|
M-A-G MACC INFO WIGGINS TDC MP's LINKS NEW OOP's
If you want to make comments or find out more
about the Manston Airport Group, email on |
|
AEF/FoE Comments on Consultation Draft of Section 106 Agreement for Manston Airport Overview The Government has announced its intention to publish a national aviation policy for the next 30 years, based on sustainable principles. Expected within the next two years, this policy will supersede the 1985 Airports White paper. As one of the studies being undertaken towards the development of this new national policy, the Department of Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) has begun a South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) to examine future airport capacity in the region. This study will consider the role of airports within the region in meeting future demand, as well as assessing the level of demand that can or should be met. It will also provide a framework against which the advantages and disadvantages of new airport development proposals can be measured. We are concerned and disappointed, therefore, that this study and the subsequent national policy may be undermined by the large number of airport expansion proposals that are currently being considered in advance of the policy's publication. In many of these cases, it is likely that major new airport developments will at least be subject to a public inquiry. While we do not regard these as an entirely effective alternative to delaying a decision until the publication of the new policy, inquiries po offer an opportunity to explore relevant issues in detail, and for the Secretary of State to make a decision consistent with the emerging policy. If a planning application for the scale of development and operations proposed at Manston Airport had been required, then it is almost unquestionable that a public inquiry would have been necessary, in addition to the submission of an EnvironmentaJ Impact Statement (although the latter may still be required for certain developments permitted under the Town and Country Planning [General Permitted Development] Order 1995). If the legal opportunity should arise, we firmly believe that the Secretary of State should call-in the proposed development for public inquiry, subsequent to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) being undertaken. Since the current proposals for Manston Airport have not been subjected to the scrutiny of the normal planning processes outlined above, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the potential environmental effects draft Section 106 Obligation without any information about its potential environmental effects. However, it is essential that this Section 106 Obligation still attempts to provide an effective framework of environmental controls, and ensures that the monitoring and enforcement process is transparent. This will require long-term monitoring, external verification of measurement data where necessary, and the prompt publication of the results. The latter will be important not only to enforce the agreement, but also as a check against the findings of the EIA (required under the terms of the agreement) when it becomes available. At present, we do not believe that the draft 106 provides adequate transparency, particular with regard to public scrutiny. It is noted that planning obligations are effectively voluntary agreements accepted or offered by the operator, and the ability to impose stringent environmental restrictions depends on the willingness the operator. However, all parties should strive to achieve an effective package of controls, suitably backed up by meaningful penalties for non-compliance (see comments below). General Comments Some controls use 1996 as a base year: this relates to a period In the history of the airfield when it operated for both military and civilian flights. Military operations should be regarded as a distinct use. Therefore, the inclusion of military operations in the base year will have a distorting effect on the restrictions contained in the draft Section 106 Obligation. Specific Comments From our viewpoint, the draft Section 106 Obligation (S106) has several shortcomings. These are set out below (numbering relates to clauses in draft agreement): 1.1 Night Noise Policy -it is useful to restrict aircraft to those that are QC4 or below. This does protect residents from the noisiest aircraft. However, sleep disturbance relates as much to the incidence of noise .events as it does to their level. The S106 should therefore specify a maximum number of movements at night. This approach is used at the London airports where the Quota Count concept was first applied: regulations for the London airports specify a Quota Count limit and a maximum limit on the number of movements. The existing wording should also be clarified. If the agreement specifies no aircraft above QC4 then this should be regarded as an absolute ban on non-compliant aircraft, yet a subsequent paragraph relates to a £1000 fine should such an aircraft use the airport at night. Many operators may accept this penalty and continue to operate regardless offering no protection to residents. To overcome this problem, the following
measures are suggested: 2.1 Daytime contour -the concept of limiting aircraft noise by reference to an operational contour is gaining wide acceptance. However, Leq is not very responsive to changes in the number of flights. For example, a doubling of movements will only result in a change of 3 dBA Leq. At increased levels of traffic below this level, the contours may not be very responsive at all. This is important to note, since community reaction is influenced as much by the incidence of noise events as it is by their loudness. This can lead to a significant increase in complaints even though the contours show little fluctuation. This requires an additional limit on the number of aircraft to prevent significant increases in movements. For example, London City Airport is limited by its 57 Leq contour but has an additional limitation on the number of annual movements (currently 72,000) and on aircraft types. As above, a fine of £10,000 may be an acceptable price to pay for allowing a more aircraft movements that permitted by the contour, so a heavier penalty needs to be considered. 5. Noise abatement rules -this section specifies certain operating procedures for aircraft arriving at, and departing from, Manston. While the intention behind this clause is supported (ie. to limit the noise impact from overflying aircraft), there is a question mark over its enforcement and hence, its legality. For example, in British Airport Authority v Secretary of State for Scotland (1980), a condition imposed on the grant of planning permission for development at Aberdeen airport in regard to the flight paths used for take-off and landing was discharged on the grounds that it was ultra vires. This was based on the principle that the planning applicants had no control over flight paths, since the statutory power to regulate flight paths lay with the CAA/NATS (who were not a party to the application/agreement). Hence the applicant was unable to secure compliance. One possible way around this problem, would be to have a clause which "required all aircraft to fly in accordance with the airport's flight protocol". The protocol itself could be agreed between the LPA, the operator, the relevant air traffic control providers, and local residents. This could be subject to change when necessary without altering the terms of the planning agreement. 