Planning permission retrospectively for additional floor and rooms (replacement dwelling) at Ferrers, Lunghurst Road

Application No: 2017/690

Ferrers, Lunghurst Road, Woldingham CR3 7EJ

Erection of replacement dwelling

Refers to: 2015/97  – Approved Permission and subsequent construction of basement level not included in that plan and alterations to windows and car parking for 5 vehicles.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized

16 reasons why we need to challenge the campaign to create 2nd runway at Gatwick

16 reasons for opposing an additional 2nd new runway at Gatwick

Rejected by the Airports Commission and the Government


After three years intensive research, at a cost of £20 million, the Airports Commission reached the clear and unanimous decision that Gatwick would be a poor second best. After further detailed study that conclusion has been confirmed by the Government.

‘Bucket and Spade’

Gatwick has always been mainly a leisure airport, catering for short-haul traffic to Europe. According to the Government: ‘ … expansion at Gatwick Airport would not enhance, and would consequently threaten, the UK’s global aviation hub status.’

Worsening the North – South divide.

It has been estimated that a second runway at Gatwick at full capacity would create around 60,000 new jobs. Since there is low unemployment in the Gatwick area, these would all need to come from abroad or from other parts of the UK, worsening the regional imbalance.

Wrong place

Making Gatwick bigger than Heathrow would mean that many passengers would need to travel from north of London, making congestion on the M25 even worse. Expanding Gatwick would inhibit the growth of regional airports. The South East has one third of the population of the UK but two thirds of the flights.

Severe environmental damage

The town of Crawley with 110,000 residents would suffer severe noise and pollution. The proposed new airport boundary would be only 100 yards from residential areas. The character of parts of Surrey, Sussex and Kent would be altered for ever as a result of urbanisation, noise, pollution and traffic congestion.

Urbanisation

About 40,000 new houses would be needed, also many new commercial premises, causing urbanisation and loss of countryside.
Twice as many aircraft in the sky

A second runway is designed to double the number of aircraft in the sky.
New routes over previously peaceful areas or doubling the number of aircraft on existing routes would cause great disturbance, distress and anger.
Worse air quality

The Airports Commission found that a second Gatwick runway would mean that over 50,000 people would suffer worse air quality; more schools and hospitals would suffer pollution than with a new north-west runway at Heathrow; and more households would be placed at risk of health-damaging air quality.
An Air Quality Management Area (where there is a risk that pollution may exceed legal limits) has already been designated in Crawley within 1 mile of the proposed new airport boundary.

Road traffic delays
It has been estimated that a second runway at full capacity would mean around 100,000 more vehicles a day in the Gatwick area, causing serious road congestion and delays.
Gatwick’s aim to achieve a tenfold increase in freight would mean more commercial vehicles, increasing pollution and congestion.

Rail chaos

A second runway would mean around 90,000 extra people a day using rail services in the Gatwick area. Most of the improvements planned at present for the Brighton-London line are necessary to deal with natural growth, so the result would be standing room only on some services.

Risk of disruption

With Gatwick served by only one rail line and only one motorway (the M23) any serious incident could bring the airport to a standstill.
Heritage at risk

Seventeen listed buildings would be demolished – more than at any time since the WW II blitz. Five of these buildings are listed grade 2* – of special importance. HS2 would only mean demolishing six listed buildings of which only one would be grade 2*.

14 hectares of ancient woodland would be destroyed.

Climate change damage

Twice the number of flights would mean twice the climate change damage; or worse if there are more long-haul flights. It would be difficult to reconcile a new runway at Gatwick (or at Heathrow) with the agreement signed by 175 nations in Paris 2015 to limit global warming to 20, and to aim for 1.50.

Tax subsidy for airlines

Aviation is subsidised by paying no fuel tax and no VAT. Air passenger duty only represents a quarter of the value of these tax concessions. Gradually increasing tax on air travel would slow the rate of growth and, with full use of existing runways, render any new runway unnecessary.
Larger aircraft

London has five main runways (2 at Heathrow plus Gatwick, Stansted and Luton). If the average number of passengers per aircraft increases by 20% that would be equal to one new runway.

 we have strong opposition


However, a second Gatwick runway is opposed by:

easyJet and British Airways
West Sussex County Council
Kent County Council
Crawley Borough Council
Horsham District Council
Mid Sussex District Council
Mole Valley District Council
Tandridge District Council
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Wealden District Council
50 Town and Parish Councils
CPRE
The Woodland Trust
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace
RSPB and WWF UK
Campaign for Better Transport
The Aviation Environment Federation
**All ten local Members of Parliament.

Gatwick ACC
April 2017

Posted in Uncategorized

Please find the Spring 2017 Newsletter below..

Below is a link to the latest WA Newsletter that was distributed to members in advance of the AGM held yesterday evening.

WA Newsletter 2017 for web

Posted in Uncategorized

Gatwick 2nd Runway remains a possibility – please read this message received today by the WA.

From the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign  http://www.gacc.org.uk

Important

To GACC member associations / voluntary groups

You may think that the Gatwick second runway threat has gone away – but not quite yet!  The Government is at present consulting on the Draft Airports National Policy Statement which gives effect to the Heathrow runway decision.  Question 2 in the consultation asks people if they agree with the decision to choose Heathrow rather than Gatwick. (Details below)

Four London Boroughs – Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor – have each allocated £50,000 to opposing the Heathrow decision, and they are asking their residents (nearly 1 million of them) to respond to the consultation by saying that the runway should be at Gatwick.  They are strongly supported by the Mayor of London

The Government will not wish to change its mind but it would be unfortunate if they got the impression that there was no opposition from around Gatwick.

