KENT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE MEETING
IN PUBLIC
Friday
27th September 2013 6.30pm
in the Airport Departure Lounge
AGENDA
1.
Chairman’s
welcome & opening
2.
Minutes
of last meeting
3.
Matters
Arising
4.
Short
introduction to the public part of the Meeting by P Twyman, Chair of KIACC
5. Short presentations
from Community Fund recipients
6. Report from the
Airport Management (Charles Buchanan, CEO Manston Airport)
7. Thanet District
Council (Cllr Hart, Leader of the Council has been
invited to speak)
8. Questions from the public and discussion
Members of the public are invited to attend
this meeting and will have the opportunity to ask questions after the business
of the Committee has been dealt with.
Hear from Thanet District Council and the CEO
of the Airport. Hear about the work of
KIACC. Make your views known.
Agendas will be available at the meeting.
The Constitution of KIACC
provides for one meeting a year at which the public can attend. In
recent years, in keeping with our wish to provide a public forum for discussion
on airport issues, the Chairman has extended this provision so
that the public can not only attend but have the opportunity to speak.
So far nobody has objected to this commonsense approach!
After the formal business
of the meeting there will be ample opportunity for members of the public
to ask questions and make suggestions (but not, please, long
speeches). It would be helpful in making best use of time
if people with specific questions could let us have them in advance so
that they can be grouped together – suggestions to secretary.manstonkiacc@talktalk.net. And if they are
not reached they can be passed on to the appropriate quarter for a response.
We look forward to seeing
you.
If past performance is anything to go by, we might expect an announcement from Charles Buchanan a few days after he is out of the public spotlight.
MEETING IN PUBLIC – in the Airport Departure Lounge
Friday 30th November 2012 6.30pm
AGENDA
Chairman’s welcome & opening
Minutes of last meeting
Matters Arising
Short introduction to the public part of the Meeting by P Twyman, Chair of KIACC
Short presentations from Community Fund recipients
Report from the Airport Management – a presentation on the airport and its future (Charles Buchanan, CEO Manston Airport)
Thanet District Council – an update on the Council’s position on the
airport and its development; the work of the Airport Working Party; and
views on the future (Cllr Hart, Leader of the Council has been invited to speak)
Reactions from Sir Roger Gale MP, Laura Sandys MP, Sandra
Matthews-Marsh (chief executive at Visit Kent), David Foley (east Kent
Chamber of Commerce chief executive), Cllr Bob Bayford (Thanet
Conservative Group), and Cllr Clive Hart (Leader of Thanet District
Council).
The news has been welcomed by groups in Kent including Sir Roger Gale MP. He said:
“For more than twenty years a few of us have staked our faith in the
belief that Manston has a job-creating future as a successful regional
airport. We have, of course, seen some false starts but this is the
first time that a major international flag-carrier has made a commitment
to regular flights to mainland Europe. With Schiphol`s status as one of
Europe`s fastest-growing inter-lining airports this move really does
connect Kent with the rest of the world and the rest of the world with
Kent.”
Laura Sandys, MP
I am delighted that KLM have decided to start offering flights from
Manston. This makes Thanet even better connected with the rest of the
world and makes our area a more attractive place to invest. I am very
much looking forward to supporting KLM to ensure that this route is a
success.
Sandra Matthews-Marsh, chief executive at Visit Kent, said:
“This is a tremendous opportunity for tourism businesses across East
Kent and beyond. We now have a real opportunity to persuade more people
heading to England to fly into Manston and discover the outstanding
heritage, countryside and coast on London’s doorstep with excellent
transport links into the heart of the capital.
Visit Kent already has very strong relationships with tourism
partners in The Netherlands and we will continue to work closely with
them to promote our county in their local markets for regular short
breaks and day trips. Visit Kent was delighted to be invited to work
with the airport team at Manston to promote Kent as a great destination
for KLM passengers.”
