Iris Johnston hasn't heard from you, doesn't think you exist...

Dear All,

As you may be aware, there has been a vigorous campaign by the Save Manston group to buy the Manston Site. Not with their own money, obviously.

Many of us believe that plans for a compulsory purchase order (CPO) of the site will be costly in the short term - £80K already just to explore the legality of a CPO, and the cost of a viability study into the airport. Worse still, the whole process would be long and complex, and in the long-term could prove costlier and more dangerous.

Things are moving rapidly and with the American company River Oak throwing their hat into the ring as a prospective partner (in a back to back CPO agreement), it is looking like there will be a great deal of pressure put on councillors to go for some kind of initial deal with them. This could mean that River Oak, already offering their lawyers in lieu of the council seeking legal advice (dodgy?), could involve themselves in the proceedings. Potentially, we could see TDC simply rubber-stamping plans decided by others. At the very least, we need to act in order to slow down proceedings and ensure that it is our elected representatives who are making these decisions, and on the basis of independent and expert advice.

TDC are going to be making decisions - on 31st July - based on a viability study which firmly rejects the potential for Manston to be viable as a passenger operation and which opts instead for a cargo hub and 'airport city' model. This would inevitably bring back the whole issue of night flights and a huge amount of pressure will be brought to bear on councillors to offer open-ended guarantees about flying through the night. This is why the No Night Flights group still has an active interest in the Manston Site.

The viability study, of course, is more in the vein of 'what can we do, at any cost, to keep Manston open as an airport' rather than 'is it worth keeping it open'. Councillors again need to be supported in ensuring that discussions in TDC recognise the difference.

What's on the cards is 'an airport city' with associated factories, plants, parking etc in the heart of Thanet with old, noisy cargo planes overhead at all hours of the day and night. To date, the Labour Group have reiterated their anti-night flights stance but Sir Roger Gale, the local Conservative group, River Oak and, of course, the Save Manston Airport group are putting on huge amount of pressure to get them to back down from this and support ANY save Manston plans at whatever cost.

Cllr Iris Johnston believes that there are only a couple of dozen people that are against the plans for a CPO and/or saving Manston at any cost. We need to set the record straight on that score. This is the time to make your voices heard. Again.

1. Write to ALL Ramsgate councillors expressing your concerns and to Iris Johnston, as Leader of the Council, and to Madeline Homer, acting CEO.

2. Turn up to either/both important meetings this week:

• Ramsgate Town Council at the Custom House on Wednesday 30th July at 7pm; and
• Thanet District Council in Cecil Square on Thursday 31st July at 7pm.

Please speak to your friends and neighbours and get them to help.

It's time to be generous with your common sense!

madeline.homer@thanet.gov.uk - Madeline Homer (acting CEO of Thanet District Council)

cllr-iris.johnston@thanet.gov.uk - Cllr Iris Johnston (Leader of Thanet District Council, Labour)

democracy.thanet.gov.uk/mgCommitteeMailingList.aspx?ID=151 - the rest of the TDC Cabinet

www.WriteToThem.com - All your elected representatives, from here to Brussels.

No Night Flights Committee

Low flying

KCC's contribution, for what it's worth

Boldly Stepping...

KCC are happily throttling themselves with management speak and business jargon, which is why some of their worst ideas are dressed up as "Bold Steps". The latest in the series is "Bold Steps for Aviation" which is described as

"a discussion paper which suggests how the UK's aviation capacity needs could be met without the need to develop a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary.  It is intended to contribute to the national debate and is published in response to the recent proposals from Lord Foster and the Mayor of London."

Like it or not, KCC's voice will carry some weight in the interminable debate about future flight capacity in the south-east, and this document is what they're thinking of saying on our behalf. If you would like to make any comments on the document (which you can download HERE), please email them to aviation@kent.gov.uk.

Here's an excerpt that gives KCC's (i.e. Paul Carter's) take on the future role of Manston [with comments]:

4.2.1 Increased use of Manston Airport

In Kent, Manston Airport has the potential to make a significant contribution, providing excellent connections to Europe destinations and reduced flight times. Manston has one of the longest runways in Europe (at 2,752 metres) and is therefore able to cater for all modern jet aircraft. The airport operates in Class G airspace, outside of the London Control Zone, and has sufficient capacity for the 4.7 mppa and 400,000 tonnes of freight anticipated by the Airport Master Plan by 2033 (Manston Airport Master Plan, 2009). Its local environmental impacts are greatly reduced by its location on the Thanet Peninsula, with much of its uncrowded flight path located over water to the east of Ramsgate. There is a fully-equipped passenger terminal facility with a capacity of around 1 mppa subject to the aircraft used and scheduling arrangements.

