contact us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.​


Herne Bay, England, CT6
United Kingdom

Community website for all things Herne Bay (Kent, UK). Covers: The Downs, Herne Bay Museum, Herne Bay Historical Records Society, Herne Bay Pier Trust, Herne Bay in Bloom, East Cliff Neighbourhood Panel, No Night Flights, Manston Airport, Save Hillborough, Kitewood, WEA, Local Plan and much, much more...

No Night Flights

Filtering by Tag: Consultation

Draft Aviation Policy - have your say

HBM

This just in from our friends at Belfast...

I am contacting you on behalf of Belfast City Airport Watch, an umbrella organisation which represents 20 residents’ associations and community groups, and which also has more than 550 individual associate members.

I am contacting you because your organisation campaigns re the issue of aircraft noise related to what the government terms a ‘non-designated’ airport with regard to aircraft noise. (The designated airports – as you are probably aware - are Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick).

We are very concerned at the lack of any adequate new noise protection measures for residents near non-designated airports contained in the DfT’s Draft Aviation Policy Framework document. While no specific timeframe is specified in the document, it appears that the government envisages that this document, once finalised, will represent its national policy on aviation strategy – including aircraft noise – until at least 2020.

I have attached, fyi, a copy of our submissions to the current DfT consultation on the Draft Framework and to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee’s current consultation on aviation strategy. Both of these contain Executive Summaries with bullet points for ease of reference – so you’ll be able to see our chief concerns and proposals at a glance. We hope you’ll take a few minutes to read them.

We would urge you to do the following, if you share any or all of our concerns:

  • Make your own submission to the DfT’s consultation on the Draft Framework, for which the deadline is 31st October. See: https://consultation.dft.gov.uk/dft/aviation-policy-framework
  • Make a submission to the Transport Select Committee’s own inquiry into aviation strategy, for which the deadline is 19th October. One of the questions on which the Committee is seeking views is on whether or not the noise measures contained in the Draft Aviation Policy Framework are adequate. See: :
  • Urge your members to do likewise – so officials and politicians become aware of the extent to which this issue matters to ordinary voters

We are very concerned that much of the Framework document is focused around issues concerning the three designated airports – and that the needs of residents near non-designated airport, which collectively impact on hundreds of thousands of people, are being ignored. We suspect this is partly because the voice of those residents hasn’t been heard loudly enough in the consultation process to date.

Many thanks in anticipation of your help and support on this important issue.

Kind regards,

Liz Fawcett, Chair, Steering Group, Belfast City Airport Watch


No Night Flights home page

Night Flights vote - press coverage

HBM

Vote against Manston Airport night flights plan

BBC 25th May 2012

Plans for night flights from Manston Airport in Kent have been opposed by Thanet District Council. At a meeting on Thursday, the Labour-controlled council voted against all night flights to or from the airport. Charles Buchanan, the airport's chief executive, said:

"We are disappointed the council is not supporting the airport as much as it could."

In March, owners Infratil announced plans to sell Manston and Glasgow's Prestwick Airport. Mr Buchanan said the airport wanted to run "a small number" of scheduled night flights. He said the owners had received legal advice that two flights per night, on average, did not constitute "an increase in activity over and above that which is already permitted", and they could go ahead without needing extra planning permission. Mr Buchanan said a number of companies were interested in taking up the opportunity.

"They would also bring the rest of their daytime schedule to the airport as well. Without that they'll go to airports where they have that flexibility."

Council research showed that 73% of some 2,000 residents questioned were against the proposal, citing potential noise levels and disturbance to sleep as their primary reasons for objecting. The airport currently deals with passenger and commercial aircraft with a runway capable of taking Boeing 747s and Airbus A380s. Its refurbished terminal is capable of handling up to 700,000 passengers a year.


Thanet Council says "no" to night flights

Thanet Gazette 25th May 2012

MANSTON airport's plans to run as many as eight flights a night failed to get the support of Thanet District Council last night after a final crunch vote. Opinions divided along party lines at the extraordinary council meeting as the Labour administration motioned a rejection of the airport's proposals.

Council leader Clive Hart said the council's consultation response was based on the results of an independent review of the airport's proposals and the council's own consultation with residents. Conservatives argued that a vote against night flights was a vote against jobs for the area. Conservative group leader Bob Bayford said that a ban on all aircraft movements between 11pm and 7am was a "straight jacket" for the airport:

"At best it will delay the development of the airport, a worst it will kill the airport."

