|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Nov 9, 2006 15:07:31 GMT 1
The PUBLIC ENQUIRY APPEAL to look into the Tag application for more meekend movements Is to be held from January 23 2007 or 4 Day sat the Council offices . anyone wanting to attend can go along youwill be able to Submit Statements to the inspecter (see www.rushmoor.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6699 |
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Nov 10, 2006 23:33:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Jan 21, 2007 20:46:30 GMT 1
THIS BELOW WAS POSTED BY AN FAB LIST MEMBER AND MOVED TO THE FORUMS ============== List owner 21.01.2007 ============== have obtained the following from a local protest group (CCH at Hart) and believe you may be interested. These two groups are well organised and will fill the council chamber with protesters, they will also speak against TAG. They could win. The following is being widely circulated. "As you are probably aware the appeal into the refusal by Rushmoor Borough Council of TAG's application to extend weekend flying starts on Tuesday of next week (23rd January). The Farnborough News is running an online vote (very unscientifically) to see what the level of opinion is with regards to if TAG should be allowed the extension or not. The vote is accessed from the Farnborough News web-site, www.farnborough.co.uk, and is very simple to use. We have been asked by members of the Farnborough Aerodrome Residents Association (FARA to publicise this poll and ask people to express their own opinion. The feeling from some who have contacted us is that unless there is a general awareness of the poll the result may be somewhat skewed. So please if you feel strongly about the weekend flying issue (whichever way you feel) please take a moment to express your point of view - by clicking on the poll. There is an expectation that some parties to the appeal will point to this vote as material evidence; despite there being no statistical control on the validity of such a polling method. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Jan 21, 2007 20:47:35 GMT 1
i
they have to register there intenion to speak i believe before the Enquiry
starts to the inspector so i doubt any attempt to mass speak will be
allowed It was obvious from the last enquiry that this Rabble exists
and the lack of Control from the chair was unbelievable . therefore i
wont be there to be insulted shouted at .The right of free speech
and debate does not Exist when it comes to the anti everything
Brigade a look around FAB would show you what has gone before
on other planning issues an empty and derelict Town center
thats my opinion i am entitled to say this and i have always
supported Aviation here at Farnborough its My Right But
then what do i know a 59 YEARS resident
T
Subject: Eglf2007 (jan) TAG Appeal Tuesday 23rd
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Jan 21, 2007 21:04:34 GMT 1
Will extra weekend flights be allowed?
by Pete Castle
AIRFIELD bosses and campaigners are gearing up for next week’s public planning inquiry over weekend flights at Farnborough Airport.
The appeal, by TAG Aviation, the company that operates flights into Farnborough, follows Rushmoor Borough Council’s decision last year to reject an application to double the number of allowed weekend and bank holiday landings and take-offs from 2,500 to 5,000 a year.
The public inquiry, chaired by government planning inspector Kenneth Smith, starts on Tuesday at the council’s main offices in Farnborough Road. It is expected to last four days.
The planning inspector will then report to Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who will make the final decision.
Sir Donald Spiers, director of TAG Aviation, said: “We are pleased that the appeal process has reached this stage and is being worked through, although I imagine that a final decision will not be reached for several months.
“We think we have a good case, otherwise we would not have brought the appeal. There is masses of evidence that sets out the issues in great detail.
“We are very happy that the case is to be heard in public. It’s now up to the inspector.”
Geoff Marks, chairman of Farnborough Airfield Resi-dents’ Association (FARA), who has opposed expansion of weekend flights, said: “I would expect the inquiry to be very well attended.
“Quite clearly people are concerned that having gone through the democratic process that TAG have chosen not to accept the decision that was made.”
Mr Marks said that he thought TAG’s investment in the area had pre-empted the council’s local development plans.
“They have chosen a high-risk strategy — to build first and seek planning permission that would permit full utilisation later,” he added.
Documents outlining TAG’s grounds for appeal have already been submitted to the planning inspector.
TAG will contest that Rushmoor’s refusal to grant permission is invalid on a number of grounds.
The company has engaged the services of a number of experts who have put forward ‘proof of evidence’ reports outlining the company’s arguments.
One of the reports, by surveyor Ian Shrubsall, claims Rushmoor’s refusal on the grounds of noise is invalid.
It also suggests that the government’s 2003 Airports White Paper and the Air Transport Progress Report, published in December 2006, should override Rushmoor’s Local Plan from 2000, which set a limit on weekend flight numbers.
A report for TAG on the economic impacts, by Louise Congdon of York Aviation, concludes that there is an overriding economic benefit for increasing weekend flights from the airport for the local, regional and national economy.
The council’s rebuttal, prepared by Cliff Lane of Savills Planning, states that TAG has not provided enough evidence to back up its claim that the council’s development plan is out of date and should be overridden.
