The Council's response to plans to expand Redhill Aerodrome

This section describes the Council's response to a Government consultation on airport expansion in relation to Redhill Aerodrome.

Only after the end of the SERAS consultation period has the Borough Council become aware that in response to the second SERAS consultation, the owners of Redhill Aerodrome submitted on 30th July 2003, a proposal to yourselves for a new airport with a capacity of 20 million passengers per annum (mppa) at Redhill.

They had been promoting a different proposal for an airport with a capacity of 15 mppa concurrently with the February 2003 consultation.

In the light of this significantly different proposal the Borough Council and others consider it is imperative that it makes new comments on the latest approach.

Whilst the Borough Council has not had the opportunity to examine this latest proposal in the context of the SERAS consultation, it would wish to make the following comments in respect of Redhill Aerodrome Ltd and others, such as Medway Council's, submissions promoting Redhill as a new airport.

1. History / Environmental and Other Implications

The site is located between the M23 and the London and Brighton rail main railway line.

Therefore, physically, the site could only ever accomodate a small airport. The site is a Greenfield site with no existing hard surfaced runway.

It is within the Green Belt accessed only by country lanes. The surrounding area of East Surrey is one of full employment.

Therefore, not only would the proposal would be an environmental disaster for the area and lead to the urbanisation of the Green Belt, but could also incur more commuting by workers, loss of existing houses and the creation of unacceptable traffic and environmental conditions.

The Borough Council totally refutes the promoters suggestion that building a new airport in this sensitive location "will by far have the smallest impact on the environment of any proposals for increasing the South East's runway capacity".

The promoter's submission is misleading and lacks credible evidence to support their suggestion.

For example it is simply wrong to discount the airfield, which is grassland, from being part of the Green Belt when it patently is. Further the noise information is wholly inadequate exemplified by the need for your consultants to carry out further work which has yet to be published.

A planning application for a 2.5 mppa airport was refused by the then Secretary of State in 1995.

At the public inquiry, Redhill was shown to be not suitable for expansion because of its Green Belt location, hemmed-in by existing residential areas, a school, a major hospital complex and its proximity to Gatwick Airport.

Expansion at Redhill Aerodrome therefore remains unacceptable in policy and practicable terms.

The latest proposal also raises problems by involving the links to Gatwick, by a new spur off the M23 and a new transport link close to the London to Brighton main railway line. Both are, of course, already overstretched.

Redhill's sub region is recognised in the Regional Economic Strategy as being an Area of Economic Pressure. Our Borough has the lowest unemployment rate in the South East i.e. 0.8% (April 2003) with local firms already experiencing recruitment and retention problems.

The promoters' suggestion that the proposal will provide employment to the South Coast and Croydon is flawed. Gatwick airport has struggled to achieve this desired outcome and Redhill, which will be smaller and less accessible, will be less likely to achieve this.

Further, in terms of the jobs offered by the airport, the promoters have provided no evidence to support their contention that airport jobs are "generally at the better end of the job market".

2. Consultation

No suggestion for the development of Redhill Aerodrome has been included as part of the latest SERAS consultation.

In fact SERAS dismisses it. As such, it is our understanding from your letter of the 8th July 2003, for which we are grateful, that no options for new runways at Redhill could appear in the subsequent White Paper without further consultation. In our opinion, not to do so would be illogical, unreasonable and contrary to natural justice.

3. The Short Term Solution

The new Redhill airport is being promoted as a stopgap to meet a perceived short-term problem. If the promoters cannot cannot deliver the airport in the short-term, before 2010, then their case, if it has any merit at all, would appear to fail. Therefore of crucial importance are:-

(A) The Gatwick Legal Agreement

The proposal appears to be based on feeding Gatwick Airport. The latest proposal involves a new transport link to Gatwick airport.

This would involve the need to use BAA Gatwick's land for its construction.

Therefore contrary to the promoters' suggestions, the existing 1979 Gatwick legal agreement may have implications for the Redhill proposal.

As greater detail on the physical relationship between Gatwick and Redhill is not available, the proposal may be affected by the legal agreement. If it is then the proposal cannot, without Parliamentary consent, be brought forward by 2010.
(B) Practical Delivery

It is highly unlikely that the new airport with all the necessary supporting infrastructure, including a new access on to the M23 and transport link to Gatwick can be built within four years.

