DOCSLIB.ORG

Tandridge District Reigate and Banstead Borough

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tandridge District Reigate and Banstead Borough Tandridge District Reigate and Banstead Borough Key Project LPA Reigate and Banstead Indigo Planning Limited Application area Redhill Aerodrome - Taxiway Aldermary House Borough Council 10 - 15 Queen Street Administrative boundary line Title London Site Location Plan Date: 30.11.2018 EC4N 1TX Scale: 1:5000@A3 Project No: 16910004 Client Drawing No: 16910004/1 T 020 3848 2500 Redhill Aerodrome Ltd Drawn By: CM [email protected] © 2015 Fjori Notes: 1. If this drawing has been received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print the document to the correct scale. 2. All dimensions are in millimetres unless stated otherwise. It is recommended not to scale off this drawing. Grass 3. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all other relevant drawings and specifications. Grass Grass Runway 18-36 Grass Existing Taxiway Pavement Grass Helicopter Hover Square Grass Helicopter Existing Grass Manoeuvring Hover Square Areas D1 Hold D1 Hold Bar Bar Sign C1 Hold Bar Taxiway Charlie Threshold Proposed Taxiway Pavement Marker Threshold Marker Boards 25 Threshold Boards 8.5m Proposed Earthworks C1 Hold Existing SW drainage Bar Sign Existing Pavement broken out 07 Threshold chamber - Refer to Disused Concrete and returned to grass drawing 1064_405 Base (to remain) Taxiway Delta Unlicensed Runway 07-25 488m between Thresholds Filter Drain & Soakaway Existing service (water main) to remain. Not affected by the works. Grass Existing General Arrangement Scale 1:1000 Earthworks to tie into existing Runway surface and allow FINAL ISSUE trafficking from paved to unpaved Existing pavement broken out Earthworks to tie into existing Marker blocks to be Threshold Marker and returned to grass to suit Hover square surface and re-instated to suit B Status upgraded to 22.01.16 Boards relocated to suit D1 Sign Hold Bar existing levels allow trafficking from paved to proposed levels Final Issue re-aligned pavement Threshold Marker re-located to suit unpaved Boards relocated to suit A Filter drain location clarified. Existing 05.10.15 new alignment and relocated SW chambers noted. C1 Hold Bar re-aligned pavement reinstated on Rev. Description Date new alignment Client: 14m Project: D1 Hold Bar reinstated on Relocated SW Filter trench offset 2m Redhill Aerodrome new alignment Chamber - refer to C1 Sign Hold Bar from proposed taxiway Taxiway Realignment drawing 1064_405 re-located to suit edge new alignment Unlicensed Runway 07-25 and denies any liability whatsoever, to party that uses relies on this drawing without FJØRI's written consent. Drawing Title: 488m between Thresholds Existing & Proposed General Arrangements Project No. Drg No. Rev. 1064 100 B Proposed General Arrangement Scale 1:1000 Scale Paper Size Date 1:1000 A1 30.04.15 Dwn / Ckd / App: Status: PD / AW / ACEL Preliminary 24 Greville Street London This drawing has been prepared for the use of FJØRI's client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed FJØRI required law. accepts no responsibility, EC1N 8SS T: +44 (0) 203 036 0827 W: www.fjori.com Year Total Total Annual Aviation Movements at Redhill 1996 95,282 Aerodrome 120,000 1997 92,225 100,000 1998 95,432 80,000 1999 76,726 60,000 40,000 2000 59,779 20,000 Number movements of 2001 54,767 0 2002 67,294 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2012* Year 2003 66,699 2004 49,673 2005 51,946 2006 50,959 2007 49,079 2008 43,827 2009 42,950 2010 41,065 2011 43,978 2012* 39,910 2013 44,302 2014 42,072 2015 42,105 2016 47,403 2017 44,944 2018 46,544 2019 47,808 *Note – 2012 movements affected by London Olympics restrictions Redhill Aerodrome Works to TaXiway C/D PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 62261956-005 July 2020 Redhill Aerodrome Ltd Page 15 of 22 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Levels Or Changes?: Ethnic Context and the Political Demography of the UKIP Vote
