Planning permission for Manston

Manston airport sale "a chance to introduce proper planning"

News that Manston airport is up for sale is confirmation that the local infrastructure is not sufficient to sustain an airport, according to one of the most respected campaign group in the country.

Manston’s New Zealand owner, lnfratil, announced it was selling the site because it wanted to “refocus its investment profile" and concentrate on retail, production and supplying gas and electricity. The move puts 123 jobs at risk.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England says the sale is an ideal chance for Thanet council to put into force planning regulations protecting the interests of residents, particularly in the issue of night flights, which lnfratil wanted to introduce amid fierce local opposition. A CPRE spokesman said:

“Of course we are saddened to think that existing jobs at Manston might be put at risk, but it confirms our long-standing concerns that Manston has been unable to become a commercial success for many reasons, not least its lack of infrastructure. Manston airport has consistently struggled to attract passengers and airline operators despite the massive amount of  investment into it.

If a fresh start means new operators are able to breathe new life into Manston, we sincerely hope Thanet  District Council will take this as an opportunity to bring the operation under the proper control of a robust planning agreement to protect the interests of all of Thanet's residents. The prospect of intensification of night flights, while Manston airport has been unable to exploit its daytime capacity, has hung over the county for far too long."

Malcolm Kirkaldie was a member of the former watchdog Manston Airport Group. He said:

“The former owners of the airport never fully addressed local complaints or issues. Developers who come into Thanet need to be accountable to the local community and put something back.”

kentnews.co.uk 19th Mar 2012

CPRE response to the public consultation

I've got a lot of time for the CPRE, and in particular our local branch - Protect Kent. They've got their heads screwed on, and their hearts are in the right place.

I joined them, and I encourage you to join them too. Your membership fees pay for their expert staff to do things like producing the response below. Read and enjoy... then join up!

I particularly like the first bullet point in section 2.2 - see what you think.

---

CPRE Response to Night Flights Proposal 2012

---

CPRE aren't impressed

Night flights at Manston have been an extremely contentious issue for many Thanet residents. Some believe that allowing the flights will bring economic prosperity to the area, with much needed local employment opportunities. Others believe that it is unlikely that many jobs will be created.

We took the stance some time ago that we did not believe allowing night flights would bring any real economic benefit to the residents of Thanet, and may in fact bring real harm to the area due to the impacts of noise and air pollution.

We are glad to see that we have been justified in this view by a recently published report authored on behalf of Thanet District Council by Parsons Brinkerhoff, a leading transport consultancy.

This report, which is based on an examination of the documents submitted by Infratil, clearly brings into doubt many of their claims.  Parsons Brinkerhoff indicates that Infratil's views of the economic benefits are wildly over-optimistic, while the impacts of noise - the major concern of residents in the area - have been seriously understated. 

These two points alone vindicate the local opposition groups, whose concerns have been regarded by some as backward-looking and 'nimby-ism'.

The fact that Flybe are pulling out in March because they cannot fill planes is damning proof of the lack of demand for flights out of Manston. We simply cannot see how allowing night flights will help Manston grow as a passenger airport, and therefore generate both jobs and economic sustainability for the area.

In light of this recent report, CPRE Protect Kent would ask that there be a full and unrestricted public consultation before any night flights are allowed.  This should be open and transparent, with all the facts available.

This will enable the people of East Kent to weigh up the benefits and disadvantages of night flights and lobby Thanet District Council accordingly. It is only right they be given this opportunity, as it is their communities and environment that will be significantly affected by the implementation of night flights.

CPRE Protect Kent, Jamie Weir 25th Jan 2012

Report highlights night flights hype

Nights flights will not be the salvation of Manston airport, according to campaigners who say that a report from a leading transport consultancy backs their views.

Community groups say they do not believe allowing the flights would bring any economic benefit to the residents of Thanet, and may in fact bring harm to the area due to the impact of noise and air pollution.

Many also say that if the proposed operations went ahead, they could actually deter people who might be planning to move their businesses to the area or thinking of buying a home there. Dr Hilary Newport, of Protect Kent, the county arm of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said:

“Night flights will not be the airport’s salvation. Manston cannot sell all of its daytime slots, and disturbing the sleep of residents in Ramsgate and beyond is not the way forward.”

A report into the contentious issue - authored on behalf of Thanet District Council by Parsons Brinkerhoff, a leading transport consultancy - has just been published. CPRE casts doubt on the claim of airport operator Infratil that 3,000 jobs will be created if night flights go ahead and says that the impact of noise levels has been underestimated.

