Tel: 020 7248 2227 RSS FeedRSS feed

Nick Herbert, MP for Arundel & South Downs, joins others in speaking out against noise nuisance from ADNID trial

Nick Herber, the MP for Arundel and South Downs, has received numerous complaints from constituents in Kirdford, Wisborough Green, West Grinstead and other villages about noise from low flying aircraft from Gatwick. This has been due to the ADNID flight path trial, that lasted 6 months and ended on 8th August.  He did not get aircraft noise complaints before ADNID.  Though it has now ended, Mr Herbert says some constituents say the aircraft noise still continues. He has taken up the issue with Stewart Wingate, and has also been working with Francis Maude, the MP for Horsham, whose constituents are also affected. They have raised the matter with the Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin. The MPs are challenging the assertion that there needs to be any new Noise Preferential Route (NPR) in order for Gatwick to achieve a modest potential increase in hourly movements as a single runway airport. They have also complained about the consultation, which was badly done. Mr Herbert is aware of the extent of local concern not only about the new flight paths becoming permanent, but the even worse prospect of the increased traffic from a 2nd runway. Other MPs in the area have also complained about the situation, and the poor consultation. See below.

.

Nick Herbert:    Flight path trial provokes complaints

Arundel and South Downs MP Nick Herbert 

Arundel and South Downs MP Nick Herbert

29th August 2014

I’ve received numerous complaints from constituents in Kirdford, Wisborough Green, West Grinstead and other villages about noise from low flying aircraft from Gatwick.

The cause was a six-month trial of new flight paths, partly as a result of a consultation about London airspace formulated by the Civil Aviation Authority.

The trial came to an end earlier this month, although some constituents tell me that aircraft noise continues.

I’ve met with constituents about this issue and continue to take it up with the Chief Executive of Gatwick Airport.

I’ve also been working closely with Francis Maude, the MP for Horsham, whose constituents are also affected. We’ve raised the issues with the Transport Secretary, and are now asking for a meeting with the Chief Executive of Gatwick so that we can re-emphasise our concerns.

We’re challenging the assertion that there needs to be any new Noise Preferential Route in order for Gatwick to achieve a modest potential increase in hourly movements as a single runway airport.

We’re also very unhappy about the consultation itself. The document was long and technical, and it was not known about. The Chief Executive has confirmed to me that residents were not advised about the trial routes.

He assures me that ‘no firm decision’ will be taken on permanent new routings until feedback has been evaluated. Any decision to implement airspace change will be taken by the Civil Aviation Authority.

The Government’s preference is to concentrate flightpaths rather than disperse them, so as to minimise disruption to communities. However, the trial route has clearly hugely increased disruption. I received no complaints about aircraft noise before.

Clearly local residents will be concerned that the trial route will become permanent, and I will argue strongly against it.

I think this issue foreshadows a longer-term concern, which is that further expansion at Gatwick could result in greater noise from flights over this part of West Sussex, as well as increasing development pressures on the County which are already a real problem.

Gatwick is running a high profile publicity campaign to promote a second runway. These issues are being considered by a Airports Commission led by Sir Howard Davies which will report next year.

I think that airport expansion is needed, and that it should be at Heathrow or, if the economics justify it, possibly ‘Boris island’, as the Thames estuary option has become known.

If you would like to get in touch with me, please write to me at the House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA, or e-mail me at nick@nickherbert.com

http://www.westsussextoday.co.uk/news/columnists/nick-herbert-flight-path-trial-provokes-complaints-1-6263874

..


 

.

Other MPs who have spoken out against Gatwick’s flight path trial, and against a second runway at Gatwick:

 Nick Herbert – see above.

.

Mole Valley MP Sir Paul Beresford joins the battle over Gatwick aircraft noise

Sir Paul Beresfor, the MP for Mole Valley, has joined the battle against aircraft noise due to Gatwick airport, over the south of the district. Documents for the recent airspace consultation by Gatwick (closed on 15th August) show that one of Gatwick’s departure routes was changed in November 2013. This flight path had too tight a turn for modern aircraft (though they can climb faster than older planes) and planes were increasingly straying further north. As a result, the official route, the NPR (noise preferential route) was changed at the end of last year to allow for a wider turn, meaning 7,200 people who were previously unaffected are now under the flight path – including communities in Leigh, the Holmwoods, Brockham, Capel, Betchworth and Beare Green. Sir Paul said: “It’s quite a disaster. People who bought houses under the previous flight path knew what they were buying. People who have bought under the new flight path did not know. ….. the whole thing is totally unacceptable.” He is deeply opposed to a 2nd runway, partly due to the thousands of houses that would have to be built, on green field land, to accommodate workers. “They are actually bussing people in from the South Coast to do jobs” already.

Click here to view full story…


Tunbridge Wells MP Greg Clark urges Gatwick CEO to “go back to the drawing board” on flight paths

Greg Clark, MP for Tunbridge Wells, has written to Gatwick asking them to reconsider the “flawed” consultation on aircraft flight paths and noise, and urging them to “go back to the drawing board.” He recently (14th July) met Gatwick and NATS staff about the problem. He tells Gatwick that the consultation has not only caused outrage among his constituents for what it proposes but also for how the consultation has been managed. There are serious concerns among local in the area about the “superhighway” overhead, though Gatwick says the increase in noise is just that more Brits are flying abroad this summer, (on cheap flights for holidays). Greg says that the noise disturbance has considerably worsened recently and many have been “disturbed and dismayed by much higher levels of aircraft noise this summer.” He adds: “… the consultation has been unfit for its purpose…..(its) ..purpose was to have been to gauge reaction to particular precise routes. Yet the exact route has not been disclosed to the public. Instead, a wide swathe has been marked on maps which make it exceedingly difficult to work out what is the exact route proposed…..the proposals being put forward (are) too ill defined to comment properly.” He believes the misguided proposal to increase flights over Langton Green, Speldhurst, Rusthall and Bidborough should be rethought.

Click here to view full story…


Francis Maude says it is intolerable for some people to be very intensively overflown, “to the extreme detriment of their lives”

Francis Maude, MP for Horsham, wrote that the ADNID trial has been almost six months of intense misery for many of his constituents. He has been liaising with the airport, the CAA, NATS and the Secretary of State for Transport on the trial and its impacts. Gatwick is aiming to increase potential take-offs at peak times from 55 to 58 per hour from its single runway, and to do this it claims to need more focused flight paths, allowed by better aircraft on-board navigation systems. Gatwick says it needs to use new NPR routes, rather than the established ones. Government policy is that the decision about new routes, which rests with the Secretary of State, will be based on reducing the numbers of people overflown, in a simple headcount exercise. But there are local circumstances which allow for other considerations – background noise, altitude above sea level – to be taken into account, and Francis says “this is our best hope of seeing off this threat.” Sharing of the noise misery burden may be tolerable but ” What is intolerable is when fewer people are very intensively overflown, to the extreme detriment of their lives.” He adds: “I have sought reassurance that the consultation being run by IpsosMori will be independently scrutinised by the CAA, using the raw data if necessary.”

Click here to view full story…


Crispin Blunt MP investigates recent increase in aircraft noise in Redhill area due to changes to Gatwick flight paths

Following a recent increase in complaints of increased aircraft noise over Redhill and Earlswood, MP for Reigate, Crispin Blunt has visited Gatwick Airport for an explanation. He has also met Heathrow and the MP for Mole Valley, Sir Paul Beresford, to identify the cause of the increase in over-flight noise, and investigate potential remedies and future trends in aircraft noise patterns. Crispin has set out a clear explanation of what has been happenning, and why people in his constituency are now being affected. Gatwick is trying out new routing patterns, that might come into effect in 18 months time, by which flights take off in a similar pattern as before, but follow a much narrower air corridor over Redhill and Earlswood. This has reduced the area in which people are overflown, but concentrated the amount of noise that a smaller number of residents on the narrower flight path have to suffer. Some Gatwick departure aircraft are being held low by NATS over Redhill, to avoid aircraft stacking prior to landing at Heathrow. These are tracking north closer to Redhill than before. This is part of the FAS (Future Airspace Strategy) which is being worked on, and which will not be completed till 2019. By then, the conflict with the Heathrow routes may be resolved.

Click here to view full story…


Surrey and Sussex MPs oppose Gatwick runway ‘disaster’

Five MPs have begun a campaign against the building of a 2nd Gatwick runway. The Conservative MPs, who represent Sussex, Surrey and Kent constituencies, said the scheme for the airport near Crawley would be “a disaster” for communities and the environment – and there was “serious local concern” at the plan. Reigate MP Crispin Blunt, one of the members of the newly-formed Gatwick Coordination Group, said: “If Gatwick expands in the way that’s planned, it will need many tens of thousands of new people working there, and they are all going to need somewhere to live. The airport at the moment are providing a preposterous suggestion that these people are largely going to come from existing communities in Croydon and Brighton. Well I’m afraid that’s just simply not the case.” Mr Blunt also said no new railway line had been proposed and the London to Brighton commuter line was already “the busiest commuter line in the country” and at capacity. The other 4 MPs behind the campaign are Sir Paul Beresford, Sir Nicholas Soames, Sir John Stanley, and Charles Hendry, MP for Wealden. Crawley Conservative MP Henry Smith said he declined to endorse the press release.

