NUTFIELD

PARISH COUNCIL Proof of Evidence Planning Appeal Redhill Aerodrome APP/M3645/A/2202134 My name is Peter Forbes. I am a member of Nutfield Parish Council and have also been Chairman of Nutfield Conservation Society since 2011. My wife Marian and I moved to South Nutfield in August 1984 and we have enjoyed the rural aspects of this green belt area during the time we have raised our family. Whilst working in London I enjoyed the peace and quiet of the village environment when returning home and at weekends and I hope that this pleasant rural setting continues for the benefit of others now residing in the parish and for those wishing to move to the area. I have been asked to collate the evidence on behalf of Nutfield Parish Council to represent the overwhelming community opposition to the Redhill Aerodrome plans referred to in this appeal.

Contact: Roger Brown – Parish Clerk 1 Morris Road, South Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 5SB 01737 823191

1

NUTFIELD

PARISH COUNCIL Proof of Evidence Planning Appeal Redhill Aerodrome APP/M3645/A/2202134

CONTENTS 1.

INTRODUCTION

2.

COMMUNITY OPINION / LOCALISM

3.

OUR GREEN BELT

4.

LIGHTING POLLUTION

5.

CONCLUSION

Contact: Roger Brown – Parish Clerk 1 Morris Road, South Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 5SB 01737 823191

2

NUTFIELD

PARISH COUNCIL Proof of Evidence Planning Appeal Redhill Aerodrome APP/M3645/A/2202134

INTRODUCTION

Contact: Roger Brown – Parish Clerk 1 Morris Road, South Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 5SB 01737 823191

3

1

INTRODUCTION The Parish of Nutfield is a Green Belt Settlement and includes the villages of Nutfield and South Nutfield. Part of the Parish is designated as AGLV (Area of Greater Landscape Value) and borders the Surrey Hills AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) to the north which takes in the top of the North Downs. A series of Landscape Assessments (LCAs) have been carried out over the past few years as County and District Authorities have been building the case that Natural England should review the boundaries of the AONB. The conclusion is that this review would probably include some or most of the current AGLV areas. Tandridge Core Strategy (paras 17.3 and 17.4) says that AGLVs should be considered as AONBs for planning purposes until Natural England completes a review. The widely used ancient track along Nutfield Ridge between Mid Street and Bowerhill Wood provides excellent rural views to the South including a panoramic view of the Redhill Aerodrome site.

In 1933, The Minister of Health allowed the grounds of Hamme Farm to be used to accommodate private flying by the Redhill Flying Club.The residents of Nutfield Parish have been happy for this Green Belt area to continue being used as a rural aerodrome but have strongly resisted attempts to change the character of the site. The entire estate is currently described on the Redhill Aerodrome website as being ‘set in picturesque countryside’. The Parishioners of Nutfield highly value their rural community setting. The appellant has made numerous and broadly similar applications over the past 21 years which have all been comprehensively rejected. The local community strongly believe that the repeated applications to develop this site place an unreasonable and constant strain upon them. NPC have a long established history of opposing intensification of use at Redhill Aerodrome.

4

NUTFIELD

PARISH COUNCIL Proof of Evidence Planning Appeal Redhill Aerodrome APP/M3645/A/2202134

COMMUNITY OPINION AND LOCALISM

Contact: Roger Brown – Parish Clerk 1 Morris Road, South Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 5SB 01737 823191

5

2

COMMUNITY OPINION/LOCALISM

2.1 Localism: The government have passed significant new rights direct to communities and individuals under the Localism Act, which received Royal Assent on 15 November 2011. This makes it easier for people to get things done and achieve ambitions in their local community. The Localism legislation aims are clear. The Bill devolves greater powers to councils and neighbourhoods giving local communities more control over housing and planning decisions. The sections of the Act we believe have relevance in this appeal case are: -

Giving residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue. Provide for neighbourhood plans (which would be approved if they received 50% of the votes cast in a referendum).

The survey conducted by us should be considered a form of referendum. It was carried out by a democratically elected body, involved a local issue and obtained a response level far in excess of the 50% specified. The Government’s position is that power should reside at the lowest appropriate level and this Act is the process for achieving this. This Government recognises the importance of giving communities a stronger voice in planning decisions and a real choice about future development of their area. They believe that communities should have greater freedom to manage their own affairs in their own way and be empowered by Government to achieve this.

