PDA

View Full Version : Flying to/from Surrey - deadline 21st February 2003


chrisN
10th Feb 2003, 13:12
Surrey County Structure plan - Deadline 21st February 2003.

If you care about flying into or out of Surrey, please write to object to the latest draft County Structure plan. Replies must be in by 21st February 2003.

Either write or email responses. A form for email responses is on the Surrey web site, at:

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspublications.nsf/f2d920e015d1183d80256c670041a50b/d32ac14804971fa180256ca8004aa3b8/$FILE/Respond%20email%20word.doc .

emails are to go to [email protected] .

To write by snailmail, subject Representations on Deposit Draft 2002, the address seems to be Surrey County Council Strategic Planning, County Hall, Penrhyn Rd., Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN.

Contact centre: 08456 009 009
---------------------------

From "Action for Airfields": Surrey County Council originally published its draft structure plan (the subject of a previous A4A alert) in January 2001. The consultation process was suspended whilst the Council reviewed the newly published Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9).
The latest revision of the draft structure plan was recently re-issued and interested parties have until February 21st to respond. The section which deals with General Aviation in the county has changed, but still proposes policies which remain very negative towards GA including:-

Any development at Redhill likely to cause intensification of flying or other related activities will be resisted;

No development of new airfields, and no re-opening of disused airfields;

Private landing sites and farm strip planning will be judged on environmental impact;

Limited development of business aviation at Fairoaks will be permitted.

In an apparent softening of attitude towards the potential future use of Dunsfold this former British Aerospace site is excluded from the proposed policy barring the development of new airfields or the reopening of disused airfields.

If allowed to pass unchallenged, these policies will form the basis of local plans for the next 15 years at least.


Action.
Submit your comments by e-mail or post objecting to the negative policies towards GA using one of the forms supplied by the council. In doing so it is important that letters are individually worded and not simply duplicated. It is well worth submitting comments even if you are not resident in Surrey. By its very nature General Aviation has an interest in the promotion of aerodromes throughout the country. Do not feel that you have to write an essay or become an expert in planning law overnight. Other organisations will represent the interests of GA in detail - our job is to support them with a high letter count expressing individual support for GA

This and other details and links are shown on the Action for Airfields web site, at :

http://www.airfields.org.uk/alerts/surrey_030126.htm .

Timothy
10th Feb 2003, 20:18
What exactly is "on message" here?

Surrey is actually reasonably well-endowed with aviation facilities, especially when you widen the borders by a short distance and include Biggin, Farnborough, LGW and Blackbushe. Then Popham and Lasham really are not far.

The only closed facility which is ever likely to reopen is Dunsfold, and it is excluded from the blanket ban.

Reopening Wisley would actually make things quite difficult, and unnecessary, unless Fairoaks were closed (couldn't happen to a nicer Mann ;) ).

You don't mention Kenley, I know that it was threatened, but that doesn't seem to be part of the plan.

Farm strips to be assessed on environmental grounds? Seems reasonable.

So what exactly is the problem with the plan?

Incidentally, I used to be based at Fairoaks until they made it very plain that they no longer wanted the vast amount of money I was giving them, and have moved to Biggin, so this is all close to my heart!

I would rather put my effort into opening a proper GA airfield near Manchester than worrying about facilities in Surrey.

W

High Wing Drifter
10th Feb 2003, 22:07
I would rather put my effort into opening a proper GA airfield near Manchester than worrying about facilities in Surrey.
I see your point and agree. One should keep in mind that the above mentioned scheme would act as a rachet for the general longer term erosion of Surrey based aviation facilities. Not saying this is the case but that there is certainly the potential.

Timothy
11th Feb 2003, 07:16
HWD One should keep in mind that the above mentioned scheme would act as a rachet for the general longer term erosion of Surrey based aviation facilities. OTOH if our knee-jerk reaction is to object to any plan a Council puts forward, however reasonable, then no-one will listen when it matters (eg Rochester.)

Remember that Surrey is under huge political, economic and commercial pressure both to build new housing and to preserve its existing green fields, and something has to give somewhere. For them not to say "mmm, Dunsfold, 2,000 houses, Fairoaks? loverly, we'll build 'West Addlestone' there" is a good start already!

I would rather say to Surrey "Seems a good compromise guys, well done!" than object on principal.

W

rustle
11th Feb 2003, 07:22
WC,

What about precedent? If Surrey make these plans, unchallenged, other CC's will surely follow - and those other CCs may not have the abundance of readily available airfields to start with.

Timothy
11th Feb 2003, 07:35
Rustle

I would say fight the fight where there is a fight to fight. If there were a move to close Barton without any alternative site to open, then I would be on the barricades with you, similarly Oban, St Mary's, Beverley, Carlisle and all the other places that represent GA in what is otherwise a desert.

But Surrey seem to have produced a sensible plan which meets the needs of Surrey. What more could we ask?

W

foghorn
11th Feb 2003, 11:37
Re: Kenley.

The reason why it is not mentioned is because it is in Greater London under control of the London Borough of Croydon, not Surrey County Council.

It is one of those many places in the UK, particularly in the London suburbs, that the Post Office says are in one county but since the sixties have actually been in another...

High Wing Drifter
11th Feb 2003, 17:05
OTOH if our knee-jerk reaction is to object to any plan a Council puts forward, however reasonable, then no-one will listen when it matters (eg Rochester.)
I am not saying an auto-jerk reaction is required, I was merely making an observation. However, due diligance suggests that anybody with a strong view should put it forward, lest the plan is flawed in someway. Some call it obstruction, some call it consultation.

IMHO, the best solution for all is usually somewhere between the initial proposal and the objection.

t'aint natural
11th Feb 2003, 20:08
The real danger is the precedent.
That's why the South Cambridgeshire campaign was so important.
This campaign affects you, whether you live in Woking or Wick.