Damian has submitted the following response to Rushmoor Borough Council in relation to Farnborough Airport's latest planning application.
Rushmoor Borough Council
Planning Department
Dear Sir/Madam
Planning application Farnborough Airport – 25/00615/REV and 20/00871/REVPP
I am writing to submit my formal response to the above consultation on Farnborough Airport’s latest planning application.
I acknowledge the importance of Farnborough Airport to the regional and wider economy. The airport plays a role in supporting growth and is a significant local employer, supports businesses on and around the site, and makes an important contribution to the local authority through its business rates.
However, as I have stated in previous submissions relating to the airport, I continue to have concerns about the impact of the proposals on my constituents in East Hampshire. Parts of my constituency are affected by aircraft departures from Farnborough Airport. Due to current airspace restrictions, departing aircraft are required to follow the same departure corridor over my constituency, rather than routing east of Farnborough.
Whilst I note that the overall annual movement cap is not proposed to change in this latest application, I am concerned that shifting a greater proportion of flights to weekends and bank holidays will significantly reduce, or remove entirely, periods of respite for residents currently living under the departure swathe. In correspondence with Farnborough Airport Limited (FAL), I have been assured that the impact (noise, carbon, air quality etc) of these changes is “not significant”. However, it is difficult to reconcile this assessment with the experience of those who would be overflown seven days a week. I have therefore asked FAL to clarify how many additional flights per hour on non weekdays this change would represent – I have not yet received this information.
I am also concerned about the proposal to allow an uplift in the number of heavier aircraft operating at weekends and bank holidays. FAL’s website states that this change is “necessary to support the introduction of more modern and technologically advanced aircraft, which generally have improved environmental performance compared to the older and slightly lighter aircraft they are replacing.” What has not been clearly explained is the sequencing of this transition. I am concerned that there may be a period during which the weekend and bank holiday cap is lifted to 13,500 flights per year while older aircraft remain in operation. In such circumstances, residents under the departure route could experience both an increase in the number of flights and continued exposure to older, noisier and more polluting aircraft.
Given these concerns, I also question FAL’s decision not to hold any in-person drop-in consultation events in East Hampshire as part of this latest planning application. While I understand that a number of virtual events were held in October, it is unclear how effectively residents who are directly overflown by departing aircraft were made aware of these opportunities. I also question how many residents in East Hampshire are aware of this latest planning application at all.
Although my constituents are not as directly affected as those living in close proximity to the airport (and therefore do not qualify for any of the noise insultation schemes), some communities are regularly overflown. I believe many residents would have welcomed the opportunity to meet with the airport’s management team in person to better understand what is being proposed and how it may affect them.
Yours sincerely,
Damian Hinds
Member of Parliament for East Hampshire
[email protected]
Tel: 020 7219 7057
