Aircraft noise, Council silence

A reader writes...

I don't know if you recall that I contacted NoNightFlights about being sold our house without the estate agents or anyone telling us of the low flying planes over the house?  Well, the house next door to us is being sold by the same estate agents so I thought I would put a poster in our window to alert any potential buyers. 
 
I have just been in touch with Councillor Corinna Huxley and she has suggested that I send you the times I have noted of planes recently. 

• Sunday 19th May 6.24 am
• Monday 20th May 8.35 pm
• Friday 24th May 20.33 pm
• Saturday 25th May 6.29 am
• Sunday 26th May 8.35 pm
• Tuesday 28th May 8.26 pm
• Wednesday 29th May 8.36 pm
• (away on holiday)
• Sunday 16th June 8.32 pm
• Monday 17th June 6.25 am
• Monday 17th June 8.30 pm
• Tuesday 18th June 6.30 am

I wonder if you might be able to help me with information concerning other planes I have heard flying over and around the Ramsgate area very recently.  Councillors have suggested that they are BA training flights and they are flying continually at all hours during the day and night.  It's a constant rumble. 

---

This is rather worrisome

This reader's councillor said to send information to No Night Flights. Another reader explained in the comments to another post that the Deputy Leader said to send information to TDC.  

This neatly illustrates the confusion that has followed the demise of the Airport Working Party. Once upon a time, there was a single point of contact, and a concentration of experience. When the airport breaches its conditions of operation, when people's lives are being ruined, who do they now speak to? Who should they contact?

Two weeks ago, I asked Madeline Homer which part or parts of TDC now dealt with the airport and related matters. 

No reply. 

That's simply not good enough. 

Here's a suggestion: if you have any complaints or comments about the airport or aircraft, send them to Madeline Homer and  the Deputy Leader (Alan Poole) and  No Night Flights. Just copy this into the "To:" line of your email:

 Madeline.Homer@thanet.gov.uk, cllr-alan.poole@thanet.gov.uk, NoNightFlights@gmail.com

and it will go to all three, and it will help us keep track of the impact the airport is having.

No Night Flights won't publish your complaints and comments unless you add something like "For Publication" to your email. 

Night Flights: too hot to handle?

Calling all TDC-ologists: what's going to happen on Thursday?

Cllrs Hart and Poole have tabled a motion about Night Flights for the Council meeting on Thursday 14th July 2011. The blurbs that come with the meeting handouts say that there are two options:

• To note that the motion stands referred without discussion to Cabinet; or
• To debate the motion.

All the Councillors who pay any attention at all will have registered that night flights are a hot topic. All the manifestos made some kind of reference or pledge, and the results in several seats in Ramsgate were decided on the strength of the candidates' stance on night flights.

The election is over, the dust has settled, and there's no longer any need to pussy-foot about. The Council is now in a position to knuckle down and get on with the job it was elected for: representing the wishes and interests of the electorate.

So, what's it to be? Kick it into the long grass, or debate it? Click here to find out what happened.

---

“The Council adopts a policy of not allowing scheduled, pre-planned or otherwise timetabled flights between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00. That a period of 1 hour at either end of the flying day be allowed for late/early arriving flights only. That a penalty be applied to any flights arriving during the 1 hour periods. No take-offs will be allowed between 23:00 and 07:00 hours and a schedule of exceptions to the above be prepared to include ‘mercy flights’, and flights for medical emergencies, coastguard movements etc.”

Protesters claim research is misleading

Campaigners against proposals for regular night flights at Manston airport have questioned research claiming growth would provide 3,000 jobs. Last week York Aviation's study, on behalf of airport owners Infratil, claimed Manston would contribute nearly £65 million a year to the local economy by 2018 if expansion was allowed. Using industry standard figures, the aviation consultants found Manston would provide direct employment for 2,070 people and more in indirect employment.

Campaigners from the No To Night Flights group questioned the basis for the figures. They claim Bournemouth airport handles 1 million passengers with 247 jobs and Stansted estimated its jobs total will soon fall to 330 per 1 million passengers. At London City airport, where Manston airport chief executive Charles Buchanan worked before joining Infratil, the group says Mr Buchanan "promised" 3,135 jobs for an extra 36,000 flights but only 726 jobs were created.

Susan Kennedy from No Night Flights said:

"These 3,000 jobs rely on the airport's entire Master Plan being achieved. Night flights will not bring 3,000 jobs. They might not bring any new jobs."

The group also raised doubts over the possibility of realising the aims in the master plan. Ms Kennedy said:

"If the predictions in the master plan were correct, Manston would now have 1.3 million passengers per year. It actually has just 32,000. Last year, the master plan said 2.4 million passengers will create 600 direct jobs. However, Manston is now saying that 2.4 million passengers will create 2,070 direct jobs. What an extraordinary drop in productivity! Mr Buchanan is an experienced PR operator. He knows local people and some politicians fall for the idea of thousands of jobs because we're in an area hard hit by unemployment. Night flights will not bring jobs, but will lose existing tourism-based jobs."

The group's view was backed by Thanet council's Labour group which, in a statement, said the master plan was "an expression of Infratil's hopes for the future". Thanet Labour deputy leader Alan Poole said:

"Master Plans are at best guesses and should be treated with appropriate scepticism. Manston is operating nowhere near capacity during the day and the introduction of night flights from 11pm to 7am simply cannot be justified. Night flights could bring untold misery to Thanet's residents. The health and quality of life for Thanet's residents must surely remain paramount considerations."

