At last, Herne Bay gets a mention

Herne Bay residents will be delighted that our Council has finally stirred itself. They will be looking at all the responses from the CCC area, collating them, and presenting Canterbury's considered opinion.

Hopefully, this will mean that the views of Herne Bay residents will, in effect, be presented twice - firstly in TDC's analysis of the responses, and secondly when reiterated by Canterbury.

---

Council urges residents to give airport views

Canterbury City Council is urging local residents to have their say about proposals for regular night flights at Manston Airport. Thanet District Council has begun a month of consultation to find out people’s views on night flying at the airport, and with Herne Bay directly on the flight path, the city council is keen to ensure the town’s residents in particular give their comments. Executive member for transport, Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones, said:

“Thanet District Council has now changed its approach to this consultation. Previously it was planning to carry out a wide ranging consultation, including contacting thousands of homes directly to hear views. And we, as a city council, had paid some of the cost of this in order to ensure some Herne Bay properties were included. Now, it is just holding a standard consultation in which people are being given the opportunity to comment on the proposals.

I am urging everyone in Herne Bay in particular, and people across the rest of the district in general, to take part in this consultation and tell Thanet District Council what they think about the possibility of regular night flights at Manston. It is vital our residents take this opportunity to make their views known.”

The proposals by the airport’s owners Infratil, the results of assessments commissioned by Thanet District Council and details of how to get involved in the consultation are on Thanet's website. Comments should be submitted by Friday 2 March. Everyone taking part is required to give a name and address, including the post code. This is so particular attention can be paid to those people who live on the identified flight path and are directly affected by the proposal.

Cllr Vickery-Jones added:

“Once the deadline has passed, we have agreed with Thanet District Council that we will see all the comments from people with a Canterbury district post code. This will then enable us to formally write to Thanet, summarising the views of our residents and ensuring they take the feedback from our district into consideration.”

CCC website

Night Flights? No thanks!

---

---

Public Consultation

---

---

 

In a nutshell:

• Email the TDC Night Flights Consultation.
• The first line of your email should make it clear that you are against night flights between 11pm and 7am.
• Use the rest of your email to explain why, if you want to.
• You MUST give your name, full address and post code.

A bit more background:

Thanet District Council has just started a public consultation. The aim is to find out what the public (you) think about Manston’s recent night flying proposal.

This is your chance to make a difference - they cannot ignore a majority result.

The consultation is not question-based, it simply asks for your opinion of the proposals. The analysis of the results will be weighted by post code - the opinions of people who live under the flight path or near the airport will carry more weight.

When TDC are dealing with the replies, they will (presumably) sort them into piles of “For”, “Against” and “Other”.

Make sure that it is immediately obvious to anyone reading your email which pile it should go in - use the first line of your email (or the subject line) to say you are against Manston’s night flying proposal.

You must include your name, address and post code - if you don’t it won’t count.

Do feel free to send a copy of your submission to NoNightFlights@gmail.com - it’s useful for us to see how the consultation’s going, and we’ll put some of the best ones on the website.

---

Click here to see some of the reasons we're against night flights, and you can add your own thoughts. Please don’t just cut & paste the whole lot into your email - use any that are important to you, and add your own.

Do feel free to pass this on to anyone you know who is against night flights, especially if they live under the flight path.

The next few weeks of consultation, and the run-up to the eventual vote in Council in May, will be eventful - particularly given our legal challenge to the proposals - so do take this opportunity to make sure you keep in touch…

You can get up to date news about the consultation, our legal challenge and news from TDC through our weekly newsletter, and you can get more up to date news through Facebook and Twitter:

Facebook  |  Twitter

---

Links:

TDC’s website page about the consultation.

 

Manston’s 2011 Night Flying Proposal

• An example of what a night flying schedule under the new proposals could look like.
• Map showing the recommended flight paths.
• Maps showing the noisiness of the airport in 2010, and the forecast for  2018.
• Maps showing the areas affected by the noise of various aircraft taking off and landing.

 

The independent report commissioned by TDC that critically assesses Manston’s proposal.

• Our summary of TDC’s independent report.

 

 
Follow developments and keep in touch:

Newsletter  |  Facebook  |  Twitter

Night Flights? No thanks - and here's why...

