Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2009 12:48:39 GMT 1
How about applying for an aircraft viewing area for the public / enthusiasts?
I can guess the answer
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Apr 4, 2009 15:44:59 GMT 1
OK I will ring RING Rushmoor bc monday with suggestion and see what is said . but i would like a few others to do the Same
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2009 16:53:05 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Apr 23, 2009 17:07:08 GMT 1
hi PETE Read all of it and frankly is the same old Story no one realy is that bothered about increases unless somone feeds them with information that it will be hell on Earth, the Benifits
of increased employment and the possiblity that money will finds its way into the local
economy dont matter to the ANTI TAG Brigade . But its in doubt at moment with the obvious
signs that Traffic is well down and could be years before picks up . A few more Famous names
will i fear be lost not just in Aviation but in the High street . The Sooner The government do
away with these out dated planning laws and stop the endless costs of public enquirys and
more waste the better odds on this also will go to an Enquiry then an appeal then an appeal
for Judicial review more appeals more money wasted on on and on
TONY
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Apr 23, 2009 17:16:41 GMT 1
I forgot to mention that the Rumour of Frieght traffic has resurfaced even though TAG aviation
and the previous operaters have stressed time time and time again it will never Happen somone
starts this rumour again . there was never any plans for this at Farnborough the facilitys there
simply make it impossible without spending millions on runway improvements and buildings
Tag again made it plain once the current building has been completed no futher work was needed
for the forseeable future NO 2second terminal needed is that not plain enough for these people to understand that there being Fed wrong information ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jun 13, 2009 7:58:03 GMT 1
Courtesy of local news paper
Work to begin on wind tunnel restaurant
June 10, 2009
WORK is about to begin to convert one of Farnborough’s famous heritage buildings into a new events, restaurant and bar complex.
The listed R52 low-speed wind tunnel building, part of the former Royal Aircraft Establishment, is on the verge of being transformed.
Entrepreneurs Paul Hewett and Ian Hockerday are the brains behind the project.
The businessmen have bought R52 - a wind tunnel where much of the 20th century’s ground-breaking aeronautical research and development was carried out.
Heritage
Britain led the world with its aeronautical innovation and a huge amount of the pioneering work was centred on the former Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) in Farnborough, Hampshire.
Based at the former RAE site, R52 is of huge significance in the history of global aviation.
The building’s new owners say the unique heritage of the historic location ensures it will prove popular.
For Ian Hockerday of Ash Green, Surrey, taking on the R52 has a sentimental connection. He once worked at the RAE in the wind tunnels. Both men are passionate about retaining and protecting the history of the building and are convinced their project will a big commercial success.
Mr Hockerday said: “This will be a venue that can cater for hundreds of people, that is contemporary and buzzing, and serves great beers and wine along with mouth-watering gastro pub-type food."
The R52 building, previously owned by the Slough Estates Group (Segro), is on the IQ site in Farnborough, formerly known as Farnborough Business Park.
Bit of trivial news really but thought worthy of a mention - They possibly wont need to fit an extractor fan!!
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jun 26, 2009 17:49:05 GMT 1
Again the minority grab the headlines-I don't decry that there is not a greater risk to some homes within the flight path boundaries but a 15% drop in house value seems to match the national average in this period of recession.
Plane crash risk 'blights homes'
By Jack Sommers
June 26, 2009
FAMILIES are losing value on their homes because of the risk of a plane from Farnborough Airport crashing into it, it has been claimed.
Meanwhile a loophole means airport owners TAG can avoid paying compensation to hundreds of homeowners living in the flightpath.
Under the law, anyone whose property loses value due to ‘planning blight’ of a nearby development is entitled to compensation for the loss of value to properties.
But TAG’s lawyers say the company was ‘not in possession’ of the airfield when the new terminal building, control tower and the runway extension were built.
Under the terms of the Land Compensation Act, this means it does not have to pay, it said.
