LocalPaper Reporting

[Mike]

Not the best of news for TAG

Airport compensation claims tribunal on the horizon
By Jack Sommers
January 11, 2010

FARNBOROUGH Airport owner TAG could be in court within three months to answer the claims of hundreds of residents who say arriving and departing flights have damaged their house prices.

People from more than 250 homes in Farnborough, Mytchett and Church Crookham have filed claims for compensation with the Lands Tribunal, which has said it wants to look at the matter within 12 weeks.

They say TAG turning the Ministry of Defence (MoD) airfield into a private airport means they are entitled to compensation for loss in house value.

Compensation for new developments is provided under the Land Compensation Act.

But TAG has argued for years that it is not liable because it was not ‘in occupation’ of the airport when the construction was carried out.

The MoD was in occupation when the runway was lengthened and new terminal and control tower built, it said.

TAG said this meant the act did not apply in its case.

In 2002, TAG said the act did apply and asked residents interested in claiming to write in so it could investigate.

But it then reversed that stance and adopted the position it has held ever since.

The argument has continued though, with residents having to pay a QC to look into the law of the case and advise them.

They are understood to have obtained evidence about TAG’s position on the issue early in the company's involvement in developing the airfield.

The residents’ decision to try to claim compensation comes after years of argument and analysis by lawyers for both sides.

Chris Hunt, a chartered surveyor who filed the claims for the residents, said the number involved was about a third of the homes affected.

Only people who were living in their homes before January 1, 2003 were able to claim.

The date for a tribunal is not definite as either side can ask for more time to prepare its case.

Mr Hunt conducted a survey of house prices and said he found evidence that the airport had reduced those under or near the flight path.

He was reluctant to say by how much, or what evidence would be presented for fear of prejudicing the residents’ case.

He said there had been a flurry of around 50 claims filed near the end of December, just before the January 1 deadline.

Any tribunal would initally only look at one of the cases. It would take place in London and last for a few days.

TAG has declined to comment on the compensation issue since the claims were filed.

Mike

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

MY Daughter in ALEX Rd has been sent letters by Rushmoor i will scan and past when i
get chance . She tells me there constantly plagued by people on about the airport

T

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

IN FLIGHT GLOBAL

www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/01/20/337356/uk-government-gives-fresh-hope-to-farnborough-expansion.html

UK government gives fresh hope to Farnborough expansion
By Kate Sarsfield

TAG Farnborough's plans to almost double the number of aircraft movements at the UK's only dedicated business aviation airport - have been given fresh hope following a government decision to launch a public enquiry later this year into the expansion proposals.

A previous attempt by TAG to boost the annual ceiling from 28,000 to 50,000 movements by 2019 were dashed by local government officials late in 2009. Rushmoor Borough Council rejected the proposals on 11 November because of a possible increase in noise levels and safety concerns from residents.

"We lodged an appeal against this decision and this has now been accepted," says TAG Farnborough chief executive Brandon O'Reilly. "We hope the enquiry will begin by the beginning of the third quarter and the inspector will look at this case with a fresh pair of eyes. We think we have a strong case to get Rushmoor's decision overturned."

The TAG Aviation subsidiary is confident a final decision will be made before the start of the 2012 London Olympics, "when demand for business aircraft is expected to rise considerably".

Swiss-owned TAG Farnborough has seen business aircraft movements at Farnborough soar from 16,100 in 2003 - its first full year of operation at the site - to more than 25,500 in 2008. TAG Aviation has invested around £100 million ($148 million) upgrading the airport since it became leaseholder of the site - home to the biennial Farnborough air show - in 2001.

[Buster the Bear]

www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/2065322_date_set_for_farnborough_airport_expansion_inquiry

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

And the local council Tax payers foot the bill .£100.000 i bet . when will this council
listen to the real people not this Bunch of wasters .

[Buster the Bear]

Tony, what do the 'real people' actually want?

My guess is jobs and the economic value to a local community of a long term group of employers?

What they also understand is that with this brings ecological challenges, both fossil (e.g. traffic and congestion) and noise pollution.

