Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By matspart3
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1586227
York Aviation have written several reports about Gloucestershire Airport in the last four or five years, all of which have been very supportive and based on a thorough and sound analysis of real data. They also wrote the Government paper on GA strategy. Consequently, I have worked with them fairly extensively. I haven’t always agreed with some of their findings and recommendations but they’ve always made a thorough job.
johnm, kanga liked this
By chevvron
#1586888
chevvron wrote:Short notice I know, but public meetings titled 'Community Weekend' being held this coming weekend 27 Jan 1030 to 1230 and 1400 to 1530 and 28 Jan 1430 to 1630 at Chobham Village Hall .

Just drove past (1430) and although only just due to start, the car park was full hopefully of airport supporters.
User avatar
By davef77
#1586891
matspart3 wrote:York Aviation have written several reports about Gloucestershire Airport in the last four or five years, all of which have been very supportive and based on a thorough and sound analysis of real data. They also wrote the Government paper on GA strategy. Consequently, I have worked with them fairly extensively. I haven’t always agreed with some of their findings and recommendations but they’ve always made a thorough job.


Now, now! :naughty:

I am pretty sure that making reasoned judgements, based on evidence is against the forum rules :snooty:
johnm, kanga, Nick and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1586993
chevvron wrote:Just drove past (1430) and although only just due to start, the car park was full hopefully of airport supporters.


I had hoped to go but circumstances dictated otherwise. Anyone know what happened?
User avatar
By wigglyamp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1586997
I went to Saturday afternoon's presentation. Some interesting ideas on growing Fairoaks into a more viable airport with specific aims of attracting smaller business aircraft, particularly SET such as PC12 etc that can't easily use Farnborough. Proposals include new hangarage , new tower, and facilities to handle the increased business traffic. It all needs significant investment which will be a big challenge as the airport currently has two owners and they don't necessarily have the same agenda.
The action group have engaged significant professional help including legal and believe that the chance of a planning application for housing in the green belt being accepted is extremely remote.
Of particular interest was the comment that the current owners had attended the first session on Saturday morning and have asked to meet the action group next week.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1586998
Of particular interest was the comment that the current owners had attended the first session on Saturday morning and have asked to meet the action group next week.


Possibly good news, but.......the action group will be wise to remember the old saw....."Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!"
By GAFlyer4Fun
#1587013
wigglyamp wrote:The action group have engaged significant professional help including legal and believe that the chance of a planning application for housing in the green belt being accepted is extremely remote.


Does that include the APPG ? If not they need to join forces.

Remember last year the Surrey council document that showed the airfield owners were in cahoots with the council to propose the Garden Village trying to make it appear like a done deal at the first public consultation. It had some of my neighbours convinced the GV is going to happen. I hope it continues as an active airfield.
By chevvron
#1587617
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:
wigglyamp wrote:The action group have engaged significant professional help including legal and believe that the chance of a planning application for housing in the green belt being accepted is extremely remote.


Does that include the APPG ? If not they need to join forces.

Remember last year the Surrey council document that showed the airfield owners were in cahoots with the council to propose the Garden Village trying to make it appear like a done deal at the first public consultation. It had some of my neighbours convinced the GV is going to happen. I hope it continues as an active airfield.

There is tremendous local opposition from both Chobham and from Ottershaw with David (aka Lord) Trefgarne heading their efforts, so with Michael Gove on board too there is a significant 'voice' in both houses.
User avatar
By kanga
#1587632
chevvron wrote:.. there is a significant 'voice' in both houses.


.. but Policy framework is set by Parliament (Law) and thereunder Ministers (Regulation including 'Guidance' documents), while Decisions are (supposed to be) with local authorities. Then, of course, there can be Appeals whereby an Inspector (appointed by Minister) can decide that such a decision does or does not conform to or breach the Policy.

So, support/opposition in or by members of either House may provide imprecise 'clout', which may or may not 'influence' Councillors (especially of the same political/Party leanings), it ought not, theoretically, constrain the local Decisions. In principle this seems right, IMHO

However, of course, in this case I hope it does have at least some influence ... :)
By GAFlyer4Fun
#1587886
Fairoaks needs the Secretary of State intervention that Dunsfold got.
The announcement would need to make the national news and then councils across the country might think twice about wasting tax payers money repeatedly fighting the same legal battles over airfields.

Surrey councils don't have enough money to fill the potholes never mind keep fighting expensive legal battles over airfields.
In some parts of the county the locals are getting very fed up with potholes damaging tyres and wheels and suspension, and the collision risk of having oncoming traffic swerving at them to avoid the bigger potholes the council seems reluctant to fill.

The pothole avoidance collision risk on Surrey roads is possibly higher than the risk of an aircraft mid air collision....
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1587927
What Gove has exposed with his trip to Longcross is the parochialism with Local Authorities. As part of a national infrastructure plan, cognisance of competing projects effectively adjacent especially in populace areas should be taken.

Many people travel some distance from where they live these days and so the new residents of Longcross and FGV will clog the same already clogged roads.

That fact alone should prompt central government to intervene here and elsewhere.
User avatar
By defcribed
#1587932
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:Fairoaks needs the Secretary of State intervention that Dunsfold got.
The announcement would need to make the national news and then councils across the country might think twice about wasting tax payers money repeatedly fighting the same legal battles over airfields.

Surrey councils don't have enough money to fill the potholes never mind keep fighting expensive legal battles over airfields.
In some parts of the county the locals are getting very fed up with potholes damaging tyres and wheels and suspension, and the collision risk of having oncoming traffic swerving at them to avoid the bigger potholes the council seems reluctant to fill.

The pothole avoidance collision risk on Surrey roads is possibly higher than the risk of an aircraft mid air collision....


I'll second that. I used to spend a lot of time in Surrey and the roads are the worst in the country.

Re: the airfield and the owners, you just need to understand the motivations. Building a load of houses will yield a far higher profit than any small airport could ever possibly yield. Whatever you're offered, whatever they suggest they might do to improve the airport, it's only a stopgap to improve their income stream in the meantime and try to get people to view them as something other than what they are, which is land speculators. The end game remains houses, and it always will be thus. It might take 15 or 20 years of messing around pretending to run an airport, but it's all about getting to the houses in the end. If they decide that it's never going to happen, they'll sell to another speculator prepared to take a punt on them being wrong.
By chevvron
#1588127
wigglyamp wrote:I went to Saturday afternoon's presentation. Some interesting ideas on growing Fairoaks into a more viable airport with specific aims of attracting smaller business aircraft, particularly SET such as PC12 etc that can't easily use Farnborough. Proposals include new hangarage , new tower, and facilities to handle the increased business traffic. It all needs significant investment which will be a big challenge as the airport currently has two owners and they don't necessarily have the same agenda.
The action group have engaged significant professional help including legal and believe that the chance of a planning application for housing in the green belt being accepted is extremely remote.
Of particular interest was the comment that the current owners had attended the first session on Saturday morning and have asked to meet the action group next week.

Don't suppose a runway extension was mentioned was it?
Suggested by the then 'owners' about 5 years ago; they were talking in terms of 500m which might not be feasible due terrain; 200m would be feasible but it would mean diverting a public right of way. The freehold actually includes a lot of land to the northeast which would be equally as suitable for housing as the present airfield. The way I understand it is the land currently occupied by the airfield is only leased to the operators whilst all this other land is either unused or used for grazing of horses and cattle and hence probably (and I may be wrong) classed as 'greenfield' rather than 'brownfield'. The unused land is not maintained (undergrowth, bushes etc) in any way and is just left to go to waste.