Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
User avatar
By gaxor
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1791636
As some of you may be aware, Redhill Aerodrome are appealing against Reigate & Banstead Council's decision to order the re-reinstatement the Taxiway C/D to its original condition, as they have ruled that it was not within permitted development rights.

If anyone who has any interest in this would like to offer their support to Redhill Aerodrome, comments are now being accepted through the web link below

https://planning.reigate-banstead.gov.u ... plications
User avatar
By Nero
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1791651
cjrpaterson wrote:A lot of objections from people who chose to buy a house at the end of a runway :roll:
Yes! "I've lived here a few years and the aircraft noise is too much" type comments. Was the 90 year old Aerodrome a surprise then??

~ Scott
ls8pilot, StratoTramp liked this
By MikeE
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1791665
Nero wrote:
cjrpaterson wrote:A lot of objections from people who chose to buy a house at the end of a runway :roll:
Yes! "I've lived here a few years and the aircraft noise is too much" type comments. Was the 90 year old Aerodrome a surprise then??

~ Scott


I have commented on that in my response. Most objectors are really objecting to the aerodrome itself rather than the 'new runway'!

It needs more support, I think...

Best wishes

Mike
By Tonybishop
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1791704
I've supported the retention. I have family nearby and flying in is much greener than driving around the M25! One query - some of the objectors claim that it's a greenfield site. Surely all airfields are still (quite erroneously) defined as brownfield. If true, it's worth a push in further supporting comments....
User avatar
By Nero
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1791722
A hard runway allows the Aerodrome to move away from 'hobbyist' flying to commercial useage, likely to involve larger, noisier aircraft.


Sigh. It's a large taxiway. Not going to take an A320 or a Learjet is it

~ Scott
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1791731
Forget not that this council is party to a Local Plan which cited Redhill Aerodrome as a potential Garden Village.

Whilst the Planning Committee were tut tutting over the desecration of their precious green belt by a strip of asphalt, they were supporting the complete destruction of the area including a motorway spur of the M23.
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1791736
This is wot I wrote :D
I am a private pilot/aircraft owner who has used Redhill Aerodrome since the mid-1980s for business and pleasure flights. It is a strategically located airfield identified at Government level by the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP when he was Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation.

As many grass airfields in the UK it suffers from days when many fixed wing light aircraft cannot take off or land due to waterlogging after severe rainfall. The south east corner is a known flood risk identified by the Environment Agency.

The usefulness of a small area of hard surfaced runway just big enough for light aircraft to use when ground conditions would otherwise preclude movements has be extremely beneficial.

It has a safety benefit in helping to provide a runway when the grass is unusable, meaning based aircraft are not forced to divert to what might be a worse situation.

Furthermore, all UK aerodromes have been under financial pressure for many years and periods when movements are either severely restricted or not possible affects the viability of the operating company as fixed costs remain constant. Having a means to retain some business through providing this facility can only be welcomed.

There is no actual impact on the locality either from the original construct or the continued use of the taxiway for take offs or landings. One cannot see the surface of the runway from any publicly accessible vantage point so there is no visual intrusion.

Normal operations do not require the hard surface so day to day traffic figures are not increased by its presence. When inclement weather renders the grass unusable only a proportion of movements generally take advantage of it.

Finally, looking at the historic movement figures of this 90-year-old aerodrome it is a shadow of its hey days. Looking to the future, the economic downturn across the UK General Aviation sector has caused widespread concern. At the moment anything that can be done to assist Redhill Aerodrome fight for its survival should be supported.

I support the appeal.
zhastaph, flybymike liked this
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1791740
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the widened taxiway is restored to its original width it will still be used in the same way and for the same purpose? As it always was. All that will happen is that accidents will be more likely - it will be less safe. There won't be a reduction in disturbance to the incomers who bought their houses at the end of the runway. In fact it will probably be worse as less stable approaches (lining up with a narrow, bent, but longer) bit of tarmac require constant adjustments.

Also we should probably refrain from referring to it as a "runway" in our contributions. Can anyone think of a sensible conciliatory comment to make regarding the strong feeling of opponents that Redhill went ahead in spite of planning refusal and installed a runway, hoping it wouldn't be noticed? To my mind, they really didn't. Having been refused a runway they turned to a facility they already use when needed and made it safer.
Last edited by matthew_w100 on Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9