Andrew Ogden, campaigns manager for Protect Kent, said:

“This report, which is based on an examination of the documents submitted by Infratil, clearly brings into doubt many of their claims. Parsons Brinkerhoff indicates that Infratil’s views of the economic benefits are wildly over-optimistic, while the impacts of noise - the major concern of residents in the area - have been seriously understated. These two points alone vindicate the local opposition groups, whose concerns have been regarded by some as backward-looking and ‘nimbyism’.

The fact that Flybe are pulling out in March because they cannot fill planes is damning proof of the lack of demand for flights out of Manston. We simply cannot see how allowing night flights will help Manston grow as a passenger airport, and therefore generate both jobs and economic sustainability for the area.”

In light of this recent report, Protect Kent is asking for full public consultation before any night flights are allowed. It says this should be open and transparent, with all the facts available. Mr Ogden said:

“This will enable the people of East Kent to weigh up the benefits and disadvantages of night flights and lobby Thanet District Council accordingly. It is only right they be given this opportunity, as it is their communities and environment that will be significantly affected by the implementation of night flights.”

However, a report last year commissioned by Infratil said the flights would be beneficial. The first part of the Economic Impact Report, produced by York Aviation and published in May, suggested that the airport would directly employ 2,070 people and support a further 1,035 indirect jobs by 2018 if a level of night flights was allowed. It also estimated that the Kent airport would deliver almost £65 million a year to the local economy by 2018 if its Master Plan development was realised.

Today (25th Jan 2012), Clive Hart, leader of Thanet District Council, signed a decision notice, which states the council’s intention to carry out a focused consultation in-house for 28 days for isle residents and in particular for those directly affected by the airport’s proposals.

The decision follows clarification that the proposal submitted by Infratil is for consultation only and so does not require a planning application at this stage. The council says this means its role is therefore as a ‘consultee’ and it is not in a position to make a binding decision in respect of the night-time flying policy.

It is seeking advice as to whether the proposed night-flying policy could result in an “intensification or change in operation at the airport”. This could then require a planning application at some point in the future. Cllr Hart said:

“We’re committed to listening to our residents and will still provide the opportunity for people to comment on the proposals before we draft our response from the council, as well as people being able to provide their views directly to the airport. We’ve promised that we will seek residents’ views, and we’re standing by this commitment but on a more appropriate scale. This issue needs to be drawn to a conclusion for the sake of the community, the council and the airport.”

The public consultation is proposed to launch on Friday, February 3, for 28 days and will be open to all residents in Thanet. Responses to the proposals must be submitted in writing to Consultation, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Margate CT9 1XZ, or by email to consultation@thanet.gov.uk Full names and addresses must be provided with each response. To view the proposals, and for more information about the public consultation, visit www.thanet.gov.uk, where information will be available to view from Thursday, January 26.

kentnews 25th Jan 2012 Nick Ames, reporter

Doing battle with a naked Emperor

NEWSFLASH: the real reasons Flybe quit Manston - click HERE

---

Medway Council are ready for battle. CPRE Protect Kent are ready to grab the opportunity to point out that the Emperors of Aviation are naked, and (quite brilliantly) want to inject a little democracy into the process. Best of luck guys.

---

Cllr Rodney ChambersA fierce opponent of a Thames Estuary airport has vowed to fight all the way to the top as controversial plans take a step forward. Medway Council leader Cllr Rodney Chambers wants to work with the Towns' MPs to secure a crisis meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron or Chancellor George Osborne. Mr Cameron was set to announce preliminary backing for a huge airport potentially off the Kent coast - which would dwarf the size of Heathrow - earlier this month, according to a national newspaper.

It follows plans put forward by both London Mayor Boris Johnson and world-renowned architect Lord Foster for airports on different sites around Kent. The announcement would have been linked in with the High Speed 2 rail announcement, but was put back because it was claimed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg it was 'being rushed through', according to the paper. Now it is believed the scheme will be unveiled in March, with the Prime Minister broadly backing the plans dependent on consultation.

Cllr Chambers said:

“We tried meeting with Boris Johnson and we were fobbed off with his acolytes. We should use the MPs to secure a meeting with George Osborne and the Prime Minister. I’ve no doubt that those affected by this will be ready to fight against this proposal as they did 10 years ago. If there’s going to be a battle then so be it.”

However, county-based campaigning organisation Protect Kent welcomed the move. Campaigns manager Andrew Ogden said:

"While our views on this consultation may appear to contradict our normal stance, we anticipate that this opportunity to share all of the facts and figures behind these proposals will expose them as the futile schemes they are.

Together with other campaigning and environmental groups, we will be presenting our case against these airports in response to the consultation. We will also be calling for a referendum to be held amongst all residents likely to be impacted by these proposals, both sides of the estuary."