Mr Bayford added that it was "dangerous" for the council to base its response on a "seriously flawed" in-house consultation in which 73 percent of respondents opposed night time flying. Laughter came from the packed public gallery when Mr Bayford pointed out the Manston Airport's own consultation of residents showed 79 per cent being in support of night flights.

Mr Hart defended the in-house consultation saying it had the greatest response of any to date:

"The results have been extremely conclusive and it wasn't at all close."

The response stated the council's support of the day-time operation of Manston airport but said the council would not support night-time flying on the basis of its own consultation and the council-commissioned Parsons-Brinckerhoff report. Listing the objections, the report said the noise and environmental impacts had been underestimated by airport, the economic benefits of night flights were overestimated and that the impact on Thanet's tourism would be detrimental.

It also pointed to concerns raised in the World Health Organisation's assessment of the impacts of disturbed sleep and added that the night flight proposals had not considered Article 8 of the Human rights Act- the right to respect for private and family life.

The motion to adopt the response was won after Labour got the support of the council's two independent groups. The Conservatives voted unanimously not to support the response but were out-numbered. Phil Rose of the No Night Flights campaign and Charles Buchanan, chief executive of Manston Airport, watched the meeting from the public gallery. Mr Rose said:

"It is a good result and I am very, very pleased that the council came out following the recommendations of the independent reports. They have listened to the views of the people."

Mr Buchanan said the airport will take the vote into consideration and formulate its response:

"All we have ever asked for a limited number of night flights with mitigation measures. The result is disappointing but entirely predictable."

The council's response will not be binding as the council is only a consultee in Manston's own consultation of its night-time flying policy. A separate residents' petition against night flights, presented to the council last week, was also noted. It had collected 2682 signatures but only 777 were valid as the others did not include an address.


Manston chiefs attack council over night flight decision

kentnews May 25, 2012

Manston Airport chiefs say they are “very disappointed” after Thanet District Council last night voted to oppose night flights from the Thanet airfield. As part of the consultation process, the council saw a heated debate over its position. The Conservatives on the council were open to the suggestion, while the ruling Labour group were opposed.

Speaking this morning, chief executive of Manston, Charles Buchanan, said:

We are clearly very disappointed by this stance as it is completely inconsistent with the council’s stated policy to support the airport’s success as a creator of thousands of much needed jobs. The position the council adopted last night is also in sharp contrast to its leader Clive Hart’s stated assertion of ‘the council’s recognition of Manston Airport as an economic asset to Thanet’.

The council’s response contradicts the conclusions of the report from its own consultant Parson Brinckerhoff, which identifies that a ban on night time flying, in relation to passenger services, would: ‘almost certainly prohibit a large number of potential carriers’. Its consultant also recognises that with respect to freight operations, the absence of night flights ‘would undoubtedly hinder the ability of Manston to attract either regular flights or a based operator’.

It is this ability to attract passenger and freight services that will fundamentally determine whether the airport is an economic asset for Thanet, as well as providing the travel advantages for local people using their local airport. Importantly, the council which has sought to question Manston’s own economic impact report, has once again contradicted the conclusions of its consultants own report into the impact of the airport, which stated that: ‘…we are satisfied with the approach and values used for the economic assessment’.

Given that Parson Brinckerhoff acknowledges that they themselves only have ‘some relatively minor queries’, we are very surprised that the council has adopted such a negative approach towards the airport and its economic impact assessment. We will now obviously consider the council’s response before providing them, as a consultee on night-flights, with a reasoned reply in due course.


Manston night flights formally opposed by Thanet District Council

kentonline May 25 2012

Plans for night flights at Manston airport have suffered a big setback after councillors voted against the idea. Cabinet members of Thanet District Council had already said they would not support the bid by Kent International Airport. However, a full council meeting last night formally opposed the idea of night flights.

Manston wants some planes taking off and landing between 11pm and 7am. Scheduled night flights were suggested at the airport to help increase air capacity. But councillors decided the proposed scheduled flights would be too noisy and have too great an environmental impact. A consultation found three quarters of people living nearby also did not want night flights.

