it is decided that this application should be approved, then this would result in a new planning permission. If permission is refused, the applicant could still operate the heliport in accordance with the existing permission, though clearly this is not the preferred option. The principle of the heliport is therefore well established.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposed changes were considered unlikely to cause unacceptable harm to amenity, character, ecology or protected sites.

“Allowing an increase in the maximum noise level of the helicopters currently permitted is not considered to result in adverse impact. The increase in the current maximum would be 2 decibels (db), which it is accepted would be unlikely to be perceptible. Allowing engine testing to start at 07:30 on up to three days a week would result in additional noise and disturbance in the morning. This could result in the loss of amenity to some nearby properties.”

“The proposed changes are contentious and there is a significant level of public interest both for and against the changes. Those against argue that the heliport causes an unacceptable level of disturbance and that there should be no relaxation of the existing conditions. Supporters consider the changes have been carefully assessed and amended to meet the concerns of the Council.”

Officer report

What people said

Supporters described the service as vital and resilient, while objectors cited noise, pollution, disturbance, monitoring, wildlife and insufficient consultation.

“Support: • The helicopter service is a vital lifeline for the islands • Proposals will make service more resilient • The changes are not significant and will allow an improved service • The improvements demonstrate a clear commitment to environmental sustainability and meaningful community engagement • There is no additional service proposed • Sunday flying is already allowed • The existing operation causes little disturbance and the business should be supported…”

“There has been an increase in sight seeing trips for the heliport • Increased traffic and pollution on roads • There should be no expansion of the heliport or emissions • A Climate Emergency has been declared and application is contrary to that • Allowing Sunday flying would cause significant harm • Sunday flying should only be used in exceptional circumstances • There have been breaches of conditions, such as not following flightpaths, at the heliport • The noise…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three speakers opposed the application, one speaker supported it, and two councillors spoke about residents’ concerns and the proposed safeguards.

The committee’s debate

Members debated noise, helicopter types, monitoring, alleged breaches, retrospective changes and whether the noise condition could be removed separately.

“A Member queried whether the Committee could approve some proposed condition changes while rejecting others, particularly condition 27, relating to noise. Officers advised that a split decision was technically possible but generally discouraged and difficult to administer. The application should be determined as submitted, as it solely sought amendments to existing conditions; 2.”

“Concern regarding the retrospective nature of the application; 2. Concern that changes to Condition 27 would result in an unacceptable increase in noise affecting residential amenity; 3. Concern that differences between helicopter types involved noise character and tone as well as measured decibel levels. In response officers advised that Public Protection Officers had raised no objection and considered the proposal acceptable in amenity terms; 4.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

A motion to approve without the noise-condition change was defeated, after which the committee approved the application subject to appropriate conditions by five votes to four.

“Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor Alvey, seconded by Councillor Thomas, that delegated authority be given to the Service Director – Planning and Housing, to approve the application subject to the removal of Condition 27. If the applicant did not agree with the removal of Condition 27 then delegated authority be given to the Service Director – Planning and Housing, to refuse the application for the following reason:”

“RESOLVED that Application No. PA25/04955 be approved, subject to appropriate conditions as set out in the report.”

Minutes