Consultation results

Well, the results are in for Canterbury district, and the answer is a clear "No" to night flights.

Of the 230 responses, 80% were against Manston's proposals.

So, where are the results for Thanet?

Here they are!

At last, Herne Bay gets a mention

Herne Bay residents will be delighted that our Council has finally stirred itself. They will be looking at all the responses from the CCC area, collating them, and presenting Canterbury's considered opinion.

Hopefully, this will mean that the views of Herne Bay residents will, in effect, be presented twice - firstly in TDC's analysis of the responses, and secondly when reiterated by Canterbury.

---

Council urges residents to give airport views

Canterbury City Council is urging local residents to have their say about proposals for regular night flights at Manston Airport. Thanet District Council has begun a month of consultation to find out people’s views on night flying at the airport, and with Herne Bay directly on the flight path, the city council is keen to ensure the town’s residents in particular give their comments. Executive member for transport, Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones, said:

“Thanet District Council has now changed its approach to this consultation. Previously it was planning to carry out a wide ranging consultation, including contacting thousands of homes directly to hear views. And we, as a city council, had paid some of the cost of this in order to ensure some Herne Bay properties were included. Now, it is just holding a standard consultation in which people are being given the opportunity to comment on the proposals.

I am urging everyone in Herne Bay in particular, and people across the rest of the district in general, to take part in this consultation and tell Thanet District Council what they think about the possibility of regular night flights at Manston. It is vital our residents take this opportunity to make their views known.”

The proposals by the airport’s owners Infratil, the results of assessments commissioned by Thanet District Council and details of how to get involved in the consultation are on Thanet's website. Comments should be submitted by Friday 2 March. Everyone taking part is required to give a name and address, including the post code. This is so particular attention can be paid to those people who live on the identified flight path and are directly affected by the proposal.

Cllr Vickery-Jones added:

“Once the deadline has passed, we have agreed with Thanet District Council that we will see all the comments from people with a Canterbury district post code. This will then enable us to formally write to Thanet, summarising the views of our residents and ensuring they take the feedback from our district into consideration.”

CCC website

Urgent need for environmental assessment

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours Sincerely,

M.L. Herne Bay

---

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

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

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

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

CCC's Regeneration Department

My favourite starfish

In the interests of spreading our love and help far and wide we (Mrs Earplugs and I) met up with some of the Canterbury people who will be dealing with Thanet District Council over the next few months while Infratil’s Masterplan is being goggled at.

It turned out to be a useful and encouraging way to spend a morning. There was a big cheese from CCC’s Environmental Health bods, the top banana from their Regeneration department, and Cllr Mike Patterson, who is on the KIACC. (I couldn’t help wondering: if you snip bits off people from Regeneration, do they simply re-grow, like starfish? If so, it offers an easy way to ramp up the staffing levels.)

The plan was to provide them with enough armour, ammunition, sticks and carrots for them to be able to nudge Thanet away from a worst-of-all-possible-worlds outcome. The mighty wodge of words, numbers and pictures we gave them can be summarised thus:

• The Draft Masterplan for KIA is indicative but insubstantial – it needs to be redrafted, and then put out to consultation properly.
• The Section 106 Agreement should reflect the needs of everyone affected by the operation of the airport, not just Infratil and TDC.
• There is absolutely no need or justification for night flights (other than emergency diversions).
• Flight paths should avoid population centres by overflying the sea, or sparsely populated land.
• If overflying towns is unavoidable, the planes could fly higher for longer, and then descend more steeply.
• These ‘people-friendly’ routes should be agreed and implemented before flight volumes increase.
• Infratil must demonstrate that the routes are being adhered to by recording and reporting what the planes actually do.
• Infratil must install adequate noise and pollution monitoring equipment.
• The noise monitoring equipment must be used consistently.
• The readings from all the monitoring equipment must be recorded consistently.
• The recorded readings must be published frequently and regularly (e.g. on-line).
• Failure to comply with the S106 agreement must be reported and fined. Any decisions not to fine must be explained.

