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 dragging its heels over night flights

No haste = no need

OK, let's just make sure we've got this straight...

The night flights that Manston is hankering after have been portrayed as essential, crucial, make-or-break. Without them, so we are told, the airport won't be able to deliver on its fairytale Master Plan.

I find this VERY hard to square with (a) any facts in the real world, and (b) the airport's conduct over the last year. If night flights really did matter so much, why would they spend a YEAR dragging their heels?

Sep 2010: Manston submits its night flying proposal, backed up by the report it commissioned from Bickerdike Allen. A shambolic public meeting at Chatham House demonstrates the unpopularity of night flights, and makes Bill Hayton a household name for all the wrong reasons.

Oct 2010: Ramsgate Town Council has its own mini-consultation and rejects night flights.

Nov 2010: TDC get a technical review report from consultancy Bureau Veritas on the airport's proposals, which concludes that the costs outweigh the benefits. TDC cancels the public consultation on the day it was supposed to start, stating that Manston's proposals were too unclear and lacked economic justification.

May 2011: Local elections. Part 1 of the York Aviation report, commissioned by the airport, supposedly providing economic justifications for night flights is published.

Jun 2011: EasyJet snuggle up to Southend airport and launch a range of European services. Southend doesn't have night flights.

Aug 2011: Part 2 of the York Aviation report, commissioned by the airport, supposedly providing economic justifications for night flights, is leaked to the press and (presumably) given to TDC. No sign of it in public yet. Charles Buchanan appears on TV, predicting a night flight application "next month".

Sep 2011: It is next month. There is no application, yet. There is a meeting of the Airport Working Party on Wed 28th Sept. Surely, Manston isn't planning to release its next night flight application after the AWP meets? That could easily be seen as a crass attempt to exploit the Council's timetable.

Ramsgate chooses Beauty not Blues

Well, well, well – what is this that I spy on the blue-tinted map that shows who’s got the power in councils across Kent? A rosy red glow has settled over Ramsgate. Going against the electoral tide for the South East, the Ramsgate lefties spread their scarlet stain across the wards, scooping up seat after seat.

Those in the know point to Labour's pre-election pledge to oppose night flights as being the balance-tipping deal-clincher. Industrious and idle alike, the people of Ramsgate value their beauty sleep, and didn't want Manston to make them ugly. So they put their kisses next to the Labour names.

This leaves the Conservatives with a dreadful dilemma - they might even be looking forward to the Independents taking the decision out of their hands...

They can stick with Plan A, and allow the Manston Kiwis to fly as many rusting freight crates as they like over sleeping town below, and say goodbye to the dream of ever winning a seat in Ramsgate again. Sleepless and grumpy, the voters won’t give their votes to the very people who made them become ugly.

Or the Conservatives can take the splendid Bureau Veritas report to heart, and accept that the economic gain of night flights at Manston will not in any way match the social and economic pain. This would mean turning down a future night flight application made by their pal Charles Buchanan (recently seen up close and chummy with ruddy ex-Number 2 Latchford).

Back the airport, or back in power? An excruciating choice for the Blue corner.

It remains to be seen whether Mr Buchanan is cute enough to recognise this, and to resist the temptation to submit another night flight application… or will he embarrass his blue friends by asking them to decide soon one way or another?

We watch and wait.

TDC and Infratil: "no contact"

Well, well. The Chairman of KIACC (the consultative group for Kent International Airport) has forwarded a number of very good questions from the general public to Richard Samuel at TDC. The gist of it, unsurprisingly, is: what on earth is going on? Have a look at the exchange and see how many of KIACC's questions TDC answered...

---

Dear Chief Executive:

I am receiving a number of emails about the Council's procedures for handling your consideration of Infratil's application on night noise, following the circulation of my note about our meeeting.

The following message is an example - from one of the many people who keep up a very active interest in Manston Airport - and I should be grateful if the questions raised could be addressed and a full reply sent to me for onward transmission to the KIACC membership and other interested parties.

Can you clarify something for us?

The public consultation about these proposals was put on ice after the Council stated that further information was required from Infratil.  We weren't told what information was required and neither was Infratil, before the announcement was made.

