CCC's Regeneration Department

My favourite starfish

In the interests of spreading our love and help far and wide we (Mrs Earplugs and I) met up with some of the Canterbury people who will be dealing with Thanet District Council over the next few months while Infratil’s Masterplan is being goggled at.

It turned out to be a useful and encouraging way to spend a morning. There was a big cheese from CCC’s Environmental Health bods, the top banana from their Regeneration department, and Cllr Mike Patterson, who is on the KIACC. (I couldn’t help wondering: if you snip bits off people from Regeneration, do they simply re-grow, like starfish? If so, it offers an easy way to ramp up the staffing levels.)

The plan was to provide them with enough armour, ammunition, sticks and carrots for them to be able to nudge Thanet away from a worst-of-all-possible-worlds outcome. The mighty wodge of words, numbers and pictures we gave them can be summarised thus:

• The Draft Masterplan for KIA is indicative but insubstantial – it needs to be redrafted, and then put out to consultation properly.
• The Section 106 Agreement should reflect the needs of everyone affected by the operation of the airport, not just Infratil and TDC.
• There is absolutely no need or justification for night flights (other than emergency diversions).
• Flight paths should avoid population centres by overflying the sea, or sparsely populated land.
• If overflying towns is unavoidable, the planes could fly higher for longer, and then descend more steeply.
• These ‘people-friendly’ routes should be agreed and implemented before flight volumes increase.
• Infratil must demonstrate that the routes are being adhered to by recording and reporting what the planes actually do.
• Infratil must install adequate noise and pollution monitoring equipment.
• The noise monitoring equipment must be used consistently.
• The readings from all the monitoring equipment must be recorded consistently.
• The recorded readings must be published frequently and regularly (e.g. on-line).
• Failure to comply with the S106 agreement must be reported and fined. Any decisions not to fine must be explained.

As you can see, all good reasonable stuff, and they seemed to buy into it. In all fairness, we all know that Canterbury are no more than consultees in this process, and have no effective Vulcan death-grip that they could apply, other than possibly dragging everything through the courts. In that respect they are about as powerless as a Thanet resident. Nonetheless, they are prepared to listen politely, pay attention and take notes – which puts them in my good books. It remains to be seen how much they can influence Thanet, but I shall keep fuelling them.

YES WE CAN: sleep

Absolutely no night flights. Not scheduled flights. Not chartered flights. No night flights. Diversions from other airports (due to emergencies, bad weather and so on), humanitarian missions or national crisis are fine. Obviously. But otherwise... Absolutely no night flights.

I hope that's clear.

A plane coming in to land makes a LOT of noise. At night, when everything else is that much quieter, the sound stands out against the reduced background noise, so seems louder, and is more disruptive. This much is self-evident.

Even modern planes are noisy, and even when they're relatively high up. An enquiry at Stansted in 2007 took evidence of noise complaints that came from a roughly rectangular area 35 miles by 60 miles around the airport. The sound footprint of each aircraft is large; the combined impact of all an airport's traffic taken together is huge.

The noise itself is stressful, as is the loss of sleep - a 10 decibel increase of noise at night raises the risk of hypertension by 14%. On health grounds for all those within earshot, night flights are a non-starter. From the point of view of quality of life, ditto.

Economics: the aviation group of the Local Government Association reports that “no evidence has been produced by the Government or the aviation industry to justify claims that night flights have an overall economic benefit”. That sentence is worth re-reading out loud and thinking about carefully. The LGA, which covers the whole country, but concentrates on local interests and priorities has a 'Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group'. They've done their homework, they've done their sums, and they've come to the conclusion that night flights don't make economic sense.

Matt Clarke (Infratil's Chief Exec) has said that Manston is operating at a fraction of its capacity. Surely there can be no need for them to operate night flights. As there's plenty of available daytime capacity, that should be used up first.

Night flights: unhealthy, uneconomic, unwanted and unnecessary.

YES WE CAN: enjoy being awake

Yes we can: the story so far... To be commercially viable (let alone successful), Manston will have to be very busy; and night flights are undesirable on a number of counts. Top marks to those of you who have leapt to the conclusion that there will be a lot of daytime flights.

During the day there's the advantage that fewer people will be woken from their sleep. For those already awake, the planes will be just as loud as at night, but the higher level of background noise means that the overall effect is less startling and disruptive.