We are therefore asking your Association to respond to the consultation, confirming your opposition to a new Gatwick runway.

Please forward this email to all your members, asking them also to write.

All responses tend to get reduced to a statistical summary so a short email of one or two sentences is as good as a long essay.   Attached are some notes to help you – just pick one point, not all 16!

Please send your email to runwayconsultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Responses need to be in before 25 May.

Airspace.   At the same time the Department for Transport is undertaking a separate consultation on Airspace – ie aircraft noise and flight paths.  GACC has already submitted our response.  We would be pleased if you would like to write and support it, or to use bits in compiling your own response.  It is at http://www.gacc.org.uk/flight-paths.php

Brendon Sewill

Chairman

Draft Airports National Policy Statement – see paragraphs 3.15 –3.52     https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/588764/draft-airports-nps-web-version.pdf

Runway consultation paper – see paragraphs 4.15-4.42.   Question 2 asks whether you think the new runway should be at Heathrow or Gatwick. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589082/consultation-on-draft-airports-nps.pdf

Airspace consultationhttps://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-policy-on-the-design-and-use-of-uk-airspace

Posted in Uncategorized

Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England latest on the Green Belt

CPRE view © CPRE Web site

England’s 14 Green Belts cover more than a tenth (12.4%) of land in the country and, according to our research, provide a breath of fresh air for 30 million people. The ever-increasing pressure for more roads, housing and airport expansions means that it is vital to protect the and invest in Green Belts that we have.

Development on Green Belt land is supposed to be tightly controlled so that it can fulfil its main purpose: to serve as a buffer between towns, and between town and countryside. This gives the incentive to regenerate damaged and derelict land within the urban areas surrounded by Green Belt. At the same time, Green Belts bring social, environmental and economic benefits, while giving people a chance to tap into natural capital on their doorsteps.

The Green Belts are a cherished asset, as we have shown through the Our Green Belt campaign, and they’re also extremely valuable for food production, flood prevention, climate change mitigation and much more. International comparisons suggest that without the strong protection Green Belt designation offers against most forms of development, the countryside around our largest towns and cities would long since have been lost. For example, the city of Los Angeles sprawls more than 50 miles eastwards from its centre.

But the Green Belt has never before faced such serious threat as large sections of land disappear under new developments. CPRE believes this trend must be curtailed.

Read more here: http://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-planning/green-belts

Posted in Uncategorized

For those interested in Tandridge DC Local Plan progress especially on Green Belt and garden village development – useful link below:

http://www.tandridge.gov.uk/Planning/planningpolicy/emergingpolicy/localplanpreferredstrategy.htm

“Local Plan – Preferred Strategy

“On 16 March 2017, Members of the Planning Policy Committee adopted a Preferred Strategy to be followed in the preparation of the Local Plan. The Preferred Strategy is one that outlines in general terms, the areas which will be considered for accommodating development and the approach to be taken in regard to infrastructure, economic development and the natural environment.

“The Preferred Strategy helps to convey the Council’s ambitions, and give direction to the Council’s officers as they prepare the Local Plan. It does not set out in detail exactly where new development will take place, but provides the guiding principles by which those decisions will be taken in consultation with residents.

“It is the Council’s view that by preparing a Local Plan which delivers development through a combination of a new garden village and some limited development of our urban and semi-rural areas, we can provide much needed homes for people and the services to go with them, while protecting the distinctive nature of the area and only releasing limited Green Belt land where exceptional circumstances are met or where the land does not serve the purposes of the Green Belt.

“What happens now?

“Officers have a great deal of work to carry out now, including the detailed assessment of sites, collation of further evidence and most fundamentally, liaison with infrastructure providers to determine how the final Local Plan will look and what can feasibly be delivered.

“Included within this work, will be further assessment of all the sites which were submitted to the Council by landowners up to and including 30 December, 2016. The sites to be assessed include five possible locations for development of a scale that could accord with the principles of a garden village. These locations include:

  • Blindley Heath
  • South Godstone
  • Land west of Edenbridge (east of Lingfield)
  • Land at Chaldon, Alderstead and Tollsworth Farm
  • Redhill Aerodrome

“No decisions have been made regarding these locations. It is only through a rigorous consideration and testing of these sites through evidence gathering, that it will be possible to identify a suitable location the Council would seek to support through the Local Plan.

“When will further consultation take place?

“The views of the community are important and have already contributed to the chosen Preferred Strategy. In preparing the Local Plan to date, the Council has carried out two stages of consultation in accordance with Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Plan) (England) Regulations (2012), to help inform what the emerging Local Plan should include. Further public consultation on the Local Plan will be carried out and is a requirement of the plan making process.

“The current timetable for the preparation of the Local Plan anticipates a pre-submission version of the document at the end of the year. This would be the version of the document the Council would intend to submit to the Planning Inspectorate and to be independently examined. However, as we progress towards this if information comes to light that requires us to carry out additional consultation prior to pre-submission we will do this, subject to the agreement of the Planning Policy Committee.”

©Tandridge District Council 2017

Posted in Uncategorized

For those interested in following the hard work of the Oxted and Limpsfield Residents Group and Chalkpit Quarry issues – see below

You will find information about the Chalkpit Quarry and Oxted’s Greenbelt issues here: http://www.oxtedlimpsfieldresidents.co.uk/Default.ink

Posted in Uncategorized