MANSTON AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
MINUTES of the MEETING held on 26 March 2002
2.00pm at MANSTON AIRPORT 

PRESENT:

1 APOLOGIES

1.1 For absence had been received from: John Bragg Dover District Council (Michael Ebbs attending as alternate); Pete Binding MAG (Jocelyn McCarthy alternate); John Fullarton KCC; Ian Minter Thanet Chamber of Commerce; Tony Gould TGWU.

2 MINUTES

2.1 Minutes of the previous meeting held 12th December 2001, having been previously circulated, were accepted and signed by the Chairman as a true record.

3 MATTERS ARISING

3.1 Noise Abatement Routes: Trevor Herron reported that LMA’s suggested change to a heading of 3000 in order to maintain a track of 3100 when experiencing a Westerly wind component, had been agreed with TDC. The process was awaiting implementation by lawyers and was expected to be in force within approximately two months. Alastair Robertson said the route was in operation, awaiting CAA sanction.

3.2 ILS Beam: Responding to Cllr Flaherty, Alastair Robertson stated that written procedure from the CAA was still awaited. It was expected that the ILS beam would be operational by the middle of the year. Cllr Flaherty expressed disappointment at yet another extension to the expected date of operation, through delays by the CAA. Alastair Robertson replied that procedures had been lodged with the CAA some six months previously. However, they had a backlog to deal with. Cllr Flaherty said he would continue to bring up the subject at each meeting.

4 SITUATION REPORT - Wiggins plc

4.1 Building works progress: Paul Tipple reported that the new concrete area had been officially handed over. Other work including the balancing tank and surface water system was in place, although the measuring equipment was not yet operational. Outstanding work on improved ground lighting and installation of the ILS beam was due for completion at an early date.

4.2 Business development:: Alastair Robertson reported an increase of 11% over the previous year, well above the industry norm of 6.5%. The number of cargo movements was down to 880 (est) from 915 last year, partly due to larger aircraft with greater capacity being employed. Fuel sales for March were estimated at 2,000,000 litres, resulting in total sales of around 24,500,000 for the year - compared with 23,139,896 for the previous 12 months.

4.2.1 The Chairman asked whether publicity that Mama Airlines were to start operating passenger flights from Manston in the near future was correct. Mr Robertson said it had been thought that new starter airlines would provide a better prospect than larger existing operators. Mama Airlines had been due to commence flights from Manston last October, then April, but difficulties had arisen since September 11th. However, the airline was recruiting staff and hoped to start operations either next October or in April 2003.

4.3 Other developments: Tony Freudmann said the Airport would shortly be announcing a very small number of redundancies at middle management level. The Airport was losing money, as indeed it had been expected to do for two or three years, but one or two business disappointments had to be taken into account - the loss of American passengers following the collapse of the Cruise line, and indirect impact of the events of September 11th. The TGWU had been consulted and discussions with members of staff affected would take place that week. The statutory minimum to which they were entitled would be enhanced. Mr Freudmann did not want to cause alarm. The Company was working to a well-modelled business plan, and was still expecting a substantial increase in cargo traffic, but if there were to be no passengers in the current year, the bottom line looked a little less promising that had been hoped.

5.3.1 Cllr Coppock, on behalf of Thanet District Council, was saddened by the news, but appreciated that costs had to be covered. He hoped that the future of the Airport would still bring the prosperity that was needed in Thanet.

5.3.2 Nicholas Cole wondered whether the staff cuts would affect the operation of the Complaints System, as his parishioners much preferred the manned telephone answering. Alastair Robertson hoped that the system would not be affected but would have to see how matters developed.

5 TDC RESPONSE to ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

5.1 Members agreed with the Chairman that most of the points raised during MACC’s previous discussion of the ES had been taken up in TDC’s response. The Chairman what action was now proposed as a follow-up.

5.2 Trevor Herron said two meetings had been held on the issues to be addressed, and agreement had been reached on how to proceed. Various studies had been commissioned which would lead to a more robust Environmental Statement later in the year when further planning applications were expected to be submitted.

5.3 Paul Tipple said that constructive debate had taken place on how to take forward issues that had emerged from the ES, and in addition to TDC’s formal comment, Wiggins had also taken into account the opinions expressed by MACC at the previous meeting. Essentially, the ES identified the need for further work in three broad areas:

 5.3.1 There was a need for significantly more work on Noise and Noise Management: Bickerdike Allen, specialist noise consultants, were to be engaged as main Noise Management Consultants alongside Manchester Airport to produce a solid document that would come before MACC for discussion. This work would consider the effects of noise generated by development of the Airport over the next five and ten years on the local environment. Noise contour maps for 2010 and 2015 had also been commissioned. Mr Tipple expected to be able to provide a substantial amount of information for the next MACC meeting.

5.3.2 Surface Access. Based on advice from Kent Highways and TDC, Wiggins were in the process of commissioning Babtie to produce a formal Traffic Impact Assessment over an initial period of ten years. This would embrace development of the Airport up to and including the building of a new passenger terminal and would also provide long term perspective for Kent County Council when considering their own transport strategies. This assessment would take about 3 to 4 months to produce.

5.3.3 Employment. Projections provided by Arthur D Little had been challenged by Professor Parry-Lewis in a public document. Further study by Wiggins and ADL in fact showed little difference in projections for direct employment. However, Wiggins were looking to commission further work on what indirect employment opportunities might be, together with an assessment of possible negative impact (i.e. tourism in Ramsgate decreasing as a result of noise pollution). This academic research would take 3 to 4 months to produce.

5.3.4 In response to John Elliott, who asked whether the proposed Westwood development would be taken into account, Trevor Herron said that TDC were undertaking studies into projected employment, housing, shopping, and traffic levels arising from all local development during the drawing up of the new version of the Local Plan. The public enquiry on the Local Plan would not take place until 2003, so there was still time for new developments and findings to be taken into account. The next major airport development would be an application for a new passenger terminal, which would require an Environmental Impact Assessment in its own right. 

5.3.5 The Chairman said it sounded as if we could expect a lot more work on environmental issues in the next 6 months. Paul Tipple agreed. Before any planning application, Wiggins intended to put into the public domain a Development Proposal detailing the scale of desired development of the Airport up to around 2008, including information about supporting aspects - environmental, surface access, employment etc. The public ,and MACC, would have an opportunity to comment on the proposal before a formal planning application was put forward.

5.3.6 Kelvin Holdom said Minster was concerned about the projection of 32,000 long term car parking spaces being required by 2015, occupying around 50 acres of land. Would fields on the approaches to the Airport become parking areas? Paul Tipple said Wiggins had no designs on any land in those areas and the aim was to provide parking on land that the company owned.

5.3.7 Leigh Herington said work had been started on the Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Completion of the studies outlined by Wiggins would be timely, as the information would be required to tie into the Structure Plan, for discussion before the run up to a public enquiry in 2003.

5.3.8 John Garland said mains services such as sewage, drainage, power etc., were sparse in the area. Which authority would take up these matters when a planning application was submitted? Paul Tipple explained that there was in force a Spatial Development Company which, with EU funding, was addressing the whole issue of utilities for East Kent, which would include the Airport. The Chairman elaborated that this was a cooperation between public and private sectors to ensure that utilities and infrastructure in this area were available to new investors. Trevor Herron said that it was a unique partnership that had been approved by Central Government and the EU and was looked on as a pilot project to be used in other areas.

5.3.9 Martin Tapp said the main concern in St Nicholas was noise. The working day seemed to be creeping up from 16-17hrs,When any further planning application came up, the parish would press TDC for formal exclusion of night flights. There was objection to moving 70% of airport activity over to the West side. Trevor Herron responded that the extra hour early morning was simply a provision to accommodate any transatlantic flights arriving, and European flights going out. Whilst he understood concerns about airport activity to the West, the Council had to take into account the number of people affected.

5.3.10 In conclusion, the Chairman said it was encouraging that further work had been commissioned and the Committee would look forward to receiving information at the next meeting.

6 LMA QUARTERLY STATISTICS - (figures tabled at meeting)

6.1 Before presentation of the statistics, the Chairman said there were two procedural matters to be discussed at the end of this item. A formal complaint had been received from Manston Airport Group that statistics were not being sent out with other meeting papers to enable members to discuss with their groups in advance. Alastair Robertson had requested that the Committee review exactly what information it needed as his staff were experiencing problems with providing resources to produce the statistics.

6.2 Mr Robertson then gave his presentation, which included the following points:

6.2.1 Runway Utilisation 2001: The target of 70% on Runway 28 and 30% on Runway 10, had not been met - utilisation being 62.51% (R28) and 37.49% (R10). Mr Robertson said this had been due to unseasonal weather during July and August with easterly winds. However, Figures showed that 78.6% departures of heavy aircraft had used Runway 28.

6.2.1.1 The Chairman commented that runway use seemed to be at the mercy of weather conditions, whereas TDC’s response to the ES (para 2.16) had argued that there needed to be a more strongly enforced regime of runway use.

6.2.1.2 Mr Robertson pointed out that the practise of larger airports to vary outward direction at various times of the day could not be put to use at Manston, due to the fleet mix. The larger older jet aircraft using Manston were going long range, and Manston’s runway caused some difficulty. Were there a longer runway, some flexibility might be possible.

6.3 Complaints: 419 complaints forms had been received in the quarter, generating a total of 747 complaints, of which 611 concerned noise and/or low flying. Unsurprisingly, 573 complaints came from residents of Ramsgate. Although the number of movements had fallen slightly in 2001, the number of complaints had risen. Mr Robertson did not think that any more could be done to reduce the number of complaints received. The Chairman thought it could be that more people were aware of the complaints procedures.

6.3.1 Martin Tapp asked how many complaints were considered to be worthy of investigation with pilots, or were they simply logged. Mr Robertson said that bearing in mind the Airport’s ability to record flight data was limited, total complaints regarding a particular aircraft or incident were collected, both from internal sources and from analysing individual complaints themselves. Where there was thought to be reason to believe there had been a problem, the airline would be notified, and the pilot questioned. However, as this process took time, it was unlikely that the pilot concerned would remember the circumstances precisely.

6.3.2 Barry Coppock felt that the information would become more important as the work of the Committee increased. To receive lists of hundreds of complaints was a waste of time and meaningless without support of the Airport to verify the facts. Cllr Coppock suggested a trial for the next couple of meetings where complaints that Alastair Robertson felt to be justified were highlighted. This would show that MACC was seen to be doing its job.

6.3.3 Dennis Hart said that Air Traffic Control logs would indicate deviations by pilots from specified routes.

6.3.4 Considerable discussion followed regarding complaints statistics and procedures including current lack of adequate tracking system, and lack of noise monitor readings. Some members felt the complaints figures were pointless until such time as aircraft could be tracked. The Chairman pointed out that on the Section 106 Compliancy Reports, the section Identified breaches and/or incidents under investigation always showed a nil return. Surely at some point there should be some incidents under investigation?

6.3.5 Mr Robertson said the Airport was not reluctant to pursue recalcitrant pilots. The amount of time the Complaints Procedure took was enormous - almost one person’s full-time job. But he would not harass pilots unless there was reason to believe they had committed some heinous crime. Sometimes an incident had been resolved, or not, within the period of the complaint, which may explain a nil return. All noise complaints had been investigated to some degree and he would not fill in boxes just to make MACC members feel better. Until the necessary equipment to investigate incidents was installed, it was difficult to make meaningful progress in what was a difficult and time-consuming process. Tracking equipment would record height and route. However, Mr Robertson pointed out that no decision had been made on what the route should be.

6.3.6 Trevor Herron thought the route had been informally agreed at an internal meeting a few months previously. Mr Robertson was waiting to hear from TDC regarding the extent of the margin to be allowed.

6.3.7 Mr Robertson pointed out that only around 1% of total complaints could be justified by a pilot’s performance. Most complaints were generated by a person’s view that an aircraft was noisy, low or smelly. Whilst understanding that people were disturbed by aircraft, there was not much that could be done apart from altering flight paths or the operation parameters of an aircraft, but such action simply moved the disturbance from one area to another. Most complaints would not be eliminated by the installation of tracking equipment.

6.4 Mr Robertson continued his presentation with the 11 movements attracting most complaints for the quarter. Apart from training flights which had generated repeated complaints from the same few individuals, most of these had been late evening or night flights. Contrary to complaints made to Cllr Flaherty (from the Canterbury area), there had been no Virgin training flights during the period. Mr Robertson could not respond to such complaints unless they were made directly to the Airport.

6.4.1 Cllr Flaherty felt that until such time as new tracking equipment was installed, presentation of complaints statistics was a waste of time and should be discontinued.

6.4.2 Nicholas Cole strongly disagreed. Complaints should continue to be recorded. The route out over Monkton was causing problems. He had photographic evidence of aircraft flying some distance from the designated route. On Sunday 24th March 2002 a small fighter plane had overflown the village 10 times within an hour. This was quite unacceptable.