2.2 Community Opinion For over 25 years the Local Plans of both LPA’s have consistently resisted intensification of use at the Aerodrome. NPC have a long established mandate of representing local opinion which is firmly against the building of a hard runway at Redhill Aerodrome. This is primarily because it would intensify use. This mandate has become a consistent and continuous thread in line with long established Local Authority plans. Redhill Aerodrome announced details of their plan for a hard runway at the end of July 2012. During the 6 week consultation period Nutfield Parish Council conducted a survey of each residence in the parish of Nutfield to ascertain opinions regarding this latest plan. Despite this being in the middle of the main holiday period, a total of 1100 responses were received. The result of the survey included 1073 residents expressing an objection against the plans per the attached petition wording (see appendix 1.2). This showed only 2% being in favour of the application and an overwhelming majority (98%) of the responses being against the application. The mandate produced by the above survey requires NPC to represent the strongly held views of their electorate in resisting this planning application and subsequent appeal.

6

The current appeal has yet again galvanised community opinion in opposition to the proposal. Democratically elected officials at all levels, parish, district, county, MP and even MEP have been unanimous in their opposition to this development. There is no doubt that our local community demand that this plan should be refused permission as they believe it will result in a totally unacceptable impact on their residential amenity. Although no Neighbourhood Plan exists in this case, it is our understanding that the local community remains protected by the existing and long established local policies of Tandridge, (Policy CSP 16) and Reigate & Banstead, (Policy Em12) which both preclude intensification at Redhill Aerodrome. These have provided the protection the local community required against development of the type proposed. Nutfield Parish Council, along with other neighbouring Parish Councils, has maintained a long established and perfectly reasonable expectation that this protection continues. There is no doubt concerning the mandate given by the parishioners of the Parish of Nutfield for NPC to make representations on their behalf. A clear mandate has been given by all of the democratically elected representatives of the area, from Parish to European level that the community require this appeal to be refused.

2.3 Elected Representative Views In support of the case made by NPC the list of democratically elected representatives below have all voiced their support that the views of the local people should be given precedence in this matter. We continue to oppose the building of a hard runway on the green belt site at Redhill Aerodrome. This statement represents the views of our local parishioners and/or constituents who are overwhelmingly opposed to any change in the rural nature of this site which provides important green belt separation between Redhill and Horley. It is agreed by all of the parties listed that this appeal should be refused.

MEP- Keith Taylor – South East Region MP’s - Sam Gyimah - East Surrey - Crispin Blunt - Reigate

SURREY COUNTY COUNCILLORS Helena Windsor – Godstone Jonathan Essex - Redhill East Dorothy Ross-Tomlyn – Horley East Barbara Thomson – Earlswood and Reigate South Kay Hammond – Horley West, Salfords & Sidlow

7

REIGATE & BANSTEAD BOROUGH COUNCILLORS Sarah Finch – Redhill East Ward James Durrant - Earlswood & Whitebushes Ward Jonathan Essex – Redhill East Ward Dorothy Ross-Tomlyn – Salfords & Sidlow Ward Barbara Thomson – Earlswood & Whitebushes Ward TANDRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCILLORS Tony Elias - Bletchingley & Nutfield Ward Debbie Vickers - Bletchingley & Nutfield Ward Gill Black - Bletchingley & Nutfield Ward MOLE VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL Paul Potter – Brockham, Betchworth and Buckland PARISH COUNCILS Nutfield Parish Council (NPC) Salfords & Sidlow Parish Council (SSPC) Bletchingley Parish Council (BPC) Buckland Parish Council LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES Tandridge District Council (TDC) The Planning Committee met on the 30th May 2013 and upheld their Officers recommendation by voting 8-0 in favour of refusal. Two Councillors abstained. Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (RBBC) The Planning Committee met on 5th June 2013 and upheld the Officers recommendation by voting 18-0 in favour of refusal. One Councillor abstained.

8

NUTFIELD

PARISH COUNCIL Proof of Evidence Planning Appeal Redhill Aerodrome APP/M3645/A/2202134

OUR GREEN BELT

Contact: Roger Brown – Parish Clerk 1 Morris Road, South Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 5SB 01737 823191 9

3

EFFECT ON OUR GREEN BELT

3.1 Proposed Runway and Associated Infrastructure The proposed runway of 1,349 metres x 25 metres would require at least 33,725 m² of concrete. This does not include the associated taxiways, turn pads and other hard paving which will also be required, the sizes of which has not been provided. NPC do not accept the appellants claim that this will have a: “minimal impact on the existing rural landscape.”