Charles Buchanan, chief executive of Manston Airport, said:

We are clearly very disappointed by this stance as it is completely inconsistent with the council’s stated policy to support the airport’s success as a creator of thousands of much needed jobs. The position the council adopted last night is also in sharp contrast to its leader Clive Hart’s stated assertion of ‘the council’s recognition of Manston Airport as an economic asset to Thanet’. Ironically at a time when the government is recognising the role that Manston could play a part in supporting the south east, by making use of existing under-utilised runway capacity, Thanet is apparently rejecting the opportunity to build its economy and create thousands of jobs.

The immediate conclusion is that despite the council’s stated support for the airport, the leadership has refused to recognise the operational flexibility that its own expert identifies as being necessary for that success. One can only guess why they have chosen such a course and put at risk one of the engines for the long term prosperity of Thanet. We will now obviously consider the council’s response before providing them, as a consultee on night-flights, with a reasoned reply in due course.



No Night Flights home page

Thanet rejects Manston night flights

HBM

More than 2,000 residents air their views

More than 2,000 residents took the time to air their views as part of the council’s public consultation on proposals for regular night-time flying at Manston Airport. The majority were opposed to the implementation of regular night-time flying, with approximately 73% opposed, 26% in favour and 1% not clearly stating a position.

The main reasons given by those who were opposed were:

  • the likely disturbance to sleep
  • the effect on health and quality of life
  • unacceptable noise levels
  • the likely detrimental impact on the local economy
  • overstating the potential economic benefits.

Those in favour stated the reasons for their support as including:

  • jobs/employment opportunities
  • regeneration of Thanet
  • their desire for the airport to develop
  • night flights needed to ensure the future viability of the airport
  • Airport has been there for many years

The responses were also analysed by area to ensure that the council gathers the views of those who live under the identified flight path, those who live within Thanet and those from outside of Thanet.  The results were approximately as follows:



Leader of Thanet District Council, Cllr. Clive Hart, said:

“Firstly I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to take part in this consultation.  We know that it’s such an important issue for local people and that’s clearly reflected in the high level of response. The feedback from this consultation will now be considered by Councillors, alongside the findings of the Independent Assessment completed by Parsons Brinckerhoff and the proposed policy itself, to agree the council’s consultation response to Infratil.

I am sure every Councillor will be carefully analysing these results to see what residents have said, before we finalise our response.”

A report is due to be considered by members of the Airport Working Party on Wednesday 4th April. The report then goes to Scrutiny on Tuesday 24th April, Cabinet on Thursday 10th May and will then be considered at an Extraordinary meeting of Full Council on Thursday 24th May.


No Night Flights home page

CPRE response to the public consultation

HBM

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



No Night Flights home page

You say (35)

HBM

#Manston #nightflights


I would like to say at the very outset that I am AGAINST night flights in any shape or form, that is flights that arrive or take off between the hours of 11.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. from Manston.

Apart from the fact that everyone needs a good night’s sleep in order to function properly the next day, it is my basic human right as defined by the European Court of Human Rights.

I feel that no airport anywhere should be even allowed to contemplate night flying unless all daytime capacity has been fully exhausted. My understanding is that even London Heathrow is only allowed a minimum of night flights per annum and as we all know, this is one of the busiest airports in the world. Noise quotas should have no bearing on night flights. The simple fact of the matter is that if it wakes me up its too loud!

Manston airport operates at gross daytime under-capacity. I work from home in Acol and I hear the number of flights that take off from there on a daily basis, whether they take off towards the east over Ramsgate or the west over the villages and Herne Bay. These can be counted on the fingers on one hand! You will note that I say over the villages, as although looking at the recommended flight path on various maps of the area Acol is not shown as being on the flight path, in reality this is not the case. They actually fly right over Acol for the most part and I have complained to Manston on many occasions to no avail. This is bad enough during the day or evening, but during the night, to be woken suddenly with such a horrendous roar overhead, the house often vibrating from the turbulence a 747 causes, is quite frightening. When taking off towards the east, the bedroom is filled with aviation fumes and that is in the winter time with the windows closed. I can’t imagine what this would be like in the summer when the windows are open. It’s actually possible to smell the increase in air temperature with the fumes this presents and I cannot believe that over the long term this is going to be detrimental to not just my health but everyone who is directly affected by these night flights in Ramsgate at one end and Acol, Manston, Beltinge and Herne Bay at the other end.

As far as employment is concerned, I know from living in the Isle of Thanet all my life, that employment prospects have never been great. Companies who want to either migrate here or expand existing facilities and operations also know this! That is when, if all else fails, companies play the ‘jobs card’. Thanet District Council should not fall for this one, for history shows that for the most part few jobs are seldom created, particularly for local people. It’s all part of a big ploy of trying to hold Thanet District Council to ransom if you like. If the night flights plan is given permission, then I suspect very few jobs will be created in proportion to the number of flights. It has already been documented that Manston’s existing staff are underutilised and projections of increased staff requirements are largely bogus and exaggerated. Manston will just have to think about a Plan B.

My fear about all this is if and once Manston is given the go ahead for this crazy plan, it is going to be very hard to revert. Once the genie is out of the bottle it’s very difficult to get it back in again!


Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights


To whom it may concern.

I am writing to AGAINST to the proposal for scheduled night flights at Manston Airport.

I am AGAINST the proposal on the following grounds:

1. Night flights will cause disturbed sleep. This has serious impacts on health and well being. This is especially serious within vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly. These groups do not have the choice to simply move somewhere else out of the flight path. The effects on health are clearly documented in the WHO report: Night Noise Guidance for Europe published 2009. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf  

2. The likely adverse effects on the environment have been insufficiently addressed.

3. There has been insufficient analysis on the effect of the existing and future Thanet Tourism industry.

4. Most night flights will be cargo flights, which are larger, dirtier, noisier aircraft. This also places extra strain on the road infrastructure, without bringing great economic benefits to the people of Thanet. Any additional jobs created at the airport must be offset against the damage to existing independent businesses throughout the area. I don't believe the matter of job losses within Thanet has been taken into account or addressed.  

5. Most of the money generated will go to shareholders who don't live in the area. The New Economics Foundation refer to this drain out of an area to distant shareholders as the leaky bucket syndrome. Money invested in small businesses stays in the area where the small business exists. Hotels and guest houses under the flight path will struggle to achieve the aim of a regenerated Thanet. http://www.neweconomics.org/projects/plugging-leaks Thanet District Council needs to support existing local communities, ensuring the investment stays within Thanet for the benefit of our struggling communities and to plan for a sustainable growth. People are not going to be attracted to live under the flight path of night time cargo flights.

6. The proposed flights are for freight. I do not believe that damage to our existing industry has been taken into account. As a coastal district, one of our main industries is the visitor economy. How will increased night flights of freight bring a positive impact on the growth of our visitor economy?

7. I believe the number of jobs created is tiny compared to the amount of jobs that will be created in Thanet through a thriving, sustainable visitor economy. The wages earned at Manston are low. The small number of low wage jobs are simply not worth it when offset against the damage that these scheduled night flights will bring.

8. I own a five star gold bed and breakfast guest accommodation in Margate. In two and a half years of trading, all of my foreign guests have come via train or ferry. I estimate that our business would be devastated if we were suddenly under the flight path with night flights. My guests find it most convenient to arrive by ferry from mainland Europe. There is simply no need or benefit to Thanet to allowing our green isle to be devastated by an unsustainable and unenvironmental policy such as scheduled night flights.


Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights



No Night Flights home page

You say (34)

HBM

#Manston #nightflights


EAST KENT FRIENDS OF THE EARTH GROUP

Our Group is opposed to any night flights at Manston up to 4 flights per nights would only increase the adverse noise impact for local residents and people as far away as Herne Bay and Sandwich.

Kent International Airport has underestimated the potential noise impact as the consultant’s report clearly points out local residents are experiencing considerable noise now with day time flights they shouldn’t be expected to tolerate it at night also.

The Airport Master Plan claims that Manston could handle 2.29m passengers and 167.500 tonnes of freight by 2018 whilst creating up to 2000 new jobs. This figure is grossly over optimistic for such a short timescale we understand that Thanet has long-term economic difficulties and high unemployment but expanding flights at Manston is not a long term answer to these serious problems. Firstly how are Thanet and East Kent roads expected to cope with all the extra car journeys and lorry movements expansion at Manston would generate.

Also how can increasing flights be compatible with The Climate Change Act, The UK will have little chance of cutting C02 emissions be 80% by 2050 if Airport are allowed to keep increasing flights. Britain needs to reduce air travel especially internal flights. France has shown that expanding high speed rail is the way forward many more people there are choosing rail than internal flights. Our Group does support linking Manston to the rail network and a new Manston Parkway Station which would be served by South Eastern High Speed Services. We support any measures to improve public transport and cycling routes between Manston and the rest of Thanet and East Kent.