Click here to view full story…


MPs initiate “Gatwick Coordination Group” – saying 2nd runway is not in the local or national interest

MPs Crispin Blunt, Sir Paul Beresford, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Soames, Rt Hon Sir John Stanley, and Charles Hendry have formed the Gatwick Coordination Group. The Group is established to represent the serious local concern at the plan for a 2nd runway. The MPs’ group released a statement saying they believe a 2nd Gatwick runway would be a disaster for the surrounding communities and environment. They say the level of development, associated with an airport serving nearly three times as many passengers as it does now, would devastate the local environment and leave the UK with its major airport in the wrong place. Also that there is no adequate plan yet presented to provide the necessary infrastructure, of all types, to support this development. “The size of the Gatwick site only lends itself to a single runway airport, serving as a sensible, competitive alternate to London’s main hub airport. While they pursue that objective, Gatwick Airport Limited will have our support, but this proposal is not in the local interest, nor is it in the national interest, and this group will work to prove that case.”

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Former boss of Cardiff airport says its expansion plans are massively unrealistic, without public subsidy

Keith Brooks, the former chief executive of airports group TBI, said Cardiff Airport’s passenger forecast is “massively unrealistic” and that it needs to be more realistic in its expectations. Last week, in an unexpected move, it was announced that the airport’s chief executive Jon Horne will stand down next week after only 18 months in the role. The airport’s director of operations will be interim managing director. While Cardiff airport has not published any specific short to long-term passenger growth targets, since being taken over by the Welsh Government for £52m  last year it has arrested year-on-year decline. Annual passenger numbers now stand marginally up at just over one million. Keith Brooks said: “They have had massively unrealistic expectations of what they can do in this period [since acquisition]…..Aviation is a very slow moving industry and negotiations with airlines take a long time.” Getting a significant low-cost carrier, like Ryanair, to expand routes from very low levels would require  “significant subsidy” inducements.  That means government subsidy, and tax payers’ money. The Welsh government “will not just be able to turn things around in a short period of time.”
.

 

Cardiff Airport’s passenger expectations ‘massively unrealistic’ says former boss Keith Brooks

  • By Sion Barry (Wales online) 
  • Keith Brooks, the former chief executive of airports group TBI, [TBI bought Cardiff Airport in 1995, and sold it to the Welsh Government in 2013] said Cardiff Airport’s passenger forecast is “massively unrealistic” and that it needs to be more realistic in its expectations.
  • The former chief executive of airports group TBI, Keith Brooks, believes that Cardiff Airport needs to be more realistic in its expectations for passenger growth.
    Last week, in an unexpected move, it was announced that the airport’s chief executive Jon Horne will stand down next week after only 18 months in the role.

The airport’s director of operations Debra Barber will take up the role as interim managing director.

The airport’s board has yet to draw up a recruitment timetable to find a new permanent chief executive.

Mr Brooks worked closely with Mr Horne during his time at TBI – with Mr Horne being chief executive of one of the listed company’s portfolio of airports in Cardiff.

While the airport has not published any specific short to long-term passenger growth targets, since being taken over by the Welsh Government for £52m  last year it has arrested year-on-year decline. Annual passenger numbers now stand marginally up at just over one million.

Mr Brooks said: “They have had massively unrealistic expectations of what they can do in this period [since acquisition].

“It is not like a widget factory where you can go in and see what had been produced at the end of the day and improve things.

“Aviation is a very slow moving industry and negotiations with airlines take a long time.”

The former TBI chief executive said that convincing a low-cost carrier, whether that be Ryanair to increase its presence from one flight from Cardiff – with a service after an eight year gap to Tenerife from this autumn  – or Veuling to expand on its existing routes would require  “significant subsidy” inducements.

The airport’s board is chaired by former chairman of the Welsh Development Agency Lord Rowe-Beddoe.

Mr Brooks said: “If you look at the board they all have great CVs in business, but there isn’t a great deal of aviation expertise there.

“They have to focus on the macro picture and really understand the economics from a customer perspective (airlines).

“The Welsh Government paid a lot of money for what was a loss-making airport. However, despite the expectations you just cannot turn things around in a short period of time.

“Cardiff needs a low cost carrier, whether that is Ryanair or a major expansion by Vueling which is already at Cardiff. However, that is going to require a major subsidy.”

Mr Brooks said he believes that Mr Horne achieved success for the airport, despite only being in the role for 18 months.

 During Mr Horne’s first tenure as chief executive of the airport, when owned by TBI, it achieved a high point of 2.2 million passengers in 2007.

Mr Brooks said: “I think Jon did a great job in rebuilding the credibility of the airport with the airlines and also starting the process of rebuilding relationships with the tour operators.

“When he was chief executive back with TBI Jon has profit and loss responsibilities and did a superb job in building strong relationships with all the stakeholders, including the airlines. He knows the industry very well.”

Cardiff Airport declined to comment.

In a statement last week confirming Mr Horne’s departure Lord Rowe-Beddoe said: “Jon has very successfully steered the airport through the first phase of our path to re-establishing its fortunes.

“This includes halting the decline in passenger numbers, establishing good and improving customer service and overseeing the physical transformation of the terminal as well as securing CityJet and the return of Ryanair to the airport.

“The board is grateful to Jon for all that he has done in laying the foundations for our future, we have agreed that whilst he will not continue his executive role, he will be available to the board as an advisor.”

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/cardiff-airports-passenger-expectations-massively-7674400

.

.


.

Earlier:

Welsh Economy Minister says Cardiff Airport likely to return to profit only in ‘long-term’

March 21, 2014 The Welsh Economy Minister, Edwina Hart, has said that Cardiff Airport – now in public ownership – is likely to return to profit eventually, but not in the short term. She said its downward spiral is no longer continuing. The airport finally becoming profitable is a “long-term” strategy. She was giving evidence to the National Assembly’s Enterprise and Business Committee on the airport, which was bought by the Welsh Government for £52m at the end of 2012. Ms Hart suggested there wouldn’t be a quick sale of the airport back into the private sector, which the Scottish Government is seeking for the newly-nationalised Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire. Pressed by the Plaid Cymru economy spokesman on when the government expected the taxpayer to recoup its investment. She said the Budget announcement for support for regional airports to set up new routes would apply to Wales and that they would “wait for the detail of it”, but confirmed the Welsh Government is likely to bid in for funding. Chancellor George Osborne announced a £20m annual fund will be used to encourage new routes from regional hubs like Cardiff.

Click here to view full story…

 


Cardiff Airport is bought by the Welsh government for £52m (over-priced?)

March 27, 2013

The current owner of Cardiff Airport, Abertis, which bought the airport from local councils in 2005, has now managed to sell it to the Welsh Government for £52 million. That price is well above market value when compared to recent transactions involving UK airports. The airport was valued at about £34 million in 2010. It has been making large losses and losing passengers for many years. The Government is desperate that it gets more passengers and gets back to making a profit. Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones said it would not be operated by the government and would be managed “at arm’s length” and “on a commercial basis”. Cardiff’s passengers have declined from around 2 million in 2007 to just over 1 million in 2012, as many have chosen Bristol airport instead. Bristol airport is now concerned that Cardiff would now unfairly benefit from state support. Cardiff was hit by the loss of bmibaby in 2011. The airport’s board will try and get in a commercial operator and hopes to attract long haul and transatlantic flights. Only recently there was news that Swiss airline Helvetic will pull out of Cardiff, 2 years after the Welsh government spent £500,000 marketing Wales in Switzerland.

Click here to view full story…  


 

Welsh government buying Cardiff airport from Abertis in £50m cash deal by the end of March

February 21, 2013

The Welsh Government is expected to complete its acquisition of Cardiff Airport by the end of March in a straight cash deal understood to be around £50m with current owner Abertis. A due diligence process is being undertaken on behalf of the Welsh Government. The deal will not see the Welsh Government taking on any debt at the airport – which posted pre-tax losses of just over £300,000 in 2011. In the short to medium term the Welsh Government would need to inject about £6m a year in capital expenditure and airline route development support – including agreeing to underwrite any losses in the first few years accrued by airlines establishing new routes out of Cardiff. ie public subsidy. It is understood that representatives of the Welsh Government have already sounded out a number of low cost airlines over setting up operations, including Ryanair – which was asking too much. Discussions are continuing. It is unlikely that the airport, post deal, would be directly owned by the Welsh Government but by some special purpose vehicle instead.

  Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

NATS retains air traffic control with MAG for 10 years. Also 2 more years at Luton. Lost Gatwick in July

NATS has signed a 10-year deal with Manchester Airports Group (MAG) to provide air traffic control and engineering services at Manchester and Stansted airports, both owned by MAG. By number of passengers, they are the 3rd and 4th largest in the UK. The contract starts on April 1, 2015. MAG hopes both Manchester & Stansted will be growing rapidly. Earlier in August it was announced that NATS had signed an agreement with Luton Airport (the 5th largest in the UK)  to extend the current contract for air traffic provision by two years, so it now ends in November 2017. This was agreed after a competitive tendering process. “NATS will also continue to provide approach services as part of its management of the London Terminal Manoeuvring Area, one of the most complex and busiest areas of airspace in the world.” NATS also hopes to make money out of its growth in air traffic, which is plans to increase to 18 million passengers per year by 2031. NATS makes more money the larger the number of planes using the airports it works for, and en route using any UK airspace. NATS lost the contact for Gatwick to German rival, DFS in July.
.

 

Stansted: MAG and NATS agree 10-year air traffic control deal

Stansted Airport

Stansted Airport

  (EADT 24)

August 26, 2014

The NATS (National Air Traffic Services) air traffic control centre at Swanwick, in Hampshire.
The NATS (National Air Traffic Services) air traffic control centre at Swanwick, in Hampshire.

NATS has a long standing relationship with Manchester and Stansted Airports, built up over many years, and begins the new contract on April 1, 2015.