Thanet and east Kent Chamber of Commerce chief executive David Foley said:
“This news follows closely the announcement of a projected minimum of
3,000 jobs at the Discovery Park in Sandwich making for an excellent
few weeks. Given the considerable savings in time and money to local
long haul passengers transiting via Amsterdam, there is every reason to
suppose that the arrival of KLM in Manston will stimulate employment in
East Kent, reduce costs for exporters and boost tourism throughout the
county. From today, the business community can shout loudly that Kent
Loves Manston.
Given the considerable savings in time and money to local long-haul
passengers transiting via Amsterdam, there is every reason to suppose
that the arrival of KLM in Manston will stimulate employment in east
Kent, reduce costs for exporters and boost tourism.”
Thanet Conservative group leader Councillor Bob Bayford said:
“We desperately need jobs here and the Conservative group has always
maintained that the airport could play a crucial role in the
regeneration of Thanet. The Labour administration’s short-sighted ‘no
night flights’ policy would effectively ban this service, simply because
one of the flights is 25 minutes before 7am, yet this is exactly the
type of flexibility that we have long argued for.”
Thanet Conservative Group has welcomed the announcement that
KLM will introduce a twice daily service between Manston and Amsterdam
in April 2013. Conservative Group Leader, Cllr Bob Bayford said:
“This is very positive news for both Manston Airport and for Thanet,
particularly the immediate creation of nearly 30 jobs. We desperately
need jobs here and the Conservative Group has always maintained that the
airport could play a crucial role in the regeneration of Thanet. The
Labour administration’s short sighted ‘no night flights’ policy would
effectively ban this service, simply because one of the flights is 25
minutes before 7am, yet this is exactly the type of flexibility that the
Conservative Group has long argued for.”
Cllr Bayford also noted that the number of valid objections to ‘night
flights’ from Labour’s flawed consultation earlier this year was just
1329, whilst KLM’s online survey produced over 9000 responses, 96% of
which expressed demand for the service, and 80% of which were from
within the Thanet area.
Thanet council leader Clive Hart tempered his enthusiasm with
apparent concern for those residents who have opposed night flights. Mr
Hart said the proposal would be allowed under a current Section 106
agreement banning certain night flights, as the KLM service would use a
“quieter aircraft” carrying passengers to a European destination. He
said:
“I welcome it most definitely – especially the jobs. In an ideal
world I would have much preferred it if the later flight was at 7am,
however, we are where we are.”
Thanet District Council has warmly received the announcement
made in Canterbury, that from 2 April, a new KLM service will operate
from Manston Airport to Schiphol in Amsterdam. The service is within the
parameters of the section 106 Agreement with Manston. Council Leader
and Cabinet Member for Strategic Economic Development Services Cllr
Clive Hart said:
“Thanet District Council welcomes this positive news and looks
forward to what we hope is a new future for Manston Airport, which
balances a bright economic future with empathy for the local environment
and our residents. Thanet is a beautiful place and we would have
welcomed the opportunity to have held Tuesday evening’s event in our
district, I sincerely hope we will be given that honour in the future.”
Although supportive of Manston Airport, Thanet District Council agreed at Full Council last night (24th May) that it could not support the introduction of the airport’s proposed scheduled night-time flying. Councillors were considering the council’s consultation response to proposals submitted by airport owners Infratil to introduce night flying operations between 23:00 hours and 07:00 hours.
Concerns over the potential noise and environmental impacts, as well as strong public feeling against the proposals, meant the majority of Councillors did not support the airport’s consultation proposals, submitted to the council in October 2011.
As well as underestimating the potential negative impact, members also felt that expert advice provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff in an independent report, questioned the potential economic benefits.
Members took three votes on recommendations from Cabinet following their meeting on Thursday 10 May. All three recommendations, as detailed below, were approved:
That subject to any further comments that Council may wish to make, Council agrees the consultation response to Manston airport’s night time flying policy as set out at Annex 1 of the report.