• Has the Council told Infratil what additional information they require?
• Can we be told what aditional information is required?
• Has Infratil provided this information? If so, can we see the additional information? If not, when does Infratil anticipate that they will provide this information, if at all?
• How can the Airport Working Party be considering the proposal if this information has not been provided?
• If TDC could not consider the application in the absence of this information, how can the process be continuing?
• When does the Council anticipate launching the public consultation?
• The Bureau Veritas report says that the economic benefits of the proposal do not justify the environmental damage that will be caused.  Has anything changed since this statement was made?  If not, what is the point of continuing?

Many thanks,

Paul Twyman
Chairman,  KIACC

---

Dear Paul

The answer to these questions is very simple. The council has had no contact with Infratil since the Leader's announcement. Both sides agreed that the BV report should be published and examined first and appropriate recommendations made. I anticipate that the sort of information we will require is a stronger justification of the proposals and better suggestions on monitoring and regulation. However these are only my initial personal reactions to the questions and do not represent the council's formal position. As you know the next step is for members to consider the BV report which they will do next week.

Richard Samuel
Chief Executive
Thanet District Council

TDC Airport Working Party

Marvellously convenient, and doubtless falling into an empty slot in your diary, the Airport Working Party will be re-convening their hastily cancelled meeting from last year. This will be happening on Thursday 20th January at 10:30am, in the Pugin & Rossetti Rooms, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent. Like I say - handy.

Special guest stars will be Bureau Veritas, the world famous sound consultants whose role in the unfolding drama appears to be that of the rain on Infratil's parade. BV's report, which had to be re-drafted a couple of times before being accepted by TDC, did not go down at all well with our chums on the tarmac at Kent's Irrational Airport. An embarrassing spotlight was focused on the typos in Infratil's proposal that skewed the story in their favour; the need to sound-proof Ramsgate was raised; and some crushing killer blows were landed:

the predicted number of people likely to be exposed to significant levels of average night-time noise is not sufficiently justified by the number of passengers and freight activity that are forecast to benefit from the proposals [i.e. it's not worth it.]

By all accounts, Infratil are still somewhat shaken, not to say battered, by the report and have been conspicuously silent since, which is rather surprising given that their entire future hangs on this, if they are to be believed. Anyway, as you can see from the Agenda below, Bureau Veritas will be there in the flesh to explain their report, and quite possibly answer questions from the AWP. A lot could turn on this, so be there if you can - and, following local tradition, do wear something red if you're against night flights.

---

MANSTON AIRPORT NIGHT NOISE ASSESSMENT REVIEW - BUREAU VERITAS REPORT

To:                               Airport Working Party – 20 January 2011

Main Portfolio Area:     Economic Prosperity & Community Services

By:                               Environmental Protection Manager

Classification:              Unrestricted

Wards                          All

Summary                    Proposed night-time flying policy for Manston Airport, presentation by Bureau Veritas of its Manston Airport Night Noise Assessment Review dated November 2010

For Decision

1.0              Introduction and background

1.1       On 13 October, 2010, this Working Party received a report regarding the proposed Night-time Flying Policy application, made by Infratil, the owner of Manston Airport, on 28^th September, 2010.  The application was made within the context of the s.106 Planning Agreement between the Council and the owner of the airport.  The application was accompanied by a technical report produced by Bickerdike Allen Partners, titled Manston Airport Night Noise Contours Integrated Noise Model (INM).  Previously the application and noise report from Bickerdike Allen have been made available to Members.

1.2       Following from recommendations from this Working Party, and discussions with others including Canterbury City Council and Kent County Council, a programme of public engagement was produced.  However, it was considered inappropriate and unacceptable to commence consultation until the Council had commissioned its own, professional, technical assessment of the noise implications of the proposal made by Infratil.

1.3       Hence the report from Bureau Veritas has been produced, alongside a glossary of terms, to help the public understand, and interpret both the Bickerdike Allen and Bureau Veritas reports.

2.0       The Current Position

2.1       The Bureau Veritas report is attached at Annex 1.

2.2       Bureau Vertias will be attending the meeting to present the content of the report. There will be the opportunity for the Members to ask questions.

2.3       This meeting enables Members of the Working Party to receive information, which alongside the Working Party’s previous reports and in the context of visits being arranged to both East Midlands and Robin Hood (Doncaster) Airports will enable it to recommend a set of criteria against which any future application for night-time flying policy at Manston could be considered.

