Redhill Aerodrome Ltd at it again
Thread Starter
Redhill Aerodrome Ltd at it again
http://e-access.tandridge.gov.uk/pla...FC8C0DEC8C6CBC
Application Proposal Change of use of land and buildings to be used as an Equestrian Centre.
Application Proposal Change of use of land and buildings to be used as an Equestrian Centre.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redhill Planning Permissions
Come on all you GA pilots out there, help save yet another light aviation field by visiting
http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/P...07/02300/CU&WA
Voice your objections now before its too late! All objections must be submitted before 25th January. The airfield has existed for over 70 years, its employment and a leisure facility for the local area. Its where many of us took our first flights on the way to careers in aviation.
http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/P...07/02300/CU&WA
Voice your objections now before its too late! All objections must be submitted before 25th January. The airfield has existed for over 70 years, its employment and a leisure facility for the local area. Its where many of us took our first flights on the way to careers in aviation.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither of the links makes any mention of Redhill closing, runways being closed or existing aviation activities being affected by any proposed development.
For the sake of accuracy, clarity and fairness, would someone who has possession of the facts care to share them with us all.
For the sake of accuracy, clarity and fairness, would someone who has possession of the facts care to share them with us all.
For the sake of accuracy, clarity and fairness, would someone who has possession of the facts care to share them with us all.
Today 13:16
Today 13:16
You can state your objections here
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
given the existing proposal to turn the site into 2000 houses
and the parent company being obsessed with turning the site into anything other than an airfield its just another planning tactic to shut it down and make houses.
Other fun from the RAVL Bunch
http://e-access.tandridge.gov.uk/pla...o=2007/974/EIA
http://e-access.tandridge.gov.uk/pla...o=2007/965/EIA
and one for 2008 all though not much content yet
http://e-access.tandridge.gov.uk/pla...ppNo=2008/12/C
Objections added
Interesting how the horses are to be located in the south side buildings.
Which buildings ?
I can just picture lassie and black beauty in the cafe.
and the parent company being obsessed with turning the site into anything other than an airfield its just another planning tactic to shut it down and make houses.
Other fun from the RAVL Bunch
http://e-access.tandridge.gov.uk/pla...o=2007/974/EIA
http://e-access.tandridge.gov.uk/pla...o=2007/965/EIA
and one for 2008 all though not much content yet
http://e-access.tandridge.gov.uk/pla...ppNo=2008/12/C
Objections added
Interesting how the horses are to be located in the south side buildings.
Which buildings ?
I can just picture lassie and black beauty in the cafe.
Last edited by davidd; 6th Jan 2008 at 22:44.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Redhill
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just back from Reigate and Banstead town hall in Reigate and was shown the planning application. I urge anyone that wants to keep EGKR to use the online comment and appeal facility asap. (App. 07/02300/3CU)
The airfield will be subject "to a change of use", all flying will cease. It will be a major equestrian centre and modify the central buildings but retain the tower, "to oversee activities" !! I imagine it will be on the scale of Hickstead or the centre next to Le Touquet.
This is a major loss to GA and of course to helicopter traffic. Surrey already has many equestrian facilities, Surrey cc even have part of their website dedicated to horses, which brings me to the possible appeal points.
1) Loss of jobs related to aviation
2) Loss of important GA facility, to what is another leisure activity.
3) Disposal of waste. This is an interesting point and subject to EU and DEFRA laws. A site this big will have riding school and livery horses, generating tons of waste. There is very little in the plan dealing with this, and it is considered a harmful waste, particularly given that the southern edge of the plan is subject to flooding into local water courses.
The airfield will be subject "to a change of use", all flying will cease. It will be a major equestrian centre and modify the central buildings but retain the tower, "to oversee activities" !! I imagine it will be on the scale of Hickstead or the centre next to Le Touquet.
This is a major loss to GA and of course to helicopter traffic. Surrey already has many equestrian facilities, Surrey cc even have part of their website dedicated to horses, which brings me to the possible appeal points.
1) Loss of jobs related to aviation
2) Loss of important GA facility, to what is another leisure activity.
3) Disposal of waste. This is an interesting point and subject to EU and DEFRA laws. A site this big will have riding school and livery horses, generating tons of waste. There is very little in the plan dealing with this, and it is considered a harmful waste, particularly given that the southern edge of the plan is subject to flooding into local water courses.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, pay for it or lose it.
As they say, the landing fees don't pay the costs of running the airfield and the buildings are subsidising the rest. Know the problem, I own a small grass airfield without buildings to subsidise it!