That Council confirms that Thanet District Council fully supports the day-time operation of Manston Airport but further recommends that as a Consultee, the Council cannot support the introduction of scheduled night-time flying operations between 23:00 hours and 07:00 hours for the following reasons:
a) The council’s consultation shows 73% of respondents are opposed to night-time flying;
b) Noise and environmental impacts are underestimated;
c) The number of jobs generated and the economic benefits may be overestimated;
d) The probable detrimental impact of night-time flying on Thanet’s recovering Tourism Industry;
e) Concerns raised in the World Health Organisation’s assessment of the impacts of disturbed sleep;
f) There is concern that the night-time flying proposals have not considered Article 8 of the Human Rights Act;
g) The Airport would need to address whether the proposed night-time flying policy constitutes a ‘plan or project’ for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations and then follow the further requirements of those regulations as relevant.
That Council authorises the Director of Community Services in consultation with the Leader of the Council to provide final written comments to Manston Airport incorporating any amendments considered necessary.
Leader of Thanet District council, Cllr. Clive Hart, said:
Last night’s decision follows months of careful consideration. After listening to the concerns of local people across Thanet, and taking expert advice on the proposals, we were clear that our response to Manston could not support night-time flying. As a council we do support the airport and recognise their position as a key local business in the area, however this can’t be at any environmental cost.”
The council’s consultation response will now be submitted direct to Manston Airport.
Conservative:
At last week’s Council meeting, the Conservatives emerged as the only party willing to give Manston airport the operating flexibility it needs to develop and provide much needed employment for local people.
Labour, the real Independents and TIG all rejected a Conservative amendment which stated: ‘Thanet District Council fully supports the airport and recognises that it needs some flexibility in its night-time flying policy in order to realise its full potential and deliver the jobs that Thanet desperately needs.’
Clive Hart’s ‘socialists’ made it clear that job opportunities were a reasonable sacrifice for votes in Ramsgate, to keep them in power. TIG’s Cllr Ian Driver went even further and stated that he would welcome the closure of the airport now.
Labours proposal to put a total curfew on the airport’s operating hours from 11pm to 7am will seriously harm Manston’s prospects of becoming a thriving business capable of supporting up to 3000 new jobs. Thanet’s residents are left to envy the success of Southend Airport which, with full local council support, has, in just three years, become a major employer in the area. Labour claim that their recent survey of public opinion on ‘night-time’ flying supports their stance but it is clear that the methodology employed was skewed in favour of motivated responders in the ‘no night flights’ camp.
Conservative Group Leader, Cllr Bob Bayford said:
“We are not in favour of a ‘free for all’ at Manston throughout the night – that would clearly be unacceptable. However, Labour’s iron fist policy will kill Manston and its potential to offer real jobs to people in Thanet. Yet again, Thanet’s Labour administration has proved it will pander to a vocal minority when it can keep them in power.”
Plans for night flights from Manston Airport in Kent have been opposed by Thanet District Council. At a meeting on Thursday, the Labour-controlled council voted against all night flights to or from the airport. Charles Buchanan, the airport’s chief executive, said:
“We are disappointed the council is not supporting the airport as much as it could.”
In March, owners Infratil announced plans to sell Manston and Glasgow’s Prestwick Airport. Mr Buchanan said the airport wanted to run “a small number” of scheduled night flights. He said the owners had received legal advice that two flights per night, on average, did not constitute “an increase in activity over and above that which is already permitted”, and they could go ahead without needing extra planning permission. Mr Buchanan said a number of companies were interested in taking up the opportunity.
“They would also bring the rest of their daytime schedule to the airport as well. Without that they’ll go to airports where they have that flexibility.”
Council research showed that 73% of some 2,000 residents questioned were against the proposal, citing potential noise levels and disturbance to sleep as their primary reasons for objecting. The airport currently deals with passenger and commercial aircraft with a runway capable of taking Boeing 747s and Airbus A380s. Its refurbished terminal is capable of handling up to 700,000 passengers a year.
MANSTON airport’s plans to run as many as eight flights a night failed to get the support of Thanet District Council last night after a final crunch vote. Opinions divided along party lines at the extraordinary council meeting as the Labour administration motioned a rejection of the airport’s proposals.
Council leader Clive Hart said the council’s consultation response was based on the results of an independent review of the airport’s proposals and the council’s own consultation with residents. Conservatives argued that a vote against night flights was a vote against jobs for the area. Conservative group leader Bob Bayford said that a ban on all aircraft movements between 11pm and 7am was a “straight jacket” for the airport:
“At best it will delay the development of the airport, a worst it will kill the airport.”