What I would consider abhorrent, is the fact that TAG knew the movement restriction when they turned the first turf of the permitted development, now they are using any legal method to boost this figure.

I as a local might have agreed to the modernisation of Farnborough with the limits on movements associated with the planning approval. I might not be so inclined to look favourably at a huge expansion via the back door, a few years on?

What TAG desire is H24 and controlled airspace with no movement restrictions? They will push all boundaries to get this = PROFIT! The facility they have is far too valuable not to try and expand.

[Mike]

Latest from the papers:-

Air traffic at Farnborough Airport down 10%
By Jack Sommers
March 04, 2010

THE NUMBER of planes using Farnborough Airport went down last year, according to new figures.

Airport owners TAG are currently seeking permission for 50,000 flights a year, up from the current 28,000 limit despite the smaller numbers.

There were 22,779 flights from the airport in 2009 compared with 25,504 in 2008 - a fall of more than 10%.

More weekend flights

However, the proportion of larger, noisier Boeing 737-size jets increased, and the numbers of flights at weekends increased dramatically.

The number of weekend flights grew to 4,958 last year, up from 3,972 the year before. This is just short of the 5,000 limit imposed as part of TAG's revised planning permission.

The figures were presented by TAG at a meeting of the Farnborough Aerodrome Consultative Committee on Thursday afternoon. The quarterly meeting, which is meant to be a forum between airport users and those who live around it, is the last scheduled meeting before the public inquiry into the airport expansion in May.

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

hi

The jobs i feel are so important at the moment cos it efffects my Family . My Son works up past
TAG Loyal to company 11years now on Short time 30hours a week for a mounth after that
poss 20Hours more likely close , in the catering Trade on GOV Min Wage as well as loads
in that Trade are . Nothing around the area at moment all hiring are using AGENCY staff
Bussed in so things look bad for him and many others . Airports need people like him
so might The Expanded airport . He bikes every day to from work as cannot drive
didnt miss a day or late all though the snow .LOYALTY Counts for nothing these days.

[Deleted]

I'd be interested to know what the restrictions on movement numbers and operating hours were when FAB was a military airfield (other than the depth of the taxpayers pockets, of course)? Furthermore, how many of the movements were stage III noise compliant?

I'm looking forward to the incoming occupiers of the new housing development within the old boundary of the airfield complaining about the impact the airfield has on their property prices and the imminent danger to life and limb caused by the aircraft there. Next thing you know, town dwellers moving into a countryside village will complain about the ringing of the church bells on a Sunday and the smell of horse manure. It's a funny old world we live in!

Regards

Andy H

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

If you think on this your House price drop is one of the main Weapons and the green Issue
no one wants to live near Airports yet so many are being built on land that was once
inside the perimeter fence of RAE Farnborough and it seems they have little problem
Selling them , not that many buyers will actually Fly from Farnborough yet i bet if FAB
Become Like SOU A full blown Regional Airport many many would choose to Fly from FAB
NOISE , GREEN , issues would simply be ignored on cost ground and traveling time .
Not having to use M25 M4 43 to Londons airports but then they would stick to there
NIMBY Beliefs yes they would "OH NO THEY WOULDN'T"
In the RAE Days many of locals were employed there so how much Nimbyism there was
i have no idea but i doubt there was much. NIMBYISM is ok as long as it does not hit
there pockets and at Election time councillers etc jump on any bandwagon going.
Ive tried to talk to my Reps they walk away on Airport issues
Its still my view that last 2 public enquires were RENT A MOB and scared councillers
for there seats yet many openly said before those they Support the airport .
RENT A MOB Thats my view and i feel the next one will be as well .

[Buster the Bear]

As I have said before, TAG are seriously pushing their luck! They knew what the parameters in respect of movement restrictions were when they were permitted to develop Farnborough. Any additional movements have to be proven to demonstrably benefit the local community and economy, not just those that initially invested.

