MINUTES of the MEETING held on 23 April 2001 2.00pm at MANSTON AIRPORT

1 APOLOGIES

1.1 Apologies for absence had been received from:

2 MINUTES

2.1 Minutes of the previous meeting held 5th December 2000, having been previously circulated, were accepted and signed by the Chairman as a true record.

3 MATTERS ARISING

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. Alastair Robertson replied that LMA were still in discussion with the CAA regarding positioning of one aerial of the ILS system. Mr Robertson pointed out that the height at which aircraft overflew Herne Bay was 2,500 feet, not 1 ,500 as stated by Cllr Flaherty. Also that installation of an ILS beam would not affect the height at which aircraft flew, as such beams were a flight path indicator. It was hoped that agreement as to the type of the aerial required would be achieved shortly, followed by installation and commissioning of the equipment.

3.2 Item 4. Ramsgate and TDC representation on MACC. The Chairman stated that since the December meeting he had discussed this matter with the Leader of Thanet District Council. The conclusion had been reached that, with agreement of MACC members, Cllr Nicholson occupy the second seat allocated to TDC as major planning authority; the seat allocated to Cliffsend Residents Assn. be an extra one; leaving the rest of the Ramsgate community with only one representative (Dennis Hart, a TDC councillor representing a Ramsgate ward). As the densely populated town of Ramsgate was the area most affected by Airport development, it was felt that this was not fully satisfactory. IT WAS AGREED that TDC be allocated two seats (Cllrs Nicholson and Coppock); and that stronger representation for Ramsgate be investigated. The Chairman would report back to the Committee on this matter.

3.3 The Chairman reminded Members that some organisations had not supplied details of nominated alternate representatives and requested that such details be forwarded to the Secretary.

3.4 Item 5. DETR Consultation Paper -Control of Noise from Civil Aircraft. Kelvin Holdom asked whether any feedback had been received from DETR following this consultation. Neither MACC nor TDC had received any comments from DETR as to its findings.

4 MASTERPLAN

4.1 Paul Tipple stated that although Members had received a copy of the Strategic Masterplan (SMP}, they would not have received the final report from Arthur D Little which was formally submitted to TDC late the previous week in support of the SMP. Copies would be circulated to MACC within the next few days to enable Members to study the analysis under strategic highlights in the Plan. Copies would be placed in libraries throughout the area.

The SMP was a keystone part of a long process of developing the airport. This had to be based on a mix of marketing and linking market potential forecasts based on a robust picture of what LMA could do to attract traffic over the long term.

Capacity needs had been constructed using a simple model of future passenger traffic based on expert advice and judgement by ADL derived from their considerable years of experience in this type of work. Capacity needs included estimates of traffic over the next 15/20 years. ADL had also taken into account external influences such as road/rail access, the impact of the Planestation network, which puts Manston into a unique position as opposed to other airports, and air traffic constraints -which put Manston in a favourable position over the big London five.

ADL had produced an estimate of future traffic over the period 2005 to 20915. This estimate assumed that over a period of time, in addition to cargo, both scheduled and charter traffic would be developed, the former by providing more routes and more European destinations. Emphasis for charter traffic would be on short haul initially, moving on to catch some long haul markets,.

The forecasts were based on key assumptions:

• Ability to market the Airport; effectively to draw traffic from the Planestation airports, which although in less well known locations were important to passenger growth.
• Increasing saturation of the London 5 airports and their inability to meet DETR forecasts of future demand. Although no extra runway was likely to be constructed until 2020, the sizeable demand thus created would not of course all come to Manston. Having verged on the side of caution, the developers were however confident of being able to attract between 4-6m passengers by 2020 and beyond. The number of projected passengers depended on the nature of demand and also the nature of people's behaviour with regard to travel lholiday choices. There was, therefore, no certainty of demand.
• Surface Access. It had been accepted that the road access to Thanet had the capacity to support forecast growth via the arterial road into Thanet. Roads immediately into the Airport, particularly to the North, needed consideration. Rail links to Manston needed to be addressed and account had been taken of pre- and post- Channel Tunnel Rail Link. The SMP identified options as a basis for consultation, and ADL's work had involved extensive consultation with Connex, Rail Track and various authorities. It was important to achieve a rail journey time to/from London to around 1 hr. The ADL Report shows the cumulative effect of existing planned improvements plus potential for enhancement in journey times.
• Airport Development. Comments had been made that the SMP showed little as to what the Airport would look like. Such detail could not be projected until the forecast of growth based on market analysis was translated into a siting exercise. Important siting issues such as location of radar equipment, fire fighting facilities, engine testing area needed to be considered. It would take time to develop plans, which may need to be adjusted.
• Environmental Impact. This was a key issue. In addition to the requirement of providing an Environmental Statement in compliance with the S106, the developers were asking Thanet District Council for a scoping opinion. Noise monitoring equipment due to be operational by late June should be on schedule. The developers had the responsibility to establish environmental controls to safeguard the water supply and were working with the Environment Agency to put in place necessary policy framework to safeguard and enhance the environment to ensure credible sustainability.

Mr Tipple concluded by saying this was a key document on which development could be seriously considered. It would take time. Consultation would take place with SEEDA, Environment Agency and other authorities in order to make sensible decisions. MACC would be asked for its views throughout the consultation.

4.2 Thanking Mr Tipple for the presentation, the Chairman asked for response from Thanet District Council and Kent County Council representatives.

4.3 Cllr Nicholson (TDC) said the ADL Report (which TDC had seen shortly before the meeting) was a welcome addition to the Masterplan. TDC was considering the document and would have a number of questions for the Developers in due course. In the interim TDC awaited with interest the results of consultations with statutory bodies.

4.4 Cllr Fullarton (KCC) said he had been disappointed with the lack of detail in the Masterplan and hoped the ADL Report was more specific. For example there was no indication in the Report of how passengers and freight would be arriving at, and leaving Manston. Presumably additional electricity/water supplies and drainage would be required. There were no details on the plan of buildings, car parks, or how much land would be used. Such detail was required by strategic planning authorities to enable them to plan for future years. No indication was given as to the size of the proposed new terminal building i.e. 1,2, or 3 storey. Did the mentioned "extensive use of land" refer to the area within the Airport or beyond? Although Cllr Fullarton appreciated that it was not possible at that stage to be precise, he felt that at least an indication could be provided so that KCC and TDC could incorporate the information into their plans.

4.5 Paul Tipple said the next urgent phase of the Developers' work was to quantify the points that Cllr Fullarton had made. He felt that the ADL report went a considerable way to meeting this. After further analysis, Wiggins would produce the figures required for planning approvals. At this stage, Mr Tipple had no idea what a future passenger terminal might look like. The key issue was one of quantification. These results of further analysis were expected to be available within the next six months.

4.6 Cllr Flaherty (Canterbury CC) wondered whether the Masterplan had been written without the benefit of the ADL Report, which had only just been submitted to TDC. He stated that road and rail links were crucial in attracting airport users to the area, and at present both rail lines were a disgrace, and should be addressed first, before any detailed forecasts could be made. Mr Tipple confirmed that this subject was covered in the ADL Report, and that the Masterplan had been produced in conjunction with the consultations with Arthur D Little.

4.7 Cllr Hart (Ramsgate) said that points from the ADL Report quoted by Paul Tipple had quantified gaps in the Masterplan. He hoped that what MACC had received had been an executive summary and/or highlights of the ADL Report. Amongst Government consultation documents under current consideration was that on the subject of Development of Airports in the SE of England, from which until recently Manston had not been included as a regional airport. It was hoped that as this had now been amended to include Manston, the Government would give LMA airport status needed to take in the capacity from the 5 London airports. The amount of growth expected by LMA far exceeded DETR statistics. Bus services had not been mentioned, although it was known that an interim service would be provided once passenger traffic started to flow. Nor had mention been made of the necessity to provide buses and trains with adequate space for luggage. Figures on growth of freight traffic were fantastic and far exceeded DETR statistics. The Masterplan did not say how cargo traffic would be separated from passengers from A299 to Airport. Projected tonnage would require 92 HGVs daily by 2015. Cllr Hart agreed with DETR (Future of Aviation document) that regional airports become public transport interchanges, but the Masterplan did not show how this could be achieved at Manston.

