DOCSLIB.ORG

Reigate and Banstead

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reigate and Banstead Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 14 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR iiNGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB.KBE. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin,QC. MEMBERS The Counteae Of Albeoarle, DBE. Mr T C Benfleld. Professor Michael Chi8holm. Sir Andrew Wheatley.CBE. Mr t B Young, CB£. PV: To the Rt Hon Koy Jenkins, HP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR TH£ BOROUGH OF KEIGATL1 AND BANSTEAD IN Tim COUNTY OF SUHR2Y 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the borough of Reigate and Banstead in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that Borough. 2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60d) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 13 Hay 197^ that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to Surrey County Council, the Parish Councils in the district, the Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and to the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from any interested bodies. 3. Heigate and Banstead Borough Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down.in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guide- lines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were also asked to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they shpuld publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. k. In accordance with section ?(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 the Council had exercised an option for elections by thirds. 5. On JO December 197^ Heigate and Banstead Borough Council presented their draft scheme of representation. They proposed to divide the borough into eighteen wards each returning two or three members to form a council of fifty-one. 6. Following publication by the Borough Council of their provisional proposals we received a large number of letters raising issues in relation to the proposed Salfords and ^idlov, Tadworth and Walton, Preston^ Tattenhams, Nork, Kingswood with Burgh Heath and Chipstead-Hooley and Woodmansterne wards as well as the Central,' South Central, South West and South East wards of Iteigate. 7. The Borough Council also sent us copies of comments which they had received during their consultations. Several of these raised points which they had been unable to meet in settling their draft scheme. Most of these unsatisfied representations referred to the issues which had been raised directly with us. 8. We considered the Borough Council's draft scheme, together with all the comments which had been made. We decided to adopt a suggestion, made by two political parties, for an alteration to the boundary between the proposed South Central and South West wards of Heigate, which placed the Woodhatch Estate area in the South West ward. We also adopted a suggestion by one of those parties for an alteration to the boundary between the proposed South West and Central wards. 9* We studied the Borough Council's draft scheme to see whether there were any modifications which could be made to improve the standard of representation. i We noted that, on current electorates, the 'proposed Salfords and Sidlow and k Preston wards were not entitled to representation by two councillors each as had been proposed by the Borough Council. Accordingly we decided to reduce the number of councillors representing those proposed wards to one each. In taking this step we noted that, if the Borough Council's 1979 forecast of the electorate for the proposed Preston ward were to be realised, that ward would be marginally under-represented by that year. However we thought that the forecast was optimistic and concluded that representation by two councillors could not be justified. Vie examined a number of other possible modifications designed to improve the standard of equality of representation but concluded that these were probably unacceptable on Lhe grounds of disturbance of local ties. 10. To avoid confusion we decided to amend the names of the wards in the i.;eigatc part of the borough by preceding the name proposed by the Borough Council with thn word "Heigate". 11. After consulting Ordnance Purvey we made* a number of minor adjustments to the alignment of some of the boundaries in order to secure boundary lines which were more readily identifiable on the ground. 12. Subject to the changes referred to in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 above, we ducitled that the Borough Council's draft scheme provided a reasonable basis for the future'electoral arrangements for the borough in compliance with the rules in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and our guidelines, and we formulated our draft proposals accordingly. 