[Flyingfemme]

Can you imagine the outcry if the planners objected to road safety "improvements" in this manner? We are talking about a safety improvement to part of the national aviation infrastructure so pretty similar.

[matthew_w100]

Mine:

"As a pilot based at Redhill for over fifteen years, I have used the southern taxiway almost every winter. It is strongly my experience that the improvements REDUCE the impact of aircraft on the surrounding neighbourhood. Landing on a curved and narrow strip makes a stable approach difficult, which results in frequent irritating power changes and corrections. Take off is quicker on a smooth surface which means one is higher over the airfield boundary. Also the improved section is actually shorter than before which means one lands deeper and takes off earlier, keeping disturbance closer to the centre of the airfield. It also, incidentally, makes it too short for larger aircraft to use.

I do respect residents' desire for quiet when using their gardens, even though they have chosen to move next to a commercial airfield. But this facility is only used when the runways are waterlogged, pretty well exclusively in the wet winter months when garden use is at its minimum. I struggle to see how the impact of the airfield on outdoor activity is affected by these safety improvements.

Finally, a strong impression is given from some quarters that Redhill Aerodrome flouted the planning process by installing a hard runway even though they had been denied permission. This is an unfair characterisation. That section of taxiway has always been used to take off and land on if the main runways are waterlogged. There is no installation of a new facility; all Redhill have done is make the taxiway safer to use and make accidents less likely. Surely this is to everyone's benefit?"

[James Chan]

Some objectors/residents then might ask why is a taxiway being used as a runway, instead of the runway.

I hope it's clear to them and that they don't start to kick up another fuss about it... the sort of "well we didn't want them to use the main runway, so they did a botch job trying to convert a taxiway and tried to get away with it"

[Lockhaven]

From another thread in Help and Advice

The Seller's Property Information Form TA6 asks these questions of the seller:
2 Disputes
2.1 Do you know of any disputes about this or any neighbouring property?
(delete as applicable) no/ yes (please give details)
2.2 Have you received any complaints about anything you have, or have not, done as owners?
(delete as applicable) no/ yes (please give details)
2.3 Have you made any such complaints to any neighbour about what the neighbour has or has
not done?
(delete as applicable) no/ yes (please give details)


Perhaps the complainants who adjoin the airfield need to review this aspect for future reference?

It has always made me wonder if the buyers of these properties that are close to airfields/airports actually read the paperwork given to them by the solicitor, because at the end of day they are required to sign a legal document stating they understand the content of their surveys.
And are they buying the properties without having walked or driven around the local area before committing to its purchase or are they just waking up one morning and realise there are aircraft flying around.

[Grelly]

My support added.

[Rob P]

Some familiar names amongst the respondents.

Also

Dr A Chivago The surgery Redhil Ab21 4uk (Objects)
Miss Not in My back yard 33 daily mail lane Immigrant camp 3 Rn44 5yu (Supports)

Rob P

[oldbiggincfi]

Some familiar names amongst the respondents.

Also

Dr A Chivago The surgery Redhil Ab21 4uk (Objects)
Miss Not in My back yard 33 daily mail lane Immigrant camp 3 Rn44 5yu (Supports)

Rob P

Surely ! you are not suggesting the use of a false name and address for such an important issue .

[MikeE]

.....

It has always made me wonder if the buyers of these properties that are close to airfields/airports actually read the paperwork given to them by the solicitor, because at the end of day they are required to sign a legal document stating they understand the content of their surveys.
And are they buying the properties without having walked or driven around the local area before committing to its purchase or are they just waking up one morning and realise there are aircraft flying around.

I wonder if house prices near airfields tend to be lower because of the noise? I understand that prices are lower on flightpaths near larger airports even though for some people this is offset by the convenience of living near one.

Regards

Mike

[DonkeyLegs]

What I find disturbing is that I live some 11 miles West of the airfield, in an entirely different council area (Mole Valley as opposed to Reigate & Banstead), yet received the "Dear Occupier" letter from R&BBC, just as I received their original letter a few months ago urging me to oppose the application and warning me that noise etc could devalue my property value.

Does R&BBC seriously believe that light GA activity can have any material impact at such a distance?

And, from tax payers' perspective, I wonder at the cost of mailshotting perhaps all residents in their own and neighboring boroughs. Well over 100k addresses I'd guess. Their earlier letter did hint of some vendetta against the airfield. fwiw, I'm not generally a conspiracist!

[neilmurg]

Meh, add your support, ask your friends. The case is AFAIK indisputable, so any negative result will be appealable
Please, add your support to Redhill. It can be done in less than a minute. We all have to land SOMEWHERE APPEAL page
[edit to add]broke my own rule about posting after 23:30, I shall berate myself for it later. Apologies for the 'meh'[/edit]

[JonathanB]

A whole pile of fake responses have been posted this morning, I hope they are deleted even if they support the appeal as I don’t think they do the cause any favours.

[James Chan]

R&BBC... urging me to oppose the application...their earlier letter did hint of some vendetta against the airfield.

Not sure if this sort of propaganda is even legal? I wonder what the DfT would say about that.

Nonetheless it’s so important for the GA community to work well with the council and neighbours in order for an airport to thrive.

Otherwise the Gloucesters and Lee in Solents would cease to exist in the way they do today.

[Flying_john]

Are councils allowed to take a position on a question before a decision is made ? Especially if they are spending taxpayers money to support their viewpoint.

There must be a government department that oversees the impartiality of a local authority.

[Gentoo]

Are councils not answerable to their electorate/voters so by definition not impartial?

[James Chan]

I suppose, but I think there’s a difference between that and spreading propaganda. And planning still needs to go through due process of planning law.

I have never received letters from my council (whether it’s controlled by Labour or the Conservatives) specifically asking all residents and beyond to object to the building of a car park, a bus terminus, a golf course, or anything related to transport or leisure with carefully selected or skewed facts to influence the masses about a planning proposal.

That kind of information would have come from resident / lobbyist / political groups to which I would have received information from different groups - those who are for it and those who are against it.

It remains strange that Gatwick was once so close to being approved for a new second runway yet when it comes to ensuring the protection of a GA “reliever” airport, some would rather it never existed.