Blight
Meanwhile there are worries more house prices would be lowered if the current proposal to increase to 50,000 flights a year were successful.
This would expand the public safety zone (PSZ) to include more houses.
Mandi Hudson, of Broadlands, has seen her house value fall from £228,000 when they bought it five years ago to £207,000 – a drop of around 15%.
Her house lies in the PSZ – an area of the flightpath formally designated as at risk of being hit by a crashing plane.
She said the drop in value was due to a re-assessment of its value this year that said the risk of plane crashes might discourage people living there.
“I’m not stupid. I realise there’s a housing crisis going on,” she said.
“But when the value of our home was re-assessed it said it was a nice place to live but the safety risk was the biggest thing that might stop people buying it. The loss is down to the risk of crashes.”
She said she and her family were not told about the PSZ when they first moved in.
She felt they should be at least compensated the loss of value.
Sell up
TAG says it only took over the airport in 2003, when the Civil Aviation Authority granted the airport a license.
Initially it indicated it would be willing to pay but changed its stance.
Lawyers for the homeowners say TAG was the airport’s occupier in all but name when planning permission for it was given in 2001.
Sheila Jones has lived in Hatfield Gardens for 20 years, before TAG built the airport or the area was a designated PSZ.
Although she and her husband have no concrete plans to sell, she said as they get older they might want to move away.
She wrote a letter to Farnborough MP Gerald Howarth about the issue of the expansion shortly after TAG won a battle to double the number of weekend flights in April last year.
Speaking in April, TAG Farnborough Airport chief executive Brandon O’Reilly said: “It [the compensation]is a complex legal process.
“From my understanding we haven’t had an engagement on the topic for a while but we will always abide by the law.”
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Jun 26, 2009 18:46:32 GMT 1
What the home owners should ask is about the so called zone of Safety If there was that much risk why was planing permission given for Houses shops offices at Farnborough Central almost in
in line with the Runway an aircraft missing the Runway would hit this area . the Same for the AVIATIOR HOTEL and the housing Estate near the Queens hotel all inside the Airfield perimeter
As for houses loosing Value Thats as said National Average and will pick up
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 22, 2009 17:50:46 GMT 1
1000 people out the total area covered does not seem a lot, but outside of TAG their's will be the only voices heard.
Deadline draws near for 50,000 flights application
By Clare Alexander
July 22, 2009
MORE than 1,000 people look set to object to plans to increase the number of flights at Farnborough Airport to 50,000 a year.
The deadline to respond to the proposals by monday July 27 is fast approaching and Rushmoor Borough Council is still receiving representations.
TAG, the owner of Farnborough Airport, submitted its application to almost double the number of annual business flights last month.
It wants to change planning conditions currently restricting the airport to 28,000 take-offs and landings each year.
Tag also wants to increase weekend flights from 5,000 to 8,900, which would mean one plane taking-off every 10 minutes between 8am and 10pm.
Keith Holland, head of planning at Rushmoor Borough Council, said it had received 1,000 representations so far, the vast majority of which were objecting to proposals.
Address issues
“They’re still coming in,” Mr Holland said. “We have had a rush this week, which is expected as the closing date approaches.
“This is not a referendum. What’s far more important is the actual issues being raised and we need [to take those into account].”
Farnborough Aerodrome Residents Association (FARA), the only residents’ group focusing solely on airport issues, is encouraging residents to have their say.
The group has distributed 10,000 leaflets giving people the opportunity to object.
Chairman Geoffrey Marks said: “It’s important [to respond] because it’s a key element of the democratic process and I don’t think Rushmoor Borough Council has appreciated how widespread the concerns are.”
Disrepute
Mr Marks sent an objection letter on behalf on FARA.
He is opposed to the rise in the number of flights because of planning policy, noise, third party risk and housing blight.
Mr Marks refers to the borough council’s response to the consultation on air transport for the south east.
