Sparks fly over AWP fiasco

The unutterable shambles of the AWP meeting has given cause for complaint. A fully-fledged formal foot-stamping has landed with a thump at TDC Towers and should give a few people there pause for thought - a few snippets are reproduced below for your enlightenment.

Firstly, there is the problem of Mr Buchanan being given the opportunity to offically heckle the Council's draft report.

If simply by applying to address the working party results in one party with vested interests being able to speak in chambers, then this should be widely known. In this specific instance, I wish to know why officers did not think to invite other interested parties.

Then Cllr Gideon, the AWP Chair, and Cllrs Marson and Wiltshire come in for some stick over apparently partisan harrying of a TDC officer.

NB a couple of important snippets went missing during my cutting and pasting - shown in [square brackets] - my apologies to the three councillors, and particularly Cllr Marson for incorrectly ascribing Cllr Gideon's actions to her.

[Cllr Gideon, Cllr Wiltshire and] Cllr Marson repeatedly called into question the validity of the exercise. [However, Cllr Gideon’s line of questioning to Hannah Thorpe, the officer in charge of the consultation, should be called into question.] She posed a series of questions, leading questions, that included phrases such as "do you think it was fair", "was it more difficult for you to interpret", "was it not as good as" - going on at length to suggest that the process was somehow lacking. Hannah Thorpe was concise and clear in her response and said that the process was as robust and democratic as any, that this type of open consultation was one used by many councils and, indeed, was a type frequently used by TDC.

This should have been the end of that but Cllrs Gideon, Wiltshire and Marson repeatedly came back to this line of questioning. Hannah Thorpe finally advised that this consultation had resulted in the largest response in numbers of any council consultation and that continued undermining and questioning of this process was potentially "dangerous" as it could call into question all the many previous (and presumably future) consultations undertaken by TDC.

I consider the Chair's behaviour went way beyond that required/expected of a Chair. Clarification and further information was sought and obtained from Hannah Thorpe and that should have been sufficient. My view is that she brought her own opinion of the consultation into the discussion thus acting beyond her role as Chair.

Next up - Cllr Gideon's selective acceptance of numbers. Infratil's wishful forecasts are fine, but the World Health Organisation is regarded as questionable.

Cllr Green had asked that an amendment/addition of his be discussed and had supplied a paper. His paper contained detailed statistical evidence from the World Health Organisation, from the House of Commons and from Visit Kent as his points pertained to health, the impact of night flights on the local tourist economy and to serious concerns about quota count systems. The group were asked if they wished this paper to be added to the draft response. This was agreed.

At this point, Cllr Gideon said she was not sure where all these figures had come from, that they might be questionable, that they didn't need to be included and would Cllr Green be happy if the amended draft included the "spirit" of his comments. I consider this to be an outrageous intervention given that the presentation from Manston was unchallenged, that figures supplied by Manston seem, somehow, to be true and reliable yet figures researched by Cllr Green and all properly referenced to independent and nationally and internationally recognised bodies should be called into question and required to be removed from a subsequent document that will be presented to the scrutiny committee.

During the meeting, and subsequently in the press, Mr Buchanan has tried to merge the results of his own consultation (of unknown and unknowable impartiality) with the results of TDC's consultation. Any statistician worth their salt would puke with rage at the very suggestion.

Mr Buchanan does not seem to understand that you cannot simply add the two "surveys" together. Who knows whether his claimed 962 people in favour of night flights are the same people as wrote to TDC expressing their night flight support? The potential for double-counting here is enormous. In the interests of balance, the results from No Night Flights (and we understand and accept that there may be double-counting here too) must also be put in front of members.

All in all, it paints a very unflattering picture.

The way in which TDC conducts itself goes to the very heart of our democracy. If we, as residents/electors, can not have faith in the way the council and its officers conduct matters then we can have little or no faith in the democratic process. Most of council business is conducted out of the public gaze and, having attended this meeting, I despair as I contemplate how much must go unremarked upon and how little accountability there seems to be.

Thanet Airport Working Party 4th April

Like pushing your own face into a bacon slicer. Slowly. It was shambolic to a degree I would once have found shocking.

Charles Buchanan had been invited to speak by Cllr Gideon (chair), at Madeline Homer's suggestion, to "clarify" a number of points relating to the AWP's draft response. This led to some confusion as to whether the current draft report would need to be returned to Parsons Brinckerhoff for rewriting in the light of whatever Mr Buchanan might be about to say. Eventually they decided to play it by ear, and if only minor adjustments were required, they could go straight to the next stage of the process (Overview & Scrutiny) without the AWP needing to meet again.

