You say (24)

#Manston #nightflights

---

I am opposed to night flights at Manston between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Although in Cliftonville I apparently live miles from the flight path and its noise, I have over the past few months on several occasions been disturbed by the noise of flights between 1 and 2 a.m. It is clearly a fallacy that only people under the flight path suffer. Noise travels, particularly when its origin is in the air and it does not encounter obstacles, and its effect is magnified particularly at night when it is not disguised by normal daytime sounds.

Manston will never generate significant numbers of jobs, but could easily have a detrimental effect on the sleep, physical and mental health of thousands, or possibly tens of thousands of people. Members of any society have a moral duty to be caring about those who may be more sensitive and less robust than others, all the more so when any advantage in not doing so is minimal.

I have no major objections to daytime flights, although personally I believe that with continuing rising fuel costs seeming inevitable as China, India and other former 3rd world countries become more prosperous and need more fuel and raw materials, and with prosperity in Europe gradually declining, in the new world of the future Manston will soon be an anachronistic white elephant, if it is not so already. It seems wrong-headed and wilfully short-sighted to maintain it at any cost and not to have the foresight to see and accept what is inevitable.

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

In accordance with your consultation period, regarding the proposed night flights at Manston, I wish to state my opposition.

The reasons for my opposition a pretty straight forward, in as much as night flights will cause maximum disruption for minimum benefit to the wider community.

If Manston is not economically viable without night flights, all that will happen is a delay of the inevitable, because night flights will not cure this problem.

What it will do though is cause anyone in the flight path considerable disruption to sleep patterns, and therefore having a negative effect to the local economy through absences caused by a lack of sleep.

If Manston were serious about being responsible they would change the flight path to a less densely populated area (proven many times to be entirely possible), and ensure that the freight planes were modern, and less likely to cause noise pollution, but it is obvious they have no intention to look at common sense, so I see no reason why the residents in the flight path should suffer as a result.

The key argument is economic benefit, but anyone with half an ounce of business sense knows this will not happen. The jobs created at the airport itself will be minimal (30 minimum wage positions maximum), and therefore the argument is entirely reliant on parallel economies.

To once again consider basic business sense, the freight they are targeting is commodity/product based, and the only business that utilises such services is small order, time sensitive operations, because the cost of air freight is prohibitive in comparison to sea based shipments. What this means is that it will only serve small business, and to believe that parallel economies will be developed in the area as a result is farcical. To be clear, it will not attract any substantial businesses to the area, so all of the guff about job creation is simply an absolute nonsense.

It should also be considered that solving the problems of Heathrow will not see Manston form part of the solution, so when this matter is resolved (whether additional runways at existing airports, or my personally favoured 'Boris Island'), any purported advantages for night flights will simply fade away. This means Manston is a short term business, that will fail and disappear in the long term, so why put up with short term inconvenience for a doomed business.

Here's something else to consider; TDC doesn't exactly have a good record in deciding how the area can be economically regenerated (Westwood being a prime example), so take the advice of people who understand business better than yourselves, and don't waste our time with another flawed proposal.

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

To Whom it may concern,

I am AGAINST the proposal for night flights between 11.00pm & 7.00am@ Manston Airport.

We are already disturbed by aircraft that fly directly over Ivanhoe Road, at a height where we can see the individual rivets; and the noise is atrocious!

During the day time we are usually downstairs, and this is intrusive enough; but on the first floor the noise is even worse!

Obviously this would directly impede on our quality of life & our right to undisturbed sleep; this is surely contrary to current noise abatement laws.

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

You say (23)

#Manston #nightflights

---

LETTER OF OBJECTION AGAINST NIGHT FLIGHTS; to T.D.C.; MANSTON NIGHT FLIGHTS

Dear Sirs,

The consideration of granting permission for night time flights based on jobs in this issue, must be dealt with on facts rather than hope using information supplied by the party who stands to gain. Quite understandably this information will be biased, as Infratil and their shareholders will gain considerably just by increasing their asset value should the Airport be given night flying permission even if it is never used. With that in mind, should you grant permission, as a protection I would suggest you impose a 'Windfall Tax' of 50% of their profits should they sell the asset within the next 10 years. If they are genuine in their intentions they will have no objections whatsoever to these conditions.

The question and consideration of new jobs will encompass 'E.U. Democratic Duty' on the Council's part with regard to the number of parties who stand to gain, and by how much, set against the number of parties who stand to lose and at what cost to them. The Majority defines the existing ruling under that Duty and would only be relevant in future litigation if The Council grants permission in its belief of job creation.