    Levels or Changes?: Ethnic Context and the Political Demography of the UKIP Vote Eric Kaufmann, Professor, Department of Politics, Birkbeck College, University of London, UK [email protected]; twitter: @epkaufm; web: www.sneps.net Abstract Does contact with ethnic minorities make native whites more or less concerned about immigration – and how does this affect voting for populist right parties? This paper asks how ethnic diversity and change affect white support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in Britain in the 2010-15 period. In so doing, it underscores the contradictory responses evoked by levels and changes in minority presence. Extant work posits that both work in the same direction on white threat perceptions. This work instead holds that local minority levels and changes work at cross-purposes: minority increase contributes to whites’ sense of threat while minority levels produce contact effects in the direction of inter-ethnic accommodation. In addition, this analysis adds to work on contextual effects by applying a more rigorous technique for addressing the problem of selection bias, casting doubt on the notion that there is ‘white flight’ of anti-immigration whites away from diverse areas or toward whiter neighbourhoods. Finally, few have remarked that today’s ethnic changes contribute to tomorrow’s ethnic levels. Since minorities are attracted to areas that already minority-dense, the two measures are strongly correlated. This presents a paradox – how do threat effects associated with change become contact effects? The data here suggest that yesterday’s changes fade through habituation and contact while yesterday’s ethnic levels become increasingly salient for contact over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Surrey Landscape Character Assessment Figures 1-9-2015
    KEY km north 0 1 2 3 4 5 Surrey District and Borough boundaries Natural England National Character Areas: Hampshire Downs (Area 130) High Weald (Area 122) Inner London (Area 112) Low Weald (Area 121) Spelthorne North Downs (Area 119) North Kent Plain (Area 113) Northern Thames Basin (Area 111) Thames Basin Heaths (Area 129) Runnymede Thames Basin Lowlands (Area 114) Thames Valley (Area 115) Wealden Greensand (Area 120) Elmbridge © Na tu ral Englan d copy righ t 201 4 Surrey Heath Epsom and Ewell Woking Reigate and Banstead Guildford Tandridge Mole Valley Waverley CLIENT: Surrey County Council & Surrey Hills AONB Board PROJECT: Surrey Landscape Character Assessm ent TITLE: Natural England National Character Areas SCALE: DATE: 1:160,000 at A3 September 2014 595.1 / 50 1 Figure 1 Based on Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Licence no. AR187372 © hankinson duckett associates The Stables, Howbery Park, Benson Lane, Wallingford, OX10 8B A t 01491 838175 e [email protected] w www.hda-enviro.co.uk Landscape Architecture Masterplanning Ecology KEY km north 0 1 2 3 4 5 Surrey District and Borough boundaries Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB): Surrey Hills AONB High Weald AONB Kent Downs AONB National Park: Spelthorne South Downs National Park Runnymede Elmbridge Surrey Heath Epsom and Ewell Woking Reigate and Banstead Guildford Tandridge Mole Valley Waverley CLIENT: Surrey County Council & Surrey Hills AONB Board PROJECT: Surrey Landscape Character Assessm ent TITLE: Surrey Districts & Boroughs, AONBs & National Park SCALE: DATE: 1:160,000 at A3 September 2014 595.1 / 50 2 Figure 2 Based on Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Licence no.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Geography of the Gatwick Diamond
    The Economic Geography of the Gatwick Diamond Hugo Bessis and Adeline Bailly October, 2017 1 Centre for Cities The economic geography of the Gatwick Diamond • October, 2017 About Centre for Cities Centre for Cities is a research and policy institute, dedicated to improving the economic success of UK cities. We are a charity that works with cities, business and Whitehall to develop and implement policy that supports the performance of urban economies. We do this through impartial research and knowledge exchange. For more information, please visit www.centreforcities.org/about About the authors Hugo Bessis is a Researcher at Centre for Cities [email protected] / 0207 803 4323 Adeline Bailly is a Researcher at Centre for Cities [email protected] / 0207 803 4317 Picture credit “Astral Towers” by Andy Skudder (http://bit.ly/2krxCKQ), licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0) Supported