[An aside: WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? TDC have had their consultation, and received a report from the independent consultants. Why is Buchanan even allowed to speak at the AWP, let alone be allowed to modify the Council's document? We've all seen TDC's draft report, and there's plenty that NoNightFlights would like to comment on, as (I guess) would the CPRE Protect Kent, and many others. If TDC want to avoid legal crucifixion for bias and failure of process, they are going to have to cut Mr Buchanan out of the loop, or include everyone.]

At the beginning of the meeting, Mr Buchanan's scope for comment was whittled down from the whole report to sections 4.7 to 4.7.3 - largely as a result of Cllr Campbell's insistence. Mr Buchanan was accompanied a consultant from Bickerdike Allen Partners (who said nothing), and another from York Aviation who ended up doing most of the talking.

Some while into the discussions, Cllr Campbell realised that the AWP all had a new and previously unseen document, and complained that they hadn't been given time to assimilate it. It eventually transpired that this was not a TDC document, but had come from Buchanan. He had said that he had been hoping to speak more widely than 4.7-4.7.3, and presumably had wanted to work his way through the document, point by point.

Looking at the signing-in book on the front desk, Mr Buchanan was the first in, and had presumably just left a copy of the document at each seat. Sneaky bastard. Homer simply told everyone to "pretend they hadn't seen it" and not to include any reference to it in their discussions, although she did tell Cllr Marson that she could take her copy home (!).

People wiser than I in the ways of protocol and the conduct of meetings would know better, but I would have thought a more proper course of action would have been for Cllr Gideon to collect and destroy the documents, rebuke Mr Buchanan, and minute accordingly. Or just punch someone.

In between trying to undermine the credibility of Parsons Brinckerhoff and their report, the guy from York Aviation did reveal the identity of the six airports that appeared in Section 3.10 of the York Aviation report as the basis for employment forecasts. They are Bournemouth, Bristol, Blackpool, Leeds/Bradford, Edinburgh and East Midlands - the last of these being the "outlier" on the graph due to the high volumes of freight it handles. He also let slip that Manston expected a 50:50 mix of freight and passenger traffic - the previous story has been 90% passenger.

Charles Buchanan stated that the proposal does not claim that 1,4552 jobs and £30.4m GVA (Gross Value Added) would be created by night flights, rather that the absence of night flights would jeopardise the potential benefits of the airport by these amounts.

In my eyes, Charles Buchanan exemplified the use of data to obscure and distort issues. In striking contrast was Council officer Hannah Thorpe - easily the star of the evening - who stuck resolutely to the principle of using data to clarify, and sticking strictly within the limits of validity rather than trying to extrapolate in the hope of supporting anyone’s preconceptions.

So when Cllr Gideon asked whether free-form (as opposed to questionnaire-style) responses were harder to analyse meaningfully - Ms Thorpe: No, we do it all the time - we're doing it for the Asset Management consultation.

Cllr Gideon: was the format of the survey a good way of getting a response? - Ms Thorpe: it was widely promoted through mail shots, press articles and adverts, and is "equally as valid" as any other form of consultation conducted by TDC.

Cllr Gideon: what percentage of Thanet's population responded? - Ms Thorpe: that's not a valid or correct way to assess the response.

Cllr Gideon: doesn't the low percentage response rate invalidate the result? - Ms Thorpe: don't go there, this is the highest response rate we've had for any consultation - if you disregard this result, you'll have to disregard every consultation result we've ever had.

Cllr Green successfully argued for the inclusion in the report of three significant additional considerations: a summary of the health impacts of broken and disrupted sleep from the World Health Organisation; a critical assessment of the short-comings of the QC noise rating system, from the House of Commons library; and an overview of the scale and economic importance of Thanet's tourism industry.

Cllr Campbell successfully argued that the effects of noise disruption on residents' rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights needed to be included in the report.

Cllr Hart, when explaining his decision to go for an in-house consultation rather than spending £50k on MORI made an interesting point. Many people had been puzzling over how TDC proposed to implement the proposed weighting of responses from those under the flight path as against those living out of earshot - what multiplier, or what algorithm would be used?

Cllr Hart's solution was disarmingly simple: it would be down to councillors to use their own judgement. Just as councillors make a judgement call when assessing the planning applications - closer proximity means a greater impact - they should use their own judgement to assess how much more weight should be attached to responses that come from those under the flight path.