The Proposal

• scheduled night flights are currently banned, but the airport already has the flexibility to handle late arrivals
• the proposal is for SCHEDULED night flights… you will go to bed every Monday night knowing that you will be woken at, say, 1:30am and 4am

TDC’s report says

• these night flights are for freight, not passenger flights
• the proposal exaggerates the economic benefit - night flights won’t necessarily make jobs
• the proposal understates the noise nuisance from night flights

Night

• night time is from 11pm until 7am - this is the standard definition, as used in the existing agreement, and throughout the aviation industry, and in national and international legislation
• BUT… the new proposal wants to shorten it to 11:30pm until 6am - stealing 1½ hours of your night!
• restrictions would only apply to this new shorter “night” - the other 1½ hours would be completely unrestricted, just like the daytime

Numbers

• if Manston had the same proportion of night flights as Heathrow, there would be 15 night flights a year
• Manston want 659 flights a year in this new shorter “night” - an average of 1.8 each night… could be none on Monday, none on Tuesday, 5 on Wednesday
• between 11pm and 11:30pm, there would be no limit on the number of flights
• between 6am and 7am, there would be no limit on the number of flights
• any plane due in before 11:30pm that’s late would be allowed to land between 11:30pm and 6am
• any plane due in after 6am that’s early would be allowed to land between 11:30pm and 6am
• in practice, this proposal would mean unlimited flights between 11pm and 7am

Noise

• the European Court of Human Rights says that sleep is a human right
• never mind the decibels, here's a rule of thumb: if it wakes you up, it's too loud
• even if it doesn’t wake you, night noise can disturb your sleep patterns, leaving you less rested, and with raised blood pressure
• even if it doesn’t bother you, spare a thought for your family, friends and neighbours who are bothered by the noise
• anyone who suffers from anxiety or depression, will experience increased suffering
• sleep deprivation means children perform less well in school
• sleep deprivation increases the risk of accidents at home, on the roads and at work
• noise isn't just annoying: it's dangerous, and can even be deadly

Employment

• after 11 years, Manston employs just 110 people, some part-time. 66% live in Thanet.
• the average pay at Manston is lower than the average pay in Thanet
• most of the "jobs" Infratil say will be created are imaginary - the result of totting up tiny statistical fractions of jobs: the fuel delivery driver in East Africa, the barber in Ramsgate who cuts the pilot's hair, etc
• the aviation industry has become increasingly automated, and less reliant on people - just 20% more people could handle double the current UK air traffic
• Manston recently admitted that if they doubled the amount of freight they handle, and increased the passengers from 30,000 a year to ¾ million a year, they would create just 23 new jobs
• jobs created at and near airports are heavily outnumbered by jobs lost in the domestic tourism and hospitality industries

and…

• Manston has plenty of spare capacity in the daytime
• the proposal has no fines or penalties if Manston breaks the limits

---

 ... and that's just for starters! Do feel free to use the Comments to add your own suggestions.

Public consultation starts on Manston's night flying proposal

Runs until Friday 2 March 2012

Thanet District Council is now 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, along with 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. 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

Consultation period: Friday 3 February - Friday 2 March 2012

Consultation audience: This consultation is open to all members of the public as well as Town and Parish Councils, Chambers of Commerce, Community and Residents Associations and Special Interest Groups established in Thanet.

How to respond

• Responses to the proposals must be submitted in writing or by e-mail.
• Your full name and address (WITH YOUR POSTCODE) must be provided with your response - these details will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used to analyse the feedback based on geographic area. This is so that particular attention can be paid to those directly affected by the airport's proposals (those living under the identified flight path).
• E-mail your comments to consultation@thanet.gov.uk
• Submit your comments in writing to Consultation, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Margate, CT9 1XZ
• Any responses submitted after the closing date (Friday 2 March) will not be accepted.

What happens next: Before submitting a response to Infratil, Councillors will have to consider the following:

1. The results to the public consultation
2. The findings from the Independent Assessment from Parsons Brinckerhoff
3. The proposals from Infratil

Councillors will consider the above at the following meetings:

• Airport Working Party
• Overview and Scrutiny
• Cabinet
• Full Council

Background information about the proposals

Tit for tat at TDC

Manston is now a political football, and will be kicked around until Infratil take their ball home.

Cllr Bayford, who was Leader of the Council when both of Manston's night flying proposals were received, is now indulging in the time-honoured political tradition of finger-pointing, name-calling and blame-shifting.