1J5. On 9 June 1975, we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's draft scheme. The Council were asked to make these draft proposals, and the accompanying map which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices, ^presentations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodice, '.v'e asked that any comronts should reach us by 1 August 197% 14. We received a letter from Surrey County Council saying that they had no observations to make on our draft proposals. Support for our proposals for the Iteigate oouth West ward carne from a local political party. 1% Reigate and Banstoad Borough Council informed Us that they rejected our draft proposals where these varied from the draft scheme originally submitted by the Council, except for the amendments to names of the wards in T:eigate. The Borough Council also pointed out that there had been an error on the maps which they had submitted to us showing the wards proposed in their draft scheme, and • that consequently the boundary between the Heigate North and lieigate Central wards did not illustrate their intention. ;'iince we had adopted the boundaries on their naps for these two wards, our draft proposals' followed the wrong boundary line, and the Council therefore wished the error to be rectified. 16. iialforcls and iSidlow rari.nh Council wrote to say that they considered that the proposed representation of the ward by a single councillor would be inadequate. Two bornu^h councillors said that the nature and problems of ,-Jalfords and .'jiulow warranted special consideration and that there should be two councillors to represent the ward. Two local political associations made similar representations, as did a local church council, a county councillor and a local resident. 17* Another political association wrote to say that they accepted the proposed reduction in representation of the Preston ward, but they considered that the proposed Salfords and Sirilow ward should retain two councillors. They objected to the changes which we had made to the boundaries of the wards in the Keif^yte area, and added that the Reigate Uoutli We.'st ward should bo represented by two councillors in.stc.-.n of the proponed three. 18. Another political association objected to the proposed reduction in representation of the-Salfords and oidlow ward. The association considered also that the Tadworth and Walton ward should be allocated three councillors instead of the two proposed. 19« A local federation of ratepayers' and residents' associations said that the proposed Preston and Salfords and Sidlow wards should have two councillors each. 'tlO. The chairman and president of a local residents association wrote separately a'uout our proposals for the '-L'adworth and Walton ward. They objected to the reduction in representation from three councillors as at present to the two recommended in our draft proposals, pointing out that the ward had a lar^c electorate, was bitf in area and that there was the possibility of development which would increase the electorate still further. It was al;so suggested that the ward mi^ht bo divided into two parts, with one ward for Tadworth and another for Walton. I?1. We received letters from two borough councillors who also considered that 'L'ndworth and Walton should be represented by three councillors. Support for this suggestion came from three local residents. 'S.cL. A local residents'association from the 'Aittenhamo area suggested an alteration to boundaries between the Tattenhams and Nork and Tattenharr.s and i-reston wards. 23. A local branch of a political party ul:;o made proposals for alterations to the 'i'attenhams and Preston wards, which, they said, would produce two wards entitled to two councillors each. They cuf-^osted, in addition, an adjustment to the proposed Nork and ^attenhams boundary which would produce a more compact rj for the proposed Aittenhams ward and more clearly defined boundaries.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Asset Register Dataset.Xlsx
    Unique Asset Ownersh UPRN Identity Name Street Numbers Street Name Locality Postal Town Postcode Easting Northing Ownership Occupied Ground Lease Leasehold Licence Vacant Sublease ip Detail Land Only 68170412 A00001 The Park allotments, Carshalton Road, Woodmansterne The Park allotments Carshalton Road Woodmansterne Banstead 527550 160278 Freehold - Owned by local authority Yes No No No No N/A Yes 68164102 A00002 Holly Lane allotments, Banstead Holly Lane allotments Holly Lane Banstead 525484 159283 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68170097 A00003 Lakers Rise allotments, Woodmansterne Lakers Rise allotments Lakers Rise Woodmansterne Banstead 527475 159076 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68160122 A00004 Lambert Road allotments, Banstead Lambert Road allotments Lambert Road Banstead SM7 2QW 525498 160193 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68164101 A00005 Merland Rise allotments, Tadworth Merland Rise allotments Merland Rise Tadworth 523045 157602 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68163597 A00006 Parsonsfield Road allotments, Banstead Parsonsfield Road allotments Parsonsfield Road Banstead 523800 159769 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68159587 A00007 Partridge Mead allotments, Banstead Partridge Mead allotments Bridgefield Close Banstead 523387 159817 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68158076 A00008 Tattenham Way allotments, Reigate Road, Burgh Heath Tattenham Way allotments Reigate