According to the appellant, the area of the aerodrome currently containing buildings and hard surfaces is approximately 10.5 hectares. Using this figure the proposed development will add an additional hard surfaced area exceeding 32%. We believe that the scale of the proposed engineering works would result in a landscape far more visually intrusive than currently exists. The introduction of any new screening elements would reduce the existing open aspect. The current pleasant rural area would be degraded by a loss of “openness” during daylight hours and by a significant increase in light pollution at night. Hence the Aerodrome would be visually more intrusive during both day and night thus diminishing residential amenity and harming the area which has long been enjoyed by the community.

3.2 Existing Landscape

The existing landscape is extensively described within the 1993 Redhill Aerodrome Outline Planning Application Volume 1: Report. The site has not changed to any degree since this was written in 1993 and so we think this description is still relevant. Within the Environmental Assessment for this application the appellant states that: “the proposed modifications to the proposal minimise any harm to the openness of the green belt and result in negligible harm to landscape character.” Extract from: Planning supporting statement – July 2012 – 1.15 – page 6

This statement, by its very nature, accepts that harm will be caused to the openness of our green belt.

3.3 Potential Local Impact Over 400 objections were received by Tandridge District Council which included a substantial number from Nutfield parishioners – samples of which are shown below: Nigel and Lorraine Homewood 14 Jan 2013: Our listed farmhouse lies directly under the ‘helicopter circuit’ apparently and we suffer constant noise from low flying helicopters. I have already complained to Philip Wright about the noise and I now hear they want to double the number of flights and introduce large (50 seat) executive jets flying between 7am and 10pm. This will severely impact our lifestyle, lower property values, and increase pollution and traffic levels on local roads. Nothing of significance has changed since their last application. It is time to dismiss this once and for all and stop wasting everyone’s time. 10

Mr S Fey (Suchfun Kennels) 21 Jan 2013: I run a boarding kennels for cats and dogs which is under the flightpath for Redhill Aerodrome. The relatively small amount of air traffic we already get disturbs the dogs. The proposed increased volume and much greater noise of air traffic would greatly increase the disturbance to the dogs making them bark more, which will disturb surrounding households. Whilst there are many reasons why this application should be refused (green belt, noise, pollution, etc) I personally am very concerned for the effect it will have on the welfare of animals entrusted to us by their owners. Mr F Knight 25 Jan 2013: As a resident of South Nutfield for 50 years with a house and garden which is contigious with the airfield I and my family certainly will suffer from any increased air traffic activity. The village has already seen an increase in motor traffic as more drivers seek to find ways around the town of Redhill – the term ‘Rat Run’ comes to mind. With a proposed doubling of air traffic movements and increase in operations to 15 hours a day there would be an unacceptable increase in road traffic. The presence of a hard runway would be inappropriate in this rural area. Thomas Gage 28 Jan 2013: I have lived happily in this village for over 20 years. The current level of activity is fine but any more would spoil what is a beautiful rural environment. I think the current level of noise we get from the airfield is acceptable but it makes me very anxious thinking that there is a possibility of an increase in local air traffic/jet engine noise etc. Being a very keen cyclist (recovering from a serious accident caused by a careless driver) I get a great amount of pleasure out of riding in the local lanes. I have spent countless hours using the calm, quiet countryside to try and rehabilitate. The beautiful countryside is the reason I have lived here for so long and it would be a great shame to allow this application to proceed. Mr Ross Bateman 6 Sept 2013: Anyone who has attended local discussion meetings will be completely aware of the unfavourable views and fears of local residents………… I would contend that granting this permission would very much destroy the openness of the area and that the reasons given by TDC are very appropriate. D.G.A. Mitchell 18 Sept 2013: Local concerns about traffic and noise interruptions and green belt infringements have been consistently voiced for 22 years. These continue to be valid ………Please let your decisions fully reflect local anxieties and reject this application. Martin Graham 21 September 2013: I wish to register my continued strong and complete objection to the umpteenth application to build a concrete runway at Redhill Aerodrome. The increase in noise will affect hundreds of households and will make, for instance, our listed medieval house unliveable. The aerodrome traffic control officers admit that they are unable to control visiting pilots straying over houses and other sensitive areas. Richard Guise 27 Sept 2013: The proposed development would cause unacceptable damage to the rural green belt environment. In addition to the visual intrusion of the runway and the associated building s and infrastructure, the change and increase in aircraft noise would be vastly greater than the applicant has suggested………….and the noise nuisance would be very much more troublesome than has been implied. Mrs Jan Smewing 30 Sept 2013: I have lived in South Nutfield for over 30 years and can assure you that the residents are tired of this constant battle. The local councils have rejected the application for a hard runway as they have on every previous occasion. The reasons remain the same……