The Conservative group at Thanet District Council have long been percieved as friends of the airport, but even they balked at the truly awful proposal submitted in 2010. When the 2011 proposal came in, they commissioned yet another consultancy to analyse and report on it - this is the recently released Parsons Brinckerhoff report.

The oversight and monitoring of Manston by TDC has been pitiful. TDC's non-renewal of the S106 through the years has been a woeful dereliction of duty. This has been happening under both Red and Blue administrations.

There are no heroes in this story - blame can be splashed in every direction. Conservative and Labour members (AND Officers, let us not forget) are all culpable. I'm not interested in who is to blame. I don't even want them to say sorry. I want them to DO sorry - clean up the mess, do it right, and do it now.

---

Manston Airport - Open Letter from Bob Bayford

Leader Clive Hart's latest press release concerning consultation on Infratil's night-time flying policy is simply breathtaking in its distance from the truth.

He claims that I had created 'a monster of a process', clearly ignoring the fact that the approach to consultation was determined by an in-house group of officers together with myself and (Labour) Councillor Mike Harrison, the then chair of the Airport Working Party. A draft process was then taken to that working party, where members made their contribution before final agreement. Hardly my process!

During the formative stages, a number of principles were established, with Cllr Harrison's full agreement. Amongst these were:-

1. That the substantive consultation had to be carried out by an independent, well-respected organisation. This was to remove any suggestion of TDC bias in the results.
2. That any reports produced by the airport in support of their proposals would be subjected to a rigorous 'peer review' to establish their veracity.
3. That the consultation should be 'zoned' to ensure that weighting was afforded to those most affected by night-time flying but that opinion had to be sought from not only the rest of Thanet but also those other residents and businesses in Kent who had an interest in Manston's expansion. To facilitate this wider consultation, KCC were contributing £40,000 towards the cost and Canterbury City Council £5000.
4. That getting the consultation right was more important than rushing to a conclusion.

As far as I am aware, these principles were all endorsed by the working party.

The timing of the consultation was always going to be determined by when the airport submitted its policy proposal and the subsequent submission of noise impact and economic impact reports. The peer review of the latter was published on 23^rd of January, which clears the way for public consultation.

The only money spent by TDC to date is the cost of the peer reviews. In my opinion, whatever the future may hold with regard to Manston, it was vital that any reports produced for the airport should have been subjected to expert, independent scrutiny, to inform the Council's stance on the airport's activities.

I am frankly surprised by the present leader's stance on this issue. On the one hand, he suggests that there is no need for the Council to consult but then proposes a half-baked consultation, guaranteed to produce a biased outcome.

Whether the Council can, at this stage, make any binding decisions on the airport is irrelevant. TDC has a civic leadership responsibility to have a view on the airport's expansion and operational ambitions. It is a topic that elicits strong opinions on both sides of the argument. The eventual fate of the airport will have economic and environmental consequences for many. TDC must give a lead, having considered the public's views and Infratil's proposals.

Bob Bayford

Leader, TDC Conservative Group

Manston in damage limitation mode

Charles Buchanan doesn't think that the independent report into the effect of development at Manston "challenged" his claims over economic benefit and noise pollution. No, it rubbished them.

Click it to big itCharles Buchanan says "we employ a lot of people in Margate". According to the proposal, 17.1% of the "about 110" staff... 19 people.

Bob Bayford says "the people most motivated to respond are those who have a negative view".  Oh dear, Bob, what's happened to your faith in human nature? Surely you don't believe that people with a positive view (i.e. have fallen for the sales pitch) are all going to be apathetic?

Cllr Bayford continues: "there will be activists going around encouraging people to respond negatively"... Hmmm, I expect there will be airport executives (and maybe councillors?) going round encouraging people to respond positively, too... but that doesn't seem to bother Bob.

I wonder if Bob has tripped into the pre-determination trap.

---

Gloves are off in row over night flights

The gloves are off in the row between Thanet District Council and airport management over night flights at Thanet's Manston Kent International Airport. The chief executive of Manston's Kent International Airport has hit out at Thanet District Council's assessment of night flying.

Charles Buchanan told a meeting of business leaders that plans to weight assessment of a consultation in favour of those living under the flight path was unfair to the rest of Thanet.

He also criticised a statement by the authority that said an independent report into the effect of development at the airport "challenged" claims by Infratil, which owns the airport, over economic benefit and noise pollution.