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Post Walk on Banstead Heath
    Coal post walk on Banstead Heath Map: Explorer 146 Dorking, Box Hill & Reigate. Total length: about 13.5 km (8½ miles). Start: Tattenham Corner station (shorter option: start from Tadworth station); finish: Kingswood station. There is a particular concentration of posts in the area of Banstead and Walton heaths, there being nowhere else where so many posts can be seen in such a short distance. This walk passes 26 – more than an eighth of the surviving total – though all are Type 2 posts (no railway or canal marks are passed). The countryside is very attractive too: this walk is entirely on the North Downs, starting on the chalk of Epsom and Walton Downs, then crossing Banstead and Walton Heaths where the chalk is overlain by clay with flints, and reaching the scarp slope of the downs at Colley Hill. The walk follows the boundary of the former parish of Banstead along a salient projecting south from the main area of the parish, between the former parishes of Walton on the Hill to the west and Kingswood (once a detached part of the parish of Ewell) to the east. Parishes in the former Banstead Urban District were abolished by the Local Government Act 1972, so although the walk follows ancient boundaries these are not marked on current Ordnance Survey maps. The walk starts from Tattenham Corner station, which is the final station on a branch line from Purley. Trains run from London Bridge or Victoria depending on the time of the day. Although the branch is largely outside Greater London it is included in Transport for London Zone 6 and so travelcards valid for Zone 6, Freedom Passes, etc are valid to all the stations mentioned in this description.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F: Marked-Up Codeframes
    London Airspace Change: Gatwick Local Area Consultation 2014 ---- Final Report 137 Appendix F: Marked-up Codeframes Gatwick Local Area Consultation Marked-up Codeframe - Response Form (General Public Responses) This document provides the topline results for a consultation on proposed changes to airspace in the vicinity of Gatwick Airport. The consultation ran from 23rd May to 15th August 2014. Respondents took part online via a survey link on Gatwick Airport's website. 2,836 members of the public aged 16 and over took part in the consultation via the online response form.. Results to each question are based on all answering. This means that the base for each question may be different. Results are also based on absolute numbers, and not percentages Total Base size: 2716 Q.1a Which ONE of the SIX alternative proposed options, if any, do you believe provides the best balance of benefits for RWY26 departures? Option A 33 Option A with night-time respite 79 Option B 7 Option B with night-time respite 33 Option C 64 Option C with night-time respite 95 None of these 1528 Don’t know 877 Base size: 2713 Q.1b Which, if any, noise concerns do you believe to be the most important for Gatwick Airport Limited to consider when determining the best option for RWY26 departures heading to the south? Noise in the day that impacts my quality of life 1878 Noise at night that disturbs my sleep 1863 Noise in the day that affects my business or company /the business or company within which I work 241 Noise at night that affects my business or company / the business or company within which I work 128 Noise in the day that affects a community facility (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Opportunity Areas: the Basis for Realising Surrey's Local
    Biodiversity Opportunity Areas: The basis for realising Surrey’s ecological network Surrey Nature Partnership September 2019 (revised) Investing in our County’s future Contents: 1. Background 1.1 Why Biodiversity Opportunity Areas? 1.2 What exactly is a Biodiversity Opportunity Area? 1.3 Biodiversity Opportunity Areas in the planning system 2. The BOA Policy Statements 3. Delivering Biodiversity 2020 - where & how will it happen? 3.1 Some case-studies 3.1.1 Floodplain grazing-marsh in the River Wey catchment 3.1.2 Calcareous grassland restoration at Priest Hill, Epsom 3.1.3 Surrey’s heathlands 3.1.4 Priority habitat creation in the Holmesdale Valley 3.1.5 Wetland creation at Molesey Reservoirs 3.2 Summary of possible delivery mechanisms 4. References Figure 1: Surrey Biodiversity Opportunity Areas Appendix 1: Biodiversity Opportunity Area Policy Statement format Appendix 2: Potential Priority habitat restoration and creation projects across Surrey (working list) Appendices 3-9: Policy Statements (separate documents) 3. Thames Valley Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (TV01-05) 4. Thames Basin Heaths Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (TBH01-07) 5. Thames Basin Lowlands Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (TBL01-04) 6. North Downs Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (ND01-08) 7. Wealden Greensands Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (WG01-13) 8. Low Weald Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (LW01-07) 9. River Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (R01-06) Appendix 10: BOA Objectives & Targets Summary (separate document) Written by: Mike Waite Chair, Biodiversity Working Group Biodiversity Opportunity Areas: The basis for realising Surrey’s ecological network, Sept 2019 (revised) 2 1. Background 1.1 Why Biodiversity Opportunity Areas? The concept of Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (BOAs) has been in development in Surrey since 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter No. 121 September 2018