Notwithstanding the above, if The Council is correct in the belief that it holds the authority to allow night time flying then this is a 'Saleable Asset' . This asset belongs to the taxpayer and is deposited with the Elected Representatives to hold or dispose of in our interest. The base foundation of all business transactions is not to give away what can be sold. The Council cannot, under any circumstances, give away our asset to Infratil and its shareholders, to their gain and our loss, when a simple 'Licence' could possible raise millions. This direction would then be to raise revenue rather than create employment. If this reason is adopted by the 'Yes' group and a device is formulated that would achieve a considerable payment to our area, many objectors may change sides, as it is a fair and honest trade to compensate for their personal reduction in living standards to create the 'greater good'. I believe very few objectors think it is a good idea to subsidise a multinational organisation with their personal sacrifice based on a weak promise, that in reality, has cost Infratil very little.

However the entire issue as it now stands has nothing whatsoever to do with revenue or jobs. It is simply about one thing which is noise. It is obvious that if the planes were silent there would not be one objection. On the other hand, if the application was for a facility to land planes on the runway throughout the night, test their engines to the maximum, and then to take off again without creating any jobs, the application would immediately be refused by the Council on the grounds of noise disturbance.

My personal objection is that the job creation argument is too weak. The damage to the community and environment is too high. The opportunity to capitalise on an asset is not being considered, and that there is an element of naivety in negotiating with 'Big Business'.

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

 I AM AGAINST NIGHT FLIGHTS

1) the flight path is directly overhead this property, & many others, & at best is no more than 200feet above ground level. Daytime noise is such that TV, radio, etc is blocked out & it is impossible to hold a conversation outdoors. This is WITH daytime ambient noise. I have been woken at all hours of the night with so called " late arrivals etc".

I have also had the benefit of a mobile noise monitor for several months supplied by TDC & this will confirm noise levels. The aircraft used are not modern quiet passenger craft; they are old, noisy, freight carrying jumbos operated from third world countries.

2) The European Court of Human Rights dictate outlines the right to undisturbed sleep & further the dangers to human health of differing types. There will be cases brought to this Court if the proposal is granted & this will implicate TDC.

3) There are currently only 110 people employed at Manston. The claim that night flights would significantly increase job prospects is quite untrue. Watertight studies prove that at best a further 23 jobs would be available & given the present workforce only 66% live in Thanet & are paid less than others in the area. Where is the benefit to Thanet??

4) Tourism , it has been suggested would also benefit. I would just ask for instance for council members to visit one of our jewels, i.e. Ramsgate harbour when a jumbo jet is on the flight path & see what our visitors think of that. That is forgetting the lovely villages in the area , including this one, & it's ancient church.

5) I would draw your attention to the report of Parsons Brinckerhoff in connection with the 2 previous items. Their report saw absolutely no benefit to the application.

6) If the application is granted there would nothing stopping Infratil in selling up as complete freight operation & such is their lack of profitability it has been suggested that this is the real motive behind the application. You & we would be completely lost !!

7) Finally, this proposal would eventually lead to a reduction in property values & therefore council tax rates---enough said??

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

Mixed reaction to consultation

Thanet council's public consultation on Manston airport's night flight proposals has attracted 700 responses. The views given will help the council form its response to plans by airport operators Infratil to host an average of eight flights a night at Manston.

The authority's consultation was scaled back from plans to engage market research experts MORI and ask for views from other districts when Thanet council took legal advice that it was only a "consultee" on the plans and had no legally binding say in the matter.

Thanet council advertised the consultation on its website and in the press, wrote directly to 500 organisations and e-mailed its own database of contacts. The response represents less than one per cent of the population of Thanet. Leader of the council, Clive Hart, who took the decision to run a smaller consultation, said:

"It's encouraging to see that so many people have taken the time to tell us what they think. Before we draft our own response, it's vital that we clearly understand how our residents feel about these proposals."

Conservative group leader Bob Bayford said:

"I don't think 700 represents a good response at all. The problem with this consultation is that the respondents are self-selected.If we had used a private market-research company we would have had a reliable random sample but with this consultation we have the No Night Flights lobby encouraging people to write in and, to my mind, that means the results will be skewed."

[What about all those 4-page leaflets that the airport sent out, Cllr Bayford - won't those also "skew" the result?]

The feedback received from this consultation will be used, alongside the findings of the Parson Brinkerhoff environmental and economic impact report, to draft the council's response to Infratil. Mr Hart said:

"I think it should give us a good cross section. For people actually putting pen to paper, I think it is a good response. I don't know what percentage of the population it is, I couldn't comment on that, the main thing is we have a very good cross section. The decision to hold an in-house consultation is based on what is reasonable and what is practical."