Last week, Thanet council announced it will carry out a 28-day in-house consultation on Manston night-flying policy. The council says the consultation would preserve "the key principle" of giving more weight to the views of people living under the flight paths. Mr Buchanan said the views of all Thanet residents should be treated equally, adding:

"It is quite clear that there are people from across Thanet who will benefit from the job opportunities created by the night flights and we employ a lot of people in Margate. To weigh it in favour of those who just live under the flight path is not fair. All people should have their equal say."

But Labour council leader Clive Hart said that those who are affected by the environmental impact, as well as the economic impact, should have more of a say. He said:

"It was always going to be that way. Other people are affected, but the argument goes both ways. Both people under the flight path and elsewhere in the isle are affected by employment issues. But only people under the flight path are affected by environmental issues as well, so their comments should be given more weight."

Conservative former council leader Bob Bayford accepted that people living under the flight path should be given more say but that only a consultation carried out by a private company could give an accurate picture of people's views. He said

"If you ask people to respond in an in-house consultation, the people most motivated to respond are those who have a negative view. The people who are not against the airport basically won't bother. If you use a proper market-research company, that is skilled in gauging opinion, they will get the views of the whole population. That is what they are skilled at doing. The other problem is that there will be activists going around encouraging people to respond negatively. Everyone is affected, so they should all have a say."

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

thisiskent 31st Jan 2012

The nasty niceties of planning

Manston is nowhere near as simple in planning terms as other airports.

The absence of an overall planning consent and environmental impact assessment mean that there are unique circumstances which significantly change the legal landscape. Manston cannot apply for planning permission for night-flights on their own. They have to apply for planning permission for the whole airport.

The whole planning status of the airport was left in limbo after the Appeal Court hearing, pending a major change in activity at the airport. Clearly, this is the major change - the time when the whole planning issue of the airport must be sorted out properly.

This is not a situation where pre-existing planning permission is being stretched beyond breaking point. Manston has never had planning permission and the court made it absolutely clear that it was the Council's responsibility to ensure that expansion of the airport was dealt with through the planning system. The question becomes - "if not now, when?".

TDC cannot choose whether or not to decide that this requires planning permission.

It is not a judgement call for them to make - it is clear that planning permission is required for the airport (and has been for some time, as a result of cumulative development).

Nor is this something that TDC can choose, or not, to recognise - if they fail to act, they will face legal action leading to a judicial review, and will be compelled to act.

Dream Council

This is what happens when a local council throws its weight into the fight against night flights, on behalf of the residents.

Wandsworth Council in London is a founder member of the 2M group, an all-party alliance of 24 local authorities concerned at the environmental impact of Heathrow expansion on their communities. The group, which took its name from the 2 million residents of the original 12 authorities, now represents a combined population of 5 million people.

As they say on their website:

The council has campaigned for many years for a complete ban on night flights. In October 2001 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that night flights violated human rights and that the UK Government was wrong to have put economic arguments ahead of environmental concerns.

Following the UK Government's appeal, this ruling was overturned. The decision was announced on July 8, 2003. The council helped to raise £100,000 from other local authorities to help meet the legal costs of the two hearings. You can see the latest judgment of Hatton and Others v UK Government by visiting the ECHR website at www.echr.coe.int

They recognise one of the fundamental flaws in the existing setup for monitoring and regulating the aviation industry - the CAA itself:

The council wants the Government to set up a new regulator for aviation. This would combine responsibilities for safety and licensing, currently held by the Civil Aviation Authority, with new roles of consumer and environmental protection.

The council belives that the CAA as constituted lacks the independence for this task. It should be replaced by a new watchdog with powers to ensure compliance. The Department for Transport has been consulting on proposals for a new regulatory framework. You can read the council's full response here:

Regulatory Framework for Aviation - the Chief Executive and Director of Administration's report on proposals to update the regulatory framework for aviation.

Regulating Air Transport - The 2M Group response to the consultation on Proposals to Update the Regulatory Framework for Aviation.

Well done Wandsworth - a fine example for Thanet.

Laura Sandys gets political

Politics is the worst thing that ever happened to democracy, and I only realised this since getting involved in local community campaigns like this one.

The downsides of night flights - noise and other pollution, environmental destruction, reduced quality of life, worse health, more stress, harder-to-teach kids, etc. etc. - are all straightforward facts, and as such are strictly non-political.

