MANSTON AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

1.1 For absence had been received from: Tony Freudmann Wiggins plc; Richard Nicholson Thanet District Council (Alan Poole attending as alternate); Barry Coppock Thanet DC; John Fullarton Kent County Council; Leigh Herington Kent County Council; Pete Binding MAG (Jocelyn McCarthy alternate); Stephen Sadler SEEDA; Tony Gould

1.2 The Chairman had heard that John Elliott from Pfizer had recently taken early retirement due to ill-health. If this was established, it was agreed that the Chairman write to John on behalf of the Committee. ACTION AJH

2.1 The Department of Transport had asked for a correction to item 8.3, Chapter 4 was due to come into force in 2006, not 2007 as Mr Anderson had said. With this amendment, the Minutes were accepted and signed by the Chairman as a true record.

3.1 Noise Abatement Routes: Trevor Herron reported that finalisation of the agreement was awaiting the advice of lawyers. Alastair Robertson confirmed that meanwhile the route was in operation, awaiting CAA sanction.

3.2 ILS Beam: Cllr Flaherty expressed disappointment at yet another extension to the expected date of operation, through delays by the CAA. Alastair Robertson stated that the CAA had now set a start date of June 2002. June, and he hoped to receive written procedure by October 2002. Mr Robertson would pursue the CAA for an up to date report on progress. Cllr Flaherty was relieved to hear that the process had started. He pointed out that had he known in the first place that it would take some 2.5yrs to install the beam, he would have reported to Canterbury City Council accordingly.

3.3 Nicholas Cole asked how many redundancies had been made at LMA. Mr Robertson reported that 9 full time posts had been cut, but 5 of the staff involved had been redeployed. In addition about one third of the 17 part time staff had had their working hours significantly reduced.

3.4 March minutes Item 9. In response to Martin Tapp, Alastair Robertson confirmed that the three aircraft parked on the Northern Grass were not to be dismantled.

4.5 Building works progress: Paul Tipple reported that building work on the new taxiway was essentially complete. Other work was continuing satisfactorily on aprons on the other side of the Airport. Airport lighting system was nearing completion.

4.5.1 The Chairman said that the Environment Agency had reported that they had drafted a survey of the mudflats at Pegwell, and once this had been finalised, sampling of the effluent would be undertaken.

4.6 Business development: Mr Tipple said that discussions were still taking place with passenger airlines, and he was reasonably optimistic that by Spring 2003, passenger traffic would be operating at Manston.

4.6.1 Cargo business continued to prosper, with tonnage figures continuing to rise. This was encouraging, particularly as the new business used quieter (747) aircraft.

4.6.2 In reply to Jocelyn McCarthy (MAG), Alastair Robertson confirmed that Mama Airlines were still hoping to operate three passenger flights per day out of Manston, by April 2003, to 2 or 3 popular tourist destinations in the Mediterranean. As the current climate was not conducive to investors, Mr Robertson could not be totally optimistic. Talks were also in progress with two other passenger airlines, making aspirations for passenger traffic not reliant on Mama Airlines.

4.6.3 Nick Cole asked the reason for the decrease in light movements of 20% in April, and 23% in May. Mr Robertson said this was mainly due to weather conditions.

5.1 Amended Presentation: The Chairman reported that at a meeting between himself, Alastair Robertson, and TDC officers, Mr Robertson had suggested a slightly refined presentation, which the Chairman had not thought necessary to put before Members before the committee meeting. What had been regarded as non-essential items had been removed, and Mr Robertson had given an undertaking to issue the statistics in good time for circulation with Agenda papers. The Chairman asked for comments.

5.1.1 Cllr Barry Coppock, unable to be present, had submitted written comments. He thanked Alastair Robertson for the changes in data provided, in particular aircraft related activity between 2300 and 0700hrs. Cllr Coppock had noted that two incidents that breached Noise Abatement Procedures were under investigation, and hoped that MACC would be provided with details of the outcome, and any action subsequently initiated. Why had an Air Atlanta flight on 27 March at 0952 resulted in 11 complaints? Does the Airport seek to determine whether there was a pattern of complaints against a particular aircrew? If there were, would LMA require the airline to ensure that any such pilot/crew did not cause any greater level of complaint than any other? If the airport did hold data on complaints against particular aircraft and/or crews, should not MACC be made aware of this? Cllr Coppock believed his comments were fundamental to maintaining public support for the development of London Manston.

5.1.2 Nick Cole welcomed the refined presentation, but repeated his previous request for comparative figures from previous quarters. Alastair Robertson agreed to supply this. ACTION AR

5.1.3 Alastair Robertson hoped that a situation had been arrived at where LMA was providing the information MACC required, within the framework that could practicably be produced. He then presented the statistics (previously circulated to members).

