News

Airport flights decision expected later this year

By Jack Sommers
July 02, 2010

THE final decision about whether Farnborough Airport should be allowed 50,000 flights a year must explain why the extra risk to people under the flightpath is justified, a public inquiry heard on its last day.

After more than one month of written evidence, expert witnesses and members of the public speaking, the inquiry into airport owner TAG’s appeal to be allowed more than the 28,000 flights it can have at the moment heard closing arguments on Wednesday.

Planning inspector David Richards will make a recommendation to the secretaries of state for transport and communities - Philip Hammond and Eric Pickles - who will then make a decision later in the year.

Geoff Marks, chairman of the Farnborough Aerodrome Residents’ Association, focused on the risk of a plane crash.

Changes to the way risk is calculated have reduced the possibility, but the method for this is not in the public domain because air traffic controller NATS has said it is commercially confidential.

It means more flights would not drastically change the area and size of the public safety zone at either end of the runway, which limits what can be built in those areas.

This is one of the most controversial issues surrounding the airport, with Mr Marks saying Rushmoor Borough Council had misunderstood planning policy about public safety.

He argued the policy was about land use for developers to follow and not to address the risk of plane crashes for airport planners.

At the inquiry, Mr Marks said that if Mr Hammond and Mr Pickles allowed the increase, they would be eroding the cautious margin of error in safety risk the council used when it granted initial planning permission for the airport in 2000.

He said: “Local residents would expect the secretaries of state, in their decision letter, to clearly present the evidence that justifies the erosion of the safety margin that Rushmoor’s members had sought to maintain in refusing TAG’s [50,000 flights] application.

“The criticism of members for having done so, voiced in evidence to this inquiry, is entirely misplaced.”

TAG appealed against the council’s refusal of its application in November, saying the councillors’ logic was not based on technical evidence.

In a statement, an airport spokesman said: “TAG Farnborough Airport is committed to making the best use of the state-of-the-art facilities which already exist at the airport.

“Our case as this appeal is built on striking a balance – a balance that takes account of environmental issues yet delivers local jobs, maintaining the important role that TAG Farnborough Airport plays in the local, regional and national economies.”

| View Comments (11)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 11 of 11

Aldershot Born wrote: "I think you are calling the kettle black because if you travel by plane surely you are helping with to gain money from other peoples discomfort because they live near a airport. "

You are making a bit of an assumption. I try to fly as little as possible preferring to take my car into Europe for my holidays rather than taking to the air (I hate all the sitting around in airports, I don't like sitting in an aircraft for hours).

I am not against flying at all and am more than happy for Farnborough airport to continue in its long tradition; I'm just arguing against expansion. The Airfield probably hasn't seen this much traffic since the war andthen only at a time when the population in the area was a lot less dense. Times have moved on and it is questionable whether it is appropriate to have the numbers of movements proposed. So to say that its the fault of people who moved next to an airfield is just crass.

There is a huge difference between an aircraft used for holidays and one of these littkle sky taxis - I've pointed this out before. One 747 can carry over 400 passengers - one of the exec jets a lot less. Assuming that these sky taxis carry on average two to three paying passiengers you have to have 150 - 200 flights from these smaller aircraft. The impact per passenger - noise will be much greater and probably more pollution and C02 per passenger as well.

So if we want to protect our environment maybe the self important business executive should get themselves across to Heathrow or Gatwick like most other people - oh but rubbing shoulders with the hoi polloi just wouldn't do would it! Thinking this through - another 60,000 travellers at Heathrow or Gatwick could be absorbed with very little extra impact on locals - if any. Much of the needed capacity probably exists in seats that currently go empty.

You did say "I wish everyone would just not keep on about this as it is out of your hands now." - well, you could practice what you preach. Personally, I don't like rolling over because if people just give up then 60,000 becomes 120,000 becomes...

pjt
16/07/2010 at 11:20

> The noise everyone goes on about is not as bad as they make out, what about the noise from > the traffic on the roads and from the factories local to everyone

I live on a cul-de-sac on the edge of town, I have no traffic and no factories - just ****** aircraft.