Mr Lane also concludes that TAG’s evidence on economic impact “…lacks its own firm evidence base, is speculative, fails to adequately predict business decisions and does not properly account for the attraction of other airports.”
Commenting on TAG’s submissions, Mr Marks said: “In our opinion, their case for the increase in weekend flying is riddled with omissions, inaccuracies, distortions and is very selective in its review of government policies.”
Aldershot MP Gerald Howarth, a staunch supporter of the airport’s expansion plans, said: “I’m certainly looking forward to a resolution to the issue,” he said.
“There are a lot of issues but these will undoubtedly come up in the inquiry. That is the way it should work – everyone will have the opportunity to air their views.
“This is an occasion for the technical issues to be addressed, but the final decision will be made by the secretary of state. At the end of the day, she will make her decision.”
Mr Howarth, whose constituency includes the airfield, will not be attending the inquiry but he expressed concern over the length of time that the appeal process had taken to proceed.
“It’s not fair on the local residents, or on TAG, having these things hanging around for this length of time,” he said. “It’s similar to the Heathrow Terminal Five inquiry or the Channel Tunnel high-speed rail link.”
Michael Gove, MP for the neighbouring Surrey Heath constituency, has taken an opposite view to his Conservative colleague.
He has written to the Planning Inspectorate asking it to turn down the appeal, citing the detrimental effect to his constituents who live under Farnborough’s flight path.
Rushmoor benefits financially directly from each aircraft movement, as TAG pays the council £2 for every incoming flight and £5 for planes that weigh more than 50 tonnes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Feb 1, 2007 21:42:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Apr 6, 2007 21:47:54 GMT 1
THE RESUMED APPEAL
====================
Chairman denies airport to close if extra flights refused
by David Lindsell
THE Chairman of TAG Aviation has denied threats to close Farnborough airport if its bid to increase weekend flights was refused.
Sydney Gillibrand CBE gave evidence on Day Five of the inquiry and claimed that £25 million worth of investment could be lost because of the decision.
However he refused to reveal the business strategy of the company, which opponents believe might prove whether extra flights at the weekend are really necessary.
TAG is appealing against Rushmoor Borough Council’s decision last year to turn down its bid to increase the number of weekend and bank holiday flights from 2,500 to 5,000.
A familiar cast of characters from January’s adjourned proceedings, including 14 representatives from TAG, gathered on Monday with its plc’s lawyer John Steel resuming sparring with Rushmoor’s QC Morag Ellis.
However, the afternoon session in the council chambers in Farnborough was the first and only time in the inquiry when a representative from TAG will speak before the inspector.
Sydney Gillibrand has been the non-executive chairman of TAG since 1999, and is a former vice-chairman of British Aerospace Plc.
Mr Gillibrand told the inquiry that TAG had begun work on a £33 million 170-bedroom hotel and planned to invest a further £25m into offices and hangars but only if the appeal was successful.
He said: “If planning permission is not granted, it is unlikely that the further investment of £25 million would proceed, or at the very least, it would be substantially delayed until economic viability is achieved.”
Giving evidence, he said that there were 212 TAG staff employed at Farnborough dependent on its operation and a further 1,700 jobs in the area reliant on the airport.
He also revealed the full scale of business done at the airport.
At the last Farnborough Airshow, US $42 billion of new orders were announced.
However, he said, the airport could be damaged if the company was not allowed to shift more flights to Saturdays and Sundays.
“At weekends there is substantial under-use not only of the physical infrastructure of the airport but also of staff and personnel who have to be on duty during the opening times of the airport,” he said.
“This creates an inefficient wasted cost to the airport and to help overcome this, these extra weekend costs are passed directly onto the limited number of users.”
There were never meant to be any hints or threats that the airport could be closed down if TAG did not get its way, simply that further growth might be stalled, Mr Gillibrand told the inquiry.
“We have made it clear we never intended it to mean the difference between continuing to strive to develop the airport and closing it down,” he said.
“It doesn’t necessarily mean the difference between prosperity and bankruptcy. It’s not intended to be a hint that TAG could close Farnborough.
“It never was intended to be a threat. It seems to me a very sensible statement.
“We have reached a point very close to critical where we will be unable to grow the business further if we can’t strike the balance that our customers demand.”
When asked why TAG had agreed to the limit from Rushmoor Borough Council in the first place, the inspector heard that the company had been working from “a cloudy sheet of paper”.
“There was a very co-operative atmosphere between us and the authority at that time,” said Mr Gillibrand. “We felt that in the nature of these discussions reviewing what we had decided would not be so difficult as it has turned out to be.”
Rushmoor’s QC, Morag Ellis, pressed TAG to reveal more about its long-term strategy. “You have a business plan but you’re not prepared to disclose it to the inquiry,” she said.