It's worth remembering that the human body is designed to work best with a 'normal' background level of entirely natural noises - think in terms of the plains of Africa, Garden of Eden, Sherwood Forest, walking in wide open countryside, that sort of thing. Anything above and beyond that rapidly becomes stressful - just how stressful depends on the volume, pitch, repetition and so on. Even relatively small changes in the noise levels can have a significant effect. A brief digression for a quiet chat about decibels:

Sounds are measured in decibels. Zero (0) decibels is the softest sound a person with normal hearing can hear at least 50% of the time.The important thing to know about decibels is this: if a sound increases by 10 decibels, it doubles in loudness as we perceive it - it sounds twice as loud. Here are decibel levels of everyday sounds:

• 0 Decibels Threshold of hearing
• 10 Rustle of leaves
• 20 Water dripping
• 30 Whisper
• 40 Quiet radio in room
• 50 Moderate rainfall
• 60 Conversation, dishwasher
• 70 Busy traffic, vacuum cleaner
• 80 Alarm clock
• 90 Lawnmower
• 100 Snowmobile, chainsaw
• 110 Rock music
• 120 Jet plane takeoff

Now you know.

The point of telling you these things is to let you grasp the significance of this: a 5 decibel increase of noise during the day has been linked to primary school children being up to two months per year behind in their reading age. Five decibels is a relatively small increase in noise levels. Currently in Ramsgate there are primary schools operating what has been called "jet-pause teaching", where everything just comes to a halt until everyone can hear themselves think again. This is unacceptable. Nobody should have to put up with that, least of all our kids.

The obvious solution is to regulate and manage the flow of air traffic. This will inevitably involve trade-offs: for good practical reasons the planes like to have a long straight run-up to the runway when landing. An absolutely straight line may take them right over a town. We need to work together to see how much leeway there is, and how far the flight path can be curved away from town. It may be worth exploring trying to keep the planes higher for longer - we all know that some come in too low, too soon. We could look at the timings of flights - aircraft noise during the rush hour would seem less intrusive. We need imaginative solutions.

This should be one of the cornerstones of the S106 re-negotiations: avoid flying over built-up areas wherever and whenever possible - use the sea, or unpopulated/sparsely populated land instead. As I said before, it's not rocket science, just sense. Add your comments below, or email me.

YES WE CAN: monitor

Yes we can: the story so far… Infratil need Manston to be very busy; night flights are a bad thing; and the daytime flight paths must be designed to be as people-friendly as possible. So what happens next? Step aboard the time machine of your imagination, and gracefully swoop into the future…

Let’s suppose that Infratil have impressed everyone with their keenness to encourage clean and quiet planes to fly as cleanly and quietly as possible, at considerate times of day, where there are least people. Marvellous. I for one would be proud to brandish their commitment as an example to airport operators across the country. But how could I prove that their high ideals were the real deal?

This very question was addressed in the 2005 Alan Stratford & Associates report to Thanet District Council when they were reviewing the S106 agreement with PlaneStation:

To properly manage noise and environmental matters related to the operation and future growth of the airport, it will be essential to have in place a rigorous and comprehensive monitoring process. This needs to be adequately resourced, in terms of equipment and staff, and have in place clear and measurable targets and standards which have been mutually agreed, with related penalties for non-compliance. Demonstrable monitoring and enforcement is essential, also, in regard to the confidence within the surrounding communities that the airport’s activities are taking place under the influence and control of the Council.

Simply put, monitoring is the only way of being sure whether we are getting lots of dirt and noise, or little dirt and noise. Anyone who is not constantly working towards the latter needs to be taken out and flogged. In a constructive, educational and empowering way.

There are established and reliable technologies available for monitoring the presence and immediate environmental impacts of carbon dioxide and other gases, fumes, particulates, droplets, leakages and spillages. Given the towns at either end of the runway; the surrounding farmland; the underlying aquifers; the commercial sea fishing; the internationally important conservation areas; and the Isle of Thanet’s vulnerability to climate change, it’s in everyone’s interests that these monitoring systems should meet or exceed the highest statutory requirements. I don’t doubt for a moment that there would be no shortage of advice and support from Natural England, CPRE Kent, Kent Wildlife Trust, etc, etc. It’s all just there for the asking.

