THE Green Belt in East Surrey should not be destroyed to create jobs.
That was the message from Reigate MP Crispin Blunt when he gave evidence at the public inquiry into plans for a hard runway at Redhill Aerodrome this morning.
He said the area was fortunate enough to not need to draw in businesses at the expense of green space.
Bosses at the King's Mill Lane, South Nutfield, airfield are appealing against decisions taken last summer by both Reigate and Banstead Borough Council and Tandridge District Council to reject proposals for a hard runway at the site.
During the hearing, which began on Tuesday, aerodrome chiefs have argued securing jobs and creating new ones constitutes the special circumstances needed to allow development in the Green Belt.
Their argument centres on claims the hard runway would secure the 140 jobs currently at the aerodrome and create between 120 and 180 more.
But Mr Blunt said unemployment in the area is very low and the Green Belt should be protected if at all possible.
Speaking on behalf of himself and East Surrey MP Sam Gyimah, Mr Blunt told the inquiry: "The central part of the aerodrome's case is an economic one where they go to some trouble to put across the economic benefits to the local community.
"There is of course the central discussion here whether this is appropriate or inappropriate development in the Green Belt."
He added: "This is a highly charged issue locally and I would then strongly point you towards the relative priorities here for the political representatives elected members here [which] are around environmental protection rather than the promotion of additional economic growth."
Mr Blunt argued any new jobs created in the area would bring more people in, putting extra pressure on the school, medical and housing infrastructure which is already stretched to capacity or – in some cases – not sufficient for the residents already here.
Reflecting on the troubles the borough council has had putting together a core strategy for house building in the coming years, he spoke of "the lack of local infrastructure to support the numbers of people coming here."
Mr Blunt also questioned the aerodrome's assertion the plan would cap aircraft movements at lower than they were in the 1990s.
He said the movements in the 1990s were primarily rotor aircraft rather than the louder fixed-wing aircraft used today.
But Christopher Katakowski QC, representing the aerodrome, attacked Mr Blunts stance asking whether government policy to achieve long term economic growth did not apply in Mr Blunt's constituency.
Mr Blunt responded: "There is no Green Belt which is more important than the Green Belt around our capital city."
He also cited the low unemployment in the area as proof the jobs must be weighed in the balance against protecting the Green Belt.
But Mr Katakowski retorted: "If in due course the inspector decides it is plausible, is persuaded, that up to the equivalent of 320 full time jobs should not occur through the loss of existing and the failure to achieve the growth, would that be a matter of very great and real regret and concern to you as the local MP or would you shrug your shoulders and say it is more important to protect the environment?"
Mr Blunt replied he would "always be concerned about sustaining the level of employment locally" but said with only 891 people claiming job seekers benefits in the area, attracting new employment into the area is not a priority.
When Mr Katakowski pressed him whether he would regret the loss of jobs, Mr Blunt replied: "Given the controversy around answering that in a simple one-word answer, I'm going to say that the answer is no, but obviously I'm going to qualify and explain it.
"It would not be a matter of regret because those jobs are, the additional jobs that would come in, are likely to be have to be provided to incomers and the likelihood of them being filled by the 891 people who are currently claiming jobseekers allowance would be limited."
The inquiry is scheduled to run until Friday and then reconvene next Thursday (January 16) for closing statements.