4.8 Pete Binding (Manston Airport Group) looked forward to receiving the ADL Report as the Masterplan lacked supporting information. ADL must have made some assumptions concerning London airports, as they were concentrating heavily on overspill from those airports. As opposed to other airports, there was a fairly heavy concentration on scheduled traffic over charter flights and Mr Binding wondered why ADL had assumed that this was the way the market would go.

4.9 Paul Tipple confirmed that the ADL Report went into some depth concerning the 5 London Airports and DETR forecasts. Once Members had had a chance to study the ADL Report. Wiggins would be happy to discuss it again. To satisfy projected growth of passenger traffic, airline operators would be using more wide bodied aircraft for maximum capacity, thereby forcing down access to international airports by smaller aircraft. The Planestation network of airports in Europe and America would bring both inbound and outbound passengers and scheduled flights would sustain this growth. Tony Freudmann quoted from the DETR document Future of Aviation "the number of passengers on scheduled services at regional airports has almost tripled over the last 10 years. Growth rates in the UK in recent years have been heavily influenced by the expansion of scheduled low cost carriers. They. ..focus on low fares and tend to operate from airports that give them fast turn round times and low airport charges on which their service depends."

4.10 Mr Tipple agreed that shortfalls in surface access needed to be urgently addressed. Road improvements rested with the statutory authorities and needed to balance access needs with environmental issues particularly regarding roads immediately around Manston. An Airport Transport Forum could be created, as recommended by DETR when scheduled passenger traffic was in operation. Such a Forum, operated under Government guidelines, would bring together local regional and statutory authorities, the public, and interested parties. A direct rail link was necessary for the airport to grow. In the short term due to shortcomings of the existing system, bus links had to be addressed. Proposed rail improvements by Connex and Rail Track, including Channel Tunnel rail link, would be built on. Importance was attached to quantifying the impact of growth of volume of passenger, and possibly freight, traffic were there to be a direct rail link, in order to seek central Government support.

4.11 Cllr Bragg (Dover DC) also looked forward to receiving the ADL Report in order to fill gaps in the Masterplan. He felt that the infra-structure should be in place first in order to attract the forecast 4m passengers. A terminal building to accommodate such numbers would be large and expensive. It would be very difficult to persuade scheduled passengers to use Manston. The condition of the rail track and number of level crossings on the line to Ashford raised doubt as to the projected journey time to London of 89 minutes. How were passengers going to get to Manston quickly, and where were they going to park? Cllr Bragg did not feel that any resolution had been arrived at.

4.12 Trevor Herron (Thanet District Council) advised that copies of both the Masterplan and the ADL Report were being sent to all libraries and to Dover and Canterbury Councils. An advertisement would appear in Thanet Extra the following week suggesting a consultation period of 8 weeks.

4.13 In response to a request from Martin Tapp (St Nicholas), Cllr Nicholson said it would be unrealistic to use a footprint of Stansted on a map of LMA as the figures were only for guidance and would vary all the time.

4.14 Martin Tapp further questioned projected employment figures of 1,000 people per 1m passengers and 100,000 tonnes freight. LMA was moving one third of 100,000 tonnes freight currentlyI employing 130 people. Three times that totalled 390 people. He suggested a comparison with Stansted to more accurately ascertain possible employment figures. The Chairman suggested that because of constantly changing circumstances and government policies, a footprint of Stansted transposed to Manston would be too simplistic. But he was sure that comparisons with other airports had been taken into account.. Martin Tapp maintained that a comparison of hectarage would be useful. However Paul Tipple said that employment varied from location to location and that hectarage did not provide a good comparison.

4.15 Nigel Whitbum (KAPC) understood that following CTRL completion in 2007, the fastest rail time from London to Ashford would be 37minutes. The possibility of a link into Manston depended on an operator being willing to run one. New fast trains would have to be invested in. He further pointed out that new trains would be needed for domestic traffic.

