Night Flights vote - press coverage

Vote against Manston Airport night flights plan

BBC 25th May 2012

Plans for night flights from Manston Airport in Kent have been opposed by Thanet District Council. At a meeting on Thursday, the Labour-controlled council voted against all night flights to or from the airport. Charles Buchanan, the airport's chief executive, said:

"We are disappointed the council is not supporting the airport as much as it could."

In March, owners Infratil announced plans to sell Manston and Glasgow's Prestwick Airport. Mr Buchanan said the airport wanted to run "a small number" of scheduled night flights. He said the owners had received legal advice that two flights per night, on average, did not constitute "an increase in activity over and above that which is already permitted", and they could go ahead without needing extra planning permission. Mr Buchanan said a number of companies were interested in taking up the opportunity.

"They would also bring the rest of their daytime schedule to the airport as well. Without that they'll go to airports where they have that flexibility."

Council research showed that 73% of some 2,000 residents questioned were against the proposal, citing potential noise levels and disturbance to sleep as their primary reasons for objecting. The airport currently deals with passenger and commercial aircraft with a runway capable of taking Boeing 747s and Airbus A380s. Its refurbished terminal is capable of handling up to 700,000 passengers a year.

---

Thanet Council says "no" to night flights

Thanet Gazette 25th May 2012

MANSTON airport's plans to run as many as eight flights a night failed to get the support of Thanet District Council last night after a final crunch vote. Opinions divided along party lines at the extraordinary council meeting as the Labour administration motioned a rejection of the airport's proposals.

Council leader Clive Hart said the council's consultation response was based on the results of an independent review of the airport's proposals and the council's own consultation with residents. Conservatives argued that a vote against night flights was a vote against jobs for the area. Conservative group leader Bob Bayford said that a ban on all aircraft movements between 11pm and 7am was a "straight jacket" for the airport:

"At best it will delay the development of the airport, a worst it will kill the airport."

Mr Bayford added that it was "dangerous" for the council to base its response on a "seriously flawed" in-house consultation in which 73 percent of respondents opposed night time flying. Laughter came from the packed public gallery when Mr Bayford pointed out the Manston Airport's own consultation of residents showed 79 per cent being in support of night flights.

Mr Hart defended the in-house consultation saying it had the greatest response of any to date:

"The results have been extremely conclusive and it wasn't at all close."

The response stated the council's support of the day-time operation of Manston airport but said the council would not support night-time flying on the basis of its own consultation and the council-commissioned Parsons-Brinckerhoff report. Listing the objections, the report said the noise and environmental impacts had been underestimated by airport, the economic benefits of night flights were overestimated and that the impact on Thanet's tourism would be detrimental.

It also pointed to concerns raised in the World Health Organisation's assessment of the impacts of disturbed sleep and added that the night flight proposals had not considered Article 8 of the Human rights Act- the right to respect for private and family life.

The motion to adopt the response was won after Labour got the support of the council's two independent groups. The Conservatives voted unanimously not to support the response but were out-numbered. Phil Rose of the No Night Flights campaign and Charles Buchanan, chief executive of Manston Airport, watched the meeting from the public gallery. Mr Rose said:

"It is a good result and I am very, very pleased that the council came out following the recommendations of the independent reports. They have listened to the views of the people."

Mr Buchanan said the airport will take the vote into consideration and formulate its response:

"All we have ever asked for a limited number of night flights with mitigation measures. The result is disappointing but entirely predictable."

The council's response will not be binding as the council is only a consultee in Manston's own consultation of its night-time flying policy. A separate residents' petition against night flights, presented to the council last week, was also noted. It had collected 2682 signatures but only 777 were valid as the others did not include an address.

---

Manston chiefs attack council over night flight decision

kentnews May 25, 2012

Manston Airport chiefs say they are “very disappointed” after Thanet District Council last night voted to oppose night flights from the Thanet airfield. As part of the consultation process, the council saw a heated debate over its position. The Conservatives on the council were open to the suggestion, while the ruling Labour group were opposed.

Speaking this morning, chief executive of Manston, Charles Buchanan, said:

We are clearly very disappointed by this stance as it is completely inconsistent with the council’s stated policy to support the airport’s success as a creator of thousands of much needed jobs. The position the council adopted last night is also in sharp contrast to its leader Clive Hart’s stated assertion of ‘the council’s recognition of Manston Airport as an economic asset to Thanet’.

The council’s response contradicts the conclusions of the report from its own consultant Parson Brinckerhoff, which identifies that a ban on night time flying, in relation to passenger services, would: ‘almost certainly prohibit a large number of potential carriers’. Its consultant also recognises that with respect to freight operations, the absence of night flights ‘would undoubtedly hinder the ability of Manston to attract either regular flights or a based operator’.