Mr Hart said respondents' comments will be categorised based on their postcode, adding that greater consideration would given to the comments of those living under the flight path but would stop short of a formal "weighting" of responses. He said:

"It is not quantative data, it is qualitative data. You can't weight words. I think that is more useful. The bottom line is that we get people's opinions."

Phil Rose from the No Night Flights campaign said:

"It is a shame the consultation has been so short. It would have been better if it had been a more informed consultation.This is where TDC missed a trick and possibly missed out. However, there has been a strong reaction against night flights, which is not surprising."

Airport chief executive, Charles Buchanan, said the consultation was hindered by a misinterpretation of Parson Brinkerhoff report, which he feels was supportive of the airport's own impact assessment regarding night flights. He said:

"The independent report overall recognised that what we have said is, overall, satisfactory and that message isn't getting through. The legal position is that what we are doing at the moment does not require a planning application. The view that this might require a planning application in the future is to be debated. The key thing here is allowing the airport to compete on an equal basis with other airports so it can attract business to the area and generate economic activity so badly needed in Thanet and east Kent. It seems perverse we should be trying to stop the development of one of the biggest facilities in east Kent that could be capable of creating local jobs."

Mr Bayford said:

"My impression is that Infratil would not be asking for a relaxation in night time flying restrictions unless they believed it was necessary for the airport to survive in the short term and thrive in the long term."

He said the issue of night flights was a matter of balancing the needs of the many with the needs of the few, adding:

"I understand people are concerned about losing sleep at night but what about the guy who can't get a job, how much does he sleep at night?"

The consultation will close on Friday, March 2. To view the proposals and independent assessment go to thanet.gov.uk or visit Thanet's Gateway Plus in Margate or the council's district office in York Street, Ramsgate. To take part, residents must submit their comments in writing to Consultation, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Margate CT9 1XZ or by e-mail to consultation@thanet.gov.uk

Responses must include a full name and address, clearly stating a postcode.

Bus day in Ramsgate

We were down at the harbour for most of the morning because the press wanted us to be there at 10, 11 and 12 so, given that we wanted maximum publicity, we needed to do that.

Unfortunately the splendid and venerable bus, loaned to us by a Ramsgate resident and supporter, broke down in Queen Street and so we were unable to get all around town as planned - apologies to all those who had camped out waiting for a glimpse!

We were delighted with the response, lots of people came out to support, we were able to speak to residents and visitors who were unaware of the proposal, and we were able to speak to people about the facts etc etc.

---

Here are some of the highlights of the day - do feel free to add your own...

• The sheer numbers of people who were visiting, either for the day or on a weekend break. There were people from all over the country. I had no idea there were so many visitors. Has anybody collated any data about the numbers of people visiting Ramsgate and the income they must be producing for the town? Almost everybody I spoke to who was visiting was appalled by the idea of night-flights and understood why we were opposing them.
• The fact that the only argument put forward by the pro-night-flighters was "jobs" and the fact that none of them could explain how the night-flights would create these jobs. Many people were in favour of night-flights for passenger flights but not if they were going to be used for freight. When I pointed out that this proposal didn't distinguish they were happy to sign. It brought home to me the importance of continuing to undermine the "thousands of jobs" nonsense. It really is the key to changing perceptions. I just love the people who won't make eye contact with you and weave around you, muttering and shaking their heads.
• There was a surprising number of people who said that night-flights didn't bother them and that they slept right through them. When I pointed out that we didn't have any night-flights at the moment they seemed perplexed. Their views did highlight how so many of the pro-lobby only think about themselves and don't care as long as it doesn't affect them. I haven't (yet) come up with a succinct way of describing this attitude but it strikes me that they are the real NIMBYs.
• A very articulate and knowledgeable chap who took Alan Poole apart. He told Alan that the mess they are now in was a direct result of the Section 106 Agreement which he and his colleagues had signed. He cited the way in which penalties are not specified for breaches of the agreement and how the agreement specifies that the airport operator only has to present a policy in order to commence night-flights. Poole attempted to counter by saying that it was the "best agreement they could get at the time". The articulate chap pointed out that they had been under no obligation to sign any agreement at all, and that they would have had far more control in the current situation if the Section 106 did not exist. In other words, the Section 106 is worse than no agreement at all. Poole was way out of his depth and looked very uncomfortable. Labour councillors should be reminded of this at every opportunity.
• The numbers of people who have no idea who Gerry O'Donnell is, but think he is a complete *rse. Way to go, Gerry.
• The Labour Councillors who put money in our bucket. We could end up in the bizarre situation of fighting a court battle against councillors who have helped to fund our case.
• The chap from Spencer Square who loudly and confidently proclaimed that he didn't believe any of it, the noise, the pollution, the health effects. It was all a load of nonsense and night flights should be allowed. I asked him "But what if you're wrong?" At this he went very quiet and his wife gave him a quizzical look. He turned and stalked away. Again, he didn't have a single fact or piece of data to back up his opinion.
• The chap from St. Lawrence who has his own portable noise monitor, and records times, dates and noise levels of flights which pass over his house. He has recent readings in excess of 100 decibels, well above the 80-90 decibels supposedly being recorded at the official monitor, which is less than 100 metres away from his house!
• Brilliant impromptu (or rather, not planned by us) appearances from the old guy in pyjamas and dressing gown and the kids with noise protector headphones and home made signs which both made for great photo opportunities and were lapped up by the press photographers.
• The bus had real impact. Provided a great stationary billboard and pitch for us and welcoming people on, dishing out tea and biscuits etc all felt good and again, furthered the impression of the group being friendly, welcoming etc - plus we gathered a real crowd outside. When the bus was driving, the giant banners certainly drew people's attention and I'm sure the short, sharp and punchy messages were easily read and digested.
• Jobs, jobs, jobs again from people. I had "there's 0% unemployment around Gatwick" a couple of times. If you can get people to actually listen and engage, you can sometimes present them with facts but a lot of the time they just have these myths firmly embedded in their brains - very difficult.