4.16 Cllr Nicholson said Connex had publicly said they were not interested in running a high speed rail link. However there would be an operator coming in with the type of trains required. Certain investments still needed to be made regarding level crossings etc. but he stated that a 60 minute journey from London to Ramsgate would certainly be achievable. The new trains had already been ordered and the specification reCeived.

4.17 John Fullarton pointed out that CTRL did not carry freight. [see 4.10 above]

4.18 The Chairman suggested that the aspects of the Masterplan most likely to concern MACC i.e. environmental aspects of all kinds. The Committee had been told that work was already started on the Environmental Statement based on the Plan. He requested clarification of the relationship between an Environmental Statement and Environmental Impact Assessment,. What kind of document was being planned for submission within the next six months, in compliance with the Section 106 Agreement, and what environmental work might need to be done when individual planning applications were submitted?

4.19 Paul Tipple said the ADL Report explained the elements of what at the moment would constitute that Environmental Statement, which was only part of the Environmental Impact Assessment required by the Town and Country Planning Act. There was a statutory process to be gone through beginning with TDC giving Wiggins a Scoping Opinion. He was not in position to answer the question fully at this point. , as discussion was due to take place with TDC the following week. The Chairman felt sure that the Committee would be interested in the results of that discussion, and that results would be brought to MACC over the following meetings.

4.20 John Garland (Birchington PC) asked whether MACC, as representatives of the community, could be consulted before the scoping went ahead to avoid omissions. He felt that the content of the scoping should be tabled to Committee before being moved forward. The Chairman asked that this matter be considered later in the Agenda when fixing the date for the next MACC meeting.

4.21 Cllr Coppock asked whether it was the Chairman's intention that the ADL Report be a matter for MACC. The Chairman replied that it was, but as with the Masterplan this was in a slightly different sense from the S. 106 where MACC was invited to make comments before negotiations had been concluded. The Masterplan was a statement by Wiggins of how they saw the Airport developing, and the ADL Report was part of that statement.

5 SITUATION REPORT by MANAGING DIRECTOR, LMA

5.1 Tony Freudmann began by emphasising the connection between the ADL Report and the marketing and financing plan. The company were conscious that the document needed to achieve a number of things.

5.2 Business Development: Discussions were taking place in a number of areas.

5.2.1 An early connection between Manston and Schipol was sought to generate two way passenger traffic.

5.2.2 There were a number of low cost options in scheduled traffic. Discussions tended to be protracted and complex and usually involved a subsidy being offered to the airline by the airports that they served. Wiggins aspired to giving LMA connections to major European regional cities and expected to fulfil those objectives over time.

5.2.3 The importance of the ADL Report was that it showed to airlines that LMA could achieve sustainable growth.

5.2.4 It was also the intention to connect LMA to Wiggins' other airports in Europe, including 2 in Germany -both important commercial and passenger destinations - and important starting points for inbound passenger traffic into the UK Discussions with small, low-cost, scheduled airlines were taking place as to how those routes might work.

5.2.5 There was also demand for inbound traffic for Scandinavian passengers wishing to visit Bluewater Shopping Centre. It was hoped that discussions would come to fruition later this year.

5.2.6 Regarding cargo, the likelihood was that when the concreting had been completed later this year, there would be a large increase in business. One particular cargo operator was waiting to switch his business to LMA from Gatwick. Wiggins were confident of securing this important extra business, which would end the current loss making situation of LMA.

5.3 Employment Levels: At early public meetings concern had been expressed about who would be employed at Manston. Mr Freudmann explained what the company was doing about this important issue.

5.3.1 Around 130 people were currently employed. Of the 124 staff employed since Wiggins took over, 92 had been recruited locally. As the passenger flow increased, the number of employees required would rise.

5.3.2 Whilst initially the highly skilled jobs had to be recruited from other areas, the next three fully qualified air traffic controllers would be recruited and trained locally.