It is this ability to attract passenger and freight services that will fundamentally determine whether the airport is an economic asset for Thanet, as well as providing the travel advantages for local people using their local airport. Importantly, the council which has sought to question Manston’s own economic impact report, has once again contradicted the conclusions of its consultants own report into the impact of the airport, which stated that: ‘…we are satisfied with the approach and values used for the economic assessment’.

Given that Parson Brinckerhoff acknowledges that they themselves only have ‘some relatively minor queries’, we are very surprised that the council has adopted such a negative approach towards the airport and its economic impact assessment. We will now obviously consider the council’s response before providing them, as a consultee on night-flights, with a reasoned reply in due course.

---

Manston night flights formally opposed by Thanet District Council

kentonline May 25 2012

Plans for night flights at Manston airport have suffered a big setback after councillors voted against the idea. Cabinet members of Thanet District Council had already said they would not support the bid by Kent International Airport. However, a full council meeting last night formally opposed the idea of night flights.

Manston wants some planes taking off and landing between 11pm and 7am. Scheduled night flights were suggested at the airport to help increase air capacity. But councillors decided the proposed scheduled flights would be too noisy and have too great an environmental impact. A consultation found three quarters of people living nearby also did not want night flights.

Charles Buchanan, chief executive of Manston Airport, said:

We are clearly very disappointed by this stance as it is completely inconsistent with the council’s stated policy to support the airport’s success as a creator of thousands of much needed jobs. The position the council adopted last night is also in sharp contrast to its leader Clive Hart’s stated assertion of ‘the council’s recognition of Manston Airport as an economic asset to Thanet’. Ironically at a time when the government is recognising the role that Manston could play a part in supporting the south east, by making use of existing under-utilised runway capacity, Thanet is apparently rejecting the opportunity to build its economy and create thousands of jobs.

The immediate conclusion is that despite the council’s stated support for the airport, the leadership has refused to recognise the operational flexibility that its own expert identifies as being necessary for that success. One can only guess why they have chosen such a course and put at risk one of the engines for the long term prosperity of Thanet. We will now obviously consider the council’s response before providing them, as a consultee on night-flights, with a reasoned reply in due course.

---

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”.”

Crunch vote on Manston night flights coming soon

A crunch vote on night flights will take place this month as Thanet council prepares to give its final views. Councillors have to choose whether to support plans for up to eight flights a night between 11pm and 7am.

Last week, the Labour cabinet was accused of being "anti-airport" when it agreed that, in response to the airport's consultation, it would not support night flights.

Former cabinet member for finance, Martin Wise, heckled council leader Clive Hart three times as he read out the council's draft response based on its own consultation. After the meeting, Mr Wise said:

"Following this sham consultation, it is clear the Labour group is totally against night flights and the airport, which needs to secure business for it to grow. The consultation has only attracted comments from those against the airport but it should have considered everybody. There is high unemployment in Thanet and people need jobs the airport will create."

Addressing the chamber, Mr Hart said the council consultation had shown 73 per cent of responses were against night-time flying while 26 per cent were in favour. One per cent did not express a clear opinion either way. He said:

"This clearly demonstrates that a large number of residents, and particularly those living under the flight path, were against the introduction of night-time flying."

He went on to say that the council-commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff report found that noise thresholds suggested by the airport's owners Infratil were likely to understate the actual noise impact on residents. He also included amendments to the original draft from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee drawing attention to World Health Organisation's assessment of the impacts of disturbed sleep, the effect of night flights on the tourism industry and Section 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Director of Manston airport Charles Buchanan said:

"The text of the response is fundamentally the same. It doesn't recognise the significant element of the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report which says a ban on night time flying would almost certainly prohibit a large number of potential carriers. A total ban on night flights sends the wrong message to business. We have proposed limits and a mitigation programme which the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report says goes further than that required by current Government guidance."

The council will vote on whether to support proposals for night flights at an extraordinary meeting on Thursday, May 24th.

thisiskent 15th May 2012

Location matters more than night flights

Night flights are not "make or break" for Manston airport, it will struggle regardless - that's the claim from Phil Rose of the No Night Flights group, which is campaigning against proposals to introduce scheduled flights between 11pm and 7am from Manston airport.

Mr Rose poured scorn on claims by the district's Conservative group that ending restrictions would improve the airport's fortunes. He said:

"It is not make or break. What is make or break for Manston is its location. The reason a series of carriers have pulled out, and the reason Infratil is selling the airport, is because of its location – surrounded on three sides by sea with a much smaller catchment area than other airports."