SNAFU at TDC Public Consultation

Phew! Panic over.

For a while there, it looked like the TDC Consultation machine was randomly rejecting emails without telling anyone.

What's actually happening is that the lone soul that TDC has assigned to the task of dealing with the submissions to the public consultation has simply been snowed under.

When each submission comes in, she checks that all the necessary name and address details are present, then checks it's not a duplicate, then updates her list of people who have taken part, and then sends out a confirmation email.

So many submissions have come in - around 1,000 apparently - that she hasn't been able to keep up, so if you haven't received your confirmation email yet, don't fret. Mind you, don't hold your breath either - she's off next week. Who organises this stuff?

The antidote to night flights - all aboard!

This is excellent! We've got our hands on a bus!

We'll be driving all over Ramsgate on Saturday 25th February, and the bus will be covered with No Night Flights banners and bunting, so we'll be easy to spot.

The bus will be full of lovely No Night Flights campaigners, so do feel free to wave, blow us kisses, and come up and introduce yourselves.

We will be dispensing tea, biscuits, facts and earplugs as we tell the good people of Ramsgate about the awful truth behind Manston's night flights proposal, and collect "No thank you" letters for the public consultation.

---

Where and When?

We've arranged for the local press to come along to cover the story and get some "crowd shots" for next week's papers, and we've got Thanet's finest film-makers joining us to record the day - bound to be a blockbuster!

If you want to be sure of your 15 minutes of fame, you'll need to meet the bus at Ramsgate Harbour, where it will be stopping off on its all-day tour. The two big photo opportunities will be at 11am sharp, and at 12 noon on the dot, so be there a bit early to make sure you get in the frame! Our movie moguls will be with us throughout the day.

Elephant in the room: the biggest lies hide in plain sight

Charles Buchanan (Manston's CEO) recently published his night flights manifesto.

He had a page of his own in the Isle of Thanet Gazette to tell the world how important and wonderful night flights will be. He opened with:

"Firstly, I would like to make clear we are asking for limited, managed and mitigated night-time operations policy - not unlimited night flights."

Let's look a bit more closely at the last four words of that sentence, the ones that sound quite reassuring.

We all understand the word "not", so that's OK. And we all understand what Mr Buchanan means when he says "flight", so that's fine.

What about "night"? This word does seem to have caused some confusion recently, and lies at the centre of the whole night flights issue. Fortunately, there is a standard definition that is used throughout the aviation industry, and Mr Buchanan mentions it later in his manifesto - "the night-time period would be between 11pm and 7am".

So what about "unlimited"? Well, we know what limits Mr Buchanan must have had in mind when he used the word unlimited. He was thinking of the kind of limits he's suggesting would apply between 11:30pm and 6am - a limit on the number of scheduled planes, and a limit on the noisiness of planes.

This is the bit where we find that what Mr Buchanan says is the opposite of what is true.

Between 11pm and 11:30pm - during the "night-time period" - there would be no limit on the number of planes, and no limit on the noisiness of planes. There would be no limits of any kind placed on the flights during that part of the night-time period. Between 11pm and 11:30pm there would be unlimited night flights.