We hope Thanet District Council will consider the long term adverse environmental effects of allowing night flights and further expansion at Manston and will reject Kent International Airports plans.


Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights


Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to register my objection to the proposed scheduled night flights proposal submitted by Infratil to Thanet District Council.

I am against this proposal for a number of reasons, which I would like to outline below.

Jobs

Infratil claims that the night flight proposal they are putting forward will create thousands of jobs for the local community, indeed they are claiming that scheduled night flights are essential to meeting the massive expansion they are predicting in their Master Plan. It is worth noting that the original Master plan published in November 2009 had predicted that Manston would by 2011 be handling some 1 million passengers and 100,000 tonnes of cargo and deliver some 1,000 employees to the local community. The reality is a somewhat less impressive 25,000 passengers and 30,000 tonnes of cargo and 110 airport employees. These growth predictions were made in the full knowledge that no scheduled night flights were allowed under the section 106 agreement so the complete failure to reach anywhere near these predictions cannot be blamed on the lack of scheduled night flights.

Infratil has failed to address the real reasons behind this failure and instead seem to be looking to blame it on and use it to justify their submission for scheduled night flights. Indeed Infratil has only slightly revised its original Master Plan growth predictions for 2018 to 500,000 tonnes of cargo and 2,286,000 passengers and some 3,500 jobs created, a claim which TDC's own independent review carried out by Parson Brinckerhoff states "In our opinion it is highly likely that the 2018 planning assumption used is significantly overstated". Furthermore they concluded that "MIA would only be excluded from 9% of the scheduled freight market if the night flying ban were to remain". It is hard therefore to concluded that the failure to date or the future success of the airport is related to scheduled night flights.

These inflated freight and passenger numbers are used as the basis of the thousands of jobs to be created claim but even here the figures do not add up. Infratil use a simplistic assumption of 1,000 jobs per 1 million passengers, a figure which goes against all other airport operators real life experiences and contradicts their recent admittance that if they doubled the amount of freight they handle, and increased the passengers from 30,000 a year to 750,000 a year, they would create just 23 new jobs. Whilst any jobs created are to be welcomed we must be told the true number of jobs an expansion of KIA would bring before we can asses them against the impact the expansion would have on the local community.

I am also concerned that nowhere in Infratil's proposal or indeed in TDC's own independent review are job losses caused by scheduled night flights evaluated. Many local people are employed in areas on which the impact of night flights is at best uncertain and at worse potentially devastating. Many businesses are reliant on tourism which could suffer greatly if scheduled night flights are allowed. Additionally, new people have been attracted to the area by its many unique attractions, the beautiful beaches, the faster rail link to London, the areas stock of fine period houses. These people have brought with them a boom in the refurbishment of property which has supported employment in local trades and lead directly to a regeneration of our town centres services such as restaurants, bars, museums.

This influx of investment is under threat of not only been strangled off but indeed reversed. Families will not be willing to subject themselves to the consistent noise scheduled night flights will bring and we risk losing not only the jobs their investment in the area supports but their jobs when they move away.

Our Children

The proposals as submitted by Infratil take no account on the impact that scheduled night flights will have on the quality of life of our most vulnerable and valued citizens, our children. The proposal by Infratil only seems concerned with the number and noise level of aircraft movements between the hours of 23:30 and 06:30. Quite apart from the fact that Infratil wish to redefine the definition of night time to exclude the periods 23:00 - 23:30 and 06:30 - 07:00 it wishes to have no limits on either the number or noise levels of flights within these well recognised 'shoulder periods' or during the hours when our children are actually trying to sleep.

Indeed the 1.8 flights a night average which Infratil often quotes is far from the reality we or our children would experience. Infratil's own estimates put an additional 6 aircraft movements of unlimited noise levels in the redefined night periods of 23:00 - 23:30 and 06:30 - 07:00 bringing the number of flights from 1.8 to 8 a night although in practice they would be unlimited in number. The situation grows only more disturbing when aircraft movements within the 07:00 - 23:00 period are included, although difficult to define numbers exactly as the proposal is for unlimited flights and noise during this period an estimate of only 2 - 3 aircraft movements an hour would lead to an additional 12 flights of unlimited noise levels, a total of approximately 20 flights a night our children must suffer through, a far cry from Infratil's headline 1.8.