The advertised upside of night flights - that they will allow the airport to achieve its master plan and the forecast jobs - is more a matter of belief, trust or interpretation, and as such is likely to coloured by the political colour of your mind/heart.

It's disheartening when political spin and point-scoring produce more heat than light, warming the hearts of political supporters without showing a way forward. (This criticism is emphatically not levelled at Laura alone, not by any means - they're all at it, most of the time, usually when there are better things to be doing.)

Laura is right to be concerned about the brevity of the consultation, but it would better to wait for the full details to be published before kicking it. It seems clear that TDC is short of money, full stop. I don't think the kerfuffle over flower beds tipped the balance.

Laura goes on to say that there is "confusion at the heart of the Labour administration whether this night flight policy constitutes an intensification of use or not". It's fair to say there is confusion pretty well everywhere on this vexed subject, which is why it will end up in the High Court. If Laura herself (or anyone she knows) can speak with both certainty and authority to provide clarity on the subject, this would be a good time to speak up.

It is, as far as I know, absolutely accurate to say that a Labour administration signed the S106 agreement with the airport, presumably after having had a hand in drafting it. (For what it's worth, I think it is the most slipshod legal document I've seen.) It is also true that it is supposed to be re-negotiated every three years, and that every administration since 2000, of whatever political complexion, has failed the people of Thanet and East Kent by failing to re-negotiate an agreement that became more obviously inadequate with each passing year.

So, I agree with many of Laura's points, despite the blue bunting that threatens to obscure them. I'm particularly pleased with her declaration that "I have been consistently against Night Flights at Manston and recognise the impact they could have on the town." This would be a good time to briefly suspend party hostilities and work with the TDC leadership on this key issue, perhaps the only one where your written statements are, in parts, indistinguishable.

---

Labour Council Backs Down on Independent Consultation – Confusion Over Whether Night Flights are a Planning Matter or Not

Following Clive Hart’s, Leader of Thanet District Council, announcement to change the whole consultation process surrounding night flights at Manston, Laura Sandys MP said:

"The statement from Councillor Hart both waters down the public consultation on the night flight policy and also throws doubt on whether this very important policy will ever come in front of the planning committee. Both of these issues are fundamental to ensuring that the public voice is appropriately heard and that local democracy is upheld.

"The Council is watering down the consultation process that the Conservative administration put in place. The then Leader, Cllr Bob Bayford, was extremely keen to use an independent and reputable market research company to assess the public response to increased night flights whilst this council leader is happy to do a cheap internal job. In addition, the previous consultation was planned for 12 weeks while the new council is only giving 4 weeks for residents to have their say. Following Labour’s "Floral Budget", there is either not enough money for the planned professional assessment of public opinion or no political will to listen to what the public want.

"There is also confusion at the heart of the Labour administration whether this night flight policy constitutes an intensification of use or not. Those residents who live under the flight path are convinced that this needs proper scrutiny as it will be an intensification of use. The public will be extremely surprised that there is an equivocation by the Council on whether this is a planning issue or merely a proposal.

"Labour councillors are breaking their election promise. Many Ramsgate residents supported Labour candidates because of their opposition to night flights. I have been consistently against Night Flights at Manston and recognise the impact they could have on the town.  

"It is time for the council to be clear with the residents of Thanet. Does this mean that night flying can proceed without scrutiny from the Planning Committee? If this is the case it represents yet another loop hole in the original 106 agreement that Labour signed when it was last running the Council."

Olympic meddling

Update on those 44 Olympic night flights - Charles Buchanan accepts the reality of supply and demand! Let's see how much demand there is for Manston...

---

Regional airports prepare for Olympic flight rush

Hundreds of flights will be allowed to take off and land at Kent's airports - including Manston - every day during this summer's Olympics. Manston, Lydd and Rochester have been asked to take a share of the 500,000 international visitors expected during the Games.

In total, the airports will have to accept up to around 370 flights a day, as all three will be regulated between 21 July and 15 August to prevent overcrowding at Heathrow.

Manston could operate round the clock and could accommodate a maximum of 192 arrivals and departures every day, of which 44 could be at night - however, Charles Buchanan, chief executive of airport owners Infratil, stressed:

"That is a maximum figure - what transpires will clearly be a case of supply and demand"

Kent Messenger Thanet