MANSTON AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
MINUTES of the MEETING held on 6 JUNE 2000 
10.00am at MANSTON AIRPORT

PRESENT: 
Sir Alistair Hunter             Chairman
Tessa Sherriff                    Secretary
Tony Freudmann                Wiggins Group plc
Alastair Robertson             Airport Managing Director
Barry Coppock                   Thanet District Council
Dennis Hart                        Thanet District Council
David Jillings                     Thanet District Council
Ron Flaherty                       Canterbury City Council
John Fullarton                     Kent County Council
Leigh Herington                  Kent County Council
Sam Hodgson                     Acol Parish Council
John Garland                      Birchington Parish Council
Andrew Baker                    Manston Parish Council
Judith Singleton                  Minster Parish Council
Martin Tapp                       St Nicholas-at-Wade Parish Council 
Robin Tapsell                    Monkton Parish Council
Gary Newborough             Thanet Chamber of Commerce
David Tyson                      Manston Airport Group
Nadeem Aziz                     Dover District Council
Rex Upham-Hill                MK Airlines
Mike Ede                           T & GWU
Nigel Whitburn                  KAPC Dover Area Committee
Tony Austin                       KAPC Canterbury Area Committee
John Elliott                        Pfizer Ltd

The Chairman welcomed to the Committee Cllr Ron Flaherty , one of the three alternating representatives of Canterbury City Council; Nigel Whitburn for Kent Assn of Parish Councils (Dover); Tony Austin for KAPC (Canterbury); and Judith Singleton for Minster PC (who arrived later).

1 APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from John Bragg, Mike Kruger, Nicholas Cole, Oliver Iny, Tony Gould. The Chairman welcomed Nadeem Aziz (for John Bragg), Rex Upham-Hill (for Mike Kruger), Robin Tapsell (for Nicholas Cole) and Mike Ede (for Tony Gourd). 

2 MINUTES 

  • 2.1 A revised draft of the Minutes of the previous meeting with several amendments had been circulated. Two further amendments been requested by David Tyson had not been included. Firstly, Mr Tyson wished it recorded that, contrary to Cllr Coppock's understanding, under the present draft Section 106 Agreement occasional non-scheduled night flights would be permitted before a night flying policy had been introduced. Both Tony Freudmann and David Tyson had corrected Cllr Coppock at the March meeting. 
  • 2.2 Secondly, Mr Tyson said that according to the Melrose Report, all DC8s operated by MK Airlines were auota Count 4 on landing, but that Mr Robertson had disagreed. Chairman proposed Minutes remain as amended and Quota Counts be discussed later in the Meeting.
  • 2.3 Alastair Robertso'.' did not accept that The Melrose Report stated that auota Count 4 was too loud He denied having said {as recorded) that acceptance of the Melrose Report did not mean it would be followed in every detail. Whilst as Airport Director he had some personal reservations about some of the details contained in the Melrose Report, its recommendations had been accepted and would be implemented. 
  • 2.4 David Jillings referred to 5.9.4 Mr Tyson suggested that the wording... ..." should read "Cltr Jillings suggested... ..." 
  • 2.5 The Committee accepted the Minutes subject to the amendments. and once these had been made, the Minutes would be signed by the Chairman as a true record.

3 MATTERS ARISING 

  • 3.1 Night Flying: Responding, to a query from Cllr Flaherty, Mr Freudmann confirmed that there would be no night flights apart from occasional ones unless or until a night flying policy had been agreed with TDC. The small exception to this was to cover inbound flights from the USA between 6 and 7am and outgoing Rights during that hour going to Europe, subject to those aircraft being ac4 or below.
  • 3.1.1 Cllr Flaherty then requested that Canterbury City Council be included in negotiations concerning any night flying policy, but Cllr Coppock, speaking for TDC, stated it was not TDC's intention to invite other Councils to take part in negotiations. Amendments made to the draft document had taken into account views expressed in submissions following public consultation. Mr Freudmann stated that if a night flying policy were required in the future, although as a company Wiggins' legal obligation was to TDC, in practice Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council as well as MACC would be consulted.
  • 3.2 Martin Tapp asked about Trevor Herron's statement under para 5.2.1 concerning the 3-year term of the Agreement. The Chairman's understanding of this was that changes were likely within that period as any major development project, i.e. a new terminal building, would require planning authority, and issues may arise which would lead to a revision of the 106 Agreement. 
  • 3.3 Martin Tapp queried noise monitoring (item 5.4.5) asking whether the monitor at the Western end would be down the flight path rather than 65km in a straight line from the end of the runway. Alastair Robertson referred to his previous statement that use of monitors had to comply with international regulations, but the mobile monitor could be used to measure noise directly under the flight path. It was noted that a flight path on takeoff may differ from that on landing. Although, as reported by David Tyson, other airports use two monitors in such circumstances, the Chairman pointed out the need to balance efficiency against cost. Could Mr Tapp's point be met by means of the mobile monitor? Mr Robertson said it could be considered, but must wait until consultancy report received. 
  • 3.31 After some criticism that Martin Tapp's concern was personal, Mr Tapp pointed out that he represented a far wider area than his home territory David Jillings felt that it was a worthwhile point and such local problems should not in any event be overlooked There were localised problems, and LMA should ensure that mobile monitoring should be conducted where it was needed.
  • 3.3.2 Martin Tapp queried noise monitoring (item 5,4.5) asking whether the monitor at the Western end would be down the flight path rather than 6.5km in a straight line from the end of the runway. Alastair Robertson referred to his previous statement that use of monitors had to comply with international regulations, but the mobile monitor could be used to measure noise directly under the flight path. It was noted that a flight path on takeoff may differ from that on landing. Although, as reported by David Tyson, other airports use two monitors in such circumstances, the Chairman pointed out the need to balance efficiency against cost. Could Mr Tapp's point be met by means of the mobile monitor? Mr Robertson said it could be considered, but must wait until consultancy report received.
  • 3.3.3 After some criticism that Martin Tapp's concern was personal. Mr Tapp pointed out that he represented a far wider area than his home territory. David Jillings felt that it was a worthwhile point and such local problems should not in any event be overlooked. There were localised problems, and LMA should ensure that mobile monitoring should be conducted where it was needed.

4 PROGRESS REPORT by MANAGING DIRECTOR. LMA 

Tony Freudmann reported: 

  • 4.1 Concreting: Thanet District Council had last week granted planning permission for the concrete aprons. Work would commence early next month and would hopefully be completed early Autumn.
  • 4.2 Sectlon 106 Agreement: There had been further discussions to take into account the 300+ responses received to the public consultation and the Agreement had been amended accordingly. A further draft had been sent to TDC's lawyers last week and signing was imminent. Mr Freudmann reminded members that MEPC had last year purchased various sites, including a parcel of the land on the airport itself where they intended to build cargo warehousing. MEPC had agreed to discuss with TDC joining in the Section 106 Agreement. There was nothing MEPC could do to undermine anything in the Agreement, and it was not thought that the recent take over of MEPC would delay matters unduly. Cllr Coppock, for TDC, apologised for the delay. TDC felt that all land at Manston should be covered by any Section 106 Agreement, and there should be a 106 Agreement with any landowner. Mr Freudmann said a meeting had been held at which dates for signing were discussed, nothing in the draft agreement had been contravened.
  • 4.2.1 The Chairman asked whether the clock had started on items such as installation of monitoring equipment. Mr Freudmann replied that work had not yet begun, but the time limits set by the 106 would be met as from now.
  • 4.2.2 Cllr Coppock said TDC would not declare that it had signed a 106 Agreement until it was satisfied that all landowners were aware of the contents of the Agreement and were willing to sign to it, or at least give assurance that any changes would be advised or at least reported. Until such time as contact had been made with MEPC or whoever now owned that company. TDC would not announce that it had signed an agreement.
  • 4.2.3 The Chairman stated that the original timetable forecast last Autumn envisaged the 106 as the end of a process which would begin with a Master-Plan and an Environmental Impact Assessment. with the 106 Agreement being concluded by November 2000. forecast TDC for good reasons had wanted to get a 100 in advance of that timetable, but it appeared now to be slipping back to the original timing. It was important that this should not delay completion of the Master-plan.
  • 4.2.4 Cllr Coppock said the production of the Master-plan had not been put on hold, and TDC expected to see a draft within weeks. Environmental Impact Assessment had not been delayed either. It was possible that a draft Master-plan would be available before the signing of the Section 106. 
    4.3 Master-plan: Mr Freudmann confirmed that the Master-plan was almost complete, and suggested that Wiggins would be in a position to issue a draft for consultation next month. He confirmed to the Chairman that this would be presented to MACC as a draft. People had a right to know what was being planned, and Wiggins wanted feedback. Formal planning processes existed into which this must be fed -Structure plan procedure, Regional Development Plan procedure - and it would be fed into all these, leading to public consultation. Wiggins were subject to District, regional and, ultimately, national DETR policies concerning airport development.
  • 4.3.1 Leigh Herington reported that KCC was about to publish a draft Local Transport Plan due for submission to the Government by 31 July. Mr Herington was aware that the text concerning Manston Airport service access could be improved, and, as final consideration by KCC would take place mid-July, he sought an early discussion between KCC and the airport owners to run through appropriate text Local transport plans were an important statement of public policy had financial implications. Mr Freudmann noted these remarks.
  • 4.3.2 David Tyson asked when the Masterplan might be published, in view of the fact that the Section 106 requires an Environmental Impact Assessment within a set time after publication. Tony Freudmann said the Masterplan on which the EIA would be commissioned would undoubtedly be ready by September. One function of the Masterplan was to set terms of reference for Environmental Impact work.
  • 4.3.3 Ron Flaherty asked whether Canterbury CC's request for urgent installation of ILS beam to alleviate noise over Herne Bay, which was to have been installed in January, had been acted upon. Alastair Robertson confirmed that TDC had passed the application subject to completion of the consultation period.
  • 4.3.4 Cllr Flaherty further expressed the hope that Canterbury City Council, together with Dover District Council, would be included in discussions regarding the Masterplan.
  • 4.3.5 John Garland asked whether the "concreting" work included construction of the hangar Tony Freudmann confirmed that it did, adding that work relating to freight traffic should be completed by November, and that relating to passenger traffic by January 2001. 4.4 New Business:
  • 4.4.1 Tony Freudmann reported that Wiggins had completed agreements with other airports -Smyrna, (Tennessee), Odense (Denmark} and Pilsen (Czech Republic). These would be followed by others in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Hungary and Scandinavia, developing cargo and passenger business resulting from these airports effectively being twinned with Manston. Wiggins were keen to encourage links between the communities concerned.
  • 4.4.2 Alastair Robertson reported that flights to Jersey were currently operational every Saturday until 30 September, and 
  • 4.4.3 An agreement had recently been negotiated with World Airways to bring cruise passengers from JFK Airport, New York, to Manston from where they would continue to Dover. The provisional programme involved 20 flight movements in total, involving 6,600 passengers.

5 SITUATION REPORT by DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS. LMA 

  • 5.1 Cargo movements: Alastair Robertson apologised for the inaccuracy in the figures previously issued which had been caused by columns being transposed.
  • 5.2 Mr Robertson then proceeded-with a presentation of latest figures -copies attached hereto. 
  • 5.3 Complaints update: After Mr Robertson had shown detailed lists of complaints received -copies attached hereto -several matters arose.
  • 5.3.1 Andrew Baker and David Tyson having pointed out that all complaints were shown as "noise", and complaints concerning fuel emissions were not detailed, Mr Robertson agreed to amend the complaints form accordingly. 
  • 5.3.2 Mr Robertson also acceded to Ron Flaherty's request that supplies of forms be distributed for regional offices in Dover and Canterbury. 
  • 5.3.3 David Tyson pointed out that figures provided by LMA and TDC for total number of complaints for 1999 differed. TDC quoted 313, whereas LMA quoted 208. Mr Tyson suggested the Airport and Council get together to provide authorised cumulative figures.
  • 5.3.4 David Tyson suggested that some complaints from MAG members, having been sent to TDC, had not been passed on to the Airport. Cllr Coppock hoped that TDC was not acting as a barrier. At the Chairman's suggestion, David Tyson agreed to pass copies of these complaints to Cllr Coppock for investigation.
  • 5.3.5 In response to Cllr Coppock's query on MACC's role regarding complaints, the Chairman confirmed that under DETR guidelines, MACC should be informed in order to form a picture of the number and pattern of incidents giving rise to complaints. 
  • 5.3.6 There had been an incidence of a training flight on a bank holiday that had caused considerable disturbance, but the complaints line had failed and no messages were able to be taken. Alastair Robertson reported that the cause of this failure was never discovered but could have been due to work on internal telephone systems. The fault had now been repaired. The line was checked each morning, but this could be done more frequently.
  • 5.3.7 David Tyson enquired about a DC10 reported as dumping fuel and bursting a tyre. Mr Robertson said there had been no fuel dumping. This was a training flight that despite bursting a tyre had not constituted any danger.
  • 5.3.8 The Chairman felt there it would be helpful to have details of those incidents which gave rise to more complaints.
  • 5.3.9 David Jillings asked for identification of areas giving rise to complaints. whilst others felt that advance warning of intense activity would be appreciated. Several members requested that data be ana!ysed in greater detail before presentation. 
  • 5.3.10 Mr Robertson responded by saying there was the ability to provide as detailed information as anyone required, but insufficient resources to collect the data. John Garland asked whether any action had yet been taken in response to complaints. Mr Robertson said a flightpath had been moved and it should be remembered that by 2002 all noisy aircraft would have been hush kitted. 
  • 5.3.11 John Garland asked whether training flights would continue. Mr Robertson replied that delays in laying the additional concrete required to increase business, meant that training flights remained important financially. So long as the Airport needed training flights, Mr Robertson would have to continue to operate them. The number of training flights would diminish as other business increased.
  • 5.3.12 Referring to previous minutes, David Tyson recalled a statement that all DC8's operated by MK Airlines would be hush kitted to Chapter 3 standard by February 2000. Had this happened? Rex Upham-Hill for MK Airlines stated that to his knowledge, the hush kits were still under test and the aircraft had therefore not been fitted with them. 
  • 5.3.13 Mr Robertson's figures showed that Runway 28 was used, on average, 75% of the time. In certain wind conditions, Runway 10 had to be used. However, some members pointed out that even on windless days, aircraft sometimes departed from the eastern end, and some days from both ends. Mr Robertson explained that the final decision rested with the captain of the aircraft, and conflicting traffic had to be considered. 
  • 5.4 Alastair Robertson then offered committee members an escorted tour of the Airport in parties of up to 8, during the period 10-14 July. The visit would start at 8.30am and finish around 11.00am. Forms would be distributed for completion by those interested.

6 QUESTIONS from DAVID TYSON. MAG 

  • 6.1 Aerodrome Manual: Mr Tyson pointed out that the Aerodrome Manual states, regarding noise mitigation, " aircraft on approach should not intercept the glide path. as described by the ILS, below 2,000 feet". This meant they should approach in a straight line on reaching the sands at Ramsgate and not turn over the town. Had a record been kept of how many times the Manual has been breached since installation of the ILS and publication of the Manual?
  • 6.1.1 Alastair Robertson did not consider such approaches constituted a breach. The Aerodrome Manual contained guidelines for use by pilots and air traffic controllers, but there would be circumstances under which it would not be possible, for one reason or another, for a direct approach to be made. For example, some Air Traffic Controllers were as yet not fully trained to use ILS. Mr Robertson was very conscious of the fact that the residents of Ramsgate had been subjected to extreme disturbance over the top of the town, at what were reputed to be low levels, and had recently reinforced the need by Air Traffic Controllers that, if they were not able to follow the ILS for any reason, pilots should turn over the bay and not over the town. He apologised for the disturbance that had been caused.
  • 6.1.2 Mr Tyson explained that the reason he had asked the question was that according to the minutes of an Environmental Working Group meeting held in November 1999, it was established that persistent offenders who failed to conform to the Aerodrome Manual could be fined. ' How were persistent offenders identified if no record was being kept?
  • 6.1.3 Mr Robertson said the precise reason for the offence would have to be established. Sometimes the situation would not have been entirely of the pilot's making. In the past there had been occasions when the duty Air Traffic Controller had not had a rating which allowed the use of ILS, and in doing so would break his CAA licence. This problem should reduce as controllers became fully trained. Mr Robertson agreed to investigate the reported incident of DC8 aircraft turning 1.5 miles short of the runway.
  • 6.2 Quota Counts: The Quota Count system, discussed at the last meeting, formed an essential part of the Section 106 Agreement, but there appeared to be some discrepancy regarding the precise Quota Count of the aircraft currently using Manston. The public had a right to know the exact Quota Count relating to aircraft that they could expect to be using Manston at night.
  • 6.2.1 Alastair Robertson disputed any discrepancy about the QC range applicable to DC8 range aircraft. As published, it was QC4 on landing and QC8-16 on take-off. Any aircraft wanting to use Manston between the hours of 23.00 and 07.00 on an occasional basis would be required to produce its noise certification issued by its State of registration. If this did not conform to QC4 (or less) permission would not be granted. 
  • 6.2.2 Mr Tyson quoted the latest Heathrow and Gatwick sound notice, which showed that DC8 54 series aircraft were Quota Count 8 on landing. This, he said, showed an instant discrepancy in the Melrose Report as that report stated that the DC8's operating from Manston are QC4 on landing. This was important in that the Report was the only access the public had to such information. He confirmed his request for publication of the Quota Count rating for every aircraft using Manston. Mr Freudmann said that, as specified in the draft 106 Agreement, no aircraft would be permitted to land at night, even occasionally, should its QC exceed 4. That made the request irrelevant. He wondered how the Airport could be expected to provide this information. Mr Tyson said that other airports did so, and the working equation was available.
  • 6.2.3 Mr Tyson asked Wiggins and LMA to confirm that they were not prepared to provide this information. Tony Freudmann said such information was irrelevant, and Alastair Robertson asked what use such information was to the people who Mr Tyson represented. Mr Tyson replied that people had a right to know what they were expected to tolerate.
  • 6.2.4 David Jillings pointed out that the QC of any aircraft could vary considerably, depending on the weight of its load.
  • 6.2.5 After further discussion, the Chairman felt that the sense of the meeting was that it was enough to accept the assurance given in the Section 106 Agreement that aircraft would not take off with a Quota Count in excess of 4.

7 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 

  • 7.1 David Jillings raised questions put to him by residents of Cliffsend.
  • 7.1.1 Residents in streets abutting the airport were experiencing major problems from noise and smell from fuel emissions caused by aircraft awaiting take-off with engines revving. Was there any way of alleviating this? Alastair Robertson agreed to try to remedy the problem. 
  • 7.1.2 Development of Manston could be a major intrusion into people's lives. Mr Jillings' own windows shook when certain aircraft took off. ! This was an unacceptable intrusion to most people. Although it was understood that aircraft were due to be hush kitted in the near future, people's fears are based on what was happening now. Did the Airport Operators think it was acceptable for people to have their windows shaken by aircraft taking off, or could people expect something better? It was important to convey the message that best practice would be followed, and that there would be an end to windows shaking, rather than it becoming the norm 4-5 times per hour, 16 hours a day.
  • 7.2 Gary Newborough, Thanet Chamber of Commerce, reported that the London Chamber of Commerce had just produced a report on the capacity of London airports, which suggested that by 2010 runway capacity would be exhausted. The London Chamber was lobbying Government very hard about the Government producing a 30 year strategy for airports. The London Chamber's Report gave no mention at all of Manston Airport or any contribution LMA would make towards alleviating the congestion.
  • 7.2.1 Cllr Dennis Hart, TDC representative on Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group (a sub--committee of the LGA), confirmed that there was a 30 year plan being developed by Government based on its current aviation policy. Two regions of the country were being piloted, but not the South East of England. The LGA was encouraging Government to involve the SE region and TDC representatives would take the issues further. The plan was expected to take several years to complete.
  • 7.3 Night flying noise restrictions: David Tyson stated that DETR consultation papers supplied by Brian Lear (TDC) circulated with the minutes of the previous meeting, were now out of date. More up to date information showed that from the start of the Summer Season 2002, the London airports (Heathrow. Gatwick and Stansted) would not be allowing the arrival or departure of aircraft With a Quota Count in excess of 2, which was a significant drop. The draft Section 106 Agreement was using "best practice" and Mr Tyson wondered if this could be taken into account.
  • 7.3.1 Cllr Coppock said it was always the intention that the Section 106 Agreement would be regularly revisited to take such changes into account and would be revised to conform to current best practice. 
  • 7.4 Cliffsend Residents' Association had asked Mr Tyson to enquire why their repeated requests for a seat on MACC had not been considered in committee.
  • 7.4.1 The Chairman responded that their requests had been raised in committee right at the start, when the inclusion of residents' associations was considered -specifically with reference to Cliffsend and one other. The meeting had agreed that there were even more residents' associations than there were Parish Councils and there were problems with even having Parish Councils adequately represented. It was resolved to ensure that the affected community was represented as comprehensively as possible through Parish Councils. Ramsgate, of which Cliffsend was a part, posed a problem as it was not organised as a borough, but MACC had ensured that there was a Thanet District Councillor on board who specifically represented Cliffsend. David Jillings was now that Councillor, and it was apparent from his interventions at the meeting that he kept close contact with his community and actively put forward points on their behalf.
  • 7.4.2 Cllr Jillings confirmed that he had met with Cliffsend Residents Association the previous evening and had set up a sub-group that he could report to directly to enable them to disseminate information.
  • 4.4.3 Mr Tyson said that both the President and Secretary of Cliffsend RA had approached MAG, rather than Cllr Jillings, requesting that they be included. Mr Tyson thought they felt that whilst Cllr Jillings did his best he was compromised by the fact that he was a District Councillor and therefore had to toe the party line. The Chairman commented that the points made by Cllr Jillings during the meeting had hardly suggested he was compromised.
  • 7.4.4 The Chairman then asked the meeting whether, having heard this argument, anybody felt the need to reconsider the policy of operating through Parish Councils, and the feeling, adopted with regret but out of necessity, that if Resident's Associations were also included meetings would become quite unmanageable.
  • 7.4.5 Tony Austin, Kent Assn. of Parish Councils, Canterbury area, supported the Chairman's views, adding that were Residents' Associations to be represented, then individual parishes in the Canterbury area would also request individual, rather than group, representation. Mr Austin could see that the committee was already rather unwieldy.
  • 7.4.6 David Jillings understood that Cliffsend did feel they had a special case in view of their proximity to the runway.
  • 7.4.7 David Tyson said that Cliffsend RA felt aggrieved that a representative from Broadstairs Town Council had recently been granted a seat on the Committee, whereas he remembered that at a previous meeting it has been thought that Broadstairs was particularly we11 represented indirectly, anyway as four MACC members resided there. The Chairman however pointed out that residence was irrelevant, and Broadstairs had only one representative. He felt the committee had done the best it could.

8:- DATE of NEXT MEETING

The next meeting, which would be open to members of the public and press, would be in early September on a date to be advised. 
There being no further business, the meeting closed at 1.00pm.

MINUTES June00

TOP INDEX

 

KIACC INDEX