Feb 162016

At the last Fairoaks Airport Consultative committee, on which we have a seat, it was announced that Royal Bank of Scotland (RBC) who own part of the airport have sold their holdings to an American Company ADP. ADP now own approximately 40 acres of the airport but this mainly consists of buildings. Fairoaks Operation Ltd still have control of the operation of the airfield which includes the Control Tower and some hangarage.

The Chairman, Lord Trefgarn, asked the committee for their views as to the future of the Airport. He has called a special meeting of the committee and has requested the CEO of ADP attend. In order that our representative can give some meaningful feedback we would value your views.

Fairoaks sits mainly within the Borough of Surrey heath (SHBC) so we are to a great degree interested bystanders but never the less have an imput to any decisions. SHBC considers Fairoaks as a brown field site and is in their Local Plan for future development.

Some of the possibilities are:

  • Update the existing facilities and stay as an operational airfield.
  • Stay as an operational airfield with some housing development.
  • Develop into a Technology Park with an operational airfield.
  • Develop into a Technology Park with some housing development .
  • Turn the site totally over to housing development.

Some of the above may well impact heavily on residence of Ottershaw, Ottershaw Park and surrounding roads should housing development be the considered option.

We welcome your thoughts / comments.

 Posted by at 10:45 am

  43 Responses to “Developments at Fairoaks Airport – We need your comments”

  1. Who are ADP? Are they connected in any way with McLaren? How will any of the developments affect Horsell Common which is not in Surrey Heath but is green space that abuts Fairoaks?

    Thinking of safety, what are the risks in having a housing development close to an airfield, albeit a small one.

    Overall I think we have enough Technology parks in the area and, as Fairoaks as an airport is only accessible to a small percentage of the population, then a housing development would seem the best option.

    • thank you for your comment on the potential developments at Fairoaks Airport, we will submit your questions at the next committee meeting

  2. It should stay as an airport only, with some light industrial units only, as now

  3. We live on the Chobham Road and there is already a huge amount of traffic and the large volume of HGV’s passing by our front door now make the house shake. We would not welcome further development of the site – especially for commercial vehicles.

  4. Ottershaw already has quite some noise especially in the summer due to Fairoaks flights. If there is a technology park to come this noise will rather increase. So we would rather see to turn the site into housing development. More noise than now is not wanted anyway – whatever they intend to do.

  5. Options would appear pretty open as there is no indication given of what the new owner wants to achieve and what motivated them to purchase the 40 acre site.
    Based on the information provided I would vote to update the existing facilities and stay as an operational airfield.

  6. 1/ Update the existing facilities and stay as an operational airfield.
    The airport was built in 1931 on land that was originally known as Dolley’s Farm, when a Louis Strange prepared a landing strip, this is obviously long before the present Ottershaw Park and concerns of noise and other inconveniences. Fairoaks would benefit with short take off planes and the opening up of some regular flights? Fairoaks is a first rate local airport, it would be criminal if this facility was lost to the other disastrous suggestions ! Fairoaks provides a first class opportunity for those in commerce and industry, when flight, away from the congestion of Heathrow, would provide a quick means of travel?
    Let Fairoaks put Ottershaw on the map!

    2/ Stay as an operational airfield with some housing development.
    NO !

    3/ Develop into a Technology Park with an operational airfield.
    No !

    4/ Develop into a Technology Park with some housing development .
    No !

    5/ Turn the site totally over to housing development.
    No !

  7. Given that the nearby Longcross development will see an increase in traffic/road usage in the area, we don’t need yet another huge deveopment on the Fairoaks site.We know there is a housing shortage, but please give us locals some breathing space!
    Preferred option , update the existing facilities and stay as an
    operational airfield.

  8. Reg says
    I prefer to see an airport there and not a housing site, business park, as in other possible options but as an Ottershaw Resident I know that the Fairoaks Consultative Committee on which the Society is represented, does get adverse comments from residents re noise issues, so one improvement I would like to see is a easy to use and adequate complaints procedure for residents, this has not been forthcoming from the owners..