“No,” replied Mr Gillibrand.
Mrs Ellis said the investment in the hotel showed investors had confidence in the future of Farnborough despite the movements limit.
“Is there a resolution to build a second hangar if the appeal succeeds?” she asked, to which Mr Gillibrand replied no.
“Is there a resolution not to build if this appeal fails?” she asked.“Not specifically, no,” said Mr Gillibrand.
Under cross-examination Mr Gillibrand insisted TAG had been told by operators they were unhappy at the limit, but told the inquiry it could not provide any statements or letters to that effect.
When asked how TAG ranked among its competitors he said: “I don’t know where we are in the market share. I just know we need more.”
Mrs Ellis also asked what expectation TAG had made about a possible increase in weekday flights.
Before the close of the day, an article in the January issue of high society magazine Harper’s Bazaar, one of a handful of other newspaper articles, was the cause of controversy.
‘Flights of Fantasy. Jeffersons’ Decadent Mini-Breaks’ gave an account of pleasure trips from Farnborough, appearing to be of the type banned under the conditions set by Rushmoor.
Mrs Ellis said: “Can you say none of the trips will be pure leisure trips like this one.”
Mr Gillibrand said: “The aggravation felt by someone who doesn’t like to have an airline in the near vicinity is greater if they feel the trip is something it shouldn’t be but the trip is the same.
“The rules are clear. We will not allow flights in or out of Farnborough that do not comply with our planning permission.”
Mrs Ellis asked the same question again before telling inspector Ken Smith that she was unsatisfied with the answer.
“I will make submissions about that because it is not an answer to the question and I have put twice now,” she told the inquiry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Apr 12, 2007 21:55:13 GMT 1
Nine more people will suffer noise pollution’
by Pete Castle
AIRCRAFT noise and disturbance to residents has been at the heart of the inquiry into weekend flights at Farnborough Airfield.
TAG has argued that a doubling of weekend flights would lead to just nine more people being affected by the noise of landings and take-offs.
Advertisementyour story continues below
Rushmoor Borough Council and airfield neighbours have argued that the methodology used by TAG is flawed, and that the quality of life of people living near the airfield will be significantly damaged by more weekend activity.
On Tuesday — day six — TAG’s expert witness on noise repeated its claims.
Jeffrey Charles, an acoustic engineer and fellow of the Institute of Acoustics, concluded that doubling weekend flights “will not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance”.
The recent government white paper on the future of UK aviation also supported the increase, as it encouraged an extension in the use of current airport capacity, he concluded.
Mr Charles said he had used an industry standard method for measuring noise disturbance. This measures the average amount of noise at specific locations during the daytime.
These measurements are then placed on a map to create “noise contours”, linking points of equal noise disturbance on a map.
Mr Charles said that if planning permission were granted, there would be no material increase in noise from the airport.
He added: “The highest levels of noise will occur in Farnborough for those properties facing the A325 Farnborough Road.
“Some masking of aviation activities will occur due to noise from the considerable traffic flow.”
He later stressed the traffic argument was not a point that he pressed.
John Steel QC, acting on behalf of TAG, asked Mr Charles: “In terms of numbers impacted, what is the difference between the application being refused and granted, in terms of population?”
Mr Charles replied: “It is nine people.”
Mr Steel said: “That is nine people who would be very much annoyed in terms of this development.”
Morag Ellis QC, for the council, showed Mr Charles where two residents, Susan Jenkins, of Reading Road, Farnborough, and Geoff Marks, of The Sycamores, Farnborough, lived on the noise contour maps.
Mr Charles agreed that their properties were outside the areas marked as having significant levels of noise disturbance.
Miss Ellis read a statement from Mrs Jenkins, previously heard at the inquiry, in which she said her mother had “physically ducked” when a plane was coming over. She also read a statement from Mr Marks in which he said residents were unable to have their grandchildren to stay because children were frightened by the noise of the aircraft.
Miss Ellis said: “Would you agree that those are disruptions even though they are outside the noise contour area?”
Mr Charles replied: “That is correct.”
Miss Ellis said the selection of which noise contours showed the boundary between ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ noise disturbance depended on the level chosen.
Although the government accepted a level of 57 decibels as an appropriate level, the United Nations World Health Organisation (WHO) recom-mended a level of 50 decibels, she said.
Mr Charles said: “It is not a recommendation by WHO. It is a guideline figure which member states can use to find their own criteria.”
Miss Ellis asked Mr Charles if the government’s noise limit of 57 decibels, which is an average noise indicator, took into account more sensitive times, such as weekends.
Mr Charles said: “When the studies were done to set the acceptable limit at 57 decibels, all the airports were operating at weekends and weekdays.”
