Manston night-flying consultation delayed

Manston airport’s night-time flying consultation has been delayed as airport-operator Infratil has been forced to check its facts. New noise assessments produced independently by the council have led to it asking the airport to review its application and the public consultation has been halted until Infratil reviews its proposal.

Thanet council received an application from Infratil in late September to extend flying hours at Manston and grant permission for a number of night flights for heavy freight planes. However, a draft report investigating the potential noise impact of night-flying prompted councillors to reject Infratil’s plans on Monday. Bob Bayford, council leader, said: 

"After careful consideration over the last couple of weeks, the proposals that have been submitted have insufficient detail in some areas to be acceptable to the council. I believe that, before residents have their say, they need to know more detail and have a full understanding of exactly how many aircraft movements are being discussed. That information is difficult to gauge from the proposals that have been put to us and this needs further work. I also believe the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered.

"I’m not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved. I’m pleased to say that the airport has agreed to review these issues. The council remains supportive of the airport and maximising the employment opportunities it can create and sustain, but this cannot be at any price for local residents. As a council, we need to balance the economic benefits carefully against environmental considerations. The proposed night-time flying policy doesn’t fully allow us to do that as it leaves uncertainties that need to be clarified before we consult the public.

"I have confirmed with the airport that they will receive a copy of our adviser’s report as soon as it’s finalised. From this, they have agreed to develop fuller information that we will consult on. I recognise, as does the airport, that this may take time, but it is important to get this right."

Meanwhile, Thanet’s Labour group voted unanimously to reject the current application at a meeting on Thursday evening, October 28th. Richard Nicholson, shadow cabinet member for regeneration and economic development, said:

"Many issues of concern were raised, but in essence it was felt the alluded-to benefits in terms of jobs were merely an aspiration rather than concrete. And it is clear in our minds these do not in any way compensate for the environmental and quality-of-life issues for the thousands who would be adversely affected."

The Labour group is calling for a review of the existing Section 106 environmental agreement with the airport. Mr Nicholson said:

"Clearly much more needs to be looked at and put right even under the current Section 106.  Primarily, it needs to be enforced properly, renegotiated, flying routes need clarifying and vastly improved and the whole 106 needs improving after what is now 10 years.  It was abundantly clear that even now the envelope on what Infratil asked for was being expanded. The airport does indeed provide an opportunity for jobs in the Thanet area, but there is much more daytime capacity which could be utilised before any other options are needed. Furthermore, we feel that any changes such as the one sought at present may require planning permission and Thanet council needs to fully explore this."

  Alan Poole, shadow cabinet member for environmental services, said:

"Concerns were raised about the environmental and health impacts on local residents, particularly sleep deprivation caused by aircraft noise."

Clipping: kentnews

Political Posturing on Night Flights

'Dr' Simon Moores started things this morning with the question "Thanet Labour Disqualified from Taking Part in Manston Night Flight Decision?"

Playing on the total confusion around the subject of predetermination rules, our Simes suggests that the airport night flight decision is a "planning-related matter". Labour councillors, by rejecting the "current" application just as Bob Bayford did yesterday, seem to have pre-judged a planning matter publicly.

"Utter b&ll$cks", said our political/legal/planning expert. "The airport has no planning permission, and Bob Bayford keeps reminding us that he is only consulting the public out of the kindness of his own heart."

Uncle Bob Bayford weighs in late on Tuesday with a "open letter" to the Labour leader Clive Hart to ask if his party is now one of ''total opposition to 'any' night time flying activity at Manston Airport".

As much as we would like Conservative or Labour to reject them outright, neither party has. You only have to read Labour's Press Release or the Council Press Release to understand that . May I suggest that all political parties put their dummies back in their mouths, put the teddies back in the pram and read everything again. Carefully.

Just to dwell on Bob Bayford's position - "I also believe that the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered. I am not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved."

May we suggest, Uncle Bob, that this quite clearly states that you will pre-determine an acceptable level of night time flying activity - acceptable to you, that is - before allowing an Infratil night time flying policy to go to public consultation?

Answers on a postcard please as to what rules, laws, bodies Bob is putting himself in contradiction/conflict with.