  9. I agree with the idea of turning the whole area to housing development.

  10. I prefer to see it remain as it is now, an operational airport of its current size and current usage. It is a significant local landmark.

    I don’t think adjoining increased housing development is appropriate with respect to public safety.

    Additionally the Chobham Road is not currently suitable for any increased traffic capacity or usage, it is already dangerous with most of it being national speed limit and slow moving traffic queuing back hundreds of yards at both ends of the road at peak times. Put on top of that the additional traffic to and from any new housing developments or increased business park / technology parks and its obvious that the Chobham Road is not an appropriate road to support any increased development. There is very limited opportunity of alternative routes of deviation to lighten the traffic load on the Chobham Road, as anyone would have found during the road closure for water main works near the Otter roundabout, anyone attempting to get from that closed end of the Chobham Road eastbound onto the Guildford Road had a seven mile detour.

    No any increased development will not be beneficial to residents or users of the Chobham Road near Fairoaks.

  11. As a clarification of my input at 10 above. With respect to the introduction and invitation to comments / suggestions / proposed options – ” Developments at Fairoaks Airport we need your comments “, My preference would be :-

    •Update the existing facilities and stay as an operational airfield

  12. Living under the flight path we certainly don’t want increased aircraft noise.

  13. Living directly under the flight path we certainly do not want any increased aircraft activity and noise. Perhaps light industrial units or storage would be least intrusive. Or a sports facility.

  14. With the development of Longcross and probably the third runway at Heathrow l think any further development at Fairoaks would not be acceptable to the residents of Ottershaw and surrounding areas
    Housing development will place a further strain on the need for schools etc.
    Note, It was stated at the Longcross Devlopement exhibition that there would be no improvement to the local roads to cater for the increase in road use.

  15. Sir.
    This proposed Development of a 1500 Housing Village will have an ‘Extreme’ detrimental effect on ALL
    the surrounding area and Villages that connect to or near by!
    The Roads cannot take anymore traffic, due to the M3/M25 and subsequent roads leading to and from Chobham/Ottershaw and Woking! Save nothing of over-burdening – Schools, Surgery’s and Hospitals!
    It WILL: Totally ‘Destroy’ the Character and Uniqueness of existing Villages, notably Chobham and Ottershaw!
    It WILL: Heap a Hugh Unnecessary Toll on the existing Roards and surrounding countryside!
    Please give the Money to the ‘North’ for development! They’re always complaining about – Lack of Investment, so give it to them and, leave us Alone!

  16. Do not forget they are about to put 3000 houses over at Deepcut. The traffic will be horrid. Keep the airport. I say

  17. Oh my goodness! Yet more building in the Ottershaw area! The roads cannot cope with more traffic! Neither can the current residents! This is the fourth planned development in the area! We seem to be in danger of being swamped!

    Is there any proposal to build another hospital in the area??? Current one cannot service more residents.

    This proposal seems to have come from a developer who has bought the site with a view to making money out of the site! At our expense! Shame on them!

  18. This is no way to solve the housing crisis. There are thousands upon thousands of empty developments along the banks of the Thames from Putney to Wapping – many of which were sold to foreign investors (sometimes even before Londoners had a chance to purchase them!), and many of which are empty. Building rows upon rows of boxes in the Surrey countryside, an hour away from jobs – with no new infrastructure to get you to work is a disaster. If you place three so-called “garden villages” next to each other – all you get is urban sprawl, and roadblock. The traffic in and around Chobham is a nightmare. It can take 20mins to drive 3 miles. Its gridlock ! Trains into London are packed and overcrowded – you’re lucky to get a place to stand. Parking is in short supply. Delays happen every day. Build affordable houses nearer to the jobs in London, on brownfield sites. Stop building thousands upon thousands of luxury appt.s for foreign investors – this is crazy!