These quotations reflect the views of most parish residents. 11

Continuing protection of our Green Belt is an overriding consideration to NPC. Green belt is about permanence of open green spaces. Spaces to enjoy, spaces to view from footpaths and bridleways, spaces that we can be confident will be available to future generations to relish in a similar manner. 3.4 The Harm Proposed excavation upon the existing open grassland is extensive and the regrading of land would have a significant and harmful impact upon the openness of the Green Belt and hence represents inappropriate development. The proposed runway would result in the introduction of substantially urbanising elements to the airfield which will have a major detrimental impact on the existing open nature of the rural landscape. The built form of the concrete runway and associated infrastructure in contrast to the existing open land would be obvious from many viewpoints. This would result in the openness of the Green Belt, an essential characteristic, being substantially diminished. The extent of the proposed hard surfacing and related infrastructure would substantially detract from the undeveloped character of the rural airfield.

The onus remains on the appellant to demonstrate that other considerations, in aggregate, are so advantageous in planning terms that they clearly outweigh the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness. NPC contend that the appellant has failed in this regard. The local community resent the fact that this is at least the 4 th time the appellant has sought planning permission for a hard runway at what is universally acknowledged as a Green Belt site. Through a planning war of attrition the appellant continues to seek to force through a development for their own shortterm financial advantage. Residents of Nutfield will face substantial disadvantages if an unsustainable development like this is allowed to proceed. 12

3.5 Surrounding Area The Green Belt area surrounding Redhill Aerodrome is coming under increasing pressure for housing development. Over the last 20 years this pressure has been growing, giving local people concerns that their long established communities will begin to merge following new development. The following statement is extracted from the 1994 Redhill Aerodrome Public Inquiry. As well as containing a useful description of the site it also highlights the fragility of the Green Belt within this area. The fact it was written nearly 20 years ago disguises the fact that subsequent developments in this area have served to exacerbate the situation regarding the continuation of separation between the towns of Redhill and Horley. “The existing airfield has minimal impact on the openness of the locality and is in a particularly sensitive part of the Green Belt given that it is no more than 8 miles deep. Moreover the pressures for development beyond its boundaries to the north and south and its fragmented nature in this area adds to its sensitivity and vulnerability. I therefore share the view of the Councils that the application site is an important component in ensuring that the separation of Redhill and Horley is maintained”. Extract from the Inspectors report into the 1994 Redhill Aerodrome Public Inquiry: Section 11 – Inspectors Conclusions: Page 180, paragraph 11.6.2.

The Metropolitan Green Belt performs a vital role in separating the open countryside and London, preventing settlements from merging. The essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence. It is of increasing concern that if this development is allowed to proceed, the potential exists for a large tear to be created right through the heart of the most southerly section of the London Metropolitan Green Belt where it is at its narrowest point. Along this section of the A23 the villages and towns already form a rapidly expanding urbanised strip. The future development of Sustainable Urban Extensions may well result in the towns sited along the A23 becoming linked into a solid urban sprawl. The additional pressure created by any Sustainable Urban Extension development to the southern boundary of Redhill will place this area of the Green Belt under serious threat of being breached. The potential urbanisation of the Redhill Aerodrome site would compound this issue.