by 2 Centre for Cities The economic geography of the Gatwick Diamond • October, 2017 Executive Summary The Gatwick Diamond is not only one of the South East’s strongest economies, but also one of the UK’s best performing areas. But growth brings with it a number of pressures too, which need to be managed to maintain the success of the area. This report measures the performance of the Gatwick Diamond relative to four comparator areas in the South East, benchmarking its success and setting out some of the policy challenges for the future. The Gatwick Diamond makes a strong contribution to the UK economy. It performs well above the national average on a range of different economic indicators, such as its levels of productivity, its share of high-skilled jobs, and its track record of attracting foreign investment.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Election Candidates 2016 Full List
    Reading U.B.C. Abbey (1) Joe Sylvester Reading U.B.C. Battle (1) Alan Lockey Reading U.B.C. Caversham (1) David Foster Reading U.B.C. Church (1) Kathryn McCann Reading U.B.C. Katesgrove (1) Louise Keane Reading U.B.C. Kentwood (1) Ruth Shaffrey Reading U.B.C. Mapledurham (1) Brent Smith Reading U.B.C. Minster (1) Keith Johnson Reading U.B.C. Norcot (1) Jill Wigmore-Welsh Reading U.B.C. Park (1) Brenda McGonigle Reading U.B.C. Peppard (1) Sally Newman Reading U.B.C. Redlands (1) Kizzi Murtagh Reading U.B.C. Southcote (1) Doug Cresswell Reading U.B.C. Thames (1) Sarah McNamara Reading U.B.C. Tilehurst (1) Miriam Kennet Reading U.B.C. Whitley (1) Richard Black Wokingham U.D.C. Bulmershe & Whitegates (2) Adrian Windisch Wokingham U.D.C. Emmbrook (1) David Worley Wokingham U.D.C. Finchampstead North (1) Martyn Foss Wokingham U.D.C. Finchampstead South (1) Matthew Valler Wokingham U.D.C. Norreys (1) Anthea West Wokingham U.D.C. Remenham (1) Kezia Black Wokingham U.D.C. Shinfield South (1) Thomas Blomley Wokingham U.D.C. Wescott (1) David Chapman Wokingham U.D.C. Winnersh (1) Stephen Lloyd Milton Keynes B.C. Olney (1) Catherine Jean Rose Milton Keynes B.C. Stantonbury (1) Alexander Watson Fraser Milton Keynes B.C. Wolverton (1) Jennifer McElvie Marklew South Buckinghamshire B.C.Farnham Royal and Hedgerley (1) Ryan Sains Hastings B.C. Ashdown (1) Gabriel Carlyle Hastings B.C. Baird (1) Al Dixon Hastings B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Council
    What happens next? We have now completed our review of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. October 2018 Summary Report The recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft order - the legal document which brings The full report and detailed maps: into force our recommendations - will be laid in Parliament. consultation.lgbce.org.uk www.lgbce.org.uk Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the local elections in @LGBCE May 2019. Our recommendations: The table lists all the wards we are proposing as part of our final recommendations along with the number of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council voters in each ward. The table also shows the electoral variances for each of the proposed ward, which tells you how we have delivered electoral equality. Finally, the table includes electorate projections for 2023, so you can see the impact of the recommendations for the future. Council Final recommendations on the new electoral arrangements Ward Number of Electorate Number of Variance Electorate Number of Variance Name: Councillors: (2017): Electors per from (2023): Electors per from Councillor: average % Councillor: Average % Banstead Village 3 7,045 2,348 -2% 7,273 2,424 -7% Chipstead, 3 7,727 2,576 7% 8,113 2,704 4% Kingswood & Woodmansterne Earlswood & 3 7,387 2,462 3% 7,694 2,565 -1% Whitebushes Hooley, Merstham 3 7934 2,645 10% 8,605 2,868 10% and Netherne Horley Central & 3 7,514 2,505 5% 8,297 2,760 6% South Horley East & 3 7,339 2,446 2% 7,730 2,577 -1% Salfords Horley West & 3 6,274 2,091 -13% 8,325 2,775 7% Sidlow Lower Kingswood, 3 7,998 2,666 11% 8,458 2,819 9% Tadworth & Walton Who we are: Electoral review: ■ The Local Government Boundary Commission for An electoral review examines and proposes new Meadvale & St 3 6,761 2,254 -6% 7,071 2,357 -9% England is an independent body set up by Parliament.