It stated people expect the existing limit of 28,000 business aircraft movements to apply until 2011. “Any quick review is likely to bring the planning process into disrepute”, it states.
Hugh Sheppard, chairman of the north east Hampshire Campaign to Protect Rural England, is concerned about carbon emissions.
He said doubling the number of flights “runs totally counter to the government’s renewable energy targets and low-carbon motives in building new eco-towns”.
Balanced
Brandon O’Reilly CEO of Tag Farnborough said: “I intend to strike a balance where we take account of environmental issues yet at the same time ensure that the airport continues to play an important role in the economy.
“This will allow us to make best use of the state-of-the-art infrastructure we already have in place.
“I want to see an airport that is developed responsibly – an airport that plays its part in the community and is a good neighbour – an airport that is successful in creating jobs and prosperity in this region.”
To make a representation email Rushmoor Borough Council at plan@rushmoor.gov.uk quoting planning reference 09/00313/REVPP and stating your name and address
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Jul 24, 2009 9:12:41 GMT 1
PLEASE POST IT HERE ASAP it will likely get read by those that should and would have seen
it . And comment on here From FARN -NEWS Please (UNLIKELY you Will though) as for years
this paper says is not biased but seems in be ANTI AIRFIELD .
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 24, 2009 13:19:45 GMT 1
I actually responded to the Rushmoor email address listed below showing my support for Fnb stating that I was probably in the minority of people responding -
To make a representation email Rushmoor Borough Council at plan@rushmoor.gov.uk quoting planning reference 09/00313/REVPP and stating your name and address
Would be an idea if other readers did so as well
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 29, 2009 17:53:09 GMT 1
Latest bit from the NEWS web site, again written from a very one sided view point with yet a further sting in the tail namily in the closing line that the capacity of the field is roughly 100,000 movements per year.
If TAG had a PR firm working for them now I would have thought now would be the time to try & win over some of the critics.
More than 2,000 people respond to airport plans
By Jack Sommers
July 29, 2009
AROUND 2,500 people have responded to plans to increase the number of flights at Farnborough Airport each year to 50,000.
It is thought some 1,000 representations reached the Rushmoor Borough Council offices in the past seven days alone.
Andrew Lloyd, chief executive at the council, had said there was a surge before Monday's deadline, with around 1,500 comments received in the last week.
TAG, the airport’s owner, wants to increase the number of annual flights to 50,000 rather than the current 28,000.
It is also seeking permission to raise its 5,000 weekend flights a year to 8,900, just over a year after it was told it could double them from 2,500.
Rushmoor Borough Council has until October to make a decision. Council officers have not yet had time to go through all the comments received but say the vast majority are opposed to the plan.
Concerns
Pollution, risks to the public if there was a crash, noise and the economic impact are the most discussed issues relating to the airport and its proposed increase.
Brandon O’Reilly, the airport’s chief executive, said he wanted to “strike a balance” between the environmental and economic impacts of the increase.
Geoff Marks, chairman of the Farnborough Aerodrome Residents’ Association, objected to the plan.
He says the council does not appreciate how widespread the concerns were.
Mr Marks is also concerned about the risk of a plane crashing as it takes off or lands over south Farnborough or Church Crookham.
The areas where planes land and take off are defined as Public Safety Zones (PSZ) and both at Farnborough Airport are in built-up areas, unlike at most airports.
There are more people living in the Farnborough PSZ than in all four at Heathrow Airport.
Mike Palmer, chairman of community group North Camp Matters, said he and his wife provided comments on Rushmoor’s website but he found out neither had been recorded.
He was able to resubmit both of them and urged people who did not get a confirmation email to contact the council to check whether their comments had been recorded.
Councillors will make a decision about the application at a special planning meeting to be held in October, at a date to be determined.
If TAG’s application is successful, it expects to operate 50,000 flights by 2019.
