MACC 5th Dec 2000

Sir Alistair Hunter	Chairman
Tessa Sherriff	Secretary
Tony Freudmann	Wiggins Group plc.
Paul Tipple	Wiggins Group plc
Alastair Robertson	Airport Managing Director
Barry Coppock	Thanet District Council
Ron Flaherty	Canterbury City Council
John Fullarton	Kent County Council
Sam Hodgson	Acol Parish Council
Robert Bayford	Broadstairs Town Council
John Garland	Birchington Parish Council
Judith Singleton	Minster Parish Council
Martin Tapp	St Nicholas-at-Wade Parish Council
Robin Tapsell	Monkton Parish Council
Peter Binding	Manston Airport Group
Steve Thompson	Dover District Council
Robert Holland	MK Airlines
Nigel Whitburn	KAPC Dover Area Committee
Sidney Harper	KAPC Canterbury Area Committee
Ian Minter	Thanet Chamber of Commerce
John Elliott	Pfizer Ltd
Keith Sadler	SEEDA
Jim Mannering	Cliffsend Residents' Assn
Tony Gould	TGWU
IN ATTENDANCE:
Liz Orme	Arthur D Little
Richard Bond	Arthur D Little

The Chairman welcomed Liz Orme and Richard Bond from Arthur D Little, consultants to the Wiggins Group, who would be giving a presentation on Master planning,

John Bragg Dover District Council ( Steve Thompson attending as alternate)
Len Claisse KAPC Canterbury (Sidney Harper alternate)
Nicholas Cole Monkton PC (Robin Tapsell alternate)
David Tyson MAG (Peter Binding alternate)
Bob Weaver Cliffsend Residents (Jim Mannering alternate)
Leigh Herington KCC.

2.1 Minutes of the previous meeting held 11th September, having been previously circulated, were accepted and signed by the Chairman as a true record, subject to the following amendments: a reference to Judith Singleton representing Monkton instead of Minster be corrected, and Stephen Sadler's apology for absence recorded.

3.1 Item 3.1 Ron Flaherty asked for a progress report on the installation of ILS beam which would enable pilots to fly over Herne Bay at greater height thereby substantially reducing noise. It was now almost a year since the installation of such a system had been agreed to. Alister Robertson replied that LMA were still in discussion with CAA on a slight technical difficulty regarding the positioning of one arial of the ILS system. It was hoped that agreement as to the positioning of the aerial would be achieved by January 2001, but installation and commissioning could not be achieved before Easter.

4.1 Cliffsend Residents' Association: The Chairman welcomed Jim Mannering from CRA. There had been considerable pressure from CRA for representation on MACC due to the proximity to the Airport. After discussions with CRA, the Leader of TDC, recognizing that Cliffsend's interests had not been adequately represented, had offered to surrender the seat occupied by David Jillings in order to accommodate a CRA representative, subject to acceptance by the Committee. Cllr Jillings had accepted the decision.

4.1.1 Martin Tapp pointed out that Cliffsend had applied for Parish Council status. Were this to be achieved, making Cliffsend eligible for a seat on MACC in their own right, would Cllr David Jillings be reinstated? Cllr Jillings had been a useful committee member and Cllr Tapp would like MACC's thanks to be extended to him.

4.1.2 Cllr Coppock, whilst having not been involved in any way in the discussions, understood that the Leader of TDC was satisfied with the Council's representation on MACC being limited to two members.

4.1.3 In response to Cllr Robert Bayford, the Chairman explained that when MACC had originally been set up, exceptions to the rule of one seat per body were made for the Airport and for the two planning authorities (KCC and TDC). The proposed arrangement meant that TDC would have only one seat as planners, although in practice they had several other Councillors around the table. It was up to TDC to discuss it amongst themselves and request another seat. IT WAS AGREED that a representative of Cliffsend Residents' Association be allocated a seat on MACC. The Chairman would, on behalf of MACC, thank David Jillings for his contribution to the Committee.

4.2 Alternate representatives: The Chairman reminded the Meeting that the Constitution required each body to nominate an alternate representative. Many bodies had not named an alternate, and in some cases a succession of people had attended, causing a lack of continuity. After discussion IT WAS AGREED that each body submit to the Secretary the name and details of their representative and up to TWO alternates.

5.1 The Chairman reported that the above document had been circulated to all UK airports, planning authorities, a great number of other interested parties, many Airport Consultative Committees, but not MACC. Its existence had been discovered, after the closing date for comment, due to a report in the local press covering TDC's response to the Paper. Having obtained the paper from the DETR website, the Chairman had written, on MACC's behalf, to DETR expressing regret at not having been included in the consultation. The Chairman had seen TDC's comments and had been impressed by the extent to which they seemed to have taken account of the concerns of the community. The Airport had also been consulted, but had not sent in comments, but the Airport Operators' Association had done so. Copies of the Paper and TDC's response were available from the Secretary.