Between 6am and 7am - during the "night-time period" - there would be no limit on the number of planes, and no limit on the noisiness of planes. There would be no limits of any kind placed on the flights during that part of the night-time period. Between 6am and 7am there would be unlimited night flights.

So when Mr Buchanan says that Manston is not asking for unlimited night flights, he's obviously talking bollocks. Trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with a broad and inaccurate statement. Deliberately saying something he knows to be untrue in order to mislead or deceive.

And let's not forget that between 11:30pm and 6am (the so-called Quota Count period) there is no limit on the number of unscheduled flights - the late arrivals and the unavoidably delayed.

And here's the rub, the final cynical spit in the face for the long-suffering general public. What happens when (not if) Manston breaks the few rules that it has suggested for night flying?

Absolutely nothing - no fines, no punishment, no comeback.

In a nutshell, then: unlimited night flights, and no penalties.

You say (22)

#Manston #nightflights

Dear Reader - this one's a cracker! Grab yourself a cup of tea, or a pint of gin, snuggle down and enjoy...

---

I am a resident of Ramsgate. I live directly in the approach flight-path for Manston within three miles of the runway threshold. I would like to register my objection to Infratil’s suggestion that they should be allowed conduct night-flights.

Since the airport was privatised I have been disturbed by night-flying on a number of occasions. I have used the airport’s complaints system but this has only ever resulted in my receiving a letter from the airport telling me that the flight concerned was operating safely.

Thanet District Council is fully aware that night-flights arriving at and departing from Manston wake me from my sleep. I contacted the Council on three occasions last year to complain about being woken. On one of those occasions Laura Sandys contacted the Council on my behalf. Thanet District Council failed to answer the questions I asked in my correspondence and, consequently, I have requested that the matter be the subject of a formal complaint. The questions which Thanet District Council has failed to answer are listed below:

1. Could Thanet District Council explain why they have constructed a Section 106 Agreement which permits disruptive activity of this sort to take place without penalty?
2. Could Thanet District Council explain how it decided that aircraft of quota count 4 and below could use the airport at night without penalty? In particular, could the council explain what studies it conducted to estimate the degree of sleep disturbance which would be caused by such activities?
3. Could Thanet District Council explain why they have not attempted to persuade the airport operators to enter into negotiations with the aim of redrafting the Section 106 Agreement? In particular, could the Council explain why it has repeatedly issued planning consents to the airport operator, over a protracted period of time, without even asking that they enter into negotiations?

Objection Number 1

Thanet District Council is fully aware that night-flights are waking me from my sleep. They have been informed about this on a number of occasions but have been unable, or unwilling, to explain what steps they have taken to estimate the degree of sleep disturbance caused to local residents. They have not explained why they signed a document which specifically permits this activity to take place and they have not explained why they have repeatedly failed to use the planning powers available to them to control this activity.

The airport complaints system has been altered unilaterally by Infratil to make it less accessible to local residents in order to discourage local people from complaining and to reduce the numbers of complaints. In the past, complaints could be made by E-mail, telephone or regular mail. Under Infratil’s new regime, complaints can only be made via the airport’s web-site and the section where complaints need to be made is labelled only as “Contact Us”.

When Wiggins was running the airport, the Airport Consultative Committee was told that specific information was required to properly investigate complaints. A complaints form was devised to help people record specific information about the incident. It would seem that Infratil does not require specific information to investigate complaints. The complaints form no longer exists and the “Contact Us” section of their web-site contains no specific instructions about making complaints. When a complaint about noise is made, the airport operator responds using a standard letter which states that the aircraft concerned was operating safely. There is no indication that they investigate the noise level produced by that aircraft.

When Infratil purchased the airport the noise-monitoring system was dismantled. The noise monitor which had been located on Clarendon School, and gave noise data pertaining to Ramsgate, was removed. It was never replaced. Noise data for Ramsgate is now provided from a monitor which is incorrectly and inappropriately located in the garden of an airport employee. The noise monitor for St. Nicholas is also incorrectly sited and fails to give meaningful data about the noise levels to the West of the airport. There are insufficient noise monitors in place to properly monitor noise levels from aircraft using the airport. Aircraft can vary their flight paths to avoid directly overflying the monitors, resulting in inconsistent readings for identical aircraft.

Best practice dictates that you should have at least 2 noise monitors at either end of the runway, arranged in a ‘gate’ to ensure that the actual noise level from an aircraft can be better estimated. There have been persistent problems with establishing the whereabouts of the mobile noise monitor and obtaining any data from it.