3.6 Additional Housing Pressure Gatwick Airport remains and will increasingly be a major influence for jobs and growth in the area. The airport’s influence in attracting new industries and the prospect of additional employment opportunities is likely to grow as the airport increases capacity and possibly develops a second runway. The interim report by the Airports Commission, due in December 2013, is likely to clarify the situation regarding the potential expansion of Gatwick Airport. Should development at Gatwick be recommended, substantial additional pressure will be introduced on housing supply in this area. 13

NUTFIELD

PARISH COUNCIL Proof of Evidence Planning Appeal Redhill Aerodrome APP/M3645/A/2202134

LIGHTING POLLUTION

Contact: Roger Brown – Parish Clerk 1 Morris Road, South Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 5SB 01737 823191

14

4

LIGHTING POLLUTION

4.1 Introduction Our observations regarding the lighting proposal are based on the information provided within the appellant’s Environmental Assessment. It is important to note that the Environmental Assessment only covers Aeronautical Ground Lighting (AGL). 4.2 Licensing Requirements The granting of a license to operate an Aerodrome is the responsibility of The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The existing runway lighting is inadequate for the new category of runway proposed and requires replacement. 4.3 Current Lighting It is the view of NPC that there are virtually no current fixed wing ATM’s during the hours of darkness and therefore the existing AGL has minimal or no impact on the surrounding area. A major aspect of the proposed development is the increase in the night time operation of the runway. To establish the potential impact of the proposed AGL system we have attempted to identify the present arrangements for runway lighting. The Environmental Assessment does not provide details of the existing AGL. It also fails to provide details of how the runway is currently, or will be operated, during the hours of darkness. In order to assist our understanding of the present lighting arrangements we wrote to The Chief Executive (CEO) of RAL for clarification. The following questions were asked concerning the existing lighting system. -

Is the available lighting a permanent or mobile arrangement?

-

What are the locations at which lighting is currently deployed?

-

How many lights are involved with the current system?

-

The specification detail and the purpose is markng the runway, taxiways etc?

-

How often have these lights been deployed in the period since October 2012 to date?

-

What is the usual configuration and location of the approach lights?

Ms Bartaby (CEO) responded promptly but unfortunately the information supplied did not help us establish what impact the current system has on the surrounding area. No information was provided concerning the present night use of the existing runways (see appendix 1.2) The major concentration of existing light sources other than AGL is the illumination of the office buildings, hangers and parking areas. They are mostly situated in the vicinity of the main entrance in Kings Mill Lane and in the north west of the aerodrome.

15

The control tower/terminal building is located to the east of the main entrance. This building is distinctly separate from the other urbanised areas which are in the open field area, nearer to the existing runways. The proposed runway will be south of The Terminal Building completely within the open field area as shown below. The existing runways are currently very rarely used during the hours of darkness and it is reasonable to conclude that the existing AGL has minimal or no impact on the surrounding rural area.

4.4 Proposed Aeronautical Ground Lighting (AGL) Details of the (new) Approach Ground Lighting system are provided by the appellant in their Environmental Assessment. The necessity for high intensity lighting is not mentioned. Over 180 new AGL lights will be placed and the vast majority will be high intensity. 4.5 Periods of AGL operation Within their Environmental Assessment the appellant states:

“The lighting system will be controlled by ATC and will only be operational at times when aircraft are approaching/departing.” ES Chapter 3 para.3.14

The Environmental Assessment does not reflect the minimum times specified by The CAA when the AGL must be deployed. The impression that the periods of operation will be brief is conveyed in their statement shown above. Further details of the appropriate CAA guidance are provided in CAA document CAP168.

4.6 Effects of Proposed AGL Arrangements Within the Environmental Assessment the appellant states: “Over time the number of aircraft movements could grow up to 85,000, comprising 65,000 general aviation (fixed wing and helicopters), and 20,000 business aviation movements”

16

The Environmental Assessment specifies that the proposed facility will operate between 0700 and 2200 throughout the year. NPC believe that the proposed volume of aircraft movements and the increased hours of operation will result in the AGL being in operation for extended periods during the hours of darkness. This situation is effectively non-existent with the current operation. The provision of a hard runway will result in a substantial increase in the time periods that the AGL will be deployed which will inevitably cause an increase in light pollution.

4.7 Luminance

The CAA direct that “high intensity lighting is strongly recommended for non-precision instrument approaches………….. “

CAP 168 Chapter 6 para 1.1.2

The appellant accepts that the proposed AGL will direct light upwards resulting in light pollution. “The lights are directed upwards towards approaching aircraft so are only partially visible from the ground even when a person at ground level has a view of them the lights do not cause significant pollution.” (Chapter 3 para. 3.15)

Any light generated upwards will be into an otherwise dark night sky and be visible to people at ground level. The overall result will be an increase in lighting causing disturbance and nuisance to the surrounding area within an existing Green Belt landscape.

