Wednesday 11 December 2013 09:33 UTC
This forum is for anything to do with light aviation
hopefully it will be approved... But, I wouldn't be surprised if all of a sudden they manage to find other barriers to block the development of the airfield.
PPL Student - EGKR
Another tweak to the plans after the previous being rejected...
Press release: http://www.redhillaerodrome.com/index.p ... -july-2012
New plans: http://www.redhillaerodrome.com/index.php/rwyplanapp12
A bit puzzling. The thresholds willl be displaced by 150m and this 150m will not be used for takeoff or landing (but there is a turning pan at both ends).
I can understand 'not available for landing' but why for takeoff too? The longer the TORA, the higher the aircraft will be when it crosses the airfield boundary, hence less possible noise nuisance to people living outside the boundary. The licenced TORA can stay the same to achieve the necessary 2% TOCS, so why stop aircraft using this bit for takeoff?
What's an iPad? Do I really care?
I don't think they are stopping it being used - the way the diagram is presented to the public in the documents is that on takeoff the aircraft should be well above the far end threshold and it's that far end bit of runway that's "not used for takeoff".
I don’t think so. Having sat through the planning committee meetings their reasons for refusal were weak.
At Tandridge District Council one member pointed out to planning officer that he had gone through the report and highlighted points for the application and those against. His findings were that there were more for than against; yet there was a recommendation to refuse.
Another asked how this was intensification of use when aircraft movements have been declining and the proposed Section 106 would have a limit of 85,000 against a recent maximum of 95,000. The response was that the councils core policy is to refuse any application that will intensify activity at the Aerodrome, this means aircraft movements or vehicle movements or anything.
The EHO stated there were no reasons on noise to refuse this application yet the Planning Officer included noise as a reason to refuse.
Some members were concerned that the points for refusal would be difficult to defend at appeal. Consequently approximately half the committee abstained.
The Reigate and Banstead Borough Council meeting concentrated on supporting the report by Portsmouth University which stated that the Aerodrome did not need a hard runway as there many of businesses based there that do not need a runway and the helicopter activity could be grown.
They were also happy to support the objection from Biggin Hill that stated jobs there would be lost and they have spare capacity.
Their report also contained some factual inaccuracies e.g there are no runway lights at present and the Aerodrome is not used at night.
Both councils disregarded the National Planning Policy Frame work.
The application overcame previous objections from the Environment Agency (indeed they stated the drainage works and flood mitigation measures would benefit the local area) and Surrey Highways (again both councils used traffic as reason to refuse whilst acknowledging an undertaking by the Aerodrome to carry out works on the roads to improve safety there was no legal agreement at the time of the application).
Both meetings were well attended by Aerodrome Users and representatives from the Aerodrome owners, who remain committed to developing the Aerodrome for modern general aviation aircraft.
Next step will be to consult with a QC on an appeal.
Planning officials in Surrey can be amazingly blind when it suits them. I happened to be on duty at Dunsfold about 15 months ago on the day the local planners were to visit. I was asked to encourage as many aircraft as possible to land (no fee) to demonstrate to them that Dunsfold was still being used by aircraft even though they (the planners) maintained it had been disused since BAe moved out!!
Even the presence of the '747 didn't seem to give them a clue.
What's an iPad? Do I really care?
Who is online
Login / Register