Another bid for Night Flights

Here we go again. Manston has commissioned an independent report in the hope that it will contain just the right mixture of tempting promises and dire warnings to elicit the long-awaited knee-jerk response from TDC.

This is just a briefing note, a mere spitoon's worth of drivel. When the whole bucket of spit is available, we'll let you know. Another post on this blog will be dedicated to the forensic disection and cruel lampooning of York Aviation's independent findings, so for the moment Dear Reader, cast your eye over this and let us know what you think in the comments below.

---

19 May 2011

Dear Councillor,

The Economic Impact of Manston, Kent's International Airport

Following discussions with Thanet District Council, we have commissioned York Aviation to undertake an independent assessment of the economic impact of the Airport.

The first part of the research is now complete and we can now provide you with a briefing of the key findings, which is enclosed with this letter.

The study will help the Local Authority, key stakeholders and other interested parties in forming their responses to any future night-time policy submission from Manston.

If you would like to receive an electronic copy of the briefing paper please email my colleague: elaine.tanner@manstonairport.com

If you have any questions as a result of reading the briefing or about our aspirations to make Manston a South East Regional Airport, please feel free to email me at: charles.buchanan@manstonairport.com

Yours sincerely,

Charles Buchanan
Chief Executive Officer

---

Manston's Economic Impact

Headline Findings
By 2018, Manston, as Kent's international airport, through delivering its Master Plan would:

• Generate an additional £65m Gross Value Added (GVA) for the East Kent economy;
• Create 2,070 direct jobs, and a further 1,035 indirect and induced jobs;
• Attract 2,286,000 passengers and handle 167,500 tonnes of freight;
• Support a balanced freight and passenger customer base;
• Create a sustainable and commercially viable South East regional airport.

Research Brief
Manston appointed York Aviation, a leading European aviation consultancy, to assess the economic impact the airport developing in line with its published Master Plan.

This briefing note relates to York Aviation's initial research conclusions. York Aviation is in the process of finalising the research and the assessment of the impact that the imposition of a stringent night movement policy would have on the airport's economic impact and commercial operation.

Background
Manston, Kent's international airport, published its Master Plan for growth in 2009, and has subsequently submitted proposals to Thanet District Council for the management of night-time flying. It has identified that the night flying policy need to be put in place in order to manage additional scheduled air freight services, some of which will need to operate at night, which are critical to improving the financial viability of the airport. Without such freight operations, and the revenue they would bring, there is a risk that the airport will not be in a position to sustain its operations and attract additional passenger services over the medium to long term.

The absence of a night flying policy would also restrict the ability of the airport to attract based aircraft, such as operated by low cost airlines, and increase passengers and routes using the airport.

The growth in forecast passenger numbers over time will also help the viability of the airport. While passenger services will reduce the dependency on air freight overall, York Aviation believes that the airport is unlikely to be financially viable without the forecast mix of both traffic types as set out in Manston’s Master Plan.

This research is based on the night-time flying policy proposed by the airport, and is not upon unlimited night time activity. The policy would allow limited scheduled passenger and freight services in the night-time period.

Manston is in the process of developing the submission of a night flying policy to Thanet District Council under the obligations set out in a Section 106 agreement with the local authority.

Key findings
This briefing note outlines the initial conclusions of the York Aviation research. These include:

Economic impact: Gross Value Added...

• The research suggests that Manston would deliver nearly £65 million GVA a year to the local economy if controlled night flights were allowed between 23.00hrs and 07.00hrs. GVA measures the contribution to the economy of each individual producer, industry or sector in the UK, and is used in the estimation of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Job creation...

• Development of Manston would enable the airport to provide direct employment for 2,070 people and a further 1,035 indirect and induced jobs by 2018. Indirect jobs are those created in the chain of suppliers as a direct result of the airport's operations and induced jobs are those supported by the spending of incomes in the local community by those in direct and indirect employment.

Attracting passenger services...