Andrew Cowan, chief operating officer for MAG, said: “NATS is highly regarded within the aviation industry and has a proven track record when it comes to aircraft and passenger safety, which is our shared priority. We believe that NATS is best placed to deliver a modern and efficient air traffic control service for our two largest airports. Both Manchester and Stansted are growing rapidly and we look forward to continuing our strong working relationship and growing a positive future for our airports.”

NATS director of operations Mike Stoller said: “Having worked with MAG and both airports for a number of years, we are looking forward to continuing our relationship and supporting MAG to achieve their growth ambitions in the future.

“We will be working in partnership with MAG to build on the safe and resilient service we provide today with innovative air traffic management solutions for their business going forward. Both airports have ambitious growth goals and we will work closely with MAG to ensure that increased air traffic movements and passenger numbers, can be successfully realised.”

In 2013, Manchester Airport opened a new £20million air traffic control tower, the second largest in the UK, in which NATS installed over 70 systems to support the air traffic control operation. This closely followed MAG’s £25m refurbishment of Manchester’s northern runway by the airport group.

Manchester is currently the third largest airport in the country with over 21 million passengers using the airport annually and London Stansted is the fourth largest serving over 18 million passengers a year.

http://www.eadt.co.uk/business/stansted_mag_and_nats_agree_10_year_air_traffic_control_deal_1_3744906

.


 

NATS Annual report and accounts 2014

http://www.nats.aero/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/NATS_AR_2014_Financial_Statements.pdf

This says:

Our services
We offer the following products and services to our customers:

> Airspace: UK en route, North Atlantic and terminal air traffic control (ATC) services;

> Airports: airport air traffic control services in the UK and overseas;

> Consultancy: solutions to specific operational and technical air traffic control challenges;

> Defence: helping military customers to share airspace with civil aviation;

> Engineering: delivering ATC technology and infrastructure projects to airport operators, air traffic service providers, construction companies and industry suppliers; and

> Information: aeronautical information management, airspace design services and data solutions for future flight efficiency and airport optimisation

 

NATS renewed their contracts with Belfast, Cardiff and RAF Gibraltar. They lost the contract for Gatwick. Birmingham will not renew their contract with NATS but will take the service in-house from 2015.

Contractual arrangements existed during the year between LHR Airports Limited and NATS Services in relation to air navigation services provided at Aberdeen, Glasgow, Heathrow and Southampton airports.

.

….NATS provides services at the world’s busiest single runway airport (Gatwick with 55
scheduled movements per hour) and dual runway airport (Heathrow with 88 scheduled movements per hour).


 

.

London Luton Airport extends NATS contract

18.08.2014 (NATS website)

NATS has signed an agreement with London Luton Airport to extend the current contract for air traffic provision by two years. It will now run until November 2017.

The UK’s leading provider of air traffic services will therefore continue to provide tower and engineering services at the airport after retaining the contract in 2012 following a competitive tendering process.

NATS will also continue to provide approach services as part of its management of the London Terminal Manoeuvring Area, one of the most complex and busiest areas of airspace in the world.

Gill Clark, NATS General Manager at London Luton Airport, said: “We are delighted to be continuing our close relationship with the airport. This extension shows that NATS continues to offer an outstanding safe and efficient service and excellent value for money.”

“High quality air traffic management is vital to the smooth running of any airport, helping to minimise delays while maximising available capacity and that is what NATS does best. We look forward to working with London Luton Airport and their exciting development plans to reach 18 million passengers by 2031.”

Neil Thompson, London Luton Airport’s Operations Director, said: “Our partnership with NATS will see us continue to work together to deliver safe and reliable services that can accommodate the increasing number of airlines and passengers who choose to use London Luton for its ease and convenience.”

In 2013, London Luton Airport carried 9.7 million passengers with NATS controllers handling 97,615 flights making it the fifth busiest passenger airport in the UK.

http://www.nats.aero/news/london-luton-airport-extends-nats-contract/

.

.

.

.


 

.

Germany’s DFS air traffic service beats NATS to control Gatwick flights below 4,000 feet

18.7.2014

Gatwick Airport’s air traffic control services are to be provided by a German state-owned company from next year. A 10-year contract for services below 4,000ft around the airport has been given to Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS). The service has been provided for more than 30 years by Hampshire-based NATS, which will continue to navigate air traffic above 4,000ft. NATS said it was disappointed, but it was too early to say if jobs would go. DFS is wholly owned by the German government and operates 16 airports in Germany as well as providing air traffic control across the country. Gatwick management said it was planned that, after a period of transition, DFS would start work in October 2015. The successful bid by DFS comes a year after a UK pension fund, the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) beat DFS for a 20% stake in NATS. The Airline Group, which had owned 42% of NATS before the sale, chose USS rather than DFS to buy the 20%, which meant that a partial de-facto merger between two of the largest European Air Navigation Service Providers did not happen.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=22433

.

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Legal battle over Redhill Aerodrome hard runway continues, with appeal against High Court Judgement

In 18th July a judge at London’s High Court, Mrs Justice Patterson, allowed Redhill Aerodrome Ltd’s appeal against refusal by Tandridge District Council and Reigate and Banstead Council, as well as a Government planning inspector, of permission for a new hard runway. As a result, Eric Pickles would have the proposal reconsidered. The judge said  the Government inspector who turned down the plan had taken an “impermissible approach” to planning policy relating to sustainable development in the green belt and that this had “tainted” her ultimate conclusion. Then a few days later the Chief Planning Officer, and Brandon Lewis MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning at DCLG said:  “We disagree with this ruling which is based on a very narrow interpretation of national planning policy. The Secretary of State is seeking permission to appeal the decision to ensure the high level of protection afforded to the Green Belt is maintained.” On 25th August is was revealed that the Treasury Solicitors and 2 local authorities have been granted leave to appeal The High Court judgement. This is likely to be in September 2014, on a date to be fixed. Opponents of the hard runway hope it will restore the inspector’s decision to refuse RAV planning permission for it.

.

 

25.8.2014

KRAG (Keep Redhill Aerodrome Green) said the Treasury Solicitors and Local Authorities have been granted leave to appeal The High Court judgement.  KRAG understand the appeal is likely to be heard in September 2014, on a date to be fixed.

KRAG trust that this hearing will restore the inspector’s decision to refuse RAV planning permission for the hard runway and put an end to the airfield owners speculative ambitions which have consistently been demonstrated will cause harm to the green belt.

 

 

Key victory for Redhill Aerodrome in battle for new runway

A judge gave plans to replace an existing grass runway with a hard one a fresh chance at securing planning permission

Redhill Aerodrome

 

Redhill Aerodrome has won a key victory in its ongoing battle to replace its existing grass runway with a hard one.

A judge at London’s High Court gave it a fresh chance at securing planning permission for the controversial development on Friday (July 18).

Mrs Justice Patterson allowed Redhill Aerodrome Ltd’s appeal against refusal by Tandridge District Council and Reigate and Banstead Council, as well as a Government planning inspector, of permission for the new runway to be installed.

As a result, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles will now have the proposal reconsidered.

The judge found that the Government inspector who turned down the plan had taken an “impermissible approach” to planning policy relating to sustainable development in the green belt and that this had “tainted” her ultimate conclusion.

Ordering a re-think the judge said: “One does not know what her decision would have been if she had followed what, in my judgment, is the correct approach. Accordingly, it cannot be said that her decision would inevitably have been the same.”

The application for permission to install the runway was initially turned down by the two councils last May.

Then, in January this year, a Government planning inspector dismissed an appeal by the company against the stance taken by the councils. The inspector found that the hard runway would constitute “inappropriate development in the green belt”.

The inspector found that the proposed new runway would enable them to develop their role in serving the local business community and she referred in her decision to an additional 140 jobs and a net economic impact of £12.4m per year by 2030 as “realistic outcomes”.

However, in backing the councils she took the view that the environmental harm would “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the economic benefits”.

At the High Court hearing last month, the firm argued that, in approaching the balance in that way, the inspector made an error on the interpretation of a crucial paragraph in the National Planning Policy Framework on development in the green belt.

Agreeing, the judge ruled that the inspector had wrongly taken “no green belt harms” into account when assessing “any other harm”.

Lawyers for the Government had argued in court that harm to the green belt, through loss of encroachment and encroachment of development into the countryside, carried “substantial weight” and that the inspector applied the policy correctly.

Separately instructed lawyers acting on behalf of the councils maintained that the result would inevitably be the same on any reconsideration, and that the considerations in favour of the proposal do not even come close to outweighing the harm.

Proposals for a hard runway at the aerodrome were also rejected in 2011 and 1986, while a proposal for a commercial airport failed in 1995.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/key-victory-redhill-aerodrome-battle-7456935

.

.


.

Also:

News about Redhill Aerodrome:

30.7.2014

Piers Mason, Chief Planning Officer, and Brandon Lewis MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning at DCLG, have told Sam Gyimah MP that:

“We disagree with this ruling which is based on a very narrow interpretation of national planning policy. The Secretary of State is seeking permission to appeal the decision to
ensure the high level of protection afforded to the Green Belt is maintained.”

This matter will take time to progress. Sam Gyimah says he remains opposed to the concrete runway at Redhill Aerodrome and will do all in his power to prevent it.

.

KRAG 


Earlier:

.

REDHILL AERODROME APPEAL INQUIRY – UPDATE

KRAG PRESS RELEASE

15th April 2014

 

KRAG (Keep Redhill Airfield Green) recently received the news that RAV (Redhill airport) have lodged a further appeal against the decision of The Inspector to dismiss their appeal.