Objection number 2

The systems in place for monitoring noise levels, and the degree of disturbance to local people, are wholly inadequate and are not fit for purpose. It is not possible for Thanet District Council to obtain accurate data about the actual noise levels being experienced by residents. The complaints system does not collect the information which would be required to properly investigate noise complaints and no complaints about noise are investigated. The Council should not be authorising night-flights if it has no means of monitoring the noise levels or the effects on local people.

An Environmental Impact Assessment has never been performed on Manston. The requirement to perform an EIA is set out in a European Union Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC).1 The legislation was brought under the umbrella of the UK legal system via the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1999.2

The EIA regulations list a category of development (Schedule 2), which require EIA if they are likely to have significant effects on the environment. To assist in judging whether effects are likely to be “significant” the legislation provides some specific thresholds. For airfields, the threshold stipulated is extension of the runway or if the area of works exceeds 1 hectare (approximately 2.5 acres). Any work which has been authorised since privatization will be subject to these regulations.

Since being privatized TDC has allowed the airfield to expand by granting a series of separate planning applications for development of the airfield. I have evidence of, at least, 16 separate planning applications, totalling over 21.7 hectares. These include four separate applications which individually exceeded the 1 hectare threshold. In each case, TDC has argued that EIA was not required because the development was not likely to have a “significant” environmental impact. In direct contravention of the legislation, which is designed and intended to prevent piecemeal development, TDC has failed to consider the cumulative impact of development.

Objection number 3

A full Environmental Impact Assessment is required for Manston and no further expansion, including the introduction of scheduled night-flights, can be considered until this has been done.

When the airport was privatised, two local residents won a Judicial Review into the way TDC had dealt with the planning issues. TDC won the case, and subsequent appeal, on the substantive issue of whether Lawful Development Certificates were required to specify the nature and scale of activity which could be permitted at the airport. I was present both in the High Court and Appeal court.

TDC’s barrister was asked to explain to the judge how the airport could be controlled if details of the nature and scale of use were not to be included on the certificates. He responded firstly, by conceding that TDC no longer believed that the airport had permitted development rights. He then assured the judge that any significant change in the nature or scale of use would be subject to planning permission. By way of example he cited the introduction of night-flights as an example of the kind of activity which would trigger a requirement for planning permission.

Objection number 4

Thanet District Council told a judge that it would demand a planning application if night-flights were introduced to Manston. This promise was instrumental in winning the case. If TDC now decides that it isn’t going to ask for a planning application TDC will be in contempt of court and there will be grounds for a fresh Judicial Review. The Lawful Development Certificates only recognise the existence of an airport. They do not confer any right to expand the airport beyond the levels of activity which were taking place when they were issued, and TDC is obliged to consider whether the proposals being put forward constitute intensification amounting to a change in the scale or nature of use. The Council has not considered this issue.

I have direct and incontrovertible proof that regular scheduled night-flights were not occurring when the certificates were issued and were not taking place in the years immediately prior to privatisation. In fact, there was a legal agreement in place signed by officers of the Council, which specifically prohibited night-flights, scheduled or not. This is a change in the nature of use of the airport which requires planning permission and TDC should tell Infratil that a planning application is required.

Since being privatised, local residents have been bombarded with ludicrous projections of the number of jobs which Manston would create. Estimates made at the time of privatisation suggested that by now, there would now be 10,000 people working there. It is self-evident that neither TDC nor the airport operator has any credibility when it comes to estimating employment figures. Both have routinely, massively over-estimated the economic impact of the airport. We can have no confidence that the proposed night-flights will be of any significant economic benefit to the area.

We are often told that Thanet is an area of high unemployment. However, a large majority of those available for work are in work and are earning money which feeds into the local economy. There are two working adults in my household. If we are forced to move away from the area by night-flights this will have a negative economic impact. If other working adults and businesses were to leave the area for the same reason the economic impact could be damaging to the town. In other words, the introduction of night-flights could produce a negative economic impact on the area. Thanet District Council has not made an estimate of the numbers of working people who might leave the area to get away from the noise. Without this information, it is impossible to conclude that these flights will be of any benefit whatsoever.

Objection number 5

The economic benefits of night-flights have not been properly defined and there is a risk that the introduction of night-flights will have a negative economic impact. Unless the economic benefits can be defined with more certainty it would be foolish to allow night-flights to go ahead. It may be appropriate and necessary to conduct a financial risk assessment to assess the best and worst case scenarios.

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

You say (21)

#Manston #nightflights

---

To Whom it concerns

I am strongly AGAINST the NIGHT FLIGHTS between 11pm and 7am, as I live directly under the flight path.

