PROPOSALS from TAG Farnborough Airport to introduce a new area of “controlled” airspace are again open for consultation.

But with this latest round of stakeholder input comes further criticism, including from East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) which this week described the plans as “a blight on East Hampshire’s countryside, residents and businesses”.

During the ongoing consultations, some of the fiercest resistance has come from Lasham Gliding Society – the UK’s largest gliding club – whose existence hangs in the balance.

TAG Farnborough Airport currently uses class G airspace (uncontrolled airspace), which is shared with other airports and general aviation users. The proposed change would essentially mean it would have its own airspace in which to operate.

Locally, this has proved contentious, with objections coming from East Hampshire MP Damian Hinds, EHDC, the South Downs National Park Authority and general airspace users, such as Lasham Gliding Society, whose operations would be rendered impossible by the changes.

After initial consultations in 2014, which received more than 13,000 comments, the airport submitted a formal airspace change proposal to the Civil Aviation Authority.

But now “some aspects of the proposal” have changed, including proposed flight paths in the north of Hampshire, West Sussex, and parts of the South Downs National Park.

This modification alters the “spread” of one of the proposed arrival paths, and would, TAG said, reduce the total amount of new controlled airspace they need.

It would also “simplify the crossing point with another route, improving the overall efficiency of the proposed design, and enhancing safety even further”.

But pilot and gliding society spokesman Peter Reading said the society remain “deeply concerned” about these “threatening” plans and described the new proposal as “worse” than that already detailed.

“The time for the consultation is very short, only eight weeks, which is the minimum period, despite Cabinet office guidelines which state that the consultation period should be extended over holiday period and when consulting voluntary organisations such as parish councils,” Mr Reading said.

“Of course, this consultation is outside of the skill set of parish councils and they require extra time to get advice on, in particular, the noise on the ground.”

He also explained that some of the amendments aren’t clear.

“How can any resident have any hope of assessing the noise if they don’t know the altitude of the aircraft?”

Furthermore, he highlighted that some areas with newly-lowered airspace have been left out of this latest consultation.

A spokesman from the South Downs National Park Authority added: “More flights directed on a more concentrated path and at lower altitudes over the South Downs will have an impact on the tranquillity of the national park. We are also concerned that the proposals will enable increased air traffic above the South Downs for flights approaching Gatwick.”

The area covered by the new consultation includes the majority of Liphook village centre as well as Milland, Midhurst, West Dean and other parishes just over the border in West Sussex.

EHDC leader Ferris Cowper said that flights could pass over some parts of the district at between 5,000ft and 4,000ft on their way to final approach into the airport. At this altitude, the noise could be up to 61 decibels or “the equivalent of conversational speech from one metre away”.

“Imagine sitting for a quiet lunch with friends in the garden of one of East Hampshire’s beautiful rural pubs and having to stop mid-conversation while a flight goes overhead,” Mr Cowper said. “That’s not what I would want, and it’s not what I think local residents want.

“If these proposals are approved, they could affect tourism in the South Downs National Park and damage the economy of East Hampshire and neighbouring authorities. They could also have a devastating effect on general aviation and gliding locally.

“EHDC will respond to this consultation in the strongest terms, as we did for the original consultation, and I will continue to fight for the interests of local residents and businesses.”

Currently, TAG Farnborough radar controllers have to observe and take account of non-airport traffic, which can “result in longer, less direct routings, less predictable climb or descent profiles for aircraft flying out of or into the airport”.

They said that “creating a known air traffic control environment would assist the airport in catering for an increasing number of air transport movements and do so in a way which benefits efficiency and safety for many airspace users, and the environment”.

Contrary to objectors’ fears, TAG insists this precision will lead to “fewer flights at low altitudes as arriving aircraft will remain higher for longer and departing aircraft will climb higher more quickly” – in turn resulting in a “net reduction in people overflown”.

TAG Farnborough is only for business aviation. The proposals have been described by opponents as the equivalent of a big limousine company “buying two lanes of the M25 exclusively for the use of the rich and famous”.

To comment on the consultation, which runs until October 5, visit consultation.tagfarnborough.com.