KCC's contribution, for what it's worth

Boldly Stepping...

KCC are happily throttling themselves with management speak and business jargon, which is why some of their worst ideas are dressed up as "Bold Steps". The latest in the series is "Bold Steps for Aviation" which is described as

"a discussion paper which suggests how the UK's aviation capacity needs could be met without the need to develop a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary.  It is intended to contribute to the national debate and is published in response to the recent proposals from Lord Foster and the Mayor of London."

Like it or not, KCC's voice will carry some weight in the interminable debate about future flight capacity in the south-east, and this document is what they're thinking of saying on our behalf. If you would like to make any comments on the document (which you can download HERE), please email them to aviation@kent.gov.uk.

Here's an excerpt that gives KCC's (i.e. Paul Carter's) take on the future role of Manston [with comments]:

4.2.1 Increased use of Manston Airport

In Kent, Manston Airport has the potential to make a significant contribution, providing excellent connections to Europe destinations and reduced flight times. Manston has one of the longest runways in Europe (at 2,752 metres) and is therefore able to cater for all modern jet aircraft. The airport operates in Class G airspace, outside of the London Control Zone, and has sufficient capacity for the 4.7 mppa and 400,000 tonnes of freight anticipated by the Airport Master Plan by 2033 (Manston Airport Master Plan, 2009). Its local environmental impacts are greatly reduced by its location on the Thanet Peninsula, with much of its uncrowded flight path located over water to the east of Ramsgate. There is a fully-equipped passenger terminal facility with a capacity of around 1 mppa subject to the aircraft used and scheduling arrangements.

[Manston has the 14th longest runway in the UK. Modern jet aircraft don't need runways this long - efficient design means they can take of and land on shorter runways. The massive old freighters like the Antonovs do need long runways. The 2009 Master Plan also forecast 206,000 passengers a year by 2012 - it's less than 30,000. So how do the planes get from the runway to the "uncrowded flight path" east of Ramsgate? By flying straight over Ramsgate of course.]

Manston enjoys good strategic road links to London and the wider South East via the A299 dual carriageway, which joins the M2 motorway approximately 19 miles west of the airport. There are also three primary rail routes to Ramsgate, located 3 miles east of Manston, which serve the London termini of St Pancras International via domestic high speed services on High Speed One (HS1), Charing Cross and Victoria, therefore offering a total of five trains per hour during off-peak periods.

However these connections will need to be improved if Manston is to truly succeed as a regional airport. Research commissioned by KCC (through an EU funded project seeking to improve sustainable surface access to regional airports) reveals evidence that with a fixed rail link passenger numbers increase as it enables a wider catchment of people to use the airport. Newcastle Airport’s passenger numbers increased by 27% after the first full operational year of the Metro link to the airport and passenger numbers have continued to grow year on year. A station near to Manston Airport served by high speed rail services to London will increase the attractiveness of the airport to airlines and passengers.

[The potential passengers who live in and around London will STILL have excellent transport links to other airports, even if a Manston Parkway station is built.]

Line speed enhancements have been secured through a successful Regional Growth Fund bid and should be operational by 2015; and work is underway to take forward the provision of the proposed Thanet Parkway rail station, which subject to funding could also be operational by the end of 2015. KCC is also pushing for improved rail connection (using existing lines) between Ashford and Gatwick, which would link Manston to both Gatwick and Heathrow.

[The line speed enhancements save a couple of minutes. This time saving will be lost if trains stop at a Parkway station.]

Manston would strongly complement Heathrow and Gatwick as they increasingly focus on accommodating long-haul flights at the expense of domestic and near-European services. Development of Manston as a regional airport would create employment opportunities in one of England’s most disadvantaged areas; the airport’s Master Plan forecast for 2033 would see up to 6,000 additional direct and indirect jobs within the area, development for which is generally supported by the local community.

[Paul Carter is still obediently trotting out Manston's pie-in-the-sky job forecasts, despite them being rubbished by TDC's two independent consultant's reports.]

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 Pickle

The already deprived residents of one of the poorest local authorities in England may soon be deprived of sleep, too — thanks to the ineptitude of Thanet council.

Thanet's Manston airport, owned by Kiwi conglomerate lnfratil, wants to operate flights throughout the night — mostly old, noisy freight 747s. The airport's boss, Charles "Manston" Buchanan, says this will somehow help create more than 3,000 jobs, as well as, one presumes, raging insomnia for the thousands of council taxpayers who live under the flight path.

An independent study commissioned by Thanet's previous Tory administration pooh-poohed Manston's pie-in-the-sky job creation numbers, reporting that the figure was likely to be "significantly overstated". Back in December the Tories lost control to Labour, who have subsequently dropped detailed legal investigation in favour of the much cheaper fudge of a public "consultation".

As part of this brave new rubber-stamping approach, the council's website even published a link to the airport's own version of the night flight consultation, where Manston says "your comments may also be forwarded to Thanet district council". "May"?

Other councils take note: unpopular scheme in the pipeline? Why not put the consultation in the hands of the applicants? Two birds with one stone. Brilliant!

Private Eye 9th Mar 2012

---

Treat yourself to more good stuff like this - subscribe to Private Eye.