News

TAG Farnborough Airport is to fight a council decision to block a planning application to increase the cap on the number of flights at the airport from 28,000 to 50,000 a year
advertisement

Farnborough Airport fights blocked expansion plans

By Jack Sommers
December 07, 2009

THE owner of TAG Farnborough Airport has lodged an appeal against the decision to block its plans to almost double the number of planes using the airport.

Council tax payers in Aldershot and Farnborough could be left with a hefty legal bill after TAG's boss said he could not rule out pursuing the company's costs - likely to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Councillors sitting on Rushmoor Borough Council's planning committee last month decided to reject their own expert advice that TAG's request to increase flights to 50,000 a year should be allowed.

TAG Farnborough Airport had asked for planning permission to increase the cap on the number of flights allowed at the airport from 28,000 to 50,000 a year.

The appeal by TAG Farnborough Airport's legal advisors was lodged with the Planning Inspectorate at 9am on Monday.

Speaking to Get Hampshire on Monday, Brandon O'Reilly said he would not rule out asking the planning inspector to decide whether each party should pay their own costs, or force one side to pay all the costs of the likely lengthy planning inquiry.

Even if both sides pay just their own costs, Aldershot and Farnborough taxpayers are likely to have to foot a bill of at least £100,000 to pay for independent experts and legal counsel to back up their decision to block the expansion bid, after spending thousands on experts who concluded the exact opposite just a few months ago.

For more on this story, see the News & Mail, out on Friday, December 11.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (13)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 13 of 13

Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

As a retired airline pilot I regard the comments by Mr Farkiou as crass stupidity, inappropriate and on the borderline of incitement to commit an offence against aircraft on the approach to Farnborough Airport. The airline industry faces threats at most of the major airports in the world. It says a lot for the courage of cabin staff and flight crews that they continue to operate in such a vulnerable and hostile environment, never being completely sure when some misguided person with some grievance decides to achieve publicity or martyrdom by taking some of the actions which have occurred in recent years. This letter is the most inappropriate way to advance the case against the proposed increase in movements at Farnborough Airport. Icarus722

Icarus722, Puttenham GU3 1AX
14/01/2010 at 10:44

TAG is just being greedy, nothing wrong with profit but not at the expense of the local population, who will never gain much from the airport. Everyone around the airport has had the environment around them made poorer with the number of flights that already take place, Tag keep saying we will stop all but the newest planes flying in and out "WHEN WE GET PERMISSION TO UP THE NUMBERS OF FLIGHTS", why wait?? put your price up if you want to make more profits, if your such a great place to use they will pay more, and please don't keep saying that you have spent a lot of money on the site, you spent it, we did not ask you to, as for the number of jobs that it gives to the area, I'd put money that most that work there do not live in the area, those that get much more than the minimum that is.

Oldtwit, Fleet
13/01/2010 at 14:46

Once having lived and worked near R.A.E. Farnborough I could agree to the necessity of the air force's role at any time, including the defence and civilian research (black boxes etc./QinetiQ). Now it's private TAG and I see no reason, why the local residents should put up with the drastic and direct drawbacks due to an increase of the expected air traffic for the pure financial benefit of a few private investors. I made exactly the same experience as "mai" (see comment mai 19/12/2009 at 20:12). It says it all. Yes, I noticed the picture, too. It comes along with the Pyestock way of decision. Take care!

Stone
30/12/2009 at 22:15

Stone
30/12/2009 at 10:20

One of the most significant implications of this proposed, but lawfully rejected, expansion appears to have been ignored or marginalised. Security. The King George playing field, in Farnborough, lies directly under the flight path of landing aeroplanes. I have flown kites there with my children for years. One year I acquired a kite with a 75 metre cord and managed to get it fully extended. I am not alone in flying kites, loads of toy remote ooperated aeroplanes and helicopters can be seen most weekends, and have no plans to stop doing so under any circumstances. I am not sure what height the aeroplanes are at when the overfly the field but it easily looks low enough to be a security threat. Low powered, legal firearms are easily available to many people. Need I say more in the current security climate.

Don Farkiou
29/12/2009 at 19:44

Do Farnborough residents want growth ,prosperity,jobs and a brighter outlook ? Do us a favour that speech went out the window with concorde. Aircraft have no god given right to fly out of farnborough they dont "belong here", What prosperity is there? who do you know that have suddenly become prosperous because TAG came here, the local people Ive met that work in the airport work in the canteen on minimum wage. Brighter outlook? What does that mean? Growth? The borough is full, The rates hardly cover because many properties are multi occupied by adults or students that are not contributing to the system. Others are on housing benefits because of low wages or unemployment. None of this will change by giving into TAG over more and more flights its just more pollution of every kind.

moaner

mai
19/12/2009 at 20:12

Do Farnborough residents want growth ,prosperity,jobs and a brighter outlook ? It would seem that the blinkers have been on for so many years,that went a brilliant opportunity comes along to re-bulid and establish the area every "moaner" comes out of the closet. The development of the airport by TAG should not come as a surprise,this is where aircraft were developed,flown and have been a natural part of the areas heritage.Aircraft belong here and we should be grateful someone has seen the future and are prepared to invest vast sums of money to bring prosperity to Rushmoor & Hart districts. We all understand what certain councils are up to when refusal happens,it isn`t rocket science! But greed sometimes is not good,look at the future.What do you want to see in the area?A airport that cannot reach its full potential ? or a highly important part of the local commerce that brings in new investors and much needed monies to the community. To establish Farnborough`s identity and not be just a part of Greater London as most people see us. Partnerships are developments and growth that benefit most of the community,the partnership should be allowed to move forward. Robert.S FARNBOROUGH

Robbie62
18/12/2009 at 07:32

We can make a plea to the eu since we are being asked to cough up for a climate change tax to help other countries conquer the problems of global warming. We could plead on the basis that these flights are not essential to the national interest and as such contribute more co2 to the eu footprint only in the name of money making.

