Expansion of Farnborough Airport rejected!
Keith Parkins | 17.06.2006 12:25 | Ecology | Globalisation | Social Struggles | London
Plans submitted by TAG Aviation to double the number of weekend movements at Farnborough Airport have been rejected! Rushmoor planning committee following recommendations from their planning officials rejected the proposals by a decisive 6:2 majority.
'I admit I am a supporter of the airfield. I am very sympathetic to flying in Farnborough and the history of flying in Farnborough. I also understand that the Rushmoor residents that live under the flight path have a concern about an alleged and perceived noise increase. At the moment, it is an alleged and perceived noise increase as the consultants are just looking at paperwork. There is no evidence.' -- Rushmoor councillor Ken Muschamp
'It is widely suggested that TAG requires this amendment in order to be financially viable. We must not confuse the commercial viability of Farnborough Aerodrome with the soundness of TAG’s business plan. If it has over-invested in opulent aerodrome infrastructure that is an issue for its shareholders.' -- Community Campaign Hart councillor James Radley
'I would like you to compare the weekend noise with when the MoD was flying. The airfield was closed on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.' -- local Farnborough resident Reg Milne
'I didn’t choose to live under a commercial flight-path but now I do. TAG is trying to shoe-horn an international airport into a disused RAF aerodrome, which is why it has had to lengthen the runway, change roads and rivers, chop the top off a nearby hill and attempt to ride a coach and horses through the Local Plan. -- Mytchett resident Glen Morrisson
'There is considerable demand for business aviation in the London area and this is unquestionably a seven-day activity. This application is not simply about profit but to respond to customer demand at Farnborough as a principal entry point for business aviation.' -- Sir Donald Spiers, director of TAG Aviation
Farnborough Airport is or claims to be the business airport for London. The customers are primarily transnational corporations. Thus Farnborough Airport is a key component of globalisation.
Last Autumn, TAG Aviation submitted a planning application to double the number of weekend and bank holiday movements at Farnborough Airport, up from 2,500 movements per annum to 5,000 movements per annum.
The application received a record number of objections, totalling nearly 4,000 objections, plus several petitions from local residents opposing airport expansion.
These objections came from far afield, not just Farnborough.
That the wide geographical spread of objections were from far afield was reflected in those who spoke, many of who were councillors from surrounding councils or local residents groups.
The meeting started with a presentation by planning officials who had recommended that the application be rejected. A first for Rushmoor, planning officials acting in the best interest of the local community.
Their presentation was simple, but very professional. They made the point that balance had to be struck between economic growth and the local community, and they felt this would have tilted the balance against the best interests of the local community, thus their recommendation was to reject the application.
What was interesting was that they took due notice of the WHO recommendations on noise, and they felt the increase in noise at weekends who be unacceptable as it exceeded WHO recommendations.
Where most people would disagree with their presentation was that TAG had made a contribution to the local economy, and their massive investments on the airfield was for the benefit of the local community. It was also not true that TAG were submitting measures to reduce the impact of their application as part of their application. At the last meeting of the Farnborough Airport Consultation Committee, TAG put these measures on the table.
TAG's investment was for the benefit of their customers, plus to meet CAA licensing requirements. Economic benefits are a moot point, no proper economic assessment has ever taken place that takes account of the many dis-benefits All we have is a mantra repeated by TAG and their supporters that they are benefiting the local economy. That there is a benefit to TAG and their customers few would dispute, but beyond that is highly questionable.
The quality of the presentations was very high. We heard of TAG's financial mismanagement, of their massive overspend, that it was not for the local community or the planning system to bail out a failing company, that if TAG failed it would not mean the airport would fail as someone else would step in a rescue their assets, of the misery local people suffered from TAG overflying their homes, that local residents wished to be able to relax and enjoy their weekends, that peak noise was very high stopping conversation for 30 seconds as aircraft flew over.
Prior to the meeting Gerald Howarth MP, Member for Aldershot, had publicly warned the councillors to show a bit of back-bone, ignore the recommendations from their officials and back TAG. To the delight of the public gallery, one speaker laid bare Howarth's close relationship with the aerospace industry.