One final point to all Councillors. No Night Flights is non-party political. Red, Blue, Yellow, Green - not fussed which party you come from. We support the right of a full night's sleep, every night, to East Kent's residents. We support a successful Manston which operates as much business as it can during more sociable hours - as many successful airport across the country do. Oh, and 24,000 people so far have shown an interest in where you live in relation to the flightpath. 

Sleep tight - while you can.

Manston Night flight plans grounded

Controversial plans to allow night flights at Kent International Airport have been put on hold. Infratil, the company which owns Manston airport, has agreed to revise a proposal to allow planes to take off and land 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It follows a meeting with senior Thanet council officials today.

Under the proposals, an average of eight aircraft movements were expected every night. The majority would have operated in the so-called "shoulder" periods of 11pm-11.30pm and 6am-7am. The council had commissioned an independent review of Infratil's noise assessment report, which was produced by the company as part of its application for night flights.

This review, which is yet to be made public, is understood to have highlighted the need for clarification in a number of areas. A planned public consultation, due to start this month, will not take place until these clarifications are made. Cllr Bob Bayford, the leader of Thanet council, said:

"Before residents have their say, they need to know more detail and have a better understanding of exactly how many aircraft movements are being discussed. That information is difficult to gauge from the proposals that have been put to us, partly because of its technical nature. The council remains supportive of the airport and maximising the employment opportunities it can create but this cannot come at any price for local residents. We need to balance the economic benefits carefully against environmental considerations."

It is not known when a revised proposal will be submitted to Thanet council, although Cllr Bayford admitted it "may take time" to produce.

kentonline 1st Nov 2010

Consultation stops before it starts

Across east Kent, along the flightpath, all the boys and girls awoke with a thrill of anticipation. "Today's the day! Today's the day!" - they thought as they scrubbed their little faces clean, "Today's the day we finally get asked about what we want to happen to our sky". Their little eyes, once sparkling with excitement, are now bloodshot with tears of frustration and disappointment.

Yes folks, although it was once scheduled to start TODAY, the public consultation has been stopped in its tracks. Thanet District Council CEO Richard Samuel, and TDC Leader Cllr Bayford met Manston's CEO Charles Buchanan to break the bad news - his proposal doesn't merit consideration.

How did it come to this? TDC bent over backwards to accommodate Infratil's requests/demands during the British Airways World Cargo fiasco. Their embarrassment at the unseemly haste of it all (coupled with the need to bounce their neighbouring councils into agreeing at short notice to buy a pig in a poke) led them to press Infratil for a formal night flying request. Days, weeks and months passed. Which came as a surprise to anyone who had believed Infratil's talk of the pressing commercial urgency of having permission for scheduled night freight.

Eventually Infratil produced a remarkably shabby and utterly useless document that lacked a few vital ingredients - numbers, for instance. This was sent back to them, marked "must try harder". More time passed. Thanet's CEO Richard Samuel apparently prodded Infratil twice to get cracking and produce something worth looking at.

Hand on heart, I have to say I am taken aback at the rubbish Infratil have put out. To jog your memory - Infratil are a billion dollar multi-national, and they would have us believe that night freight will be the make-or-break factor for their strategic move into European aviation. It was clear, even to my untrained eye, that their proposal to TDC was riddled with unrealistic forecasts, unsupported assertions and manifestly unacceptable conditions. The "supporting" documents from BAP noise consultants are a mixed bag: the technical stuff is incomprehensible, the comprehensible stuff is laughable.

With a commendable display of common sense, and a degree of self-interest, TDC has thrown the latest tawdry offering back at Infratil. (See how TDC present the story further down the page.) As you will see, TDC have twigged that they are once again being given the runaround by the greedy kiwis. Infratil shot themselves in the feet by (i) asking for an absurdly high annual noise allowance, and then (ii) bodging the counting system so that nobody could understand what it would translate into in practice. It would appear the Bureau Veritas, employed by TDC to "peer review" the proposal, have warned them to steer clear.

A possible future problem arises from the wording of TDC's press release:

...before residents have their say, they need to know more detail and have a full understanding of exactly how many aircraft movements are being discussed. That information is difficult to gauge from the proposals that have been put to us, partly because of its technical nature and this needs further work. I also believe that the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered. I am not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved.