He said the contours considered weekend and weekday activity at the airport averaged over the week, and there was no scientific basis to focusing on just weekends using the same method.
Members of the public were given the opportunity to ask Mr Charles questions.
Richard Appleton, of Chestnut Grove, Fleet, said: “We as residents argue that reverse thrust was an issue. Did TAG take action over reverse thrust?”
Mr Charles did not know.
Dr Appleton said: “Reverse thrust can be heard all the way back to the Basingstoke Canal at Mytchett, so its use does have a significant effect.”
Mr Charles said that reverse thrust was only used once an aircraft was on the runway, so it would be unlikely to make a difference to the noise contours over residential areas.
The public inquiry was expected to finish yesterday (Thursday) as the News went to press. Planning inspector Ken Smith will produce a report which will be put forward to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Ruth Kelly MP, who will make the final decision on the appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Apr 13, 2007 15:57:15 GMT 1
Flights report this June
by Pete Castle
A RECOMMENDATION on whether to allow a doubling of weekend flights at Farnborough Airfield could be made by June, it has been confirmed.
Planning inspector Ken Smith made his “best guestimate” of the date when his report would be ready during the final throes of the public inquiry into the controversial plans last week.
Advertisementyour story continues below
Concluding the inquiry at 4.16pm on April 5, Mr Smith said he would deliver his report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who will officially make the decision, on June 15.
He added, however, that he would try to be earlier with the report if possible.
The inquiry, which began in January and concluded last week, was triggered by an appeal by TAG against a decision last year by Rushmoor Borough Council to reject the airfield operator’s application to alter the number of permitted weekend flights.
Before officially closing the inquiry Mr Smith heard concluding statements from both sides.
Morag Ellis QC, for the council, said that TAG chairman Sydney Gillibrand had admitted the future of the airfield was not in danger if planning permission was refused.
The only real issue at stake was the speed at which TAG recouped its investment in the airfield, she said.
“Why should local people pay the price of TAG’s desire to reduce or shorten its exposure to risk?” she asked.
Miss Ellis also refuted TAG’s insistence that the government’s 2003 Airports White Paper policy should be given more weight than any local planning framework, under which the council initially rejected TAG’s application to double the number of weekend flights.
“The White Paper itself contains no specific policy for Farnborough Airport and recognises that proposals are to be considered through the planning system in the normal way,” she told the inspector.
The main points of the appeal were noise and disturbance to residents and economic benefits of the airfield, Miss Ellis said. “Given increased sensitivity and reasonable expectations as to weekend activities, this evidence substantiates the allegation of harm to residential amenity in the reason for refusal,” she told the inquiry.
“Residents are already suffering serious intrusion and this is a case where it is not necessary to rely solely on predictions to gauge the effects. Refusal would at least not exacerbate the problems currently suffered at weekends, including difficulty speaking on the telephone, windows rattling or visitors being alarmed.”
Addressing the economic impact, Miss Ellis accused TAG of “building on sand” by giving hypothetical scenarios about what might happen if planning permission was refused.
She gave TAG’s ‘scenario two’ — the claim that refusal would lead to two aircraft operators leaving the airfield, leading to loss of jobs and business — short shrift.
“There is no evidence on which to conclude that ‘scenario two’ is reasonable, or that the claimed economic consequences would follow,” she said.
John Steel QC, acting on behalf of TAG, described the council’s arguments as “hollow”.
He said that permitting a doubling of the number of weekend flights would lead to wide-ranging benefits, cause no significant adverse effects, and make best use of existing airfield capacity.
In a statement lasting an hour, Mr Steel said that refusing TAG’s appeal would frustrate the government’s 2003 airports policy of using existing capacity where available.
Refusal, he added, would also put a £25million investment in the airfield and the creation of between 120 and 200 jobs in jeopardy.
The increase in noise as a result of the development was “totally insignificant,” Mr Steel said, a fact that was agreed by the council’s own noise expert.
Refusal of development at Farnborough would cause more weekend traffic at other airports in the south-east.
He said Farnborough’s maximum of 115 people significantly disturbed by noise compared favourably to 600 at Biggin Hill and 307,000 at Heathrow. “The effect of the proposals in terms of noise and disturbance would be negligible, and it cannot be sensibly concluded that demonstrable harm would occur as a result of the proposals,” he said.
Mr Steel also placed much emphasis on the government’s White Paper on aviation.
“The undeniable conclusion to be reached is that subject to no unacceptable effect upon the environment and residential amenity being caused, government policy clearly supports expansion of Farnborough,” he said.
Farnborough Airfield was the best choice for development of business aviation, Mr Steel said, due to its high class facilities and runway length compared to rivals such as RAF Northolt, Blackbushe, Fairoaks and Biggin Hill.
|
|
