Massive expansion at Farnborough Airport?
Keith Parkins | 25.03.2008 14:30 | Climate Chaos | Globalisation | Social Struggles | World
Following the green light to double weekend and bank holiday flights, TAG Aviation are now seeking massive expansion at Farnborough Airport.
When TAG Aviation several years ago made planning application to legitimise their business operation at Farnborough Airport (they were at the time operating a business airport without planning consent), a number of limits were put in place. Limits on the overall movements, limits on weekend and bank holiday movements, limits on noise, limits on air pollution.
It was very obvious that sooner or later, TAG would hit one or more of those limits and would be back for more. All that was not known, was which limit it was and how soon it would happen.
A couple of years ago, TAG claimed they had already reached the weekend limit and were having to turn flights away. Sir Donald Spiers, then chairman of TAG Aviation, claimed in May 2006, that TAG had turned away 3,000 flights, at a cost of £1.25 million to TAG.
TAG Aviation lodged a planning application to double weekend and bank holiday flights.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326946.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327534.html
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/tag11.htm
http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/media/adobepdf/9/2/tagairport.pdf
The Rotten Borough of Rushmoor, the local planning authority, received 1660 objections, only nine were in favour.
Rushmoor said no, the planning committee voted by five to two to reject the application from TAG.
The application went to appeal and a planning inquiry was held.
The decision of the planning inquiry, only just published, was to give TAG Aviation the green light.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/03/394334.html
http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=8066
http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6699
According to the planning inspector, economic factors overrode any consideration for local people. The inspector even went so far as to make the ludicrous claim that traffic noise masked out the sound of the aircraft!
The only economic factor was TAG's profitability.
The claimed economic advantage locally can be seen by the fact that the two nearest town centres, Farnborough and Aldershot (both under the mismanagement of the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor) lie derelict.
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/ald-shot.htm
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/farnboro.htm
The government could have stepped in and overruled the Inspector. Ministers chose not to.
So much for the government's commitment to a reduction in greenhouse gases.
Aviation is now the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases.
Business aviation, with its low load factors, is the worst contributor.
Farnborough Airport is a business airport. Its main customer base is global corporations and wealthy Middle East Arabs.
Farnborough Airport is a key component of globalisation.
No sooner had the green light been given, TAG Aviation announced a massive expansion at Farnborough. They now wish to see the overall limit on flights removed.
http://www.farnborough.co.uk/news/2024/2024335/airport_chiefs_to_look_for_increase_in_cap_on_flights
Last year's climate summer camp took place outside Heathrow. The smart choice for this year would be outside Farnborough Airport timed to coincide with the Farnborough International Airshow, the focus being on climate change, globalisation and the arms trade.
It was very obvious that sooner or later, TAG would hit one or more of those limits and would be back for more. All that was not known, was which limit it was and how soon it would happen.
A couple of years ago, TAG claimed they had already reached the weekend limit and were having to turn flights away. Sir Donald Spiers, then chairman of TAG Aviation, claimed in May 2006, that TAG had turned away 3,000 flights, at a cost of £1.25 million to TAG.
TAG Aviation lodged a planning application to double weekend and bank holiday flights.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326946.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327534.html http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/tag11.htm http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/media/adobepdf/9/2/tagairport.pdf The Rotten Borough of Rushmoor, the local planning authority, received 1660 objections, only nine were in favour.
Rushmoor said no, the planning committee voted by five to two to reject the application from TAG.
The application went to appeal and a planning inquiry was held.
The decision of the planning inquiry, only just published, was to give TAG Aviation the green light.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/03/394334.html http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=8066 http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6699 According to the planning inspector, economic factors overrode any consideration for local people. The inspector even went so far as to make the ludicrous claim that traffic noise masked out the sound of the aircraft!
The only economic factor was TAG's profitability.
The claimed economic advantage locally can be seen by the fact that the two nearest town centres, Farnborough and Aldershot (both under the mismanagement of the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor) lie derelict.
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/ald-shot.htm http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/farnboro.htm The government could have stepped in and overruled the Inspector. Ministers chose not to.
So much for the government's commitment to a reduction in greenhouse gases.
Aviation is now the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases.
Business aviation, with its low load factors, is the worst contributor.
Farnborough Airport is a business airport. Its main customer base is global corporations and wealthy Middle East Arabs.
Farnborough Airport is a key component of globalisation.
No sooner had the green light been given, TAG Aviation announced a massive expansion at Farnborough. They now wish to see the overall limit on flights removed.
http://www.farnborough.co.uk/news/2024/2024335/airport_chiefs_to_look_for_increase_in_cap_on_flights Last year's climate summer camp took place outside Heathrow. The smart choice for this year would be outside Farnborough Airport timed to coincide with the Farnborough International Airshow, the focus being on climate change, globalisation and the arms trade.
Keith Parkins
Homepage:
http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Not a fair comparison
26.03.2008 14:20
There are bigger issues to worry about
Cove resident
Possible Daily Mail reader ?
26.03.2008 16:03
You tried all this before when you tried to get elected to Rushmore Council (you do remember that rather embarrising episode don't ypou Keith?)
Your agenda is clear
Must be election time
27.03.2008 18:13
In their Out of Touch leaflet, the local Tories says a local resident is responsible for the state of Farnborough town centre. They repeated the same lies last local elections.
The truth is that local Tories got into bed with a developer who trashed the town centre.
Local Tories are also in bed with TAG Aviation.
At meetings of the Airfield Consultation Committee, they fall over backwards to back TAG, as they did when they granted planning permission for a business airport at Farnborough.
At the last local elections, there was a high postal ballot. Postal ballots are renowned for fraud and balloting rigging.
Keith Parkins does not own property at the end of the runway, in Farnborough, or anywhere else in the country.
But then when has the truth been allowed to stand in the way of a good smear campaign?
When Farnborough was a Mod research site (the famous RAE) there was at times very noisy periods when test flights were carried out, but these were of short duration, with long periods, often weeks, with no flying.
That the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor received 1660 objections, with only nine in favour of expansion at Farnborough, speaks for itself.
Keith