• In the early years of the Master Plan passenger service growth is expected to be via inbound aircraft and charter services. The owner’s aspirations and expectations are that Manston will secure ‘based’ aircraft, either from low fare carriers, such as Ryanair, easyjet or bmibaby, or charter airlines e.g. Thomson Airways, by 2018.
• Airlines will maximise the use of the aircraft based at Manston by offering a mix of short and long routes. As a result, based aircraft diversify an airport’s route portfolio, initially through an increase in the number of domestic routes served and larger volume outbound leisure markets e.g. city breaks. Based aircraft would also generate inbound travel, and benefit the local tourism industry, as well as outbound passengers.
• Ability to accommodate night flying would increase the potential to attract low cost operators and based planes and remove the reliance on inbound aircraft as is currently the situation at Manston. Inbound served airports often offer fewer destinations, have lower frequencies and less capacity (and therefore passengers).

 Attracting freight services...

• Current freight activity at Manston is dominated by the handling of perishable products in the UK, supplemented by general cargo.
• World freight forecasts produced by Boeing and Airbus estimate a 5.9% annual increase between 2010 and 2029. Constraints in runway capacity within the South East, and Manston’s existing freight handling facilities, has led York Aviation to conclude that the airport will benefit from the push of freight traffic away from the London airports to other airports in the region.
• The greatest market opportunities are seen from the BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China) all of whom continue to grow economically, despite the global slowdown.
• Excluding the likes of British Airways World Cargo, and integrators such as DHL and TNT, few large-scale freight operators are based in the UK. York Aviation concurs with Manston that freight growth will be from inbound operators, rather than based freight aircraft.
• Manston must ensure freight airlines can operate with a greater degree of certainty for their customers and the markets they serve.

Conclusions
The ability to handle aircraft movements between 23.00hrs and 07.00hrs would be necessary for Manston to attract a low-cost airline with planes based at the airport, as well as handle greater levels of freight from around the world.

The research concludes that Manston’s aspiration to become a sustainable South East regional airport will be achieved if a controlled night flying policy is adopted which promotes a mix of passenger and freight services using the airport.

Comment
Charles Buchanan, Chief Executive Officer of Manston, said: "Our aspiration is to have airlines actually base aircraft at the airport as this would significantly increase the number of passengers arriving at and departing from Manston. Persuading airlines to base planes at the airport would generate further local employment opportunities for cabin crew and additional airport jobs. Despite the current economic situation we remain confident that airlines will choose Manston and build upon our Flybe services and charter services and that it is well placed to meet the growing demand for airfreight into and out from the South East of England."

Ramsgate chooses Beauty not Blues

Well, well, well – what is this that I spy on the blue-tinted map that shows who’s got the power in councils across Kent? A rosy red glow has settled over Ramsgate. Going against the electoral tide for the South East, the Ramsgate lefties spread their scarlet stain across the wards, scooping up seat after seat.

Those in the know point to Labour's pre-election pledge to oppose night flights as being the balance-tipping deal-clincher. Industrious and idle alike, the people of Ramsgate value their beauty sleep, and didn't want Manston to make them ugly. So they put their kisses next to the Labour names.

This leaves the Conservatives with a dreadful dilemma - they might even be looking forward to the Independents taking the decision out of their hands...

They can stick with Plan A, and allow the Manston Kiwis to fly as many rusting freight crates as they like over sleeping town below, and say goodbye to the dream of ever winning a seat in Ramsgate again. Sleepless and grumpy, the voters won’t give their votes to the very people who made them become ugly.

Or the Conservatives can take the splendid Bureau Veritas report to heart, and accept that the economic gain of night flights at Manston will not in any way match the social and economic pain. This would mean turning down a future night flight application made by their pal Charles Buchanan (recently seen up close and chummy with ruddy ex-Number 2 Latchford).

Back the airport, or back in power? An excruciating choice for the Blue corner.

It remains to be seen whether Mr Buchanan is cute enough to recognise this, and to resist the temptation to submit another night flight application… or will he embarrass his blue friends by asking them to decide soon one way or another?

We watch and wait.

Labour's red letter day at expense of Tories

Thanet Conservative party took a pounding in Thursday's district elections, leaving three independent councillors with the power to decide who will lead the council. The Tories were ousted from six seats in Thursday's poll – losing five to Labour and one to a new independent – meaning they forfeit overall control of Thanet council.