  19. As a user of Fairoaks Aerodrome for the past forty-four years and a local resident, it wil not of any surprise that I would not like to see the demise of Fairoaks as a centre for recreational aviation and a local amenity.
    Are we to replace somewhere where dreams come true and where hundreds are gainfully employed, with yet another dreary housing estate that is not needed? Will any house built there be truly owned by the occupiers or will the they be bought by already wealthy local residents for rent to housing benefit claimants, as has already happened in other parts Chobham?
    The house building lobby have persuaded the government that we need lots of houses. I don’t believe we do. Why replace a great local amenity with more future problems just for money? Fairoaks is already a village and a recreational facility just like a golf course or cricket pitch. Do we want to lose it?

  20. I want Fairoaks to stay as an operational airfield and say NO to further housing development!
    Local infrastructure is already struggling to cope with things as they are. We already have Longcross going ahead,the possibility of further mass development with the so-called Woodham new town. Enough! Leave Fairoaks alone.

  21. Does the Society or anyone else have any information for residents please on what Runnymede Borough Council’s plans are with regards to the A320? I assume they ultimately plan to widen it and/or turn it into a dual carriageway as I can’t see how else they can expect to solve the problem of congestion with the thousands of new homes potentially planned around Ottershaw. They must have held discussions about this in order to be able to support the Fairoaks Garden Village development as evidenced by their letter of support to Surrey Heath. Their wording: “ensure delivery of the necessary infrastructure which enables the growth ambitions of north west surrey, especially with respect to local highways including the A320 Guildford road which runs from J11 of the M25 to Woking”

    • Of course Highways England, Surrey County Council, and Runnymede Borough Council know the future plans for the A320 through Ottershaw – it is just a matter of timing when they drop the bombshell.

  22. No Fairoaks Garden Village !!!
    I echo the thoughts supporting to keep Fairoaks as an airport and remain an airport !
    Student pilots for our airlines or people for-filling a dream of flight,.From morning coffee to Sunday breakfast in the Hangar Cafe. Even the 150 or so vital emergency medical flights charted to save lives 24/7 365 days a year…

  23. Please leave Fairoaks alone. It is a valuable local resource for pilot training, medical flights and a valuable green space between Chobham and Ottershaw.
    If development goes ahead we will all regret the increased noise, traffic and overwhelmed local public services.

  24. The important thing is not to view this as an isolated housing development – within a 10mile sq radius there are several New Towns planned, Longcross, Woodham, MClaren, Ottershaw, etc, breaking the greenbelt forever, with little in the way of infrastructure to support the growth in population.

  25. Most people don’t realise that if the airport is closed down, we would have even more aircraft noise than we have now! Farnborough airport traffic will then be able to fly directly over our houses meaning larger jets and more frequent flights directly overhead….

    Fairoaks Airport air space prevents this from happening now. We should value the services that the airport provides – including air ambulance refuelling and touch down. Also, it is the only airport in Surrey used for the vital transport of donated organs and emergency blood.

    Update and improve this airport and at the same time preserve the beautiful and rare wildlife that lives in the open fields and woodland surrounding it, which would be damaged by any development. Speak out against the housing estate and the 3000 plus extra vehicles it would bring to our already congested roads.

  26. Leave alone…traffic will be at standstill practically all day

  27. Geoff G.says
    Leave Fairoaks as it is. Not only does it provide employment for aerdrome staff but also for the maintenance units and light industry based there.
    It is a full on working international airport in the middle of greenbelt country which deserves to be preserved.
    Especially as with other major housing projects in the area already overloading the local and very limited infrastructure.

  28. Absolutely ridiculous if this housing development gets passed. We definitely DO NOT want any more housing developments in this area. It’s bad enough with the possible Longcross development that is going to increase the traffic which is already almost at a standstill at any time during the day. So if this goes ahead it will be completely disastrous. Don’t these people realise the chaos all this will cause in the surrounding areas. More and more accidents on the roads, soon we won’t be able to drive anywhere and its already getting like that now. Clearly the government have told the various councils that more houses have to be built, but they don’t seem to care or even grasp the fact that it will cause gridlock on the roads with thousands of more cars, not to mention the pollution. We also don’t want the other New Towns planned for the area either, as all that will achieve is moving the problem to another area. This development must not go ahead!

