LANDING facilities for helicopters bringing clients to pheasant and partridge shoots near Wiveliscombe were recommended for approval by Somerset West and Taunton planning officers yesterday.

Bulland Shooting Estate owner Mr J Ball applied to the district council’s planning committee for retrospective planning permission for a helipad on land south of New Road, 680 metres from the town and 140 metres from the B3227 road.

The committee heard that the helipad had been in use throughout 2019, with flights starting at 6am, and there was concern about low-flying helicopters, disturbance of livestock and wildlife and increased noise and pollution.

But planning officers recommended that shoot organisers could continue to use the helipad for 28 days between the beginning of October and the end of January between 7am and 7pm and for emergency use by air ambulances.

The applicants had also agreed to keep a log of flights which would be made available to the planning authority.

Planning officer Richard Hawkey told the committee in a report that the Bulland Shoot had been housed in nearby farm buildings since 2018 and the helicopter facility was designed to encourage more guests.

Mr Hawkey said the helipad consisted of a ten-metre diameter green-painted Tarmac circle with a three-metre walkway and surrounded by small solar-powered lights

“Given the way it has been constructed, the helipad does not appear visually obstructive when viewed from either within the site or from surrounding land,” Mr Hawkey added.

He said that the council ecology officer also recommended conditional approval as winter helicopter flights would avoid birds’ nesting season and daylight flying would not disturb bats.

He said some residents had “strong concern” about noise but its effect could be mitigated by limiting operation to a certain number of days and a specific time of year. “The environmental health officer does not raise objections to the proposal given such restrictions,” Mr Hawkey added.

Wiveliscombe Town Council opposed the application because members felt the helipad was “in an inappropriate location near a number of residential dwellings”. They believed regular helicopter flights would create noise and disturbance issues.

They added: “Helicopters are not a sustainable form of transport and would not fit well with the declaration of a climate emergency. Residents will suffer overlooking and loss of privacy.”

A total of 29 residents raised objections including claims that the applicants had not discussed the helipad with locals and there had been little information about the frequency of flights, which appeared to be unrestricted.

Other objectors felt that helicopters should not be flown so close to a main road and that the helipad was “an alien form in an otherwise unspoiled landscape”, and the appearance and size were not in keeping with a residential area.