Noise and location are obviously closely linked. The Civil Aviation Authority has clear guidelines for what constitutes best practice for noise monitoring – at least two fixed microphones at each end of the runway, and at least one mobile microphone for measurements further from the airport. Historically, Manston’s noise monitoring has been sub-standard – as far as I know it’s still not up to scratch. Their radar has also been very basic, relying on a PSR system.

Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) is akin to a bat’s echolocation: the transmitter emits a powerful pulse, some of which is reflected back – the reflection and the delay indicate the direction and distance of an object.

Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) is more like a conversation. The transmitter sends a question and a transponder on the plane replies with information gleaned from the cockpit instruments. Again, the delay in the answer arriving indicates the distance; the answer itself confirms the distance and identifies the aircraft, location, speed, bearing, height, etc.

To monitor adherence to agreed routes and altitudes, SSR is essential. An airport can buy its own SSR system, or hire SSR feeds from a third party. In a recent phone conversation, Matt Clarke of Infratil said that Manston currently rents SSR feeds from the MoD. However, TDC don’t seem to be aware of this:

TDC’s Airport Working Party’s recent minutes state “It was understood that at the outset of a new service featuring some night-time aircraft movements, the secondary radar capability necessary to operate web tracking would not be affordable. However, an appropriate threshold of business levels ought to be established for its introduction.”

Similarly, “Noise abatement routes can only be monitored if secondary radar capacity is provided. This represents a considerable investment which cannot be justified by current aircraft usage. A threshold of aircraft usage should be set for its introduction.”

The impression I get is that in their conversations with TDC, Infratil are quoting a figure of £2½ million for their own SSR system (probably accurate) and using this as an excuse for not getting it yet, and thereby being unable to monitor their planes. This is, at best, disingenuous. For low volumes of traffic, it makes sense to hire a feed; when volumes increase sufficiently, the cost/benefit equation will tip in favour of buying their own. It’s a straightforward commercial decision – this is the cost of doing business.

Infratil are doing themselves no favours by trying to avoid monitoring by hiding behind the largest quotable cost. They have a duty of care to everyone on the ground, and everyone in the aircraft, to know exactly where everything is in the airspace over East Kent. Quite frankly, if they’re even hinting at not taking this seriously, they’re not fit to run an airport.

So there we have another solid pillar for the S106 Agreement: the immediate provision and consistent use of excellent monitoring equipment. Common sense demands it. TDC are perfectly within in their rights to request it. If Infratil were shrewd, they would forestall the issue by taking advice from the relevant aviation and environmental bodies and installing top notch monitoring systems. It wouldn’t be hard for them to present it as evidence of a green conscience, willingness to be a good neighbour, etc. It could win them friends. Everyone needs friends.

No case for night flights

Something of the night

They must be bats, wanting to fly in the dark. Not in the squeaky, blood-sucking sense. Just a bit nutso. Re-tune your ears and minds to human frequencies and I'll explain...

At the end of last year, Infratil published their draft MasterPlan, spelling out their hopes and dreams for the coming years. The projected growth in freight and passenger volumes is staggering. Both Thanet District Council and the CPRE were critical of the plan. The document will now rattle back and forth until an agreed final draft is produced, about September 2009.

In a separate but related development, Infratil (who were hoping to win a contract with BAWC) pushed TDC into changes to the Section 106 Agreement at very short notice. These changes would have allowed them a number of night flights to support the BAWC contract. This had the effect of drawing attention to the consequences of increased traffic through Manston. The BAWC deal fell through, and Thanet Council are now starting to draw up a pre-emptive night flying policy that will see them through until 2018.

With me so far? OK. But...

A lot of keen and clever people have spent a lot of time studying planes and airports. Much head-banging, hair-pulling, teeth-gnashing, midnight oil-burning... you get the picture. All this hard work has been condensed down into reports, analyses and presentations which we can all get hold of - we don't have to re-do all that slog.

The aviation group of the Local Government Association reports that “no evidence has been produced by the Government or the aviation industry to justify claims that night flights have an overall economic benefit”. That sentence is worth re-reading and thinking about. The LGA, which covers the whole country, but is focussed on local interests and priorities has a 'Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group'. They've done their homework, they've done their sums, and they've come to the conclusion that night flights don't make economic sense.

The World Health Organisation has found that people's health is damaged if their sleep is reduced or disrupted by noise. This wouldn't just affect those under the loudest part of the aircrafts' noise footprint - it would affect everyone within earshot.

