Redhill Aerodrome - another planning application

[paulthornton]

Now I thought that RAL's application for the change of use to an equestrian centre at EGKR had been thrown out; so I was a little surprised to receive an E-mail from Tandridge council yesterday giving me notice of a new application at Redhill... for change of use to an equestrian centre.

A quick look at the planning website at Tandridge shows documents received by the council on 14th May 2008, and the E-mail I received from them gives 21 days from 7th June to lodge objections, so this does indeed look like another application.

I've not seen anything on here relating to the previous application being dragged up again - although this may be more due to my inability to use the search function than anything else, so if its already mentioned somewhere, mods feel free to move this to the appropriate thread.

The planning application number is 2008/756 and you can look it up here (http://e-access.tandridge.gov.uk/planning/Planning-application-and-property-Search/Application-Search/Application-Search.asp).

Text of the E-mail sent to me is as follows:


Dear Sir/Madam,

APPLICATION TA/2008/756
PROPOSAL CHANGE OF USE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS FOR USE AS AN EQUESTRIAN CENTRE.
LOCATION REDHILL AERODROME,KINGS MILL LANE,SOUTH NUTFIELD
PARISH NUTFIELD
WARD BLETCHINGLEY AND NUTFIELD

The Council has received the above planning application which may affect your property. Should you wish to see details, a copy of the application can be inspected at these offices during normal office hours (8:30am to 5pm, 4:30pm on Fridays). You may wish to contact your Parish Council to see if they are able to provide a paper copy locally. You can also see details of all planning applications through ’Planning Interactive’- our on-line Planning service at www.tandridge.gov.uk.

Any comments (or petitions) concerning this application should be made in writing to me by email to [email protected] or by using ’Planning Interactive’, or by post or fax, within 21 days of the date of this letter quoting the application number TA/2008/756. If you do not own the property you occupy, please pass this letter on to the owner whose comments are also invited.

All comments received by the Council on this application will be scanned and made available to the general public on the Council’s website. You may prefer that certain personal details, such as your private telephone number and e-mail address, are not published on the Internet, in which case you should ensure that such details are not contained in your comments. Please note, however, that if your comments do not contain your name and address they will be treated as anonymous and given little weight.

The Council cannot acknowledge receipt of any comments, nor is it possible to reply to you on any issues raised, or provide further information other than that contained in the application details submitted. The Council can only take into account valid planning considerations. Guidance is available on matters which are not relevant in considering planning applications via ‘Planning Interactive’ together with general information on the application process. Details of District Councillors are also provided on the attached sheet should you wish to contact any of them.

Yours faithfully,

R.W. EVANS
Director of Planning

[trevs99uk]

Heard of a similiar problem another airfield is having.
A company want to build a warehouse/industrial units right under the airfield approach / overshoot area.
There council gets a large number of latters complaining.
Not just from avaitiors but from the local population.
Company withdraws the application.
Week or two later the company re files the planning application.
This time local population don,t sending letters because they think it the same appliction they wrote in about previously.

Therefore company gets planning approval.

trevor

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Now I thought that RAL's application for the change of use to an equestrian centre at EGKR had been thrown out; so I was a little surprised to receive an E-mail from Tandridge council yesterday giving me notice of a new application at Redhill... for change of use to an equestrian centre.

No reason to be surprised.

When we throw out a planning application it is absolutely normal for it to come back again as a new application with a couple of little tweaks aimed at countering some of the reasons for refusal. It is also absolutely normal for the applicant to appeal against refusal of the first application at the same time.

That's how it works.

[old,not bold]

Is the centre a change of use for the whole airfield, or just of a small part of it?

There's no reason the two should be mutually exclusive.

[niknak]

It's the windfarm operator/Robbie Burns principle.

Apply once, if rejected, apply again and again, and again and again.

Eventually the applicant will succeed because whilst the applicant sticks to the same principal and never has to change their story, the opponent will have think of a different objection every time and the more appeals, the weaker the objections become.

[Dan Dare]

Niknak

It's the windfarm operator/Robbie Burns principle.


I think the Robert you're looking for is "the Bruce", not Burns (I don't know the windfarm story), but I wholeheartedly agree with your cynicism. That seems to be the way all sort of evils get in to the world.

It is less than a month since Reigate council informed me that the planning application had been withdrawn and it pis*es me off that I have to dig out my arguments AGAIN and spend another hour explaining why Redhill must not be allowed to close. I will do it though.

[flaxman]

... [but] the opponent will have think of a different objection every time and the more appeals, the weaker the objections become.
Why does the opponent have to think of different objections if the application is fundamentally the same?

[SpeedbirdXK8]

I learnt to fly at Redhill in the late 80s and my daughter will do so (fingers crossed) now that she is nearly 16 (I know she could have started at 14 but a protective father not least mother have held back) also at Redhill. This is personal!

At the end of the day RAF will continue to use very tactic to gain any form of planning permission whether it is to build a giant fish tank or shed, once they have permission for one thing then they move to change to building a housing estate. They will not stop until they get their way.

Keep fighting..:ok:

[poor southerner]

what I dont get is why they would want to go for horses as an avenue for housing.
The normal and easier route is always to go for industrial B1,2,8. You will always find it easier to change use of old worn our brown field buildings and you would collect more in rent in the years it would take to action.

Are they still using the old trick of talking about a second Gatwick to try and force public opinion ?

[xtypeman]

Oh that old chesnut. I was born and brought up at Salfords and about every 5 to 6 years the rumor of Redhill becoming a feeder to Gatwick raised its head. It was normally a ploy by the owners to talk the price of the airfield up to get a beter sale price.

Bring back the Tiger club.......

[Satcop]

It is interesting that Tandridge have only sent out an e-mail about the equestrian centre and not said anything about the other application which was submitted at the same time for the paved runway.

RAVL have stated that the application for change of use is a technical one (apparently the equestrian centre is a permitted use within the Green Belt), they are trying to establish if the local authority will permit anything on the site other than a grass aerodrome. They have stated to the users' that should the change of use be granted they have no intention of ceasing flying operations. Only time will tell on this one.

Having also stated that their preference is to develop the site for housing they except that this is a long term objective (20+ years), in the meantime they intend to upgrade the aviation facilities, hence the application for a paved runway. Hopefully this will be supported by the businesses based at the Aerodrome.

Unlike previous runway applications this one is more GA friendly - 900m x 23m and orientated to avoid the built area west of the Aerodrome. At the request of the planning authority a business plan has been included together with a list of aircraft types which would use the runway.

[paulthornton]

It is interesting that Tandridge have only sent out an e-mail about the equestrian centre and not said anything about the other application which was submitted at the same time for the paved runway.

RAVL have stated that the application for change of use is a technical one (apparently the equestrian centre is a permitted use within the Green Belt), they are trying to establish if the local authority will permit anything on the site other than a grass aerodrome. They have stated to the users' that should the change of use be granted they have no intention of ceasing flying operations. Only time will tell on this one.

I'm by no means an expert on this - just someone who flies from Redhill and dutifully objected last time around, but wasn't one of the issues with the previous equestrian planning request the fact that it stated (and I'm paraphrasing here) that if permission was granted for change of use from aerodrome to equestrian centre, then the permission they have to use the site as an aerodrome ceases. Ergo, they now have a large field without planning permission to use it as an aerodrome.

I didn't know about the other application for the runway - do you have a planning reference for that so I can try and generate some support from the locals of Nutfield?

Paul.

[Satcop]

Tandridge now have details for the planning application for the paved runway on their site - TA/2008/779.