I moved to Herne Bay 3 years ago, from Gillingham, for a quiet and less congestive life but will not get this if night flights are allowed.

When I moved here I accepted that I was in the flight path and only a handful of planes where landing, but I DO NOT ACCEPT that I should have to put up with night flights and having to my windows closed, because of the noise

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

I SAY NO TO NIGHT FLIGHTS FROM MANSTON AIRPORT

I am writing to emphasize that I am strongly opposed to flights in and out of Manston Airport between the hours of 11:00 pm and 7:00 am.

I live in Herne Bay directly under the path of incoming flights and want you to know that the noise level during the day is too loud and most annoying, to have flights landing during the night would be unbearable. How you expect anyone to sleep with jet airplanes moving slowly overhead in the quiet of the night is unbelievable, and if you do realise how much noise they make why are you even considering their application. Surely the sleep of thousands of residents and constituents is more important than the outside chance of generating half a dozen jobs. Lack of sleep is also a 'Health and Safety' issue, I hope Thanet District Council is prepared to accept responsibility for the increase in Road Traffic Accidents and Accidents at Work that are bound to happen with such a large population always tired.

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

Sir / Madam – I wish to register my objection to allowing night flights at Manston Airport.

My reasons are as follows:

It seems to me that the Council and Infratil have been far from transparent or public about the issues and the facts. This air of nods and winks is not a good place to start and not a good basis on which to change the status quo.

I lived for many years on the flight path into Heathrow – the issue with noise is not so much how frequent or how loud it is, which seems to be the low level of the current debate; it is how noise affects quality of life. We all accept that airports attract planes but one flight at 0300hrs is enough to ruin a night’s sleep and spoil the next day. Several nights lost sleep spoils quality of life overall.

As a seasoned entrepreneur it seems obvious to me that the business model and the evidence published by Infratil do not stack up; the council officers – who provide continuity in this matter - and elected members – who come and go - seem all too willing to accept the Infratil story rather than challenging what has been put before them – much of which could quite appropriately begin ‘Once upon a time…..’ . Some genuine, quality, independent advice and support would be advantageous and would remove any suspicion of untoward dealing.

I do not have firsthand knowledge about how this matter has been managed but from what I have seen it seems to me that officers and elected representatives have been hopelessly out of touch with the reality of the implications of what they are doing. The arrangements for monitoring and enforcing the current agreement are totally ineffective, Infratil pretty much has a free hand; any relaxation will make a feeble situation totally uncontrollable and leave Infratil unaccountable.

Finally, I would guess that my human rights are to enjoy an uninterrupted night’s sleep – that far outweighs the rights of Infratil to make a laughing stock of the Council and its officers.

I despair at times over this issue. Yes, Manston might have potential for jobs and prosperity but neither of these will be achieved by ducking the issues or knee jerk reactions to appease Infratil; the Council must manage the situation and take responsibility for the welfare of local residents through a properly considered and costed approach – otherwise Infratil will continue to make you look like a bunch of hopeless amateurs.

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

You say (20)

#Manston #nightflights

---

This email is to register that I am AGAINST night flights between 11pm and 7am to & from Manston Airport.

There are many occasions (particularly on Sundays) when aircraft approaching Manston fly very low close to my home. Although this is bearable during the daytime, it will not be during the night as my sleep will be disturbed.

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

I am sending this email to register that I am AGAINST NIGHT FLIGHTS between 11pm and 7am.

I feel that as I am so close to the flight path, night flights would not only disrupt my sleep but also that of my young children and that in turn would affect their ability to learn at school. Recent studies show children need a good amount of sleep each night for both growth and development but if night flights are allowed then how are they to receive enough sleep?? Surely with so many young families living in and around the area the long term effects of sleep deprivation as a result of night flights would only be negative!

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

I am totally against night flights between 11pm and 7am from & to Manston Airport.

At present, although I live miles from Manston, aircraft fly directly over my home flying into Manston Airport, often low enough for me to read the company logo on the side & tail fin.

he noise is disruptive in the daytime & extremely sleep disturbing at night.

Yesterday for example, Saturday 4th Feb'12 early afternoon, I was on the telephone to a friend inside my home & she asked me `what is that noise' - I told her, `it's a plane flying into Manston' !

So, you might understand, that during the night, when those low flying planes have come over, it wakes one up from a deep sleep, you don't know why, but then realise there's a noise. what is it ?

I've experienced a fleeting panic on occasions wondering if it's someone trying to break- in that's woken me/ then you make sense of the sound as you lay in the darkness of the bedroom, you listen and because sometimes the plane flies so low you have to make sure they are going on safely to the airport & not about to crash.

