TAG Aviation have recently made two planning applications. The
first is to discharge conditions 16 & 17 of their outline
planning consent and relates to risk, the second is for discharge
of environmental monitoring under the Section 106 Agreement
agreed with Rushmoor and relates to monitoring of aircraft
movements and noise measurements.

Apart from the obligatory notice on the back page of the
Surrey-Hants Star, the local press are remarkably silent on these
issues. Why?

Risk contours

Outline planning conditions 16 and 17 relate to the 1:10,000 and
1:100,000 risk contours. The risk is that of any one individual
being killed. Not as Rushmoor have deliberately mislead local
residents by referring to an 'incident', which could mean
anything and many residents have mistakenly taken it to mean the
risk of a crash.

The 1:10,000 risk contour should not extend beyond the airfield
boundary. At the western end it extends over the canal, A323
(Aldershot to Fleet Road) and onto the heathland that TAG have
recently destroyed for height clearance. This part of the canal
is a favourite spot for fishing.

The 1:100,000 risk contour extends as far out as Church Crookham
to the west, and to the east extends over Farnborough and as far
out as Mytchett. Within Farnborough, more people are enclosed
within this risk contour than at any other UK airport, ie more
people will at risk of death at Farnborough than at any other UK
airport.

Rushmoor Borough Council have been criminally negligent in
failing to consult those who are affected. Only those who are
within the 1:100,000 risk contour have been notified (if Rushmoor
are to be believed) and then only with an extremely misleading
letter that talks of an 'incident' not 'death', fails to give the
context, and does not even provide a map showing the risk
contours.

Apart from the house bound, those with the maximum exposure are
staff and students at the college, for many as long as 12 hours
in any one day. They are also in the position of maximum risk.
They have not been notified of the risk (nor have the parents of
these students, many of whom are legal minors). Neither have
those who work within the contours, eg the tour operator in the
Old Library, BMW garage, etc, neither have the parents of the
kids at the kindergarten.

The Basingstoke Canal Society has not been notified, nor the
fishermen who congregate at the end of the runway on the banks of
the canal.

The probability of the death of any one individual (as defined by
the risk contours) takes no account of the population density
within the risk contours. It is the probability of death of any
one individual, not the probability of anyone being killed. Nor
should it be confused with the probability of a crash. The
probability of a crash is many orders of magnitude greater than
the probability of death of any one individual.

If a crash occurs within the risk contours, and the risk contours
enclose a populated area, then people will be killed, on the
other hand although a crash may occur, any one individual may not
be killed. Thus risk contours can be extremely misleading if no
account is taken of the population within the risk contours.

At Farnborough, the likelihood of a crash is roughly 1 crash
every 36 years. The Secretary of State has agreed that there is a
25% chance of a crash over Farnborough in the next ten years.
When a crash occurs the number of deaths will range from half a
dozen dead if a couple of houses are hit, through to a dozen or
more young children killed if the kindergarten is hit, to
several hundred dead (and many more seriously injured) if the
college is hit. Of the many scenarios possible, a crash on the
kindergarten or college is most probable.

 http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=41698&group=webcast
 http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/tag1617.htm

Section 106 environmental monitoring - movements and noise

The Section 106 agreement was agreed behind the back of the
committee. This is the first opportunity the committee, let alone
the public, has had of considering the agreement.

The report submitted by TAG is fantasy in terms of their current
operation - a wish list of what they may do, but by no stretch of
the imagination resembling their current operation. Before the
report by TAG is considered by the council TAG should be obliged
to demonstrate over a reasonable period, say at least three
months, they can deliver what they are promising in their report.

The local community has no confidence in the integrity or honesty
of either TAG or Rushmoor. Monitoring by TAG, data shared only
with the council, is NOT acceptable. If there is to be any
confidence in the monitoring it has to be by independent third
parties with the data made available to the local community to
enable the local community to carry out its own verification.
This to be provided by means of a website. Anything less is
completely unacceptable.

TAG are refusing to make available details of the flights into
Farnborough. The local community has to suffer the nuisance,
therefore the local community has every right to know who is
causing the nuisance.

The method TAG are wishing to use to monitor the noise is
seriously flawed, it is not possible to draw two dimensional
noise contours from a single zero dimensional monitoring point.

There is a growing body of research evidence of the effect noise,
in particular aviation noise, has on the learning ability of
children and on the physical and mental health of those in the
affected areas. To date none of this evidence has been considered
by the council.

 http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/tag106mn.htm

Objections to

Keith Holland
Head of Planning
Rushmoor Borough Council
Farnborough
Hants GU14 7JU

01252 398 790

 kholland@rushmoor.gov.uk
 http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk