Latest: The Secretary
of State's decision was released on 13th March 2008. Most local
residents will be disappointed with the decision which is to allow TAG
to double the number of weekend flights. A careful analysis of both the
decision letter and the Inspectors report will be required before we
will be able to say what this decision means in terms of any future
expansion of the Farnborough operation.
TAG Farnborough Airport Ltd have appealed against the decision by Rushmoor Borough Council to refuse permission for a doubling in the number of allowed flights at weekends and on Bank Holidays from 2,500 to 5,000 movements per annum.
The appeal was run as a Public Inquiry which started on 23rd January 2007 and initially ran for 4 days. However, the appeal Inquiry did not finish after 4 days as planned. This was mostly due to TAG's barrister taking a very long time to systematically interrogate Rushmoor's various expert witnesses. Due to the other commitments of the various QCs the appeal did not reconvene until 2nd April and continued until the 5th.
James Radley's (CCH Chairman) statement which he read out to the appeal on 26th January can be found here.
A condition of TAG's planning permission, granted in October 2000, limited the number of aircraft which could use Farnborough outside of the working week to 2,500 movements per year. As Farnborough is an aerodrome for Business Aviation and most disturbance to residents occurs at weekends and on Bank Holidays, this was considered by Rushmoor to be a fair compromise.
TAG argue that their business customers do not typically adopt a Monday to Friday working pattern and hence there is huge demand for weekend flying. They also point out that they are not requesting an increase in the overall annual restriction of 28,000 movements.
However members of the public will experience a disproportionate increase in noise annoyance because of this change. Firstly there are more people at home at weekends to be annoyed, this is a residential area. Secondly there is more "General Aviation" for recreational flying at weekends. This will result in more Farnborough movements being directed to avoid "conflicting traffic" and this in turn will result in more aircraft deviating from the noise abatement procedures. In simple terms the higher number of light aircraft in the sky at weekends will force the business jets to turn over Fleet more frequently at weekends than during the week.
The appeal has been assigned the Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/P1750/A/06/2024640/NWF. TAG's grounds of appeal are as follows;
The CCH response to these grounds of appeal can be read here.
TAG Farnborough Airport Ltd have appealed against the decision by Rushmoor Borough Council to refuse permission for a doubling in the number of allowed flights at weekends and on Bank Holidays from 2,500 to 5,000 movements per annum.
The appeal was run as a Public Inquiry which started on 23rd January 2007 and initially ran for 4 days. However, the appeal Inquiry did not finish after 4 days as planned. This was mostly due to TAG's barrister taking a very long time to systematically interrogate Rushmoor's various expert witnesses. Due to the other commitments of the various QCs the appeal did not reconvene until 2nd April and continued until the 5th.
James Radley's (CCH Chairman) statement which he read out to the appeal on 26th January can be found here.
A condition of TAG's planning permission, granted in October 2000, limited the number of aircraft which could use Farnborough outside of the working week to 2,500 movements per year. As Farnborough is an aerodrome for Business Aviation and most disturbance to residents occurs at weekends and on Bank Holidays, this was considered by Rushmoor to be a fair compromise.
TAG argue that their business customers do not typically adopt a Monday to Friday working pattern and hence there is huge demand for weekend flying. They also point out that they are not requesting an increase in the overall annual restriction of 28,000 movements.
However members of the public will experience a disproportionate increase in noise annoyance because of this change. Firstly there are more people at home at weekends to be annoyed, this is a residential area. Secondly there is more "General Aviation" for recreational flying at weekends. This will result in more Farnborough movements being directed to avoid "conflicting traffic" and this in turn will result in more aircraft deviating from the noise abatement procedures. In simple terms the higher number of light aircraft in the sky at weekends will force the business jets to turn over Fleet more frequently at weekends than during the week.
The appeal has been assigned the Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/P1750/A/06/2024640/NWF. TAG's grounds of appeal are as follows;
- The decision failed to take account of
the Government's commitment to business aviation. The decision
also failed to recognise the stated Government policy within the future
of Air Transport White Paper that Farnborough should be a key entry
point for business aviation aircraft for London and the South East and
that the Government expected this view to be fully reflected in the
Local Planning System.
- The decision
took no account of the statement made to Parliament by a previous
Secretary of State for Transport in July 1994 that the Government
attaches great importance to the provision of business aviation
facilities for corporate users to assist in improving industry's
competitive edge.
- The
decision failed to take into account that the restriction on the
movements was a major factor in causing many customers not to base
their aircraft at Farnborough since they might not be able to use them
at weekends. This in turn is an inhibiting factor in achieving the
total of 28000 movements per year allowed under the planning permission.
- The decision failed to give due weight to the additional benefits
that
would result from increased weekend movements. In
particular the additional use of local hotels, restaurants, car hire
and taxis, and all the other suppliers who support the airport and
aircraft.
- The decision failed to take into account the
potential detrimental impact on the local, regional, and national
economy.
- The Officer's report only cites
'perceived noise impact. which is not a valid justification for refusal
of planning permission and does not have regard to the noise tests and
analysis.
- The
Council concentrated on the increase in the area of the 50 dB noise
contour without stating that most of the increase is inside the
airfield boundary. In fact the 57 dB contour should be the
appropriate measure and this contour is almost entirely contained
within the airfield boundary.
- The loss of amenity was stated to include interference when residents sit in their gardens in the summer There was no mention of the fact that the current planning permission does not restrict the proportion of movements each weekend in the summer.
E-Mail: info@ccguk.com