    Newsletter No. 121 September 2018 CHAIRMAN'S NOTES It is concerning to report the instances of The planting of elm trees in Memorial Park, damage to the Society’s sculpture in Priory Redhill in memory of Eddie Waller and Park, both appear to be vandalism. Repairs funded by his family, has had to await more are in hand and should be covered by suitable and wetter autumn weather as they insurance. We ask all members to report any would not have survived the long hot unruly activity in the Park. summer. The project is in hand with RBBC’s Tree Officer and we will publish The Society was contacted by members details in due course via the website: concerning the planned Ward Boundary www.reigatesociety.org.uk changes within the Borough. We have written to the Ward Boundary Commission The Reigate and Banstead DMP Plan is now urging the retention of the Meadvale and St scheduled for independent inspection for the John’s names and a more sensitive Secretary of State by a member of the boundary to protect this historic and Planning Inspectorate. The hearings start on interesting village community. We are 30th October 2018. pleased that Reigate and Banstead Council The closure of Reigate Garden Centre and have revised their recommendations to take proposed residential development of the site the concerns of local residents into account. means the loss of yet more commercial We are greatly concerned that RBBC has property and employment. Heathfield withdrawn considerable support from Nurseries on Reigate Heath has also closed Heritage Open days which means that many and residential development is also planned talks and displays at the Town hall will no here .
    [Show full text]
  • Village News
    Lower Kingswood Residents Association Chairman: David Patel Secretary: Robert Brown Treasurer: Faye Miles VILLAGE NEWS www.lowerkingswood.co.uk MARCH 2015 Spring Edition 2015 Inside this issue: Chairman's Report to Residents Welcome to our Spring 2015 issue of Village News Borough Council report; 2 and we would like to extend a warm welcome to all County Council report those new residents who have moved into the village Crime & Policing report; 3 over the past few months. Please remember that all Residents’ Association residents of Lower Kingswood are members of the Committee report Residents’ Association, if you have any concerns Land & Cities Family Trust 4 about the Village, the Residents’ Association Kingswood Primary School 5 Committee is here to try and help you and represent your interests. Wisdom of God Church 6 Unlike most other local Residents’ Associations there Illiminare Consort; Church 7 Hall is no annual subscription payable – our running costs are met from the revenue of advertisements in our CAMEO Club; Strollers 8 newsletter. So please help support our local Village Fête; Toddler 9 businesses and advertisers; if using the services of Group; Courtyard Theatre one of our advertisers please mention that you Girlguiding; KW&T 11 saw their advertisement in Village News. Horticultural Society; LAURIE KAYE Kingswood Parish Events Committee Prior to our last Residents’ Association Committee Scout Group; Monthly 13 meeting, Laurie had advised us of his intention to step Coffee Circle down as a member of the Committee. Crumbs; Are you registerd 14 We should like to put on record our thanks for all his to vote?; Banstead History contributions to the Residents’ Association over the Centre past 6 years and to wish him all the best for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • North Downs Biodiversity Opportunity Area Policy Statements
    Biodiversity Opportunity Areas: the basis for realising Surrey’s ecological network Appendix 6: North Downs Biodiversity Opportunity Area Policy Statements ND01: North Downs Scarp; The Hog's Back ND02: North Downs Scarp & Dip; Guildford to the Mole Gap ND03: North Downs Scarp & Dip; Mole Gap to Reigate ND04: North Downs; Epsom Downs to Nonsuch Park ND05: North Downs; Banstead Woods & Downs and Chipstead Downs ND06: North Downs Scarp; Quarry Hangers to the A22 ND07: North Downs Scarp; Woldingham ND08: North Downs; Banstead & Walton Heaths December 2015 Investing in our County’s future Surrey Biodiversity Opportunity Area Policy Statement Biodiversity Opportunity Area ND01: North Downs Scarp; The Hog’s Back Local authorities: Guildford, Waverley Aim & justification: The aim of Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (BOAs) is to establish a strategic framework for conserving and enhancing biodiversity at a landscape-scale, making our wildlife more robust to changing climate and socio-economic pressures. BOAs are those areas where targeted maintenance, restoration and creation of Natural Environment & Rural Communities (NERC) Act ‘Habitats of Principal Importance’, ie. Priority habitats will have the greatest benefit towards achieving this aim. Recognition of BOAs directly meets National Planning Policy Framework policy for the planning system to contribute to international commitments for halting the overall decline in biodiversity, by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures (para. 109). Designation of BOAs in local plans will also fulfil NPPF requirements to plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale across local authority boundaries; and identify & map components of the local ecological networks (para. 117). Explanatory BOAs identify the most important areas for wildlife conservation remaining in Surrey and each include a variety of habitats, providing for an ‘ecosystem approach’ to nature conservation across and beyond the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Arc Landscape Design and Planning Ltd
    REDHILL AERODROME GREEN BELT AND CAPACITY REVIEW Prepared for TLAG September 2018 Ref: A202-RE-02_v3 ARC LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND PLANNING LTD. Redhill Aerodrome Redhill Aerodrome Contents 1 Introduction 2 Background 3 Site Promotion 4 Green Belt and Landscape Assessments 5 Summary and Conclusions Appendices A – Extract from TDC Green Belt Assessment Part 1 B – Extract from TDC Landscape and Visual Assessment for a potential garden village location – Rev C C – Extract from RBBC Development Management Plan (Regulation 19) Safeguarded land for development beyond the plan period D ‐ Extract from RBBC Borough wide Landscape and Townscape Character Assessment Redhill Aerodrome Redhill Aerodrome 1. Introduction 1.1 This note has been commissioned by the Tandridge Lane Action Group (TLAG) and prepared by Landscape Architects, Arc Ltd and provides a desk‐top review of published Green Belt and landscape assessments of the site known as Redhill Aerodrome in Surrey (hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’). 1.2 The Site’s western extent falls within Reigate and Banstead Borough Council (RBBC) and the eastern extent within Tandridge District Council (TDC) – see Figure 1. 1.3 The purpose of the note is to review previously published Green Belt Assessments and landscape appraisals of the Site and review the available evidence identifying landscape opportunities and constraints which would inform its capacity to accept large scale residential development such as a garden village. 1.4 This note is based on a desk‐top review of publicly available sources and a site visit was not carried out. It also does not provide a detailed sequential comparison between the landscape capacity of the Site and the other potential candidate sites for a garden village (South Godstone and Blindley Heath).
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Regulation 19 Main Issues
    SUMMARY OF REGULATION 19 MAIN ISSUES In total 1,497 representations were received during the publication period from 1,075 organisations and individuals. The policies receiving the highest number of responses were HOR9 (Strategic Employment Site) and MLS2 (Safeguarded Land) with 272 and 209 responses respectively, after which the highest number of reps per policy was a maximum of 35. A summary of the main issues is set out below (these are a high level summary of the points raised and responded to in the publication statement). Employment: Suggestions that Article 4 Directions be used to protect existing employment land and uses from changes of use under permitted development The marketing period suggested for applicants to demonstrate ongoing employment use is not viable and should be extended. Concerns raised by developers with potential delay and other issues arising from the requirement for larger development to provide construction apprenticeships. Mention aerodrome safeguarding requirements Concern that two current employment sites in Reigate are allocated for housing development. Retail Various comments suggesting smaller or larger town centre boundaries to include or exclude specific sites. Concerns on the continued use of retail frontages to assess proposed changes of use. Varied responses around not requiring thresholds, or them not being right level. Mention aerodrome safeguarding requirements Oppose any new retail development within Banstead: existing units are closing due to high rents, there are a number of vacant units and there are a number of charity 1 shops Design DES1 – Design of new development: Inclusion of Secured by Design criteria welcomed but wording should be amended.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Berliand Flew Martin’S Beech Duchess from Redhill to Iceland for the Journey of a Lifetime
    April 2015 AIRCRAFT AOPA OWNER & PILOT The official magazine of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association GA gets a new strategic plan Flying a Duchess to Iceland How to get a drone licence Lee-on-Solent opens new runway Fly a Spitfire! 2 AIRCRAFT Chairman’s Message OWNER &PILOT Changing Times April 2015 By George Done Editor: Ian Sheppard [email protected] Tel. +44 (0) 7759 455770 In the February issue of General Published by: Aviation I was pleased to announce First Aerospace Media Ltd and welcome Ian Sheppard as the Hangar 9 Redhill Aerodrome Redhill RH1 5JY new editor of the AOPA UK house Tel. +44 (0) 1737 821409 magazine. Ian has taken over from Pat Malone who held the reins for Advertising Office: nearly thirteen years, and contributed AOPA UK hugely to the image and wellbeing of The British Light Aviation Centre the association. 50A Cambridge Street London Sw1V 4QQ When Pat took over the Tel. +44 (0) 20 7834 5631 opportunity was taken to move to bi- monthly publication from quarterly being non-EASA (Annex II) types, Head of Advertising: David Impey and change the title from Light with most being used for private Tel. +44 (0) 7742 605338 Aviation to General Aviation. purposes, this definition covering In the same way, the opportunity use for business reasons and also for Printing: Holbrooks Printers Ltd has been taken with Ian’s editorship recreational and sporting use, as for Articles, photographs and news to take stock and introduce a new a private car. items from AOPA members and other look to the magazine that better A significant proportion of owners readers are welcomed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chalk Area of North-East Surrey
    188 THE CHALK AREA OF NORTH-EAST SURREY. By GEORGE WILLIAM YOUNG. (Read June 2nd, 1905.) LTHOUGH one might consider that the last word had A not been said about the Chalk formation as a whole, yet it might be fairly thought that if there was an area in the country which had been thoroughly explored and its structure accurately recorded, that area would be the Chalk of North-East Surrey. But notwithstanding its nearness to London, the number of observers who have given their attention, and the frequency with which some of the best-known sections have been visited by this and other scientific societies, I venture to think that the facts I am about to lay before you will show that even in this area there is still work to be done. When the first of the valuable series of papers on the White Chalk by Dr. Rowe appeared in our PROCEEDINGS my interest was aroused, and I looked forward with considerable anticipation to the publication of the last Volume of the Geological Survey Memoir on the Cretaceous formation, which was to deal with the Upper Chalk. With this volume I must confess I was somewhat disappointed. I fully admit that in many respects it is an admirable work. The labour entailed in its compilation must have been enormous. The wide area with which it deals; the valuable and detailed account of the microscopic structure of Chalk; the useful information and statistics it gives about the economic products and water supply; the exhaustive list of fossils and the bibliography given in the appendices; all testify to the great pains that have been bestowed upon it.
    [Show full text]
  • Redhill Aerodrome Ventures Ltd Examination Into the Soundness of the Tandridge District Council Local Plan
    Redhill Aerodrome Ventures Ltd Examination into the soundness of the Tandridge District Council Local Plan Tandridge District Council Local Plan Examination Statement Redhill Aerodrome Ventures Ltd 3rd September 2019 Contents 1. Summary 2. Introduction 3. Main Matters Page 1 Redhill Aerodrome Ventures Ltd Examination into the soundness of the Tandridge District Council Local Plan 1. Summary 1.1. RAVL considers that Redhill Aerodrome offers a significant opportunity to support the provision of housing to help meet Tandridge’s substantial housing need. The submitted local plan proposes a level of housing below the recognised housing need, and does not allocate Redhill Aerodrome for housing use. RAVL considers that in the absence of such an allocation, then Tandridge should properly, positively and effectively plan for employment use on the site, which will necessitate its removal from the Green Belt. RAVL’s Reg 19 representation proposed that the airfield in its entirety should be removed, however in the absence of this, the employment policy area, together with appropriate expansion land within defensible boundaries, should be removed. This would be consistent with the Government’s approach to the Green Belt purposes in the NPPF, as part of the site is previously developed land contributing little to the Green Belt. 2. Introduction 2.1. This statement is submitted by Redhill Aerodrome Ventures Ltd, the parent company of Redhill Aerodrome Ltd and Redhill Aerodrome Trading Ltd which between them hold the entire freehold interest of land at Redhill Aerodrome (all “Redhill Aerodrome”) 2.2. Redhill Aerodrome has been in the current ownership for some 27 years.
    [Show full text]