[Manston has the 14th longest runway in the UK. Modern jet aircraft don't need runways this long - efficient design means they can take of and land on shorter runways. The massive old freighters like the Antonovs do need long runways. The 2009 Master Plan also forecast 206,000 passengers a year by 2012 - it's less than 30,000. So how do the planes get from the runway to the "uncrowded flight path" east of Ramsgate? By flying straight over Ramsgate of course.]

Manston enjoys good strategic road links to London and the wider South East via the A299 dual carriageway, which joins the M2 motorway approximately 19 miles west of the airport. There are also three primary rail routes to Ramsgate, located 3 miles east of Manston, which serve the London termini of St Pancras International via domestic high speed services on High Speed One (HS1), Charing Cross and Victoria, therefore offering a total of five trains per hour during off-peak periods.

However these connections will need to be improved if Manston is to truly succeed as a regional airport. Research commissioned by KCC (through an EU funded project seeking to improve sustainable surface access to regional airports) reveals evidence that with a fixed rail link passenger numbers increase as it enables a wider catchment of people to use the airport. Newcastle Airport’s passenger numbers increased by 27% after the first full operational year of the Metro link to the airport and passenger numbers have continued to grow year on year. A station near to Manston Airport served by high speed rail services to London will increase the attractiveness of the airport to airlines and passengers.

[The potential passengers who live in and around London will STILL have excellent transport links to other airports, even if a Manston Parkway station is built.]

Line speed enhancements have been secured through a successful Regional Growth Fund bid and should be operational by 2015; and work is underway to take forward the provision of the proposed Thanet Parkway rail station, which subject to funding could also be operational by the end of 2015. KCC is also pushing for improved rail connection (using existing lines) between Ashford and Gatwick, which would link Manston to both Gatwick and Heathrow.

[The line speed enhancements save a couple of minutes. This time saving will be lost if trains stop at a Parkway station.]

Manston would strongly complement Heathrow and Gatwick as they increasingly focus on accommodating long-haul flights at the expense of domestic and near-European services. Development of Manston as a regional airport would create employment opportunities in one of England’s most disadvantaged areas; the airport’s Master Plan forecast for 2033 would see up to 6,000 additional direct and indirect jobs within the area, development for which is generally supported by the local community.

[Paul Carter is still obediently trotting out Manston's pie-in-the-sky job forecasts, despite them being rubbished by TDC's two independent consultant's reports.]

Night Flights vote - press coverage

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.

---

Night Flights vote

TDC listened, and said "No" - will Mr Buchanan get the message?

On the face of it, it looks like a straightforward example of democracy at its best.

If only.

A local council is faced with a difficult decision that involves complex technical issues. Quite correctly it takes advice from technical experts - in this case, two separate firms of experts.

The first firm of experts (Bureau Veritas) said that the costs outweighed the benefits. So that's a "No".

The second firm of experts (Parsons Brinkerhoff) said that the costs had been understated and that the benefits had been overstated. So that's very "No".

The local council then asks the local people who will be affected by the outcome of their decision what they think. Three-quarters of them say "No".

So the local council says "No".

As I said, on the face of it, that's fine. However, there were a few patches of turbulence en route to this fairytale ending.

First of all, the leader of the Blue Squadron, Cllr Bayford, moved an amendment to the motion which was more of a reverse thrust than a touch on the rudder. Red Squadron Leader Hart wanted to vote on:

The Council confirms that Thanet District Council fully supports the day time operation of the airport but further recommend that as a consultee the Council cannot support the introduction of scheduled night time flying operations between 2300 hours and 0700 hours.

Whereas Blue Squadron wanted to vote on:

The Council confirms that Thanet District Council fully supports the airport and recognises that it needs some flexibility in its night time flying policy in order to realise its full potential and deliver the jobs that Thanet so desperately needs.

Can you spot the difference? Cllr David Green thoughtful this amendment so completely changed the meaning of the motion that it should be disallowed. Legal eagle Harvey Patterson disagreed – I do wonder about legal minds sometimes. We then had an hour and a half of debate and discussion, of very mixed quality.