In earlier applications for night flying, promises have been made that flights would be going in and out to the west of Manston, thus avoiding the more densely populated parts of east Kent. The key phrase in all those promises is "weather permitting".

Fact: most of the time the wind in Britain is westerly or south-westerly. Fact: for safety reasons, pilots prefer to land into the wind. So the most sincere of promises, made with the best of intentions, will come to nought if the wind's blowing in the wrong direction. The night flights would be coming in low over Ramsgate and Thanet to land at Manston. Lots of voters, waking up grumpy, needlessly.

Matt Clarke has said that Manston is operating at a fraction of its capacity, so there can be no need for them to operate night flights. There's plenty of available runway time throughout the daylight hours: surely it would make sense to use that up first.

No economic benefit; proven health cost; vote-loser; unnecessary. The Airport Working Group's recommendations onthe proposed night-time flying operations from 2010-2018 should be pretty straightforward: don't.

Fanciful employment figures

Ha, ha, ha, ha...  Oh.

Having been roped in to the shambolic shotgun-wedding-cum-phantom-pregnancy of Infratil's attempted seduction of BAWC, TDC have decided to have a bit of a think and Be Prepared. This will consist of producing a pre-emptive night flying policy, in the full expectation that it will need to modified later, pretty well regardless of who's flying. Rather than saving their efforts until they know what's required, presumably.

Anyway, wisdom and sense to one side, TDC Airport Working Group's briefing papers include Infratil's recent request for night flights, which contains their projected employment figures. This may be old news to many of you, but it's the first time I've seen them. Plug in your abacus, sharpen your pencil and screw in your monocle...

Infratil says:

The based aircraft operation would require the immediate employment/ relocation of;

*3 administration staff, 38 pilots, 8 freight forwarders along with a host of logistics, engineering, cleaning and catering staff required to support a based airline operation.

**Using examples from other UK airports it can be shown that the additional activity at the airport will generate indirect and induced employment opportunities for over 300 further full time employees. For example, East Midlands Airport reports that the Cargo operation of 300,000 tonnes per annum supports 2,100 indirect and induced jobs.

The influx of business relating to the new contract will also secure the future of the 150 staff already based at KIA.

The first slice of 57 jobs I understand. I think.

The next 55 jobs are made up of 49 specified posts and "a host of logistics, engineering, cleaning and catering staff" (this particular host amounts to six). These 55 jobs are to be filled by immediate employment/relocation. Not dissing Thanet, but I'm guessing that the 38 pilots will be relocations. Which brings us up to 57 + 3 + 8 = 68 new jobs for appropriately qualified and experienced people who live within commuting distance of Manston.

Ha, ha, ha, ha....

But now we get to the bit where you can throw away your abacus and monocle and stick your pencil up your nose. Infratil has more than 300 imaginary friends. It's OK though: they're not completely imaginary, because TDC believe in them too. But nobody wants to get bogged down in the humdrum, prosaic details of where these 300 might actually live and work in real life.

Oh.

I'm gob-smacked, horrified and despairing: TDC actually believed these unsubstantiated and wishful numbers. This, I finally realise, is the original source of TDC's oft-repeated claims of hundreds of jobs being created. They fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Guys, I realise that Thanet is hard-pressed and keen to attract employment. I understand that you have both a duty and a desire to do right by your electorate. But please don't fall for every shiny new promise - you announce yourselves as prey for any smooth-talking salesman and do a disservice to the very people you serve.

British Airways reject Manston airport

SLEEPERS can rest easy for awhile after British Airways shelved plans to fly noisy cargo planes over the area. Complaints flooded in after the airline was given the go ahead to fly 11 planes out of Kent International Airport at Manston and across Herne Bay, Tankerton and Chestfield the town between 6am and 11.30pm every day. Canterbury City Council was given just five days to respond to the proposal passed by its Thanet counterparts late last month.

But those fearing sleepless nights breathed a huge sigh of relief this week as BA pulled the plug and announced it had decided to remain at Stansted Airport.