London Mayor Boris Johnson wants to build a floating airport in the Thames Estuary - dubbed Boris Island. And plans were announced in November by renowned architect Lord Foster for a massive hub airport off the Hoo Peninsula, taking 150m passengers each year. The scheme involves building the hub airport - with twice the capacity of Heathrow - together with a huge barrage and a new rail network system: effectively an M25 for the railways, skirting London. If built, it would the 24-hour hub would have four runways, each 4km long. An integrated rail station beneath the passenger terminal would be the UK’s busiest - with 300,000 arrivals and departures every day.

kentonline 18th Jan 2012

CPRE says night flights at Manston will not boost business

The campaign group says night flights could actually damage Thanet’s economic growth. Protect Kent, the Campaign to Protect Rural England’s county branch, says there is little evidence that night flights at Manston Airport will significantly help the local economy. Campaigns manager Andrew Ogden said:

“The fact that Flybe are pulling out in March because they cannot fill planes is damning proof of the lack of demand for flights out of Manston. We simply cannot see how allowing night flights will help Manston grow as a passenger airport, and therefore generate both jobs and economic sustainability for the area.”

Business leaders in Thanet, including the chamber of commerce, recently called for the night flight plans to be given the go ahead by Thanet council. They argued it would be the only way the airport has a commercial future after the low cost airline Flybe pulled out of running domestic passenger flights.

The charity says the plans could actually damage the area’s growing tourism industry. Mr Ogden added:

“We consider that the only reason for night flights is to bring in more freight. This is not the kind of business that Thanet needs, as it will not employ the inflated numbers of people that Infratil [the airport’s owners] and business leaders are claiming it will.”

“We ask that there be a full and unrestricted public consultation before any night flights are allowed. This should be open and transparent, with all the facts available. This will enable the people of East Kent to weigh up the benefits and disadvantages of night flights and lobby Thanet District Council accordingly. It is only right they be given this opportunity, as it is their communities and environment that will be significantly affected by the implementation of night flights.”

kentnews 11th Jan 2012

Urgent need for environmental assessment

Dear Sir,

I subscribe to your Newsletter which I find very informative. I would like to raise some questions about what involvement the Environment Agency (EA) have in these developments.

In my view, based upon past experience with Industrial Planning issues, the EA should be involved. Indeed I think they should be involved as part of all the planning issues and meetings. There are far too many environmental issues at stake for them not to be actively involved, these issues to name but a few are :-

• Noise
• Air Quality, seriously affected by emissions from aircraft engines, dumping of fuel under emergency situations, cargo handling equipment, lorries etc collecting cargo from the airport, passenger cars and the list could go on.
• Pollution arising from such things as run off from the runways, maintenance and servicing of aircraft and other vehicles, any form of accident and God forbid an aircraft crashing.
• For the current activities at Manston has there been an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out?
• Is such an assessment planned for the proposed increase in activities?

In my experience there certainly should be such an assessment, otherwise there can be no record of what changes are occurring and what damage is being done to the environment.

When considering the environment it is not just the environment local to Manston for consideration the environment of a far wider area must be considered this could stretch from Whitstable all along the coast to Ramsgate and out into the sea, and down towards Maidstone, Ashford and Folkestone.

Continuing with the theme of assessments, again in my experience, Risk Assessments for all the activities at Manston should be carried out. These should take into account all the "What Ifs" such as:

• Serious accident ie, aircraft crashing
• Fire
• Are the Emergency Services currently sufficiently manned, trained and equipped to deal with such emergencies?
• Again the list could go on.

I will be very interested to hear your comments to my points.

Also, could you provide me with the contact addresses, emails etc of all our local councillors, MP and any other parties/persons to lobby. I firmly believe that as many of the public as possible should 'take up the cudgels' to curtail any further activities at Manston.

Yours Sincerely,

M.L. Herne Bay

---

ML - you have touched on a number of good points.

• There is no doubt that the EA should have been actively encouraged to be more closely involved, starting a long time ago.
• The only people who don't think an EIA is long overdue are the airport and the Council.
• The noise, air and water pollution are long-standing issues. On each count, both the airport and the Council have conspicuously failed to monitor the ongoing damage and the potential risks.
• No EIA has been carried out on Manston's activities. Whenever the prospect of an EIA is mentioned, both the airport and the Council go pale, and start wriggling.
• You are absolutely right to highlight the geographical scope of the airport's impact - the air and water pollution spread even further than the noise pollution.
• All emergency services live in dread of catastrophic major incidents. By definition, these are of such a scale that it is not economically feasible to be fully prepared for them. Put bluntly, the question becomes: by how much will the emergency services and medical services fail on the day?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if other readers have more comments of their own...

• You can contact all your elected representatives through www.WriteToThem.com
• You can find details of the Canterbury councillors here (Peter Vickery-Jones holds the Transport Portfolio and sits on KIACC)
• You can find details of the Thanet councillors here (Joanna Gideon chairs the Airport Working Party)
• You should consider supporting CPRE Protect Kent - they're supporting us.

