Public consultation starts on Manston's night flying proposal

Runs until Friday 2 March 2012

Thanet District Council is now asking members of the public for their views on proposals for regular night-time flying at Manston Airport. The proposals were submitted by Infratil, owners of the airport, on 27 October 2011 and included an aircraft noise assessment report and economic assessment, which are technical reports explaining the implications of the proposal.

View the documents submitted by Infratil in October 2011

After receiving the documents from Infratil, the council then commissioned specialists Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd, to carry out an independent assessment of the proposals and technical details to review the environmental and economic impacts.  This report was submitted to the council’s Community Services Manager, Madeline Homer on Thursday 19 January and was completed by specialists, Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd.

View the independent assessment completed by Parsons Brinckerhoff  (pdf, 367kb)

Purpose of the consultation

Thanet District Council has been asked by Infratil to comment on their proposals for regular night-time flying at Manston Airport. Before drafting a response, Thanet District Council would like to give members of the public an opportunity to have their say on the proposals. The feedback from this consultation will then be used, along with the findings of the independent assessment to help draft the council's response to ensure it takes into account the views of local people.

Legal advice has confirmed that, at this stage, the council is only being asked to provide a response to the proposals. The council is not in a position to make a decision on the night time flying policy at this stage. The council is seeking further advice as to whether the proposed night flying policy, if implemented, could result in an intensification or change in operation at the airport. This could then require a planning application at some point in the future.

Take part in the consultation

Consultation period: Friday 3 February - Friday 2 March 2012

Consultation audience: This consultation is open to all members of the public as well as Town and Parish Councils, Chambers of Commerce, Community and Residents Associations and Special Interest Groups established in Thanet.

How to respond

• Responses to the proposals must be submitted in writing or by e-mail.
• Your full name and address (WITH YOUR POSTCODE) must be provided with your response - these details will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used to analyse the feedback based on geographic area. This is so that particular attention can be paid to those directly affected by the airport's proposals (those living under the identified flight path).
• E-mail your comments to consultation@thanet.gov.uk
• Submit your comments in writing to Consultation, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Margate, CT9 1XZ
• Any responses submitted after the closing date (Friday 2 March) will not be accepted.

What happens next: Before submitting a response to Infratil, Councillors will have to consider the following:

1. The results to the public consultation
2. The findings from the Independent Assessment from Parsons Brinckerhoff
3. The proposals from Infratil

Councillors will consider the above at the following meetings:

• Airport Working Party
• Overview and Scrutiny
• Cabinet
• Full Council

Background information about the proposals

Study casts doubt on night flight benefits

Plans for night flights at Manston International Airport have been shot down by an independent report. Herne Bay campaigner Phil Rose said:

“This confirms a lot of what the No Night Flights campaign has been saying for the past two years. The original proposal and back-up documents submitted by Infratil were putting a very, very, positive spin on things. They were promising more than the airport could deliver, and they understated the effect night flights would have on the local population.”

The report by Parsons Brinckerhoff was commissioned by Thanet District Council following Manston’s application in October to have more planes landing and taking off between 10pm and 7am. Airport bosses say extra capacity is needed to meet demand for more flights, and would lead to more jobs and attract up to one million more passengers a year.

But the report, published on Monday, says predictions do not take into account the 2009 dip in demand. It says:

“In the short term, we do not believe the airport can justify a night flying quota system to support passenger growth.”

It warns that Manston’s isolated position and relatively small catchment area would stop airlines from moving to it, and suggests that any airline which does move to the area could be encouraged to operate during the day. Manston’s advisors say without night flights they could lose up to 40 per cent of available business, but Parsons Brinckerhoff’s report said they could not see any evidence for that figure, adding:

“Given that Manston Airport currently employs a proportionately large workforce for a small throughput, growth of passengers and freight in the short term may not necessarily lead to significant employment and hence economic impact.”

The report predicted there could be at least four complaints about noise a night, which it says is a “not insignificant number", and that while

“the noise assessment at first glance appears to tick all the right boxes [...] the analysis of the noise impacts have, in our opinion, resulted in an underestimation of the potential adverse impacts on residents.”