In simple terms this appeal is based on RAV’s view that The Inspector made an error in her interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). They claim the error was material in the formation of her decision to dismiss their appeal and is thus unlawful. Accordingly, in their opinion, her decision should be quashed.

The present situation is that The Treasury Solicitors will now review the original decision. They have to decide whether to support the Inspector’s decision, or not.

If they decide to support the decision then they will disagree with the RAV opinion and the matter will be heard by the High Court for them to decide if a mistake has been made in the interpretation of the NPPF. If they decide not to support the Inspector’s decision then RAV will apply to the High Court to quash the decision and it is likely that a new Inspector will be appointed to start the appeal process again.

There do not appear to be any statutory time limits for The Treasury Solicitors to make known their decision and at time of writing no estimates of a time scale have been forthcoming.

http://www.kragnet.co.uk/

.


 

.

Redhill Aerodrome runway appeal, for a hard runway, dismissed by Planning Inspector

February 21, 2014

Plans to build a hard runway in place of its 3 existing grass runways at Redhil aerodrome have been refused by a planning inspector. The owners of Redhill Aerodrome, RAV, had wanted the hard runway in order to have aircraft movements all year, even in bad weather, and to increase the number of flights from 60,000 to 85,000 a year. Following last month’s public inquiry, the planning inspectorate ruled the development was “inappropriate” and could “harm the green belt”. Reigate and Banstead Council and Tandridge Council rejected the scheme last year, saying it was inapproprite development in Green Belt, so RAV appealed. Local residents groups and Surrey Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) were among objectors who gave evidence to the inquiry. Local Conservative MPs Crispin Blunt and Sam Gyimah lodged formal objections against the development, saying the economic case was weak and it would cause major detrimental impacts on the surrounding area. The airfield flooded as a result of heavy storms last month.     Click here to view full story…

 

.

.

.

 

.

Read more »

Boris produces TfL report on estuary airport, saying Sir Howard & the Commission “must” short list it

Boris remains desperate to get his fanciful plans for a Thames Estuary airport short listed by the Airports Commission, which has repeatedly found it would not be a realistic option. The Commission’s verdict on inclusion (or not) of the estuary scheme, in the airport plans to be taken forward for detailed consideration -and public consultation – is expected next month. In an 11th hour attempt to persuade the Commission to keep it in, Boris has got TfL to do yet another report, pushing the scheme and making out that is imperative.  The report is called “Gateway to our Future“, is a good example of an attitude towards encouraging and facilitating growth, and more growth, in the manner of the cancer cell – regardless of what damage that never-ending growth has on other things.  The report goes big on the numbers of jobs created, the need for London to grow into an even more massive city, for it to have a vast airport (as if London did not already have the largest airport for international passengers in the world)…. and so on.  Says Sir Howard “must” include it.  Boris‘ aim is to bamboozle the Commission and Sir Howard into including his scheme. …. Regardless of huge volumes of evidence recently produced, showing just how unrealistic – and damaging – an estuary airport would be.  Boris the bully?
.

 

Mayor in 11th-hour plea to get ‘Boris island’ on airport shortlist

By NICHOLAS CECIL   (Evening Standard)

 26 August 2014

With the Airports Commission expected to make a decision within weeks on whether to shortlist a “superhub” airport in the estuary, the Mayor argued that it would support 336,000 jobs and underpin £92 billion a year of GDP by 2050.

Sir Howard Davies, the former London School of Economics boss who chairs the Airports Commission, has already shortlisted another runway at Gatwick or Heathrow as options for expanding capacity. But Mr Johnson has claimed the Gatwick plan would not deliver the hub capacity he believes Britain needs, and has said Heathrow expansion would create too much noise and environmental pollution.

“There is no better example of the stark choice between planning for the future and depressing short-termism,” he said today. “A new hub airport, properly planned, has the potential to reshape the economic geography of London and the whole of the South-East for decades to come.

“It would be a project of a scale we are no longer accustomed to in this country, though it has become commonplace elsewhere. We simply cannot afford to miss out on the opportunities a new airport would give us.”

However, the Commission has highlighted obstacles which an estuary airport would need to overcome, including cost — which could be over £100 billion — the moving of wildlife habitats and altering flight routes.

When Gatwick and Heathrow were shortlisted last December, Sir Howard agreed to look again at the “Boris island” proposals, given that they were of a different order than expanding existing airports.

Mr Johnson today published a City Hall report, called Gateway to our Future: Why the UK needs a New Hub Airport, which included figures from forecasters Oxford Economics that claimed the connectivity available at a four-runway hub airport in the Thames Estuary would underpin £92.1 billion of GDP each year, compared to £59.1 billion for a three-runway Heathrow and £22.6 billion for a two-runway Gatwick.

But the study cut the number of jobs the airport is predicted to support to 336,000, compared to Transport for London’s estimate of 388,000. City Hall sources said this was partly because the Commission is now examining proposals for an airport serving 150 million passengers a year, rather than 180 million. A Heathrow spokesman said: “A new Thames Estuary option is estimated to cost more than £100 billion, while expanding Heathrow can connect the UK to growth more quickly at a fraction of the cost.”

Stewart Wingate, CEO of London Gatwick said: “We share the Mayor’s passion for wanting to keep London the best connected city in the world and limit the environmental damage to the Capital.  Expansion at Gatwick is the obvious choice to make this happen, with a deliverable runway solution that would create the economic benefits the country needs at an environmental cost it can afford.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/boris-johnson-island-thames-estuary-airport-gatwick-heathrow-london-9691024.html

.


 

Thames estuary airport: Boris Johnson makes final case for jobs

Mayor warns airport commission’s Sir Howard Davies ‘may feel daunted by ambition’ of extra 67,000 jobs on Isle of Grain hub

Boris Johnson has launched a last-ditch attempt to sway the airports commission into supporting a Thames estuary airport, warning that Sir Howard Davies “may feel daunted by the ambition” of a four-runway hub that the London mayor claims would sustain almost 67,000 more British jobs than an expanded Heathrow.

A decision is expected as early as next Tuesday from the commission whether to dismiss Johnson’s plan for a new airport on the Isle of Grain, or include it on a shortlist alongside an expanded Heathrow or Gatwick for building new runways in the south-east of England.

Research published by the mayor’s office [TfL Report called "Gateway to our Future"] claims that an estuary airport would support 336,000 jobs around the country in 2050 – compared to 269,000 at Heathrow or 62,000 at Gatwick if either had an additional runway – in its operation and supply chains. The numbers do not include additional jobs that the mayor believes would be created in the south-east via new transport connections. The figure is lower than previous estimates given by Transport for London, after forecast future demand for air travel was revised down.

Johnson said: “There is no better example of the stark choice between planning for the future and depressing short-termism. A new hub airport, properly planned, has the potential to reshape the economic geography of London and the whole of the south-east for decades to come. It would be a project of a scale we are no longer accustomed to in this country, though it has become commonplace elsewhere. We simply cannot afford to miss out on the opportunities a new airport would give us.”

In a foreword to his office’s final submission before the commission rules on whether the Thames Estuary case is pursued, Johnson wrote: “Sir Howard Davies and his colleagues may feel daunted by the ambition of what I am proposing.

He added: “Whatever misgivings they may have, on the evidence they have published they cannot sensibly or reasonably rule out the Thames estuary option at this stage.”

Johnson’s case was bolstered by a survey showing strong support from local businesses. The Kent chamber of commerce survey found that more than 40% of 300 businesses polled backed the proposal to build in the estuary rather than expand other airports.

Other backing has come from business groups around the UK, in parts of Cornwall, Scotland, the north-west and north-east that have struggled to maintain air links with Heathrow, but hope to get more connections via a bigger hub.

The airports commission omitted the Thames estuary from its original shortlist last December but tempered the political fallout by agreeing to consider the proposal at greater length, on the basis that it was a qualitatively different plan than additional runways. Davies has said that the south-east requires one net additional runway by 2030, underlining that Johnson’s plan would effectively close Heathrow. The commission will deliver its final recommendation after the 2015 election.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/26/thames-estuary-airport-boris-johnson-makes-case-jobs

 


 

The  TfL Report called “Gateway to our Future

(36 pages, many of them glossy pictures).

Boris says, in his introduction:

“World cities need world-class airports. If we look
elsewhere we see other leading and emerging global
cities served by efficient, effective hub airports, airports
which have the capacity to meet the pressing demand for
international and domestic travel that characterises all
growing economies.

We must give our own economy every possible
opportunity to thrive and, while doing so, ensure that we
provide homes and facilities for all our people. Against
a backdrop of significant national population growth,
London is reliably forecast to grow from 8.3 million people
to hit 10 million by 2030 – a 20 per cent increase that will
place an immense demand on housing, jobs, transport
and other services.

These two challenges – global connectivity and
population growth – sit at the heart of the aviation
debate. London needs to meet these challenges head on
and that is where my interest in this vital policy area lies.”

.

and

Boris ends his introduction to the report by saying:

“My appeal now is simple: Sir Howard Davies and his
colleagues may feel daunted by the ambition of what I
am proposing (though it is no less than the challenging
circumstances we face demand); nonetheless, whatever
misgivings they may have, on the evidence they have
published they cannot sensibly or reasonably rule out the
Thames estuary option at this stage. It would limit their
final recommendation too narrowly and would disconnect
their thinking from the practical needs and challenges of
this tremendous, successful and growing city. They must
short-list the Thames estuary option and give it a fair
crack of the whip alongside the other options.

My Infrastructure Investment Plan, published very
recently, shows how a new hub airport and the
redevelopment of Heathrow, alongside other long term
investment that London needs and can deliver, will enable
us to meet the challenges ahead.