2.4       It is suggested that the working party develop a concept of appropriate consultation criteria that describe the threshold that will need to be reached before the council contemplates further public consultation on this issue. These criteria once agreed can then be recommended to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel for comment, and ultimately to Cabinet. Full Council will then be in a position to formally set the necessary criteria. Should Infratil wish to submit a night-time flying application this will be made the subject of a twelve week public consultation process, as previously proposed.

3.0       Options

3.1       The Working Party is obliged to report back to Overview and Scrutiny within the framework of the annual work plan of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel 2010/2011.

4.0       Corporate Implications

4.1.      Financial

4.1.1.   Council has set aside funding for both the Bureau Veritas report and, in due course, engagement of a public consultation consultancy. Contributions to funding have been committed by Kent County Council and Canterbury City Council.

4.2.      Legal

4.2.1.   The existing s.106 Agreement between the Council and the Airport Owner enables the Airport Owner to submit an application for a night-time flying policy.

4.3.      Corporate

4.3.1.   Growth of business, and employment at the airport is an important strand of the Council’s strategic approach to economic regeneration.  However, the Council has already made it clear that this must not be at the expense of unacceptable environmental impact.  In particular noise.

4.4.      Equity and Equalities

4.4.1.   In the opinion of the author there are no direct equity and equalities implications to this report.

5.0       Recommendation

5.1       That the Working Party receives the report and presentation from Bureau Veritas, in order that it can receive information contributing to a set of criteria the Airport Owner will be required to satisfy, at such time as a further application for a night-time flying policy.

6.0       Decision-making Process

6.1        The Airport Working Party makes recommendations to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel who in turn make recommendations to Cabinet and or Council

Contact Officer:	Penny Button - Tel: (01843)  (57)7425
Reporting to:	Madeline Homer, Interim Director of Community Services

Annex List

Annex 1	Bureau Veritas report
Annex 2	Manston INM Contour Comparison Map
Annex 3	Manston Airport Glossary of Terms

 Corporate consultation undertaken

Finance	Sarah Martin
Legal	Harvey Patterson

Bureau Veritas report examined

Even in its draft form, the BV report was enough to stop the consultation process in its tracks. I asked TDC's Leader and CEO on 25th November for a glimpse of the draft. On 2nd December Cllr Bayford told me that the final draft had been received and would shortly be published. Sure enough, it appeared on the TDC website on 6th December - more than a month after it was delivered to TDC.

Given the close working relationship between TDC and the airport owners, I expect they passed it onto Infratil straight away - long before the public got sight of it. TDC's press release said that Infratil's next policy submission would follow on from (and be guided by?) BV's final report. Unless Infratil throw up their hands in horror at the report's recommendations and simply leave town, they'll be delivering a new proposal in the New Year. Possibly before.

In the meantime, here's some of the more encouraging quotes from the final Bureau Veritas report:

1.0.4 Even with this [quota count system] in place, it is BV’s view is that the predicted number of people likely to be exposed to significant levels of average night-time noise is not sufficiently justified by the number of passengers and freight activity that are forecast to benefit from the proposals.

This would appear to leave Infratil's night flying proposal dead in the water.

1.0.6 In order to reduce noise impact on nearby residents due to individual aircraft movements, BV would recommend that bedrooms of dwellings predicted to be exposed to 90 dB(A) SEL or more are also included in the sound insulation scheme.

This would be expensive for Infratil to comply with. Below is a street map of Ramsgate with the 90dB(A) SEL noise contour superimposed (the contour is taken from the Bickerdike Allen report). As you can see, that's a lot of double-glazing to install. If Infratil only want the night flying permission to make the airport more attractive to sell, this is a significant obligation for any purchaser to inherit.

1.0.9 BV has reviewed the input assumptions for this [BAP's] modelling and, using these, has undertaken their own independent noise modelling. The results of this have shown the contour modelling undertaken by BAP is accurate and representative of the input data provided.

So the noise contour in the map above is likely to be fairly accurate.

4.2.2 Given the sensitivity of night flights, and the comments in the ATWP [Air transport White Paper] ... there is an obligation to be sure that the economic benefits from those flights do justify the inevitable disturbance that will occur.

"Obligation" is a good word to see in this context. We have yet to see the required economic justification from Infratil.

4.3.2 ... this [quota count] system only controls activity between 23.30 and 06.00 hours, which on its own would leave the shoulder periods uncontrolled (other than by the inherent runway capacity).