4.8 Lighting Conclusion The Environmental Assessment contains an implicit acknowledgement that light pollution will be caused. However, the appellant has not addressed this issue accurately. The opinion reached in the Environmental Assessment, that light pollution will not be significant, is flawed and is based solely on AGL. The requirement for high intensity lighting is omitted and no account of other light sources has been made. The evidence indicates the high intensity AGL will generate an additional amount of light, much of which will be projected upwards. The new high intensity lighting will be a significant presence within what is a predominantly unlit rural area. At present there are virtually no fixed wing ATM’s operating at night. The grass runways are currently very rarely used during the hours of darkness and the existing AGL has minimal or no impact on the surrounding rural area. The Environmental Assessment attempts to indicate that the AGL may only be in operation for short periods. This is not the case and also ignores the impact that the introduction of fixed wing ATM’s operating during the hours of darkness will have. The extended hours of operation, and the provision of the concrete runway will result in an unacceptable increase in light pollution at both ground level and in the sky. This will have a substantial adverse impact on local amenities. The effects of light pollution should be considered in conjunction with other sources of noise and disturbance, the intensification of air traffic movements and the proposed extended hours of operation.

17

The result will be an increase in disturbance and nuisance within an existing Green Belt landscape. If this proposal was to proceed the result would change the surrounding area forever.

5

NUTFIELD PARISH COUNCIL CONCLUSION NPC do not accept the appellants claim that the proposed development will have a: “minimal impact on the existing rural landscape.” The developed Aerodrome site will be visually more intrusive in both built form and from light pollution than is currently the case, thus diminishing residential amenity in this important green belt area. Placing over 33000m2 of concrete and tarmac in this green belt area is in stark contrast to the existing open grass land and would be obvious from many viewpoints. This would result in the open aspect of the area being substantially diminished. The extent of the proposed hard surfacing and related infrastructure would detract considerably from the undeveloped character of the rural airfield. Our pleasant rural area would be degraded by a loss of “openness” during daylight hours and at night by a significant increase in light pollution. The introduction of fixed wing ATMs during the hours of darkness will require a substantial increased level of lighting to be in operation in a predominately unlit rural area. This intensification in ATMs, especially at such a sensitive time, will increase noise disturbance for local residents. The proposed development will lead to an unacceptable increase in disturbance and nuisance within an existing Green Belt landscape. The new high intensity lighting will be a significant presence causing annoyance to residents in this rural community. The introduction of heavier aircraft, including some jets, operating during extended hours will completely change the nature of the aerodrome which is against the wishes of the local community. If this proposal was to proceed, the result would change the surrounding area forever. Therefore Nutfield Parish Council request that the views of the local community are implemented and the Appeal refused.

18

NUTFIELD

PARISH COUNCIL Proof of Evidence Planning Appeal Redhill Aerodrome APP/M3645/A/2202134

APPENDICES CONTENTS 1.1

NUTFIELD PARISH COUNCIL PETITION WORDING

1.2

RAL RESPONSE 13 NOV 2013 – REGARDING AERODROME LIGHTING

Contact: Roger Brown – Parish Clerk 1 Morris Road, South Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 5SB 01737 823191

19

Appendix 1.1 NUTFIELD PARISH COUNCIL PETITION WORDING

PETITION Redhill Aerodrome Limited (RAL) has submitted a further application to Tandridge District Council (TDC) Planning Department for permission to build a hard runway across the existing grass airfield.   

New concrete runway 1349m long x 25m wide (plus a new taxiway) 100% increase in aircraft movements to 85,000 per annum New approach lighting to allow operating hours 7am to 10pm all-year-round.

Nutfield Parish Council and other local groups will be making a formal OBJECTION to the proposed plans. A summary of the key reasons is listed below:The proposed development is within Greenbelt and there are no special reasons why this should be permitted. - The plan is not sustainable as there is no evidence that a further hard runway is needed in the South East. - An increase in air traffic movements to 85,000 per year is unacceptable. - The increase in standard operating hours to 15 hours a day starting at 7am is unacceptable. - The noise disturbance caused would be improper in a rural setting. - There would be an intolerable impact of additional traffic on our minor roads.

WE THE UNDERSIGNED OBJECT TO THE FURTHER APPLICATION TO BUILD A HARD RUNWAY AT REDHILL AIRFIELD FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE:

20

Appendix 1.2 RAL RESPONSE 13 NOV 2013 – REGARDING AERODROME LIGHTING

21