We simply cannot afford to miss out on the opportunities
a new airport would give us. We need to keep that option
on the table, for the sake of the rising generations.”

 


 

.

.

Comment from an AirportWatch member:

It is understood that the Commission has had a very large amount of pressure from Boris and his staff, urging them repeatedly – regardless of the evidence – to get the Thames Estuary airport plans onto the short list.  Interesting to see what Boris does if the Commission manages to stand its ground,  stick to its evidence, and decide to continue with just Heathrow and Gatwick.  It may not be a pretty sight.

.

.


 

.

Earlier:

 

Four Inner Thames estuary airport studies for Airports Commission finally kill off “Boris Island”

The Airports Commission has now published all four of the studies it has commissioned on an Inner Thames Estuary (ITE) airport. These reports are on environmental impacts, operational feasibility and attitudes to moving to an estuary airport, socio-economic impacts, and surface access. The first report, on environmental impacts was utterly damning, confirming the massive extent of the harm done to highly conserved habitats and their wildlife, and the near impossibility of successfully moving the wildlife elsewhere. Now the report on the feasibility of moving the airport shows the problems of flood risk, fog, wind direction, bird strike, explosives on the SS Montgomery and the Isle of Grain gas terminal – with many practically insurmountable. The report on socio-economic impacts demonstrates that aeronautical charges would have to be very high to pay for the airport, and be too high to compete with Dubai etc. Heathrow would have to close, at immense cost. The surface access report shows the cost of even minimal rail services to get most passengers to the airport would be £10 billion and more like £27 billion for a good service. The cost of road improvements would be £10 to £17 billion. The reports’ conclusions now make it nearly inconceivable that a Thames Estuary Airport will ever be constructed.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

Read more »

Work on Carlisle airport revamp for freight centre could start in 6 weeks, if there is no legal challenge

Work on the redevelopment of Carlisle Airport could begin in 6 weeks, unless there is another legal challenge to the planning approval granted by Carlisle City Council councillors. Their development control committee has given the scheme – which includes the creation of a huge freight distribution depot – full approval. It was the 4th time that the matter has gone to committee for decision. Work can start, if there is no application by opponents of the scheme for a judicial review of the planning approval. That application would have to be lodged within 6 weeks. The planning law has recently changed, so the council did not need to consider whether the airport would be commercially viable, nor whether Stobart would actually keep the airport open – rather than just use the land for freight storage and transfer. One key opponent, Peter Elliott, has stressed that the runway should be realigned, to take it away from Irthington village, due to safety. Supporters of the scheme hope it will create jobs, but that is uncertain. Stobart shareholders had previously been told that the huge freight distribution centre would reduce rather than create jobs. Stobart hope 40,000 people per year would fly from Carlisle to Southend Airport, plus 20,000 per year to Dublin.
.

 

WORK ON CARLISLE AIRPORT REVAMP COULD START WITHIN WEEKS

Work on the long-awaited £20 million redevelopment of Carlisle Airport could begin in six weeks – provided there is not another legal challenge to the planning approval granted by councillors.

The city council’s development control committee has given the scheme – which includes the creation of a huge freight distribution depot – full approval.

It was the fourth time that councillors have given the project a green light.

The only thing now likely to stop the development proceeding would be an objector applying for and securing yet another judicial review of the planning approval.

Anybody wishing to do that must lodge the application within six weeks.

This week’s special meeting of the committee came after a change in the law gave fresh impetus to the airport plan: new case law means councillors were not obliged, as they were previously, to consider whether the airport would be commercially viable.

Nor did they have to make planning permission conditional on a promise to keep the airport open.

While there was little debate about the latest application, several members of the public did exercise their right to speak.

The first to do so was former helicopter pilot and aviation director Peter Elliott, one of the scheme’s most outspoken opponents.

He showed the meeting a dramatic projector image of a helicopter crash in the US city Seattle, suggesting that granting permission to the scheme could produce a similar result and “endanger life”.

“I think it is a statistical certainty that there will be an aircraft which will crash within the next 50 years,” Mr Elliott claimed, adding that it was a statistical probability that this would happen during take off or landing. He said that all he wanted was for the runway to be realigned, to take the flight path away from Irthington village.

Dale Ransley, speaking for Irthington resident Charmi McCutcheon, said there was nothing in the report prepared for councillors which prevented Stobart from closing the airport, and doing this as soon as possible made “complete business sense”.

Crosby-on-Eden resident Mike Fox, who is also a Stanwix Rural parish councillor, said Stobart shareholders had previously been told that opening the freight distribution centre – measuring 241m by 151m – would reduce rather than create jobs.

He also suggested Stobart could close the airport before work to upgrade the runway even began.

The meeting also heard from Stobart officials, including the firm’s estates manager Richard Butcher who said: “Stobart genuinely want the airport to succeed – not only for our own business aspirations but also to make a significant contribution to the growth of the Carlisle and Cumbrian economies.”

Stobart Air boss Julian Carr predicted 40,000 people a year would fly from Carlisle to Stobart’s existing Southend Airport, and a further 20,000 a year to Dublin.

In the debate on the issue, the main contribution was from Councillor Ray Bloxham, who represents Longtown and Rockcliffe. He said the development would have a “heavy effect” on the area’s roads.

He called for restrictions on HGVs travelling through villages of Irthington and Ruleholme, and for central reservations to be introduced to improve safety at the junctions for those villages on the A689 next to the airport.

After the plan was approved, Stobart boss Andrew Tinkler said: “We believe the flights we have identified will be sustainable, and our customers often want air freight.

“Our business plan has always stacked up. Ideally, we would like to see work start in a couple of months.”


.

See earlier:

Carlisle CIty Council gives go-ahead to Carlisle airport overhaul – largely to be a freight centre

Plans for the £20 million overhaul of Carlisle Airport have been given the go ahead – again. A special meeting of Carlisle City Council took place on 18th August, with councillors asked to approved Stobart Group’s proposals for a massive freight distribution centre and revamped runway. One councillor expressed concerns over potential traffic congestion but no councillor voted against the motion to approve officers’ recommendations. The Stobart Group chief executive Andrew Tinkler said that work could begin within “a couple of months” – provided there are no legal challenges. The decision came despite the High Court quashing a previous planning permission decision, as new case law has since emerged which means that the need to take into account the viability of the airport is no longer relevant. However, opponents of the plans are questioning the legality of the council decision. Local people are asking for this decision to be called in. This freight depot proposal is deeply opposed by a large proportion of the local community. There is concern that the proposal was permitted because Tinkler showed a film, of Stobart employees begging for consent to be granted, at the planning meeting.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Indignation in Frankfurt at the approval of the 3rd Terminal, for yet more flights and more noise

Frankfurt airport protesters continue their huge gatherings on most Monday evenings (they have a break in the summer, and do vigils instead). There have now been 108 Monday protests and 34 vigils, with around 1,000 at the protests and around 100 at the vigils. After the news that planning had been granted for a 3rd Frankfurt airport terminal, there were far more people than usual at the vigil, with around 500, mobilised by the news. It was “the first Monday after the Tuesday,” and people were deeply angry at the news, and that it had been broken in August, in the holiday period.  The terminal enables the airport to grow, with more flights and more passengers. That means more noise misery for the thousands who already find the over-flights unacceptable. Opponents want the right to sleep, which they say is a fundamental right that is destroyed by aircraft noise. It is unacceptable for people to be rudely woken from their sleep at 5am and that they can no longer sit in the garden when the weather is good is described as “a monstrosity”. “We do not want to live like this.”  Opponents hope the decision can be reversed, when there is a proper study of the surface transport infrastructure required for a new terminal. .

 

Wave of indignation

 From    (fr-online.de) 18.8.2014

[Imperfect Google translation from the German, below].

About 500 people hold in Terminal 1 of Frankfurt Airport vigil. Photo: Andreas Arnold

At the vigil in Terminal 1 of Frankfurt Airport, far more people than usual.The approval granted planning permission for the third terminal mobilized the expansion opponents.

It is “the first Monday after the Tuesday,” says Erwin Stufler of the citizens’ initiative against aircraft noise in Mainz. Since the start there have been 108 Monday demonstrations against the airport expansion and 34 Vigil, who carry on the protest during the holidays. Is common that more than 100 people participate in these vigils. After last Tuesday, as the Frankfurter Supervision issued the building permit for the third terminal on the grounds of the Frankfurt airport, was mobilized vigorously, and actually come in the evening about 500 expansion opponents into the terminal first “We realize that people are absolutely angry” and “pissed” – also because the permission “hewn out in the summer holidays” was. “We realize that it goes to the point that the political opponents of facts creates,” says Stufler, the da Costa and protest veterans Roger Treuting organized from Rüsselsheim a small panel discussion while standing with the airport architect Dieter Faulenbach.