Red Squadron Leader Hart surprised everyone in the room by revealing Charles Buchanan is "a lovely man". However, this was not going to stop him refusing the request for scheduled night flights.

Blue Squadron Leader Bayford criticised the council's public consultation exercise, but was happy to treat the airport's own (unaudited, unverified) consultation as being valid.

Cllr Wise showed his mastery of understatement when he said that Manston "needs more time". The airport's future depended on attracting night freight he said. He was "astounded and staggered" that anyone would want to deny the area the benefits of night flights between 11pm and 7am, particularly "for the sake of a few votes in Ramsgate".

Cllr Harrison pointed out that the economic downturn that had caused the unemployment that so concerned Cllr Wise would also mean that there would be less demand to use the airport, day or night, passenger or freight.

Cllr Fenner was the first of many to point out the disastrous effect night flights would have on the growing tourism industry in Thanet and Ramsgate. (This is a rock-solid argument that should be presented louder, clearer and more often. East Kent tourism already employs tens of thousands of people, and is growing. It's a diverse sector with a multitude of employers, making it more resilient than a Pfizer-style arrangement where there are so many eggs in a single basket.) She pointed out that a green light for night flights would simply increase the sale price, benefiting only Infratil.

Cllr Ezekiel tried to score points by pinning the blame for the S106 on the Red Squadron, but this backfired when it was pointed out that the Blue Squadron had failed to do anything about the S106 year in, year out. Things went from bad to worse when he managed to corner himself into having to withdraw sweeping statements about Red Squadron's voting record. A bit of a tizzy ensued, when he called the long-suffering general public in the cheap seats "a rabble", and accused us of intimidating him with "hissing and sissing". I was there - nobody hissed. I'm not even sure what "sissing" is, but I expect I would have noticed it. Anyway, Cllr Ezekiel easily won the evening's prize for over-sensitive petulance, but I understand he has a lot on his mind at the moment so perhaps we should cut him some slack.

Cllr Liz Green pointed out that many of the proposed night flights of freight would be coming from third world countries that themselves had the sense to ban night flights.

Cllr Scobie drew our attention to the rather puzzling fact that the Blue Squadron's amendment had been tabled by the very same people who had voted for the motion in earlier committees... so why were they now wanting to vote against it?

[I'll add some more details here later, if I can face the trauma of re-living the dreary horror of it. There were some refeshingly good performances from the Independents, and a quite brilliant shooting-self-in-foot from Cllr Gideon.]

Anyway, the Amendment was voted on, and was voted down. All the Conservatives, plus Cllr Ezekiel, were for; all the rest were against.

The main vote was split into three, and the pattern of voting was identical in each case. Blue vote was the Conservatives plus Cllr Ezekiel, the Red vote was Labour plus all the Independents except Cllr Ezekiel.

1. not supporting night flights between 2300 and 0700: Red all for, Blue all abstained.
2. agree the draft response as the Council's official position: Red all for, Blue all against.
3. authorise Madeline Homer to write to Manston confirming the above: Red all for, Blue all abstained.

The Conservative party had long ago said that it would be a free vote. It is simply coincidence that they all voted exactly the same way, four times in one evening.

---

See the Press coverage.

See the political posturing.

Click to contact ​Cllr Wise

“Cllr Wise showed his mastery of understatement when he said that Manston “needs more time”. The airport’s future depended on attracting night freight he said. He was “astounded and staggered” that anyone would want to deny the area the benefits of night flights between 11pm and 7am, particularly “for the sake of a few votes in Ramsgate”.”

Manston Pickle

The already deprived residents of one of the poorest local authorities in England may soon be deprived of sleep, too — thanks to the ineptitude of Thanet council.

Thanet's Manston airport, owned by Kiwi conglomerate lnfratil, wants to operate flights throughout the night — mostly old, noisy freight 747s. The airport's boss, Charles "Manston" Buchanan, says this will somehow help create more than 3,000 jobs, as well as, one presumes, raging insomnia for the thousands of council taxpayers who live under the flight path.

An independent study commissioned by Thanet's previous Tory administration pooh-poohed Manston's pie-in-the-sky job creation numbers, reporting that the figure was likely to be "significantly overstated". Back in December the Tories lost control to Labour, who have subsequently dropped detailed legal investigation in favour of the much cheaper fudge of a public "consultation".

As part of this brave new rubber-stamping approach, the council's website even published a link to the airport's own version of the night flight consultation, where Manston says "your comments may also be forwarded to Thanet district council". "May"?

