MP accused of U-turn

THANET North MP Roger Gale has been accused of doing a U-turn on his views on proposals for regular night flights at Manston airport. Mr Gale, whose constituency includes Herne Bay as well as large parts of Thanet, wrote to a constituent in April this year saying he did not support night flights at Manston. He wrote to Ros McIntyre:

"I have never supported night flights from Manston and do not propose to do so."

In a political column on his website last week Mr Gale appeared to express a different view, saying Infratil's application for regular night flights was "worthy of consideration". Mr Gale, who has served as an MP for 27 years, used Gale's View to express his concern about the economic impact of saying no to night flights. He said:

"We need, I think, to be very clear that the consultation relating to night time aircraft movements, due to be independently carried out for Thanet District Council in response to an application by the airport operators, Infratil, will affect the whole future of aviation at Manston and, very possibly, in the South East."

"I have consistently opposed a free-for-all night flying policy that has been espoused, in the past, by some of Thanet's councillors of both major political persuasions. I do, however, believe that the proposals now on the table represent a fair consideration of the airport's likely maximum night time flexibility through to 2018 and very possibly beyond."

Ms Mcintyre said: "Now that the votes are safely in the bag, Roger Gale is suddenly in favour of night flights."

We asked Mr Gale to comment. He had not responded as we went to press.

thisiskent

LETTER: lost business

Dear TDC,

I would like to protest regarding the proposed night flights between 11pm and 7am at Kent International airport. They would cause a great noise pollution to the town of Ramsgate and cause the town to lose jobs and investment far greater than night flights could create. Currently a large number of the population of Thanet tolerate the current large jets that use Kent International airport however simply some will not.

To promote Ramsgate as a seaside town with constant noise pollution would be to sign a warrant for the demise of the town altogether. The town is current benefiting from an influx of Londoners like myself and my brother and his family who moved here for quality of life. I still work in London and spend my wages in Ramsgate. I regularly employ locals for work on my property for work on investment properties I have purchased in Ramsgate, to maintain my vehicles, I spend my money in the local shops have my haircut here and the list could go on. To promote night flights would be to close the door for a lot of people who would wish to live in a seaside town such as this.

I would like to let you know of a personal experience on this subject. On 7th July 2007 myself, my brother’s family, my aunt and her friend spent the afternoon on the beach in Ramsgate. We watched as every 9 minutes a 747 jumbo jet flow low over the beach as it prepared to ‘bounce’, I believe is the term, as they practise their landing at Kent International airport.

My aunt and her friend, who where preparing to retire from London both with their own houses and no mortgage where so horrified at the noise that my aunt declared she could not live in a town that had this level of noise. She is currently purchasing a property in Broadstairs. In short on 7th July 2007 Ramsgate lost over million pounds of investment because two older ladies didn’t like the noise of the jets during the day. I would expect the repercussions of night flights would be further reaching. I would say now that if they did go ahead and they wake me when they pass over my property I would not consider staying in Ramsgate. I am all for the expansion of KIA but not at the cost of the local economy or a reduction of the quality of people’s lives.

Gale's View on night flights (Feb 2009)

Forked Tongue

"... my own constituents living in the Thanet villages and Herne Bay on the flight paths have a right to due consideration and to the greatest achievable protection from noise and disturbance that is achievable and compatible with the lawful use of the airfield.  That is why I have again consistently opposed any extension of night flying at Manston..."

Night flight debate over east Kent rages on as consultation nears

Victor Hibben

Clipping: thisiskent

OPPOSITION is mounting to the threat of sleep-busting night flights above Herne Bay. Kent International Airport owner Infratil is asking Thanet District Council to overturn the ban on regular night flying, which could lead to up to six cargo planes a night flying directly over the town. Shocked residents have claimed they only found out about the plan from the Herne Bay Times.