To me, this carries the suggestion of an auction-style conversation between the airport owners and the council to determine what is "acceptable" long before Jo Public gets a look-in, which isn't my idea of a consultation.

---

From the TDC website

Plans for a public consultation on a new night-time flying policy for Manston Airport have been stopped by Thanet District Council.

The night-time flying plans were submitted by the airport to the council in late September 2010. When the plans were received, the council said it would carry out an independent review of the noise assessment report, produced by the airport as part of their application, before any consultation started. An initial draft of this report was received recently and the final report is expected soon, when it will be made public.

Following careful consideration of this draft report and taking account of the considerable public interest in the future direction of the airport, Council Leader Cllr. Bob Bayford and Chief Executive Richard Samuel met with the airport’s CEO Charles Buchanan on Monday 1 November. The airport agreed to revise the detail contained within the proposal. The council will not open any public consultation until this has been received.

The council indicated that elements of the night flying policy needed more clarification to ensure that the public could be provided with a better understanding of how it would be managed, how it would link to the business need for the plans, and examples of how many aircraft movements could potentially take place during the night. Cllr. Bayford said:

“I have met with Charles Buchanan to advise him that, after careful consideration over the last couple of weeks, the proposals that have been submitted have insufficient detail in some areas to be acceptable to the council. We’ve had an initial report through from our consultants, which has confirmed that there are areas of clarification that require further work before local residents are consulted. I believe that, before residents have their say, they need to know more detail and have a full understanding of exactly how many aircraft movements are being discussed. That information is difficult to gauge from the proposals that have been put to us, partly because of its technical nature and this needs further work. I also believe that the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered. I am not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved. I am pleased to say that the airport has agreed to review these issues.

 “The council remains supportive of the airport and maximising the employment opportunities it can create and sustain, but this cannot be at any price for local residents. As a council, we need to balance the economic benefits carefully against environmental considerations. The proposed night-time flying policy doesn’t fully allow us to do that, as it leaves uncertainties that need to be clarified before we consult the public.

 “I have confirmed with the airport that they will receive a copy of our advisor’s report as soon as it’s finalised. From this, they have agreed to develop fuller information that we will consult on. I recognise, as does the airport, that this may take time, but it is important to get this right.”

Lovely Posters

Get your lovely posters here, ladies and gentlemen. Click them to download them. Print them and put them in your window, in your car, on your pets, wherever.

Residents rally on night flights at public meeting in Chatham House School

Clipping: thisiskent

RESIDENTS against plans for regular night flights at Manston airport made their anger felt at the first public meeting on the issue. The hall at Chatham House School was packed for the meeting called by Ramsgate Town Council on Monday night. It gave people the chance to air their views on an application by the owners of Manston airport, Infratil, to allow scheduled flights at night. The application was made in September to Thanet council.

The meeting, chaired by Ramsgate mayor David Green, featured speeches from Kim Gibson of the Ramsgate Alliance of Residents' Associations (Rara) and Susan Kennedy of the No to Night Flights campaign. Mrs Kennedy, who works for the East Kent NHS Trust, argued the benefit of jobs created by extra night flights was minimal and outweighed by the negative impact on the area's tourism trade. She added night flights would have a bad effect on residents' health:

"There is a mounting body of evidence which shows the serious negative impact on people's health and children's education. Noise isn't just annoying, it is dangerous, it can even be deadly."

Rara secretary Mrs Gibson also cited health dangers in relation to night flights and argued the airport had been disregarding public safety issues:

"Infratil chief executive Charles Buchanan stated at a KIACC (Kent International Airport Consultative Committee) meeting on September 17 that due to the wind farm becoming live and causing a cluster on the radar it made it very difficult to land aircraft safely. The secondary surveillance radar which will alleviate these problems will not be ready until November 2011, so for the next 13 months we are living with the possibility of a plane coming down."

The floor was also opened to Ramsgate residents who raised numerous objections to the introduction of night flights. Ronald Blake, who described himself as a "long suffering resident", said that for the people of Thanet to pay for an "expensive consultation" over night flights is "like a condemned man buying the bullet he will be executed with".

