IMPORTANT
. There is a lot of information connected with this, so it advisable to click on the next two items, and then read it off-line.      MACC Questions    MACC data. and it's interesting reading too.

MANSTON AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

2 Minutes of meeting of 6 June 2000

3 Matters Arising

4 Progress Report including:

Sec. 106 Agreement                 update             Barry Coppock for TDC     Paper 1
                                                on progress     Tony Freudmann for Wiggins Group
Master Plan                             Presentation by Wiggins Group                     Paper 2 
Situation Report -new business Tony Freudmann

5 Situation Report by Airport Director         Alastair Robertson                 Paper 3
                                    including Complaints

6 Answers to questions received 

7 Any Other Business 

8 Date of Next Meeting

PRESENT:

*Mr Birchall arrived late. Ron Flaherty represented Canterbury City Council from Item 4 until Mr Birchall arrived.

1 APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from: Dennis Hart (TDC), Martin Tapp (St Nicholas PC),Tony Gould (TGWU), Nigel Whitburn (KAPC Dover Area), John Elliott (Pfizer Ltd), Judith Singleton (Monkton PC), David Tyson (MAG), Ian Minter (Thanet Chamber of Commerce) who hoped to attend part of the meeting.

The Chairman welcomed: Paul Tipple (Wiggins Group pic), Ken Gregory (for Dennis Hart) Michael Baxter (for Martin Tapp), Kelvin Holdon (for Judith Singleton), Peter Geall (for David Tyson), Len Claisse (KAPC Canterbury Area) and Grahame Birchall, one of the three altemating representatives of Canterbury City Council.

2 MINUTES

• 2.1 The Minutes of the previous meeting held 6th June, having been previously circulated, were accepted and signed by the Chairman as a true record.

3 MATTERS ARISING

• 3.1 Item 4.3.3 The Chairman, for Ron Flaherty, asked whether there had been any advance on the installation of ILS beam to alleviate noise over Heme Bay. Alastair Robertson replied that LMA were in discussion with the CM on certain technical aspects regarding positioning of the ILS and the frequency on which it would operate. As soon as a positive response was received from CM, LMA would report back to the manufacturers enabling them to crystallise the system, carry out a final survey and finalise the positioning for the two aerials.

MACC Index       MACC Questions    MACC data.

4 PROGRESS REPORT

• 4.1 Presentation of Final Draft Section 106 Agreement
  The Chairman reminded the Committee that they had been included in consultations about the first draft. There had been further negotiations between Wiggins and TDC. A final draft was now tabled.
  Tony Freudmann emphasised that all the obligations imposed upon Wiggins under the Agreement were in accordance with Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act. The Agreement was a deed of covenant that ran with the land. The agreement would run for three years and there was an obligation to review, after not more than 33 months.
  Mr Freudmann then went through the final draft, including the following points.
• 4.1.1. First Schedule, Para 6 made clear that nothing in the Agreement would restrict any development rights Wiggins had under the General Permitted Development Order. This had been the subject of legal challenge recently, and he understood was currently the subject of an appeal. There was nothing in the Agreement that inhibited current planning permissions or Certificates of Lawful Use.
• 4.1.2. Second Schedule Para 1.2 (Night time flying Noise Policy) ensured that under no circumstances would aircraft with a Quota Count in excess of 4 be permitted to take off or land between 2300 and 0700 hours. Exceptions were: Arrivals from America or departures for Europe between the hours of 06.00 and 07.00; and "mercy" or aid flights. Following the public consultation further restrictions, namely higher and cumulative fines for contravention, and banning of night training flights, had been included.
• 4.1.3. Within six months of the date of the Agreement, the Airport Owners were obliged to submit to the Council a Masterplan, and within a further period of six months, to submit an Environmental Statement for consideration by the Council. The latter would be prepared by an independent recognised environmental consultant whose appointment and terms of reference had first been agreed in writing with the Council. The Council would decide what form the Environmental Statement should take and what areas it should cover.
• 4.1.4. The Supplemental Agreement imposed the same restrictions on the area known as the Northern Grass which had now passed out of Wiggins ownership. It also obliged Wiggins to bring the Northern Grass into the Sec 106 Agreement should they ever buy it back.
• 4.1.5. Summing up, Mr Freudmann said the document now had to go to TDC for approval, and there were also final approval procedures within the Wiggins Group that had to be gone through. The intention was to sign the Agreement as soon as possible.
• 4.1.6. Mr Freudmann said Wiggins recognised that the document would not satisfy everyone, but thought that it was fair balance between environmental, community and commercial considerations. This was a voluntary agreement: Wiggins had agreed to be bound by a Section 106 Agreement even though no major planning permission was yet being sought.
• 4.1.7. The document contained requirements by the Owners to commission work that did not exist at the moment on noise/pollution monitoring. Findings of such commissions would be made public.4.1.8. Cllr Barry Coppock said that TDC had not achieved everything it would have liked in the Agreement. It would run for three years, but could be returned to at an earlier date; and when it was reviewed, TDC would raise again points to which they had not secured agreement this time. In the event of a major development or should both sides wish to return to it. The Council had listened to many representations and it could be seen from the increased fines contained in the new document that they had also listened to the public. TDC would ensure that the terms of the Agreement were implemented.
• 4.1.9. Cllr Coppock recommended the document in that it was the best that could be achieved at this time. In the months and years ahead, when TDC could see what the plans were, they would be able to advance the document.

4.2 Response to Final Draft Section 106 Agreement

The Chairman then asked Members for any questions or observations.

• 4.2.1 Peter Geall (MAG) welcomed a number of the elements in the Agreement, particularly restrictions on noise, and engine testing. But in general, it was a huge disappointment. He regretted that the draft had only been received by committee members the previous Friday. This was a short period in which to address such a serious and far-reaching document, and raised a certain question over the legitimacy of the Committee and its operations.
• 4.2.2 The Manston Airport Group did not accept that LMA enjoyed Permitted Development Rights. That had not been established in Court. The change, in this draft, from "the" development rights to "any" was an acknowledgement that this point was debated.
• 4.2.3 The Dwelling Insulation Scheme provided for in the draft covered only a limited area much less than many residents supposed. He asked for confirmation that the money required to pay for it would not come out of the Fund into which fines were paid. Tony Freudmann confirmed.
• 4.2.4 Mr Geall felt that Cllr Coppock was over-optimistic regarding the scope TDC would have to change or rescind the Agreement. They could be at the mercy of Wiggins.
• 4.2.5 The night flying noise policy which was the key issue, was pretty toothless. There was no requirement for the agreement of the Council.
• 4.2.6 For irregular night flights there seemed to be no limit. Moreover, the only aircraft banned from night flying were those over QC4, which meant that the DC8s which currently caused great disturbance would not be covered by the night flying noise policy.
• 4.2.7 There was also nothing in the Agreement on the number of daytime flights. Daytime disturbance to residents and, in particular, schools, could become unacceptable. There should be a maximum of 3-4 flights per hour, as recently quoted by Dr Ladyman.
• 4.2.8 Ron Flaherty referred to Noise Abatement Routes para 5.1 (b ): ...operators of jet and large aircraft will be required. not to descend below 1500ft. Would this negate the installation of the ILS beam for traffic flying over Herne Bay? Alastair Robertson stated that the minimum height over Herne Bay would be 2300ft
• 4.2.9 Len Claisse asked what route US flights took before reaching the Airport. Alastair Robertson replied that the runway used depended upon wind conditions. To land on Runway 28, aircraft came off the airway at the Dover Beacon, proceeded westerly over the sea on a 7 -8 mile final to the East of Ramsgate. If approaching Runway 10, aircraft, on leaving the Dover Beacon, headed NW to the south of Canterbury, curling over the sea to the West of Herne Bay and lining up on a centre line to proceed to the runway.
• 4.2.10 Andrew Baker asked for clarification concerning the Northern Grass area and whether it would be covered by the Agreement. As the copy plans were black and white, it was difficult to identify areas marked. Tony Freudmann said the Supplementary Agreement obliged Wiggins to ensure that those using Northern Grass for aviation purposes complied with the terms of the Section 106 Agreement. This was a control that Wiggins could exercise as they controlled the runway. Were the Northern Grass to be used for non-aviation purposes e.g. a distribution warehouse, the users would have to apply to TDC for planning permission and Council would impose a Section 106 on them in the normal way.
• 4.2.11 Mr Baker then asked for clarification concerning the other area of some 23 acres owned by MEPC. Mr Freudmann said the area was legally owned by Wiggins and was subject to a form of option by the property company. Wiggins was in a position to execute the agreement in relation to that area.
• 4.2.12 Referring to Mr Geall's reference to a newspaper survey, Cllr Coppock stated that from some 300,000 people given the opportunity to respond to the public consultation on the original draft document, 314 responses were received. Of those, 274 were from individuals, 40 from Councils, associations and other organisations. In total, 222 letters indicated that they were generally in favour of the draft 106. 89 responses indicated that they were opposed to the agreement.
• 4.2.13 Cllr Coppock reminded the meeting that if Wiggins did not enter into a fresh agreement, the current one would carry on. He pointed out that the US flight that had disturbed residents the previous morning when it arrived at 06.40 was not currently covered by any agreement. This was why the parties were striving to reach agreement to ensure that promises made to people of Thanet are upheld.
• 4.2.14 Cllr Coppock asked everybody to give it a fair chance and read it before dismissing it.
• 4.2.15 Peter Geall responded by saying that the early Sunday morning flight referred to would not be covered by a night flying policy as it was one of the "exceptions" to such an agreement. Tony Freudmann said the well known fact that transatlantic flights frequently arrive some time before schedule was the reason for including the 06.00 to 07.00hrs exception in the Agreement..
• 4.2.16 Mr Freudmann thought it unfair to have suggested that the Council were in the hands of Wiggins so far as renewal of the Agreement was concerned. If Wiggins were difficult the in relation to the negotiation of a new agreement the Council could elect to continue the present Agreement beyond three years.
• 4.2.17 He said that a great deal of time had been spent on the definition of regular night time flying. He quoted from page 5 of the document: "Regular Night Flying Operations means Flight Movements which are scheduled or programmed and which occur frequently or regularly to the same or similar patterns for the same operator during Night-time"
• 4.2.18 The Chairman reminded those present that the Agreement had been the subject of extensive consultation with MACC as well as the general public. It had now been put before the Committee for information, with previous consultation having been taken into account. Various people had made the point that the Agreement was, from their point of view, not perfect. The Chairman felt sure that most people would agree that to have a Section 106 Agreement up and signed was an advance on what they had at present.
• 4.2.19 Responding to a query from the Chairman, Cllr Coppock said he expected it would be signed by 26th September, having first been put before TDC's Policy Committee. Mr Freudmann said Wiggins had a board meeting the following week when the Board would consider the Agreement. He expected the date of 26th September would be met.
• 4.2.20 Peter Geall did not agree that signing that particular Agreement was "better than nothing". One of the things the Agreement did was specifically to cancel the existing Section 52 Agreement, the scope of which had been disputed. If the Sec 52 agreement could not be implemented, why was it so important to cancel it?
• 4.2.21 Mr Geall expressed concern at the date of 26th September as this meant that the Agreement would not be debated by the full Council, but only by the Policy Committee. Neither would there be opportunity for local people to let their views be known to their TDC representatives.
• 4.2.22 Cllr Coppock responded by saying it was a matter for the Council. The Policy Committee comprised around half the full Council. All 54 members of the Council had had a copy of the Agreement and the opportunity to pass on representations received from their constituents.
• 4.2.23 The Chairman clarified that the original draft documents had been made available to the public in the consultation process. He asked if the final document would be available in public libraries.
• 4.2.24 Cllr Coppock confirmed that, although he had not yet seen the Policy Committee Agenda, all Policy documents were lodged in public libraries and he would have thought it would be included.

MACC Index       MACC Questions    MACC data.

4.3 Masterplan- Presentation by Wiggins Group pic

Tony Freudmann introduced Andrew White who led the team drawing up Wiggins' Masterplan .The idea of his presentation was to generate discussion. Mr Freudmann said the Masterplan would be brought back as an issue to be discussed by MACC at every meeting, so that as it progressed and developed, there could be general dialogue.

• 4.3.1 Andrew White's presentation showed various possible developments of the Airport area including: airside development zones; extension of the runway; cargo, maintenance and passenger handling areas; hangars on the Northern Grass; relocation of the passenger terminal to the opposite side necessitating the closure of the 82050; alternative road access to the Airport; upgrade of rail access. Mr White said Wiggins had followed a number of principles and had arrived at the same point as Thanet District Council had in the Council's approach to development in the Supplementary Planning Guidance.
• 4.3.2 Starting the discussion, the Chairman said nothing had been said in the presentation regarding the speed at which the Airport was expected to grow. Andrew White said that an airport handling 10m passengers by 2020 was achievable, but he was unable to predict the speed at which that might happen -it would be a phased process.
• 4.3.3 John Bragg (Dover DC) presumed that in order to achieve sufficient passenger traffic to justify creating a new terminal, the Airport would presumably need a number of major new operators. Why should they choose to use Manston? Andrew White said operators were finding it increasingly difficult to get into Heathrow and Gatwick. There had been some negotiations, but there was a long way to go.
• 4.3.4 Leigh Herington (KCC) was disturbed about the emphasis put on the Supplementary Planning Guidance. Future development of the Airport was likely to be governed by three documents: the Government's study of the airport capacity in the south east region; the KCC structure plan; and the Local Plan of TDC. It was these three against which any inspectorate would have to consider any plans for the Airport. The Supplementary Planning Guidance would lessen in importance while the development plans took effect. The development plans were themselves subject to public consultation, and people present would want to become engaged in the debate.
• 4.3.5 Andrew White thanked Mr Herington for explaining the national policy background and agreed that it was crucial to the next 20yrs.4.3.6 Peter Geall had two questions. Just because the runway was long, why did Manston have to have the biggest aircraft, and why transatlantic flights? Secondly, was he correct in thinking that Wiggins would like if possible to take operations up to the level in the Local Plan published recently, i.e. 10m passengers per year and a limited number of schedule night flights by relatively quiet aircraft?
• 4.3.7 Andrew White said long runways attracted planes that could make use of them. If Manston were to achieve the level of figures in the TDC vision document,. Wiggins would be thrilled, as the company was in business to see the Airport succeed. Whether they would be allowed to, or could, achieve the objective was another matter.
• 4.3.8 John Garland (Birchington PC} had watched the presentation with some concern. The present Kent Structure Plan talked about a 10m passenger airport not being desirable for Thanet as it would create an estimated requirement for 10,000 new jobs and 6,000 new houses. An island such as Thanet would find it a struggle to absorb a 5m passenger Airport.
• 4.3.9 Andrew White agreed it was right to mention knock-on effects. He hoped that the business parks, which had been slow to fill up, would do so. Development of the Airport would affect everything in the area and one would not expect anything else. Pfizer did exactly the same.
• 4.3.10 The Chairman said fleet mix had not been mentioned in the presentation. He quoted Alan Melrose, as saying that an airport when setting out had to take what business it could get. but hopefully as it became established could improve the fleet mix -making it quieter and less damaging to the environment.
• 4.3.11 Andrew White agreed that Wiggins hoped in due course to attract more environmentally friendly aircraft. By 2002 the noisiest would need to be hush kitted,
• 4.3.12 The Chairman enquired about the Masterplan procedure. Within six months of the Section 106 Agreement being signed, Wiggins would have to produce a Masterplan. Was Mr Freudmann able to be any more precise about the production of a Masterplan and the opportunities for consultation?
• 4.3.13 Tony Freudmann replied that the Masterplan would be an Agenda item for the next MACC meeting. Assuming that the meeting would be in about three months' time, he expected the Masterplan to be well towards completion. Wiggins would like to make swifter progress than provided for in the 106 Agreement. A lot of the work had already been carried out.
• 4.3.14 Grahame Birchall (KAPC -Canterbury} thought Wiggins must have business plans and target figures to which they were working, but that evening had avoided giving any of them.
• 4.3.15 Tony Freudmann said Wiggins had come and shared their thoughts with the Meeting. It was not that precise. A business plan could be constructed that foresaw 2m passengers in 5yrs' time or 5m passengers in 5yrs' time. The issue for Wiggins was whether they plan now for a 5m passenger terminal and pay the huge expense of constructing it in the hope that it would fill up. Mr Freudmann said it was not like other areas of the market. Wiggins were responding to demand as quickly as they could and that was what they would continue to do, working within the guidelines laid down by the authorities. They were expanding the airport according to demand and within the constraints that the statutory plans allow them to do. Some of the ways in which the Airport developed over the next few years would depend on decisions made elsewhere namely Whitehall, British Airports Authority, and so on.
• 4.3.16 The Chairman said there would come a time when Wiggins would have to decide on an improved Passenger Terminal, when they would have to make assumptions, even if they were only guestimates. Mr Freudmann agreed.
• 4.3.17 John Garland said the Wiggins Annual Report stated that by the end of 2000 permission would be sought to build a 5m Passenger Terminal. Was this correct? Mr Freudmann said the statement in the Annual Report was not correct. The current plan was to seek permission to extend the existing Terminal.
• 4.3.18 In conclusion, the Chairman expressed the hope that by the next meeting in three months' time, there would be, as Tony Freudmann had indicated, a draft Masterplan to consider.

MACC Index       MACC Questions    MACC data.

5 SITUATION REPORT FROM AIRPORT DIRECTOR

• 5.1 Alastair Robertson briefly summarised the Airport's progress over the previous three months. In June cargo figures had been about 4, 100 tonnes, passengers 240, and total number of flights (including light aircraft) 2,379. Figures for July were: cargo 3,600 tonnes, passengers 1 ,800 (4 MD11 flights from USA), and total number of flights 3,281. August figures were: cargo 2,800 tonnes, passengers 3,200 (again mostly MD11 s from USA), and total number of flights 4,097. The total tonnage of cargo for the three months was 10,500, putting the Airport on track for reaching its target of 40,000 tonnes over 12 months, despite a small seasonal drop. Mr Robertson felt that once the US flights had finished for the season, it was unlikely that there would be any more before Spring 2001 at the earliest. His projection for passengers for the 12 month period would be 6,000, bringing the total number of flights close to that for the previous year -around 30,000 flight movements.
• 5.2 Telephone complaints were now handled through a manned switchboard between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. The answer phone system had been introduced after staff had been subjected to unacceptably abusive calls; the abusive calls had resumed, and might force a return to 100% answer phone. Mr Robertson was aware that the system had failed on occasions. This had been investigated and a remedy sought to rectify this as soon as possible.
• 5.3 Mr Robertson then presented an analysis of the complaints situation, showing numbers of complaints and the location of the complainants. Complaints referred to noise. pollution, low flying and noise abatement procedures. Copies of the analysis were available to all present. Some 34 complaints had been generated by aircraft not using Manston Airport. Mr Robertson repeated his previous explanation that training flights were useful for training Air Traffic Controllers. Mr Robertson accepted that training flights created a noise nuisance, but that once the Controllers were validated these flights would be cut substantially.
• 5.4 There had been 346 complaints in the quarter. The majority concerned aircraft departures using Runway 10. Mr Robertson said these aircraft were quite low and very noisy as they flew over the town of Ramsgate on the way out.
• 5.5 Utilisation of Runway: The Section 106 Agreement aimed at achieving 70% utilisation of Runway 28, Mr Robertson's figures showed 78% utilisation of Runway 28, and 22°/c Runway 10. If a tail wind above 5 knots was generated, use of Runway 28 was not possible. The final decision was up to the pilot. Because departures generated more noise the Airport tried to use Runway 28 for them wherever conditions permitted.
• 5.6 John Garland pointed out that the Melrose Report expressed surprise that Manston used a 10 knot tail wind maximum. Was this correct? Alastair Robertson said that Alan Melrose had been given the incorrect information.
• 5.7 Peter Geall welcomed the return to the personal answering service, and concurred with the comments regarding abusive callers. He also welcomed the distinction between the types of complaint, and the efforts to improve the system.
• 5.8 Some complaints did not appear on Mr Robertson's statistics. Had the Airport and TDC sorted out the matter of questions to TDC being passed on? Mr Geall's request that supplies of complaints forms be available in public libraries was agreed to. He suggested a change in the format of the complaints questionnaire which some found intimidating and suggested that the time of the flight concerned should be sufficient information to provide. Mr Robertson was prepared to look into this.
• 5.9 The Chairman asked whether any complaints had been lost. Mr Robertson said his figures showed complaints that had been made direct to the Airport. Cllr Coppock had been informed that when TDC received a complaint, they forwarded a complaints form to the caller, and it was up to the complainant to take matters further. It was agreed that TDC need not become involved in the process, apart from monitoring. The Chairman said failure to pass on questions seemed to have been a misunderstanding, and he hoped it would not happen again.
• 5.10 Mike Kruger (MK Airlines) recommended that the statistics showed the number of complaints from the same individual. The Chairman reported that this procedure had been followed for the previous meeting. Although it solved some problems, it created others. The important thing was to identify the trends, and to look at whether adjustments were justified or not and where they could be made.
• 5.11 Cllr Coppock thought that, although the figures were very informative, the Committee needed to look in more detail at the complaints, particularly once the Sec 106 came into operation. In addition to lists of figures, it would be useful for the Committee to have a breakdown of a sample of complaints detailing what investigation had been done, what the operator's response had been, whether the operator had reprimanded the pilot and what the outcome was.
• 5.12 The Chairman felt there was general agreement on a need to work for steady improvement. The installation of noise and pollution monitoring equipment would help.

MACC Index       MACC Questions    MACC data.

6 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED

• 6.1 Aircraft Types. Three questions had been received regarding ageing planes, their fuel emissions and accompanying noise, and whether they would still be permitted to fly after Hush-kitting Regulations were totally enforced in early 2002.Alastair Robertson said the aircraft were all perfectly legal Chapter 2 planes. It was illegal for an airport to ban legal aircraft however noisy or smelly they might be. What some airports did was to load heavier landing fees in an effort to deter such aircraft. This would not be possible at Manston until the Airport became more developed. Currently Manston had to take any business available. In 2002 all aircraft would be legally obliged to meet current hush-kitting requirements. From 1st April 2002 there would be a significant reduction in noise and exhaust emissions. Peter Geall said the evidence was that although hush kits lowered the decibel level, in practice it made very little difference to the naked ear. For example, he said that 2 of MK's 8 aircraft had already been fitted with hush kits, but that he had not noticed that two of them were any quieter than the other six.
• 6.2 Asbestos. Alastair Robertson said that on taking over control of the Airport , Wiggins had been provided, by MoD, with a risk assessment on all buildings on the estate. This included analysis of the amount of asbestos, and its whereabouts, in each building.
• 6.3 Emergency Services. Alastair Robertson said that RAF and Coastguard and Organ Donor services were offered free landing for any emergencies. There were no specific plans to start emergency ambulance services. At this juncture, at 9.30pm, the Chairman pointed out that some 35 questions remained to be answered. In view of the time, and as some members of the audience and the Committee had had to leave, he asked whether those mainly involved would agree to answering the questions in writing, out of Committee. Apart from those remaining questions that had already been answered during the Meeting, it was agreed to reply in writing at a later date. The Chairman apologised to members of the public but felt it would be an imposition to everybody to answer the remaining questions at length at that time of the evening. He said there were questions on one or two subjects of particular concern, which could be dealt with quickly:
• 6.4 Night Flights. Tony Freudmann said that details of restrictions on these. and enforcement methods, had been covered and were laid out in Clause 1 of the Second Schedule of the Section 106 Agreement.
• 6.5 Noise. Alastair Robertson said that the droning planes that flew over Canterbury had nothing to do with Manston.

The Chairman said some interesting questions remained that had not been covered. These would be answered in writing subsequently.

7 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

• 7.1 Peter Geall referred to a recent Radio 4 programme that had drawn attention to flights departing from Manston carrying military equipment to African states, contrary to UN sanctions. The programme had suggested that sub-standard aircraft may have been used on such flights. Although some had taken place before Wiggins took over Manston, there had been a case of a 747 that had crashed in Bratislava, purportedly carrying aid, but in fact carrying military equipment. This was now the subject of enquiry by DTI and Customs. Mr Geall asked what measures were being taken to ensure that such occurrences would not be repeated.
• 7.2 Alastair Robertson replied that this was not LMA's responsibility. If the cargo had been flown in from elsewhere, it would already have been cleared by Customs, and legally sanctioned. Cargo originating from Manston was by law, checked by X-ray machinery.

There being no further business, the Chairman closed the meeting at 9.40pm, and thanked all who had attended and contributed.

MlNUTES.SEP2000

MACC Index       MACC Questions    MACC data.

KIACC INDEX