The Herne Bay Matters website has been bombarded with comments slamming the plan and urging townsfolk to sign an online petition opposing night flying. However, the scheme has also found some support from reader Victor Hibben, of Mill View Road, Herne, who accuses opponents of Nimbyism. He said:

"It would appear now we have a stable management base at Manston. Should we not put our individual concerns to one side and for once veer away from recent years of perpetual whining and moaning about projects for the future, and give thought to the future employment and prospects of our grandchildren and their children? Let us not miss an opportunity at Manston, let us look further than the end of our noses into what could be a success and give the management a chance to make Manston the pride of the South East."

Mr Hibben said that he regularly experiences noise from flights overhead but claims he is not disturbed by it. He added:

"Of all these so-called protesters and campaigners, how many have flown to holiday destinations, or maybe on business? Have they had a pang of conscience when zooming into the sky at whatever time of the night, or rumbling back to Heathrow or Gatwick? Not in the slightest. Have any of them in all honesty refused to fly because of the noise or inconvenience to those whose lives are affected? How many will feel justified in preventing a charity flight taking off at night to aid stricken families abroad?"

Thanet council will launch a public consultation on the plans for regular night flights from November 1. It is expected to last until February, and officials plan to include an independent review of Infratil's assessment of noise impact on surrounding towns and villages.

By jan thom

Gale's View on night flights (Oct 2010)

Turncoat

Ten days before the May 2010 general election, Roger Gale wrote "I have never supported night flights from Manston and do not propose to do so." Click here to see for yourself. Six months later, he writes this...

---

Gale's View – 22 October, 2010

East Kent will, very shortly, have the opportunity to indicate clearly whether we want the airport at Manston, and the jobs and transport links that are dependent upon it, to have the opportunity to grow and prosper or to close.

We need, I think, to be very clear that the consultation relating to night time aircraft movements, due to be independently carried out for Thanet District Council in response to an application by the airport operators, Infratil, will affect the whole future of aviation at Manston and, very possibly, in the South East.

Ask local people if they want to be able to fly to sunshine holiday destinations direct from Manston and the answer is an emphatic “yes”. Ask the same people if they want to see more freight flights from the same airport and the response is, not surprisingly, very much more restrained. We subscribe to development that benefits us personally and we are lukewarm about development, whether it be business, retail or even housing, that impacts adversely upon our lives.

The harsh economic fact is that for the foreseeable future Manston cannot survive without freight traffic and the competition for a dwindling share of that freight market is fierce. Long-haul passenger flights into Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted carry considerable amounts of belly cargo and other regional airports, such as Ostend, are able to offer highly advantageous terms, conditions, costs and hours of movement. Remove the flexibility from Manston and the essential services – Air Traffic Control, Fire vehicles, Revenue and Customs, Re-fuelling and even catering, become unsustainable. Without those services the airfield will close.

There is, of course, no guarantee that the present operators will prove any more successful than predecessors dating back to the original civilian proprietors, Seabourne Aviation. Current passenger trends using Flybe services to Edinburgh and Manchester are modestly encouraging and the prospect of some Sunshine Destination tour operators is, as always, on the cards. The possibility of bringing aircraft carrying the overseas 2012 Olympic and Paralympic teams directly into Kent is enticing also. These are too few swallows, though, to make a summer and it is clear that the need to attract and retain freight operators is vital to Manston's survival.

We also have to recognise that without Manston not only will the airfield's job creating potential disappear but so, also, will any serious justification for a parkway station or the extension of the fast rail link from Ashford through to Thanet. That prospect may please those whose self-interest reflects only a demand for tranquillity but it would not bode well for future generations seeking to work and raise families in East Kent.

I have consistently opposed a free-for-all night flying policy that has been espoused, in the past, by some of Thanet`s councillors of both major political persuasions. I do, however, believe that the proposals now on the table represent a fair consideration of the airport`s likely maximum night time flexibility through to 2018 and very possibly beyond. To represent the maximum unit quota provided for in the application as “Seven night flights per night” is mischievous if not downright dishonest. Even local journalists living on the flight path need to recognise that the purpose of the unit quota is to limit and regulate night time noise. If, though, we deny the operators the operational flexibility needed to accommodate not only scheduled aircraft movements but also the unforeseen late take-offs from overseas destinations that, inevitably, affect arrival times then we shall drive Manston's business across the Channel with the inevitable consequences.