Mr Bayford added that it was “dangerous” for the council to base its response on a “seriously flawed” in-house consultation in which 73 percent of respondents opposed night time flying. Laughter came from the packed public gallery when Mr Bayford pointed out the Manston Airport’s own consultation of residents showed 79 per cent being in support of night flights.
Mr Hart defended the in-house consultation saying it had the greatest response of any to date:
“The results have been extremely conclusive and it wasn’t at all close.”
The response stated the council’s support of the day-time operation of Manston airport but said the council would not support night-time flying on the basis of its own consultation and the council-commissioned Parsons-Brinckerhoff report. Listing the objections, the report said the noise and environmental impacts had been underestimated by airport, the economic benefits of night flights were overestimated and that the impact on Thanet’s tourism would be detrimental.
It also pointed to concerns raised in the World Health Organisation’s assessment of the impacts of disturbed sleep and added that the night flight proposals had not considered Article 8 of the Human rights Act- the right to respect for private and family life.
The motion to adopt the response was won after Labour got the support of the council’s two independent groups. The Conservatives voted unanimously not to support the response but were out-numbered. Phil Rose of the No Night Flights campaign and Charles Buchanan, chief executive of Manston Airport, watched the meeting from the public gallery. Mr Rose said:
“It is a good result and I am very, very pleased that the council came out following the recommendations of the independent reports. They have listened to the views of the people.”
Mr Buchanan said the airport will take the vote into consideration and formulate its response:
“All we have ever asked for a limited number of night flights with mitigation measures. The result is disappointing but entirely predictable.”
The council’s response will not be binding as the council is only a consultee in Manston’s own consultation of its night-time flying policy. A separate residents’ petition against night flights, presented to the council last week, was also noted. It had collected 2682 signatures but only 777 were valid as the others did not include an address.
Manston Airport chiefs say they are “very disappointed” after Thanet District Council last night voted to oppose night flights from the Thanet airfield. As part of the consultation process, the council saw a heated debate over its position. The Conservatives on the council were open to the suggestion, while the ruling Labour group were opposed.
Speaking this morning, chief executive of Manston, Charles Buchanan, said:
We are clearly very disappointed by this stance as it is completely inconsistent with the council’s stated policy to support the airport’s success as a creator of thousands of much needed jobs. The position the council adopted last night is also in sharp contrast to its leader Clive Hart’s stated assertion of ‘the council’s recognition of Manston Airport as an economic asset to Thanet’.
The council’s response contradicts the conclusions of the report from its own consultant Parson Brinckerhoff, which identifies that a ban on night time flying, in relation to passenger services, would: ‘almost certainly prohibit a large number of potential carriers’. Its consultant also recognises that with respect to freight operations, the absence of night flights ‘would undoubtedly hinder the ability of Manston to attract either regular flights or a based operator’.
It is this ability to attract passenger and freight services that will fundamentally determine whether the airport is an economic asset for Thanet, as well as providing the travel advantages for local people using their local airport. Importantly, the council which has sought to question Manston’s own economic impact report, has once again contradicted the conclusions of its consultants own report into the impact of the airport, which stated that: ‘…we are satisfied with the approach and values used for the economic assessment’.
Given that Parson Brinckerhoff acknowledges that they themselves only have ‘some relatively minor queries’, we are very surprised that the council has adopted such a negative approach towards the airport and its economic impact assessment. We will now obviously consider the council’s response before providing them, as a consultee on night-flights, with a reasoned reply in due course.
Plans for night flights at Manston airport have suffered a big setback after councillors voted against the idea. Cabinet members of Thanet District Council had already said they would not support the bid by Kent International Airport. However, a full council meeting last night formally opposed the idea of night flights.
Manston wants some planes taking off and landing between 11pm and 7am. Scheduled night flights were suggested at the airport to help increase air capacity. But councillors decided the proposed scheduled flights would be too noisy and have too great an environmental impact. A consultation found three quarters of people living nearby also did not want night flights.