Mr Rose points out that not only does the successful London City Airport have no night flights but Prestwick Airport, also owned by Infratil and also up for sale, does. Norwich and Southampton Airports do not have night flights, except in exceptional circumstances. Other regional airports that have night flights include Southend which, despite seeing passenger numbers soar with the arrival of EasyJet this year, runs on average just over 400 night flights a year – 1.5 flights a night - far from the eight which Infratil's proposals would make possible.

On Thursday Thanet council will vote on whether to support Manston airport's night-flight policy. The submission was made to the authority last November. The council's draft response, was brought before the cabinet only last week after it was agreed with amendments by the authority's Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

It does not support night flights.

The report, written by the council's community services manager Madeline Homer, is based on the council-commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff report. It also includes the results of a 28-day consultation in which residents were asked for their views. Shadow cabinet member, Tory Councillor Martin Wise has accused Labour of being "anti-airport" for supporting a total ban on night flights.

Both sides have accused the other of cherry-picking information from the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report.

Labour claim the council's report supports the consultants' view that the airport had underestimated the potential negative impacts of night flying and overestimated the economic benefit. Airport chief executive Charles Buchanan strongly disagrees. Mr Buchanan said the draft response did not recognise a significant element of the Parsons Brinckerhoff report which said "A ban on night time flying would almost certainly prohibit a large number of potential carriers". He added that the draft response ignored the fact the independent report said the airport's mitigation programme "goes further than that required by current Government guidance." The Conservatives agree with Mr Buchanan: the points made in the draft response were not borne out by the consultants' report.

No Night Flights, unsurprisingly, do not agree. Mr Rose said:

"Mr Buchanan is cherry-picking a few bits that are complimentary and it ignoring the vast majority of the report. The report pointed out that if Manston does not have night flights it does not prevent it from attracting new business. It said that not having night flights would deny it having just three per cent of its freight market. This alone will not decide the airport's fate."

Thursday's vote looks likely to be drawn down party lines, with Labour committed in its election manifesto to opposing night flights. The Conservatives have promised its members a free vote. With Labour holding the leadership of the council only by the support of one of the authority's two Independent groups, the decision of councillors Ian Driver, John Worrow, Jack Cohen, Tom King and Bob Grove would appear to be crucial.

thisiskent 18th May 2012

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.

Mixed reaction to consultation

Thanet council's public consultation on Manston airport's night flight proposals has attracted 700 responses. The views given will help the council form its response to plans by airport operators Infratil to host an average of eight flights a night at Manston.

The authority's consultation was scaled back from plans to engage market research experts MORI and ask for views from other districts when Thanet council took legal advice that it was only a "consultee" on the plans and had no legally binding say in the matter.

Thanet council advertised the consultation on its website and in the press, wrote directly to 500 organisations and e-mailed its own database of contacts. The response represents less than one per cent of the population of Thanet. Leader of the council, Clive Hart, who took the decision to run a smaller consultation, said:

"It's encouraging to see that so many people have taken the time to tell us what they think. Before we draft our own response, it's vital that we clearly understand how our residents feel about these proposals."

Conservative group leader Bob Bayford said:

"I don't think 700 represents a good response at all. The problem with this consultation is that the respondents are self-selected.If we had used a private market-research company we would have had a reliable random sample but with this consultation we have the No Night Flights lobby encouraging people to write in and, to my mind, that means the results will be skewed."

[What about all those 4-page leaflets that the airport sent out, Cllr Bayford - won't those also "skew" the result?]

The feedback received from this consultation will be used, alongside the findings of the Parson Brinkerhoff environmental and economic impact report, to draft the council's response to Infratil. Mr Hart said:

"I think it should give us a good cross section. For people actually putting pen to paper, I think it is a good response. I don't know what percentage of the population it is, I couldn't comment on that, the main thing is we have a very good cross section. The decision to hold an in-house consultation is based on what is reasonable and what is practical."

Mr Hart said respondents' comments will be categorised based on their postcode, adding that greater consideration would given to the comments of those living under the flight path but would stop short of a formal "weighting" of responses. He said:

"It is not quantative data, it is qualitative data. You can't weight words. I think that is more useful. The bottom line is that we get people's opinions."

Phil Rose from the No Night Flights campaign said:

"It is a shame the consultation has been so short. It would have been better if it had been a more informed consultation.This is where TDC missed a trick and possibly missed out. However, there has been a strong reaction against night flights, which is not surprising."

