Concrete runway for Redhill Aerodrome turned down

Redhill Aerodrome under water The airfield was under water after heavy rain during storms earlier this year

Related Stories

Plans to build a hard runway in place of grass at a Surrey airfield have been turned down by a planning inspector.

The owners of Redhill Aerodrome had wanted to replace its three grass strips and increase the number of flights from 60,000 to 85,000 a year.

They said the move would have protected 140 jobs and created 120 more.

Following last month's public inquiry, the planning inspectorate ruled the development was "inappropriate" and could "harm the green belt".

The aerodrome is home to more than 20 companies and has been in operation for about 80 years.

'Weak argument'

Reigate and Banstead Council and Tandridge Council rejected the scheme last year.

Start Quote

It would have had a major detrimental impact on the surrounding area”

End Quote Sam Gyimah East Surrey MP

Residents groups and Surrey Campaign for the Protection of Rural England were among objectors who gave evidence to the inquiry.

Local Conservative MPs Crispin Blunt and Sam Gyimah lodged formal objections to the development and have welcomed the inspectorate's decision to refuse the aerodrome's appeal.

Mr Blunt, who represents Reigate, said the aerodrome's argument that the development would bring economic and employment benefits to the area had been "weak".

"It was my riposte that our borough's economy and employment situation are comparatively strong, certainly when put against the picture nationally: unemployment is at 1.7% in Reigate, whilst is it 3.8% across the UK as a whole," he said.

Mr Gyimah, the MP for East Surrey, said the proposal represented "a completely inappropriate use of green belt land, and would have had a major detrimental impact on the surrounding area".

Redhill Aerodrome said a hard runway would have helped prevent flooding as the current grass runways could get waterlogged very easily.

The airfield flooded as a result of heavy storms last month.

In a statement, it said it was "extremely disappointed" by the inspector's decision.

"It is a great pity that the livelihoods of so many people and the opportunities for additional jobs, training and apprenticeships have been given so little weight," it added.

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

BBC Surrey



Min. Night 2 °C


  • Mukesh SinghNo remorse

    Delhi bus rapist says victim shouldn't have fought back

  • Aimen DeanI spied

    The founder member of al-Qaeda who worked for MI6

  • Before and after shotsPerfect body

    Just how reliable are 'before and after' photos?

  • Woman with closed eyeStrange light show

    What do you see when you close your eyes?

  • Sony WalkmanLost ideas

    What has happened to Japan's inventors?

Try our new site and tell us what you think. Learn more
Take me there

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.