Airport Working Party: unprepared

The AWP may be prepared to shoot itself in the foot, but it's not preparing for much else.

In August this year - 5 months after the airport was put up for sale - the Airport Working Party had one of their games of musical chairs, when the membership and chairmanship changes. When the music stopped, Cllr Jo Gideon had become chair of the Group, the rest of the merry crew being Cllrs Alexandrou, Bruce, Gibson, Grove, Harrison, Marson and Worrow.

At that meeting in August, the AWP laid out its action plan and timetable for the foreseeable, starting with a review of the S106 and a good hard look at the results of a number of research trips to airports around Britain over the last few years.

Nothing like being prepared

The only members of the original cast to turn up for yesterday's meeting were Cllrs Alexandrou, Gideon and Marson, with Cllrs Campbell, King and Wise there as understudies, substituting for some of the absentees. It was one of those meetings where I found myself shaking my head in disbelief and growing horror, hoping that I might wake up.

The first stumbling block identified by Cllr Gideon was that none of them had the legal expertise necessary to make specific recommendations for a new S106. Fair enough. Cllr Gideon went on to say that they could instead look at why there had been so many concerns over the adequacy of the document. Good idea - identifying the flaws and short-comings of the current agreement would help when producing the next version.

However, Cllr Marson was concerned that they might just end up with a wish list of things they might like to talk about at some point in the future. Er, yes, that's the point - that "wish list" would be TDC's negotiating position, and that "point in the future" would be the negotiations.

Cllr Campbell pointed out that if the Council could come to a position on what it would want from a S106 agreement, then it would be ready to enter into negotiations with a new owner, should the opportunity arise. Thus the Council would be ready for negotiations if there is a quick sale, and it would be remiss of the Council not to have a starting position for negotiations. (EXACTLY!) Cllr Alexandrou agreed, saying that without an opening negotiating position, there is the risk that TDC will be seen as having an "anything goes" attitude, so there is a clear need for some ground rules.

The next stumbling block to be discovered was that the airport is up for sale. Er, we all knew that in August when the AWP's terms of reference were defined and the agenda for this meeting was set. Some of the AWP viewed the fact that airport is up for sale as a reason for not reviewing the S106 at all, but Cllr Alexandrou pointed out that there is currently someone to negotiate with - the current owners.

Nonetheless, Cllr Gideon concluded that the consensus was that this is the wrong time to review the S106 agreement, and that it should be revisited as and when the airport sale goes through, or a planning application is received. It would be marvellous if the AWP adopted the motto used by hundreds of thousands of scouts and guides across Britain - "Be Prepared".

It wouldn't be very difficult or time-consuming or expensive to produce an outline of TDC's ideal S106, with "must have" and "nice to have" elements listed in priority order.

• Right at the top of the list would have to be: the S106 must be attached to a planning permission - this would give TDC the leverage it is so woefully lacking at the moment.
• The new S106 must include an element of compulsion - it is absurd that the airport operator can choose whether or not to discuss the terms of its permission to operate on TDC's patch.
• The new S106 must be completely unambiguous - the current version has no clear definition of what counts as a scheduled night flight.

Do feel free to add your own ideas for what should be included in the new S106 in the comments section below.

Wasted Journeys

Our attention was then turned to the reports produced by earlier AWP outings to airports around the country. The intrepid councillors had been to Prestwick (Glasgow), Southend, Norwich, Bristol, Bournemouth and Luton. Cllr Gideon dismissed the papers as "reading a bit like someone's diary - not an incisive or meaty comparison document the AWP could do something with". Oh dear. Perhaps it was just as well that none of the councillors who spent all those days and nights away from their constituencies were present to see their work being rubbished.

Self-destruct

And things went from bad to worse. Having decided that there was no way they could force Infratil into a root-and-branch review of the S106, the AWP thought it might be a good idea to go to Infratil with the suggestion of making some "minimal amendments - bringing the agreement up to date, data compliance and so on".

This would be a disaster. The S106 stipulates re-negotiation every 3 years (although we all know this has not happened so far). Any negotiation with Infratil to make minor tweaks to the S106 would effectively reset the 3 year clock.

This would mean that the new owner of the airport (and Infratil for as long as they continue to own the airport) would then be completely within their rights to refuse to enter into any further S106 negotiations with TDC for the next 3 years.