Threat to night time flights bid

Plans for night flights from Manston Airport could be under threat as the Labour takes control of the council. Airport director Charles Buchanan is looking to meet with the new administration which campaigned in May's election on the promise it would oppose night flights. Mr Buchanan said:

"We are looking to meet with the new administration at the earliest opportunity and discuss the proposals we have put forward."

Despite an anti-night flight stance in its manifesto the Labour group has yet to comment on the latest proposals by Manston Airport. One Labour councillor who has spoken out against night flights is Ramsgate Mayor David Green. He said:

"The position is being looked at more or less as we speak. I can not say what it will be, it is quite difficult. We are taking time to talk to everyone involved."

Since Manston Airport submitted its proposals for an average of eight flights a night (between 11pm and 7am), many Labour councillors have been reluctant to comment on the issue through fear that any pre-determination would preclude them from voting on night flights in any future debate.

thisiskent 23rd Dec 2012

Noise monitoring at Manston Airport

Noise? What Noise?

More needs to be done to monitor noise created by airplanes at Manston airport, Thanet council officers have admitted after a grilling by councillors.

During the meeting of the Airport Working Party last Wednesday, members quizzed council officials on what had been done to make sure Manston airport operator Infratil sticks to the conditions of its planning agreement, a Section 106, with the council. Labour councillor David Green said he did not think the monitoring was sufficiently independent or transparent, adding:

"I am starting from the position that I want a successful airport. But it seems the only way of achieving that is if the airport is monitored by this council, and that monitoring is seen to be independent and transparent to the public."

Environmental protection manager, Penny Button, said the only data the council had to assess noise from airplanes was being provided by Infratil itself.

Mr Green, who later described the admission as "refreshingly honest and shocking", said:

"Noise monitoring is only as good as the noise monitoring stations, none of which we have control over."

Officers said the council had collected £4,000 in fines over the last two years for unscheduled night flights found to be in breach of noise limitations.

Manston airport chief executive Charles Buchanan said the number of night flights taking place over Thanet varied from two to 10 a month but said that flights exceeding noise limits were rare.

"We monitor noise as most airports do. It is our responsibility to fund and maintain the noise monitors, which we do, and provide information to the council, which is totally normal. I believe we are meeting our obligation with the council and the 106 agreement that we have in place."

Questions were also raised about waste water from the airport flowing into Pegwell Bay, a nature reserve, and whether monitoring of it was properly enforced by the council.

Community service manager Madeline Homer said that due to a recent restructuring of the council she was not able to answer all the members' questions then, but would report back to the working party at the next meeting, a date for which has yet to be announced.

thisiskent 7th Oct 2011

Cllr David Green writes:

On Tuesday (30th August) I proposed, and Peter Campbell seconded, that a report, from the Council’s Airport Working Party, on the monitoring of activities at Manston Airport including Night Flights policy be adopted by the Thanet District Council (TDC) Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and forwarded to Cabinet. The committee voted 8 to 7 with all Labour Councillors and Cllr King in favour.

“1(a) The Council adopts a policy of not allowing scheduled, pre-planned or otherwise timetabled flights between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00

(b) That a period of 1 hour at either end of the flying day be allowed for late/early arriving flights only.

(c) That a penalty be applied to any flights arriving during the 1 hour periods

(d) No take-offs will be allowed between 23:00 and 07:00 hours

(e) A schedule of exceptions to the above will be prepared to include ‘mercy flights’, and flights, medical emergencies, coastguard movements etc.

2. In respect of aspirations to be carried into a successor to the current Section.106 agreement;

(a) Consideration be given to requesting the Airport owners whoever they may be at any given time to contribute to the cost of a TDC Airport Officer and that requirement is included in a new section 106 Agreement;

(b) A new Section 106 Agreement is negotiated within 12 months.

3. A further Term of Reference be added to the Airport Working Party; purpose that investigation is undertaken to the relationship between a possible Parkway Station and the Airport and the current need for it.

4. Quarterly or half yearly reports are received by Thanet District Council on the performance of the Manston International Airport as measured against the section 106 Agreement.

5. Thanet District Council be recommended to ask the Manston International Airport operator to review the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee (KIACC).”

---

---

All of this is good sensible stuff, with a few provisos.