TAG made a very poor show of presenting their case. They tried to claim the local community was not affected by noise and would not therefore notice any increase which was minimal. They said they were not applying for more movements for their own increased profit, but because it was what their customers wanted. This statement, without maybe TAG realising, was to open up a can of worms. Would they be back for more flights, heavier aircraft, nighttime flying, if that was what their customers wanted?
Speaking before TAG was the chief executive of the Farnborough Airshow. He claimed TAG was essential to operation of the airshow. This was nonsense. If TAG went under, someone else would step in. The government would ensure that, they would not allow an airport to become defunct that serves global businesses and hosts the world's biggest arms fair. He also made the ludicrous claim that the local community was not affected by noise from the airport, a claim that was met with hoots of derision and cries of 'rubbish' from the public gallery.
Councillors in surrounding local authorities have a very low opinion of the calibre of Rushmoor councillors. It is all too easy to see why.
The standard of discussion by the committee was abysmal and only serves to illustrate how ill-served are the local community. A few councillors claimed to have read some of the many submissions, but if they had, from the ignorance of their comments, they had not understood what they had read. None appeared to have taken any notice of the presentations they had heard for the past hour and a half.
Apart from displaying an amazing degree of ignorance, the councillors showed appalling contempt for the local community. They all made it very clear they did not like the recommendations from their officials and it was with great reluctance they were rejecting the application from TAG. Several said they would like to see TAG back before them.
An example of the crass stupidity of the councillors was when one compared airports operating 24 hours a day with supermarkets operating 24 hours a day. He then went on to claim the local Asda had as many people shopping in the store at 1am as 5pm, which begged the question had he been in the store at either time.
Another example of the crass stupidity of the councillors was when one claimed the noise was a perception, and there was no evidence of an increase in noise. Clearly he failed to comprehend that a doubling of the flights at weekend would lead to a doubling of the noise nuisance, and that if troubled to stand under the flight path and used his ears (assuming him not to be deaf) he would understand what the local residents have to tolerate.
Four councillors were absence. At least three had a vested interest, and would have been put before the Standards Board for England had they made an appearance. Maybe they had been warned by the Borough Solicitor to stay away.
The Borough Solicitor Karen Limmer had a big grin on her face throughout the proceedings.
On the other hand, Andrew Lloyd, Rushmoor chief executive, sat grim-faced throughout the entire proceedings. It must have pained him deeply, having backed TAG to the hilt, to have his officials reject what TAG wanted. He must also be an extremely worried man if as strongly rumoured he is hoping for a seat on the TAG board for services rendered, then TAG files for bankruptcy.
Committee chairman Nigel Baines came across as a pompous buffoon and showed appalling contempt for the local community, when tried to stop the public gallery applauding the various speakers. The responce of the public gallery was to applaud and whoop all he more. When he tried again, chief executive Andrew Lloyd leant over and told him in no uncertain terms to shut up. Which only goes to show who is running the Council, and it is not the councillors, let alone the local community.
When he opened the meeting, Baines told the public gallery that whilst they were allowed to be in attendance, it was not a public meeting. Or in other words, the common masses should be grateful their betters were allowing them through the door, but otherwise should be seen and not heard.
Apart from his attitude to the public, Baines fairly chaired the meeting.
The entire proceedings was broadcast over the net.
The end result was all bar two councillors, with great reluctance, voting against the TAG application. The two councillors who backed TAG were Peter Crerar and Eddie Poole, something the electorate may wish to note come next time they stand for re-election.
Both councillors are Tory councillors for Aldershot. Gerald Howarth is the Tory Member of Parliament for Aldershot. Clearly the message from Tory party leader David Cameron MP on big business and the environment has yet to percolate down to the Tory backwoodsmen in Aldershot.
TAG have since the meeting said they are considering an appeal against the decision.
TAG have egg on their face. They were hoping to announce to the world's aerospace industry at the Farnborough Airshow next month that they were expanding, instead they have been made to look ridiculous. They also have the problem that up until the meeting they assumed they would get what they wanted and have been ramping up weekend flights. Now they are going to have to drastically scale back to remain within their annual quota of 2,500 movements, otherwise before the end of the year, there will be no weekend flights at Farnborough.
