Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By JonathanB
#895376
Redhill Aerodrome have just published their new master plan, which is sticking with General Aviation and wanting to put in the hard runway.

While this all seems great, I can't help but worry about the quote from Tandridge District Council's policy document:
The Council will not permit development at Redhill Aerodrome that would be likely to intensify flying or related activities. The Council will not permit the construction of a reinforced runway or other development if it is likely to be significantly detrimental to the local community.


Knowing what Tandridge are like from my parents' experiences trying to sort out planning permissions for renovating a listed property, I don't hold out much hope.

:?
User avatar
By ganzic
#895405
Hope they succeed, flooding was a major problem for them quit often.
By fuzzy6988
#895413
A hard runway! Yay! :clap:

Let's hope the proposal goes through.

Any increase in flights should not cause harm to the local community. In fact, flying contributes towards its economy by an added transport link.

Maybe some of us could invite those in that local area to experience the joys of flying and to use it to go places. This is important to fight against any opposition.
By Frank Leopald
#895452
So don't mention that in wet weather they use the taxiway as a runway :lol:

Frank Leopald
User avatar
By Satcop
#895499
"The Council will not permit development at Redhill Aerodrome that would be likely to intensify flying or related activities. The Council will not permit the construction of a reinforced runway or other development if it is likely to be significantly detrimental to the local community."

Intensify flying - given that we used to do 96,000 movements per annum and are now down to around 46,000 we would have to go some to get above that figure.

Significantly detrimental to the local community - we would hope to demonstrate that there would an improvement to those communities west of the Aerodrome. The re-aligned runway flight path would no longer over-fly a local school.

A great deal of time and effort has gone in to to getting the owners to accept that this project is the only sensible option for them. They are well aware of the "battle" that will no doubt ensue with one of the local planning authorities and are prepared for a public inquiry.
#895505
I agree with you satcop, but I know what Tandridge are like! They wouldn't want you to go above 46,000 movements if they can help it!
#895514
interesting comment concerning a realigned flight path. wouldnt it be handy if all applications for runway improvement/extension could chuck in a a couple of degrees "realignment" promising "ammended flight paths beneficial to the local community"! of course these promises might not have any more substance than the frivolous nuisance claims made by the nimbys.
By flyingdoug
#895516
I've often thought that it's worth reminding NIMBYs that disused airfields can make excellent locations for land-fill sites or new prisons.
User avatar
By MichaelP
#895527
Image

The saga continues...
I've flown from many parts of the perimeter track around Redhill aerodrome...
Later when we had the tower I'd say "sorry Phirrip I seemed to have taxied into the air!".

Now here I am 4,500Nm away and history repeats itself... There's a frozen food depot started up on the airfield and this means juggernauts tramping up 72nd street as they did to Brake Brothers frozen foods along Kingsmill Lane!

Redhill should be declared a 'National Airpark' part of English Heritage or the National Trust.
If you see the film "Wind in the wires" you'll see how 'English' Redhill Aerodrome once was... We need to get rid of the developer types and retain a leisure pleasure grass airfield in Surrey.
User avatar
By JonathanB
#895530
flyingdoug wrote:I've often thought that it's worth reminding NIMBYs that disused airfields can make excellent locations for land-fill sites or new prisons.


Except that in all likelihood Tandridge District Council would reject any other development anyway. They tend to live in a world of their own (knowing from past experience) where they don't want anything to change, even at the expense of local businesses.

MichaelP wrote:We need to get rid of the developer types and retain a leisure pleasure grass airfield in Surrey.


I'm all for that, except that the runway is unusable for half the year, which doesn't permit leisure or pleasure usage for many pilots!
User avatar
By SpeedBird
#895611
I really hope to see a hard runway at Redhill! But then again when politics is involved... :?

I would love to re-start my PPL @ Redhill since it is 5 minutes from home, but the fact that it is grass and the problems it causes during winter I am unsure if I shall go ahead and fly from Redhill.

I might head down to Shoreham to get the PPL over and done with.
#895620
Speedbird, if you fly with Redhill Aviation then they are the same company essentially as Sky Leisure at Shoreham (and for that matter Blackbushe Aviation at Blackbushe), so you could probably easily switch between the two when Redhill gets boggy and come back in the Spring if you've not completed yet.
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#895625
I'm intrigued that everyone seems to be so much in favour! Personally I'm not that enthused by a hard runway; for GA a grass one is much more forgiving. Properly drained, yes - and I appreciate Redhill's problem here - but I'm not particularly enthused by tarmac. And if it involves new lighting systems and instrument approaches then it's going to be more expensive even than it already is.

But the biggest loss that noone seems to have commented on is the north-south runway. I love not having to worry what direction the wind is coming from, knowing the crosswind won't be out of limits. Actually i am most surprised that the planning paper doesn't make more of this - I would have thought the stopping of landing/taking off directly over South Nutfield would have been a major headline item for getting the locals on side.

And there's no mention of the one thing that on a purely personal level I want - a cafe that is still open when you land after a happy day's flying!

Matthew
User avatar
By Roy
#895727
matthew_w100 wrote:
But the biggest loss that noone seems to have commented on is the north-south runway. I love not having to worry what direction the wind is coming from, knowing the crosswind won't be out of limits. Actually i am most surprised that the planning paper doesn't make more of this - I would have thought the stopping of landing/taking off directly over South Nutfield would have been a major headline item for getting the locals on side.

And there's no mention of the one thing that on a purely personal level I want - a cafe that is still open when you land after a happy day's flying!

Matthew


Pup = 25kt demonstrated crosswind, what sort of wind do you want to fly in :shock: however departing on 36, climbing over the North Downs seeing all of London laid out before you is simply magic.

Agree re the cafe, what sort of a business plan closes a cafe on a sunny afternoon when the grass outside is packed with punters???
#895739
I would have thought an unlicensed grass runway that runs N-S that provides a short distance to land like the short runway at Headcorn could be squeezed in for those days where the wind just doesn't want to play ball. After all you would only use if the wind was strong enough to cause a problem on the hard runway and that would create a lovely headwind for a short roll landing.