6. Noise monitoring -The agreement requires the operator to provide and maintain two noise monitoring stations. We assume that one monitor will be provided at a determined distance from each end of the runway. This approach assumes that all aircraft fly along the extended centreline of the approach/departure path. In practice many aircraft will fly off-centre within a swathe either side of the centreline (hence, the noise monitors do not accurately measure the peak noise generated by the aircraft). To account for this, two noise monitors in a "gate" formation are required at either runway end to accurately record noise levels. The agreement should require, therefore, the provision of four monitoring stations. . These results should be published monthly along with incidents of non-compliance. 7. Pollution monitoring -It is not the role of the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) to determine or advise good practice with regards the monitoring of air pollutants but the responsibility of the DETR. Further, neither the Council nor Owner are able to determine air pollutants without consideration of the statutory requirements of the Air Quality Regulations 1997 and the UK National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS). The NAQS requires local authorities to look at eight key pollutants (ie. benzene, 1-3 butadiene, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulates and sulphur dioxide) and to determine whether the levels of these pollutants within their jurisdiction are likely to exceed Government air quality objectives. If they are unlikely be met, a local authority is required to prepare an action plan and outline how it intends to meet those objectives. The Government however has made it clear that they expect all local authorities to consider developing a local air quality strategy setting out how it will improve local air quality. In this regard, airports are not considered exempt from such strategies. Air Quality is also an important consideration in the preparation on Local Transport Plans by County Councils where a significant proportion of air pollutants can be generated by road transport. If the scale of operations at Manston airport anticipated by the owner is realised then significant volumes of road traffic are likely to be generated. In response it would be expected that the local authorities would begin baseline monitoring of the 8 air pollutants identified in the NAQS generated by both surface access transport and aircraft. This will enable the local authority to determine if air quality standards are likely to be exceeded and to measure the effectiveness of any measures to improve air quality. 8. Maximum noise levels -it is unclear why noise monitoring is required for one year before setting maximum noise levels. Maximum noise levels should be based on what is reasonable fdpro1ect local communities, rather than what aircraft using the airfield can achieve. If aircraft cannot meet what is considered to be a reasonable maximum limit then it follows that they should have to pay a penalty proportional to the impact they have (ie. the polluter pays principle). Following the recent Government consultation, the maximum noise levels proposed for departing aircraft at the London airports are 94dBA ( daytime) and 87 dBA (night -time) measured 6,5 km from the start of roll. 9.2 Ground Noise -Limitations of noise from ground running- the agreement should consider the provision of a dedicated noise pen or noise barriers to supplement the protection offered to local communities by selecting a remote site on the airfield/making use of existing buildings as screening. 10. Green Travel Strategy -The Government published 'Guidance on Air Transport Forums and Airport Surface Access Strategies' in July 1999. A key objective of the Air Transport Forums (ATF) is to '...increase the proportion ofjourneys made to airports by public transport and reduce the portion made by private car'. The Guidance also '...places a high priority' on effective public consultation in local transport plans and states that a wide representation of interests including '...health and education providers, environment and community groups' be involved in the preparation of Airport Surface Access Strategies. In order to achieve these objectives, Airport Surface Access Strate&es (ASAS) should set:
Although targets for increasing public transport access to airports aren't statutory, local authorities will still be expected to take into account statutory requirements to improve air quality and reduce emissions. As the Guidance acknowledges a high proportion of journeys by airport employees are made by car and that green commuter plans need to make public transport options attractive for employees including where practical 'introducing services to reflect patterns of shift work'. It also outlines measures that would support a green transport plan including '...provisions for walking, cycling, car sharing and public transport, cheaper travel for staff through bulk discounts and reduced business rates from surrender of car parking' . ASAS are required to feed into Local Transport Plans (LTP) which in turn are to be completed by July 2000. Although the Green Transport Strategy will not be completed by July 2000 it is important that it is completed before DETR determines funding for LTPs in late 2000. It would also be appropriate for the existing ATF (eg. MACC) to be consulted on the green transport strategy prior to its submission as part of the ASAS to the LTP . We endorse the clause 10.2 that a Green Transport Plan with reference to the Green Transport Strategy be prepared for all future development proposals. 11. Environmental Impact Assessment -As mentioned earlier, it is a gross misrepresentation of the planning process and the democratic principles implied within them to propose preparing a master plan and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) after a development proposal has been approved. A major objective of an EIA is to determine whether a proposed development will have a significantly adverse effect on the environment before it is approved. It is also unclear as to whether the Council/operator is in breach of existing European Directive 85/337EEC and the amendment 97/11/EC which refer to projects requiring EIA. Furthermore, the Council is currently subject to a judicial review of its decision to grant a Certificate of Lawful Use to the airport operator without undertaking, or requiring an independent EIA. Without prejudice to the above comments, we still welcome the proposal for the airport to undertake an EIA (in compliance with the Town and Country Planning [Environmental Impact Assessment] Regulations 1999) of the airport in conjunction with the preparation of a master plan. In the event that the EIA shows that the airport development will have (has) a significant impact on the environment, the Council should not endorse the master plan until an effective mitigation package (perhaps amending or superseding the current draft S106) has been agreed. Ideally, we would like to see the operator submit an application for the development outlined in the master plan in order that the issues can be fully, and publicly, discussed. Given the significant public concern over the development of Manston Airport the terms of reference of the EIA should be determined in consultation with the wider community and not simply the Council and Owner. [ENDS] |