If you have never whinged about landing fees, then by all means object.
A very good line to take is to find someone else who would want to use/run the airfield. This was the position with school playing fields near our house - as long as someone wanted to use them as playing fields, they couldn't give planning for houses.
Now, there is planning for an airfield here, and the applicants have said that they are a) dealing with two councils, and b) that their plans for improving the airfield OR developing with houses, have been turned down.
So now they have a bit of ground that is losing money and they are fed up with subsidising our sport. But the councils won't let them do anything with the land! And if they can't improve the airfield, they want to know what they can do! (as it is said, there are three ways of doing things: the right way, the wrong way and the council's way - same as the wrong way but longer and more expensive)
We don't need all these local hassles, we need a national framework to make airfields viable for the owners, the operators and the users.
A good deal is one in which everyone is a winner.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. So if airfields are healthy, viable, sustainable businesses - then they'll stay in business, as airfields.
Very best to all,
XA
As they say, the landing fees don't pay the costs of running the airfield and the buildings are subsidising the rest. Know the problem, I own a small grass airfield without buildings to subsidise it!
If you have never whinged about landing fees, then by all means object.
A very good line to take is to find someone else who would want to use/run the airfield. This was the position with school playing fields near our house - as long as someone wanted to use them as playing fields, they couldn't give planning for houses.
Now, there is planning for an airfield here, and the applicants have said that they are a) dealing with two councils, and b) that their plans for improving the airfield OR developing with houses, have been turned down.
So now they have a bit of ground that is losing money and they are fed up with subsidising our sport. But the councils won't let them do anything with the land! And if they can't improve the airfield, they want to know what they can do! (as it is said, there are three ways of doing things: the right way, the wrong way and the council's way - same as the wrong way but longer and more expensive)
We don't need all these local hassles, we need a national framework to make airfields viable for the owners, the operators and the users.
A good deal is one in which everyone is a winner.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. So if airfields are healthy, viable, sustainable businesses - then they'll stay in business, as airfields.
Very best to all,
XA
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pembroke.
I've no wish to see Redhill close or anyone out of work, but your arguments don't stack up and won't hold much water with the planning inspectors.
1) Loss of jobs related to aviation - very few I would think as most businesses will relocate as opposed to close.
A local industrial manufacturer in my vicinity closed today giving no notice to the 400 people who have now lost their jobs and that is happening all over the UK ~ The few jobs which may go at Redhill are equally as valuable but the numbers wo't be considered as part of the planning process/appeal.
2) Loss of this important G.A. facility - it may be important [I]to[I] G.A. but if it doesn't pay it's way the owners are perfectly entitled to change their business interests as they see fit. I'd be interested to see what contribution to the local economy the airfield makes - comparatively miniscule I would wager. It's a sad fact that a bigger and more profitable business (I don't include equestrianism in that category) such as an industrial estate or, housing brings in millions in rates, small airfields don't.
3) Disposal of waste - taken care of by environmetal controls within the planning process and very carefully monitered thereafter.
XrayAlpha has hit the nail on the head - any business that isn't making enough money for the owners is at risk and sentiment counts for little in the real world.
I've no wish to see Redhill close or anyone out of work, but your arguments don't stack up and won't hold much water with the planning inspectors.
1) Loss of jobs related to aviation - very few I would think as most businesses will relocate as opposed to close.
A local industrial manufacturer in my vicinity closed today giving no notice to the 400 people who have now lost their jobs and that is happening all over the UK ~ The few jobs which may go at Redhill are equally as valuable but the numbers wo't be considered as part of the planning process/appeal.
2) Loss of this important G.A. facility - it may be important [I]to[I] G.A. but if it doesn't pay it's way the owners are perfectly entitled to change their business interests as they see fit. I'd be interested to see what contribution to the local economy the airfield makes - comparatively miniscule I would wager. It's a sad fact that a bigger and more profitable business (I don't include equestrianism in that category) such as an industrial estate or, housing brings in millions in rates, small airfields don't.
3) Disposal of waste - taken care of by environmetal controls within the planning process and very carefully monitered thereafter.
XrayAlpha has hit the nail on the head - any business that isn't making enough money for the owners is at risk and sentiment counts for little in the real world.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Surrey
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
Redhill Aerodrome can make money so long as the owners were to offer long term leases to potential customers. There are a couple of businesses that want to relocate to Redhill but need long term leases to make it viable.
As for the planning for either houses OR development of the airfield, neither have been turned down as no actual applications have been submitted yet.
The Aerodrome can continue as is as long as the owners wanted it to - they don't necessarily want to.