5.3.3 This had been supplemented by Wiggins' sponsorship of a course at Christ Church University College in Thanet on Business Studies for Airport Operations, which was due to start in October. Twenty bursaries were being supported, and at the end of the course there would be guaranteed employment at LMA. Wiggins had also made a valuable link with a university in Daytona Beach, Florida to give those training at Christ Church College the opportunity to complete their studies there, The scheme had been instigated by Wiggins as part of their commitment to the creation of a centre of excellence in Thanet to give an opportunity to local men and women to train there to work at LMA and other airports. Mr Freudmann understood that all students who had so far been selected for the bursary scheme were from the East Kent area.

5.4 John Bragg, as a member of the Governing body of Christ Church College, had been delighted by the scheme.

5.5 Dennis Hart thought that marketing of the Airport was made difficult by local signs to Kent International Airport, whereas the Airport was now referred to as London-Manston. Even DETR referred to "Kent International". Tony Freudmann said the matter was being looked into with a view to change.

6 SITUATION REPORT by AIRPORT DIRECTOR

6.1 Alastair Robertson presented the following quarterly figures, the majority of which had been circulated to Members well in advance of the meeting:

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;. No breaches of noise abatement measures had been recorded during the quarter.

6.2 The figures for September reflected a 7 day closure caused by a fuel strike; in November adverse weather conditions in East Africa had delayed harvest, leading to a decrease in business; whilst the figures for February and March showed the effect of one MK aircraft having been grounded due to delay in the hushkitting programme.

6.3 Complaints: The Chairman noted that apart from a 5hr DAS Air training flight, the greatest number of complaints regarding any individual incident had been caused by use of Runway 10. Mr Robertson confirmed that use of Runway 10 for departure was avoided when possible as planes at maximum weight and power created the most noise disturbance overflying Ramsgate. He further confirmed that the 5hr DAS training flight had been conducted in 2hr slots with 30 minute breaks and had therefore not breached the Noise Abatement Procedures.

6.4 Responding to Peter Binding, AR confirmed that increased activity in December, particularly between 10 and 11 pm had caused an increase in complaints.

6.5 In response to requests at the previous meeting, a breakdown was shown of particular aircraft that had generated the most complaints. The DAS Air DC10 training flight on 8 January, and the late MK departure on Runway 10 at 22.57hrs 19 December had generated the greatest number of complaints, followed thereafter mostly by MK flights.

6.6 Alastair Robertson projected a slide showing the revised Noise Abatement Routes and agreed to circulate copies to all Members and libraries., similarly details of DC10 training flights. Robin Tapsell (Monkton PC) said aircraft were not keeping to the designated route. Was this due to wind drift? AR said aircraft should now be fixing on route. If more complaints forms were submitted, further consideration could be given to route adjustments.

6.7 Whilst Martin Tapp appreciated that aircraft would not follow the map precisely, he welcomed the offer of a copy, which he had on previous occasions been told was not practicable due to constant variations.

7 COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 106 AGREEMENT.

7.1 Supplementary Agreement re Noise Abatement Routes: Trevor Herron reported that TDC had consulted with Alastair Robertson regarding amendments. The document was now in the process of production as a legal document forming a supplement to the Sec.1 06 and should be completed within the next month. The amendment should alleviate noise disturbance over Westgate and Birchington.

7.1.1 The Chairman said that some concern had been expressed at the previous MACC meeting that these changes had been negotiated between the Airport and TDC, without MACC being consulted. Although the amended route was already in effect, there was some uncertainty as to whether it was being accurately adhered to. Members were asked to register complaints if necessary to enable the Airport Director to monitor the situation. If there were a feeling in future that MACC should become involved, the Chairman would be grateful if parties concerned would consult with him when changes of route were discussed. The Environmental Working Group could be reactivated if thought necessary .The situation was regarded as satisfactory for the moment. Ron Flaherty asked that Canterbury City Council be involved in such discussions. Barry Coppock (TDC) apologised for the lack of consultation on that occasion and confirmed that all parties would be consulted in future. It should be noted that the Supplementary Agreement also covered training flights and time restrictions that had not been included in the Sec. 106.

7.2 Trevor Herron confirmed that the location of the engine testing site had been agreed. Noise would be directed across the airfield.

