News

| View Comments (5)


advertisement

Airport blunder over emissions prediction

By Jack Sommers
September 24, 2009

FARNBOROUGH Airport’s owners TAG got its sums wrong in calculating the environmental impact of nearly doubling the number of flights there.

The carbon dioxide the flights would create is less than half what TAG believed.

It is predicted that the  50,000 flights that TAG wants would produce nearly two million tonnes of CO2.

This turned out to be wrong because its contractors had accidentally counted the number of engines rather than flights.

Twin-engine planes were counted twice and four-engine planes were counted four times.

The actual figure for 50,000 flights would be 241,153 tonnes of carbon dioxide while cruising.

This is less than what the mistaken calculations said was being created by the flights it had in 2008.

Brandon O’Reilly, the airport’s chief executive, said the exposure of the error was down to the way planning applications are scrutinised.

He said: “People have been going backwards and forwards and query things from Rushmoor Borough Council (since TAG submitted its application in June) and they come back to us.

“In this case it was shown that the emissions the flights would produce was lower by a factor of more than two.

“It’s proof that the planning process is good.”

Mr O’Reilly said the mistake had not prompted TAG to check its calculations on other matters, such as employment projections, noise and the risk of a plane crash.

“We do not believe those contain errors,” he said.

The North East Hampshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) exposed the mistake.

Hugh Sheppard, the branch’s chairman, wrote to Rushmoor Borough Council to say he had compared the projected emissions with those at other airports and they seemed to be up to two and half times higher.

The council put this, along with other questions, to the consultants RPS, which had done the original calculations.

It responded that a “re-evaluation of the figures” had showed the error.

RPS gave new figures, which showed 50,000 flights would create 241,153 tonnes while cruising, less than half of its original calculation of nearly half a million tonnes.

No one at the consultants RPS was available to comment this week.

Mr Sheppard did his own calculations from RPS’s new figures to work out the total CO2 created.

His conclusion was 50,000 flights from the airport would create 977,900 tonnes a year.

This calculation refers to the total CO2 the planes would leave in the entire atmosphere, while the cruising figure only refers to CO2 at ground level.

Mr Sheppard said he now believed the carbon footprint of those flying from Farnborough Airport was 10 times higher than those leaving from Gatwick.

This is because Farnborough Airport’s business jets have far fewer passengers than commercial aircraft.

Like the environmental statement, many include complex calculations about the impact of the proposed expansion on the area, including employment, noise and risk to the public.

Mr O’Reilly added RPS was only involved in calculating the carbon emissions.

Rushmoor Borough Council will now be considering the new figures.

It has yet to set a date to reject or approve the application.

The borough council has changed the rules of the meeting of the planning committee to allow members of the public 90 minutes to speak on the subject.

Ten people will have five minutes each to speak against the proposal.

Representatives from Hart District Council and Surrey Heath Borough Council will also be able to speak for five minutes each.

Thirty minutes would then be available for anyone to speak in favour of it.

| View Comments (5)
advertisement

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 5 of 5

   This is a very old 'bad news/good news' scam. "TAG got its sums wrong and its not half as bad as we thought- so everything is OK guys". I don't suppose that they have any other calculations wrong - e.g. the number of jobs that will be created? I hope that RBC Planning take this misinformation into account when considering this.
Its Douglas
30/09/2009 at 00:27 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Does Farnborough Airoprt+ Pyestock Warehouse = More and bigger planes?
pjt
27/09/2009 at 00:11 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   "... the mistake had not prompted TAG to check its calculations on other matters, such as employment projections, noise and the risk of a plane crash". Maybe they should, i.e. assertions as to the employment creation of the increased flights @ Farnborough? the type of jobs and salaries which these will attract. Will they add to the hi-tech end of the job market in Rushmoor or will they purely be service industry, short term, low paid temporary contracts - on what basis were such statements made?

There is also noise pollution and the risk of an accident either @ or near the airfield; has that been properly assessed by the relevant authorities? Has anyone in the local councils or in risk assessment companies checked the statistics supplied?

Finally, in view of the fact that climate change is now a seriously being taken into account by world leaders in the UN and around the world. The statement that "Farnborough Airport’s business jets have far fewer passengers than commercial aircraft" isn't this very concerning for the local council, Hampshire County Council and even the Gov't., if such jets are effectively polluting the atmosphere and not carrying many passengers per flight? is that not going against the whole ethos of making the most of natural resources and not being profligate with fuel? Would it not make more sense to maximise the number of passengers per flight and if needs be reduce the number of flights per year? therefore reducing the sites co2 emissions over all. After all, don't we all want a local and global environment which is in better condition for future generations?
Pete63
25/09/2009 at 03:53 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Just studied the article, 90 minutes for objections. Not near enough. This is an quality of life affecting decision. Can we have names please not 'the borough council' who has made this decision? Who is the 'borough council' anyway? David, you are my councillor. Who is making these outrageous rules.
Its Douglas
25/09/2009 at 01:49 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   3,000 people object and get 90 mins to speak, whilst 100 people approve and get 30 mins. The correct ratio would have 30 mins for those in favour and 15 hrs for those against. The same 'loading' was established last time around and is evidence of the inbuilt bias in favour of the applicant. Deja vu.
Glenn Morrison
24/09/2009 at 14:55 Offensive or Inappropriate?
 
Homes / Jobs Search
 
Jobs Homes

Brought to you by

Fish4jobs
Newsletter Sign Up
 
Sign up to the
weekly news
update


Submit
Loading poll, please wait...