One of the ploys in Infratil's proposal which TDC seem to have overlooked is the shortening of the "official" night by 1½ hours by introducing the evening and morning "shoulder periods" of 2300-2330 and 0600-0700. As the BV report correctly points out, flights during the shoulder periods are as unregulated as day-time flights.

4.3.9 ... over 60% of night operations will take place during the shoulder periods, which as indicated above is not controlled by the quota system. BAP also mention that it is generally accepted that the most sensitive time for people at night is the quota count period, and particularly during the hours of 01:00 and 06:00. People are, however, also sensitive to noise when they are trying to get to sleep and soon before waking up in the morning, i.e. during the shoulder periods. Noise impact during the shoulder periods could be regulated by imposing a limit on the area of the night-time noise contour...

At last, some common sense! Regardless of what Infratil may like to call night and day, the rest of us are still doing our best to get some sleep at times that fit into the rest of our lives, and planes late at night and in the early hours will be disruptive. So BV's suggestion is to limit the sound footprint of the airport.

4.3.10 An indication of the severity of night noise controls is given by considering the average quota count per aircraft movement within the night quota period. The policy proposes an annual quota of 1995 created by 1081 movements, giving a quota count per aircraft movement of 1.85. The current regime at London Heathrow permits ... a quota count per aircraft movement of 1.45. The corresponding figures for Gatwick and Stansted are 0.62 and 0.67 respectively.

Yes, you read that right - Manston want to create twice the nuisance of Gatwick and Stansted, and more even than Heathrow.

Click here for the Bureau Veritas final report. See the NoNightFlights Archive for the supporting documents.

More questions than answers

Dear Mr Samuel and Cllr Bayford,

I would be grateful if you would help me with the following:

Firstly, would you please publish details of the proposed consultation process on the TDC website.

• In due course, when Infratil re-submit their proposal, we will all know what we are being consulted about, but until then it would tremendously helpful for everyone to know how we are going to be consulted.
• Given that the consultation was only halted on the day it was due to begin (Nov 1st) it follows that TDC must have completed its preparation for the consultation, and must have established what the process will be.
• As you rightly point out in your press release, the future of the airport is a matter of great public interest and it is important that the consultation is as effective as possible.
• The unexpected delay in the proposal's submission provides an opportunity to explain to one and all how the consultation will work, and to ensure that it will be both fair and effective.
• (To declare an interest: as one of the thousands in Herne Bay who live under the flight path, I'm particularly keen to learn how we are to be consulted, and how our views are to be weighted.)

Secondly, could you clarify the role of Bureau Veritas.

• They have variously been described as providing an "expert", or "technical", or "peer" review of Infratil's submission, which I had assumed to mean that they would be verifying, validating, and possibly explaining the more specialist and technical aspects of the proposal.
• It is unclear why Bureau Veritas' report should ever go through a draft stage. Their expert technical opinion "is what it is", it does not require anyone's approval, and none of "us" - the non-experts - are in a position to correct or gainsay them.
• Your press release says that Infratil will be developing their re-submission from the final version of Bureau Veritas' report.
• Are Bureau Veritas advising Thanet District Council, or Infratil, or both?

Finally, given that the local media are familiar with the contents of Bureau Veritas' draft report ("The first draft of the Bureau Veritas report suggests dropping the original 1,995 night time quota proposed by Infratil to 1,570 a year."), I think it's time that the local people were given the same access to information. Would you please publish the draft Bureau Veritas report on the TDC website

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Yours Sincerely,

---

Re: Proposed night flying policy - Kent International Airport

Thank you for your email of 25 November 2010.

As you are aware, as Leader the Council, I decided that the initial information supplied by Infratil to the Council required reworking to provide better information to the public before any consultation could be launched.  I therefore asked Infratil to rework their proposal to improve its clarity of purpose and intention.  The consultation process is therefore on hold for the moment.

Prior to this the Council had already prepared a consultation plan. This will be published once we have something to consult the public on.

You sought some clarification on the role being undertaken by Bureau Veritas (BV) employed by the Council.  As you correctly state  BV were engaged by the Council to provide a technical assessment of the Infratil proposals.  We have received a draft report and as a result asked the consultants to improve some of the commentary and provide some areas of fuller information.  That has been completed and I am pleased to say that the final report will be published shortly.