Thanet Council has indicated very clearly that it will take no decisions until the outcome of the consultation is known. That is a correct and proper position. It is also entirely right that those of us with elected responsibility should do everything possible to both recognise the legitimate needs of a potentially valuable local business while at the same time seeking to mitigate any environmental impact upon residents and the countryside that may arise from those needs.

If, however, a relatively few of East Kent's residents are left with an open goal into which they may then kick “anti-airport” shots then we shall be doing the future of East Kent no favours at all. Those that want Manston (and, of course, the remaining RAF presence as well) to close have a clear duty to indicate what alternative future (Industrial development? Housing Estates?) they see for the land, what vision they have for the future of local transport infrastructure and how they intend to generate the employment opportunities that East Kent's children and grandchildren will be looking for. Protest-power without social responsibility is no more of an acceptable or honest position that would be the free-for-all night aircraft movement policy that absolutely nobody is in fact proposing.

---

You can contact Roger Gale at: suzy@galemail.com

Gale's new opinion: part 1

East Kent is still reeling, caught in the giddying vortex of Roger Gale's about turn. "I have never supported night flights from Manston and do not propose to do so." But that was ten days before the May 2010 general election, when he would say anything to anyone to trick a vote out of them.

Now that the election is over, and Roger has been made to feel important and powerful by a charm offensive from Infratil, his tune has changed. Whole sections of his recent article in the local press could have been lifted from an Infratil brochure. The talk is no longer of "flights" but of "flexibility" (a weasel word cynically put into Roger's mouth by Infratil's spin doctors). For example "... the proposals now on the table represent a fair consideration of the airport's likely maximum night time flexibility through to 2018 and very possibly beyond."

So let's have a closer look at the Mr Flip-flop's words...

East Kent will, very shortly, have the opportunity to indicate clearly whether we want the airport at Manston, and the jobs and transport links that are dependent upon it, to have the opportunity to grow and prosper or to close.

Oooh, Roger, just a teensy bit one-sided, don't you think? No mention of East Kent deciding whether it wants the noise, sleeplessness, ill-health, early deaths, dirt, fumes, extra lorry traffic, lower educational achievement, falling house prices and collapsing tourist trade that the huge increase in night freight will inevitably bring.

We need, I think, to be very clear that the consultation relating to night time aircraft movements, due to be independently carried out for Thanet District Council in response to an application by the airport operators, Infratil, will affect the whole future of aviation at Manston and, very possibly, in the South East.

Yes, Roger, of course the consultation about night flights at Manston could affect the future of Manston - that's the point of it. Well, most of us probably assumed that what we say in the consultation will have some kind of impact, but Cllr Bayford has poured cold water on that. If the majority of us say "No" to night flights... it might make no difference.

Ask local people if they want to be able to fly to sunshine holiday destinations direct from Manston and the answer is an emphatic “yes”.  Ask the same people if they want to see more freight flights from the same airport and the response is, not surprisingly, very much more restrained.  We subscribe to development that benefits us personally and we are lukewarm about development, whether it be business, retail or even housing, that impacts adversely upon our lives.

To paraphrase: "People like nice things and don't like nasty things." I think we can all go along with that one, Roger. It's completely normal - why comment on it? Do you think it's in some way wrong to oppose, to speak out against, or even campaign against something that will "adversely affect" your life, and the lives of your nearest and dearest? What we're being offered is a force-fed diet of nasty things (night flights, forever) with only the vaguest, sometime, sort-of promise of 'jam tomorrow' somewhere in the hazy future, in the form of nice holiday flights.