The impact of this level of disturbance on our children's sleep cannot be overstated, it would be devastating. TDC's independent review carried out by Parson Brinckerhoff concludes that "In relation to the proposed QC quota, the exclusion of the shoulder hours from the night time period is out of step with other airports" and that "the analysis of the noise impacts have, in our opinion, resulted in an underestimation of the potential adverse impacts on residents in the area". The WHO has warned against the adverse health effects of exposure to noise levels greater than 40db and measured the damage to the cognitive development of children, specifically reading comprehension.

Our Homes

Living under a flight path not only damages your health it destroys the value of your main asset, your home. Many people have worked hard for decades to afford a home and in a single moment will see a sizeable reduction in its value. Estimates do vary but homes under flight paths have well documented reductions in their values and with every 10% reduction in value individual losses would measure in the tens of thousands of pounds, extrapolated over the thousands of homes affected this would add up to tens of millions of value destroyed.

This is a conservative estimate, a more realistic 25% loss on 5,000 £165,000 affected homes would wipe in excess of 200 million pounds off the value of residents homes. This devaluation would instantly see many people in negative equity with terrible consequences for inward investment and a potential downwards spiral for affected areas. There has been no attempt by Infratil in its proposal to calculate or inform local residents of these potential personal losses.

We are asked by Infratil to believe that scheduled night flights will lead to an expansion of KIA which will bring both jobs and prosperity for the people of Thanet with minimal negative impact on our quality of life. The thousands of jobs they promise are based on over optimistic growth predictions for cargo and passengers and exaggerated numbers of jobs created on the back of these which any assessment of the figures will show. Increased cargo flights if they can ever be delivered will bring at best a small number of low paid jobs and the dream of based passenger carriers is doubtful due to the geographical constraints identified in the TDC's independent report. Scheduled night flights will not bring the prosperity promised, indeed these night flights may very well cause net job losses, will damage the health of residents, affect our children's academic potential and destroy the value of the homes we have worked so hard to afford.

It is for these reasons that I am opposed to the granting of scheduled night flights at KIA and demand that if the consultation returns a no majority that TDC not only refuse Infratil's proposal but any attempt by Infratil to proceed with scheduled night flights against the residents of Thanet’s wishes be challenged by any and all means.


Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights



No Night Flights home page

You say (33)

HBM

#Manston #nightflights


I would like to say I am AGAINST night flights during the hours proposed between 11pm and 7am over Thanet.

We have a successful hotel with a strong customer base. Guests come for the peace and quiet of the seaside, an important part of a good vacation, includes being able NOT to be disturbed during these hours.


Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights


I wish to declare that I am totally AGAINST any night flights between 11.00 pm and 7.00 am at Manston airport.

NOISE:

The noise projected from these over-sized planes is horrendous and is completely underestimated by the airport authorities and their advisers. QC 2 is VERY LOUD and will always wake everyone up, whilst QC 4 is UNBEARABLE and is not allowed at other airports during the night.

This country benefits from noise abatement between 11.00 pm and 7.00 am. Loud parties, music, car horns, sirens, shouting or drunken behaviour are not allowed by law. Why should air flights be the exception?

SAFETY:

I believe the planes fly too low over the houses at all times. New flight paths should be developed before there is a major accident. Remember the Concorde in Paris and many other crashes onto houses around the world.

HEALTH:

It has been proved that the disturbance of sleep by noise is detrimental to the health of both humans and other animals.

POLLUTION:

There was a time when doctors sent sick people from London and elsewhere to Ramsgate where the air and sea were considered to improve their convalescence. Now it appears the councillors wish to bring to Ramsgate people from around the world to pollute the atmosphere to the best of their abilities. Our plants are covered with aviation fuel and the water in our bird baths turns red.

JOBS etc:

Manston will never provide the jobs or numbers of passengers as described in their documents.

FORGOTTEN TOWN:

I implore the councils and the government not to turn Ramsgate into a forgotten, worthless town where good quality of life, sleep and environment are of no concern to them. Ramsgate has a history of holiday making and healthy living with a splendid Royal Harbour, beaches and architecture, which should be promoted instead of the airport.

COUNCIL ACTION:

I am appalled that our elected councillors have thrown in the towel and admitted that there is nothing they can do to rectify the mistake of the 106 agreement that clearly allows unlimited night flights.


Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights


I wish to state that I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED to night flights in and out of Manston between 11:00pm and 7:00am.