TAG has not ruled out further expansion after that date but has advised it will not build a new airport or terminal.
The capacity of the airport is roughly 100,000 flights a year.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Jul 30, 2009 17:03:19 GMT 1
this weeks Star courier carrys the above in Full on the front Page. No letters i can find inside
not that bothered to look that much its pretty clear where the press stand and there supposed
to present all views but they dont .
tony
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 20, 2009 21:00:02 GMT 1
Latest news headlines
Hart latest to oppose Farnborough expansion
By Steve Lloyd
August 19, 2009
HART councillors have condemned Farnborough Airport's plans to almost double its flights.
TAG, the airport’s owner, wants to increase the number of annual flights to 50,000 rather than the current 28,000.
It is also seeking permission to raise its 5,000 weekend and bank holiday flights to 8,900 a year, just over a year after it was told it could double them from 2,500.
But Hart District Council's planning committee has unanimously recommended neighbouring Rushmoor Borough Council rejects the increased flights application.
Among those objecting was committee vice-chairman James Radley, who represents people living at the Church Crookham end of the airport runway.
“Our primary concerns are the adverse impact on residents due to increased noise, air pollution and concern for those individuals whose properties would now fall within the extended Public Safety Zone,” he said.
“The committee also believes that TAG have failed to demonstrate the need for additional business jet movements given the international focus on tackling the most wasteful emitters of green house gases.
“Personally I believe that there is every reason to expect that in coming years international governments will look to restrict the use of private jets which contribute greatly to the tonnage of CO2 produced but for little economic or social benefit.
“So TAG do not need to expand to accommodate the 'need' for business aviation growth. There is no need for business aviation growth.
“Arguably there is a very real need for there to be a reduction in the use of these carbon inefficient corporate toys.”
Cllr Radley, leader of the Community Campaign Hart group and ward member for Church Crookham East, said he believed Rushmoor had received over 2,900 letters of objection and around 100 letters of support for the application.
“Clearly there is a considerable amount of public concern about this application,” he added.
“Hopefully Rushmoor will listen to the very real issues which people have raised.”
A TAG Farnborough Airport spokesman said the application follows the publication of its master plan.
“This is a document which outlines how the airport could make best use of existing infrastructure and explains the balances which need to
be struck in order to grow the number of flights permitted in a responsible way,” he added.
The spokesman said more than 1,800 new jobs could be created and that in taking account of local people's views and the concerns raised during the consultation, the company has made a number of community commitments.
These include no changes to the operating hours or the proportion of larger business jet flights that are currently permitted.
No additional runway or terminals need to be built and there will be no change to the permitted use of the airport as a business aviation facility and host of the biennial Farnborough International Airshow.
The spokesman added TAG is committed to tackling noise and taking an industry-leading approach to phase out all but the most modern and quietest categories of aircraft.
It also has a commitment to become a low carbon airport and achieve carbon neutrality as soon as reasonably possible.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 10, 2009 16:54:53 GMT 1
Yet more headline grabbing news from the local rag, lets hope it goes nowhere as this could have wide ranging implications to all aircraft landing sites across Britain
MP's help for people blighted by TAG flights
By Jack Sommers
September 10, 2009
FARNBOROUGH’S MP has appealed to people seeking compensation from the owners of Farnborough Airport for damaging their property prices to contact him.
Gerald Howarth has only received two letters on the matter, although hundreds of residents in Farnborough and Church Crookham say TAG’s flights over their homes has affected the prices of their homes.
They are currently seeking legal advice about whether TAG must compensate them and plan to take the matter to a land tribunal, if they are advised the company is liable.
TAG argues it does not have to pay because it was not “in possession” of the airfield when it built the civil aviation buildings there.
Mr Howarth said: “I’m not a lawyer but if there’s anything people feel I can do them for as their MP, I would like to hear from them.”
TAG initially said it would pay compensation under the Land Compensation Act, which states anyone whose property loses value due to ‘planning blight’ from a new development is entitled to compensation.
However, the company later reversed its stance, using a legal loophole to say it owed no compensation.
Its lawyers say TAG did not take over the airport until 2003, when a civil aviation licence was granted. This was after it built the terminal building, control tower and runway extension. At that time the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was still occupying the airfield, TAG argues.
Mr Howarth is not sure who was correct. He has consulted the terms of the Act in Parliament’s library and found a new or expanding airport “may or may not” qualify under its terms, he said.
'Injustice'
Councillor Adrian Collett, the MP’s Lib Dem opponent at the next general election, was more damning and wrote Mr Howarth a letter calling TAG’s refusal to pay out “a gross injustice”.
Many residents moved in long before TAG acquired the airfield, when it was run by the MoD with flights only on weekdays and during day time.
Geoff Marks, chairman of the Farnborough Aerodrome Residents’ Association (FARA), said residents were still, after six years fighting the issue, seeking expert legal advice.
He said this was essential because if a land tribunal found in favour of TAG, the residents could be stuck with a huge bill.
“We can’t take any risk,” he said. “If we went to a tribunal and lost, we would be liable for around £250,000.”
He has been working with a surveyor who has monitored prices of properties beneath the flightpath and compared them with similar properties in Farnborough.
Mr Marks said the results showed prices had risen slower than other areas, leaving them around 15% lower than they would otherwise be.
He said: “Before 2003, TAG occupied the airfield in all but name. The MoD regulated flights but this was not occupation. Saying the MoD occupied the site then is like saying the Civil Aviation Authority occupies the site now.”
Residents have until December to decide whether to go to a land tribunal. This is when the six-year window to make claims expires.
Speaking shortly after the News & Mail revealed the ongoing struggle over compensation, the airport’s chief executive, Brandon O’Reilly, said compensation was a complex legal issue and TAG was abiding by the law.
“This work was done under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence lease, so this claim would not be valid,” he added.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Sept 10, 2009 19:25:12 GMT 1
Seems very odd only 2 people so far bothered to complain to our MP?
And when i have tried to discuss the airfield before at election times
Excuses are given that they really must get on and dissapear fast
LOCAL , COUNCIL , GENERAL they run at the mere mention of support
for the airfield.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Sept 24, 2009 15:48:55 GMT 1
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Sept 24, 2009 15:51:05 GMT 1
WHATS THIS ALL ABOUT THEN I WONDER against=90mins for =30mins ??
plus councillers against the scheeme can talk for 5MINS ?
===================================================
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.
========================================
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 24, 2009 17:46:02 GMT 1
For once a blunder that doesn't add any mor weight to the anti brigades cause, although you do have to wonder as to which so called expertd TAG have on their side
==========
Mike
admin edit duplicate fromabove earlier post
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 27, 2009 21:10:52 GMT 1
I can't believe my eyes, surely not council support at long last
Council planners support airport expansion
By Jack Sommers
October 26, 2009
PLANNERS at Rushmoor Borough Council have backed plans to double the number of flights going in and out of Farnborough Airport.
Officers have been studying issues surrounding TAG’s application to go from 28,000 to 50,000 flights a year such as noise, public risk and air pollution.
Councillor's sitting on the authority's planning committee will meet on November 11 to make a decision but the officers are recommending permission be granted.
This should be on the condition it is referred to the Secretary of State and a “package of improvements” is carried out, they said.
The report detailing what improvements need to be done and why it should referred to the secretary of state will be published on October 28.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Oct 27, 2009 21:37:37 GMT 1
Thats going to be worth the Read i cant wait might even Frame it
I Suspect 1 thing will be bringing Fab into a control zone so that
all traffic is under Radar control.