The town council sent a letter to Mr Buchanan on October 20 inviting him to attend the meeting but he declined, citing "prior business commitments". Thanet South MP Laura Sandys also sent her apologies saying she had to be in Westminster. The only member of Thanet council's Airport Working Party – which will make recommendations on the application – to speak was Councillor Mike Harrison, who assured residents of the group's impartiality, saying he had "no axe to grind one way or the other".

Ramsgate town councillors are scheduled to vote on the issue during a meeting on Wednesday, prior to a 12-week public consultation. Thanet council will not be expected to vote on night flights until next year.

By andrew woodman andrew.woodman@krnmedia.co.uk

Labour's 'no' to flights at night

Clipping: thisiskent

THANET'S Labour group will oppose Manston airport's night-flying application, claiming the promise of jobs is merely an aspiration. All 20 Labour district councillors debated at a meeting last week the pros and cons of airport owner Infratil's proposal for regular flights between 11.30pm and 6am. Shadow cabinet member for regeneration Richard Nicholson said:

"Many issues of concern were raised but in essence it was felt the alluded-to benefits in terms of jobs were merely an aspiration rather than concrete. And it is clear in our minds these do not in any way compensate for the environmental and quality-of- life issues for the thousands who would be aversely affected."

The group believes the ten-year-old agreement between the airport and Thanet council – called a section 106 – is out of date. Labour leader Clive Hart said:

"While we are rejecting this application, we are equally adamant that both monitoring of operations and updating of all the section 106 is also vital. Labour is ready to sit down with others at TDC to seek the way forward to ensure that residents in Thanet can have much more confidence in the standards and application of a new 106 agreement."

By saul leese saul.leese@krnmedia.co.uk

Gale keeps digging

Arch-betrayer Gale swims against the tide of public protest and revulsion, claiming (psychic?) knowledge of the wishes of the silent majority, and dismissing democracy as "populism". Fool.

MP admits a U-turn over Manston night flights ban

BAY MP Roger Gale has been accused of chucking "his pre- election commitment in the bin" after changing his views on night flights over the town. The Conservative has come under fire after an apparent U-urn on comments made before he was elected for a seventh term in May. Mr Gale had opposed plans to relax a ban on night flights from Manston airport, but last week lent his support to the proposal.

He has defended the move, claiming it is for the good of people living in the town. He said:

"They are entitled to say I've changed my views, but I've done so in light of economic need and the interests of the majority of my constituents. We live in a changing game. Night flights were never an election issue. In fact, I doubt I had any more than two letters about Manston throughout my campaign. The silent majority want to see this airport succeed. I've always been against night flights and in an ideal world we could avoid them, but we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a commercial reality. If the airport is to remain open there has got to be some flexibility on night flights to allow the operators the time and financial stability in which to develop further passenger services."

Airport owners Infratil want to lengthen the flying day by 90 minutes and introduce night flights within a noise quota system from 11pm to 7am. Critics say it will result in sleepless nights, claiming up to seven flights will thunder over the town every night. But Mr Gale says the statistics are being exaggerated. He said:

"What campaigners have done is take the worst case scenario, using the quietest aircraft, to calculate how many flights there could possibly be. The fact is there won't be many night flights over Herne Bay. I'm not trying to pretend there isn't an environmental issue, but if Manston goes bust what are we going to do with it? We'll be left with a derelict airfield which will likely become an industrial estate or housing estate - or both. Nobody in living memory has bought a house in east Kent without knowing there was an airport at Manston. I can't allow myself to be driven by populism. I believe the line I'm taking is the right one."

[Infratil's proposed policy repeatedly predicts an average level of 7.7 flights per night, and assumes the current mix of aircraft.]

---

Pre-election promise broken

Night flight campaigner Ros Mclntyre says she is "astounded" by Mr Gale's "change in direction". She said:

"Before the general election, I wrote to Roger Gale asking him where he stood on the issue of introducing scheduled night flights at Manston. Mr Gale wrote back saying 'I have never supported night flights from Manston and do not propose to do so'. Now he is suddenly in favour of night flights.

Not only has he gaily chucked his pre-election commitment in the bin, he has now also started to vilify the people he is meant to be representing. He said "to represent the maximum unit quota provided for in the application as 'seven night flights per night' is mischievous if not downright dishonest".

In fact, the night flight proposal would allow the airport to lengthen the flying day by 90 minutes and to introduce scheduled night flights. The airport's specialist noise report estimates 7.7 flights a night - which seems pretty close to the seven planes a night Gale is saying is a dishonest representation. He simply doesn't understand the numbers, which is shocking in a man who is prepared to criticise others so publicly and mistakenly.

So, we have an MP who breaks clear election promises and who criticises the people he is meant to be representing. We have an MP who says it is dishonest to bring accurate numbers into the public domain. Do explain to me how sharing the airport's own numbers with the public can be "mischievous if not downright dishonest". Frankly, I think that is a better description of your recent behaviour on this issue."

TDC Labour Group reject night flying application

Excellent news from Thanet Labour - they've rejected the ridiculous night flying application from Manston owners Infratil at a Labour Group meeting last night.

They cite the "alluded to jobs figures", "quality of life issues for the thousands who would be adversely effected" and the current "section 106 ...needing to be properly enforced and renegotiated".

They also recognise that the airport does provide "opportunity for jobs in the Thanet area but there is much much more day time capacity which could be utilised".

"Concerns were raised about the environmental and health impacts on local residents, particularly sleep deprivation caused by aircraft noise."

Couldn't agree more!

No Night Flights is not a party political group, and will equally cheer from the rooftops when local Conservative Groups and Liberal Democrat Groups come to the same conclusions.

---

THANET LABOUR GROUP REJECT INFRATIL NIGHT FLYING APPLICATION

The Labour Group at Thanet District Council has decided not to support the current application by Infratil for Night Flying operations at Manston Airport. At a meeting last night which was solely concerned with this application the Labour Group discussed the pros and cons and the ramifications for the residents of Thanet.

Cllr Richard Nicholson, Shadow Cabinet member for Regeneration and Economic Development said, "After a interesting debate the Group unanimously rejected the night flight proposals. Many issues of concern were raised but in essence it was felt the alluded to benefits in terms of jobs were merely an aspiration rather than concrete. And it is clear in our minds these do not in anyway compensate for the environmental and quality of life issues for the thousands who would be aversely effected.

Clearly much more needs to be looked at and put right even under the current Section 106. Primarily it needs to be;

• Enforced properly
• It needs to be re negotiated
• Flying routes need clarifying and vastly improved
• And the whole 106 needs improving after what is now 10 years

It was abundantly clear that even now the envelope on what Infratil asked for was being expanded. The airport does indeed provide an opportunity for jobs in the Thanet area but there is much much more day time capacity which could be utilised before any other options are needed. Furthermore we feel that any changes such as the one sought at present may require planning permission and TDC needs to fully explore this."

Cllr Clive Hart Leader of the Labour Group said, "I was proud of the quality of our debate, which I can assure Thanet residents, covered all issues for and against. Whilst we are rejecting this application we are equally adamant that both monitoring of operations and updating of all the section 106 is also vital. Thanet Labour Group is ready to sit down with others at TDC to seek the way forward to ensure residents in Thanet can have much more confidence in the standards and application of a new 106 agreement."

Cllr Alan Poole, Shadow Cabinet Member for Environmental Services said "concerns were raised about the environmental and health impacts on local residents, particularly sleep deprivation caused by aircraft noise."

Cllr Nicholson 580057
Cllr Hart 298770
Cllr Poole 602594

Published by Thanet Labour Group Press Office, 44 Northdown Road, Margate, CT9 2RW.

Night flights may not be answer for jobs

Maurice Byford

Clipping: thisiskent

IN THE letters page of the Isle of Thanet Gazette over recent weeks there have been passionate letters supporting the proposal by Infratil for night flights over Thanet as a means to expand the airport services at Manston. While I support the proposal of expansion and the attempts by the airport to attract an airline to operate out of Thanet it is clear to me that the proposals set out for the night flights option are extremely misguided.