As you can see, all good reasonable stuff, and they seemed to buy into it. In all fairness, we all know that Canterbury are no more than consultees in this process, and have no effective Vulcan death-grip that they could apply, other than possibly dragging everything through the courts. In that respect they are about as powerless as a Thanet resident. Nonetheless, they are prepared to listen politely, pay attention and take notes – which puts them in my good books. It remains to be seen how much they can influence Thanet, but I shall keep fuelling them.

Brazier's assertions

Telling it like it isn't

Following the horrifying revelation that one of our elected representatives has been misrepresenting us, I have unleashed the merciless Mrs Earplugs. Blessed with eternal youth, bionic implants and the ability to kick-box without scuffing her Manolo Blahnik's, Mrs E now has the bit firmly between her razor-sharp teeth. We're not at DefCon 5 (unbridled bloodlust), but she's getting that restless, questing look in her eyes.

As an antidote to the heavily skewed, unfounded and wishful PR prattle that the ever-supportive Brazier presented to Louise Ellman (chair of the Transport Committee), Mrs E sent her the following:

Julian Brazier has written to you claiming that there is widespread public support for more use to be made of Manston airport (Kent International Airport). There isn’t.

Thanet County Council supports the airport and so does Kent County Council. Canterbury City Council, who represents a large constituency under the flight path, has significant concerns about the way in which the airport is regulated and monitored now, let alone what the impact might be were it to expand.

The last public consultation about Manston was carried out by MORI in Thanet in 2005. Focus groups included those most affected by the flight path, i.e. Ramsgate residents. Of those:

• 67% opposed airport expansion;
• 78% thought noise and air pollution would be big problems;
• 90% wanted night flying hours to be restricted.

Thanet District Council says more recent public consultation shows support for the airport. However, they have declined to release the report that would demonstrate this, even when requested to do so by the statutory body set up to lead consultation on Manston, i.e. the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee. Claims that there is widespread support can not be substantiated. Claims that there is widespread opposition can. Roger Gale MP and Paul Carter (Leader of Kent County Council) are fond of saying that Manston has one of the longest runways in the UK (it hasn’t, thirteen other airports outstrip it) and that it is surrounded on three sides by sea so the impact on people is minimal. A quick look at the map will show you that the runway runs almost exactly East to West. Depending on the wind, planes come in on a straight line either over Ramsgate (pop. 39,600) or Herne Bay (pop. 35,200). That’s a lot of unhappy people on the flight path. In a recent meeting of Herne Bay councillors, there was unanimous cross-party support for the proposal to get a more balanced debate going about the pros and cons of Manston and to prevent the impact of the airport on Herne Bay from getting worse. This agreement transcended the normal party political divide and can not in any way be described as support for Manston to expand. Local opposition is in response to a number of issues:

• Manston operates in an unregulated and unmonitored way, with sub standard noise monitoring; a willingness to allow unscheduled flights to land any time day or night; and an unwillingness to levy fines for planes that land outside the S.106 agreement because the Chief Executive does not want the airport to get a reputation as being “difficult”. I can substantiate all this with emails from the airport itself should you need to see more
• Neither Ramsgate nor Herne Bay is successful. They are both slightly shabby seaside towns whose most sustainable hope for a more prosperous future is tourism. Nobody will visit and spend money in a town or on a beach under a flight path
• Manston’s PR machine talks about the hundreds to thousands of jobs that will be created if the airport expands. Close inspection shows the vast majority of these jobs to be indirect jobs – jobs that already exist elsewhere in the UK which Manston will notionally be supporting by purchasing fuel etc. The number of real jobs that could be created is tiny. So, we have an airport whose growth plans will blight many lives whilst possibly creating a small number of jobs. As an economic decision about the best thing to do for an area, the airport makes no sense
• The airport is built right on top of an important aquifer. Whilst the Environment Agency has recognised how critical it is to preserve this aquifer (you will be aware that the South East is the UK area with the biggest mismatch between population size and available water), the airport’s owners have done nothing to ensure that the correct measures are in place to protect it from pollution. It is already contaminated and an expanded airport will worsen the situation considerably
• None of the infrastructure exists to support expansion. A single carriageway road comes out of the airport and the nearest public transport is three miles’ drive away
• The airport has been in private ownership for years. Two previous owners have failed to make a go of it. Infratil are still losing money there after four years of ownership. It’s just not a sensible place to have an airport.