I have nothing whatsoever to do with Farnborough, but if I had lived through previous planning applications, I too would be mightily hacked off to find TAG want to change permissions given.

Maybe the debt incurred to develop Farnborough can now only be serviced by increasing movements, noise and pollution. If so, then I too, if I was to reside close by, would be severely 'hacked off'.

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

so 1000+ jobs and xtra trade around the town count for nothing , thats not a Benifit ?
well sorry i dont agree as one who has lived in all parts of Rushmoor over the years#
1 place 100yds from Permiter fence on final app at no time has my life been disrupted
to such an extent that life is unlivable, granted there are people it Will effect as does
living next to M3 A331 The continuos noise and pullution at times is unbearable living next to those Roads.
But that has not stopped the continuing building of Hundreds of Houses in FAB
And near me the Average time there on maket is DAYS not weeks years . 2 near me
went in 1WEEK £430K + And many after them so i dont see where the loss of
house prices comes in as caused by FAB airport .
What i want to see is more Jobs in Farnborough and the town starting to grow
again not the Empty shell of the past 20Years . farnborough needs a life of its own
not part of London SW99 Commuter belt 0735 TO WATERLOO home to Wifey
dear good day at the OFFICE etc . LONDON FARNBOROUGH sw 99

[Mike]

Next news worthy item:

7 WEEKS SET ASIDE FOR INQUIRY - Thats a lot of paperwok to be generated


TAG inquiry will cost at least £174k
By Jack Sommers
March 19, 2010

THE inquiry into whether Farnborough Airport can have 50,000 flights will cost taxpayers in Aldershot and Farnborough at least £174,000, the council has said.

Rushmoor Borough Council is, so far, expecting to spend £124,000 on legal advice and £50,000 on advice from planning consultants to defend its councillors’ decision to reject TAG’s application.

The councillors made this decision at a planning meeting in November, despite the council’s head of planning, Keith Holland, warning them TAG would probably win on an appeal.

If the inspector decides in TAG’s favour, the company also has the right to make the council pay its bill for the inquiry, potentially saddling taxpayers with an even bigger bill.

Speaking to the News & Mail after TAG lodged its appeal in December, airport chief executive Brandon O’Reilly said he was not ruling this out.

On Tuesday, the council’s cabinet approved an extra £44,000 to go on fees for a barrister and extra support for its legal team.

This was added to £130,000 already set aside for the 2008/9 and 2009/10 financial years.

Of the extra £44,000, £30,000 will go on barrister fees, which had risen to £110,000 from the provisional sum of £80,000.

The other £14,000 is for temporary outside legal support for the council’s lawyers.

The £130,000 set aside earlier was the provisional sum of £80,000 for a barrister and £50,000 for advice from planning consultants that will come from the Department of Communities and Local Government.

The figure is already a lot more than the £107,000 in total the council spent for the weekend flying inquiry in 2007, after which a planning inspector overturned the councillors’ refusal of permission for 5,000 weekend flights a year.

When councillors rejected that application in 2006, they were following planning officers’ recommendation.

But when the councillors turned down the application for 50,000 flights annually, it was against the planning officers’ recommendation that it be approved.

The planning inspector, Christopher Tipping, will make a final decision after a seven-week inquiry, starting at the council offices on May 18.

The council’s planning officers’ report had recommended TAG’s proposal should be approved with certain conditions.

Geoff Marks, who spoke against TAG’s application in November, said the figure was ‘the price you pay for democracy’.

He added the figure did not surprise him as the upcoming inquiry will be wider in scope than the previous one, which lasted only two weeks. As well as 50,000 flights a year, TAG wants permission to have 8,900 weekend flights a year.

Mr Marks will be speaking at the inquiry, outlining his argument on behalf of the Farnborough Aerodrome Residents’ Association (FARA), of which he is chairman.

He has submitted his statement of case to the Planning Inspectorate.

He said: “It’s not for me to say whether the money is justified. It’s for the councillors and others to defend their decision because it’s that that has brought about the expense.

“I think it’s very important that all the decisions Rushmoor made in the last 10 years are subject to outside scrutiny and that’s what we get now.”