He had “never thought that in my country violates human rights” would. The right to sleep is a fundamental right that is destroyed by aircraft noise. That people were being torn 5am clock from sleep and could no longer sit in the garden when the weather is “a monstrosity”. Hofmann recalled “the general law of self-defense”. The people under the approach and departure routes befänden itself “in an emergency”. He urged the expansion opponents to defend themselves “stronger and more aggressive.” “We do not want to live like this.” Airport would not be sufficient, but will be dismantled. The airport does not belong to this place, not in the region. ”

The fifth track

The airport expert Dieter Faulenbach da Costa holds the location of Frankfurt Airport inappropriate. In the planning decision for the airport expansion in 2007 was on the page 789, that the first phase of construction of Terminal 3 in 2013 would come into operation. “The predictions were all wrong.” Da Costa asked if it were not at the time now, “stop and think about whether there are alternatives.” In the opinion of Roger Treuting,, who protested even as a student against the airport’s expansion, airport operator Fraport manages the building the third terminal needs the creation of a 5th railway. After the Runway West Terminal 2 was built, then the fourth runway. New capacities are always created, which were then served/filled up by the continued expansion. The Left Party politician Janine Wissler appealed to the expansion opponents, not to be persuaded, “now that nothing more was to change”. Many expansion opponents are pinning their hopes on the initiative presented by the Rhein-Main report, according to which the construction should not have been approved because the issue of transport/road infrastructure was not cleared up. Ursula Fechter of the BISachsenhausen, criticised the fact that the Frankfurt Director of Planning Councillor Olaf Cunitz have not even taken the opinion knowledge.

http://www.fr-online.de/flughafen-frankfurt/mahnache-am-frankfurter-flughafen-welle-der-empoerung,2641734,28159840.html .


Facebook

Opponents ofthe 3rd Terminal, are at  “Kein Terminal 3″  (No Terminal 3) campaign on Facebook  .


.

More older news stories about Frankfurt airport at


Earlier:

Frankfurt Airport given planning permission to build Terminal 3, to increase passenger number

Frankfurt airport currently has 2 passenger terminals with a capacity of approximately 65 million passengers per year, plus 4 runways. In 2009, the German government decided there should be a new Terminal 3 in order to handle the expected passenger flow of 90 million per year by 2020. The new terminal is scheduled to be built by Fraport, south of the existing terminals. Fraport has now announced that it has been granted approval of its planning application, by the city of Frankfurt. However, it still needs a demand assessment. The building of a new terminal has been deeply controversial, and has been strongly opposed – as it is a means by which the airport can grow substantially. Fraport hopes the first phase of construction will start next year. Fraport say the airport will reach its maximum passenger capacity of about 64-68 million passengers a year by 2021 and that the new terminal when finished will allow it to serve up to 25 million more. Opponents say the airport already creates too much noise and does not need to be expanded. The CDU and the Greens said in their coalition agreement at the end of 2013 that they were in favour of looking at alternatives to building a new terminal. Opponents say they will keep fighting the expansion plans.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Carlisle council gives go-ahead to city airport overhaul – largely to be a freight centre

Plans for the £20 million overhaul of Carlisle Airport have been given the go ahead – again. A special meeting of Carlisle City Council took place on 18th August, with councillors asked to approved Stobart Group’s proposals for a massive freight distribution centre and revamped runway. One councillor expressed concerns over potential traffic congestion but no councillor voted against the motion to approve officers’ recommendations. The Stobart Group chief executive Andrew Tinkler said that work could begin within “a couple of months” – provided there are no legal challenges. The decision came despite the High Court quashing a previous planning permission decision, as new case law has since emerged which means that the need to take into account the viability of the airport is no longer relevant. However, opponents of the plans are questioning the legality of the council decision. Local people are asking for this decision to be called in.  This freight depot proposal is deeply opposed by a large proportion of the local community. There is concern that the proposal was permitted because Tinkler showed a film, of Stobart employees begging for consent to be granted, at the planning meeting.
.

 


Carlisle council gives go-ahead to city airport overhaul

Monday, 18 August 2014 (News & Star)

Plans for the £20 million overhaul of Carlisle Airport have been given the go ahead – again.

Carlisle airport photo
Carlisle airport

A special meeting of Carlisle City Council took place this morning, with councillors asked to approved Stobart Group’s proposals for a massive freight distribution centre and revamped runway.

Councillor Ray Bloxham expressed concerns over potential traffic congestion but no councillor voted against the motion to approve officers’ recommendations.

Speaking to the News & Star after the meeting, Stobart Group chief executive Andrew Tinkler said that work could begin within “a couple of months” – provided there are no legal challenges.

The decision came despite the High Court quashing a previous planning permission decision, as new case law has since emerged which means that the need to take into account the viability of the airport is no longer relevant.

However, objector Mike Fox said the “devil was in the detail” and questioned the legality of the council decision.

.


Have your say

There is a lot of money in air freight. the transport of food goods and horses. Good luck to the Stobart group,  I would think passenger numbers would be few as we in Cumbria and the Borders are not briming with people.

Let’s hope there is a legal challenge. This needs to be stopped as soon as possible before that area is used simply as another Stobard depot and not an airport .

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-council-gives-go-ahead-to-city-airport-overhaul-1.1155741


.


 

Work on Carlisle airport revamp for freight centre could start in 6 weeks, if there is no legal challenge

Work on the redevelopment of Carlisle Airport could begin in 6 weeks, unless there is another legal challenge to the planning approval granted by Carlisle City Council councillors. Their development control committee has given the scheme – which includes the creation of a huge freight distribution depot – full approval. It was the 4th time that the matter has gone to committee for decision. Work can start, if there is no application by opponents of the scheme for a judicial review of the planning approval. That application would have to be lodged within 6 weeks. The planning law has recently changed, so the council did not need to consider whether the airport would be commercially viable, nor whether Stobart would actually keep the airport open – rather than just use the land for freight storage and transfer. One key opponent, Peter Elliott, has stressed that the runway should be realigned, to take it away from Irthington village, due to safety. Supporters of the scheme hope it will create jobs, but that is uncertain. Stobart shareholders had previously been told that the huge freight distribution centre would reduce rather than create jobs. Stobart hope 40,000 people per year would fly from Carlisle to Southend Airport, plus 20,000 per year to Dublin.

Click here to view full story…

 


.

STOBART GROUP’S CARLISLE AIRPORT PLANS SET TO BE GIVEN GO-AHEAD AGAIN

Stobart Group is poised to again get the go-ahead for its £20m Carlisle Airport overhaul – without the pressure of proving it can make commercial flights a success.

Carlisle Airport photo

Carlisle Airport

Councillors are being recommended to approve the transport giant’s proposals for a massive freight distribution centre and a revamped runway at the airfield at a special meeting on Monday.

They are also being advised that a legal agreement obliging Stobart to keep the airport open is not necessary.

That advice comes on the back of new case law, which has emerged since a High Court judge quashed a previous planning permission decision, which means the need to take into account the viability of the airport when considering the distribution centre is no longer relevant.

Stobart Group chief executive Andrew Tinkler, however, insists the firm remains committed keeping the airport open, running passenger flights in tandem with its other operations and that its plans are based on a robust business case to make the airfield a success.

He said: “Nothing has changed for us.”

Mr Justice Collins stopped the development in March after Gordon Brown, a farmer who lives opposite the airfield, sought a judicial review. He found a defect in viability forecasts.

When it tabled information for the revived application, Stobart offered a £250,000 subsidy for scheduled flights to London Southend and Dublin through Aer Arran – now Stobart Air, the airline in which Stobart Group has a 45 per cent stake.

But, in a new twist to the long-running saga, success for the scheme may no longer be dependent on whether the Carlisle-founded company can prove the flights will be profitable and keep the airport open.

And a new set of independent consultants commissioned by Carlisle City Council to look at the case afresh believe Stobart’s plans for passenger flights could secure the airport’s future in the short to medium term.

Opposition, however, remains and viability of these operations is heavily disputed by experts employed by Mr Brown, who has described the weight of evidence for refusing the application as “overwhelming”.

A report to councillors states: “Based on the likely estimate of passengers, the council’s aviation consultant considers that there is a realistic prospect of developing a public transport/commercial route, with particular regard to Dublin, for both the operators of the airline and the airport in the short-medium term.”

On the issue of whether legal conditions should be attached to the future of the airport, if the distribution centre is given the go-ahead, the report adds: “In these circumstances it is not considered reasonable for the council to require the applicant to enter an agreement obliging them to keep the airport open.”

Airport Planning and Development, the consultants employed by the council, described projected passenger demand for flights from Carlisle as “realistic”

York Aviation, acting for Mr Brown, however, says Stobart’s projections for passenger numbers are out of date and that any subsidy would have to be greater than the 250,000 promised by the firm.

The consultant concluded: “I remain of the view that air services are unlikely to be operated or, if operated at all, not sustained for more than a year or so.”

Stobart’s first airport scheme was passed by the council in 2008 and the third planning application was approved in February last year.

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/stobart-group-s-carlisle-airport-plans-set-to-be-given-go-ahead-again-1.1155399

.

.


.

Call in the application

A local organisation, Radiation Free Lakeland, is asking for the application to be called in.

They say:

 

Please write to Development Control NOW asking them to call in the Carlisle Airport Expansion decision.

Development Control Carlisle City Council :  dc@carlisle.gov.uk

Cumbria CC Development Control Chair: Alan.Clark@cumbria.gov.uk

Vice Chair:   Lawrence.Fisher@cumbria.gov.uk

ANTI NUCLEAR GROUP URGE CALL IN OF CARLISLE AIRPORT EXPANSION

Radiation Free Lakeland have today urged Carlisle City Council’s
Development Control Committee to call in their decision to overturn a High
Court ruling to squash plans for the expansion of Carlisle Airport.

The letter sent to Carlisle City Council and to Cumbria County Council says:

Dear Development Control and Regulation Committee.

Radiation Free Lakeland urge you to call in the decision to grant Carlisle
Airport a huge expansion for freight and passengers.

There has been a huge and it has to be said unaccountable push to smooth
the way forward for this commercially unviable expansion which aims to see
650 passenger and 1,560 cargo flights each year by 2025 and an average of
276 heavy-lorry movements each day.