Following the meeting at least one councillor has been bragging that this is only a short-lived victory for the local community and the Council will give TAG what they want.
The next meeting of Farnborough Airport Consultation Committee will take place on 6 July 2006.
The world's biggest arms fair, the Farnborough International Airshow 2006, will take place 17-23 July 2006, with Friday a special youth day, to emphasise to the young the benefits of aviation! Climate change, global warming? The leaflets for the Airshow promote it as a fun day out for the family! Public days on the last two days.
The result at Farnborough on Tuesday night shows the relentless expansion of airports is not inevitable, it is possible to say no.
websites
http://www.facc.org.uk/
http://www.fara.org.uk/
http://www.caat.org.uk/
http://www.aef.org.uk/
http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/
http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6302
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/
reference
Chris Bentley, Cheers and jeers for debate’s public speakers, Farnborough News, 15 June 2005
Keith Parkins, Weekend flights to double at Farnborough Airport?, Indymedia UK, 31 October 2005
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326946.html
Keith Parkins, Weekend flights to double at Farnborough?, Indymedia UK, 8 November 2005
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327534.html
Keith Parkins, A laughable claim, letters, Surrey-Hants Star, 10 November 2005
Keith Parkins, FACC - November 2005, Indymedia UK, 18 November 2005
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/328072.html
Keith Parkins, TAG's problem - not ours, letters, Farnham Herald, 18 November 2005
Keith Parkins, TAG revised application to double weekend flights, March 2006
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/tag11rev1.htm
Keith Parkins, TAG submit revised application to double weekend flights at Farnborough, Indymedia UK, 13 March 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/03/335732.html
Keith Parkins, FACC – March 2006, Indymedia UK, 17 March 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/03/336030.html
Reach for the Sky, Undercurrents, 2005 {available as both book and DVD}
Jen Rivett, Sun sets on weekend flights plan?, Farnborough News, 15 June 2005
http://www.farnborough.co.uk/news/2002/2002185/sun_sets_on_weekend_flights_plan
Stop Airport Expansion Edition: The Pod Report 06, The Pod Report, Sunday 4 December 2005
http://podreport.podomatic.com/enclosure/2005-12-04T12_10_45-08_00.mp3
John Walton, More weekend flights refused, Surrey-Hants Star, 15 June 2006
'It is widely suggested that TAG requires this amendment in order to be financially viable. We must not confuse the commercial viability of Farnborough Aerodrome with the soundness of TAG’s business plan. If it has over-invested in opulent aerodrome infrastructure that is an issue for its shareholders.' -- Community Campaign Hart councillor James Radley
'I would like you to compare the weekend noise with when the MoD was flying. The airfield was closed on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.' -- local Farnborough resident Reg Milne
'I didn’t choose to live under a commercial flight-path but now I do. TAG is trying to shoe-horn an international airport into a disused RAF aerodrome, which is why it has had to lengthen the runway, change roads and rivers, chop the top off a nearby hill and attempt to ride a coach and horses through the Local Plan. -- Mytchett resident Glen Morrisson
'There is considerable demand for business aviation in the London area and this is unquestionably a seven-day activity. This application is not simply about profit but to respond to customer demand at Farnborough as a principal entry point for business aviation.' -- Sir Donald Spiers, director of TAG Aviation
Farnborough Airport is or claims to be the business airport for London. The customers are primarily transnational corporations. Thus Farnborough Airport is a key component of globalisation.
Last Autumn, TAG Aviation submitted a planning application to double the number of weekend and bank holiday movements at Farnborough Airport, up from 2,500 movements per annum to 5,000 movements per annum.
The application received a record number of objections, totalling nearly 4,000 objections, plus several petitions from local residents opposing airport expansion.
These objections came from far afield, not just Farnborough.
That the wide geographical spread of objections were from far afield was reflected in those who spoke, many of who were councillors from surrounding councils or local residents groups.
The meeting started with a presentation by planning officials who had recommended that the application be rejected. A first for Rushmoor, planning officials acting in the best interest of the local community.