The council’s cabinet decided to split the costs of legal and expert advice across two financial years.


Mike

[Mike]

Latest on inquiry

Farnborough Airport inquiry delayed at last minute
By Jack Sommers
May 13, 2010

THE inquiry into whether there should be more flights at Farnborough Airport has been delayed by a week at the last minute because the planning inspector is unavailable.

Airport owners TAG appealed against Rushmoor Borough Council’s decision to reject its application for 50,000 flights there a year, up from 28,000, and the matter was set to go before an inquiry on May 18.

But this will now start on May 26 because the inspector, Chrisopher Tipping, is not available at that time.

Legal and planning advice for the inquiry has so far cost the council £174,000. Head of planning Keith Holland said he doubt the delay would mean any extra cost.

The inquiry is set to last 28 days and will begin at 11am at the council offices in Farnborough Road.

After the inquiry, the inspector will report to the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Transport, who will make the final decision.

Mike

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

This to me dont look good : No expansion of EGLL EGSS and EGKK says LIBCON , serious as this is
with thousands of jobs gone now at the above . I Fear EGLF will be next. PAYBACK THANKS VOTE etc

[Deleted]

Or, could Farnborough's runway be used instead for some of the scuppered proposals for extra capacity at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. If the government gets pushed hard enough for runway capacity this runway already exists so it could be used. I wonder what the locals would say to that! I don't expect it could happen but you never know.

[Deleted]

I think it might be the opposite Tony. The Tories opposed expansion of the major airports. The only way they can appease the business community is to encourage growth at regional airports. I think TAG could benefit with the right lawyers. I understand Busters point though.

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

will be interesting as this lot are commited to Expensive Rail links which looking already like non
stop Enquires . people dont want to travel by train so its to so unreliable ,
New Rail links will take 20years in the mean time Our airports will be full to capacity
Appease the Voters in coalition thats my bet .

[Mike]

First report of the new inquiry

Airport opponents check in for public inquiry
By Jack Sommers
June 01, 2010

CAMPAIGNERS both for and against more flights at Farnborough Airport are hoping that new and upcoming legislation could be on their side as a five-week public inquiry into the proposals continues.

The evidence presented at the inquiry, which began last Wednesday (May 26), will ultimately decide whether the economic benefits of having 50,000 flights a year at the airport outweigh residents’ fears over noise, pollution and the risk of a plane crash.

Rick Kimber, secretary of the Blackwater branch of the environmental group Friends of the Earth, who described the prospect of more flights as "an environmental disaster", said he was hoping the Climate Change Act 2008 might see the proposed increase rejected.

Before the new government scrapped the third runway at Heathrow, it was ruled by a judge that the Act had not been included in the planning for it.

The Act commits Britain to have its 2050 carbon level at 80% lower than in 1990.

But John Steel QC, airport owner TAG’s lawyer, said in his opening statement that the policy of the new coalition government coincided with TAG’s plans.

As part of the Queen’s Speech, the new government announced the Airport Economic Regulation Bill.

The Bill calls for the country to pursue "a new vision for a competitive aviation industry, supporting UK economic growth and designed within the constraint of the existing runway infrastructure".

Mr Steel told the inquiry this was aligned with TAG’s proposal to be allowed 50,000 flights a year – up from 28,000 – without building any new infrastructure, such as a runway or terminal building.

He said: “The proposals are to make best use of the existing infrastructure of Farnborough Airport. This is fully in accordance with government policy.

"The increase in movements would bring significant economic benefits to the UK, the region and the local area, including Rushmoor.

“It would secure existing jobs and create new ones, estimated by the appellant’s consultants, Mott MacDonald, to be 1,880 new jobs.”

All sides in the inquiry have produced hundreds of pages of evidence and Mr Steel said he was working the night before to include a mention of the Queen’s Speech.

Part of the reason for the new Bill is a third runway at Heathrow being turned down, which means there will be less infrastructure to accommodate the expected surge in demand for business flights.