One of your contributors, Wendy Fry, had the temerity to call detractors "moaners" and suggested that if you purchased a property on the flight path then you should 'put up with the consequence of noise'. As someone who has lived here for over 26 years, when I moved into the area the airport was still operated by the MoD and night flights were extremely rare.

When it became a commercial airport it was on the firm understanding that night flights would not occur. So I am afraid I find it very objectionable that supporters of the proposal would condemn and denigrate the likes of myself for finding argument against the expansion when clearly the objection against me and others like me is wholly inaccurate.

Currently I reside in the Palm Bay area which is technically outside of the "flight path" and "noise contour". During the day we can hear planes taking off and landing at Manston, indeed when modern jets were in situ we could regularly hear them testing the engines. So the absurd notion by Infratil that only a few thousand homes are going to be affected by this night flying is wrong. The fact is that the majority of Thanet will be affected by this decision.

A 737 at one mile out and 4,000 feet generates 78db noise on the ground. A plane at take-off generates 140db which is 10db louder than a pneumatic drill heard from 10 paces away (figures courtesy of Environmental Protection UK). The University of Bern produced a comprehensive research paper conclusively linking heart stress problems and psychological impairment to people living within the vicinity of an airport that operated night flights.

Additionally research carried out by the University of Southampton proved that night flights consistently affected sleep patterns in adults and that the acceptable number of decibels for disturbing was far lower than originally claimed by airports in their "acceptable flight contour readings".

In fact as proved by London University in a research document conducted on behalf of the DoH it was proved that noise levels of 40db were sufficient to disturb the sleep of children and 40 to 45db in adults. The noise levels predicted for those in the flight path will be at least 57db, more likely 70-80db. For the furthest reaches of Thanet it will be between 40 to 60db. Depending on house insulation, it is likely that at least half the residents of Thanet will be affected by this proposal.

It was also conclusively proved that with 15 per cent of subjects there was a noticeable deterioration in cognitive function, in particular it was noticed that most affected children suffered greatly from listlessness and attention deficit at school as a direct result of night-time flying.

So, maybe I am a "moaner". Personally I think I am just "concerned" and with good reason. Do I want to see Manston a vibrant and growing airport recruiting huge numbers of people from within the local area? Yes I do. But there is a problem.

If you take time to read the business plan submitted by Infratil there is no guarantee or commitment to growth in the right areas, instead it is "assumed" that by allowing night flights that the airport would then be able to attract airlines to the area. There is absolutely no prior agreement or commitment that this would happen by a third party and no guarantee that additional investment would be forthcoming. In fact as evidenced by other small airfields that have completed this process they have systematically failed to encourage airlines or external travel companies to use their airfields over the traditional London or city-based airports.

In an industry that is currently in contraction it is pure wishful thinking to assume that just by the precedence of being able to offer night flights that travel operators and airlines would flock to Thanet. The airport at Bournemouth was able to attract airlines and travel operators first and then moved to night flying later as the airport grew. In fact the only airports to move to night flights before they had operators remain dedicated cargo airports like Southend and Doncaster. Manston, it appears, is to be the exception to the rule.

So where do the 6,000 jobs come from as evidenced from the business plan? Interestingly, the jobs will come from external, related and subsidiary providers. NOT from Infratil. In fact Infratil only commit to 110 new jobs, which makes perfect sense for a small-scale cargo airport. The other 400-plus jobs only come into being after Infratil have attracted this elusive tour operator and airline.

Then what happens if Infratil fail to attract additional business to Manston, do the night flights stop? No, because a precedent has been set and Infratil now have a reasonable income from the cargo services and have planning permission for night flights. The benefit for Thanet is negligible at best, horrific at worst. We have already seen from the debacle of the banking bailout the cost of incompetent officials in their inability to apply restrictions and conditions to a business gift to aid or assist.

Yet again we are faced with the prospect of poor planning and no accountability for the sake of promises that will in all likelihood, given the current economic state, fail to deliver. What is worse the children and the health of the population of Thanet are to suffer because of a vague promise and "it could happen" attitude by the airport owners. Once more we bear the brunt of dubious decisions by our elected and paid officials.

See more on: Health