This decision has huge implications not just for the whole of Cumbria but
for our neighbours

We urge Development Control to call in the decision to give Carlisle
Airport an expansion and to refer the decision back to Cabinet and to the
full Council for the following reasons:

1. Carlisle Airport appears to be registered to carry radioactive freight
over a populated area and in the near vicinity of Sellafield.

2. This development would ensure a huge increase in air traffic in the
near vicinity of Sellafield. The potential for terrorist attack or human
error is hugely increased

3. The county should not have been held to ransom by Stobarts threat to
move out of Cumbria should the airport not be given an extension. What
exactly are Stobarts links to the nuclear industry?

Please call in this decision as a matter of urgency.

yours sincerely

.


.

Comments from local residents on the Stobart proposal:

I object to Stobart’s industrialisation of countryside that Carlisle City Council has given consent to, against previous court rulings won more than once at huge expense.
This is for a huge lorry depot, with a new roundabout on farmland, a huge 5 storey building, up to 300 lorries daily (through the night too), huge light poles with all-night lighting – visible for many miles around from the Gelt and Irthing Valleys to the Pennines.
Also the promise of expanding the small and insignificant airfield into a freight airport with a runway pointing directly into the unspoiled and quiet village of Irthington, and removal of trees between.
Also the displacement of a local farmer, Gordon Brown, who fought this for years before and who, with his father before him, has rented the fields where the odious depot and roundabout will be built.
Stobart is determined to get its way.  So much so that he has threatened Carlisle and Cumbria County Councils with withdrawal of Stobart’s HQ from Cumbria if they don’t approve the inappropriate ‘development’.
It is understood that Carlisle City Council accepted this after Tinkler played them a video of his employees begging them to approve the development or they would have to leave Cumbria – Tinkler would relocate.
This is just blackmail to get a development in a rural location, unfit for purpose, to satisfy Tinkler’s wish to make money from the site, against the wishes of the local people, the Government’s own guidelines, traffic management sense and at the expense of our beautiful countryside – a great and important asset to Carlisle and Cumbria.
The press said there was no opposition at the council meeting  from councillors, apart from one. They just sat through a film of Stobarts with all the employees on, one after another, pleading for the expansion as they didn’t want their family to have to move from Cumbria – if Stobarts didn’t get this they would have to relocate.
It is  understood that Tinkler is determined to build his depot in this unsuitable location because he personally sold it for £12 million to his own company (with a £10 million profit apparently). He is putting undue pressure on the council to accept it, against the wishes of local people (other than Stobart employees).
The development will harm wildlife, preservation of the Hadrian’s Wall route, preservation of Cumberland’s remaining unspoilt scenery and the value of our way of life.
It is wrong for the council to have approved this because Tinkler threatens to leave Cumbria if his development plan is not permitted.
It is also wrong that so much money has been spent fighting this before, and winning, but that Tinkler can just come back and do it again.  It is wrong that big business can trample people so easily, through the English planning system, with the apparent collusion of the council.
The planned development will mean a huge five story building, huge wire fences, huge all-night light poles, 300 thundering juggernauts a day, a new roundabout in the middle of the country and the destruction of hedges and trees.  The area will be entirely urbanised and ruined.
This idea that it’s all to help Carlisle by providing an airport is ridiculous.  We have Newcastle airport so near, and even then most people drive elsewhere as local airports don’t fly to many holiday destinations – what hope of Carlisle being able to support a commercial airport?
People of this area are under the impression that they’ll be able to jet off to Spain from Carlisle and this is almost certainly not the case. The airport “carrot” has been used to garner public support, like the threat of pulling out of Cumbria has been used as a stick.
.

 

.
There are two press articles about allegations about Stobart below:

 

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Responses to the Gatwick airspace consultation (closed 16th August)

On 23rd May Gatwick launched a consultation on airspace changes it proposes. This is part of the airspace change programme to “modernise” flight paths, in line with the UK Future Airspace Strategy published by the CAA. The consultation was widely regarded as inadequate, badly written and presented, and effectively almost impossible for ordinary people – unused to the jargon and the technicalities – to either understand or respond to. The consultation finally ended on 16th August. Many organisations, and MPs, have asked for the consultation to be considered void, due to its deficiencies, and re-done to include maps, showing all proposed flight paths at Gatwick for arrivals and departures up to 10,000 feet. These were not included before, making responses difficult. These are some of the consultation responses sent in from local councils and parishes, representing their members. They all comment negatively on the quality of the consultation. One comments: “The air travel industry appears to be in total denial of the collateral damage which would be caused by these proposals”
.

 


 

The Gatwick airpace consultation

Gatwick Airport Ltd (GAL)  consultation on their plans to redraw many of the flight paths around Gatwick.  They call this Phase 2 of the consultation.  Link

This is Gatwick airport’s summary (2 pages) of their consultation 


 

GACC’s guidance

GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) produced a detailed and excellent document, deciphering the badly written consultation document, and setting out the important facts to help people to respond to the consultation. GACC notes on Airspace Consultation Phase 2  –  July 2014


 

GACC’s consultation response

GACC are demanding that:

– Gatwick Airport should scrap the proposed new routes;
– the CAA should declare the consultation void, and insist on a new consultation, with proper maps, to include new arrival routes;
– the Government should veto any new routes, and should issue a Direction that Gatwick (and other large airports) must provide full compensation for people whose houses are devalued by new concentrated flight paths; and
– the Land Compensation Act should be amended to include new ‘motorways in the sky’.

GACC response


 

High Weald Parish Councils Aviation Action Group (HWCAAG) response

In summary, they say:

  • We oppose the realignment because there is insufficient information to make a reasonable judgement. Being under a realigned flight path would blight any community.
  • We propose a further round of consultation after the realignment has been decided.
  • We propose multiple routes on a rota basis (not a multiple of 7)
  • We propose that CDA is enforced.
  • We propose that height levels of aircraft should be maintained at the maximum height through the controlled area in accordance with safe landing.
  • We propose that given the aims of AONB, NT and other heritage properties in the group area they suffer unduly from visible and noise impact of aircraft and should qualify for greater respite.
  • We propose that affected individuals and communities and businesses should be compensated financially.
  • We propose that a new metric for measuring aircraft noise and impact is found that takes account of tonal change and ambient noise.  The current measure is obsolete.
  • We propose no increase in night flights and preferably a reduction to no night flights.
  • We oppose a second runway at Gatwick.
  •  The Chiddingstone Parish Council response to this consultation can be found here.The HWCAAG response to the consultation can be found here. 

 

The Slinfold Parish Council response

Slinfold Parish Council’s response to the Gatwick Airport Consultation.

They agreed at a council meeting to reject any of the current options to change Gatwick departures from RWY26 to the south.

Due to a list of errors and inaccuracies, they are asking for the consultation to be re-done.


The Warnham Parish Council response (from Warnham, Slinfold and Rusper councils)

The first part of their response, on 7.8.2014 is  here

Their further response on 14.8.2014 is  here

Among other comments, they say:

“The GLAC (Gatwick Local Area Consultation) documentation is technically complex, it makes a number of unsubstantiated and sometimes contradictory statements. It offers weak or overly complex supporting material.  It deploys dubious or misleading rationale in a number of areas and finally proposes a limited number of ‘take it or leave it’ options without any adequate attempt to explore or explain the need for the options proposed. Neither does it seek to explain any alternative strategies or mitigation techniques available or planned by GAL, National Air Traffic Services (NATS) or the CAA. WS find this entirely unreasonable and completely unacceptable.”

“Also that Warnham Parish Council and the Slinfold Parish Council “will be recommending to the DfT and the CAA that airports proposing any form of development, including airspace changes, are obliged to set aside a fund to provide for the conduct of the fully independent assessment, analysis and reporting of any proposed options, for use by affected stakeholders.”


 

Kent Council Council response

Response for KCC from David Brazier, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Kent County Council

They appreciate the stress and nuisance that Gatwick over-flying is causing to parts of Kent, and to the heritage attraction sites such as Hever Castle, Penshurst Place and Chartwell.


 

Alfold Parish Council response

Alfold is south west of Gatwick, 5 miles from Cranleigh.  Response

They say:

We cannot accept any change in NPRs for departures until GAL presents the facts, well
researched, accompanied by meaningful statistics and details. We insist that more
research be done into the impacts of new routes on communities overflown. This must
be presented in a comprehensible way to the public.

And they add: “We understand the Chief Executive of GAL has been
asked to provide a simplified version but he has refused. As the CAA is monitoring this
consultation for compliance, a copy of this response will be sent to Dame Deirdre
Hutton.”


 Withyham Parish Council’s response

A narrowing of the broad swathe approach to one around 500m wide is an unjust and intolerable proposal, for whoever ends up under it. Retaining the current dispersal of flights over a wider area is preferred.   Response  here 

Among many comments they say:

“The Council notes that no population assessments have been done prior to making this proposal.  Withyham Parish Council is appalled that a potential life altering and health damaging decision is being proposed without any proper assessment of the effect on the people most affected. The Council question whether this is in fact a proper consultation due to the lack of definitive information on the narrowed flight paths.”

and “Withyham Parish Council believe that Gatwick have failed to place sufficient weight to the quality of life of any population living under a flight path or the effect that such a narrow aerial motorway would have on the health and well-being of the population of this Parish which will be severely affected.”

 


 

Sevenoaks Borough Council response

Sevenoaks response   

They appreciate that the noise is an intrusion into the lives of thousands of people in the area, and also disturbs the tranquillity of the AONB. They note their disappointment that their recent application to join Gatwick’s Consultative Committee, GATCON, was rejected.  They comment on the lack of maps illustrating the flight paths proposed. They say aircraft noise over the AONBs should be reduced.