But Mr Kimber felt the scrapping of the third runway was reason to think the appeal would go against TAG.

“We’re reasonably optimistic it’ll get turned down,” he said on the inquiry’s first day.

“It’s been shown that if the airport operates at the level TAG wants, it would have a terrible impact on the local area.

“We’ve seen the scrapping of the third runway so let’s hope TAG isn’t successful this time around.”

The inquiry, expected to last 28 days, is the second in three years concerning the airport.

The last one looked into whether it should be allowed 5,000 weekend and bank holiday flights a year, rather than 2,000, for which the government ruled in TAG’s favour

[Mike]

Second inquiry report

'Measure of airport noise is ineffective', inquiry told
By Jack Sommers
June 04, 2010

THE way Farnborough Airport measures its planes’ noise is ineffective, a lawyer has argued at the inquiry into whether the number of flights there should almost double.

Simon Bird QC presented the argument to noise consultant Jeffrey Charles at the ongoing inquiry into whether the airport should get permission for 50,000 flights a year, up from 28,000.

Mr Bird is representing Rushmoor Borough Council, which has paid him and other legal and planning experts tens of thousands of pounds to defend its councillors’ decision to turn down TAG’s application for the extra flights last year.

He was cross-examining Mr Charles, who appeared as a witness for airport owners TAG.

In his written evidence, Mr Charles said the system generally used to measure noise from aircraft is an equation based on flight movement and engine noise which produces a figure for the decibels for a specific area.

The inquiry heard that the equation did not take into account subjective things such as people with sensitive hearing, whether it was a Sunday or bank holiday or other factors.

Mr Charles’ eveidence said 50,000 flights a year would only lead to an increase of two decibels for those homes where the figure is currently 57dB or more. That figure of 57dB is defined as the level at “community annoyance” kicks in and the planning process must assess the impact of noise.

Mr Charles wrote that the 2dB increase to these homes was “less than that which is perceptible by most people even if it occurred in a short space of time”.

During cross-examination, Mr Bird said this did not account for different numbers of flights on different days or for the intermittent nature of the noise people under the flight path endured.

Mr Bird said: “If my speaking is disturbed 45 or 46 times a day and the next day it’s disturbed 182 times, the noise contour doesn’t notice the difference. It’s not credible is it?”

Mr Charles replied his system was the one used to assess noise in planning applications.

“There’s a trade off between the number of events and how noisy they are,” he said. “These are the tools I have to determining the impact of noise.”

He added he was “as sure as I’ve ever been in 40 years” about his judgement.

Mr Bird also said the contour did not take account that some people were more susceptible to noise and noise was more disturbing at different times. “People are far more concerned about noise in the evening,” he said.

Mr Charles’ evidence also said that, if there were 50,000 flights a year at the airport, 561 homes would be in 57dB bracket, as opposed to 67 at the moment. The worst affected area would be homes on the east side of Farnborough Road near the Farnborough College of Technology.

Mr Charles also estimates that Knellwood Residential Care Home in Canterbury Road would reach the 57dB threshold if there were 50,000 flights a year.

His report concluded that the noise from this number of flights would be within the ‘noise budget’ defined for the airport in 2000 as it went from military to civilian use.

Mike

[Mike]

Third report on inquiry

Airport inquiry hears new round of noise arguments
By Jack Sommers
June 17, 2010

ARGUMENTS about how annoying the noise of 50,000 flights over homes each year might be have continued at the Farnborough Airport inquiry this week, as an end to the proceedings looms.

Airport owner TAG - fighting to be given permission for 50,000 flights a year instead of 28,000 - has been arguing with Rushmoor Borough Council about how effective a system for measuring noise is.

According to the current system, the sound from the extra 22,000 flights would have a minimal effect on people and was within the ‘noise budget’ the council said the airport could not exceed.

TAG’s noise expert Jeff Charles took to the stand two weeks ago to present his analysis supporting plans for more flights.

This week, Rushmoor Borough Council’s noise expert Dani Fiumicelli was presenting his case, claiming that the method of measuring noise was effectively irrelevant to people who actually endure it.