5.2 Martin Tapp asked whether DETR had responded by extending the closing date, and on hearing that they had, proposed that the Environmental Working Group meet and make a response. The Chairman suggested that, in view of the need for speed, those interested took away a copy and considered whether any points needed making other than those contained in the TDC response. After comments were received, the Chairman would himself submit them to DETR. Were there to be a substantial number of points raised, then a meeting of the EWG sub committee would need to be called.

5.2.1 Cllr Barry Coppock felt strongly that comments by individual members should not be submitted without first having been put before the Committee.

5.2.2 The Chairman accepted this comment, and raised the alternative of forwarding a draft to members should it not be possible to call a special meeting. The action taken would depend upon the response from MACC members, but no submission would be made without approval of the Committee.

6.1 Alastair Robertson confirmed that, in accordance with the terms of the Section 106 Agreement signed on 26111 September 2000, the Airport Owners had met their obligation to supply to TDC and MACC, on a monthly basis,

6.1.1 detailed information of flight movements identifying: type of plane, runway used; take off/landing; whether fully or half laden or empty; time of arrival/departure; whether humanitarian flight; number and times of any engine testing.

6.1.3 The figures were displayed on overhead projection and tabled. (copies attached)

6.2 In response to John Elliott and Barry Coppock, Alastair Robertson confirmed that details of the one breach of noise abatement had been notified to TDC and MACC. (copy attached). This related to an incident in October 2000, where it was believed that an aircraft had departed from the noise abatement route prematurely. The Airport had written to the airline concerned identifying the breach, and requesting their response.

6.3 Although it was not possible (due to slight variation depending on weight of aircraft etc) to produce a plan of the noise abatement route, as requested by Martin Tapp, Mr Robertson would provide copies of the Noise Abatement Procedure. (copy attached)

6.4 With regard to Runway Usage, the Chairman noted that during the middle of the year, usage of Runway 10 had been high. Mr Robertson explained that this had been due to weather conditions, in particular wind direction.

6.5 Complaints: Tony Gould wondered how many telephone complaints were discontinued by the mailing of a complaints form, rather than provision of an answer at the time of the telephone call. Mr Robertson concurred that some would be "lost" as callers did not always leave a contact address, nor sufficient information. However, complaints forms were now available from Council offices, Parish Councils, public libraries in addition to the Airport. Considerable effort had been made to make the forms available to the community .

6.5.1 In response to Martin Tapp, Mr Robertson confirmed that in cases of multiple complaints concerning a particular flight, investigation was carried out into the particular circumstances, and the aircraft involved.

6.5.2 Answering John Fullarton, Mr Robertson explained that complaints received concerning "Unassociated Aircraft" had been generated by aircraft not using Manston, and therefore over which Manston had no control. Aircraft used the airways above SE Kent regularly, at an altitude exceeding 6,500ft. The noise generated carried a considerable distance at night.

6.5.3 Jim Mannering requested details of complaints received from residents of Cliffsend in order to ascertain particular problems. Mr Robertson agreed to provide these.

6.5.4 Alastair Robertson confirmed to Ron Flaherty that arrangements had been made to publish announcements detailing Complaints Procedure in the free newspapers.

6.5.5 The Chairman raised the point that all complaints from Cliffsend had been listed as "General". Mr Robertson stated that during the current quarter, a series of complaints had been received from one source who wished to complain in general about a wide number of issues, many of which could not be substantiated. Work in substantiating those complaints was continuing, in order to provide relevant response.

6.5.6 Alastair Robertson pointed out that the current quarter was the first time that complaints had been identified as coming from Smugglers Leap -an area of Minster adjacent to the Prospect Inn Roundabout, about 200yds from the flightpath. Eleven complaints had been received following the signing of the Section 106 Agreement.

6.5.7 Martin Tapp asked what the technical difference was between ."Noise" and "Noise Abatement". Mr Robertson explained that "Noise" referred to the actual noise generated by any particular aircraft, whereas any complaints identified as referring to ."Noise Abatement" were those where it had been thought the aircraft had breached the noise abatement procedures, e.g departing from the designated flightpath/height of departure/approach.

6.5.8 Continuing his presentation, Mr Robertson explained that Multiple Complainants referred to individuals who had made more than 5 complaints. Overall the total number of complaints forms received was 367 of which 295 had been generated by 9 people. On this occasion, Multiple Complainants had been identified by surname initial only. This information was for the Committee only and would not be circulated.