Charles Buchanan, chief executive of Manston Airport, said:
We are clearly very disappointed by this stance as it is completely inconsistent with the council’s stated policy to support the airport’s success as a creator of thousands of much needed jobs. The position the council adopted last night is also in sharp contrast to its leader Clive Hart’s stated assertion of ‘the council’s recognition of Manston Airport as an economic asset to Thanet’. Ironically at a time when the government is recognising the role that Manston could play a part in supporting the south east, by making use of existing under-utilised runway capacity, Thanet is apparently rejecting the opportunity to build its economy and create thousands of jobs.
The immediate conclusion is that despite the council’s stated support for the airport, the leadership has refused to recognise the operational flexibility that its own expert identifies as being necessary for that success. One can only guess why they have chosen such a course and put at risk one of the engines for the long term prosperity of Thanet. We will now obviously consider the council’s response before providing them, as a consultee on night-flights, with a reasoned reply in due course.
TDC listened, and said “No” – will Mr Buchanan get the message?
On the face of it, it looks like a straightforward example of democracy at its best.
If only.
A local council is faced with a difficult decision that involves complex technical issues. Quite correctly it takes advice from technical experts – in this case, two separate firms of experts.
The first firm of experts (Bureau Veritas) said that the costs outweighed the benefits. So that’s a “No”.
The second firm of experts (Parsons Brinkerhoff) said that the costs had been understated and that the benefits had been overstated. So that’s very “No”.
The local council then asks the local people who will be affected by the outcome of their decision what they think. Three-quarters of them say “No”.
So the local council says “No”.
As I said, on the face of it, that’s fine. However, there were a few patches of turbulence en route to this fairytale ending.
First of all, the leader of the Blue Squadron, Cllr Bayford, moved an amendment to the motion which was more of a reverse thrust than a touch on the rudder. Red Squadron Leader Hart wanted to vote on:
The Council confirms that Thanet District Council fully supports the day time operation of the airport but further recommend that as a consultee the Council cannot support the introduction of scheduled night time flying operations between 2300 hours and 0700 hours.
Whereas Blue Squadron wanted to vote on:
The Council confirms that Thanet District Council fully supports the airport and recognises that it needs some flexibility in its night time flying policy in order to realise its full potential and deliver the jobs that Thanet so desperately needs.
Can you spot the difference? Cllr David Green thoughtful this amendment so completely changed the meaning of the motion that it should be disallowed. Legal eagle Harvey Patterson disagreed – I do wonder about legal minds sometimes. We then had an hour and a half of debate and discussion, of very mixed quality.
Red Squadron Leader Hart surprised everyone in the room by revealing Charles Buchanan is “a lovely man”. However, this was not going to stop him refusing the request for scheduled night flights.
Blue Squadron Leader Bayford criticised the council’s public consultation exercise, but was happy to treat the airport’s own (unaudited, unverified) consultation as being valid.
Cllr Wise showed his mastery of understatement when he said that Manston “needs more time”. The airport’s future depended on attracting night freight he said. He was “astounded and staggered” that anyone would want to deny the area the benefits of night flights between 11pm and 7am, particularly “for the sake of a few votes in Ramsgate”.
Cllr Harrison pointed out that the economic downturn that had caused the unemployment that so concerned Cllr Wise would also mean that there would be less demand to use the airport, day or night, passenger or freight.
Cllr Fenner was the first of many to point out the disastrous effect night flights would have on the growing tourism industry in Thanet and Ramsgate. (This is a rock-solid argument that should be presented louder, clearer and more often. East Kent tourism already employs tens of thousands of people, and is growing. It’s a diverse sector with a multitude of employers, making it more resilient than a Pfizer-style arrangement where there are so many eggs in a single basket.) She pointed out that a green light for night flights would simply increase the sale price, benefiting only Infratil.
Cllr Ezekiel tried to score points by pinning the blame for the S106 on the Red Squadron, but this backfired when it was pointed out that the Blue Squadron had failed to do anything about the S106 year in, year out. Things went from bad to worse when he managed to corner himself into having to withdraw sweeping statements about Red Squadron’s voting record. A bit of a tizzy ensued, when he called the long-suffering general public in the cheap seats “a rabble“, and accused us of intimidating him with “hissing and sissing”. I was there – nobody hissed. I’m not even sure what “sissing” is, but I expect I would have noticed it. Anyway, Cllr Ezekiel easily won the evening’s prize for over-sensitive petulance, but I understand he has a lot on his mind at the moment so perhaps we should cut him some slack.
Cllr Liz Green pointed out that many of the proposed night flights of freight would be coming from third world countries that themselves had the sense to ban night flights.
Cllr Scobie drew our attention to the rather puzzling fact that the Blue Squadron’s amendment had been tabled by the very same people who had voted for the motion in earlier committees… so why were they now wanting to vote against it?
[I’ll add some more details here later, if I can face the trauma of re-living the dreary horror of it. There were some refeshingly good performances from the Independents, and a quite brilliant shooting-self-in-foot from Cllr Gideon.]
Anyway, the Amendment was voted on, and was voted down. All the Conservatives, plus Cllr Ezekiel, were for; all the rest were against.
The main vote was split into three, and the pattern of voting was identical in each case. Blue vote was the Conservatives plus Cllr Ezekiel, the Red vote was Labour plus all the Independents except Cllr Ezekiel.
not supporting night flights between 2300 and 0700: Red all for, Blue all abstained.
agree the draft response as the Council’s official position: Red all for, Blue all against.
authorise Madeline Homer to write to Manston confirming the above: Red all for, Blue all abstained.
The Conservative party had long ago said that it would be a free vote. It is simply coincidence that they all voted exactly the same way, four times in one evening.
“Cllr Wise showed his mastery of understatement when he said that Manston “needs more time”. The airport’s future depended on attracting night freight he said. He was “astounded and staggered” that anyone would want to deny the area the benefits of night flights between 11pm and 7am, particularly “for the sake of a few votes in Ramsgate”.”
A crunch vote on night flights will take place this month as Thanet council prepares to give its final views. Councillors have to choose whether to support plans for up to eight flights a night between 11pm and 7am.
Last week, the Labour cabinet was accused of being “anti-airport” when it agreed that, in response to the airport’s consultation, it would not support night flights.
Former cabinet member for finance, Martin Wise, heckled council leader Clive Hart three times as he read out the council’s draft response based on its own consultation. After the meeting, Mr Wise said:
“Following this sham consultation, it is clear the Labour group is totally against night flights and the airport, which needs to secure business for it to grow. The consultation has only attracted comments from those against the airport but it should have considered everybody. There is high unemployment in Thanet and people need jobs the airport will create.”
Addressing the chamber, Mr Hart said the council consultation had shown 73 per cent of responses were against night-time flying while 26 per cent were in favour. One per cent did not express a clear opinion either way. He said:
“This clearly demonstrates that a large number of residents, and particularly those living under the flight path, were against the introduction of night-time flying.”
He went on to say that the council-commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff report found that noise thresholds suggested by the airport’s owners Infratil were likely to understate the actual noise impact on residents. He also included amendments to the original draft from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee drawing attention to World Health Organisation’s assessment of the impacts of disturbed sleep, the effect of night flights on the tourism industry and Section 8 of the Human Rights Act.
Director of Manston airport Charles Buchanan said:
“The text of the response is fundamentally the same. It doesn’t recognise the significant element of the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report which says a ban on night time flying would almost certainly prohibit a large number of potential carriers. A total ban on night flights sends the wrong message to business. We have proposed limits and a mitigation programme which the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report says goes further than that required by current Government guidance.”
The council will vote on whether to support proposals for night flights at an extraordinary meeting on Thursday, May 24th.
Like pushing your own face into a bacon slicer. Slowly. It was shambolic to a degree I would once have found shocking.
Charles Buchanan had been invited to speak by Cllr Gideon (chair), at Madeline Homer’s suggestion, to “clarify” a number of points relating to the AWP’s draft response. This led to some confusion as to whether the current draft report would need to be returned to Parsons Brinckerhoff for rewriting in the light of whatever Mr Buchanan might be about to say. Eventually they decided to play it by ear, and if only minor adjustments were required, they could go straight to the next stage of the process (Overview & Scrutiny) without the AWP needing to meet again.
[An aside: WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? TDC have had their consultation, and received a report from the independent consultants. Why is Buchanan even allowed to speak at the AWP, let alone be allowed to modify the Council’s document? We’ve all seen TDC’s draft report, and there’s plenty that NoNightFlights would like to comment on, as (I guess) would the CPRE Protect Kent, and many others. If TDC want to avoid legal crucifixion for bias and failure of process, they are going to have to cut Mr Buchanan out of the loop, or include everyone.]
At the beginning of the meeting, Mr Buchanan’s scope for comment was whittled down from the whole report to sections 4.7 to 4.7.3 – largely as a result of Cllr Campbell’s insistence. Mr Buchanan was accompanied a consultant from Bickerdike Allen Partners (who said nothing), and another from York Aviation who ended up doing most of the talking.
Some while into the discussions, Cllr Campbell realised that the AWP all had a new and previously unseen document, and complained that they hadn’t been given time to assimilate it. It eventually transpired that this was not a TDC document, but had come from Buchanan. He had said that he had been hoping to speak more widely than 4.7-4.7.3, and presumably had wanted to work his way through the document, point by point.
Looking at the signing-in book on the front desk, Mr Buchanan was the first in, and had presumably just left a copy of the document at each seat. Sneaky bastard. Homer simply told everyone to “pretend they hadn’t seen it” and not to include any reference to it in their discussions, although she did tell Cllr Marson that she could take her copy home (!).
People wiser than I in the ways of protocol and the conduct of meetings would know better, but I would have thought a more proper course of action would have been for Cllr Gideon to collect and destroy the documents, rebuke Mr Buchanan, and minute accordingly. Or just punch someone.
In between trying to undermine the credibility of Parsons Brinckerhoff and their report, the guy from York Aviation did reveal the identity of the six airports that appeared in Section 3.10 of the York Aviation report as the basis for employment forecasts. They are Bournemouth, Bristol, Blackpool, Leeds/Bradford, Edinburgh and East Midlands – the last of these being the “outlier” on the graph due to the high volumes of freight it handles. He also let slip that Manston expected a 50:50 mix of freight and passenger traffic – the previous story has been 90% passenger.
Charles Buchanan stated that the proposal does not claim that 1,4552 jobs and £30.4m GVA (Gross Value Added) would be created by night flights, rather that the absence of night flights would jeopardise the potential benefits of the airport by these amounts.
In my eyes, Charles Buchanan exemplified the use of data to obscure and distort issues. In striking contrast was Council officer Hannah Thorpe – easily the star of the evening – who stuck resolutely to the principle of using data to clarify, and sticking strictly within the limits of validity rather than trying to extrapolate in the hope of supporting anyone’s preconceptions.
So when Cllr Gideon asked whether free-form (as opposed to questionnaire-style) responses were harder to analyse meaningfully – Ms Thorpe: No, we do it all the time – we’re doing it for the Asset Management consultation.
Cllr Gideon: was the format of the survey a good way of getting a response? – Ms Thorpe: it was widely promoted through mail shots, press articles and adverts, and is “equally as valid” as any other form of consultation conducted by TDC.
Cllr Gideon: what percentage of Thanet’s population responded? – Ms Thorpe: that’s not a valid or correct way to assess the response.
Cllr Gideon: doesn’t the low percentage response rate invalidate the result? – Ms Thorpe: don’t go there, this is the highest response rate we’ve had for any consultation – if you disregard this result, you’ll have to disregard every consultation result we’ve ever had.
Cllr Green successfully argued for the inclusion in the report of three significant additional considerations: a summary of the health impacts of broken and disrupted sleep from the World Health Organisation; a critical assessment of the short-comings of the QC noise rating system, from the House of Commons library; and an overview of the scale and economic importance of Thanet’s tourism industry.
Cllr Campbell successfully argued that the effects of noise disruption on residents’ rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights needed to be included in the report.