---

Click here to email Roger Gale

Gale's new opinion: part 2

In this section, Roger fails to grasp why Manston is failing, and then grasps at straws. (Emails are already winging their way to our glorious leader, David Cameron, asking whether he can condone Gale's conduct. Do feel free to join in - if you get any meaningful replies, please send them in to be posted here.)

The harsh economic fact is that for the foreseeable future Manston cannot survive without freight traffic and the competition for a dwindling share of that freight market is fierce. Long-haul passenger flights into Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted carry considerable amounts of belly cargo and other regional airports, such as Ostend, are able to offer highly advantageous terms, conditions, costs and hours of movement. Remove the flexibility from Manston and the essential services – Air Traffic Control, Fire vehicles, Revenue and Customs, Re-fuelling and even catering, become unsustainable. Without those services the airfield will close.

What Roger lacks the honesty to point out is that Infratil has failed to attract this apparently vital freight business for the past five years, despite their best efforts. Manston is almost empty throughout the daytime - there would be no queuing delays for incoming freight traffic. Manston repeatedly boasts of its rapid turnaround for unloading aircraft. So why isn't Manston coining it from the daytime freight traffic? Because the freight operators don't want to fly there, because it's in the wrong place. (Manston is tucked away in one corner of Britain, as are Lands End and John o' Groats.) As Roger's ex-mistress Margaret Thatcher said "You can't buck the market" and the market says No to Manston.

There is, of course, no guarantee that the present operators will prove any more successful than predecessors dating back to the original civilian proprietors, Seabourne Aviation. Current passenger trends using Flybe services to Edinburgh and Manchester are modestly encouraging and the prospect of some Sunshine Destination tour operators is, as always, on the cards. The possibility of bringing aircraft carrying the overseas 2012 Olympic and Paralympic teams directly into Kent is enticing also. These are too few swallows, though, to make a summer and it is clear that the need to attract and retain freight operators is vital to Manston's survival.

There is no guarantee that the present operators have any intention of staying any longer than they absolutely have to. Infratil have spent the last five years trying to persuade major holiday operators to use Manston and have failed - because Manston's in the wrong place, so its catchment area is too small to be commercially viable (you can't buck the market, and you can't change geography). Roger is being disingenuous to suggest that the 2012 Olympians will be flying in to Manston - they're more likely to use London City, Stansted, Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow which have the proven ability and capacity to do the job, and are already prepared.

We also have to recognise that without Manston not only will the airfield's job creating potential disappear but so, also, will any serious justification for a parkway station or the extension of the fast rail link from Ashford through to Thanet. That prospect may please those whose self-interest reflects only a demand for tranquillity but it would not bode well for future generations seeking to work and raise families in East Kent.

If Manston airport closes, that is absolutely NOT the end of the airfield's job creating potential. The 160 acre site, and the 1.7 miles of runway are freed up for brownfield development - eco-housing, farmers' markets, solar power plant, light industrial workshops, all-weather holiday park, Thanet Earth extension, etc.

Is this the same Roger who rails (ho, ho) against the current high speed link's effect on Herne Bay? Because that Roger points out that Herne Bay commuters are unwillingly subsidising the high speed service, and getting a degraded service into London in exchange. However, he is now singing the praises of more high speed links, so that more people can be disadvantaged as Herne Bay has been.

Incidentally, Roger, you write of "self-interest" as if it's a bad thing, like selfishness. It bloody well isn't.

---

Click here to email Roger Gale

Gale's new opinion: part 3

This is the bit where Roger Gale displays his shocking ignorance of key elements of Infratil's proposal, and has the cheek to call other people dishonest.