1. TDC needs to have sight of Manston's schedules in order to ensure that 1(b) isn't open to abuse.
2. The system of fines for 1(c) should be severe enough to be a deterrent - the current regime of doubling the fine for repeat offences would be a good starting point.
3. Does 2(b) mean that the requirement to rengotiate a new S106 every 12 months is written into the next S106, or that the current S106 should be renegotiated within 12 months?
4. Manston should be reporting, as per Cllr Green's point 4, on a monthly basis.

Motion calls for a policy on scheduled night flights

The Thanet Labour group has tabled a resolution over night flights from Manston airport at the district council's next meeting.

The motion calls for the council to adopt a policy of not allowing scheduled or planned flights between 11pm and 7am and to rule that any arrivals or departures in an extra hour either side be subject to a fine.  Exceptions to the ban would include "mercy flights" and flights for medical emergencies under Labour's proposals.  Labour's Councillor David Green said:

"Thanet District Council, as the local planning authority, has a clear duty to produce a Local Development Framework, against which local businesses, developers and residents can plan their future in terms of land use and environmental impact. It is clear that the council has failed in this duty with regard to the future development of Kent International Airport. The environmental agreement that controls the conditions of use of the airport (section 106) was devised in 2000 and was anticipated as being updated every three years. In the intervening years it has served the community well, allowing development of the airport, but protecting residents from the worst environmental impacts. However, the aircraft industry and environmental standards have moved on. A new agreement is required, and the airport owners need a clear guide to what is acceptable."

Labour believes that merely reworking the old Section 106 is inadequate and that a new application through the planning process is necessary because of fears over residents' health from noise and disrupted sleep patterns. Mr Green added:

"The legal opinion obtained on at least two occasions has been that night-time flying represents sufficient intensification of use as to require fresh planning approval."

Thanet council leader Bob Bayford said the motion was "premature". He added:

"As far as I can see the resolution is very little different to the policy the council already has on night flights. I think the time to debate the council's policy on night flying is when we have a proposal from Infratil on changes to it, not before."

thisiskent 10th Jun 2011

Residents rally on night flights at public meeting in Chatham House School

Clipping: thisiskent

RESIDENTS against plans for regular night flights at Manston airport made their anger felt at the first public meeting on the issue. The hall at Chatham House School was packed for the meeting called by Ramsgate Town Council on Monday night. It gave people the chance to air their views on an application by the owners of Manston airport, Infratil, to allow scheduled flights at night. The application was made in September to Thanet council.

The meeting, chaired by Ramsgate mayor David Green, featured speeches from Kim Gibson of the Ramsgate Alliance of Residents' Associations (Rara) and Susan Kennedy of the No to Night Flights campaign. Mrs Kennedy, who works for the East Kent NHS Trust, argued the benefit of jobs created by extra night flights was minimal and outweighed by the negative impact on the area's tourism trade. She added night flights would have a bad effect on residents' health:

"There is a mounting body of evidence which shows the serious negative impact on people's health and children's education. Noise isn't just annoying, it is dangerous, it can even be deadly."

Rara secretary Mrs Gibson also cited health dangers in relation to night flights and argued the airport had been disregarding public safety issues:

"Infratil chief executive Charles Buchanan stated at a KIACC (Kent International Airport Consultative Committee) meeting on September 17 that due to the wind farm becoming live and causing a cluster on the radar it made it very difficult to land aircraft safely. The secondary surveillance radar which will alleviate these problems will not be ready until November 2011, so for the next 13 months we are living with the possibility of a plane coming down."

The floor was also opened to Ramsgate residents who raised numerous objections to the introduction of night flights. Ronald Blake, who described himself as a "long suffering resident", said that for the people of Thanet to pay for an "expensive consultation" over night flights is "like a condemned man buying the bullet he will be executed with".

The town council sent a letter to Mr Buchanan on October 20 inviting him to attend the meeting but he declined, citing "prior business commitments". Thanet South MP Laura Sandys also sent her apologies saying she had to be in Westminster. The only member of Thanet council's Airport Working Party – which will make recommendations on the application – to speak was Councillor Mike Harrison, who assured residents of the group's impartiality, saying he had "no axe to grind one way or the other".

Ramsgate town councillors are scheduled to vote on the issue during a meeting on Wednesday, prior to a 12-week public consultation. Thanet council will not be expected to vote on night flights until next year.

By andrew woodman andrew.woodman@krnmedia.co.uk

Public get the chance to air views on airport expansion plans

Cllr David Green

Clipping: thisiskent

RAMSGATE town council is to hold a public meeting to discuss proposals for more night flights from Manston airport. Chairman David Green said the council decided to hold the debate after residents used last Wednesday's council meeting to vent their fears over more night noise disturbance. He said:

"Many of the statements made were against allowing night flights, with residents concerned regarding the impact they would have on the quality of life in Ramsgate and upon its development potential, both as a residential town and for the development of employment through visitor attractions."

