Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1518565
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:Another quote from that link that Stuart posted above.
This time from p10 of the Expression of Interest application:
Why is Fairoaks suitable for
re-development?

The site owners have advised that the
existing airfield aviation operations at
Fairoaks Airport are loss-making, in decline
and unsustainable with the inability to
increase revenue. The closure of the
airport and cessation of aviation activities
has been a driver behind the owners
exploring development opportunities at
the airport. Analysis undertaken by York
Aviation has assisted in the understanding
of the economic position of the airport
and impact of its closure on the aviationrelated
business; the loss of the airport
would not undermine or make unviable the
network of general and business aviation
aerodromes in the surrounding region
or across the UK. Economic analysis
will continue as part of developing the
Garden Village proposals, which will seek
to protect existing viable businesses and
replicate and enhance the employment
offering by introducing non-aviation related
businesses as part of the proposals.

They point out that the airfield alone is 'loss making', but the proposals for re-development are for both the airfield and the rented out buildings. If you combine the income for the two, they are not loss making.
#1518603
chevvron wrote:
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:Another quote from that link that Stuart posted above.
This time from p10 of the Expression of Interest application:
Why is Fairoaks suitable for
re-development?

...Analysis undertaken by York
Aviation has assisted in the understanding
of the economic position of the airport
and impact of its closure on the aviationrelated
business; the loss of the airport
would not undermine or make unviable the
network of general and business aviation
aerodromes in the surrounding region
or across the UK. Economic analysis
will continue as part of developing the
Garden Village proposals, which will seek
to protect existing viable businesses and
replicate and enhance the employment
offering by introducing non-aviation related
businesses as part of the proposals.

They point out that the airfield alone is 'loss making', but the proposals for re-development are for both the airfield and the rented out buildings. If you combine the income for the two, they are not loss making.


From that quote the planners don't care about the aviation businesses at Fairoaks that need a runway - they reckon there are plenty of other aerodromes in the surrounding region or across the UK, suggesting the development will force viable aviation business at Fairoaks that needs a runway to re-locate to another airfield. That conveniently also creates some space for the introduction of non-aviation related businesses as part of the proposals.

It seems that government (PPS3?) planning oversight that unintentionally made airfields brownfield sites is going to bite Fairoaks.
#1519043
Should imagine the likes of Wycombe/Booker would welcome Fairoaks businesses with open arms, not sure about capacity and planning constraints though at the likes of Denham, Elstree etc. Forget Redhill - under the same threat of closure of course. Further north and west the likes of Oxford would build to accommodate anyone on demand, as would Gloucestershire, Coventry etc. Cranfield probably wouldn't.
#1519046
Those just might suit Fairoaks based aviation businesses OK, but rather less good for based pilots, especially private ones. And even for the businesses, an upheaval for their staff. Obviously, none of these considerations may be required to be pondered by those who make planning decisions :roll:
mo0g, The Other Ian liked this
#1519100
As a former Woking/Horsell resident who use to fly out of Fairoaks I was sad to read about this. The first flight of my homebuilt Turbulent was done there, used to be parked in the hangar next to the Gunbus. Well that was over forty years ago, but fond memories of when the WingCo was running the flying club and Norman Jones also had the Tiger Club at Redhill, another airfield with a dubious future.
Perhaps at the meeting could propose making Fairoaks into a residential airpark as we have here in the USA ? Perranporth appears to have something like that under way at this time, might be able to offer some advice on that.
#1519167
kanga wrote:Those just might suit Fairoaks based aviation businesses OK, but rather less good for based pilots, especially private ones. And even for the businesses, an upheaval for their staff. Obviously, none of these considerations may be required to be pondered by those who make planning decisions :roll:


Quite.

The only suitable local alternative for me would be Blackbushe, and that will add on 30-40 mins to my total journey time to fly. Denham would be about the same, but I would rather brave M3 traffic than M25, especially as I prefer early morning flying.

So, does anyone know if Blackbushe has been approached by the planners?
#1519169
mo0g wrote:
kanga wrote:Those just might suit Fairoaks based aviation businesses OK, but rather less good for based pilots, especially private ones. And even for the businesses, an upheaval for their staff. Obviously, none of these considerations may be required to be pondered by those who make planning decisions :roll:


Quite.

The only suitable local alternative for me would be Blackbushe, and that will add on 30-40 mins to my total journey time to fly. Denham would be about the same, but I would rather brave M3 traffic than M25, especially as I prefer early morning flying.

So, does anyone know if Blackbushe has been approached by the planners?


Blackbushe have their own planning application in for new facilities: http://publicaccess.hart.gov.uk/online- ... FPWHZ0EL00

Whether there would be capacity to handle the aircraft displaced from Fairoaks and possibly the Gama maintenance business - unknown.
#1519179
So they are looking to expand? Again, when these planners glibly state that there is capacity among other "local" airfields to take Fairoaks' business, are they sure this will not require planning permission due to the increased traffic, and/or the local communities there will be ok with that?

In THEORY there may be capacity, in practice this may not be the case. Perhaps if the garden village is given the go ahead it should be on condition that the airfield ops can be moved within a certain radius, AND compensation paid to cover any increased costs incurred.
#1519205
mo0g wrote:.. when these planners glibly state that there is capacity among other "local" airfields to take Fairoaks' business, are they sure this will not require planning permission due to the increased traffic, and/or the local communities there will be ok with that?

In THEORY there may be capacity, in practice this may not be the case. ..


I am no expert in planning law, but AIUI through previous LAA/CAN campaigns there may be a way whereby in England [sic] the loss of GA facilities may be opposed in planning by arguing that equivalent facilities nearby are not available or inadequate. This is because Sport England recognised 'aviation sports' as sports within their remit, and planning guidance is that loss of sports facilities should or may be opposed in planning if there are not adequate equivalents nearby. Now, are any 'air sports' (competitive aerobatics, gliding, microlighting, helo flying, .. ) exercised, practiced or instructed from Fairoaks ? If so, this could be argued by some relevant competitive body, eg BAeA
#1519271
mo0g wrote:So they are looking to expand? Again, when these planners glibly state that there is capacity among other "local" airfields to take Fairoaks' business, are they sure this will not require planning permission due to the increased traffic, and/or the local communities there will be ok with that?

In THEORY there may be capacity, in practice this may not be the case. Perhaps if the garden village is given the go ahead it should be on condition that the airfield ops can be moved within a certain radius, AND compensation paid to cover any increased costs incurred.


So are the planners (which seemingly includes SHBC that invited the proposal) doing a smoke and mirrors distraction hoping people are too busy to be bothered to look into it further, or is it a variation of the lawyer trick of swamping the opposition with extra paperwork until they give up?

The level of compensation would be extremely difficult to quantify/agree, and ultimately how do the planners/developers recover sweeteners? Increased house prices?
#1519350
WingsOff wrote:Should imagine the likes of Wycombe/Booker would welcome Fairoaks businesses with open arms, not sure about capacity and planning constraints though at the likes of Denham, Elstree etc. Forget Redhill - under the same threat of closure of course. Further north and west the likes of Oxford would build to accommodate anyone on demand, as would Gloucestershire, Coventry etc. Cranfield probably wouldn't.


You have forgotten to mention White Waltham as a possible alternative.