PLANS by the new owner of a multi-million pound property to fly to and from his des res in Brook, have not gone down well with some of his neighbours.

Businessman and hotelier Martin Shaw, whose directorships include Old Thorns Golf Hotel and Estate at Liphook, bought Rockwood House last year, which went on sale for £2.7 million.

Godalming-based Planit Consulting has submitted an application to Waverley Borough Council on Mr Shaw’s behalf, seeking permission to demolish the existing aircraft hangar on site and build a larger one for the Pilatus PC-12 NG, single-engine turboprop plane, he wants to use for business trips.

Objectors complain the existing aircraft hangar and private landing strip have not been used for at least 30 years and a planning application should also be submitted seeking consent to reactivate the aviation use.

The proposed oak-clad hangar will be 8.3m high, 17.4m wide and 19.2m long, with a floorspace of 335sq m. Planit claimed as Waverley’s Local Plan was “out of date”, the application should be determined under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF), which says it is appropriate to replace any building provided it is for the same use and is not materially larger.

Planit’s covering letter in support of the application states: “The hangar and runway are used ‘incidental’ to the residential use of the estate, and by the new owner of the property for flying his private plane.

“It is proposed the aircraft will provide executive transport for our client. The dimensions of the new aircraft are such that the existing hangar is not sufficiently large to accommodate it and this application seeks approval for a hangar of greater dimensions.

“It is proposed the existing runway will be utilised.

“Given the requirement to increase the size of the hangar it is proposed the replacement building will have a curved roof, thereby lessening its visual impact.

“The roof will be grassed which will ensure it fits in with, and is appropriate to, its setting. It will be of a timber construction and clad such that it will have a rural appearance.”

Brook resident Gervase Boote objected claiming it was “misleading” to state the new building would not be materially larger than the one it replaces.

“The floor area of new building is 2.8 times the existing,” he wrote. “This together with the greater height of proposed building implies a volume about 3.7 times the size. Added to this, the area of hardstanding adjacent is 2.8 times the existing, it is clear that the scale of the new building would be vastly greater than the existing with consequent adverse effect on landscape.

“I am not aware of any consultation with the locals or wider public about the airstrip being opened up for use and the impact this would have.

“The Civil Aviation Authority safety regulation group recommends close consultation between an operator and the local planning authority.

“I will no doubt not be alone in having many other concerns about the impact of the operation of the airstrip. These will include permitted frequency of aircraft movements, time of day, restrictions on overflying certain points, effect of noise – especially given the size of the Pilatus, which in standard configuration can hold nine plus two crew and whether aircraft other than the Pilatus would use the airstrip and if so in what conditions.”

Fellow objector Philip Greig wrote: “No flying activity or use of the hangar has been in evidence for at least 30 years. Technically, in planning terms, the use has been abandoned and any new or continued use should be the subject of a planning application as the extant use is agricultural only.

“There should be no carte blanche to operate the new owner’s aircraft for an unlimited number of times, or at any time of the day or night. As an ex-helicopter pilot I know there are strict rules concerning these matters.”

Witley Parish Council has also objected to the development within the green belt. “If we accept the applicant’s case that the development is covered by the NPFF?as opposed to Local Plan, the development is materially larger and therefore not covered by the exception to which the applicant refers.”