Although pleased with the withdrawal, campaigner Phil Rose, of Beacon Hill, says the issue of planes over Herne Bay should not drop off the radar. He said:

"It's as important as ever, just temporarily less urgent. Obviously the latest announcement is a relief for us all, but airport owners Infratil have invested millions of pounds and will be looking for alternatives. This temporary setback gives us all much-needed breathing space. It is essential that we use this interlude to agree a robust framework which allows Infratil scope for commercial success, while maintaining the quality of life for the residents of Herne Bay. Rather than rushing into this half-cocked, we can work towards a sound and solid "win-win" solution. I am all for the creation of jobs and a boost to the local economy, but not if it sees Herne Bay getting screwed."

Councillors will be briefed by Infratil at a private meeting on Tuesday (March 24). Mr Rose said:

"They need to get an independent flight path expert to attend the meeting. Someone with no axe to grind, who can say whether or not the planes need to go over the town or can go out to sea. It may be that they says it's not possible or practical to over the sea, but we need to make sure Infratil aren't being lazy or greedy."

Agreeing with Mr Rose, Herne Bay councillor Ron Flaherty said:

"All members are determined to investigate thoroughly the possibility of changing the flight paths. A gun was held against the head of the consultative committee when we were given just five days to respond. We knew BA wanted to come to Manston, Infratil were keeping it a secret, and now BA have decided they don't want to come after all. The farce continues."

Speaking after BA's withdrawal, Manston chief executive Matt Clarke said:

"Like any business that bids for a new contract and is unsuccessful, we are obviously disappointed with this news. However, this negotiation was only one of several opportunities we have been pursuing and we are pleased with the level of interest shown by carriers in operating at KIA. The fact that Kent International was considered alongside Stansted shows how far its reputation in the industry has progressed since Infratil acquired it in 2005 and this bodes well for future business."

Clipping: thisiskent By jnurden

Cargo flights fear for Herne Bay

Clipping: thisiskent

Residents face sleepless nights from May as night-time flights are set to soar over Herne Bay and Whitstable from May. Herne Bay town centre and Hampton Pier are on the planned flight path for 11 British Airways cargo carriers and homes in Chestfield and Blean will also be affected. BA has been given the green light for 11 freighter planes to land and take off at Kent International Airport at Manston for an 18-month trial period from 6am to 11.30pm. Canterbury city council was given just one week to respond to the proposal, passed by Thanet Council earlier this month.

A third of the flights are expected to be directed over Herne Bay and Whitstable as the Boeing 747-400s make their way into land. Liberal Democrat councillor Ron Flaherty (Heron) demanded more information about the plans at a council meeting on Thursday. Tory council leader John Gilbey responded by confirming rumours that the previously unnamed international freight operation was British Airways. He said:

"My understanding is that Kent International Airport has been approached to relocate a long haul international freight operation, which I can confirm is British Airways, to Manston from its existing base. The proposal envisages an 18 month period of operation with three monthly review, at the conclusion of which a prospective night time flying policy, covering the period of 2010 to 2018 can be put into place."

As the flights will affect residents in the Canterbury district Cllr Flaherty, a former member of Kent International Airport Consultative Committee, is angry at the lack of consultation.

"I'm not happy about this, as many as a third of these proposed flights could come over us."

He is also annoyed that the city council was given less than a week to respond to the plans from airport owners Infratil, adding:

"Infratil threw this down with only five days notice and would not disclose who the airline was. I don't understand the rush because British Airways cargo operations have been looking for a new site away from Stansted for years."

Council spokesman Rob Davies said:

"Although we weren't given as much time as we would have liked, we did manage to produce a response in time."

The response listing the city council's concerns was included at the debate in Thanet. The city council's head of regeneration and economic development Ian Brown agreed that the plans would be good for the economy but was concerned about noise levels and their effect on the district:

"This proposal is potentially a major opportunity to generate employment and strengthen East Kent's economic structure. Overall we would expect best possible technology and methods of working to be deployed to minimise the environmental impact of the operations. There is no mention of any changes to noise abatement routes. Our understanding of routes for the preferred approach from the Dover Beacon shows the route passing to the west of Canterbury over Blean, Chestfield, Hampton and Herne Bay. It would be preferable if this route could be modified to mitigate noise over Chestfield or Herne Bay."

Although in theory the airline has permission for more than 2,000 flights a year, only a portion will be scheduled. A spokesman for BA World Cargo said: "British Airways World Cargo is currently in the process of tendering its long haul ground handling operations within the United Kingdom.

"These operations are currently based at Stansted Airport. However, as part of the tender process we are considering a number of different Airport options within the UK."