Isle of Thanet Gazette 3rd June 2011

See more on: Health

Manston night-flying consultation delayed

Manston airport’s night-time flying consultation has been delayed as airport-operator Infratil has been forced to check its facts. New noise assessments produced independently by the council have led to it asking the airport to review its application and the public consultation has been halted until Infratil reviews its proposal.

Thanet council received an application from Infratil in late September to extend flying hours at Manston and grant permission for a number of night flights for heavy freight planes. However, a draft report investigating the potential noise impact of night-flying prompted councillors to reject Infratil’s plans on Monday. Bob Bayford, council leader, said: 

"After careful consideration over the last couple of weeks, the proposals that have been submitted have insufficient detail in some areas to be acceptable to the council. I believe that, before residents have their say, they need to know more detail and have a full understanding of exactly how many aircraft movements are being discussed. That information is difficult to gauge from the proposals that have been put to us and this needs further work. I also believe the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered.

"I’m not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved. I’m pleased to say that the airport has agreed to review these issues. The council remains supportive of the airport and maximising the employment opportunities it can create and sustain, but this cannot be at any price for local residents. As a council, we need to balance the economic benefits carefully against environmental considerations. The proposed night-time flying policy doesn’t fully allow us to do that as it leaves uncertainties that need to be clarified before we consult the public.

"I have confirmed with the airport that they will receive a copy of our adviser’s report as soon as it’s finalised. From this, they have agreed to develop fuller information that we will consult on. I recognise, as does the airport, that this may take time, but it is important to get this right."

Meanwhile, Thanet’s Labour group voted unanimously to reject the current application at a meeting on Thursday evening, October 28th. Richard Nicholson, shadow cabinet member for regeneration and economic development, said:

"Many issues of concern were raised, but in essence it was felt the alluded-to benefits in terms of jobs were merely an aspiration rather than concrete. And it is clear in our minds these do not in any way compensate for the environmental and quality-of-life issues for the thousands who would be adversely affected."

The Labour group is calling for a review of the existing Section 106 environmental agreement with the airport. Mr Nicholson said:

"Clearly much more needs to be looked at and put right even under the current Section 106.  Primarily, it needs to be enforced properly, renegotiated, flying routes need clarifying and vastly improved and the whole 106 needs improving after what is now 10 years.  It was abundantly clear that even now the envelope on what Infratil asked for was being expanded. The airport does indeed provide an opportunity for jobs in the Thanet area, but there is much more daytime capacity which could be utilised before any other options are needed. Furthermore, we feel that any changes such as the one sought at present may require planning permission and Thanet council needs to fully explore this."

  Alan Poole, shadow cabinet member for environmental services, said:

"Concerns were raised about the environmental and health impacts on local residents, particularly sleep deprivation caused by aircraft noise."

Clipping: kentnews

TDC Labour Group reject night flying application

Excellent news from Thanet Labour - they've rejected the ridiculous night flying application from Manston owners Infratil at a Labour Group meeting last night.

They cite the "alluded to jobs figures", "quality of life issues for the thousands who would be adversely effected" and the current "section 106 ...needing to be properly enforced and renegotiated".

They also recognise that the airport does provide "opportunity for jobs in the Thanet area but there is much much more day time capacity which could be utilised".

"Concerns were raised about the environmental and health impacts on local residents, particularly sleep deprivation caused by aircraft noise."

Couldn't agree more!

No Night Flights is not a party political group, and will equally cheer from the rooftops when local Conservative Groups and Liberal Democrat Groups come to the same conclusions.

---

THANET LABOUR GROUP REJECT INFRATIL NIGHT FLYING APPLICATION

The Labour Group at Thanet District Council has decided not to support the current application by Infratil for Night Flying operations at Manston Airport. At a meeting last night which was solely concerned with this application the Labour Group discussed the pros and cons and the ramifications for the residents of Thanet.

Cllr Richard Nicholson, Shadow Cabinet member for Regeneration and Economic Development said, "After a interesting debate the Group unanimously rejected the night flight proposals. Many issues of concern were raised but in essence it was felt the alluded to benefits in terms of jobs were merely an aspiration rather than concrete. And it is clear in our minds these do not in anyway compensate for the environmental and quality of life issues for the thousands who would be aversely effected.

Clearly much more needs to be looked at and put right even under the current Section 106. Primarily it needs to be;

• Enforced properly
• It needs to be re negotiated
• Flying routes need clarifying and vastly improved
• And the whole 106 needs improving after what is now 10 years

It was abundantly clear that even now the envelope on what Infratil asked for was being expanded. The airport does indeed provide an opportunity for jobs in the Thanet area but there is much much more day time capacity which could be utilised before any other options are needed. Furthermore we feel that any changes such as the one sought at present may require planning permission and TDC needs to fully explore this."

Cllr Clive Hart Leader of the Labour Group said, "I was proud of the quality of our debate, which I can assure Thanet residents, covered all issues for and against. Whilst we are rejecting this application we are equally adamant that both monitoring of operations and updating of all the section 106 is also vital. Thanet Labour Group is ready to sit down with others at TDC to seek the way forward to ensure residents in Thanet can have much more confidence in the standards and application of a new 106 agreement."

Cllr Alan Poole, Shadow Cabinet Member for Environmental Services said "concerns were raised about the environmental and health impacts on local residents, particularly sleep deprivation caused by aircraft noise."

Cllr Nicholson 580057
Cllr Hart 298770
Cllr Poole 602594

Published by Thanet Labour Group Press Office, 44 Northdown Road, Margate, CT9 2RW.