Experience suggests that even house builders take an average of two years to complete a relatively simple development once planning permission has been granted.

Further, as the inclusion in the White Paper would require a new round of public consultation delay and blight is bound to occur making the airport's development by 2010 unrealistic.

4. Function and Capacity of the Proposed Airport and Relationship with Gatwick

The promoters, in their summary, do not see the new airport as complimenting the current SERAS proposals for Gatwick.

Therefore, if additional capacity is provided at Gatwick then the Redhill proposal cannot proceed. Rather the proposed Redhill Airport would have a parasitic relationship with Gatwick, by vying for some of the same traffic whilst relying on the use of Gatwick's transport facilities.

This conclusion is based on the promoters running two contradictory supporting arguments, in their submission namely:

they are proposing a stand alone airport;
the proposal will facilitate at least an additional 15 mppa at Gatwick i.e. a feeder reliever.

The promoters state that the airport will only provide an additional capacity of 20 mppa.

The suggested additional capacity of 15 mppa at Gatwick is not based on any apparent discussion with BAA Gatwick. It is noticeable that this claim is not reflected in the submission's conclusions.

Rather, it is suggested that the airport will allow Gatwick to reach maximum use as suggested in SERAS of 46.5 mppa.

The existing Gatwick Sustainable Development Strategy envisages Gatwick's capacity reaching 40 mppa by 2008. Therefore, given the relatively small amount of capacity gain Redhill is not the answer or even part of the answer to meeting the national passenger capacity needs.

Redhill's purpose is stated as being for short/medium haul flights serving the U.K's regions and Europe. Thus it would relieve these slots from Gatwick to allow additional long haul flights into Gatwick.

However, this is not based on reality. Gatwick is currently moving away from long haul flights to short/medium flights including slots for low-cost carriers.

Therefore, Redhill's offer would appear not to serve any useful practical function as it would duplicate rather than complement Gatwick's role.

The proposed airport would not act as a hub. It would offer a poor solution for customers wanting to transfer from a short haul flight to a long haul one at Gatwick airport, which is over five miles away.

This situation would be made even worse by the two airports being operated separately and indeed in competition with one another.

5. Technical Information

It is apparent that your advisers (Halcrow) have carried out some work on behalf of the promoters. This has not been made public.

Therefore in the light of the Aviation Minister's comments on the consideration of other sites and variants for airport expansion not included in the latest SERAS consultation being predicated on the submissions being to the same standard as that carried out by yourselves, the Redhill Aerodrome Ltd submission cannot be said to be of the required standard. Therefore the submission should not be pursued any further.

6. Cumulative Impacts

Redhill is in such close proximity to Gatwick that the cumulative impacts of the various options at Gatwick and any new one at Redhill would need to be considered.

Gatwick is already planned to expand to 40 mppa and therefore the environmental, transport, economic and urbanisation base case need to be taken into account the cumulative impact of this and any other option in the vicinity.

7. Local Consultation

The promoters have understated greatly the "degree" of local opposition. The Borough Council has made it clear that it is opposed to the promoters proposal.

It is only now that it is starting to become apparent to the wider public what is being proposed and there is widespread opposition to the scheme.

Further, as Redhill is not part of the SERAS consultation, it is little wonder that it has not received greater scrutiny.

8. Safety

The whole of the South East air space is likely to have to be reconfigured to accommodate the new airport.

Given the promoters' shortcomings at the 1995 inquiry, the Borough Council has no confidence that this can be safely achieved without the reduction of capacity at other airports.

Indeed this lack of confidence in the promoter's suggestions is borne out by their statement that it is "unlikely that arriving aircraft will have to stack."

This seems a whole unlikely outcome given Redhill's location within one of the most complex and busiest air traffic systems in the world.

9. Economics

The promoter's claim of economic benefits has little supporting evidence.

However, it is clear that the promoters have not adhered to the latest Treasury Green Book suggested discounting methods. Therefore, the economic case presented by the promoters is wrong.

Further, it is also apparent that the proposal will place expense on the local public purse.

For example, the promoter's suggest that a badly affected school will only be relocated if the Council provides a new site. In an area of high land costs it is unreasonable for the Council to be expected to fund this and similar proposals.

Last updated: 25-08-2004

Top