 

Horsham District Council response

The response is at LAMP follow-up consultation response August 2014 Horsham Council

They comment:

 Horsham District Council is opposed to all of the proposed options A, B and C as they will all result in detrimental implications for those newly overflown. We do not support any of the options and we trust our response will be interpreted in this way.

 

They also say:

 

“All the options proposed will have seriously deleterious implications for those communities both under and close to the new routes as they will be affected by a new intrusive noise which disrupts peaceful enjoyment of one’s property and more importantly adverse effects on health.”

 

and “The forecast effects for the years 2016 and 2020 on Leq and SEL and those for the calculated population count changes do not show the significance of the disturbance and misery which will be experienced by newly affected communities.”

 

Also a  follow-up letter from Councillors Vickers and Rogers clarifying the Council’s position. LAMP Consultation, Horsham DC Follow-Up Letter, August 2014

Horsham’s Gatwick Aircraft Noise page


 

 

Speldhurst Parish Council response

They say they endorse the comments made by the neighbouring parish of Penshurst.

Speldhurst response

They add:  “The air travel industry appears to be in total denial of the collateral damage which would be caused by these proposals. The [High Weald] AONB with its low ambient noise levels relies heavily on national and internaitonal tourism for its sustainability, and further noise intrusion will inpact irretrievably on the local economies  …. and hitherto tranquil surroundings.”


…… and there are many others …….

.


 

.

MPs who have spoken out against Gatwick’s flight path trial, and against a second runway at Gatwick:

.

Nick Herbert, MP for Arundel & South Downs, joins others in speaking out against noise nuisance from ADNID trial

Click here to view full story…


Mole Valley MP Sir Paul Beresford joins the battle over Gatwick aircraft noise

Click here to view full story…


Tunbridge Wells MP Greg Clark urges Gatwick CEO to “go back to the drawing board” on flight paths

Click here to view full story…


Francis Maude says it is intolerable for some people to be very intensively overflown, “to the extreme detriment of their lives”

Click here to view full story…


Crispin Blunt MP investigates recent increase in aircraft noise in Redhill area due to changes to Gatwick flight paths

Click here to view full story…

.

.

..

 

 

Read more »

Frankfurt Airport given planning permission to build Terminal 3, to increase passenger number

Frankfurt airport currently has 2 passenger terminals with a capacity of approximately 65 million passengers per year, plus 4 runways. In 2009, the German government decided there should be a new Terminal 3 in order to handle the expected passenger flow of 90 million per year by 2020.  The new terminal is scheduled to be built by Fraport, south of the existing terminals. Fraport has now announced that it has been granted approval of its planning application, by the city of Frankfurt. However, it still needs a demand assessment. The building of a new terminal has been deeply controversial, and has been strongly opposed – as it is a means by which the airport can grow substantially. Fraport hopes the first phase of construction will start next year. Fraport say the airport will reach its maximum passenger capacity of about 64-68 million passengers a year by 2021 and that the new terminal when finished will allow it to serve up to 25 million more. Opponents say the airport already creates too much noise and does not need to be expanded. The CDU and the Greens said in their coalition agreement at the end of 2013 that they were in favour of looking at alternatives to building a new terminal. Opponents say they will keep fighting the expansion plans.
.

 

 

kein t3

Fraport given building permission for Frankfurt airport expansion

BERLIN 

12.8.2014  (Reuters)

The city of Frankfurt has approved airport operator Fraport’s building application for a much-debated new Terminal 3 at Europe’s third-largest airport, the company said on Tuesday.

Airport expansion is a hot topic in Europe at present. A long-planned new airport in Berlin has been beset with delays and accusations of fraud, while in Britain, Heathrow and Gatwick are competing for the right to expand.

Fraport estimates the investment cost will be more than €2 billion (£1.60 billion) for the first phase of construction, which is due to start next year.

The company expects the airport in its current form to reach maximum capacity – of about 64-68 million passengers a year – in by 2021 and that the new terminal when finished will allow it to serve up to 25 million extra passengers a year.

Anti-airport campaigners, meanwhile, maintain that the airport just outside Frankfurt already creates too much noise and does not need to be expanded.

Campaigners in Frankfurt, who also want to see a night flight ban extended by two hours, had hoped that the new ruling coalition of conservatives and greens in the state of Hesse, where Frankfurt is situated, would do more to prevent expansion of the airport.

The CDU (Christian Democratic Union) and Green parties said in their coalition agreement at the end of last year that they were in favour of looking at alternatives to building a new terminal.

But while the building application has been approved, the project still has to undergo a demand assessment, the Hesse conservatives said.

“The state government is holding continuous talks with Fraport on this matter,” a spokesman said in a statement on Tuesday.

It is not yet clear when this assessment will be finished, a Fraport spokesman said.

Frankfurt airport served just over 58 million passengers last year, up 0.9% on 2012, but Fraport predicts growth of between 2% and 3%  this year.

The new terminal would be built in stages, with the first phase aimed at providing capacity to serve an additional 14 million passengers a year.

Fraport’s shares were up 0.8% by 1214 GMT, outperforming a 0.4% fall in the MDax index for medium-sized companies .MDAXI.

The state of Hesse owns about 30% of Fraport and the city of Frankfurt holds 20%.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/12/uk-germany-fraport-airport-idUKKBN0GC16L20140812

.

.


 

.

Third terminal approved for Frankfurt Airport to meet rising passenger demand

The City of Frankfurt has issued a building permit to build a third terminal at Germany’s Frankfurt Airport (FRA) to help boost the airport’s ability to cope with rising demand for air travel.

18 Aug 2014 (Out-Law which is part of Pinsent Masons, a UK law firm)

FRA’s owner and operator the Fraport Group said the capacity of the existing two terminals to cope with an increasing number of passengers is expected to be “exhausted” by 2020, with growth already exceeding projections.

Fraport said long-term traffic forecasts issued by the German transport and digital infrastructure ministry indicate that the number of passengers will grow by an annual average of 2.5% by 2030, which makes aviation “Germany’s fastest-growing mode of transportation”.

However, Fraport said FRA “has already exceeded this value, posting average passenger growth of 3% in recent years”, as a result of “FRA’s significant international hub function”. Fraport said current trends point to passenger numbers continuing to rise, with growth reaching 2% to 3% by the end of 2014.

The modular construction of the new terminal will be implemented in phases, with the first phase to be completed “no later than 2021”, Fraport said.

The first phase will include the central terminal building and two piers designed to serve up to 14 million passengers each year. When fully completed, the new terminal will provide a total of 50 aircraft docking positions.

Fraport said the construction project, on FRA’s southern side, “is an integral part” of the airport’s expansion programme. FRA’s baggage conveyor systems and ‘Sky Line’ elevated passenger train network will also be expanded to link the new terminal to the existing terminals and airport rail stations.

Planning for the passenger terminal is focused on using “highly efficient energy standards” and the design of the building’s technical systems “will completely eliminate the need for external heating”, Fraport said.

Fraport’s executive board chairman Stefan Schulte said the group would continue to analyse passenger data to “assess requirements for future terminal capacity”. He said: “The deciding factor is that we will continue to be able to provide our passengers with the necessary capacity and a wide range of flight connections with the best possible services and processes.”

Schulte said: “German companies are very successful on the global market, which secures and creates jobs and prosperity in Germany. Prerequisites for this success are direct, fast and reliable flight connections to the rest of the world. This is the role of Frankfurt Airport for the region, the (federal) state of Hesse and Germany as a whole.”

Figures posted by Fraport earlier this year for fiscal year 2013 (4-page / 224 KB PDF) showed that revenue increased by 4.9% to €2.56 billion compared to the previous year, while the group’s operating profit rose to some €880 million, which was an increase of 3.7%. Passenger numbers at FRA increased by nearly 1% to more than 58 million. Fraport said cargo traffic at FRA also “developed positively”, rising by 1.4% to almost 2.1 million tonnes.

In July 2014, Fraport recorded the busiest passenger month in FRA’s history with almost 5.9 million passengers served. “Despite weather-related cancellations during the reporting month, passenger traffic advanced by 2.3% compared to the same period last year,” Fraport said.

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/august/third-terminal-approved-for-frankfurt-airport-to-meet-rising-passenger-demand/

.


.

Opponents will continue fighting the airport’s growth.  On hearing of the planning permission for the 3rd Terminal, the “Kein Terminal 3″  (No Terminal 3) campaign on Facebook  said (approximate translation):

The planning application for Terminal 3 is approved – but our protest and our resistance are not finished yet!

The Working Group on aircraft noise and environmental invites people to the
1st Joint conversation about possible information and protest actions to “race day of the airport” on 24th August.2014 on the racecourse for an exchange of views on the current situation in the fight against airport expansion and for a liveable region.

When? Thursday, 21.08.2014, 19.30  to about 21.00 hours.

Where? In the “Hirsch” in 60599 Frankfurt-Oberrad, Offenbacher Landstrasse. 289

Why not combine the pleasure of horse racing with a little information and protest against the destruction of our region through the airport’s expansion?

Who is motivated to present some information and mark our protest after the recent betrayal of the voters of the Greens “urban society”, when given the 8/24/2014 opportunity.

Last year, Fraport has advertised with the following text:
“Race day is supported by Fraport AG, which are also a sponsor for the main race.
As operator of the busiest airport in Germany, the largest local workplace of the Federal Republic and the economic engine of the Rhine-Main region, Fraport AG plays an important social role. Fraport AG is committed to the region and contributes to the attractiveness and quality of life in the Rhine-Main area …. “(2) ..

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »