|
MACC
Chairmans letter to TDC Planning officer.
Chairman: Sir Alistair Hunter. Secretary: Mrs Tessa Sherriff Manston Airport Consultative Committee
PO Box 168
Broadstairs
Kent CT10 2GW
Telephone / Fax 01843 862185
E-mail: 113311.1250@compuserve.com
26 March 2000
Mr R T Herron
Thanet District Council
PO Box 9
Cecil Street
Margate CT9 1XZ
LONDON MANSTON AIRPORT: DRAFT SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
The Manston Airport Consultative Committee met on 17 March to consider the draft Section 106 Agreement which you sent us, on behalf of TDC and Wiggins, and put out to public consultation.
You were present at the discussion, and will no doubt have made note of the points raised. They were many and varied, and though I attempt in this letter to summarise them, it is not easy to do so comprehensively. This is why I urged community representatives present at the meeting to send their organisations' own comments to you separately.
Some unease was expressed that the Council were pushing through a Section 106 Agreement so quickly, before the master plan and environmental impact assessment had been completed. The latter would have provided expert advice on which parameters set out in the 106 Agreement could have been based. Your assurance was noted that the Agreement could, and probably would, be updated before expiry of the 3 years for which the initial version is declared to run, as new developments and new information required.
The following comments were made on the Second Schedule (numbers correspond to sections in the Schedule):
1.Night Flying Noise Policy
Night flying is without question the issue which most disturbs the local community and all but one of the community representatives expressed their concern at the possibility of regular night flights. Some of those present wher comforted by Tony Freudmann's assurance that no night flights were currently in prospect, and by his drawing attention to the fact that a night flying noise control policy, embodying principles of best practice and appropriate to the porntial level of disturbance, would be prepared at least six months before any regular night flying policy commenced. Nevertheless, the concern has not disappeared. I suggest, in the light of our discussion, that what is most needed to reassure the community on this point is a detailed expert advice on the level of disturbance which different types and levels of night flying would cause in this locality, and comparision with practices of other airports with similar configurations of surrounding population. Hopefully, this can be provided, eg as part of the planned environmental impact assessment, before the issue becomes an actual one.
The principle of financial penalties was welcomed, but the figures mentioned 1.3 (and in 8.2 and 9.1) were thought by some participants to be so low as to not provide significant deterrent to operators. Others thought the figures should be index linked, and that an escalator scheme ought to be introduced for persistant offenders.
2 General Noise Limitation
Most participants seemed to accept that the propsed threshold of 63 dB Leq is an acceptable starting point, on the basis of comparision with other airports. It was noted, however, that the Government's recent consultation paper on airports in the South-East claims there is research which shows that 57 dB Leq represents "the onset of significant community annoyance". Some participants expressed the hope that a progressive reduction in the threshold would
materialise, either because technical developments made it possible, or because of changes in government policy, or both.
Some doubt was expressed about the reliability of the 1996 contour chart. The provision in 2.2, for an updated contour chart to be produced within 12 months by an independent consultant, was welcomed.
3. Dwelling Insulation Scheme
The proposal to submit a scheme for noise insulation of dwellings was welcomed, though it was noted that no mention is made of who will pay what propotion of the cost.
4. Preferred Departure Runway
5. Noise Abatement Routes
Wiggins' reassurances were welcomed that the routes concerned were devised to avoid Herne Bay and other major centres of population.
7. Pollution Monitoring
8. Noise Monitoring
The proposed measures were welcomed. It was thought that more than three pollution monitoring tubes might turn out to be needed, and that their locations should include those population centres whose representatives complained at the meeting of fuel smells (Manston village,
Cliffsend). The meeting was reminded that Wiggins had spoken at an earlier meeting of possibly using mobile noise monitoring equipment. Some of those present thought that this might be needed in addition to the fixed terminals provided for in the Agreement, so as to ensure that readings were taken in the areas of chief disturbance.
9. EngineTesting
The draft section was supported, after Wiggins had explained why engine testing occasionally had to happen during unsocial hours, eg after a technical fault was discovered before take-off.
10. Green Travel Strategy
No significant comment was made by community representatives.
11. Environmental Impact Assessment.
This commitment was welcomed, for reasons given above.
12 Payments
This provision, too, was welcomed, as a way in which the Airport could give back to the community. I undertook to provide you with advice on how the proposed Fund might be set up.
My information is that at Gatwick, the Fund is administered by the airport owners (BAA Gatwick) but monitored by the Consultative Committee. Grants are made for environmental improvements, school projects and community support, applications being judged by a panel consisting of the Chairmen of the Consultative Committee and the Airline Operators' Committee and the BAA Gatwick Managing Director. At
Manchester,too, the fund is administered by the Airport and the grants made mainly for environmental and recreational projects. Five of the Trustees are local authority representatives who are also on the Consultative Committee, and the sixth is a member of the airport company.
You may like to draft Section 12 flexibly, so as to give us scope to decide the precise form of the Fund when we have done further research. I do not think it feasible to "constitute MACC as a trust" and suggest that this reference should be deleted. The Fund will have to be constituted as a separate organisation, as happens elsewhere. In our circumstances, MACC may have to administer the Fund; but before I agree to this we would need to look at workload against resources. NB that the Airport does the administration at both Gatwick and Manchester. The alternative, as you say, is for payments to be expended by Thanet District Council; but might this solution not run into objection from Canterbury, several of whose parishes are more affected by airport noise and pollution than some parts of Thanet? Also from Dover, whose representative made the point at our meeting. I suggest deletion of this reference too, at least for the time being.
Sir Alistair Hunter
Chairman
copy: Mr Tony Freudmann
Wiggins Group plc
TOP
|