|
MANSTON AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES of the MEETING held on 12 December 2001 2.00pm at MANSTON AIRPORT PRESENT:
IN ATTENDANCE:
1 APOLOGIES 1.1 Apologies for absence had been received from: Barry Coppock TDC (alternate Mary Langley); John Elliott Pfizer Ltd; Leigh Herington Kent County Council; Nicholas Cole Monkton Parish Council. 2 MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the previous meeting held 3rd October, having been previously circulated, were accepted and signed by the Chairman as a true record. 3 MATTERS ARISING 3.1 Distribution of Minutes. In response to a request from Cllr Flaherty, it was agreed that a copy of the previous Minutes be attached to Agenda of meetings when required. Members requiring this second copy were asked to notify the secretary. ACTION TMS 3.2 ILS Beam. Paul Tipple and Alastair Robertson confirmed that the installation was on schedule for Spring 2002, in conjunction with improved airport lighting. 3.3 Noise Abatement Routes. Following circulation of the map of amended noise abatement routes, Trevor Herron reported that TDC had received two letters expressing concern that in routing aircraft away from Herne Bay, the amendment brought aircraft closer to Birchington. 3.4 Complaints Procedure. Cllr Flaherty queried progress on the complaints line being answered by a "live" operator, and asked for an amendment to the advertised complaints procedure for Canterbury, Whitstable and Heme Bay newspapers to the effect that complaints forms were available in CCC offices. ACTION AR 4 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 4.1 Trevor Herron explained that the Environmental Statement arose from the terms of the Section 106 Agreement drawn up between Wiggins and TDC. This was a departure from normal procedure, as Environmental Statements were usually attached to a particular planning application. However, as no major planning applications were in the pipeline, Wiggins and TDC had thought that a statement on proposed development of the Airport would be appropriate. The consultation period ended on Friday 14th December. Despite wide advertising and copies of the ES having been placed in libraries, surprisingly few people had responded. A formal Council decision would be made and views would be put to TDC Cabinet by the end of January. The ES was an ongoing process. There were issues that needed to be addressed. TDC would enter into dialogue with the developers with the intention of updating and clarifying issues raised. By the time a major application came forward agreement would have been reached on the base information. For example, If Wiggins were to submit an application for a new Passenger Terminal, TDC would make it quite clear what additional information was required. The ES would be amended and resubmitted, together with Planning Application and more specific information. 4.1.1 In response to the Chairman, Mr Herron explained that as there was much work to be done by TDC, it was not possible to extend the consultation period for more than a few days to accommodate those community groups who had not yet responded. 4.2 Paul Tipple said that Wiggins saw the ES as the beginning, not the end of the process. In the six months that were available, it would have been impossible to produce an ES on every aspect of the Airport's conceivable development over a 20-year period. What had been produced was a baseline document that provided a reasonable perspective of potential environmental impact, identifying those areas that needed to be addressed. The ES was a living document, not a draft document that needed to be officially amended. There was a need to take account of concerns expressed by local communities and statutory authorities, To take the work forward, Wiggins had it in mind to put forward a development proposal to draw together the Masterplan, ES and Green Travel Strategy (which had now been submitted to TDC for their comments), and come forward with a development proposal for the next five to six years. This development proposal would have to be more detailed in many respects than the information currently available. There was work for Wiggins, as airport authority, to do to flush out some of these issues in the ensuing discussion. 4.3 Liz Orme explained the process of producing the ES. Information had been gathered from many sources of expertise to identify potential impact and potential mitigation measures, where appropriate. 4.4 Before leading the discussion through the main subjects of the Report, the Chairman referred to concerns raised on availability and distribution of the Report to MACC members. He remembered that, at the previous meeting in October, it had been agreed that a copy of the non-technical statement be circulated to all members, with the option of reading the main document and appendices to be made available in all relevant libraries, or on the Wiggins website. He asked whether these arrangements had worked satisfactorily. 4.4.1 Although it was generally agreed the website availability had been extremely welcome, there had been problems for those people without such access. Colour charts and maps had not photocopied satisfactorily. 4.5 Observations and Discussion. 4.5.1 In response to concerns expressed on the reliability of figures used as a basis for forecasts, the Chairman referred to para 1.1.13 which stated that future review of forecasts may be necessary to take account of the events in the United States on September 11th. 4.5.2 Dennis Hart had received no comments from residents of Ramsgate and therefore it should be assumed that the people of Ramsgate were happy with the document. 4.5.3 Responding to Bob Bayford's point that September 11th was different from economic events, such as the extensive extension planned for Southend Airport, Liz Orme referred back to the Masterplan, which addressed the competition from Southend. 