Support from CPRE Protect Kent

Thanet District Committee

Matters have not been all quiet on the eastern front. A number of issues have surfaced — or re-surfaced — within the District. The most significant is the proposal for night-flights from Kent International Airport, Manston.

This is a subject which has featured for some time as a dark storm cloud over Thanet, ominous and threatening but never quite ready to release its anger. It now appears that the storm is about to break.

We have engaged with the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee (KIACC) to challenge Infratil, the airport's owners, and Thanet District Council (Thanet DC) on the need for night-flights, and more importantly how permission for such activities is being determined.

We consider that due process is being circumvented, including full and open consultation with the residents of Thanet. Together with KIACC and other active parties we will be examining the legality of present and past planning decisions relating to Manston, and encouraging frank and open discussion on the planned future of the airport.

We believe we can bring considerable expertise to the scene, based on our experience at the Lydd Inquiry.

Andrew Ogden
Campaigns Manager
CPRE Protect Kent
Newsletter Autumn 2011

---

These people care about the things that you care about, and they have the clout and expertise to make a difference. They have the clout and expertise because they have full-time staff who have built up years of experience successfully doing the things we're trying to do.

These nice people need to eat, and buy clothes, and pay their phone bills. They need money. Your money. My money. Any money will do. This is where membership of Protect Kent comes in. Click HERE, now, to pop over to their website, where you can get whatever kind of membership suits you best - joint, family, concessionary, under 25, whatever.

Take your pick, and then press the magic buttons to make it happen. You'll get automatic membership of the national CPRE, and you'll get half-price entry to lots of nice places, and you'll get occasional magazines and other good stuff, but most importantly you'll get that nice warm feeling that comes from knowing you've done the right thing for the right reason.

That KIACC meeting, in a nutshell

For those of you who had better things to do on Friday evening, you can find out what you missed here:

Ramsgate Rat merrily blogging away for the last year or so on all things Ramsgatey and ratty, has produced a very readable write-up of the evenings jollities, and local newshound Andrew Woodman who was scampering about with a digital doo-dah and has captured the best moments on video, and put them on video-sharing website Bambuser.

One of the many important points that arose, that I would like you all to think about, was the question of representation on the KIACC committee. There's plenty of councillors (I mean LOTS of councillors), and there's the airport. Not much in the way of people (i.e. residents) or independent experts. This has to change.

For people/residents, I think a representative from NoNightFlights would provide some much-needed balance to the blanket pro-airport stance of some councillors.

For independence and expertise, I think the obvious option is CPRE Protect Kent. They know their onions, and they're not anti-airport (so no objection from Manston), but they are anti-night flight (hurrah).

The constitution of the KIACC committee is under review, so now is the time for all good men and women to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboards) and contact KIACC at this address:

secretary.manstonkiacc@talktalk.net

to nominate some new faces on the committee. If you don't make any suggestions, we'll be stuck forever with what we had on Friday... The decision is yours!

CPRE Protect Kent

The Campaign to Protect Rural England - a bit of a mouthful, but it does what it says on the tin. Their mission is "to protect our natural landscapes from destruction and degradation".

Protect Kent - sounds pleasingly more like a battle-cry, and they're our local bit of the CPRE. Their mission statement begins:

Protect Kent seeks to ensure the survival of our County’s landscapes and heritage, and aims to protect the County from inappropriate developments wherever they may occur.

My kind of people! They are busy the length and breadth of Kent, battling the selfish and the senseless, for the greater good. Construction of superstores, destruction of woodlands, the Lower Thames Crossing and the Operation Stack Lorry Park - you get the picture. Of particular interest to us is their recent heroic performance at the Lydd enquiry:

This is our bread & butter, what our members expect of us, our raison d’etre – to challenge inappropriate and unsustainable development of whatever type, wherever it may be.  The proposed expansion of Lydd Airport is an example in the extreme.

I was delighted to find that night flights at Manston feature on their map of Threats to Kent:

These people care about the things that you care about, and they have the clout and expertise to make a difference. They have the clout and expertise because they have full-time staff who have built up years of experience successfully doing the things we're trying to do.

These nice people need to eat, and buy clothes, and pay their phone bills. They need money. Your money. My money. Any money will do. This is where membership of Protect Kent comes in. Click HERE, now, to pop over to their website, where you can get whatever kind of membership suits you best - joint, family, concessionary, under 25, whatever.

Take your pick, and then press the magic buttons to make it happen. You'll get automatic membership of the national CPRE, and you'll get half-price entry to lots of nice places, and you'll get occasional magazines and other good stuff, but most importantly you'll get that nice warm feeling that comes from knowing you've done the right thing for the right reason.