So, there is no widespread local support for this airport. What you are hearing is the view of the few that have access to the media - MPs and the airport’s PR consultants. If you tap into the world to which ordinary members of the public have access - blogs; parish councils; local environmental groups – you will see massive opposition to the airport. I would love to see a more balanced debate on the airport’s future instead of being told by politicians who have not consulted the public that we all support the airport. Anything you can do to encourage this would be great.

British Airways reject Manston airport

SLEEPERS can rest easy for awhile after British Airways shelved plans to fly noisy cargo planes over the area. Complaints flooded in after the airline was given the go ahead to fly 11 planes out of Kent International Airport at Manston and across Herne Bay, Tankerton and Chestfield the town between 6am and 11.30pm every day. Canterbury City Council was given just five days to respond to the proposal passed by its Thanet counterparts late last month.

But those fearing sleepless nights breathed a huge sigh of relief this week as BA pulled the plug and announced it had decided to remain at Stansted Airport.

Although pleased with the withdrawal, campaigner Phil Rose, of Beacon Hill, says the issue of planes over Herne Bay should not drop off the radar. He said:

"It's as important as ever, just temporarily less urgent. Obviously the latest announcement is a relief for us all, but airport owners Infratil have invested millions of pounds and will be looking for alternatives. This temporary setback gives us all much-needed breathing space. It is essential that we use this interlude to agree a robust framework which allows Infratil scope for commercial success, while maintaining the quality of life for the residents of Herne Bay. Rather than rushing into this half-cocked, we can work towards a sound and solid "win-win" solution. I am all for the creation of jobs and a boost to the local economy, but not if it sees Herne Bay getting screwed."

Councillors will be briefed by Infratil at a private meeting on Tuesday (March 24). Mr Rose said:

"They need to get an independent flight path expert to attend the meeting. Someone with no axe to grind, who can say whether or not the planes need to go over the town or can go out to sea. It may be that they says it's not possible or practical to over the sea, but we need to make sure Infratil aren't being lazy or greedy."

Agreeing with Mr Rose, Herne Bay councillor Ron Flaherty said:

"All members are determined to investigate thoroughly the possibility of changing the flight paths. A gun was held against the head of the consultative committee when we were given just five days to respond. We knew BA wanted to come to Manston, Infratil were keeping it a secret, and now BA have decided they don't want to come after all. The farce continues."

Speaking after BA's withdrawal, Manston chief executive Matt Clarke said:

"Like any business that bids for a new contract and is unsuccessful, we are obviously disappointed with this news. However, this negotiation was only one of several opportunities we have been pursuing and we are pleased with the level of interest shown by carriers in operating at KIA. The fact that Kent International was considered alongside Stansted shows how far its reputation in the industry has progressed since Infratil acquired it in 2005 and this bodes well for future business."

Clipping: thisiskent By jnurden

Elected and supportive

Carrying on...

Just had a call from Cllr Vince McMahan (Conservative, West Bay). He's fully behind my earlier email and is therefore quite clearly intelligent, perceptive and right-thinking. He'll be showing the email to Roger Gale this morning to keep him in the loop.

He tells me that the March 24th meeting is public, so there's no reason why Paul Twyman (or I, or anyone) shouldn't turn up. The voices in my head say:

• participating in the democratic process does actually make a difference
• good to see this being escalated, though I'm not sure sure where Roger Gale stands on this
• didn't know the meeting was public
• even if it is public, Paul Twyman (as head of the relevant statutory body) should be invited as a matter of course, rather than just shuffling in from the rain with the rest of us bleating oiks. You know the sort of thing: his own chair, name card, coffee cup - the full works.