I note your comments about the local media but I can assure you that contrary to the statement made by the Isle of Thanet Gazette no copy of the BV report has been supplied to that newspaper.

Finally in relation to your comments concerning the Council's  proposed consultation plan, you may access full details in the reports and decisons of the Airport Working Party available on the Council website under the Council and Democracy pages.

Yours sincerely

Robert Bayford

Leader of the Council

Bureau Veritas request

The clever people at Bureau Veritas have peer reviewed BAP's technical noise report that accompanied Infratil's recent application. Even though it's apparently only in draft form, this provided TDC with the courage and ammunition to reject Infratil's bid.

At the recent Ramsgate Town Council meeting, Charles Buchanan said that he had not (yet) seen the BV report. Earlier that same day, the local press had been quoting figures from the BV report. As we know from previous experience with the BAP report, even early drafts turn out to have a very close resemblance to the finished report.

If any of you lovely people have a draft (or final copy) of the Bureau Veritas report, do feel free to send it in. We're bursting with curiosity, and it will help us prepare for the next round. Email it in to us and please indicate whether you DO or DON'T want us to publish it.

Plans for night flights on hold

Clipping: thisiskent

A report carried out by an airport research company has raised concerns over possible noise from planes using Manston airport. The study, commissioned by Thanet council in response to an application for regular night flights from Manston, says even with restrictions on night time plane movements and a sound insulation scheme for properties "the predicted number of people exposed to significant night-time noise is not justified by the number of passengers and freight activity that are to benefit from the proposals".

The report by Bureau Veritas, said people in Ramsgate could be exposed to an average noise of 57db each hour across eight hours – equivalent to having a television on loudly. Bureau Veritas has recommended that this noise level be reduced. Thanet council, which has to consider the request from Manston, asked its owners, Infratil, to provide more detail on how many planes could be flying at night and what types of craft they could be.

Mr Bayford said it is unlikely that the public consultation will start before Christmas:

"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. 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."

Manston chief executive Charles Buchanan said:

"We are disappointed that our proposals are not to be considered at this time. However, we agree with the council that it is vital that the public have a full understanding of the issues and implications of our proposals."

The report highlights recommendations set out by the government in its Planning Policy Guidance, Note 24 which offers planning guidance to local authorities to minimise night noise. It says that in areas where noise regularly exceeds 82db several times an hour they should have development restrictions. A noise monitor in Chapel Place, Ramsgate recorded single noise events of over 82db for every month, except August this year. Mr Buchanan said that was an average over the month, not a constant.

Infratil's application asks for a "quota count" or number of points to be allowed for night flights at the airport. As planes land or take off, points are used up depending on the type of plane and noise created. Infratil wanted 1,995 quota count which Bureau Veritas predicted would mean 7.7 flights at night by 2018. Mr Buchannan said:

"If we flew QC2 at night that would mean seven flights but this falls inside this and it is less than one per hour. The guideline says 82db several times an hour.This is not saying several times an hour and I don't think we will. If we did, then we will have to look at the PPG24. It is vital that the public understand the complications. We are committed to seeking all ways to develop the airport, generating employment and contributing to the growth of Thanet's economy."

No new dates have been set for the public consultation to start on proposals for night flights.

By saul leese saul.leese@krnmedia.co.uk

Manston discussion put back

Clipping: thisiskent

PLANS for public consultation over the Manston airport nightflights application have been put on hold. Thanet council's bosses met with airport owner Infratil on Monday to recommend it comes up with a revised proposal with fewer flights at night. A report by the council's consultants Bureau Veritas, experts in the aviation industry, suggests cutting the number of night flights by a quarter.

Council leader Bob Bayford said:

"I believe that before residents have their say, they need to know exactly how many aircraft movements are being discussed. That information is difficult to gauge from the proposals that have been put to us, partly because of its technical nature, and this needs further work. I also believe that the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered. I am not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved. I am pleased to say that the airport has agreed to a review."

Airport chief executive Charles Buchanan said:

"We are disappointed that our proposals are not to be considered at this time. However, we agree with the council that it is vital that the public have a full understanding of the issues and implications of our proposals. We look forward to receiving and responding to the detailed requests from TDC. We remain committed to seeking all ways to develop the airport, supporting and generating further employment and contributing to the growth of the Thanet economy."