T
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Oct 28, 2009 20:32:33 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Oct 31, 2009 21:51:50 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Nov 11, 2009 17:44:08 GMT 1
BBC South news carried film of the aifield and article about the Latest
planning debate and that 3000 protesters have come forward ,mainly
it seems from the Gream\tree huggers
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Nov 11, 2009 20:04:09 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2009 23:48:59 GMT 1
As somebody from outside the borough I found it quite interesting although one sided viewing; I even stopped watching the football on ITV4. Tony, can you please answer me one question regarding the woman wearing glasses that was sitting in the front row of the public gallery? Do you think she was suffering from a recurring itch on the back of her neck as she was constantly moving her head from side to side!?
I suppose that's it a bit different from watching Jack Straw the nodding donkey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Nov 12, 2009 10:46:20 GMT 1
Last night proved to me why people do not get involved in local matters , this debate took
place with Scared councilors in the face of a howling mob who at times boo-ed and
slowhandclapped this was only once mentioned by chairman.
The noise matters away from FAB Are a Farce.
1 bisley people cannot use there gardens ? Believe me not surely from FAB flights
above the continual RIFLE and Small arms Fire + OVERFLYING EGLL .
2 SEALE ? This is the other side of A31 And and any FAB aircraft are at Height by then
3 CRONDEL Only sound there is by Choppers and Overflys AIRWAYS .
Safety
They seem obsessed with a DOOM Idea that a crash is going to happen .
SMELL And envirement having lived and worked in many places close to
FAB including by the perimiter this has never been a problem as such
you will always get some odour no worse than petrol fumes and diesel
as anyone will tell you the A325 at times you choke.
The whole affair left a bad taste and i expect will go appeal but if it
Requires a public enquiry then its again going to be a farce. and
will cost you and me more Money on our Rates
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Nov 12, 2009 11:28:40 GMT 1
LATE ADIT BY ME: As you can see the reported 50000 LANDINGS
IS TOTALY WRONG . THIS IS HOW BBC REPORTED AS DID ITV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport flight increase rejected
Plans to almost double the number of aircraft taking off from Farnborough airport have been rejected.
Rushmoor Borough Council turned down the proposals because of a possible increase in noise levels and safety concerns from residents.
Airport owner TAG Aviation wanted to raise the total number of take-offs from 28,000 to 50,000 a year, with more traffic at weekends and bank holidays.
It said it was "disappointed" and an increase would have created 1,500 jobs.
Thousands of people responded to a consultation issued by the council with many objections raised.
'More rigorous'
At the meeting on Wednesday night, the public gallery at the three and half hour-long council meeting was packed with residents.
Council planners had recommended that the plans be approved.
TAG said it would have tackled any noise issue, had a commitment to developing a low-carbon airport and had also ruled out an additional runway or terminal being be built.
One opponent of the expansion, Brian Fyfe, told the BBC: "The safety case wasn't met, the noise case wasn't met.
"They will be back, but I think they will have to be much more rigorous".
Brandon O'Reilly, chief executive of the airport, said it was now in the process of deciding what to do next.
"It has been a full and frank exchange and a decision has been taken, we are disappointed by it," he added.
It can appeal against the decision which could be heard by planners at central government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2009 11:51:00 GMT 1
Tony, without wishing to offend you: TAG, as one of the coucillors said wished to increase the number of MOVEMENTS to 50,000, NOT TAKE OFFS. That makes a lot of difference. Dave Silk
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin (Annette Andria) on Nov 12, 2009 12:31:41 GMT 1
as you can see in the BBC Report they like itv has it wrong as has
been a lot of very poor reporting on this issue.
this is one thing they all seemed to have wrong there interpetation of a movement
that to me and you is a take or a landing therefore its not 5000O Landings . to me and
the majority its always been clear. Same as the NO CHARTER flights much was made
over that by one councillor when its been perfectly clear Since carol aviation and now
TAG took over there not on the agenda never have been. the Aifield is not equiped for
such flights to so i suppose the Cost would be enourmous even if there was a demand
for such flights .
|
|
