Hello again fellow pilots
Unfortunately I find myself having to resurrect this thread with another plea for your help. Post #1 in this thread explains the background to this case in more detail.
Thank you to all who previously posted messages in support of the retrospective application to resurface, straighten and widen the C/D taxiway to 14m (of which only 10m is designated for taking off/landing – the extra width is for turning). Despite strong support from the CAA and even the Planning Officer for Reigate & Banstead Borough Council, the application was refused.
There is now a fresh application with the Council to reduce the width back to 10m. Although this is far from ideal, it seems to be the least-worst option and I would be grateful if the good folk on here could spare a few minutes to write a message of support. The link to write your comments is here.
With the threat of housing development ever-present for all airfields in the South-East, we need to do all we can to help keep them open and viable.
Thank you in advance for your support, and by noting that you have made a comment back on this thread will help to keep the thread fresh for a few days. Comments need to be submitted by 22 February (I believe) so please don’t leave it for another day – it only takes a few minutes.
Why did the planning application fail?
Maybe @I_Love_Flying knows more, but Biggin Hill has always gone to a lot of trouble to object to any improvement at Redhill, because they don’t want the competition.
Redhill is a threat to them because it is one of very few UK airfields which have full ATC but no IAPs, and an IAP (and a runway to go with it) would take a lot of the lightweight business away from Biggin. I have no issues with Biggin; it’s a good airport with a good service, £30 for a TB20, but this dog-eat-dog business does GA no good. Same on the IOM, with Ronaldsway blocking anything at Jurby or Andreas. For me, if something happened at Shoreham, I would have to move to Biggin and the 1:20 drive would cripple my flying, plus there are various politically difficult options for hangarage, whereas Redhill is 30 mins. And I suspect this is true for many people.
Would the CAA create an IAP to Redhill, so close to Gatwick ?
I can’t see why not; it would perhaps be flown in coordination with Gatwick ATC. If it had a 1500ft platform it would be OCAS
Peter wrote:
Same on the IOM, with Ronaldsway blocking anything at Jurby or Andreas.
Ronaldsway doesn’t block anything at Andreas. Jurby is owned by the government and is a motor racing circuit. Ronaldsway is owned by the Government and I know the IOMG well enough that it’s (a) terrified of blocking competitive private enterprise so wouldn’t dare block any plans at Andreas and (b) not sufficiently competent to do so anyway. The owners of Andreas simply aren’t interested in developing it, they are farmers and more interested in farming and horses than aviation.
It is very simple to post a letter of support. Just go to the online form and search for the reference 16/01043/F.
This one is coming around again. The local council is trying to demolish their hard taxiway which can be used as a little bit of a hard runway.
The link to add your support is here below, please pass on to anyone you think will support – even if they just write “I support this application”.
Submissions by end of this week.
Hi everybody
I just wanted to update this thread with some good news regarding this long-running saga!
Reigate and Banstead Council have finally decided to approve the retention of the (slightly widened and straightened) taxiway C/D at Redhill aerodrome, meaning that it can continue to be used as a 490m long unlicensed runway when the airfield is waterlogged.
Thank you to all who submitted comments in support. 
The link to the decision is here: https://planning.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=QD5ZFNMVKXT00&activeTab=summary
Common sense at last.
Great news.