At the meeting last Wednesday it was agreed that the council would hold a public meeting at 7pm at Chatham House Grammar School on Monday, October 25. Mr Green added:

"We need to listen further to residents' views, before deciding the council's position on night flights at the next council meeting on 3rd November."

Residents can leave their views on the message centre section of the council's website www.ramsgatetc.kentparishes.gov.uk



Ramsgate Town Council consultation

At the Ramsgate Town Council meeting this coming Wednesday 6th October at 7pm, Cllr David Green is going to be asking the council how best they can consult (separately, it seems, from TDC) with people in Ramsgate.

Venue: The Council Chamber, The Custom House, Harbour Parade, Ramsgate.

As we know, many of 'our' councillors appear in favour of the proposal. Councillors Jill Kirby and Brenda Rogers claimed overwhelming support for night flights following their own consultation with residents in Nethercourt 18 months ago, but when pressed, admitted that the survey had not been exhaustive but a good sample had been taken!

It would be good for Ramsgate Town Council to get a good feel for the opposition to the proposal and so we need a fair crowd. If RTC end up throwing their weight (bantam though it be) behind the proposal, it will make it harder still for us. Cllr Green is happy for questions to be submitted in advance as well as taking them on the evening. Questions can be emailed to them from their WEBSITE.

If they are, in fact, still making up their collective mind as to what they think of the proposed new night flight policy, this is the best possible time to tell them what you think - you might even tip the balance! And if you've got any ideas about how they can best run an effective consultation, do let them know.

Night flying fuels fresh Manston airport fight

Clipping: thisiskent

Agreements on night flights cannot be changed until the airport owners make a planning application. An independent group set up to advise on the development of Manston airport has said no to more night flights. Kent International Airport Consultative Committee chairman Paul Twyman told a meeting of Thanet council’s airport working group that while there should be a balance of “economic and environmental interests”, he was against changing current night policy.

An existing section 106 planning agreement restricts flying between 11pm and 7am. Although it expired in 2003 the agreement will remain in effect until a new one is signed by Thanet council and airport owners Infratil. On February 12 Infratil persuaded Thanet council to hold an emergency meeting requesting a temporary extension of flying times to 6am to 11.30pm in a bid to attract a new airline operator. The council was told the reason was so the company could attract British Airways World Cargo which, Infratil said, would create more than 400 jobs. After the council agreed to the changes, BAWC’s move from Stansted Airport was cancelled. Night flights are now supposed to adhere to the original terms.

On Tuesday KIACC vice chairman Nick Cole told working party members that aircraft noise is a problem for residents and raised a question over the whereabouts of noise monitoring equipment. Mr Twyman said:

“On the western take-off route planes should turn at about 1.2 miles to avoid villages but they have not done this. We have had a number of excuses over the years and I now think routes need to be clearly defined. We have to have some mechanism to ensure that these routes are kept to. In a good airport there should be good noise monitoring and we don’t seem to have mobile noise monitoring.”

KIACC committee member Malcolm Kirkaldie said:

“If someone wants to complain about noise or planes not sticking to routes it has to be done within 15 days but Infratil takes an awfully long time and doesn’t have to come back to us in 15 days, 20 days or 30 days.”

Thanet council planning boss Brian White said:

“We get separate complaints from residents about noise. Of course there has been and still is duplication of complaints. We are talking to Infratil about sharing a website with the airport.”

Mr Twyman said:

“The local authority needs a big stick it can wield at Infratil when they don’t behave themselves. I think there have to be steep or steeper penalties for people flying outside the agreed hours. We must try to build noise reduction into our plans.”

After the meeting airport working group chairman Mike Harrison said:

“Infratil has to apply to us for a night-time flying policy which will trigger a six-month consultation process.”

Ramsgate councillor David Green, who was in the audience, said:

“It seems to me to be the same old questions and the same old answers. The existing 106 agreement ran out years ago but there is a clause that enables it to continue until another is created. Talking to KIACC was another stage in the process but nothing can happen to address issues until Infratil applies to extend a building, build a new terminal or for an amendment to night flights because the agreement is attached to a planning decision.”

Steve Higgins, of the Stop Manston Expansion Group, said:

“The council need to engage with the community before they make any changes to the policy on night flying.”