---

 I have consistently opposed a free-for-all night flying policy that has been espoused, in the past, by some of Thanet's councillors of both major political persuasions. I do, however, believe that the proposals now on the table represent a fair consideration of the airport's likely maximum night time flexibility through to 2018 and very possibly beyond. To represent the maximum unit quota provided for in the application as “Seven night flights per night” is mischievous if not downright dishonest. Even local journalists living on the flight path need to recognise that the purpose of the unit quota is to limit and regulate night time noise. If, though, we deny the operators the operational flexibility needed to accommodate not only scheduled aircraft movements but also the unforeseen late take-offs from overseas destinations that, inevitably, affect arrival times then we shall drive Manston's business across the Channel with the inevitable consequences.

"To represent the maximum unit quota provided for in the application as 'Seven night flights per night' is mischievous if not downright dishonest." No it isn't, you ignorant, insulting fool. That's exactly what it says in the application. Have you actually read the application, Roger? It's there in black and white, as plain as the nose on Pinocchio's face.

Roger writes "... the purpose of the unit quota is to limit and regulate night time noise"... er, yes Roger, that's the point - we all get that. There is NO LIMIT on the number of flights that Manston can schedule in the daytime, and they already have the "flexibility" that allows for late arrivals. The freight is going to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted because each of them is a better commercial proposition for the operators - you can't buck the market, Roger.

Thanet Council has indicated very clearly that it will take no decisions until the outcome of the consultation is known. That is a correct and proper position. It is also entirely right that those of us with elected responsibility should do everything possible to both recognise the legitimate needs of a potentially valuable local business while at the same time seeking to mitigate any environmental impact upon residents and the countryside that may arise from those needs.

There are many people in Thanet and across east Kent who are getting the impression that TDC have already made their decision, and will cherry-pick and selectively (mis)represent the results to support it. Your last sentence reveals a fundamental error - your job is not about businesses, the environment, or the countryside. First and foremost, your job as an elected representative is to represent the wishes and interests of your electorate. Everything else follows.

If, however, a relatively few of East Kent's residents are left with an open goal into which they may then kick “anti-airport” shots then we shall be doing the future of East Kent no favours at all. Those that want Manston (and, of course, the remaining RAF presence as well) to close have a clear duty to indicate what alternative future (Industrial development? Housing Estates?) they see for the land, what vision they have for the future of local transport infrastructure and how they intend to generate the employment opportunities that East Kent's children and grandchildren will be looking for. Protest-power without social responsibility is no more of an acceptable or honest position that would be the free-for-all night aircraft movement policy that absolutely nobody is in fact proposing.

The "clear duty" that Roger seems happy to foist on anyone actually rests with the elected representatives - always has, always will. It is a cause for public shame that Thanet District Council have consistently failed to shoulder this duty, and have no "Plan B" of any description. Roger suggests a housing development (it's a good brownfield site with decent transport links) or industrial development (small to middling workshops and light fabrication plants would create more jobs than one big factory). Others have already suggested a wider range of possibilities, but welcome to the debate, Roger.

---

Click here to email Roger Gale

Public consultation: the next steps

Thanet District Council say:

The council will be carrying out a full twelve week public consultation to gather the views of as many local people as possible in the next couple of months. This will be facilitated on behalf of the council by Ipsos MORI. Please could I encourage you to take part in this process once it begins. I will ensure that you are contacted directly with full details on how to take part once this commences.

This formal consultation process is not due to start until two pieces of technical work have been completed to ensure that members of the public are aware of the potential impacts of the proposal. The first is an independent specialist technical review of the noise impact study produced for Infratil by Bickerdike Allen. The second is a Plain English guide to ensure that members of the public are able to access full information about what the proposal will mean, in terminology that is easy to understand. Both pieces of work will be published on completion and before the full public consultation begins, to ensure that local people have all the information on the proposal before giving us their views as part of the formal consultation.

In the mean time please visit www.thanet.gov.uk for further information and to view all of the documents submitted by Infratil.

Politicians Against Night Flights

In April, a number of local politicians were asked: 

"Do you support night flights from Manston Airport?"

It's great to have such high profile local Conservative politicians agreeing with our message:

No Night Flights!!

Roger Gale said "No"

Laura Sandys said "No, I do not support night flights from or to Manston."