Their presentation was simple, but very professional. They made the point that balance had to be struck between economic growth and the local community, and they felt this would have tilted the balance against the best interests of the local community, thus their recommendation was to reject the application.
What was interesting was that they took due notice of the WHO recommendations on noise, and they felt the increase in noise at weekends who be unacceptable as it exceeded WHO recommendations.
Where most people would disagree with their presentation was that TAG had made a contribution to the local economy, and their massive investments on the airfield was for the benefit of the local community. It was also not true that TAG were submitting measures to reduce the impact of their application as part of their application. At the last meeting of the Farnborough Airport Consultation Committee, TAG put these measures on the table.
TAG's investment was for the benefit of their customers, plus to meet CAA licensing requirements. Economic benefits are a moot point, no proper economic assessment has ever taken place that takes account of the many dis-benefits All we have is a mantra repeated by TAG and their supporters that they are benefiting the local economy. That there is a benefit to TAG and their customers few would dispute, but beyond that is highly questionable.
The quality of the presentations was very high. We heard of TAG's financial mismanagement, of their massive overspend, that it was not for the local community or the planning system to bail out a failing company, that if TAG failed it would not mean the airport would fail as someone else would step in a rescue their assets, of the misery local people suffered from TAG overflying their homes, that local residents wished to be able to relax and enjoy their weekends, that peak noise was very high stopping conversation for 30 seconds as aircraft flew over.
Prior to the meeting Gerald Howarth MP, Member for Aldershot, had publicly warned the councillors to show a bit of back-bone, ignore the recommendations from their officials and back TAG. To the delight of the public gallery, one speaker laid bare Howarth's close relationship with the aerospace industry.
TAG made a very poor show of presenting their case. They tried to claim the local community was not affected by noise and would not therefore notice any increase which was minimal. They said they were not applying for more movements for their own increased profit, but because it was what their customers wanted. This statement, without maybe TAG realising, was to open up a can of worms. Would they be back for more flights, heavier aircraft, nighttime flying, if that was what their customers wanted?
Speaking before TAG was the chief executive of the Farnborough Airshow. He claimed TAG was essential to operation of the airshow. This was nonsense. If TAG went under, someone else would step in. The government would ensure that, they would not allow an airport to become defunct that serves global businesses and hosts the world's biggest arms fair. He also made the ludicrous claim that the local community was not affected by noise from the airport, a claim that was met with hoots of derision and cries of 'rubbish' from the public gallery.
Councillors in surrounding local authorities have a very low opinion of the calibre of Rushmoor councillors. It is all too easy to see why.
The standard of discussion by the committee was abysmal and only serves to illustrate how ill-served are the local community. A few councillors claimed to have read some of the many submissions, but if they had, from the ignorance of their comments, they had not understood what they had read. None appeared to have taken any notice of the presentations they had heard for the past hour and a half.
Apart from displaying an amazing degree of ignorance, the councillors showed appalling contempt for the local community. They all made it very clear they did not like the recommendations from their officials and it was with great reluctance they were rejecting the application from TAG. Several said they would like to see TAG back before them.
An example of the crass stupidity of the councillors was when one compared airports operating 24 hours a day with supermarkets operating 24 hours a day. He then went on to claim the local Asda had as many people shopping in the store at 1am as 5pm, which begged the question had he been in the store at either time.
Another example of the crass stupidity of the councillors was when one claimed the noise was a perception, and there was no evidence of an increase in noise. Clearly he failed to comprehend that a doubling of the flights at weekend would lead to a doubling of the noise nuisance, and that if troubled to stand under the flight path and used his ears (assuming him not to be deaf) he would understand what the local residents have to tolerate.
Four councillors were absence. At least three had a vested interest, and would have been put before the Standards Board for England had they made an appearance. Maybe they had been warned by the Borough Solicitor to stay away.
The Borough Solicitor Karen Limmer had a big grin on her face throughout the proceedings.