It's not just me that gets disturbed and worried, it starts the dog next door barking, she too wonders what's that noise in the night !

I've had the same problem with the children a) because of the plane noise & b) then dog then barking. I have had to get up out of bed, settle the children back to sleep, that can take up to half an hour.

So, once a night of this disturbance/disruption occasionally to ones sleep is quite enough, anything more would be totally unbearable, especially when/if you've got to get up next morning early for the children or to go to work.

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---

AS YOU WILL SEE FROM MY ADDRESS, I RESIDE DIRECTLY UNDER THE MANSTON FLIGHTPATH RUNNING TO THE EAST OF THE RUNWAY. FOR THIS REASON I AM CONSTANTLY AWARE OF FLIGHTS WHICH APPEAR TO BE UNDER A THOUSAND FEET FROM MY HOUSE.

BOTH HEATHROW AND GATWICK HAVE STRICT NIGHT FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE AND SHOW THE CONCERN THAT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN TO PEOPLE WHO LIVE CLOSE TO AIRPORTS IN GENERAL. CARGO PLANES TEND TO BE OLD TYPES WITH HIGH NOISE RATINGS AND MOST WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO LAND BETWEEN 2300 AND 0700 AT EITHER OF THESE AIRPORTS.

HAVING FLOWN FOR MANY YEARS FROM VARIOUS AIRPORTS AROUND THE WORLD, I AM CERTAIN THAT NO LARGE EMPLOYMENT INCREASE WILL FOLLOW FROM ADDING NIGHT CARGO FLIGHTS AT MANSTON. MODERN AIRPORTS MUST BE EFFICIENT TO MAKE MONEY AND THIS MEANS LARGE STAFF NUMBERS ARE NEVER HIRED. WITH MODERN LOADING EQUIPMENT WHO NEEDS PEOPLE?

SINCE ALL THE DISCUSSIONS BEGAN ABOUT NIGHT FLIGHTS IT HAS SEEMED INEXPLICABLE TO ME THAT AN AIRPORT THAT CANNOT FILL ITS DAYTIME SLOTS WILL SUDDENLY BE ABLE TO FILL NIGHTTIME SLOTS.

WITH A NEW AIRPORT UNDER DISCUSSION FOR THE THAMES ESTUARY, SHOULD IT COME TO FRUITION USE OF MANSTON AS A REGIONAL AIRPORT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC. IT WOULD BECOME JUST ANOTHER EX-WARTIME AIRBASE BEING CONVERTED INTO AN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE. RAMSGATE HAS A GREAT HARBOUR AND IS WELL USED BY LEISURE BOATERS BUT THE NOISE OF LOW FLYING AIRCRAFT DOES NOT ENDEAR IT TO VISITORS. MARGATE WILL BE REBUILDING DREAMLAND AND TRYING TO ENLARGE ITS VISITOR NUMBERS BUT TOURISM IN GENERAL WILL NOT BE HELPED BY AVIATION NOISE.

I SEE MUCH WORK GOING ON TO RENOVATE AND REPAIR PROPERTIES IN RAMSGATE SOME POSSIBLY BEING PURCHASED BY PEOPLE WANTING TO MOVE INTO THE AREA WITH A VIEW TO COMMUTE TO LONDON. I CAN’T BELIEVE THESE SAME FAMILIES WILL ENJOY BEING WOKEN EVERY NIGHT BY JUMBO JETS.

UNFORTUNATELY, WITH LARGE CAPITAL PROJECTS, NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TEND TO RIDE ROUGHSHOD OVER LOCAL FEELINGS,MONEY SEEMS TO PUSH PEOPLE TO JOIN STRANGE BEDFELLOWS. I HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS THERE TO PROTECT AND DO THEIR BEST FOR LOCAL PEOPLE, SO THIS MANSTON ISSUE WILL SHOW US WHOSE SIDE THIS LOCAL AUTHORITY IS ON.

IF MANSTON CONTINUES AS IT IS, WELL AND GOOD (IGNORING THE OCCASIONAL NIGHT FLIGHT). CONTROLS ON NOISE NEED TO BE IN PLACE AND ENFORCED. WRECKING THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE SAKE OF 24 HOUR FLIGHTS AND THE PROFITS OF A NEW ZEALAND COMPANY SEEMS EXTREMELY ILL ADVISED. IF NOISE RESTRICTIONS ARE NECESSARY FOR HEATHROW AND GATWICK THEN SURELY THEY ARE NEEDED AT MANSTON.

---

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

---