Cllr Hart, when explaining his decision to go for an in-house consultation rather than spending £50k on MORI made an interesting point. Many people had been puzzling over how TDC proposed to implement the proposed weighting of responses from those under the flight path as against those living out of earshot – what multiplier, or what algorithm would be used?
Cllr Hart’s solution was disarmingly simple: it would be down to councillors to use their own judgement. Just as councillors make a judgement call when assessing the planning applications – closer proximity means a greater impact – they should use their own judgement to assess how much more weight should be attached to responses that come from those under the flight path.
More than 2,000 residents took the time to air their views as part of the council’s public consultation on proposals for regular night-time flying at Manston Airport. The majority were opposed to the implementation of regular night-time flying, with approximately 73% opposed, 26% in favour and 1% not clearly stating a position.
The main reasons given by those who were opposed were:
the likely disturbance to sleep
the effect on health and quality of life
unacceptable noise levels
the likely detrimental impact on the local economy
overstating the potential economic benefits.
Those in favour stated the reasons for their support as including:
jobs/employment opportunities
regeneration of Thanet
their desire for the airport to develop
night flights needed to ensure the future viability of the airport
Airport has been there for many years
The responses were also analysed by area to ensure that the council gathers the views of those who live under the identified flight path, those who live within Thanet and those from outside of Thanet. The results were approximately as follows:
Leader of Thanet District Council, Cllr. Clive Hart, said:
“Firstly I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to take part in this consultation. We know that it’s such an important issue for local people and that’s clearly reflected in the high level of response. The feedback from this consultation will now be considered by Councillors, alongside the findings of the Independent Assessment completed by Parsons Brinckerhoff and the proposed policy itself, to agree the council’s consultation response to Infratil.
I am sure every Councillor will be carefully analysing these results to see what residents have said, before we finalise our response.”
A report is due to be considered by members of the Airport Working Party on Wednesday 4th April. The report then goes to Scrutiny on Tuesday 24th April, Cabinet on Thursday 10th May and will then be considered at an Extraordinary meeting of Full Council on Thursday 24th May.
It was nothing to do with night flights, it was an investment decision (surprise, surprise), Labour feels vindicated and criticises Tories (surprise, surprise).
Airport boss calms jobs fears after Manston is put up for sale
Manston airport boss Charles Buchanan has insisted it will be “business as usual” at the airport, following the shock announcement of its sale last Thursday.
A statement from the airport said it was a decision that had arisen from operator Infratil “refocusing” its investment profile. Trying to allay fears over more than 100 jobs at the airport, airport chief executive Mr Buchanan said:
“It is business as usual in every respect. The business will carry on as it has done and will continue to do so. We would like to reassure all our customers that flights will not be affected. If you have booked a trip with CI Travel Group or Newmarket Holidays, you have absolutely no need to worry as all flights to Jersey, Croatia, Italy and Portugal will be operating as normal. I would also like to stress that jobs are not under threat and we are very grateful to our staff for their support during this time.”
Mr Buchanan denied the proposed sale of the airport had anything to do with the night flights consultation which finished the week before:
“It was a decision made by Infratil shareholders and they decided what was best for them. Their investment strategy was no longer in the best interests of the airport and we are now seeking an investor whose strategy matches the needs of airport.”
He added that the night flight policy was still important for the future of the airport and attracting new investors:
“The position, which I have stated all the way though, is that for this airport to be successful it needs to operate from a competitive position.”
Leader of Thanet council Clive Hart however said he felt that the proposed sale put question marks over the issue of night flights:
“This bolsters my decision to hold a cheaper, in house consultation on night flights. We will consider the issue as we did before, but on the other side it seems that all is not the same. A new owner might not want night flights.”
Mr Hart denied suggestions that Labour’s anti night-flight stance in its election manifesto had any bearing on Infratil’s decision to sell:
“From my discussions with Charles Buchanan, it seems that the delay and prevarication of the previous Conservative administration had a far more detrimental effect than our stance.”
Management consultancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has been appointed as advisers to assist in the sale of Manston. Mr Buchanan added:
“We are excited about the opportunity that the sale offers us and are looking forward to working with new investors.”
HBM 