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

Night flights may not be answer for jobs

Maurice Byford

Clipping: thisiskent

IN THE letters page of the Isle of Thanet Gazette over recent weeks there have been passionate letters supporting the proposal by Infratil for night flights over Thanet as a means to expand the airport services at Manston. While I support the proposal of expansion and the attempts by the airport to attract an airline to operate out of Thanet it is clear to me that the proposals set out for the night flights option are extremely misguided.

One of your contributors, Wendy Fry, had the temerity to call detractors "moaners" and suggested that if you purchased a property on the flight path then you should 'put up with the consequence of noise'. As someone who has lived here for over 26 years, when I moved into the area the airport was still operated by the MoD and night flights were extremely rare.

When it became a commercial airport it was on the firm understanding that night flights would not occur. So I am afraid I find it very objectionable that supporters of the proposal would condemn and denigrate the likes of myself for finding argument against the expansion when clearly the objection against me and others like me is wholly inaccurate.

Currently I reside in the Palm Bay area which is technically outside of the "flight path" and "noise contour". During the day we can hear planes taking off and landing at Manston, indeed when modern jets were in situ we could regularly hear them testing the engines. So the absurd notion by Infratil that only a few thousand homes are going to be affected by this night flying is wrong. The fact is that the majority of Thanet will be affected by this decision.

A 737 at one mile out and 4,000 feet generates 78db noise on the ground. A plane at take-off generates 140db which is 10db louder than a pneumatic drill heard from 10 paces away (figures courtesy of Environmental Protection UK). The University of Bern produced a comprehensive research paper conclusively linking heart stress problems and psychological impairment to people living within the vicinity of an airport that operated night flights.

Additionally research carried out by the University of Southampton proved that night flights consistently affected sleep patterns in adults and that the acceptable number of decibels for disturbing was far lower than originally claimed by airports in their "acceptable flight contour readings".

In fact as proved by London University in a research document conducted on behalf of the DoH it was proved that noise levels of 40db were sufficient to disturb the sleep of children and 40 to 45db in adults. The noise levels predicted for those in the flight path will be at least 57db, more likely 70-80db. For the furthest reaches of Thanet it will be between 40 to 60db. Depending on house insulation, it is likely that at least half the residents of Thanet will be affected by this proposal.

It was also conclusively proved that with 15 per cent of subjects there was a noticeable deterioration in cognitive function, in particular it was noticed that most affected children suffered greatly from listlessness and attention deficit at school as a direct result of night-time flying.

So, maybe I am a "moaner". Personally I think I am just "concerned" and with good reason. Do I want to see Manston a vibrant and growing airport recruiting huge numbers of people from within the local area? Yes I do. But there is a problem.

If you take time to read the business plan submitted by Infratil there is no guarantee or commitment to growth in the right areas, instead it is "assumed" that by allowing night flights that the airport would then be able to attract airlines to the area. There is absolutely no prior agreement or commitment that this would happen by a third party and no guarantee that additional investment would be forthcoming. In fact as evidenced by other small airfields that have completed this process they have systematically failed to encourage airlines or external travel companies to use their airfields over the traditional London or city-based airports.

In an industry that is currently in contraction it is pure wishful thinking to assume that just by the precedence of being able to offer night flights that travel operators and airlines would flock to Thanet. The airport at Bournemouth was able to attract airlines and travel operators first and then moved to night flying later as the airport grew. In fact the only airports to move to night flights before they had operators remain dedicated cargo airports like Southend and Doncaster. Manston, it appears, is to be the exception to the rule.

So where do the 6,000 jobs come from as evidenced from the business plan? Interestingly, the jobs will come from external, related and subsidiary providers. NOT from Infratil. In fact Infratil only commit to 110 new jobs, which makes perfect sense for a small-scale cargo airport. The other 400-plus jobs only come into being after Infratil have attracted this elusive tour operator and airline.

Then what happens if Infratil fail to attract additional business to Manston, do the night flights stop? No, because a precedent has been set and Infratil now have a reasonable income from the cargo services and have planning permission for night flights. The benefit for Thanet is negligible at best, horrific at worst. We have already seen from the debacle of the banking bailout the cost of incompetent officials in their inability to apply restrictions and conditions to a business gift to aid or assist.

Yet again we are faced with the prospect of poor planning and no accountability for the sake of promises that will in all likelihood, given the current economic state, fail to deliver. What is worse the children and the health of the population of Thanet are to suffer because of a vague promise and "it could happen" attitude by the airport owners. Once more we bear the brunt of dubious decisions by our elected and paid officials.

See more on: Health

LETTER: lost business

Dear TDC,

I would like to protest regarding the proposed night flights between 11pm and 7am at Kent International airport. They would cause a great noise pollution to the town of Ramsgate and cause the town to lose jobs and investment far greater than night flights could create. Currently a large number of the population of Thanet tolerate the current large jets that use Kent International airport however simply some will not.

To promote Ramsgate as a seaside town with constant noise pollution would be to sign a warrant for the demise of the town altogether. The town is current benefiting from an influx of Londoners like myself and my brother and his family who moved here for quality of life. I still work in London and spend my wages in Ramsgate. I regularly employ locals for work on my property for work on investment properties I have purchased in Ramsgate, to maintain my vehicles, I spend my money in the local shops have my haircut here and the list could go on. To promote night flights would be to close the door for a lot of people who would wish to live in a seaside town such as this.

I would like to let you know of a personal experience on this subject. On 7th July 2007 myself, my brother’s family, my aunt and her friend spent the afternoon on the beach in Ramsgate. We watched as every 9 minutes a 747 jumbo jet flow low over the beach as it prepared to ‘bounce’, I believe is the term, as they practise their landing at Kent International airport.

My aunt and her friend, who where preparing to retire from London both with their own houses and no mortgage where so horrified at the noise that my aunt declared she could not live in a town that had this level of noise. She is currently purchasing a property in Broadstairs. In short on 7th July 2007 Ramsgate lost over million pounds of investment because two older ladies didn’t like the noise of the jets during the day. I would expect the repercussions of night flights would be further reaching. I would say now that if they did go ahead and they wake me when they pass over my property I would not consider staying in Ramsgate. I am all for the expansion of KIA but not at the cost of the local economy or a reduction of the quality of people’s lives.

Letter: glazing

Dear NoNightFlights,

Just a couple of points. Should the council roll over and allow night flights (God forbid), who is going to to pay for the triple glazing of windows and doors that will be required for residents under and around the flight paths, Local authorities, Infratil, I don't think so.

 

Do the local authorities realise that residents under the flight path will be applying for a reduction in council tax as their properties will be devalued.

 

Do the local residents affected realise their property will become harder and in some cases impossible to sell and price they get will be greatly reduced of course that includes the estate agents!