    [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]
  • Lead Area Local Authorities Covered by Funding Provisional 2020/21
    Lead area Local authorities covered by funding Provisional 2020/21 funding allocation Adur and Worthing £421,578.00 Arun £318,817.00 Ashford £257,000.00 Babergh Babergh and Mid Suffolk (lead) £163,498.00 West Suffolk Barking and Dagenham £184,703.00 Barnet £636,845.00 Barnsley £102,900.00 Basildon £474,871.00 Basingstoke and Deane £199,850.00 Bath and North East Somerset £417,151.00 Bedford £986,915.00 Birmingham £684,666.00 Blackburn with Darwen Hyndburn BC £184,000.00 Ribble Valley BC Burnley BC Pendle BC Rossendale BC Blackpool £200,000.00 Bolton £124,997.00 Boston £385,451.00 Bournemouth, Christchurch and £1,401,333.00 Poole Bracknell Forest £356,141.00 Bradford £461,320.00 Breckland £106,500.00 Brent £827,422.00 Brighton and Hove £2,042,637.00 Bristol, City of £2,814,768.00 Bromley £103,654.00 Broxbourne £119,380.00 Buckinghamshire Aylesbury Vale £576,500.00 Wycombe Chiltern South Bucks Bury £40,000.00 Calderdale £253,945.00 Cambridge £486,457.00 Cambridgeshire County Council £229,500.00 Camden £1,327,000.00 Canterbury £584,739.00 Carlisle (lead for all Cumbrian Allerdale Borough Council £416,340.00 authorities) Barrow Borough Council Carlisle City Council Copeland Borough Council Cumbria County Council Eden District Council South Lakeland District Council Central Bedfordshire £329,938.00 Cheshire East £438,329.30 Cheshire West and Chester £731,034.00 Chichester £230,465.00 City of London £590,300.00 Colchester £296,144.00 Corby East Northamptonshire £113,000.00 Kettering Wellingborough Cornwall £1,696,467.00 County Durham £269,128.35
    [Show full text]
  • Live Vacancies Report - Reigate and Banstead (As of 18/11/2019)
    Live Vacancies Report - Reigate and Banstead (as of 18/11/2019) Date The following information has been designed to be shared with the relevant local Job Centre Plus / Stake Holder offices with the intention that they can promote these opportunities to their clients. It is important that these reports are used only as a guide, and that you log onto Find an apprenticeship for the most up to date information. Please be aware that vacancies that appear to have no applications may be recruiting via their own recruitment pages - these will be shaded green. Please do not contact the employer unless stated in the vacancy. If you require more information than is described, please contact the learning provider in the first instance; their contact details will be available in the advert. Registered & Currently Active Candidates refers to those who have registered and engaged with the Find an apprenticeship system and are still active on the system. (Candidates can become inactive voluntarily e.g. by being successful with no need to use the system further) Key: No applications have yet been received for this vacancy Applications going directly to employer website and can't be counted Vacancy Title Vacancy Title Apprentice Support Care Worker Junior Management Consultant Apprenticeship – Talent Consulting with WILLIS TOWERS WATSON Junior Management Consultant Apprenticeship – Reward Consulting with WILLIS TOWERS WATSON Pensions Administration Apprenticeship Programme (31365) Actuarial Analyst Apprenticeship Programme with Willis Towers Watson Infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Water Cycle Study
    Water Submitted to Submitted by East Hampshire District Council AECOM Midpoint Alençon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP United Kingdom Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Water Cycle Study Final Report May 2017 AECOM Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS Page A-1 Appendix A. Relevant Planning Documents to the WCS Local Authority Category Document Name Publication Relevance Date All Water Blackwater Valley Water Cycle Study Scoping Report 2011 All Environment Thames River Basin District Management Plan (RBMP) 2015 Hart Flood Risk Hart Strategic Flood Risk Assessment November 2016 2016 Rushmoor Flood Risk Rushmoor Borough Council Level 1 SFRA Update 2015 Surrey Heath Flood Risk Surrey Heath SFRA 2015 All Housing Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Strategic Housing Market 2016 Assessment (SHMA) All Employment Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Joint Employment Land 2016 Review Surrey Heath Environment Biodiversity and Planning in Surrey 2014 Hart Environment Hart Biodiversity Action Plan 2012 - 2017 2012 Rushmoor Environment Rushmoor Biodiversity Action Plan 2016 - 2021 2016 All Environment Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Delivery 2009 Framework Surrey Heath Water Affinity Water Final Water Resource Management Plan 2015 - 2014 2020 All Water South East Water Water Resource Management Plan 2015 - 2014 2040 All Climate United Kingdom Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09) 2009 Change All Water Loddon abstraction licensing strategy 2013 Surrey Heath Water Thames abstraction licensing strategy 2014 Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS – Final Report May 2017 AECOM Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS Page B-2 Appendix B. Legislative Drivers Shaping the WCS Directive/Legislation/Guidance Description Birds Directive 2009/147/EC Provides for the designation of Special Protection Areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Common Ground with Spelthorne Borough Council