So make that everyone minus an awful lot of people!

You are lucky not to live an area that gives you high volumne of traffic - and noise from factories!

You may live in a cul-de-sac on the edge of your town but the aircraft noise from Farnborough airport has and will be allways their - we all wish for a quiet area - but with air travel being a sorce of travel - their isn't much we can do about it?

How many of those on here travel by plane for leisure - or business? I think you are calling the kettle black because if you travel by plane surely you are helping with to gain money from other peoples discomfort because they live near a airport.

I for one have never been on a plane - and yet I still travel abroad by other means.

Aldershot Born
14/07/2010 at 17:35

Aldershot Born:

> The noise everyone goes on about is not as bad as they make out, what about the noise from > the traffic on the roads and from the factories local to everyone

I live on a cul-de-sac on the edge of town, I have no traffic and no factories - just ****** aircraft.

So make that everyone minus an awful lot of people!

pjt
07/07/2010 at 18:35

I wish everyone would just not keep on about this as it is our of your hands now.

The noise everyone goes on about is not as bad as they make out, what about the noise from the traffic on the roads and from the factories local to everyone.

I know I have been told that no aircraft fly over my home - which is untrue - we get it everyday from Farnborough and also get chinnocks from odiham daily and they fly lower right over our roof every day - evening.

We may complain but after all we have to put up with it as this is out of our control just like final decision to farnborough airport.

We will just have to wait and see what happerns won't we?

Lets all look forward to the noise from the farnborough airshow - and all that lovely traffic thats coming our way!

Aldershot Born
07/07/2010 at 14:11

It is great the way prople who live far enough away not to be bothered by the noise are so pro airport. Perhaps these people are the real NIMBYS... "it's Not In My Back Yard So build what you like"

I'm sure that the Dept for the Environment bases its overruling of planning decisions on the same principle. Some minister looks at the map and says "it's nowhere near where I live so what's the problem? Of course you can build" before calling his chauffered car to take him home to his nice country pile.

pjt
06/07/2010 at 10:34

In reply to DICKC, Sorry, I agree with Its Douglas and Glenn Morrison! You say it all in the first proclomation, you live 20 minutes drive from......YOU DONT LIVE HERE!!! When your journey into Farnborough takes 45 minutes both in and out you may think again.

Kip, Southwood, Farnborough
05/07/2010 at 22:40

I heard that some members of the England football team returned via Farnborough after being knocked out of the World Cup in South Africa (I would imagine to dodge the press at Heathrow).

I wonder if they spent any of their money in Farnborough or just retreated home as quickly as possible.

Farnborough has already been shafted once over the Pyestock Mega-shed, please don't let it happen again over this.

R Cook
05/07/2010 at 12:35

TAG want to make money for themselves. What tosh to suggest that any business sets itself up for the benefit of local jobs and the general economy. Try taking that philanphropic business case to your bank manager - he'd laugh you out the door. TAGs greedy ambition will materialise to the direct detriment of affected residents whom used to enjoy weekends in their gardens courtesy of the RAF whom didn't fly at such sensitive times. TAG's obfuscation of the central issue is as predicatable as it is dispicable.

Glenn Morrison, Mytchett
05/07/2010 at 10:41

Why does it take until 'later this year' for a decision. We keep hearing claims of "[ the airport] delivers local jobs, maintaining the important role that TAG Farnborough Airport plays in the local, regional and national economies." What absolute rubbish. How does flying 2.5 rich people, per aircraft, about, mostly for leisure, help our economy? And I don't know of anyone locally who works at the airport.

Its Douglas
03/07/2010 at 23:13

I live about 20 minutes drive from Farnborough Airport. I believe that expansion of the Airport will be hugely beneficial to the local community, to local business and is critical to the creation of new employment opportunities. Farnborough is a grossly under utilised local and national resource.

Dickc
03/07/2010 at 00:21

Please can TAG quantify its claim to "deliver local jobs, maintaining the important role that TAG Farnborough Airport plays in the local, regional and national economies"

I don't see it at all. Where is this benefit?