6.4.3 Whilst sympathising with Alastair Robertson, Brian Lear said that TDC and the Committee did require information about actual incidents to get a better feel of unusual events. How much control did the Airport have? Although a great deal of information was being produced, it was not a great help at the present time. Once new equipment was in place, a database could be established to build upon.

6.4.4 John Garland noted that a high percentage of complaints concerned training flights. Were these not more controllable? Over Birchington and Westgate, aircraft often flew perpendicular to the coastline. The Virgin training flights did not cause problems in the Birchington area as the aircraft was modern and had gained considerable height 

 6.5 The Chairman said there were obviously problems that needed to be sorted out. Alastair Robertson had real difficulty in identifying routes and the Committee did not want to impose unreasonable burdens on airport staff. However there was evidence that the figures being supplied did not reflect those cases that obviously did happen, as there was plenty of direct evidence from residents, where flights may have gone off track. Without trying to run up a system of breaches and penalties - which could not be done anyway at present - it would seem that the Committee did want to see some evidence that there are some cases of irregularity that are at least being investigated. The answer would appear to be that a sub-group be set up which could address the issue.

6.5.1 Bob Bayford, whilst agreeing with the Chairman, felt there should also be more robust treatment of the many complaints that were unjustified.

6.5.2 Dennis Hart said the Airport was obliged to list all complaints and put it into the public domain. Perhaps in future the Committee could have particular complaints deemed as valid and only those reported on at meetings.

6.5.3 Brian Lear felt that what the Committee needed to do was to identify the key requirements from the Airport on this matter. New equipment would provide the ability to control noise, pollution etc. for say 5 years ahead.

6.6 Paul Tipple agreed that there were fundamental issues that needed to be addressed, the most important of which was the acquisition of new radar to the extent that it was feasible to start employing suitable software techniques used at established airports. However, it was important to decide now what the Committee wanted to do with such information when it became available. Mr Tipple felt that far too much was being asked at the moment, without the required technology, and the discussion was being held in a vacuum.

6.7 The Chairman said the complaints mechanism was laid down in DTLR guidelines, yet there were serious limits on what could be deduced from it. To supply the total number of complaints was an obligation, and they had been used, albeit erroneously, by Arthur D Little in their projections. The trend and pattern of complaints was useful as it showed which incidents had caused most disturbance in a period. The Chairman suggested repeating the meeting held between himself, Thanet District Council and Mr Robertson the previous September, to try to produce solutions to the problems aired and bring them back to the next meeting. ACTION: CHAIRMAN

6.7.1 Alastair Robertson said that if the purpose of that meeting would be to review the amount of material that he had to produce to MACC, he would be happy to agree. However, he could not put too much human resource into thrashing the issue of complaints to death as had been done round the table that afternoon. 6.8 Finally, the Chairman, whilst understanding the difficulties, felt that statistics should be made available for circulation with meeting papers. The complaint from Manston Airport Group was not the only one that had been made on this matter. Mr Robertson said that, whilst trying to comply, there were, unfortunately, times when there were matters that occupied LMA’s minds that had a higher priority than necessarily getting the documents produced on time.

7 SECTION 106 AGREEMENT COMPLIANCY

7.1 Green Travel Strategy: The Chairman reported that as only three members had responded to the GTS, the individual replies had been forwarded to TDC. Trevor Herron reported that the document was due to be put before Cabinet for discussion on 4th/5th April.

7.2 Noise Monitoring: 

7.2.1 Paul Tipple reported that the mobile monitor installed East of the runway on the roof of Clarendon School in Ramsgate had been operating since September 2001.

7.2.2 As for the Western end, Wiggins had eventually traced the owner of the optimum site for a fixed monitor near the Monkton roundabout, The landowner had finally agreed to a site some 500m to the west of the point specified in regulations. Planning application was being submitted to Thanet District Council for the new site. As the site was not ideal, it would be necessary to factor in certain adjustments in order to obtain true decibel readings.

7.2.3 Although six months worth of readings from the Clarendon School monitor existed, these now had to be manually correlated to actual aircraft movements before it could be determined what was done with that information. In the time that had been available, it had not been possible to carry out the correlations. Manchester Airport consultancy, together with TDC needed to discuss what the information would be used for. It was hoped a meeting would take place shortly after Easter. It was also necessary for the Committee to decide what it wanted to do with noise monitor readings as that would determine format required from Manchester Airport.