7.3 Pollution Monitoring Equipment: Brian Lear (TDC) reported that the pollution monitoring tubes were in place. Details of locations would be forwarded to MACC in due course. roc was in the process of acquiring a kit to pick up combustion products of jet engines. This would be available by mid-summer and sited on the Ramsgate side of the Airport. The Airport had agreed to provide TDC with half the running costs.

7.4 Noise Monitoring Equipment: There was some discussion as to the most appropriate siting of the two fixed monitors, Trevor Herron said that location was set by the Civil Aviation Authority. There were various options including the roof of the Environment Offices of TDC in central Ramsgate. The siting of the second monitor on open land would depend on the owners of the land involved. It may be slightly optimistic to aim for installation and operation by June 26th. Plans were expected later in the week as to suggested location.

7.4.1 Peter Binding did not accept that there was any legal guidance as to where monitoring equipment should be sited. The only official documents he had had sight of referred to positioning of monitors when used for the noise certification of aircraft. The purpose of noise monitors in Thanet was to measure the environmental impact of the Airport. He could see no point in siting a noise monitor in the middle of a field. They would be better placed in Monkton, St Nicholas or other residential areas to the other side of the Airport. Alastair Robertson suggested that as Manchester Airport were carrying out this work on LMA's behalf, they should be asked to clarify the matter. The Chairman agreed that it would seem to be more logical to monitor noise where there were people living. It would be useful to have an explanation.

7.4.2 Dennis Hart felt it was necessary to measure noise at the point of roll, when aircraft are at their noisiest, so decisions could be made on whether to fine a particular aircraft.

7.4.3 John Garland said attempts were being made to measure two different things i.e. noise created by particular aircraft, and noise disturbance to residents. In practice LMA could site monitors wherever they wished. An aircraft flying over the equipment at 7m from roll had already turned before reaching the monitor. The optimum solution was to have an additional monitor so one could be sited at point of roll, and the other where people experience noise disturbance. Mr Garland also queried reports in the local press that TDC had paid towards air pollution monitoring equipment. Was it normal practice for a local authority to use taxpayers' money to measure another company's performance targets?

7.4.4 Regarding pollution monitoring, Alastair Robertson said that he had asked TDC if they would look after arrangements for pollution monitoring on LMA's behalf on the understanding that LMA would pay for that service. This was certainly true with regard to the diffusion tubes. Brian Lear added that TDC had made a bid which meant they had a right to borrow money for the benefit of the community. TDC had taken the view that monitoring combustion products from jet engines WAS to the benefit of the community in view of the development of Manston airport. TDC had sought to support what LMA was doing.

7.4.5 The Chairman's concern was that monitors were installed and installed in sensible places.

7.4.6 Peter Binding pointed out that incoming aircraft were coming in over St Nicholas and he did not think that the residents of St Nicholas would understand why a noise monitor was being sited in a field rather than in their village. Martin Tapp (St Nicholas PC} agreed stating that as the village was under two flight paths it required two monitors.

7.4.7 Trevor Herron said the Manchester consultants were coming for discussions next week to discuss suitable locations for monitoring equipment. As he understood it, pinpoint accuracy was not necessary .The Chairman proposed that the points raised be put to Manchester consultants by TDC, and requested a report for the next meeting on where both noise and pollution monitors had/would be installed, accompanied by maps showing locations.

7.4.8 John Bragg said it had been known two years ago that there would be disagreement about where monitors should be placed and that was why the committee had recommended that there should in addition be mobile monitoring equipment .

7.4.9 Alastair Robertson confirmed that the provision of mobile monitoring equipment was in hand.

7.5 Green Travel Strategy: The Chairman said that to comply with the Sec 106, a Green Travel Strategy should have been submitted by 26th March. Paul Tipple confirmed that this had been submitted to TDC that day and would be presented at the next meeting.