@PMB I dont think we are talking a few spitfires here m8 Blackbushe was nearly fifty years ago let Tag go there if its a better venue. There will be no economic benefit for Rushmoor go to Crawley and see the benefit that town has recieved from Gatwick the place is as bad as Aldershot m8 go ask the locals what they think about Gatwicks next expansion. Also Tag bought the airfield on the basis of a few hundred flights initially but they wont stop asking for increases in flights until they have saturated the sky above the borough. Just a few flights was probably the estate agents mantra that sold properties to those under the flight path ten years ago. But im on the south of the borough and they continue to fly over us whether outbound or inbound I dont see any benefit for me from these whining flights that enable the indulgent wealthy few to enjoy flights at the expense of the many.

mai
11/12/2009 at 23:31

This is a wake up call for Aldershot,Rushmoor,Hart & Surrey Heath residents and councils. This area is in dire need of a vision for the future. At present the area has no identity apart from being known as a commuter belt and home of some parts of the army.

Can these councils work together and deliver a vision for the future? Can the residents acknowledge the value of a well managed airport, which brings additional employment opportunities as long as the councils stimulate the entry of other businesses here?

The councils must deliver new business plans and ideas in tandem with controlled airport expansion so the end result is that we live in an area which grows responsibly and successfully, and doesn't remain a stagnant commuter belt where much needed future plans are forever damaged by minorities before they even get of the ground.

UKPLC is in a monster mess, but here we have a heaven sent local opportunity to escape the quagmire of unemployment and low growth and use the airport plans as a stepping stone to even wider region developments

basher, Deepcut
11/12/2009 at 17:59

Please bear in mind those people who have lived around the airport for some 30 years but didnt buy into the 50,000 flight moves. The Planning process is difficult and clearly against the tax paying public but it is meant to represent the public interest so is a necessity. If TAG want to win over public opinion remarks about making the Council (local people) pay will not help their PR campaign.

CoveJ
8/12/2009 at 16:54

The threat of Farnborough Airport's proposed growth has been grossly over egged by the small band of opposition. Understandably there will be a section of our population who will be subjected to aircraft disturbance, but as a percentage of the residents within say a 5 mile radius of the airfield they are very small. The fact is that the vast majority have not come out in opposition to TAG's plans, most probably are none too bothered either way - the fanatical opposition forced themselves on the TAG plan for additional movements. Now they should stand accountable for what they have done. Those who complained that aircraft fly over their houses at 150 feet should be asked why they bought a property so located....

It should be kept in mind that when TAG purchased the airfield they had to accept an agreement that should they find it necessary to sell the site it must ONLY be sold as an airport. Those opposing TAG's needs were playing a dangerous game!!

Finally, as in the case of Blackbushe, there was fanatical opposition to any flying at all after the government closed the airport in 1960. However , such opposition has dissolved over the years as the opponents have moved away or passed on. This will happen as Farnborough Airport becomes an accepted part of life, a green pasture that will never be developed into housing or a massive commercial estate, but a flagship of the area - Farnborough Airport will be of great benefit to the locality, it will not be the source of pollution and road congestion that some would have us believe.

PMB

PMB, Church Crookham
8/12/2009 at 14:54

Well if thats the case then all those who voted against the expansion at Farnborough Airport should pay for the costs. Even down to the councilliors that said no on the evening.

TAG should of won the right in the first place, saving us so much money that Rushmoor Borough Council wasted yet again fighting something that is going to happern any way.

Just think how much everyones council tax bill is going to go up [those that pay I might add] on something that shouldn't of happerned in the first place, just like the fight over Pyestock all that money that could of been used on things that is more needed in this borough.

As long as Farnborough and Fleet have their way they don't care who has to pay for it, very unfair on those who had no problem to it in the first place.

Like I have said before those who moved to live near the airport knew that it was their so if they didn't want aircraft over their homes why move their in the first place, don't complain now, move if you have a problem.

Aldershot Born
7/12/2009 at 18:14

Before I'm berated for previous views I've expressed against expansion - I'm not complaining here about the Airport, but a planning system which seems TOTALLY stacked against local authorities and the tax paying public.

Surely it is a crazy system: we apply for permission - you reject it and you will pay through the nose! Even Airport supporters should be concerned about this.

Just what is the point of the planning process? Why not let anyone build anything anywhere and to hell with the consequences. Can an already cash-strapped council afford to face up to the threat of a huge legal bill? So basically, this is a threat that developers can always use to force a councils hand and get whatever it is that they want.

Doesn't the side with the money usally win?