One of the greatest shocks was the loss of Ramsgate's Nethercourt ward by Tories Jill Kirby and Brenda Rogers to Labour rookies Kim Gibson and Steve Alexandrou. Mrs Gibson and Mr Alexandrou, who both live on the flight path to Manston Airport, took a tough stance against night flights during their election campaign. Both Labour candidates were also elected to the town council. Mrs Gibson said:

"I think the swinger was the night flights. When I was campaigning, residents also told me that they felt let down by them and that they didn't live on the ward. What you see is what you get and we will not put up with the nonsense that goes on at full council."

Conservative leader Bob Bayford took a positive stance on his party's performance. He said:

"I am satisfied at how well the Conservative share of the vote has held in this election. Far more people in Thanet voted for the Conservatives than for Labour. A marginal increase in the Labour vote of 5 per cent has given them a disproportionate increase in seats."

Labour's leader Clive Hart said:

"We have made huge gains and for that I am very happy. We were just two votes apart on one councillor in Beacon Road Ward. It was extremely close, just two votes out."

The picture was equally bad for the Tories on Ramsgate town council where they were all but wiped out – only Pat Doyle retained a seat for the Conservatives. Labour increased its seats on Ramsgate town council to 15 out of 16 places. Conservatives held on to control of Broadstairs Town Council. A spokesman at Thanet council stressed that Conservative, Labour and the independents must reach a deal by the council's annual meeting, saying:

"Decisions about which party will be running the council will be made at the annual council meeting that is due to take place on Thursday, May 19. At this meeting, the chairman and leader of the council will be elected. In the meantime, the council will continue to run its day-to-day business with the responsibility falling to the chief executive. He will consult with the main group leaders on any significant issues that need to be decided on."

IoT Gazette 13th May 2011

Night flights stance 'clinched seats'

One of the crunch seats in last Thursday's poll may have been lost over the issue of night flights from Manston airport. Residents living under the flight path ditched Conservative councillors Jill Kirby and Brenda Rogers for anti-night flight Labour rookies Kim Gibson and Steve Alexandrou. Miss Gibson believes her party's tough stance on night flights clinched the seats. She said:

"I think what swung it was the night flights. When I was campaigning, residents told me they felt let down by the Conservatives and that they didn't live on the ward. Night flights is an incredibly important issue for people living here and people want us to fight these plans."

Mrs Kirby, the wife of Kent county councillor John Kirby, admitted the airport was a huge issue for residents. Mrs Kirby, who said she will now quit politics, said:

"It was put about that we would vote for night flights, but the Conservatives have always promised a free vote. When we carried out a survey last year we asked residents if they were OK with extending the shoulder periods for flights but not night flights. I think the council needs younger councillors now."

Nethercourt ward saw the third highest turnout across the district election.  The owners of Manston airport have asked Thanet council to lift a ban on flights after 11pm and before 7am. Infratil says that the flexibility for having planes land and take-off between these times is crucial for the airport's development. 

Chief executive Charles Buchanan refused to be drawn on the consequences of last Thursday's poll, which could see Labour with its policy of no night flights, take control of the council.  Mr Buchanan said:

"The position is clear. We had an application for the management of night-time flying – that application outlined the need for the airlines to be able to fly at night. We proposed a schedule of night-time activity and we will work with the local authority to make sure this business can flourish. The ability to schedule night time activity is an important part of developing Thanet's economy."

thisiskent 13th May 2011

Advisory group recommend no night flights at airport

"No flights to be scheduled between 11pm and 7am at Manston" was the recommendation to the council at a meeting of the Airport Working Party this week.  The suggestion was one of ten agreed during the group's final meeting before yesterday's elections.  The advisory group also recommended that:

• There is a period of one hour at either end of the flying day to allow for late and early arriving flights only
• A penalty be applied to any flights arriving during said one hour periods
• No take offs be allowed between 11pm and 7am
• A schedule of exceptions be prepared to include 'mercy flights' aid flights, medical emergencies, aviation emergencies and coastguard movements
• A new Section 106 Agreement be negotiated within 12 months
• Infratil or any future airport operator be asked to contribute to the cost of a council airport officer and that the requirement is included in a new section 106 Agreement
• The AWP considers undertaking an investigation into the relationship between a possible Parkway Station and the Airport and the need for it
• The council request that airport operators Infratil reviews the operation of the Manston Airport Consultatory Committee
• The council request a quarterly report from Infratil on how they perform with regards the 106 agreement

The recommendation will go before a newly formed overview and scrutiny panel on May 19 following the elections which will in turn make its recommendations to the new cabinet.

thisiskent 6th May 2011

We love Keith Taylor...