7.6 Fund for Payment of Fines -MAEIF The Chairman was pursuing this matter. A decision needed to be made whether MACC set up the necessary fund or deputing TDC to do so. Deputing to TDC would be far easier but would require a code of honour to ensure that areas that did not fall within Thanet were included in the administration of the fund. IT WAS AGREED that the Chairman pursue the matter further and report back. In response to a query from Ron Flaherty, Trevor Herron stated that any such monies were to be used "for the purposes of environmental improvement for the general public in the vicinity of .the Airporl". [Sec 106 Agreement]

8 HUSHKITTING of CHAPTER 2 AIRCRAFT

8.1 The Chairman said that Mike Kruger, Chairman of MK Airlines had originally agreed to talk to the meeting, or if he could not attend deliver a report on the situation regarding hushkitting the MK fleet. In the absence of either, a letter from Mr Kruger on the matter as at 31 January 2001 had been tabled.

8.1.1 The hushkitting programme had been considerably delayed by financial problems at the Burbank company who appeared to be the sole manufacturers of hush kits for McDonnell Douglas aircraft. Mr Kruger stated in the letter that he hoped to be able to solve the problem by April 2002, failing which there would be problems with many MK aircraft due to banning of Chapter 2 at that point. No update had been received.

8.2 Peter Binding asked for clarification of that part of the letter concerning people not differentiating between Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft. Were people complaining about the hushkitted aircraft as well? That was a breakdown not given to MACC. Had Mike Kruger been given such a breakdown leading him to believe that those of his aircraft that had been hush kit ted were continuing to create noise disturbance? Alastair Robertson said the complaints system did not differentiate between Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft. He was unsure as to how useful such a breakdown would be due to "certain spikes" in complaints statistics.

8.3 The Chairman hoped that Mr Kruger might be able to address the next meeting on the subject.

9 BANNING OF CHAPTER 2 AIRCRAFT

9.1 As this subject had caused considerable debate, opinion had been sought from DETR and CAA, whose responses had been circulated. The combined effect of responses from the two authorities suggested that nobody had quite got their act together. What was clear was that the subject became more academic as every month passed, as no Chapter 2 aircraft will be allowed to fly after 1 April 2002. The Chairman felt the Committee would agree that it was not worth pursuing the matter further at this stage.

10 DETR CONSULTATION -The Future of Aviation

10.1 The Chairman reported that two responses had been received from groups represented on MACC -St Nicholas and Birchington Parish Councils, for which he thanked them. Both had been forwarded to DETR. As no further submissions had been received, it had not been thought worthwhile to discuss the matter further. In his covering letter the Chairman made two points on his own account which he hoped Members would not find controversial. One was that there was scope for more regulation in this area. Several parties round the table had found from time to time that there were grey areas that were very difficult to fight a way through. Secondly, the guidance on consultative committees issued by DETR required updating.

10.2 John Bragg said that due to the cabinet system operating on Dover District Council, it had not been possible to submit a response within the consultation period. However Dover DC would be making a late submission. Cllr Bragg felt that detail was missing, the document was confusing, particularly on the issue of noise, and data contained therein was three years old. A copy of Dover DC's response would be forwarded to MACC in due course.

11 DATE OF NEXT MEETING

11.1 Due to the postponement of this meeting, the time before the following one would be shorter than usual in order to hold the requisite four meetings per year according to the Constitution of the Committee. The Chairman therefore suggested that the next meeting take place either during the last week of June or early July, followed by one in September and another in December. This was accepted as a general framework for the rest of the year.

11.2 Were the next meeting to be held end June/early July, items on the Agenda would include the opportunity to discuss the Arthur D Little Report; and if the Scoping agreement between Wiggins and TDC on the environmental study had been agreed and the process underway with a view to producing an EIA within six months, the Chairman would hope that meeting after two months had elapsed would give sufficient time to tweak the Report if any important points came out in discussion. Noise and pollution monitoring equipment was also due to have been installed by that date. The Green Transport Strategy should also be available by then. Trevor Herron suggested that Alan Melrose attend that meeting.

11.3 Ron Flaherty asked the Chairman to indicate suggested dates. The Chairman said it had been narrowed down to a fortnight already. He did not think it a good idea to set a date in committee, especially such a large one and suggested two or three dates be circulated with the Minutes.

12 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

12.1 There being no further business, the meeting closed at 5.1 Opm.

MIN/APR01

INDEX

KIACC INDEX