According to the noise system, each property under the flightpath is assigned an overall decibel number, with 57dB as the definition of ‘community annoyance’.

This is roughly equivalent to a nearby car driving slowly and slightly louder than bird song, according to evidence put before the inquiry.

When the council’s lawyer Simon Bird cross-examined Mr Charles, he questioned how effective the system was, saying it did not account for the fact that the noise of planes from the airport was intermittent, meaning it interrupted people’s days rather than a continuous, less disturbing noise.

Mr Charles replied that he was using the tools he had been given to measure noise.

Public speaking

When Mr Fiumicelli took to the stand on Tuesday, John Steel, TAG’s lawyer, began by asking him about the reputation of noise consultants Hepworth Acoustic Ltd, which TAG has employed to argue its case.

Mr Steel asked: “It’s fair to say that they are competent consultants noise consultants?”

Mr Fiumicelli replied that they were an "established consultancy".

Mr Steel then said: “Isn’t it fair to say that if there were reason to doubt their system, it’s right they should give considerable weight to the consultancy’s conclusions?

“Isn’t it fair to say that if they found something that would be a cause of concern, they would record it?”

Mr Fiumicelli replied that he could not comment.

He was followed by the council’s second witness, Peter Forbes, who was testifying about the economic impact. He will be followed by town planner Robert Sellwood.

After all three have testified, Geoff Marks, the chairman of Farnborough Aerodrome Residents’ Association, will present his evidence.

The council is expecting members of the public to be able to address the inquiry next Wednesday (January 23).

Seventeen people have so far volunteered to speak and most will be assigned a morning or afternoon slot on that day.

When the inquiry is over, planning inspector David Richards will make a recommendation to the secretaries of state for Transport and Communities and Local Government for them to make a final decision.

Alot of hot air about the measuring of noise, the emotional role starts next week when Joe public stands up & forwards the anti view as to why flights should not be increased.

Mike

[Deleted]

There was a letter in this week's Farnham/Haslemere Herald from one of the residents in the Farnham area urging objecters to urgently register so they came speak and condemn the proposal.
I wonder what mode of transport these nimbys use when they go on holiday; they could of course, just sit out in the garden and watch the planes and take some pictures, just I do!
I don't expect for one minute they give a toss about the local residents close to Gatwick,etc.
- Dave

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

The annoying part of this issue is that nobody seems to tell the truth about noise in#
the outlying areas ,

1 how do they know aircraft noise is from EGLF

2 HAVE They any Deffinate Proof and who supplied information

i have Family and friends in Farnham all the noise they hear are ODIHAM Choppers
and Airways traffic. Go to badshot lea area and all you will hear are the same
Choppers and airway and not very often. Is tag aware of these claims from
these area and investigated the sae for the other councils what proof has been found
these are all EGLF Aicraft

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

adding also i suspect the pulic statements again will be RENT A MOB With people
who are speaking out for TAG Abused again . unless the inspecter takes
Control properly

[Mike]

Fourth Newspaper report on hearing

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.”

Well we await a decision

Mike

[Mike]

From this latest report it would appear that the Council wish to support the opposition in limiting the increase in flights, but leave the door open by having the Goverment making the final decision, thus if TAG get the green light in the eyes of the against they can say that they tried & safeguard their seats in future elections. Or am I just being cynical.

Council U-turn on airport flights cap
By Jack Sommers
October 01, 2010

PLANS to stop capping the number of flights at Farnborough Airport have been beaten by objectors.

Rushmoor Borough Council, which awards or denies planning permission for more flights, wanted to remove a clause that limits how many can take off.

Instead, it proposed judging increases on the negative and positive results of more aircraft in the sky.

This would have been a departure from the current, outgoing plan, which limits the airport to 28,000 flights a year.

But the council had to change its mind after objections from residents, alarmed at the prospect of thousands more aircraft flying over their homes.

As it draws up the new Rushmoor Plan, the authority has also had to delay the part relating to the airport.