Many thanks for your e-mail about night flights at Kent International Airport and sincere apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I receive a large volume of correspondence on a daily basis and it sometimes takes longer than I would like to respond. Please be assured that this is an issue I am extremely concerned about for many of the reasons you raise in your e-mail and I shall be raising my concerns in the public consultation once it finally starts. I have also signed the 'No Night Flights' petition.

I am particularly concerned about the increased noise levels that night flights could have and the considerable disruption this could cause to local people. Noise pollution is a serious problem across the EU as almost half the EU's population is exposed to noise levels likely to damage their health, according to WHO standards. The European Commission does have recommended EU noise limits but unfortunately at the moment these are only indicative and not binding EU legislation.

The European Commission has requested data from Member States to work on moving towards setting binding noise levels. This is something that I will be closely monitoring as I am very concerned that constituents such as yourself do not have adequate protection. Please be assured that I will do all I can to feed into this process so that constituents are better protected. In the meantime I will also continue to call for all national and local authorities to respect the EU recommendations on noise levels. I am also looking into other ways that I can further follow this up in relation to the proposed night flights at Kent International airport.

In addition to the noise issue there are clearly many other problems in the proposed night flights, as you mention in your e-mail. I am concerned about the health and safety implications and the fact that the night flights would not benefit local people. I am also concerned about the environmental damage that these night flights will have and they certainly don't seem to be in line with the Governments commitments to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

For all these reasons please be assured that I am committed to doing all I can to oppose the proposed night flights at Kent International Airport. Please do let me know if there is anything further I can do on this issue and many thanks for raising your concerns with me.

To see more on my work as an MEP please do take a look at my website at: www.keithtaylormep.org.uk

Kind Regards,

Keith Taylor
Green MEP for SE England

TDC and Infratil: "no contact"

Well, well. The Chairman of KIACC (the consultative group for Kent International Airport) has forwarded a number of very good questions from the general public to Richard Samuel at TDC. The gist of it, unsurprisingly, is: what on earth is going on? Have a look at the exchange and see how many of KIACC's questions TDC answered...

---

Dear Chief Executive:

I am receiving a number of emails about the Council's procedures for handling your consideration of Infratil's application on night noise, following the circulation of my note about our meeeting.

The following message is an example - from one of the many people who keep up a very active interest in Manston Airport - and I should be grateful if the questions raised could be addressed and a full reply sent to me for onward transmission to the KIACC membership and other interested parties.

Can you clarify something for us?

The public consultation about these proposals was put on ice after the Council stated that further information was required from Infratil.  We weren't told what information was required and neither was Infratil, before the announcement was made.

• Has the Council told Infratil what additional information they require?
• Can we be told what aditional information is required?
• Has Infratil provided this information? If so, can we see the additional information? If not, when does Infratil anticipate that they will provide this information, if at all?
• How can the Airport Working Party be considering the proposal if this information has not been provided?
• If TDC could not consider the application in the absence of this information, how can the process be continuing?
• When does the Council anticipate launching the public consultation?
• The Bureau Veritas report says that the economic benefits of the proposal do not justify the environmental damage that will be caused.  Has anything changed since this statement was made?  If not, what is the point of continuing?

Many thanks,

Paul Twyman
Chairman,  KIACC

---

Dear Paul

The answer to these questions is very simple. The council has had no contact with Infratil since the Leader's announcement. Both sides agreed that the BV report should be published and examined first and appropriate recommendations made. I anticipate that the sort of information we will require is a stronger justification of the proposals and better suggestions on monitoring and regulation. However these are only my initial personal reactions to the questions and do not represent the council's formal position. As you know the next step is for members to consider the BV report which they will do next week.

Richard Samuel
Chief Executive
Thanet District Council

TDC Airport Working Party

Marvellously convenient, and doubtless falling into an empty slot in your diary, the Airport Working Party will be re-convening their hastily cancelled meeting from last year. This will be happening on Thursday 20th January at 10:30am, in the Pugin & Rossetti Rooms, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent. Like I say - handy.

Special guest stars will be Bureau Veritas, the world famous sound consultants whose role in the unfolding drama appears to be that of the rain on Infratil's parade. BV's report, which had to be re-drafted a couple of times before being accepted by TDC, did not go down at all well with our chums on the tarmac at Kent's Irrational Airport. An embarrassing spotlight was focused on the typos in Infratil's proposal that skewed the story in their favour; the need to sound-proof Ramsgate was raised; and some crushing killer blows were landed:

the predicted number of people likely to be exposed to significant levels of average night-time noise is not sufficiently justified by the number of passengers and freight activity that are forecast to benefit from the proposals [i.e. it's not worth it.]

By all accounts, Infratil are still somewhat shaken, not to say battered, by the report and have been conspicuously silent since, which is rather surprising given that their entire future hangs on this, if they are to be believed. Anyway, as you can see from the Agenda below, Bureau Veritas will be there in the flesh to explain their report, and quite possibly answer questions from the AWP. A lot could turn on this, so be there if you can - and, following local tradition, do wear something red if you're against night flights.

---

MANSTON AIRPORT NIGHT NOISE ASSESSMENT REVIEW - BUREAU VERITAS REPORT

To:                               Airport Working Party – 20 January 2011

Main Portfolio Area:     Economic Prosperity & Community Services

By:                               Environmental Protection Manager

Classification:              Unrestricted

Wards                          All

Summary                    Proposed night-time flying policy for Manston Airport, presentation by Bureau Veritas of its Manston Airport Night Noise Assessment Review dated November 2010

For Decision

1.0              Introduction and background

1.1       On 13 October, 2010, this Working Party received a report regarding the proposed Night-time Flying Policy application, made by Infratil, the owner of Manston Airport, on 28^th September, 2010.  The application was made within the context of the s.106 Planning Agreement between the Council and the owner of the airport.  The application was accompanied by a technical report produced by Bickerdike Allen Partners, titled Manston Airport Night Noise Contours Integrated Noise Model (INM).  Previously the application and noise report from Bickerdike Allen have been made available to Members.

1.2       Following from recommendations from this Working Party, and discussions with others including Canterbury City Council and Kent County Council, a programme of public engagement was produced.  However, it was considered inappropriate and unacceptable to commence consultation until the Council had commissioned its own, professional, technical assessment of the noise implications of the proposal made by Infratil.

1.3       Hence the report from Bureau Veritas has been produced, alongside a glossary of terms, to help the public understand, and interpret both the Bickerdike Allen and Bureau Veritas reports.

2.0       The Current Position

2.1       The Bureau Veritas report is attached at Annex 1.

2.2       Bureau Vertias will be attending the meeting to present the content of the report. There will be the opportunity for the Members to ask questions.

2.3       This meeting enables Members of the Working Party to receive information, which alongside the Working Party’s previous reports and in the context of visits being arranged to both East Midlands and Robin Hood (Doncaster) Airports will enable it to recommend a set of criteria against which any future application for night-time flying policy at Manston could be considered.

2.4       It is suggested that the working party develop a concept of appropriate consultation criteria that describe the threshold that will need to be reached before the council contemplates further public consultation on this issue. These criteria once agreed can then be recommended to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel for comment, and ultimately to Cabinet. Full Council will then be in a position to formally set the necessary criteria. Should Infratil wish to submit a night-time flying application this will be made the subject of a twelve week public consultation process, as previously proposed.

3.0       Options

3.1       The Working Party is obliged to report back to Overview and Scrutiny within the framework of the annual work plan of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel 2010/2011.

4.0       Corporate Implications

4.1.      Financial

4.1.1.   Council has set aside funding for both the Bureau Veritas report and, in due course, engagement of a public consultation consultancy. Contributions to funding have been committed by Kent County Council and Canterbury City Council.

4.2.      Legal

4.2.1.   The existing s.106 Agreement between the Council and the Airport Owner enables the Airport Owner to submit an application for a night-time flying policy.

4.3.      Corporate

4.3.1.   Growth of business, and employment at the airport is an important strand of the Council’s strategic approach to economic regeneration.  However, the Council has already made it clear that this must not be at the expense of unacceptable environmental impact.  In particular noise.

4.4.      Equity and Equalities

4.4.1.   In the opinion of the author there are no direct equity and equalities implications to this report.

5.0       Recommendation

5.1       That the Working Party receives the report and presentation from Bureau Veritas, in order that it can receive information contributing to a set of criteria the Airport Owner will be required to satisfy, at such time as a further application for a night-time flying policy.

6.0       Decision-making Process

6.1        The Airport Working Party makes recommendations to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel who in turn make recommendations to Cabinet and or Council

Contact Officer:	Penny Button - Tel: (01843)  (57)7425
Reporting to:	Madeline Homer, Interim Director of Community Services

Annex List

Annex 1	Bureau Veritas report
Annex 2	Manston INM Contour Comparison Map
Annex 3	Manston Airport Glossary of Terms

 Corporate consultation undertaken

Finance	Sarah Martin
Legal	Harvey Patterson

Bureau Veritas report examined

Even in its draft form, the BV report was enough to stop the consultation process in its tracks. I asked TDC's Leader and CEO on 25th November for a glimpse of the draft. On 2nd December Cllr Bayford told me that the final draft had been received and would shortly be published. Sure enough, it appeared on the TDC website on 6th December - more than a month after it was delivered to TDC.

Given the close working relationship between TDC and the airport owners, I expect they passed it onto Infratil straight away - long before the public got sight of it. TDC's press release said that Infratil's next policy submission would follow on from (and be guided by?) BV's final report. Unless Infratil throw up their hands in horror at the report's recommendations and simply leave town, they'll be delivering a new proposal in the New Year. Possibly before.

In the meantime, here's some of the more encouraging quotes from the final Bureau Veritas report:

1.0.4 Even with this [quota count system] in place, it is BV’s view is that the predicted number of people likely to be exposed to significant levels of average night-time noise is not sufficiently justified by the number of passengers and freight activity that are forecast to benefit from the proposals.

This would appear to leave Infratil's night flying proposal dead in the water.

1.0.6 In order to reduce noise impact on nearby residents due to individual aircraft movements, BV would recommend that bedrooms of dwellings predicted to be exposed to 90 dB(A) SEL or more are also included in the sound insulation scheme.

This would be expensive for Infratil to comply with. Below is a street map of Ramsgate with the 90dB(A) SEL noise contour superimposed (the contour is taken from the Bickerdike Allen report). As you can see, that's a lot of double-glazing to install. If Infratil only want the night flying permission to make the airport more attractive to sell, this is a significant obligation for any purchaser to inherit.

1.0.9 BV has reviewed the input assumptions for this [BAP's] modelling and, using these, has undertaken their own independent noise modelling. The results of this have shown the contour modelling undertaken by BAP is accurate and representative of the input data provided.

So the noise contour in the map above is likely to be fairly accurate.

4.2.2 Given the sensitivity of night flights, and the comments in the ATWP [Air transport White Paper] ... there is an obligation to be sure that the economic benefits from those flights do justify the inevitable disturbance that will occur.

"Obligation" is a good word to see in this context. We have yet to see the required economic justification from Infratil.

4.3.2 ... this [quota count] system only controls activity between 23.30 and 06.00 hours, which on its own would leave the shoulder periods uncontrolled (other than by the inherent runway capacity).

One of the ploys in Infratil's proposal which TDC seem to have overlooked is the shortening of the "official" night by 1½ hours by introducing the evening and morning "shoulder periods" of 2300-2330 and 0600-0700. As the BV report correctly points out, flights during the shoulder periods are as unregulated as day-time flights.