6.5.9 During discussion, some Members agreed with Mr Robertson that individuals who made numerous complaints should be identified so as not to distort the figures, whilst others were against any form of identification. Some felt that such information would be useful in identifying particularly affected areas of their constituency. The Chairman felt that the identity of the individuals concerned was not sufficiently disguised.

6.5.10 Ron Flaherty did not agree with withholding information and proposed that these figures be included in the statistics for circulation.

6.5.11 The Chairman pointed out that Mr Robertson had not attempted to provide a complete analysis in any detail, for example which single incident produced the greatest number of complaints. The Chairman felt that when issuing statistics, a sensible stopping point would be the breakdown of statistics by location, by dates etc. If any Member required more detailed breakdown for their own community, they were able to request the Airport to provide such information. Were just this one detailed sheet to be circulated, why not details mentioned above?

6.5.12 Peter Binding disagreed with any form of identification as he felt it may well deter people from registering complaints. He did not think it right that 7 complaints from the same source had been considered to be excessive, particularly as the complainant lived directly beneath the flightpath.

6.5.13 Cllr Coppock seconded Cllr Flaherty's proposal,and after a show of hands IT WAS AGREED that the details of individual multiple complainants be circulated with the Minutes, but with personal identification being adequately disguised.

6.5.14 John Garland asked whether in addition to producing lists of complaints, any identification had been made of particular incidents giving rise to multiple complaints and whether action had been taken in order to reduce future incidents. Cllr Garland did not see the point of the Committee studying lists of statistics, without being provided with information on what action had been taken and the results of such action. Alastair Robertson replied that during the course of analysing complaints, various incidents were identified and if any action could be taken to prevent recurrence, such action was taken. For example, a minor amendment had been made to the departure procedure on Runway 28, whereby, at whatever weight an aircraft might be loaded, it was required to be over the coast before turning right at an altitude of 3,000ft..

6.6 Tony Gould (TGWU) enquired about current employment levels at the Airport. Mr Robertson agreed to supply figures to be circulated with the Minutes. (copy attached)

7.1 The Section 106 Agreement required the Airport Owners, within two months, to submit to TDC details of Noise Abatement Measures. Alastair Robertson confirmed that at a recent meeting with TDC, the Council had accepted these Measures. Cllr Coppock said he had not been present at this meeting, which had been attended by TDC officers. In response to a request from Peter Binding, Alastair Robertson further confirmed that the Noise Abatement Measures were produced by the Airport, were a public document, and he would provide a copy for reproduction and circulation with the Minutes. (copy attached) .

7.1.1 The Chairman stressed the importance of this information being made available to the Committee.

7.2 Paragraph 10.1 of the Section 106 Agreement required, within one month, the appointment of an agreed traffic consultant to produce the Green Travel Strategy (strategy to be produced to TDC within 3 months). Tony Freudmann informed the Meeting that, with the acceptance of Thanet District Council, Manchester Airport plc had been appointed Traffic Consultant for the production of the Strategy. Mr Freudmann confirmed that this would be presented to TDC within 3 months and would also be brought to the next MACC meeting.

7.2.1 John Elliott, who was responsible for Green Travel policy at Pfizer, stressed the advantages of liaising with other local employers on any such strategy, for maximum impact.

8.1 Under the terms of the Section 106 Agreement, the Airport Owners were required to submit a Masterplan to Thanet District Council by 26 March 2001. Also, they were required to undertake a number of tasks concerning environmental issues.

8.2 In that latter regard, Paul Tipple (Head of Strategy and Development at the Wiggins Group) confirmed that Manchester Airport plc had been contracted to provide a noise monitoring system for London Manston Airport that would ~ compliant with the Section 106 Agreement. That would involve the acquisition of noise monitoring terminals and the provision of noise contour assessments and noise contour maps. Also, they would undertake a basic site assessment from which to design an air quality monitoring regime compliant with the Section 106. Manchester Airport plc would also be working closely with Arthur D. Little in identifying in outline terms the environmental impact of the strategic masterplan as it evolved. That would form the basis upon which an Environmental Statement would be submitted within six months of the Masterplan. Mr Tipple introduced Liz Orme who gave an overhead presentation. (copies attached)

8.2 In answer to the Chairman, Paul Tipple confirmed that Arthur D Little's assignment was to concentrate on passenger traffic. The Airport Owners already had sufficient evidence to estimate growth of cargo traffic and had had to contain the growth essentially because of limitations on the ground. It was easier to forecast growth in freight than passenger traffic.