Airport chief executive, Charles Buchanan, said the consultation was hindered by a misinterpretation of Parson Brinkerhoff report, which he feels was supportive of the airport's own impact assessment regarding night flights. He said:

"The independent report overall recognised that what we have said is, overall, satisfactory and that message isn't getting through. The legal position is that what we are doing at the moment does not require a planning application. The view that this might require a planning application in the future is to be debated. The key thing here is allowing the airport to compete on an equal basis with other airports so it can attract business to the area and generate economic activity so badly needed in Thanet and east Kent. It seems perverse we should be trying to stop the development of one of the biggest facilities in east Kent that could be capable of creating local jobs."

Mr Bayford said:

"My impression is that Infratil would not be asking for a relaxation in night time flying restrictions unless they believed it was necessary for the airport to survive in the short term and thrive in the long term."

He said the issue of night flights was a matter of balancing the needs of the many with the needs of the few, adding:

"I understand people are concerned about losing sleep at night but what about the guy who can't get a job, how much does he sleep at night?"

The consultation will close on Friday, March 2. To view the proposals and independent assessment go to thanet.gov.uk or visit Thanet's Gateway Plus in Margate or the council's district office in York Street, Ramsgate. To take part, residents must submit their comments in writing to Consultation, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Margate CT9 1XZ or by e-mail to consultation@thanet.gov.uk

Responses must include a full name and address, clearly stating a postcode.

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

Tit for tat at TDC

Manston is now a political football, and will be kicked around until Infratil take their ball home.

Cllr Bayford, who was Leader of the Council when both of Manston's night flying proposals were received, is now indulging in the time-honoured political tradition of finger-pointing, name-calling and blame-shifting.

The Conservative group at Thanet District Council have long been percieved as friends of the airport, but even they balked at the truly awful proposal submitted in 2010. When the 2011 proposal came in, they commissioned yet another consultancy to analyse and report on it - this is the recently released Parsons Brinckerhoff report.

The oversight and monitoring of Manston by TDC has been pitiful. TDC's non-renewal of the S106 through the years has been a woeful dereliction of duty. This has been happening under both Red and Blue administrations.

There are no heroes in this story - blame can be splashed in every direction. Conservative and Labour members (AND Officers, let us not forget) are all culpable. I'm not interested in who is to blame. I don't even want them to say sorry. I want them to DO sorry - clean up the mess, do it right, and do it now.

---

Manston Airport - Open Letter from Bob Bayford

Leader Clive Hart's latest press release concerning consultation on Infratil's night-time flying policy is simply breathtaking in its distance from the truth.

He claims that I had created 'a monster of a process', clearly ignoring the fact that the approach to consultation was determined by an in-house group of officers together with myself and (Labour) Councillor Mike Harrison, the then chair of the Airport Working Party. A draft process was then taken to that working party, where members made their contribution before final agreement. Hardly my process!

During the formative stages, a number of principles were established, with Cllr Harrison's full agreement. Amongst these were:-

1. That the substantive consultation had to be carried out by an independent, well-respected organisation. This was to remove any suggestion of TDC bias in the results.
2. That any reports produced by the airport in support of their proposals would be subjected to a rigorous 'peer review' to establish their veracity.
3. That the consultation should be 'zoned' to ensure that weighting was afforded to those most affected by night-time flying but that opinion had to be sought from not only the rest of Thanet but also those other residents and businesses in Kent who had an interest in Manston's expansion. To facilitate this wider consultation, KCC were contributing £40,000 towards the cost and Canterbury City Council £5000.
4. That getting the consultation right was more important than rushing to a conclusion.

As far as I am aware, these principles were all endorsed by the working party.

The timing of the consultation was always going to be determined by when the airport submitted its policy proposal and the subsequent submission of noise impact and economic impact reports. The peer review of the latter was published on 23^rd of January, which clears the way for public consultation.

The only money spent by TDC to date is the cost of the peer reviews. In my opinion, whatever the future may hold with regard to Manston, it was vital that any reports produced for the airport should have been subjected to expert, independent scrutiny, to inform the Council's stance on the airport's activities.

I am frankly surprised by the present leader's stance on this issue. On the one hand, he suggests that there is no need for the Council to consult but then proposes a half-baked consultation, guaranteed to produce a biased outcome.

Whether the Council can, at this stage, make any binding decisions on the airport is irrelevant. TDC has a civic leadership responsibility to have a view on the airport's expansion and operational ambitions. It is a topic that elicits strong opinions on both sides of the argument. The eventual fate of the airport will have economic and environmental consequences for many. TDC must give a lead, having considered the public's views and Infratil's proposals.

Bob Bayford

Leader, TDC Conservative Group

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