---

---

Where the S106 renegotiation is concerned, the only thing worse than doing nothing is not doing enough.

Infratil is selling Manston, but wants to buy Stansted. Why?

In March 2012, Infratil announced that Manston was up for sale because it wanted to "refocus its investment profile" and concentrate on retail, production and supplying gas and electricity. What they didn't mention in their press releases was that Manston had lost them money hand over fist ever since they bought it.

In the previous couple of years Infratil had "written down" the value of its two European airports (Manston and Prestwick) from £70m to £36m. These write-downs were simply more realistic estimates of the actual value of the airports, in the light of their performance and the fact that they were losing Infratil about £6m a year.

Don't forget, dear reader, that Infratil is an infrastructure investment company. They buy and sell "big stuff" (putting it technically) to make money for their investors. On their website, Infratil state that "Infratil’s primary goal is to provide its shareholders with a consistent return of 20% per annum over the long term".

Clearly this 20% hadn't happened at Manston, and Infratil realised it wasn't going to happen soon enough to please their investors, if ever. So they decided to cut their losses.

But now we learn that Infratil are joining forces with Morrison & Co (the bank that owns a large chunk of Infratil) and a large pension fund to put in a bid for Stansted Airport. Stansted is owned by BAA, the largest airport operator in Britain, and the Competition Commission ruled some time ago that BAA owned to much of Britain's airport capacity and would have to sell some of it. BAA spent a lot of time and and money fighting this through the courts, but has finally accepted that it will have to sell Stansted.

This makes Stansted a very interesting purchase for a number of reasons. BAA also owns Heathrow, and has spent years carefully managing the mix of flights and carriers at the two airports to avoid them cannibalising each other's customer base. It hasn't been in BAA's interests to have Heathrow and Stansted competing with each other. Clearly, this will change when a new operator takes control of Stansted - there will be a massive increase in competition.

Stansted is well placed to take on new business. Throughout the recent hoo-hah about airport capacity in the south-east, one simple fact has been under-reported - there isn't a shortage of capacity in the south-east. BAA's own chief financial officer was reported as recently as April 2012 saying that Stansted is "only half full".

Both Stansted and Manston have spare capacity, long runways, and are in the "aviation-hungry" south-east. So why would Infratil balk at spending a few million a year at Manston, but leap at the opportunity to invest a BILLION in Stansted? The answer, of course, is in the question - it's the difference between "spending" and "investing". And this is also the answer to those who ask why not Manston.

Manston doesn't feature in any of the serious discussions about the future of aviation in the south-east (and it doesn't feature in Infratil's strategy) for one plain and simple reason - it's in the wrong place. If these two maps don't explain it clearly enough, have a look at this. 

Rival group enters battle for Stansted airport

A consortium led by an Australasian investment manager has emerged as an early rival to Manchester Airports Group in the £1bn battle for Stansted airport.

Morrison & Co, which operates out of New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong, is heading a bid team that also includes the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and Infratil, a Wellington-based infrastructure investor.

Stansted was finally put on the block last month after a three-year legal fight by owner, BAA, which tried unsuccessfully to halt the forced sale of the airport demanded by the Competition Commission. BAA’s controlling shareholder, Ferrovial, is thought to have issued non-disclosure agreements last week to interested bidders, effectively kick-starting the process. The sale is being handled by Deutsche Bank and ING.

The interest of Infratil in Stansted has surprised some industry observers because it is currently trying to sell its two smaller British airports Glasgow Prestwick and Manston in Kent after a difficult foray into the UK aviation market. Infratil, which runs about £2.5bn of assets, has twice written down the airports in the past two years, with their carrying value almost halving from £70m to £36m today. The two airports lost around £6m last year.

Even so, Infratil is an experienced airport operator, with its interests including a 66pc stake in New Zealand’s Wellington Airport. Infratil’s operations at Prestwick have also enabled the company to develop a relationship with Ryanair the low-fare airline responsible for almost 70pc of Stansted’s traffic. The Morrison consortium is believed to have held early talks with Ryanair. The NZSF, which has more than £9bn assets, devotes about 9pc of the fund to infrastructure investment, spanning airports, transport, energy and oil.