Keep calm and carry on

I sent this to all the Herne Bay Councillors, in the hope of encouraging them to keep their collective eye on the ball.

Dear Councillor,

It is now public knowledge that BAWC have pulled out of their negotiations with Infratil.

PLEASE don't let the issue of planes over Herne Bay drop off your radar. It is as important as ever, just temporarily less urgent.

For their own (presumably good commercial) reasons, Infratil couldn't allow Thanet or Canterbury Councils enough time to give their proposed increase in air traffic the careful attention it deserves. I got the impression that everything became rather hasty and rushed.

This temporary setback in Infratil's growth plans gives us all a much-needed breathing space. It is essential that we all use this interlude to agree a robust framework which allows Infratil scope for commercial success, while maintaining the quality of life for the residents of Herne Bay. Rather than rushing into this half-cocked, we can work towards a sound and solid "win-win" solution.

At Tuesday's HBAMP meeting, I was delighted to see you all agreed that this issue transcends party boundaries. At the meeting with Infratil on the 24th March, I think it is essential that you have Paul Twyman and a flight path expert present. Only then can you be sure of establishing what is possible and what is practical in terms of flight paths, monitoring and policing. And that is how to get the best deal for Herne Bay.

Bigger than politics

Herne Bay Area Members Panel, 10th March 2009 

Well, we went, we saw, but I'm not sure we've conquered quite yet.

Everyone paid attention when we gave our speeches, no booing, no rotten tomatoes - excellent behaviour.

Canterbury City Council has a long-standing appointment to meet Infratil in a couple of weeks. Cllr Ron Flaherty (LibDem, Heron ward) called for cross-party, non-political support from all Herne Bay Councillors to press CCC to get an independent expert on flight paths to attend. This expert would be able to spot if/when Infratil dodge, duck, dive or fib.

Cllr Flaherty also pointed out that Paul Twyman (head of the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee, the statutory body overseeing Manston) should attend. I'm absolutely boggled that he isn't automatically invited to everything Manston-related (do any of you, dear readers, have any idea why he isn't?).

Motion carried unanimously.

Hopeful.

City leader names BA as mystery firm

John Gilbey: leak

Clipping: thisiskent

A TOP Kent politician is the latest person to name British Airways as the firm set to move into Manston. Thanet council called an emergency meeting last month to change regulations of the airport's night flights in the belief that a new freight operator was about to relocate there. Despite widespread speculation that British Airways World Cargo was the firm set to move in, no formal announcement has since been made. But in a meeting last week, Canterbury City Council leader John Gilbey said:

"My understanding is that Kent International Airport has been approached to relocate a long haul international freight operation to Manston from its existing base. Infratil have therefore been asked to facilitate the relocation of this company to KIA and secondly confirm that they will be able to operate between the hours of 6am and 11.30pm."

He later confirmed he believed the company in question is BA. An airport spokesman said he did not know how Cllr Gilbey had come by the information and refused to disclose who the operator would be until the deal had been finalised.

Meanwhile, the airport's expansion plan has been backed by Conservative leader David Cameron's new economy spokesman. David Freud used the Lord Mayor of Canterbury's annual free lecture to say the airport is the key to regeneration in east Kent. Mr Freud, who lives near Sandwich, said:

"I am appalled at how bad we are in this country about building infrastructure. My solution to Heathrow is to build a rail link to Manston. It's so obvious. It is stunning that we have an airport like that, with one of the longest runways in the country, yet someone decided not to link it to a railway line three miles away. It would do more for the growth of Kent than any other project and would solve the problem of London's fourth airport at a stroke."

Mr Freud joins Mayor of London Boris Johnson on the list of senior Tories to support the airport.