The noise from night-time flights would undoubtedly be very disturbing and many of the population of Thanet will be badly affected. Sleep deprivation is widely accepted as a major factor in health problems such as, depression, aggressive behaviour, hypertension and attention deficit in people of all ages, which in turn may have serious consequences.

I and my family lived in Stevenage for 10 years from 1972 and have firsthand experience of the detrimental effects of disrupted sleep patterns. Our home was 3 miles off the flight path into Luton airport. Most of the air traffic at that time was extremely noisy holiday charter flights. From around 1978 the number of flights increased rapidly. Frequently, many holiday flights in and out of Luton were delayed resulting in landings through-out the night. Nights with little or no sleep for the entire family were quite common. We became so fed up with it, I quit my job as a software engineer with ICL, sold our house for much less than it would have been valued elsewhere and moved out. Many of my work colleagues did the same. We have never been back.

In recent years the commercial aircraft fleets are getting noisier as larger types come into service. There is little prospect of aircraft getting quieter, in part because even larger aircraft are in the pipeline and because engine technology has pretty well ceased to progress. The aviation industry always claims quieter engines while forgetting that half of the movements are arrivals where airframe noise is crucial and nothing has changed significantly for tens of years

In my opinion the introduction of night flights at Manston would have a negative effect on the regeneration of Ramsgate and other parts of Thanet . I am not convinced by the exaggerated claims by Infratil of the economic benefits and job creation in the region. Independent economic experts are of the same opinion.

With increasing competition between airlines the trend is to adopt the low cost model resulting in a FALL in airport employment. What is not so generally realised is that there is a parallel move to ‘low cost airports’ with tickets bought on the internet; check-in done electronically, and baggage handling increasingly automated, so that the same number of airport staff can handle far more passengers. Heathrow Terminal 5 was designed as a self-service terminal - with as many as nine out of ten passengers having no need to contact members of staff until they reach boarding gates. The future may see a move to an even more simplified type of airport. Baggage will be checked-in at the car park, passengers will go straight to the gate room with the security checks carried out just before boarding. That is the Ryanair and “Sqeezy-Jet” model.

Like ‘sex’, the word ‘jobs’ makes an excellent media headline: short, sharp and emotive. With the current recession, when thousands are losing their jobs and millions fear that they may do so, any promise of more jobs is bound to be enthusiastically received. Thus the suggestion by Infratil that an expanded airport will create more jobs is a sure way to attract support from the public and a fair wind from the politicians and planners. Yet because they have a commercial interest in magnifying the number of new jobs, their figures need careful examination. False hopes can prove a cruel hoax.


Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights



No Night Flights home page

Today's the day!

HBM

It's the last day of the consultation on night flights, so if you haven't had your say yet - HURRY UP!

Click HERE to find out how it works, and how you can have your say.

Click HERE to see what others have already said.

Here's a snippet from the Isle of Thanet Gazette, followed by a short video from the talented Andrew Woodman...


The No Night Flights group has taken its campaign against Manston airport's proposals to the streets of Ramsgate. Ahead of Friday's deadline for comments on plans for regular flights between 11pm and 7am, protesters hired a double-decker bus.

On Saturday, they toured Ramsgate, which lies under the flight path, to highlight the last week of the consultation. Susan Kennedy from the group said:

"The message is for people to wake up to the fact that there is a consultation on and that, if people care about this issue, they need to get their response to the council. If we don't act now the town will be killed off by night flights."

Campaigners followed the bus, collecting signatures and responses from the public while handing out earplugs. Campaigner Steve Higgins said:

"This is the last week of consultation and those people who haven't sent a reply need to make sure they do."

Fran tells it like it is


No Night Flights home page

You say... what you think

HBM

As you probably know by now, Thanet District Council have launched their public consultation (or mini-consultation, perhaps). It ends on Friday March 2nd, so if you haven't already told them what you think about Manston's night flights proposal, it's time to get typing or scribbling.

Do bear in mind that, regardless of what you may read in the press, this proposal isn't asking for 2 flights a night, or 8 flights a night... it's asking for unlimited night flights.

We've put together a handy little guide to the consultation which you can find HERE, and you can see all the background documents HERE.

Hundreds of people have already sent their contributions to the consultation, and some of them have been kind enough to send us copies to share with you on this site. You'll find a string of posts called "You say..." which each contain three or four contributions. Do dip in and have a read - they're all good, and some are great.


No Night Flights home page


All original material copyright © 2010-2014 HerneBayMatters.com All rights reserved. All external links disclaimed.