If they don't want to invest in it then they should either sell to someone who does or invite investors in to take over and run the place.
Aviation companies can't necessarily just up and relocate, not as easily as office based companies anyway.
Here's hoping it stays and becomes the Aerodrome it could be.
Please voice your concerns here for Tandridge council:
http://e-access.tandridge.gov.uk/pla...FC7C0DECDC0DCB
And here for Reigate & Bansted council:
http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/P...AST=&MAPNORTH=
Thanks.
Redhill Aerodrome can make money so long as the owners were to offer long term leases to potential customers. There are a couple of businesses that want to relocate to Redhill but need long term leases to make it viable.
As for the planning for either houses OR development of the airfield, neither have been turned down as no actual applications have been submitted yet.
The Aerodrome can continue as is as long as the owners wanted it to - they don't necessarily want to.
If they don't want to invest in it then they should either sell to someone who does or invite investors in to take over and run the place.
Aviation companies can't necessarily just up and relocate, not as easily as office based companies anyway.
Here's hoping it stays and becomes the Aerodrome it could be.
Please voice your concerns here for Tandridge council:
http://e-access.tandridge.gov.uk/pla...FC7C0DECDC0DCB
And here for Reigate & Bansted council:
http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/P...AST=&MAPNORTH=
Thanks.
Last edited by F-Nick ATCO; 8th Jan 2008 at 18:37.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Aerodrome does make money, however in common with many similar airfields RAL splits the operational income from the property income. Unfortunately the income from landing fees and fuel does not cover the costs of providing ATC/AFS and general upkeep of runways/taxiways.
RAL/RAVL/RAPL have stated that the equestrian centre is their fall back position. They are still proposing to submit two other applications; upgrade of aviation facilities and 2000 houses. It would seem that the application for change of use was completed first, the other two requiring more work before submission.
However, given that RAL/RAVL/RAPL do not want to run an aerodrome I can see that if they get a change of use they will close the Aerodrome, build the equestrian centre and continue to battle away to get their housing development.
RAL/RAVL/RAPL have stated that the equestrian centre is their fall back position. They are still proposing to submit two other applications; upgrade of aviation facilities and 2000 houses. It would seem that the application for change of use was completed first, the other two requiring more work before submission.
However, given that RAL/RAVL/RAPL do not want to run an aerodrome I can see that if they get a change of use they will close the Aerodrome, build the equestrian centre and continue to battle away to get their housing development.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all comes down to houses at the end of the day. A site like that will make the Directors VERY VERY VERY rich and they know it. It's the way of the world.
It's funny how everyone screams about losing an airfield but are not prepared to pay a fair landing fee that keeps the operators in the aviation business...........
It's funny how everyone screams about losing an airfield but are not prepared to pay a fair landing fee that keeps the operators in the aviation business...........
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Unfortunately the income from landing fees and fuel does not cover the costs of providing ATC/AFS and general upkeep of runways/taxiways.
TheOddOne
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you believe horse riding activities would exist in harmony with aviation at Redhill if the proposed equestrian centre were built? Of course not. They would be moaning right from the start about noisy aeroplanes frightening their precious horses.
I fear it's only a matter of time before Redhill succumbs to another use. I dearly hope not, as I've spent many happy hours there, but the landowners quite obviously want to make money rather than keep an airfield.
The average member of the public would rarely support a local airfield. It's all part of the British way of complaining about things that upset their lifestyle and visits to B&Q on a sunday afternoon. You only have to look at the numerous local 'Action Groups' that are set up every time anyone dares suggest any modernisation or expansion of GA aerodromes in the UK.
Support from the Government or local councils would only happen if it meant acquiring votes or a cash backhander.
I fear it's only a matter of time before Redhill succumbs to another use. I dearly hope not, as I've spent many happy hours there, but the landowners quite obviously want to make money rather than keep an airfield.
The average member of the public would rarely support a local airfield. It's all part of the British way of complaining about things that upset their lifestyle and visits to B&Q on a sunday afternoon. You only have to look at the numerous local 'Action Groups' that are set up every time anyone dares suggest any modernisation or expansion of GA aerodromes in the UK.
Support from the Government or local councils would only happen if it meant acquiring votes or a cash backhander.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how come a perfectly nice airfield survives in that location?
I landed at Kenley a few months ago for an ATC event (by invitation
), and was amazed that people were walking their dogs around the peri track and wandering quite freely among the visiting aircraft until i was told that it was common land.A bit odd on take off to realise there was absolutely nowhere to go if the engine stopped other than somebodys back garden
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts