Study casts doubt on night flight benefits

Plans for night flights at Manston International Airport have been shot down by an independent report. Herne Bay campaigner Phil Rose said:

“This confirms a lot of what the No Night Flights campaign has been saying for the past two years. The original proposal and back-up documents submitted by Infratil were putting a very, very, positive spin on things. They were promising more than the airport could deliver, and they understated the effect night flights would have on the local population.”

The report by Parsons Brinckerhoff was commissioned by Thanet District Council following Manston’s application in October to have more planes landing and taking off between 10pm and 7am. Airport bosses say extra capacity is needed to meet demand for more flights, and would lead to more jobs and attract up to one million more passengers a year.

But the report, published on Monday, says predictions do not take into account the 2009 dip in demand. It says:

“In the short term, we do not believe the airport can justify a night flying quota system to support passenger growth.”

It warns that Manston’s isolated position and relatively small catchment area would stop airlines from moving to it, and suggests that any airline which does move to the area could be encouraged to operate during the day. Manston’s advisors say without night flights they could lose up to 40 per cent of available business, but Parsons Brinckerhoff’s report said they could not see any evidence for that figure, adding:

“Given that Manston Airport currently employs a proportionately large workforce for a small throughput, growth of passengers and freight in the short term may not necessarily lead to significant employment and hence economic impact.”

The report predicted there could be at least four complaints about noise a night, which it says is a “not insignificant number", and that while

“the noise assessment at first glance appears to tick all the right boxes [...] the analysis of the noise impacts have, in our opinion, resulted in an underestimation of the potential adverse impacts on residents.”

---

Manston claimed:

• Proposal: To allow more night flights based on total amount of noise rather than total number of flights. This system is used at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stransted. Manston bosses say night flights are crucial to the airport’s future.
• Night flights: Any take-off or landing between 10pm and 7am. There were 43 at Manston in the year up to last September. It is costly for airports as they have to employ a full shift of staff (including firefighters) even for just one flight.
• Demand: Demand for flights is expected to grow “dramatically” in the next 20 years. The government wants to make better use of existing airports but does not want to build a third runway at Heathrow. Allowing night flights would help meet the demand.

HB Times 26th Jan 2012

CPRE aren't impressed

Night flights at Manston have been an extremely contentious issue for many Thanet residents. Some believe that allowing the flights will bring economic prosperity to the area, with much needed local employment opportunities. Others believe that it is unlikely that many jobs will be created.

We took the stance some time ago that we did not believe allowing night flights would bring any real economic benefit to the residents of Thanet, and may in fact bring real harm to the area due to the impacts of noise and air pollution.

We are glad to see that we have been justified in this view by a recently published report authored on behalf of Thanet District Council by Parsons Brinkerhoff, a leading transport consultancy.

This report, which is based on an examination of the documents submitted by Infratil, clearly brings into doubt many of their claims.  Parsons Brinkerhoff indicates that Infratil's views of the economic benefits are wildly over-optimistic, while the impacts of noise - the major concern of residents in the area - have been seriously understated. 

These two points alone vindicate the local opposition groups, whose concerns have been regarded by some as backward-looking and 'nimby-ism'.

The fact that Flybe are pulling out in March because they cannot fill planes is damning proof of the lack of demand for flights out of Manston. We simply cannot see how allowing night flights will help Manston grow as a passenger airport, and therefore generate both jobs and economic sustainability for the area.

In light of this recent report, CPRE Protect Kent would ask that there be a full and unrestricted public consultation before any night flights are allowed.  This should be open and transparent, with all the facts available.

This will enable the people of East Kent to weigh up the benefits and disadvantages of night flights and lobby Thanet District Council accordingly. It is only right they be given this opportunity, as it is their communities and environment that will be significantly affected by the implementation of night flights.

CPRE Protect Kent, Jamie Weir 25th Jan 2012

Council's consultation details

A step at a time, TDC stumbles towards the consultation. Currently, the Council's website also gives a link to the Manston website that you can use to leave feedback on the proposals. I think this is a grave error of judgement on TDC's part - I think all the public contributions to the public consultation should go direct to TDC.

---

Night-time flying policy for Manston Airport

Public consultation to launch Friday 3 February 2012

From 3 February 2012, Thanet District Council will be asking members of the public for their views on proposals for regular night-time flying at Manston Airport. The proposals were submitted by Infratil, owners of the airport, on 27 October 2011 and included an aircraft noise assessment report and economic assessment, which are technical reports explaining the implications of the proposal.

View the documents submitted by Infratil in October 2011

After receiving the documents from Infratil, the council then commissioned specialists Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd, to carry out an independent assessment of the proposals and technical details to review the environmental and economic impacts.  This report was submitted to the council’s Community Services Manager, Madeline Homer on Thursday 19 January and was completed by specialists, Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd.

View the independent assessment completed by Parsons Brinckerhoff (pdf, 367kb)

Purpose of the consultation

Thanet District Council has been asked by Infratil to comment on their proposals for regular night-time flying at Manston Airport. Before drafting a response, Thanet District Council would like to give members of the public an opportunity to have their say on the proposals. The feedback from this consultation will then be used alongside the findings of the independent assessment, to help draft the council's response to ensure it takes into account the views of local people.

Legal advice has confirmed that at this stage, the council is only being asked to provide a response to the proposals and is therefore only seeking the views of local people to inform its response.  The advice confirmed that the council is not in a position to make a decision on the night time flying policy at this stage. The council is seeking further advice as to whether the proposed night flying policy, if implemented, could result in an intensification or change in operation at the airport. This could then require a planning application at some point in the future.

Take part in the consultation

The public consultation will run from Friday 3 February until Friday 2 March 2012. Responses to the proposals must be submitted in writing or by e-mail.  The postal address and e-mail address will be published on the launch day of the consultation. Responses must not be submitted ahead of the consultation launch date.

Your full name and address must be provided with your response.  These details will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used in order to weight responses appropriately, as the council will be paying particular attention to those directly affected by the Airport's proposals.

TDC website 26th Jan 2012

Report highlights night flights hype

Nights flights will not be the salvation of Manston airport, according to campaigners who say that a report from a leading transport consultancy backs their views.

Community groups say they do not believe allowing the flights would bring any economic benefit to the residents of Thanet, and may in fact bring harm to the area due to the impact of noise and air pollution.

Many also say that if the proposed operations went ahead, they could actually deter people who might be planning to move their businesses to the area or thinking of buying a home there. Dr Hilary Newport, of Protect Kent, the county arm of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said:

“Night flights will not be the airport’s salvation. Manston cannot sell all of its daytime slots, and disturbing the sleep of residents in Ramsgate and beyond is not the way forward.”

A report into the contentious issue - authored on behalf of Thanet District Council by Parsons Brinkerhoff, a leading transport consultancy - has just been published. CPRE casts doubt on the claim of airport operator Infratil that 3,000 jobs will be created if night flights go ahead and says that the impact of noise levels has been underestimated.

Andrew Ogden, campaigns manager for Protect Kent, said:

“This report, which is based on an examination of the documents submitted by Infratil, clearly brings into doubt many of their claims. Parsons Brinkerhoff indicates that Infratil’s views of the economic benefits are wildly over-optimistic, while the impacts of noise - the major concern of residents in the area - have been seriously understated. These two points alone vindicate the local opposition groups, whose concerns have been regarded by some as backward-looking and ‘nimbyism’.

The fact that Flybe are pulling out in March because they cannot fill planes is damning proof of the lack of demand for flights out of Manston. We simply cannot see how allowing night flights will help Manston grow as a passenger airport, and therefore generate both jobs and economic sustainability for the area.”

In light of this recent report, Protect Kent is asking for full public consultation before any night flights are allowed. It says this should be open and transparent, with all the facts available. Mr Ogden said:

“This will enable the people of East Kent to weigh up the benefits and disadvantages of night flights and lobby Thanet District Council accordingly. It is only right they be given this opportunity, as it is their communities and environment that will be significantly affected by the implementation of night flights.”

However, a report last year commissioned by Infratil said the flights would be beneficial. The first part of the Economic Impact Report, produced by York Aviation and published in May, suggested that the airport would directly employ 2,070 people and support a further 1,035 indirect jobs by 2018 if a level of night flights was allowed. It also estimated that the Kent airport would deliver almost £65 million a year to the local economy by 2018 if its Master Plan development was realised.

Today (25th Jan 2012), Clive Hart, leader of Thanet District Council, signed a decision notice, which states the council’s intention to carry out a focused consultation in-house for 28 days for isle residents and in particular for those directly affected by the airport’s proposals.

The decision follows clarification that the proposal submitted by Infratil is for consultation only and so does not require a planning application at this stage. The council says this means its role is therefore as a ‘consultee’ and it is not in a position to make a binding decision in respect of the night-time flying policy.

It is seeking advice as to whether the proposed night-flying policy could result in an “intensification or change in operation at the airport”. This could then require a planning application at some point in the future. Cllr Hart said:

“We’re committed to listening to our residents and will still provide the opportunity for people to comment on the proposals before we draft our response from the council, as well as people being able to provide their views directly to the airport. We’ve promised that we will seek residents’ views, and we’re standing by this commitment but on a more appropriate scale. This issue needs to be drawn to a conclusion for the sake of the community, the council and the airport.”

The public consultation is proposed to launch on Friday, February 3, for 28 days and will be open to all residents in Thanet. Responses to the proposals must be submitted in writing to Consultation, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Margate CT9 1XZ, or by email to consultation@thanet.gov.uk Full names and addresses must be provided with each response. To view the proposals, and for more information about the public consultation, visit www.thanet.gov.uk, where information will be available to view from Thursday, January 26.

kentnews 25th Jan 2012 Nick Ames, reporter

Council breaks its silence

Thanet District Council have created cock-up out of chaos - a half-arsed consultation, then playing put the genie back in the bottle. It would have been so much simpler just to bat Manston's proposals straight back to them, just as the previous administration did, and for exactly the same reasons.

Originally, the consultation was to last 90 days, be carried out by MORI (for example), and cost £50-£80k. Councillors and members alike have been getting twitchy about the cost, and so they've opted to do it in-house, i.e. on the cheap. There's no suggestion that this will produce a better consultation.

Manston have dragged their feet for years over this, to the extent that even the Council has been appeared quite nimble in comparison. Nonetheless, Clive Hart has tried to allay our impatience by acting swiftly. Personally, for an exercise of this importance, I would rather he did it right than did it soon.

Having just realised that the S106 agreement means that Manston can proceed with whatever night flight policy they like, TDC have decided to wait and see what effect the night flights will have. Erm, quite apart from what their native common sense should be telling them, TDC have now commissioned two independent reports, both of which conclude that the costs of night flights outweigh the benefits.

They are also waiting to see if night flights would result in an "intensification or change of operation" at the airport. Hmmm... tricky one. Currently: 16 hours a day, with scheduled night flights forbidden. Proposed: 24 hours a day, with no limit on night flights. You know what - I think there will be a difference.

---

New approach to airport consultation

A new approach is to be taken by the council in response to Infratil’s proposal for regular night-time flying at Manston Airport. 

Leader of Thanet District Council, Cllr Clive Hart, has signed a decision notice, which states the council’s intention to carry out a focused consultation in-house for a period of 28 days for Thanet residents and in particular for those directly affected by the Airport’s proposals.

The decision follows clarification that the proposal submitted by Infratil is for consultation only and the proposal does not require a planning application at this stage.  The council’s role is therefore as a ‘consultee’ and it is not in a position to make a binding decision in respect of the night-time flying policy.

The council is seeking advice as to whether the proposed night flying policy, if implemented, could result in an intensification or change in operation at the airport. This could then require a planning application at some point in the future. However at this time, the council is only being asked to provide a consultation response to the proposals and is seeking the views of local people to inform its response. People can also submit responses direct to the Airport, via its consultation page.

The decision also comes after review of the findings of an independent assessment carried out by Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd. on behalf of the council, which challenges a number of the environmental and economic claims of the airport. Cllr Clive Hart, said:

“Taking a new approach to our consultation is absolutely essential given this advice.  We’re committed to listening to our residents, and will still provide the opportunity for people to comment on the proposals before we draft our response from the council, as well as people being able to provide their views directly to the Airport.  We’ve promised that we will seek residents’ views, and we’re standing by this commitment, but on a more appropriate scale.  This issue needs to be drawn to a conclusion for the sake of the community, the council and the airport.”

The public consultation is proposed to launch on Friday 3 February for a period of 28 days and will be open to all residents in Thanet.  Responses to the proposals must be submitted in writing to Consultation, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Margate CT9 1XZ or by e-mail to consultation@thanet.gov.uk Full names and addresses must be provided with each response.

The proposals, and more information about the public consultation, will be available to view on TDC's website from Thursday 26 January.

Airport and Council to break silence

Charles Buchanan, CEO of Manston airport, has had the newly published Parsons Brinckerhoff report since Thursday. So far, he hasn't made any public comment and has stuck to the line that he is biding his time pending a more considered response.

Translating from the business-speak/PR jargon, I think this means he's been trawling through the report with a fine-toothed comb and a magnifying glass, looking for the good news.

Thanet Disctrict Council have, of course, also had the report since Thursday. They probably would have had at least one draft report before then. (If anyone would care to send me a draft, I would be intrigued to play spot-the-difference.) Similarly, they haven't made any public comment, although Bob Bayford - now settling into his opposition role as heckler-in-chief - has been pressing TDC Leader Clive Hart for "clarification".

The good news is that they will both break cover and go public tomorrow. Apparently. Allegedly.

I'm sure they've both got something to say, and lots of people want to hear it - this is no time to be shy.

Council Report Pans Night Flights Proposal

It's grim reading for Manston, but it could be good news for East Kent - depending on Thanet District Council’s priorities. Yes folks, the Parsons Brinckerhoff report has finally arrived, and you can read, print and download your copy HERE. 