The Morrison consortium faces early competition from the council-owned Manchester Airports Group, which is building up its firepower via a potential deal with Australia’s Industry Funds Management. The giant antipodean infrastructure investor, which has around £21bn under management, has agreed to inject about £1bn for a 35pc stake in the Manchester airport company on the condition it wins the bid for Stansted.

The Stansted auction, which may also attract interest from JP Morgan, Citi Infrastructure Partners and Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners, is complicated by the Government’s review of airport capacity in the south east, led by former Financial Services Authority chairman Sir Howard Davies. While there will be no decision on where to build a new runway before 2015, the recommendations of the Davies Commission could have a major impact on Stansted’s value.

Michael O’Leary, the Ryanair chief executive, can also influence how much BAA gets for Stansted. He has already expressed interest in taking a minority stake in any new owner of the airport as long as it agrees to lower both landing charges and the cost of building new facilities. Mr O’Leary has also attempted to drive down the price by declaring that any bid based on the airport’s £1.3bn regulated asset base the regulator’s proxy for its value is “artificial” and based on “Noddy land” economics.

telegraph.co.uk 22nd Sep 2012

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.

---

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

No Nightie Flights!

This is the film of the demonstration outside Thanet Council on May 17th by the campaigners against night flights at Manston airport. They argue that night flights disturb their sleep. Hence the bed and the night attire!

A Thanet Watch report. The campaigners against night flying at Manston airport demonstrate outside Thanet District Council - in their nighties! They want to show how night flights disturb the sleep of everyone under the flight path into the airport.

Courtesy of the excellent people of Thanet Watch.

One hundred campaigners against night flights at Manston airport turned out to present the council with a petition of 2,800 names – wearing just their nighties. The No To Nightie Flighties protest took place on Thursday at Thanet council's Cecil Square offices in Margate.

The petition were handed to Labour councillors by former Dr Who actress Janet Fielding. The names, gathered by the No Night Flights group, were submitted ahead of this week's Thanet council vote on whether to support plans for up to eight flights between 11pm and 7am at Manston airport.

Ms Fielding said:

"We're here to offer our support to the council for next week's crucial meeting to vote against allowing night flights at Manston. Along with the health and environmental issues surrounding night flights, there are potentially disastrous consequences for Ramsgate's recovering tourism industry which needs to be protected. Who will want to stay in a hotel with planes flying over all night? This needs to be investigated in full."

The petition and the submission for the night flights, made by the owners of Manston airport, will be discussed at an extraordinary council meeting on Manston Airport Night Time Flying Policy on Thursday. Thanet council's Labour cabinet has already voted not to support night flights, which airport owners Infratil claim are vital for the future of the airport.

thisiskent 22nd May 2012

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.

Herne Bay people power

Congratulations to Herne Bay for a clear-cut response to the night flight proposals - "No thank you!".

If you have never heard of Peter Vickery-Jones, he is a Herne Bay councillor and holder of the Transport Portfolio for Canterbury City Council. In this article he complains that "Local activists have criticised this council for failing to respond to Manston's proposals". Unthinkable!

Anyone familiar with the process would know that CCC (themselves only a consultee) had committed themselves to assessing the responses from within the District before presenting their own response to TDC. Mind you, it would have been nice if the councillor had gone along to the KIACC meeting after the night flights proposal was published - as it was, Canterbury District wasn't represented.

Another opportunity we missed out on was Manston's consultation on flight paths and holding patterns - Canterbury Council were an official consultee, and got a nudging reminder email just before the end of the 14 week process. Unfortunately, it seems nobody cared enough about what happens in Canterbury's airspace to send in a response.

---

Plans for night flights from Manston have been shot down by residents in Herne Bay who have rejected the proposal in a consultation organised by the city council. Around 230 people responded to the survey, the vast majority complaining about the potential for noise and disturbance and overstated economic benefits.

Now the city council has sent a formal objection to Thanet District Council after members of the executive agreed last week that the proposals by the airport operator Infratil were unacceptable. Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones told members:

"Local activists have criticised this council for failing to respond to Manston's proposals but this is the first opportunity we have had. It’s not our fault because we have had to await the results of our consultation. If night flights are not good for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, then why Manston?"

The executive agreed to support the continued role of Manston in the "economic well being" of east Kent but believed the adverse impact on residents of night flying was not justified.

HB Gazette 5th April 2012