On the other hand, Andrew Lloyd, Rushmoor chief executive, sat grim-faced throughout the entire proceedings. It must have pained him deeply, having backed TAG to the hilt, to have his officials reject what TAG wanted. He must also be an extremely worried man if as strongly rumoured he is hoping for a seat on the TAG board for services rendered, then TAG files for bankruptcy.
Committee chairman Nigel Baines came across as a pompous buffoon and showed appalling contempt for the local community, when tried to stop the public gallery applauding the various speakers. The responce of the public gallery was to applaud and whoop all he more. When he tried again, chief executive Andrew Lloyd leant over and told him in no uncertain terms to shut up. Which only goes to show who is running the Council, and it is not the councillors, let alone the local community.
When he opened the meeting, Baines told the public gallery that whilst they were allowed to be in attendance, it was not a public meeting. Or in other words, the common masses should be grateful their betters were allowing them through the door, but otherwise should be seen and not heard.
Apart from his attitude to the public, Baines fairly chaired the meeting.
The entire proceedings was broadcast over the net.
The end result was all bar two councillors, with great reluctance, voting against the TAG application. The two councillors who backed TAG were Peter Crerar and Eddie Poole, something the electorate may wish to note come next time they stand for re-election.
Both councillors are Tory councillors for Aldershot. Gerald Howarth is the Tory Member of Parliament for Aldershot. Clearly the message from Tory party leader David Cameron MP on big business and the environment has yet to percolate down to the Tory backwoodsmen in Aldershot.
TAG have since the meeting said they are considering an appeal against the decision.
TAG have egg on their face. They were hoping to announce to the world's aerospace industry at the Farnborough Airshow next month that they were expanding, instead they have been made to look ridiculous. They also have the problem that up until the meeting they assumed they would get what they wanted and have been ramping up weekend flights. Now they are going to have to drastically scale back to remain within their annual quota of 2,500 movements, otherwise before the end of the year, there will be no weekend flights at Farnborough.
Following the meeting at least one councillor has been bragging that this is only a short-lived victory for the local community and the Council will give TAG what they want.
The next meeting of Farnborough Airport Consultation Committee will take place on 6 July 2006.
The world's biggest arms fair, the Farnborough International Airshow 2006, will take place 17-23 July 2006, with Friday a special youth day, to emphasise to the young the benefits of aviation! Climate change, global warming? The leaflets for the Airshow promote it as a fun day out for the family! Public days on the last two days.
The result at Farnborough on Tuesday night shows the relentless expansion of airports is not inevitable, it is possible to say no.
websites
http://www.facc.org.uk/ http://www.fara.org.uk/ http://www.caat.org.uk/ http://www.aef.org.uk/ http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/ http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6302 http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/ reference
Chris Bentley, Cheers and jeers for debate’s public speakers, Farnborough News, 15 June 2005
Keith Parkins, Weekend flights to double at Farnborough Airport?, Indymedia UK, 31 October 2005
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326946.html Keith Parkins, Weekend flights to double at Farnborough?, Indymedia UK, 8 November 2005
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327534.html Keith Parkins, A laughable claim, letters, Surrey-Hants Star, 10 November 2005
Keith Parkins, FACC - November 2005, Indymedia UK, 18 November 2005
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/328072.html Keith Parkins, TAG's problem - not ours, letters, Farnham Herald, 18 November 2005
Keith Parkins, TAG revised application to double weekend flights, March 2006
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/tag11rev1.htm Keith Parkins, TAG submit revised application to double weekend flights at Farnborough, Indymedia UK, 13 March 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/03/335732.html Keith Parkins, FACC – March 2006, Indymedia UK, 17 March 2006
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/03/336030.html Reach for the Sky, Undercurrents, 2005 {available as both book and DVD}
Jen Rivett, Sun sets on weekend flights plan?, Farnborough News, 15 June 2005
http://www.farnborough.co.uk/news/2002/2002185/sun_sets_on_weekend_flights_plan Stop Airport Expansion Edition: The Pod Report 06, The Pod Report, Sunday 4 December 2005
http://podreport.podomatic.com/enclosure/2005-12-04T12_10_45-08_00.mp3 John Walton, More weekend flights refused, Surrey-Hants Star, 15 June 2006
Keith Parkins