The owners will brief city councillors on the plans in a private meeting in March. Cllr Flaherty said:

"We have to seize this opportunity to determine whether these flights have to go over our town."

An Infratil spokesman said:

"Canterbury City Council has a permanent representative on the airport's consultative committee which meets monthly. The council also made a submission to us about the plans. The number of flights coming over Herne Bay will really depend on wind direction so it is hard to determine. The town is a fair distance from Manston so planes coming in to land will be at a high enough level where noise should not be a big issue."

By jnurden

Furore over fast track for night flight plans

Christine Tongue

Clipping: thisiskent

Changes to night flights at Manston airport were rushed through by Thanet council on Thursday in the hope of securing a major freight operator. Councillors unanimously agreed to pass changes to flight times to allow planes to take off and land for an extra 30 minutes in the evening until 11.30pm and between 6am and 7am. The agreement, to come into effect in May, is on the condition that Kent International Airport signs a deal with a large cargo operator, rumoured to be British Airways. Deputy leader Roger Latchford told councillors it was the chance to develop jobs for Thanet.

The agreement could mean an extra 112 jobs available at the airport including, control staff, firefighters, warehouse operatives and aircraft handlers. Infratil also estimate a further 300 indirect jobs would be generated from extra activity at the airport. A handful of protesters gathered in the public gallery including environmental activist Christine Tongue holding a sign saying: "What’s the rush?" Kent Council for the Protection Rural England director Hilary Newport said:

"There is a real risk that this airport will have an effect on tourism because Ramsgate will become unattractive. We will take advice on if this is something that needs to be challenged."

Councillors were then presented with a new seven-page agreement between Infratil and Thanet council and were given a five-minute adjournment to consider it. Eastcliff ward Cllr David Green proposed four amendments all of which were opposed. These were the use of runways away from Ramsgate, a reduction of the initial trial period from 18 months to nine months, not leaving the agreement open-ended to prevent another airline walking into the agreement and doubling fines when planes break the night-time curfew.

Central Harbour ward Cllr Peter Campbell demonstrated his discomfort at the speed at which the decision had come before full council. He said:

"I do not like being bounced into this situation. We have not consulted with residents but because of the current economic situation I will support it, but we need to tighten up on monitoring."

Nethercourt ward Cllrs Jill Kirby and Cllr Brenda Rogers hit the streets to find out what their residents thought of the proposed changes. Out of 338 people they asked, 80.5 per cent were in favour of the changes to night flights. A Thanet council spokesman said:

"A total of 11 movements a week of 747-400 aircraft has been proposed, with only a portion of these scheduled during these times. The arrangements will be reviewed every six months and, as part of the decision, an independent environmental consultant will be commissioned to carry out an assessment of the flights taking place during night-time hours. Infratil has also committed to improving noise monitoring and reporting."

KIA chief executive Matt Clarke said:

"I’m very pleased and we’re doing our best to get through the process.  We are grateful to the members of the Thanet council for its swift action to assist us with our request to extend the scheduled airport operating hours. Our growth as a regional airport is supported by local, regional and national planning policy and this decision enables our business to compete on a level playing field with other South East airports. Discussions continue with the prospective new carrier and we are pleased to have provided them with such a clear signal of community support for the activity, jobs and investment their business would deliver to Thanet."

It's D-Day for Manston night flights

A decision that could pave the way for more night-time flights from Kent International Airport is expected this evening. Councillors in Thanet are due to vote on plans to extend the flight window, allowing planes to take off or land at Manston from 6am until 11.30pm.

Airport owner Infratil is in talks with a major European airline that wants to use the site for long-haul international cargo movements. The as yet unnamed company, reported to be British Airways, hopes to fly Boeing 747 aircraft into and out of the airport up to 11 times a week.

The local authority said the move would create up to 200 jobs but environmental campaigner Steve Dawe, spokesman for the Kent Green Party, claimed it represents the "thin end of the wedge" of expansion plans for the airport. Steve Higgins, founder of the Stop Manston Expansion Group, added:

"So many people stand to be affected by these proposals but we seem to have been forgotten about by our local councillors and MPs."

South Thanet MP and former transport minister Dr Stephen Ladyman said he supports the controlled expansion of the airport. He said:

"There is a real hunger for local employment and the opportunity to create several hundred jobs is one that must be taken."

kentonline 12th Feb 2009