4.3.9 ... over 60% of night operations will take place during the shoulder periods, which as indicated above is not controlled by the quota system. BAP also mention that it is generally accepted that the most sensitive time for people at night is the quota count period, and particularly during the hours of 01:00 and 06:00. People are, however, also sensitive to noise when they are trying to get to sleep and soon before waking up in the morning, i.e. during the shoulder periods. Noise impact during the shoulder periods could be regulated by imposing a limit on the area of the night-time noise contour...

At last, some common sense! Regardless of what Infratil may like to call night and day, the rest of us are still doing our best to get some sleep at times that fit into the rest of our lives, and planes late at night and in the early hours will be disruptive. So BV's suggestion is to limit the sound footprint of the airport.

4.3.10 An indication of the severity of night noise controls is given by considering the average quota count per aircraft movement within the night quota period. The policy proposes an annual quota of 1995 created by 1081 movements, giving a quota count per aircraft movement of 1.85. The current regime at London Heathrow permits ... a quota count per aircraft movement of 1.45. The corresponding figures for Gatwick and Stansted are 0.62 and 0.67 respectively.

Yes, you read that right - Manston want to create twice the nuisance of Gatwick and Stansted, and more even than Heathrow.

Click here for the Bureau Veritas final report. See the NoNightFlights Archive for the supporting documents.

More questions than answers

Dear Mr Samuel and Cllr Bayford,

I would be grateful if you would help me with the following:

Firstly, would you please publish details of the proposed consultation process on the TDC website.

• In due course, when Infratil re-submit their proposal, we will all know what we are being consulted about, but until then it would tremendously helpful for everyone to know how we are going to be consulted.
• Given that the consultation was only halted on the day it was due to begin (Nov 1st) it follows that TDC must have completed its preparation for the consultation, and must have established what the process will be.
• As you rightly point out in your press release, the future of the airport is a matter of great public interest and it is important that the consultation is as effective as possible.
• The unexpected delay in the proposal's submission provides an opportunity to explain to one and all how the consultation will work, and to ensure that it will be both fair and effective.
• (To declare an interest: as one of the thousands in Herne Bay who live under the flight path, I'm particularly keen to learn how we are to be consulted, and how our views are to be weighted.)

Secondly, could you clarify the role of Bureau Veritas.

• They have variously been described as providing an "expert", or "technical", or "peer" review of Infratil's submission, which I had assumed to mean that they would be verifying, validating, and possibly explaining the more specialist and technical aspects of the proposal.
• It is unclear why Bureau Veritas' report should ever go through a draft stage. Their expert technical opinion "is what it is", it does not require anyone's approval, and none of "us" - the non-experts - are in a position to correct or gainsay them.
• Your press release says that Infratil will be developing their re-submission from the final version of Bureau Veritas' report.
• Are Bureau Veritas advising Thanet District Council, or Infratil, or both?

Finally, given that the local media are familiar with the contents of Bureau Veritas' draft report ("The first draft of the Bureau Veritas report suggests dropping the original 1,995 night time quota proposed by Infratil to 1,570 a year."), I think it's time that the local people were given the same access to information. Would you please publish the draft Bureau Veritas report on the TDC website

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Yours Sincerely,

---

Re: Proposed night flying policy - Kent International Airport

Thank you for your email of 25 November 2010.

As you are aware, as Leader the Council, I decided that the initial information supplied by Infratil to the Council required reworking to provide better information to the public before any consultation could be launched.  I therefore asked Infratil to rework their proposal to improve its clarity of purpose and intention.  The consultation process is therefore on hold for the moment.

Prior to this the Council had already prepared a consultation plan. This will be published once we have something to consult the public on.

You sought some clarification on the role being undertaken by Bureau Veritas (BV) employed by the Council.  As you correctly state  BV were engaged by the Council to provide a technical assessment of the Infratil proposals.  We have received a draft report and as a result asked the consultants to improve some of the commentary and provide some areas of fuller information.  That has been completed and I am pleased to say that the final report will be published shortly.

I note your comments about the local media but I can assure you that contrary to the statement made by the Isle of Thanet Gazette no copy of the BV report has been supplied to that newspaper.

Finally in relation to your comments concerning the Council's  proposed consultation plan, you may access full details in the reports and decisons of the Airport Working Party available on the Council website under the Council and Democracy pages.

Yours sincerely

Robert Bayford

Leader of the Council