The government has not decided whether TAG, which runs the airport, should get the 50,000 flights a year it wants, up from the current 28,000.

The new Rushmoor Plan will now limit the airport to 28,000 or 50,000 annual flights, depending on the government’s decision after a forthcoming appeal.

Geoff Marks, who campaigned against expanding the airport, said the drawn-out planning processes were making many residents fed up.

TAG applied to double its weekend flights and when it was unsuccessful, appealed and won.

It was then refused permission for 50,000 flights a year and appealed. The result of that inquiry is not expected until next year.

“TAG has sought to expand, bit by bit,” Mr Marks said. “It has left residents here very cynical about it.

“These plans are so important to them. The flights at the airport mean how disturbed they’re going to be, which has a lot to do with important decisions they have to make. Should they stay or should they go?”

“It’s difficult because you’re always preparing for the next inquiry. You know it’s coming.”

Mr Marks said he was also concerned what would happen if TAG got permission for 50,000 flights and then would seek permission by 2019 for even more flights.

Andrew Lloyd, the council’s chief executive, said: “Any new application would be carefully considered on the economic benefits weighed against the negative benefits.

“Having a set number of flights in the Rushmoor Plan would not mean we would confirm or reject any new application. We would always examine it closely.”

The council has published a draft of the new Rushmoor Plan but it does not have the Farnborough Airport Area Action Plan in it.

The Rushmoor Plan includes comments on the airport, such as the council affirming its importance to the local economy and saying business aviation should continue there.

Mr Lloyd said no detailed plans about the airport could be produced and approved until the government had decided the appeal.

The council now expects the airport action plan to be published by autumn 2011.

Mike

[Mike]

Reading below it would not appear that we will not see a resolvement this year


Airport chief plays the waiting game
By Pete Castle
November 11, 2010

THE owners of Farnborough Airport are expecting a long wait to hear if they can increase the cap on flights.

The last time the government ruled on changes to flight numbers, ministers took more than a year to make up their minds – and airport boss Brandon O’Reilly is not expecting a quicker decision this time.

The airport wants to almost double the number of allowed flights from 28,000 to 50,000 a year, but a planning application made to Rushmoor Borough Council in November last year was turned down.

The airport appealed the decision and a public inquiry was held in May and June, with the final decision in the hands of the government.

Mr O’Reilly told a meeting of the Farnborough Aerodrome Consultative Committee last Thursday that he thought the coalition government’s decision – its first on Farnborough Airport – would be some time in coming.

Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for communities and local government, had re-ceived the planning inspector’s report following the public inquiry earlier this year, Mr O’Reilly said.

Mr Pickles, along with the transport minister Philip Hammond, will have the final say on whether to grant airport owner TAG permission for the extra flights.

“It is relatively new on his desk. He received it on Sept-ember 21,” Mr O’Reilly told the meeting.

“I don’t think the decision is going to be coming any time soon. That is my personal view, and it’s my view that writing letters to secretaries of state has absolutely no effect whatsoever. They will take their time over it.”

Meanwhile, figures from the meeting show that the number of aircraft using the airport this year are 5% up on last year.

A total of 18,232 planes landed or took off at the airport between January and September – 895 more than at the same point in 2009.

The number of very large business jets using the airport increased by an even greater proportion, with 441 movements so far this year, an increase of 14%.

The number of planes using the airport at weekends is the highest ever, with 4,259 movements between January and September a 15% increase on last year.

Mr O’Reilly said the airport was already having to restrict the number of planes using its runways at weekends to prevent it from breaching its maximum permitted amount of 5,000 weekend movements a year.

He added that the airport was planning to use every one of its allowed 5,000 slots on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays during 2010.

He also revealed that Farn-borough had already begun to book landing slots for VIPs flying in and out of the UK for main events in the 2012 Olympics.

“We are taking bookings that far in advance, which is good news,” he said.

He said the airport had “no plans at the moment” to run shuttle helicopter flights between Farnborough and the Olympic park in East London.


Mike