Farnborough Airport -- consultants 'gagged'


'RBC [Rushmoor Borough Council] has given an undertaking in
respect of a consent order in the High Court [Parkins v Rushmoor]
to discontinue legal proceedings that independent advice would be
taken on the details submitted by TAG for the purposes of
Conditions 16 and 17.' -- Richard Short, Rushmoor planning
official

Two years ago, against strong local opposition, TAG Aviation were
granted outline planning permission for a business airport at
Farnborough. TAG envision Farnborough as the business airport for
Europe, a key component of globalisation. For local residents it
is simply hell - noise, deteriorating air quality, destruction of
the local environment (including several SSSIs) and the ever
present risk of a crash.

Recently TAG have applied to discharge two conditions of the
outline planning consent (conditions 16 & 17 relate to 1:10,000 &
1:100,000 annual individual risk contours) and supplied details
on the Section 106 legal agreement (environmental monitoring,
noise and aircraft movements).

 http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=41698&group=webcast
 http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=43038&group=webcast

Only a handful of local residents have been notified on the risk
contours, and only then with a misleading letter that incorrectly
defines the risk (the risk of an individual being killed), does
not state conditions 16 and 17 and fails to include a map of the
risk contours. No one has been notified on the Section 106
details. The response of the local press has been a deafening
silence.

As the result of a successful court case (Parkins v Rushmoor),
Rushmoor have been obliged to seek 'independent' advice on TAG's
submission on conditions 16 & 17. ERM have been engaged to
scrutinise the TAG application.

 http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=21729

The brief to ERM has been extremely narrowly defined. ERM have
only been asked to replicate the risk contours supplied by TAG,
they have not been asked to look at ground safety, the key issue.

In evidence supplied by Rushmoor to the High Court they stated
that when TAG submitted details for discharge of conditions 16 &
17 a study of ground safety would take place.

Risk contours do not address ground safety as they take no
account of the population on the ground.

Were Farnborough open desert or lower Manhattan, the risk
contours would be the same! That is NO ACCOUNT IS TAKEN OF THE
POPULATION ON THE GROUND.

The only purpose of the risk contours is to draw a Public Safety
Zone (loosely based on the 1:100,000 annual individual risk
contour). A PSZ is a future planning tool, to restrict
development in a zone deemed unsafe. The development that already
lies within any future PSZ is non-permitted development, ie if it
did not exist it could not be built as the area is not safe.
Determination of a PSZ does not address the planning application
from TAG.

Rushmoor planning officials have engaged in a policy of
deliberate deception by repeatedly telling councillors that risk
contours address ground safety.

NATS and DfT (Department for Transport) have both advised
Rushmoor officials that risk contours do not take account of the
population on the ground, do not address ground safety, that
their only use is for the derivation of a PSZ.

What can be said of the 1:100,000 risk contour is that it
encloses more people at Farnborough (ie more people are at risk
of being killed) than at any other UK airport.

ERM have also been asked to look at alternative risk models, in
particular the model developed by NLR which is used in Holland.
ERM have dismissed the NLR model out of hand on the false premise
that aircraft at Farnborough follow the centre line of the
runway. As everyone on the ground knows, they do not.

The NLR model (cf NATS model used by TAG and ERM), is believed to
show a worse case for Farnborough.

Attempts to clarify some of the points in the ERM report have not
been possible as ERM have been gagged. Although they are more
than willing to answer questions on their report, they have been
told not to by Rushmoor.

Questions to ERM should be addressed to technical director Paul
Davies (co-author of the ERM report).

 paul.davies@erm.com
0161 9588800

The Rushmoor official responsible for the gag is planning
official Richard Short.

 rshort@rushmoor.gov.uk

In his brief to the consultants as part of the tendering process
Richard Short prejudices both the independence of the consultants
advice and the planning process itself with the statement:
'Flying pursuant to the permission is expected to commence in
January 2003'. Has Short given similar assurances (guarantees) to
TAG Aviation?

Why has consideration of this application been removed from the
forthcoming planning agenda for 'technical' reasons? Could it be
the Council is getting increasingly paranoid at the fear of
crippling litigation? Is that why a leading QC is to be engaged
to look into the mess? Would the money not be better spent on
what the Council should have done all along and that is carry out
a proper safety study?

Rushmoor has a moral and legal duty to the local community to
carry out a ground safety study.

Rushmoor has still to carry out an independent assessment of
ground safety that takes account of the safety of those living on
the ground. A requirement that has been spelled out by DfT. But
even on the basis of the ERM/TAG submissions, conditions 16 & 17
must be REJECTED as more people are enclosed by the 1:100,000
risk contour (ie more people at risk of being killed) than at any
other UK airport.

 http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/tag1617i.htm