8.3 John Fullarton stated that KCC had expressed concern at having received insufficient information from Wiggins in order to complete submission to Government for funding for roads, education and other County responsibilities. Although Paul Tipple assured the meeting that dialogue between ADL and the planning authorities would continue regularly, members representing the abutting planning authorities (Canterbury and Dover) all agreed that greater consultation between all planning bodies involved was urgently required in order to comply with the timescale for submission of Structure Plans.

8.4 Tony Gould (TGWU) raised the question of availability of labour. Were ADL aware that this part of East Kent was an employment blackspot? Liz Orme said this was not within the scope of her study, ADL would project potential for growth and present that information to those responsible.

8.5 Peter Binding asked whether a business plan, rather than just possibilities, was going to be produced, and John Fullarton asked when the Committee would be given some indication of what Manston was expected to be like in say 2020. KCC had to submit for funding now, and as soon as funding was received, would be starting road construction. Cllr Fullarton was concerned that, without the necessary information, it would not be possible to plan the location/width of new roads.

8.6 Liz Orme's response was that a market assessment had to be made as to where potential passengers would come from. Were it London, then good rail and road links would be needed. Wiggins, KCC and other major stakeholders would then need to decide. ADL's remit was to look at growth in the context of road access. The effect of growth on the requirement for housing and other elements was up to the planning authorities. John Fullarton and John Garland thought it was up to Wiggins to decide, having studied ADL 's projections, which way to go.

8.7 Paul Tipple stated that Wiggins had already had several meetings with the officers of the County Council and other relevant planning authorities to ascertain their strategic planning requirements. These authorities were now awaiting the results of ADL's forecasting of volume of traffic that would be generated and the resulting implications.

8.8 The Chairman understood that it was not possible to produce the alternative scenarios that some Members had been hoping to receive. Issues involved were far too complex i.e. potential passenger demand, and improvement to rail links. The most important consideration was that Wiggins and their planners should be in constant contact with all local planners.

8.9 Ron Flaherty stressed the importance of having elected members of all the planning authorities included in consultation. Planning decisions were made by elected members, many of whom, having not been included in consultations, were unclear as to the details of the development of Manston Airport. Visits to the Airport should be arranged.

8.10 Martin Tapp asked the size of the actual footprint of the projected developed airport. John Fullarton requested an aerial view.

8.11 Regarding Cllr Coppock's request that MACC be included in the consultation process, Tony Freudmann confirmed that ADl would be producing their projections by the end of February 2001, and that a strategic Masterplan would be delivered to Councils by 26th March, as required by the terms of the Section 106 Agreement. If the Committee met in March, Wiggins would be able to send round copies of a draft beforehand. Mr Freudmann did not think however that it would be possible for the draft Masterplan to be circulated three weeks beforehand., to enable Members to consult their own constituents.

8.12 John Fullarton had thought that a Masterplan would show projections over 5, 10, 15 years of any new buildings, runways, etc. and possible siting of same. Without such projections, local authorities could not forward plan. Mr Freudmann stated that the strategic Masterplan would not include such site details. It would create a strategy as to level of growth.

8.13 John Garland said that Wiggins would, in the fairly near future, have to make such decisions -otherwise they would be unable to produce the Environmental Impact Assessment within six months of production of a Masterplan, in accordance with the terms of the Section 106 Agreement.

8.14 At the Chairman's request, Tony Freudmann confirmed that were the next MACC meeting to be held during the 2nd or 3rd week of March 2001, the results from ADL and Manchester Airport Group, having been circulated a few days beforehand, would be presented by officers from both consultancies. Information on freight traffic would be provided by the Wiggins Group. Chairman confirmed to aim for Meeting 2/3rd week March.

9.2 John Elliott reported that KCC Local Transport Plan had been submitted, in July 2000, to central Government. It included various packages throughout the county with particular emphasis on the A256/A253 East Kent Access Scheme.

9.2.1 Phase one, to dual Sandwich access road as far as Ebbsfleet Lane, could be completed quickly as limited land acquisition would be required. Construction was due to commence at the end of 2001.

9.2.2 Phase 2 was from Lord of the Manor to Ebbsfleet Lane. Public consultation was planned for February/March 2001, as the requisite land acquisition included front gardens. Airport Development Plans would affect the decision.

9.2.3 Phase 3 involved Lord of the Manor to present A253 junction, linking down to Ebbsfleet. Consideration was also being given to providing a different route making another approach into the centre of Thanet, removing the A253 route. Phase 3 would commence in 2006

9.4 Sam Hodgson (Acol) asked about KCC's plans for the A28 which could become extremely busy with airport traffic. John Fullarton repeated that KCC awaited information from Wiggins. Cllr Fullarton emphasised that the public would be consulted before any decisions were made.

9.5 John Fullarton, answering Ron Flaherty, stated that a rail link from Thanet to Ashford was not under consideration by KCC.