4.5.4 The Chairman said that as a great diversity of interests was represented on MACC, it was not feasible to put forward consensus comments to TDC. Submissions had been received by TDC from three community representatives on the Committee, and those from Kent, Canterbury and Dover Councils would be made within the next few days. Additional points raised at this meeting would be forwarded to TDC. [The main points raised and ensuing discussion are detailed in an appendix to these Minutes, which was sent to TDC on 2oth December. ] 5 SITUATION REPORT BY AIRPORT DIRECTOR 5.1 Building works: Alastair Robertson gave a brief resume of progress on current building works including new cargo and passenger aprons. The whole area would be fully drained through an interceptor system to capture effluent, and the new apron should be fully operational by the beginning of February. The current road closure was due to the construction of an underground balancing pond linked to the main apron and a second drainage channel from both new aprons. Water would be checked for pollutants before being pumped into Pegwell Bay. 5.2 Operational statistics: Mr Robertson gave an overhead presentation detailing current figures. 5.2.1 Cargo tonnage: Figures showed an increase up to November of 20% over last year. Were this to be maintained, the business target of 40,000 tonnes would be reached by the end of the financial year. 5.2.2 Fuel sales: There had been a slight increase over the previous year. Because of difficulty in buying-in fuel at the right price, operators bought the minimum of fuel at Manston, refuelling en route. 5.2.3 Cargo movements: Freight movements had increased by about 6% over last year. 5.2.4 Runway utilisation: 65% of departures and landings had utili sed Runway 28, with 35% using Runway 10. This was below the target set by the Sec 106, and had been caused by weather conditions, particularly surface winds. Weather patterns in July and August had been unusual. However, over 70% of heavy aircraft had utilised Runway 28. 5.3 Complaints Statistics: A total of 309 complaints forms during the current quarter had generated 645 complaints. 5.3.1 Mr Robertson pointed out that "Low-flying" was a misnomer in that regulations dictate that aircraft do not fly below 1,500ft except when taking off or landing. Complaints of low-flying at Manston referred to the fact that aircraft are below that height over residential areas close to the airport. 5.3.2 There had been one complaint of a "near miss" but this had been found to be simply a visual misconception. Aircraft occasionally appeared to be in closer proximity than they actually were. 5.3.3 LMA were making strenuous efforts to identify any occasions where aircraft had contravened regulations. In one instance of following the incorrect route, it had been revealed that the pilot had been instructed to do so by London Air Traffic Control Centre due to other air traffic. In response to Ron Flaherty, Mr Robertson confirmed that it was LMA's intention to make locking on to the ILS beam, so as to reach a height of 2,500ft over Herne Bay, a statutory requirement. 5.3.4 John Garland pointed out that aircraft now had to fly over Birchington twice. Mr Robertson said that the original route had disturbed residents from a wide area. Discussions had been held with MK Airlines to get agreement to routes that approached over the sea rather than populated areas. However, procedures were regularly reviewed and LMA was prepared to consider all viewpoints. Unfortunately for Ramsgate there was no alternative approach from an easterly direction. 5.3.5 The Chairman noted that there had been no incidents during the quarter that had attracted numerous complaints. 5.4 Section 106 compliance. 5.4.1 Noise Monitoring: The Chairman enquired on progress regarding noise monitoring. As reported previously, Mr Robertson confirmed that the monitor for Runway 28 was in position on the roof of Clarendon School, and the mobile monitor was available. The monitor for departures from Runway 28, to be sited near the Monkton roundabout was however not in place due to confusion as to the ownership of the relevant piece of land. No response had yet been received following recent contact with the farmer in question. Brian Lear (TDC) agreed to obtain noise monitor readings for the next MACC meeting. Action BL 5.4.2 Pollution Monitoring: The Chairman had noted that air quality readings showed an increase but Brian Lear confirmed that this was not unusual and levels remained within required parameters. 6 Any Other Business 6.1 Amended Noise Abatement Routes: Details of proposed amendments had been circulated to members for comment. Trevor Herron reported that only two submissions had been received and asked whether the remainder of members were in assent. John Garland wondered whether the few people in Beltinge were being placated at the expense of 14,000 residents of Birchington who experienced the noise, albeit at a lower altitude, but he accepted that it was for TDC to make the decision. 6.2 Passenger Traffic: John Bragg asked whether there had been any development in discussions with passenger airlines. Mr Robertson reported that the market was depressed. No cruise flights were expected in 2000 as the company had gone into receivership. LMA assumed that Jersey flights would still operate and regular discussions were taking place with three minor UK operators concerning a mix of charter flights and scheduled flights to Amsterdam, Edinburgh and Manchester. LMA would major on freight over the next 12 months. 6.3 Amendment to Planning Application for Passenger Aprons and Hangar. TDC had since the last meeting asked for direct comments on minor amendments. Mr Herron confirmed that this had been dealt with. 6.4 Hearing 27th November re TDC enforcement on dismantling aircraft on Northern Grass. Trevor Herron said that Wiggins had appealed against the enforcement but the Inspector's decision was not expected until the New Year. Paul Tipple confirmed that it would not be the intention to continue a large breaking-up operation, but to retain the facility should circumstances occasionally demand it. 7 DATE OF NEXT MEETING 7.1 It was agreed to hold the next meeting during the first half of March - suggested dates to be advised - to coincide with the formal opening of the new aprons and taxiways. (Tuesday 26/03/02 2pm) There being no further business, the meeting closed at 5pm. |