  29. As a pilot that has flown into Fairoaks Airfield many times over the last 30 years, I would naturally prefer to see flying operations continue. The UK is losing General Aviation (GA) airfields at a worrying rate, with the loss of amenity and economic activity that goes with them, not withstanding the ‘incubator’ for future professional pilots. However GA airfields need to become more sustainable, and one way to achieve that is to introduce a limited number of hangar homes on the airfield with airside access for pilots wishing to live, work and fly from the airfield, with a relatively small number of conventional homes behind them. This could be achieved on the piece of land east of the entrance to the airfield called the ‘cricket pitch’, where 10 hangar homes could be built with direct access to the taxiway, and between 100 and 200 conventional homes behind them depending on the density. This limited housing development would not affect the existing businesses on the airfield, and keep the airfield running, whilst not putting an undue burden on the local roads and infrastructure. For more information on hangar homes, please visit http://www.hangarhomes.co.uk.

  30. The sooner the airport is closed the better, the selfish small aircraft buzzing central Horsell, low altitude, circle patterns, is a sign of selfishness that plagues it society.

    They contribute nothing to the local economy. The owners of these aircraft would not like me standing outside their homes with a lawnmower all day

    Build houses, that’s what is needed, all the talk about local roads and capacity is rather selfish too, do you think everyone in the houses will come out at the same time?

    • Pretty sure that the airport was there way before you moved in to the area and general aviation contributes millions each year to the economy!! When people moved into their houses that are ‘under’ the flight path did they not consider this?? It’s like moving directly next to the M25 and then complaining its noisy!!!
      Obviously totally uneducated about how ‘local’ economy works as well! If the businesses that are there close down then the local economy suffers, pretty simple really! Loss of local jobs, loss of rates to the local council………….the list goes on!!
      As for your point about the roads, also a rather uneducated comment seeing as a majority of the people that will live in these new houses will all be travelling to and from wok at peak times.
      The airport should stay as it has been for the past 96 years, an airport!!!

  31. Can’t believe the last comment! No one wants more and more houses and traffic already clogging up the roads, for reasons as mentioned by everyone else above. Obviously people don’t come out of their houses at the same time, what a stupid comment! It’s already gridlocked with stationery traffic most of the time during the day and difficult to drive anywhere in this area. We have lived in this area for over thirty years and the traffic has got worse and we DO NOT need more houses and more cars on the road.

  32. I would like to see the Airfield kept as it is, maybe some small additions. Definitely not a complete housing estate accessing the already fast busy road to Chobham.

  33. The UK is losing General Aviation (GA) airfields at a worrying rate, with the loss of amenity and economic activity that goes with them, not withstanding the ‘incubator’ for future professional pilots.
    There are only two airfields for private flying left in Surrey. As far as noise from circuit training, that should reduce with the introduction of electric planes now under development.

  34. Gary you are quite right. John, you are a total prick.

  35. I think it should remain as an airport. We are losing small airfields all over the UK and it is limiting the opportunity for young and old to learn to fly and keep up their licences. This airfield also was involved in WW2 training and has a historical tradition. There are lots of other brown field sites but ony now 2 small airfields left in Surrey.

  36. We think Fairoaks should stay as and airport with the facilities that it has now. They may need to be tweaked
    to a suitable level that is beneficial to the community. We have lived in the area for the past 40 years and we would be distressed to loose another local amenity.
    We would be very upset about the environmental impact of a major development in the area.
    this area has had big recent developments amounting to 100’s of houses causing great pressure on roads, schools and hospitals.

Leave a Reply to Admin Cancel reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>