Other councils take note: unpopular scheme in the pipeline? Why not put the consultation in the hands of the applicants? Two birds with one stone. Brilliant!

Private Eye 9th Mar 2012

---

Treat yourself to more good stuff like this - subscribe to Private Eye.

Aviation links

2M Group

The 2M Group is an all-party alliance of local authorities concerned about the environmental impact of Heathrow operations on their communities.

Airport Watch

We are an umbrella movement uniting the national environmental organisations, airport community groups, and individuals opposed to unsustainable aviation expansion, and its damaging environmental effects, including climate change.

BAA (British Airports Authority)

BAA's work touches on almost every area of airport life – from day-to-day security and retail to strategy and investment in some of the UK's busiest airports. Here you can find out more about us and our responsibilities, history, management and values.

CAA (Civil Aviation Authority)

The Civil Aviation Authority is the UK's specialist aviation regulator. Through its skills and expertise it is recognised as a world leader in its field.

Cargolux 

Cargolux is one of the leading cargo airlines worldwide, operating scheduled and charter services on a network covering all continents. Measured in tonne-kilometers flown it ranks in 9th position worldwide. Major customer for Manston airport.

DEMAND (Demand East Midlands Airport is Now Designated)

DEMAND is the campaign for the DESIGNATION of East Midlands Airport (EMA). Designation is the use of the 1982 Civil Aviation Act to regulate and restrict the night time (and day time) operations of any UK airport.

Flightless Travel

A platform to let independent travellers share key information on specific journeys to build up a database on flightless routes around the world. The aim is not to tell you not to fly, it's to highlight the alternative travel routes.

flybe

Flybe Limited (styled as flybe) is a low-cost regional airline headquartered at the Jack Walker House at Exeter International Airport in Devon, England. Flybe is Europe's largest regional carrier, and operates a couple of routes from Manston.

FTF (Fight the Flights - London City Airport)

Anti Expansion, not Anti Aviation. We are a networking campaign group - set up by residents, for residents across the boroughs.

GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)

The Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign has as members over 100 District and Parish Councils and amenity groups covering an area of about 20 miles radius around the airport.

HACAN ClearSkies (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise)

HACAN ClearSkies is the largest voluntary organisation in Europe dedicated to campaign on behalf of those who suffer because of aircraft flight paths.

Infratil

Infratil Limited (owners of Manston airport) is a New Zealand-based infrastructure investment company. It owns several airports, electricity generators and retailers, and a public transport business, with operations in New Zealand, Australia and Europe.

LAAG (Lydd Airport Action Group)

LAAG represents people who are opposed to the expansion of Lydd Airport. "Preserving Protecting Defending Romney Marsh"

Low Fly Zone

Take the LowFlyZone pledge. Choosing to be free from air travel will help to reconnect you with the people and places around you, and is probably the single biggest step that you can take to help prevent climate change.

LADACAN (Luton & District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise)

LADACAN is a residents’ group primarily concerned with the impact of Luton Airport on the surrounding communities. We believe that the Airport’s location is unsuited to its purpose and oppose further growth in air traffic.

Plane Stupid

Plane Stupid is a network of grassroots groups that take non violent direct action against aviation expansion.

SAEN (Stop Airport Expansion Now)

SAEN was formed to campaign against the runway extension at Southend Airport. We are not anti Southend Airport, but we are against an extension to the runway at Southend Airport that would dramatically increase the number of flights over Southend. We aim to protect the local community from the noise, pollution and congestion the runway extension would bring because Southend Council is failing in its duty to do so.

Stop Bristol Airport Expansion

Help us to prevent a wanton increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the use of green fields for parking thousands of cars, increased traffic on narrow roads and an extra 6 flights per hour on average (and worse at busy times).

Stop Stansted Expansion

Airport operator BAA and its Spanish owners Ferrovial want to make Stansted Airport bigger than Heathrow today by expanding the use of its single runway and constructing a second runway within an enlarged airport perimeter.

Think Before You Fly

We need to REDUCE the amount of CO2 we are each responsible for. If you take a plane you INCREASE the amount of CO2 you are responsible for. This site shows what you would need to do just to balance out that extra CO2 at home or on the road.

UK Airport News

The UK's first and only complete UK airport news website. We scour online and offline news sources every day for news about UK airports. We read the stories and the press releases, pick out the facts, and we post them on this website.