---

Manston claimed:

• Proposal: To allow more night flights based on total amount of noise rather than total number of flights. This system is used at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stransted. Manston bosses say night flights are crucial to the airport’s future.
• Night flights: Any take-off or landing between 10pm and 7am. There were 43 at Manston in the year up to last September. It is costly for airports as they have to employ a full shift of staff (including firefighters) even for just one flight.
• Demand: Demand for flights is expected to grow “dramatically” in the next 20 years. The government wants to make better use of existing airports but does not want to build a third runway at Heathrow. Allowing night flights would help meet the demand.

HB Times 26th Jan 2012

CPRE aren't impressed

Night flights at Manston have been an extremely contentious issue for many Thanet residents. Some believe that allowing the flights will bring economic prosperity to the area, with much needed local employment opportunities. Others believe that it is unlikely that many jobs will be created.

We took the stance some time ago that we did not believe allowing night flights would bring any real economic benefit to the residents of Thanet, and may in fact bring real harm to the area due to the impacts of noise and air pollution.

We are glad to see that we have been justified in this view by a recently published report authored on behalf of Thanet District Council by Parsons Brinkerhoff, a leading transport consultancy.

This report, which is based on an examination of the documents submitted by Infratil, clearly brings into doubt many of their claims.  Parsons Brinkerhoff indicates that Infratil's views of the economic benefits are wildly over-optimistic, while the impacts of noise - the major concern of residents in the area - have been seriously understated. 

These two points alone vindicate the local opposition groups, whose concerns have been regarded by some as backward-looking and 'nimby-ism'.

The fact that Flybe are pulling out in March because they cannot fill planes is damning proof of the lack of demand for flights out of Manston. We simply cannot see how allowing night flights will help Manston grow as a passenger airport, and therefore generate both jobs and economic sustainability for the area.

In light of this recent report, CPRE Protect Kent would ask that there be a full and unrestricted public consultation before any night flights are allowed.  This should be open and transparent, with all the facts available.

This will enable the people of East Kent to weigh up the benefits and disadvantages of night flights and lobby Thanet District Council accordingly. It is only right they be given this opportunity, as it is their communities and environment that will be significantly affected by the implementation of night flights.

CPRE Protect Kent, Jamie Weir 25th Jan 2012

Council Report Pans Night Flights Proposal

It's grim reading for Manston, but it could be good news for East Kent - depending on Thanet District Council’s priorities. Yes folks, the Parsons Brinckerhoff report has finally arrived, and you can read, print and download your copy HERE. 

This summary is in handy bite-sized chunks - just click on the "next installment" at the end of each post to work your way through...

Shortly after Manston submitted their most recent night flying proposal last autumn, TDC commissioned independent experts Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) to look at all the paperwork. Manston’s application was supported by a noise impact report from Bickerdike Allen Partners (BAP), and an economic assessment from York Aviation.

TDC’s brief to PB was:

[p2]  To assess the suitability of the methodology used in the application; To test the assumptions made; To review the Planning situation

I have no idea why they asked for the third point - this is clearly a matter for planning lawyers. PB spend about a third of their report rehashing the history of planning problems and then throw up their hands in resignation and say “ask a expert”:

[p22] It is recommended that Legal Council [sic] Opinion is sought on the question of intensification of use.

Some key findings from the PB report:

• Manston wants night flights for freight.
• If this was a planning application, it would be rejected.
• Having night flights will not generate passenger growth.
• The noise analysis supporting Manston's application is flawed.
• The economic analysis supporting Manston's application is flawed.
• The S106 agreement and the planning status of the airport is a shambles.

Incidentally, if you found this useful, do feel free to pass it on to friends, neighbours and colleagues - just use the "EMAIL THIS" link below.

---

Next installment: It’s all about freight

---

Noise Nuisance Under-stated

Manston's night flying application was backed up by a report on noise nuisance from Bickerdike Allen Partners (BAP). The BAP report assumes that house windows are closed all year, thus understating the decibels heard by residents by 27dB.

The Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) report picks up on this:

[p11] This of course fails to consider the partially open window situation described in both WHO guidelines and PPG24, which might be expected in the late spring, summer and early autumn months of the year. This corresponds to the months of year covered by the summer timetable in which the bulk of activity occurs at most airports in the UK.

The PB report also correctly identifies the obvious flaw with Manston’s proposal to exclude parts of the night from the night quota period. This would inevitably result in a late-night and early morning rush hour:

[p11] In relation to the proposed QC quota, the exclusion of the shoulder hours from the night time period is out of step with other airports, and would result in a “cramming” of movements into the shoulder hours, times in which most of the UK population is attempting to get to sleep, or before they would normally wake.

(The night quota period is when they propose to monitor and limit aircraft noise - 2330 to 0600. The so-called shoulder periods - 2300 to 2330 and 0600 to 0700 - would be treated as normal daytime, and would not be included.)

The PB report says the assessment of noise impact completely under-estimates the noise impact - under any other circumstances this would be an unacceptable proposal:

[p11] ... the failure to consider the impacts with windows open, coupled with a mitigation scheme that potentially may not reflect the noise risks from larger aircraft movements at night, may not be as favourable to protecting the local amenity for nearby residents. Had the council been considering a planning application for night operations with 5338 properties above 48 dB, and 312 exposed to the 95 dB Single Event Level, it is unlikely that the application would be seen favourably unless there was a substantive economic argument for its approval.

The PB report says in summary:

[p12] The analysis of the noise impacts have, in our opinion, resulted in an underestimation of the potential adverse impacts on residents in the area.

---

Next installment: York Aviation

---

Night flights do not mean jobs, says report

Night flights from Manston Airport will not create the 3,000 jobs promised by operators Infratil, an independent report says. The final document, compiled by specialists Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd, was submitted to the council's Community Services Manager Madeline Homer on Thursday (19th Jan).

As exclusively revealed by the IoT Gazette on Friday 20th Jan, the report cast doubt on the economic argument for an average eight flights a night and claimed the environmental impact had been understated. The report said that if a night flying ban was to remain, the airport would only be excluded from 9 per cent of the scheduled freight market. It went on:

"Given that Manston Airport currently employs a proportionately large workforce for a small throughput, growth of passengers and freight in the short term may not necessarily lead to a significant employment and hence economic impact.

The report also said the analysis of the noise generated by airport had "resulted in an underestimation of the potential impacts on residents in the area".

The reported also recommended that Infratil's night flight proposal not be treated as a planning application meaning the decision on whether to adopt them could go before a full council.

thisiskent 23rd Jan 2012

---

Full details and analysis on this website when the report is made public.

---

Seasoned greetings...

A reader wrote (to the powers that be):

---

Dear All,

This morning at daft o'clock (21st Dec at 04:30) a noisy jet landed at Manston.

The pilot clearly had a mission to wake as many people (and the dead) as he could, as the noisy approach of this jet woke me up well before descending over Ramsgate/landing with the amount of throttling backwards and forward on approach, but his/her fun did not stop there no sireeee, they devoted their time to make as much use of reverse thrust as possible.

Well, at least they (the crew) and Infratil gave us the residents of Ramsgate a clear message - and that was screw you.

Merry Xmas

Yanks for the memory

Ah yes, there are those who go misty-eyed at the memory of the USAF and their fantastically noisy jets at Manston. It appears that the memory is selective...

In the early 1950s America was even more racially broken than it is today, and this was evident amongst their armed forces, even when abroad. On arriving in beautiful Thanet, the white air force personnel made themselves at home in Margate, away from the noise of the flightpath.

Guess where the black guys ended up...

---

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.

Manston Aircraft Noise Maps

Here are the noise contour maps that Manston provided with their application. As you'll see, they didn't bother to provide a full set.

Click the maps to get a clearer view.

Boeing Jumbo 747-400

Arr from West	Arr from East
Dep to West	Dep to East

Boeing Jumbo 737-800

Arr from West	Arr from East
Dep to West	Dep to East

McDonnell Douglas MD-11

Arr from West	Arr from East
Dep to West	Dep to East