This summary is in handy bite-sized chunks - just click on the "next installment" at the end of each post to work your way through...

Shortly after Manston submitted their most recent night flying proposal last autumn, TDC commissioned independent experts Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) to look at all the paperwork. Manston’s application was supported by a noise impact report from Bickerdike Allen Partners (BAP), and an economic assessment from York Aviation.

TDC’s brief to PB was:

[p2]  To assess the suitability of the methodology used in the application; To test the assumptions made; To review the Planning situation

I have no idea why they asked for the third point - this is clearly a matter for planning lawyers. PB spend about a third of their report rehashing the history of planning problems and then throw up their hands in resignation and say “ask a expert”:

[p22] It is recommended that Legal Council [sic] Opinion is sought on the question of intensification of use.

Some key findings from the PB report:

• Manston wants night flights for freight.
• If this was a planning application, it would be rejected.
• Having night flights will not generate passenger growth.
• The noise analysis supporting Manston's application is flawed.
• The economic analysis supporting Manston's application is flawed.
• The S106 agreement and the planning status of the airport is a shambles.

Incidentally, if you found this useful, do feel free to pass it on to friends, neighbours and colleagues - just use the "EMAIL THIS" link below.

---

Next installment: It’s all about freight

---

Night Flights are for Freight

Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) put Manston’s request in the context of increasing demand for aviation services, particularly in the south-east of England:

[p3] … the demand for aviation services is set to dramatically increase in the next 20 years. The conclusion is therefore that better use needs to be made of the existing facilities.

The obvious solution would be for Manston to use its daytime capacity, but this never gets a mention.

The PB report says Manston wants night flights for freight:

[p4] … the ability to operate at night will be a crucial factor in attracting a regular air freight service provider which will improve the financial viability of the airport in the short-term.

The PB report says Manston's forecasts in its Master Plan are unrealistic:

[p4] … despite the forecasts only being two years old, the airport is not achieving the level of forecast passenger growth

The PB report says short-term passenger growth would come from carriers based at other airports, which would not need a night flight facility:

[p5] Therefore, in the short term we do not believe that the airport can justify a night flying quota system to support passenger growth. 

---

Next installment: Manston’s in the wrong place 

---

Location, Location, Location

It's refreshing to see an independent review of Manston's present and future prospects that doesn't shy away from stating the obvious - a successful passenger airport needs plenty of passengers within a convenient distance, and a successful freight airport needs plenty of customers within a profitable distance.

The Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) report says Manston airport is in the wrong place:

[p5] Given the geographic location of Manston it is unlikely that carriers would show much interest for inbound traffic from key European city links – we would argue this would only be relevant if Manston was strategically placed near to a large city or a region with a large catchment area.

Heathrow has queues of carriers wanting to use the airport, so they can afford to pick and choose who they let in. Over the short to medium term, Heathrow airport will carry less freight and more passenger traffic, as passengers are more profitable. This will displace freight traffic to other UK airports.

The PB report says York Aviation is wrong when it says that Manston is "ideally geographically located" to benefit from this displaced freight traffic.

[p5] Stansted, and Gatwick to a lesser degree, have significant capacity to accept additional freight volumes and are strategically better located close to motorways and major conurbations.  For this reason we would disagree with York’s contention that “It is for the relocation of these services that MIA is ideally geographically located”.  MIA, whilst only 50 minutes from the M25 at Junction 2, is not strategically positioned for freight to be dispatched anywhere other than the far South East of England.

On p15 of their report, York Aviation claim that a night time ban prevents Manston from accepting freight traffic from much of the rest of the world (based on an arbitrary departure time of 2300).

The PB report says Manston is only excluded from 9% of the scheduled air freight market...

[p6] … we do not believe that this provides a compelling argument for significant economic benefit to the region as a result of the introduction of a night flying quota system.

---

Next installment: Jobs

---

Employment - when will it ever grow?

Manston airport currently runs on a skeleton crew of about 100 - the bare minimum required to handle any number of flights. Quadrupling the present number of flights wouldn’t result in a quadrupling of the present staff numbers.

The Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) report points out that there’s plenty of staff capacity to be taken up:

[p8] Given that Manston Airport currently employs a proportionately large workforce for a small throughput, growth of passengers and freight in the short term may not necessarily lead to a significant employment and hence economic impact.

The PB report also raises a very good point which, as far as I know, has never been addressed - how much slack capacity is there, how much more traffic can Manston handle before they have to employ more people?

[p8] We would therefore like to see more evidence of the ‘threshold’ whereby Manston Airport achieves a specified level of throughput such that additional employment is required.

---

Next installment: Noise

---