7.2.3.1 Brian Lear agreed that a meeting was necessary to decide what was required for the next 5 years or so.

7.2.4 The Chairman recalled that at the last MACC meeting, when David Foote of Manchester Airport had asked what information was required, Trevor Herron had requested technical data for TDC and a layman’s version for the Committee. The Chairman asked members, and in particular the community representatives, to confirm that they needed to know:

7.2.4.1 whether the 16hr Leq continuous contours already produced were confirmed by noise monitor readings and

7.2.4.2 the decibel levels of peak noise caused by individual aircraft..

7.2.4.3 Paul Martin confirmed that readings showing peak noise could be produced.

7.2.4.4 In answer to Nick Denyer, Paul Tipple stated that the 16hr readings registered actual aircraft movements, which were averaged over the 16hr period. The Chairman agreed that this was standard procedure at UK airports, but with few, noisy aircraft currently using Manston, may not give an accurate impression of actual disturbance.

7.2.4.5 Paul Martin stated that where there were 30 (or less) movements during the 16hr period, an average reading would not be indicative of the actual noise level experienced. The monitoring results from Clarendon School over the past six months were extremely important, as the computer modelling that was being done for the future included some corrections to allow for the fact that not every aircraft type and variation was available on computer models. Data from the actual measurements would enable checks to be made on those corrections. Therefore the sooner the consultants received that data, the better the quality of contours would be in the future.

7.2.5 Paul Tipple confirmed that he would be organising an early meeting so that a meaningful dossier relating to noise, including contours, could be presented to the Committee.

7.2.6 Trevor Herron stated that the original requirement was that a long-term fixed monitor be installed on Clarendon School, with a second to the West, and a mobile monitor available to TDC for use at sensitive sites. What was stopping the permanent monitor being installed at Clarendon, thus releasing the temporary monitor to some other site to the West to enable information to be obtained without delay?

7.2.6.1 Paul Tipple was not disposed to site the portable monitor in a field as it might disappear. If TDC wanted to use the portable monitor, he was happy to install the permanent monitor on Clarendon School. At the moment, however, there was no requirement to do so.

7.2.6.2 Brian Lear agreed that once the meeting had been held to ascertain exactly what information was required, the most useful siting of monitors could then be decided.

7.2.7 Nicholas Cole asked whether the siting of the Monkton monitor at some 500m from desired position was closer to the road. Alastair Robertson pointed out that the precise position was open to adjustment.

7.3 Noise Insulation: The Chairman remarked that the Airport Owners were required within two years (i.e. by 26 September 2002) to submit a detailed scheme of noise insulation, and asked whether Wiggins had plans for this. Paul Tipple confirmed that the “bones” of a scheme were already being put together in consultation with Manchester Airport.

8 PHASING OUT OF CHAPTER 2 AIRCRAFT - MARCH 31st 2002

8.1 Steve Anderson, MK Airlines, confirmed that some older Stage 2 aircraft, including MK’s 50 series DC8s, all Ilyushin 76s, and old 707s would not be able to fly in UK on or after March 31st 2002. In addition, unmodified Chapter 2 aircraft would similarly be unable to fly in European airspace.

8.2 MK Airlines hoped, and expected, that the number of complaints generated by their earlier aircraft would substantially reduce.

8.3 Chapter 4 was due to come into force in 2007. Many of the planes currently in use at Manston would continue to be operated for the next five years.

8.4 Answering Martin Tapp, Alastair Robertson explained two exceptions. Firstly, if an aircraft of a banned category required maintenance, the airline company could apply to the CAA for permission to bring it in to UK. It could not carry cargo or passengers in or out. Secondly, if the aircraft were going to carry humanitarian aid out of UK, it may position in empty. It was unlikely that this situation would ever occur, as these aircraft would be banned from all European airspace, and it would not be financially viable for them to use LMA.

9 DISMANTLING OF AIRCRAFT ON NORTHERN GRASS

9.1 Trevor Herron reported the result of the appeal lodged by Wiggins. No more than 2 aircraft in any 12 month period could be dismantled on the site, and not more than one at any one time; such dismantling to take no longer than six weeks. This exception was needed in case an unserviceable aircraft became stranded at LMA.

10 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.1 The Secretary asked for e mail addresses of any members who were not currently receiving committee papers by this method. It would be helpful if the Airport and TDC would automatically use this form of communication, which saved a considerable amount of time and money.

11 DATE OF NEXT MEETING - End of June to be notified. There being no further business, the meeting closed at 4.45pm.

 MIN 3/02

KIACC INDEX