    Statement of Common Ground with Spelthorne Borough Council Part 1: Strategic context Geographical area covered by Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) and justification for why this geography is appropriate: This SoCG covers the local authority areas of Runnymede Borough Council and Spelthorne Borough Council as shown in the map extract at Annex 1. This geographical area has been chosen as the Runnymede-Spelthorne SHMA (November 2015) determined that these two local authorities for a Housing Market Area (HMA) and HMA geography is considered to be the most appropriate starting point to produce a SoCG. It is also relevant that the evidence collated by both Local Authorities supports that Runnymede and Spelthorne have the strongest functional links from an economic perspective with each other as well as strong retail links. Wider relationships with Runnymede and Spelthorne: The 2015 SHMA concluded that the Runnymede-Spelthorne HMA has notable links with overlapping local housing markets which reflects the density of transport networks, both road and rail. Links were concluded to be particularly strong with Elmbridge, Hounslow and Woking. There are also notable links between the Runnymede- Spelthorne HMA and London due to outward migration pressures and strong commuting patterns. There are also recognised links between both Local Authorities and Heathrow Airport. Indeed, both Local Authorities are considered to sit in a sub regional Heathrow Functional Economic Area. The Spelthorne FEA analysis (March 2017) concludes that Spelthome holds its strongest economic links with Runnymede, followed by Elmbridge and the London Borough of Hounslow. Woking and the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames are found to influence the FEA to a much lesser extent.
    [Show full text]
  • Coalition of the Willing: the Shape of Urban Growth in England Post Crisis
    Coalition of the Willing: The Shape of Urban Growth in England post Crisis Glen Bramley & David Watkins [email protected] Highbury Group on Housing Delivery – Dec 2014 Based on ENHR Conference - July 2014 Workshop 12 – Metropolitan Dynamics Background Growing support, if not consensus, on need to build more housing Demand side ‘fixed’, but supply constraints more intractable Any serious drive to increase supply will need to focus on key areas of opportunity – but where? Balancing need/demand, capacity, leverage, and political will. Policy Levers Planning numbers – NPPG & SHMAs Land availability – SHLAAs & 5 yr supply Incentives – CIL, s.106, NHB Public investment – afford hsg & infrastructure Local sentiment – some shift but still mismatch Land ownership & takeup – still pushing string Development vehicles e.g. Dev Corps (with CPO powers & modified compensation rules) Sub-regional focus – ‘Duty to Cooperate’ vs ‘Right to Grow’ Key Dimensions of Potential Capacity – land (bf & gf), constraints (BUA, GB, AONB, NP), density, location/access, [topography, flood risk, etc] Demand – demographics, prices/rents, afford’y, employment Planning Stance – land avail & other proxies Current Performance – consents, completions, NHB Local Sentiment – BSAS surveys & predictions Measured initially by index of simple sum of z-scores Housebuilding Capacity Greater in more rural areas Esp in East, far West & Nth Low around London, rising at edge of Gtr SE Indicators incl % green land, sparsity, area, unconstrained (not GB, AONB, NP,
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Common Ground Reigate and Banstead Borough
    Statement of Common Ground as agreed between Tandridge District Council and Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Tandridge District Council Local Plan: Statement of Common Ground with Reigate & Banstead Borough Council, July 2019 Contents 1, Introduction The basis for preparing this Statement of Common Ground 2. Key Matters Housing Travelfers Employment Infrastructure 3. Actions going forward 4. Signatories/ Declaration 2 Tandridge District Council Local Plan: Statement of Common Ground with Reigate & Banstead Borough Council. July 2019 l. Introduction The basis for preparing this Statement of Common Ground 1.1 This Statement of Common Ground (SCGJ has been prepared by Tandridge District Council (TDC) together with Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (RBBC). It reflects the agreed position between the parties. 1.2 The purpose of this SCG is to set out the basis on which TDC and RBBC have actively and positively agreed to work together to meet the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate. TDC 1 submitted their local Plan for Examination in January 2019 • This statement also describes the established mechanisms for ongoing cooperation on strategic matters. 1.3 Under section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (amended by section 110 of the Locallsm Act 2011) and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 lt is a requirement under the Duty to Cooperate for local planning authorities, county councils and other named bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an on-going basis in the preparation of development plan documents and other local development documents. This is a test that local authorities need to satisfy at the Local Plan examination stage, and is an additional requirement to the test of soundness.
    [Show full text]