Friday, 26 September 2008

TAG Farnborough Airport Report published

TAG Farnborough Airport Preliminary Public Consultation Report – September 2008

Go to:


Anonymous said...

An expanding airport will result in additional noise, pollution and risk for local residents living in close proximity to the end of the runway and on the flight path.

Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases, and will wipe out savings achieved in all other sectors.

- Blackwater Valley energy saver
- Blackwater Valley energy saver - aviation

Business aviation with its low load factors is the worst possible use of aviation and totally unnecessary. With High Definition TV and fast data links, it is now possible to have very effective meetings and conferences without leaving the office.

The so-called consultation exercise carried out by TAG Aviation was an exercise in greenwash. Consultation is what Rushmoor should carry out, that is consultation carried out with an open and receptive mind, not notification and ignore any responses. Many people will now mistakenly think they have participated in a planning consultation and will not bother a second time around. No doubt that was TAG's intention.

At this week's Conservative Party Conference, the Conservatives promised to block a third runway at Heathrow and instead invest in high speed rail links.

Will they promise to stop further expansion at Farnborough Airport?

Is it not time we had an airfield consultation committee on which the local community were properley represented and the meetings publicised?

Anonymous said...

There is no proven economic benefit of this airport to the local economy.

TAG's hotel business should not be bundled in with the airport to justify economic contribution unless they can can prove hotel guests actually use the aircraft.

The sole justification for this airport is "in the national interest" and taking business jets away from Heathrow etc.

The airport is supressing investment in Farnborough - who wants to live and work next to one? Proof: House prices remain far below the surrounding areas.

Very very few businesses in Farnborough use the airport.

TAG need to be held to account - they should be honest and stop intentionally misleading others and threatening economic disaster and housing.

Anonymous said...

TAG has recently reported on their so-called consultation exercise, greenwash by any other name.

- Airport will never operate at 100,000 flights capacity
- TAG Aviation seek massive expansion at Farnborough Airport

But even this exercise resulted in overwhelming public opposition. Especially so when it was in response to a very glowing account from TAG and that there is no effective local group opposing TAG.

The move towards heavier aircraft may result in less noise as there is no correlation between size and noise, but it will increase the risk to local residents as there is a direct correlation between weight and risk. The risk of a crash is unique to each aircraft type, but should it crash, the damage caused is in simple relationship to the weight. The damage only takes account of the weight, not of the fuel carried, which for a long haul flight could be as much as 80 tonnes of highly inflammable aviation fuel.

- Larger aircraft using Farnborough expected to triple

The Boeing Business Jet is based on a Boeing 737, its fuel payload can be that of a Boeing 747!

The psychological impact of larger aircraft is greater than that of smaller planes.

One of the most ridiculous claims from TAG was their contribution to reducing greenhouse gases by their use of bicycles! If nothing else, it did little for the credibility of the Carbon Trust who were acting for TAG.

- The Carbon Trust: State Sponsored Greenwashing (With Help From Greenpeace)

TAG Aviation has never been able to demonstrate any benefit to the local economy. Look around at Aldershot and Farnborough, two towns in serious economic decline, though to be fair to TAG, the blame lies fairly and squarely at the door of the local council and their poor planning. Farnborough town centre has been trashed by St Modwen and for Aldershot borough chief executive Andrew Lloyd seems determined to do they same with a similar development to lie alongside the edge-of-town Tesco superstore.

TAG is not a great employer of people. Airports like Heathrow and Gatwick employ large numbers in customs, immigration control, baggage handling, check-in staff and above all the shops and restaurants. There are none of these facilities at Farnborough.

Gatwick and Heathrow serve London. Likewise Farnborough. Passengers do not land at Farnborough then pop into Kingsmead and do a bit of shopping or visit the local tourist attractions.

What tourist attractions? The tourist office that the council opened at great expense in Aldershot for non-existent tourists, now lies empty. Why would any tourists visit Aldershot or Farnborough, other than as an observation of bad town planning?

Maybe they drop into Jean Jean, one of the few independent shops left in Farnborough town centre, and pick up a bargain pair of jeans in their closing down sale!

To coincide with the UN World Tourism Day (Saturday 27 September 2008), the New Economics Foundation and World Development Movement published a joint report that once and for all demolishes the myths that aviation is of benefit to the national economy.

- Aviation industry's fossil-fuelled fantasies threaten livelihoods of world's poor
- Plane truths: Do the economic arguments for aviation growth really fly?

The situation with TAG is far worse than the nef/WDM report suggests due to the low load factors and the inefficient use of this transport mode.

Any economic study of TAG would have to look at all the disbenefits as well as the exaggerated claimed benefits.

The noise levels retards the education of local school kids. The noise interferes with local businesses. The noise and stress induced, leads to increase in heart disease. All of which have a quantifiable cost.

The noise model used at Farnborough is inappropriate. It looks at average noise levels when it should be looking at peak noise levels and the frequency of those peaks.

The claim by the Planning Inspector who gave TAG the green light for uncontrolled expansion that the noise from the aircraft is masked by local traffic was to talk arrant nonsense and this was more than sufficient grounds for a Judicial Review on the grounds that the inspector was incompetent.

Equally nonsensical was the claim by TAG that only half a dozen people are effected by the noise.

Currently not all movement at Farnborough Airport are counted. Excluded are helicopters, light aircraft, MOD and diplomatic flights, Farnborough Airshow. Any future revision or variation of the current planning conditions must include all these movements as they all contribute to noise, pollution and risk.

Any future planning, has to include a proper safety study, something to date that has never been carried out. The aircraft as they come in are brushing the rooftops, leaving little room for error.

Crashes occur at the end of runways. At the end of the runway we have residential Farnborough, including schools, a college, and old folk's homes.

During the airshow, weight limits are suspended, landing thresholds changed, leading to increased risk to local residents.

The claim by TAG that they are not seeking massive expansion is laughable. It is as meaningless as their previous statements that they were willing to live within the existing caps. They even signed a legal agreement agreeing to these limits. A legal agreement they ripped to shreds when it no longer suited them. If nothing else showing that Section 106 legal agreements are worthless pieces of paper. Having overturned one limit, TAG are now seeking to overturn their other limits, in particular the 28,000 upper limit on movements.

Jeff Prestridge said...

Not sure how relevant this is but there area fair few entries about Farnbourough on this website, shops and cafe's covered and it were:

Anonymous said...

Will TAAG compensate local residents for the reduction in our home values as flight expansion continues?

As a local resident (hopefully leaving property to my children) I see that increased regular flights with associated noise, pollution and traffic will reduce the value of my home by perhaps 10%-20% in the coming years?

The unfair change in use of the Airfield clearly provides profits for TAAG - but at our direct expense!

A 10% reduction in house prices for 20,000 local homes is £4Bn stolen from local residents. How does TAAG plan to compensate us for this loss?

All talk of local economic benefits (and even a handful of new jobs) is dwarfed by this economic damage.

Concerned Local Home Owner