5.2 Complaints: The 331 complaints forms submitted during the quarter had generated 668 complaints from a total of 36 complainants. Total number of aircraft including helicopters and light aircraft, had been 5048. Total number of heavy aircraft arrivals and departures, 585. The arrival of Air Atlanta aircraft at 09.52hrs 27th March (referred to by Cllr Coppock above) had generated 11 complaints, mostly from Birchington, Monkton and Minster. Investigation had shown that a 747 had suffered brake seizure on landing, causing 2 other aircraft to circle at around 1,000ft. until the runway could be cleared. Mr Robertson did not consider that the policy of not using reverse thrust had contributed to the brake seizure.

5.2.1 John Garland asked if LMA had any control over the flight policy of light aircraft? Alastair Robertson said it would be possible to introduce the same procedures for light aircraft but the number of complaints these generated was very small. Cllr Garland said that light aircraft and helicopters did cause disturbance; there was also the question of safety; he felt that single engined helicopters should be banned from flying over residential areas at low altitude. Mr Robertson explained that the helicopter operation was situated in the adjacent Business Park, over which LMA had no control. However, the helicopter operator welcomed copies of complaints, and Mr Robertson agreed with the Chairman’s suggestion that complaints be made direct to that company. Mr Robertson would supply the Secretary with a contact number. ACTION AR

5.2.2 Dennis Hart elaborated on the comments received from Cllr Coppock, to which Mr Robertson responded that as hundreds of complaints were reviewed, it was not possible to be definitive. Investigations were based on information from the relevant controller/pilot. LMA did keep a list of pilots involved in investigations to establish any trends. Without the requisite equipment, it was not possible to have to hand the information that Cllr Coppock, and indeed everyone, would like.

5.2.3 The Chairman thought it was generally understood round the table that it was not possible for LMA to act in the same way as more established airports because of the current lack of equipment.

5.2.3.1 Cllr Flaherty seemed to remember that at a previous meeting, Paul Tipple had said the new radar equipment was expected by Summer 2003. Mr Tipple did not recall making such a statement, but confirmed that it took eighteen months to design and commission a system and he had not yet placed an order.

5.2.4 Alastair Robertson confirmed the Chairman’s statement that a fine of £1,000 had been paid following a breach of the S106 procedures. LMA had received a request that an aircraft could depart at 23.30hrs for commercial, as opposed to humanitarian reasons. LMA had agreed on condition that the airline operator paid the fine.

5.2.4.1 The Chairman said that the S106 Agreement provided for specific fines for individual night flights where appropriate.

5.2.4.2 Cllr Flaherty had thought the intention was to avoid any flights after 23.00hrs unless humanitarian. £1,000 was a small item in a profit margin, and he hoped that the position would not arise where operators found it commercially viable to fly after hours and pay a fine, which would not affect their profits, thereby opening up the floodgates to night flying.

5.2.4.3 Alastair Robertson said the Airport’s interpretation of the S106 Agreement was that it allowed for night flights by heavy aircraft between 23.00 and 07.00 hrs under two circumstances: up to 12 humanitarian flights per annum, without penalty, irrespective of timing; and occasional irregular night flights for commercial reasons, providing no pattern was set i.e. the same operator over a certain period of time. Mr Robertson confirmed that of the 21 night flights during the quarter, 18 had been HM Coastguard light aircraft. Since 1990 there had been one commercial and 4 humanitarian flights between 23.00 and 07.00hrs. Numerous requests had been received from operators prepared to pay the fine for night flying, but only one had been granted during the period being reported on. This showed that LMA were aware of the loophole and tried to ensure that it was not abused. The one commercial flight that had been given permission to fly out of hours had a highly perishable cargo.

5.2.4.4 Martin Tapp had also been concerned about this “loophole” and was much relieved at what Mr Robertson had said. Mr Tapp underlined the fact that most complaints concerned late flights and residents’ obvious objection to night flying should be borne in mind as development of the Airport continued.

5.2.5 Nick Cole was concerned about the adjacent helicopter operation and asked if Thanet District Council had any control over this. Trevor Herron said there was a growing trend in helicopter flights. TDC had not imposed a Section 106 agreement, and did not contemplate doing so. Nick Cole asked why, then, were such flights recorded. Alastair Robertson explained that some military helicopter movements came into the Airport, but figures did not include commercial helicopter flights.

5.2.5.1 John Garland thought that to be a waste of time as LMA did not have any control over military pilots. Alastair Robertson said LMA did have control over airspace to 3,000ft within 2.5km of the Airport. Nobody could fly into that area without authority. Military helicopters were asked to avoid low flying over Ramsgate whenever possible. Replying to Martin Tapp’s query on regulations, Mr Robertson stated that fixed wing aircraft were not permitted to fly below 1,500ft over built-up areas; helicopters were limited to 1,000ft; except during take off and landing.

5.2.6 There was a further inconclusive discussion of whether the date of Summer 2003 had previously been mentioned for installation of a new radar system. The subject came up a third time at the end of the meeting.

6.1 Green Travel Strategy: Thanet District Council’s response (previously circulated to MACC members.)

6.1.1 Trevor Herron explained that the concept had been that the Airport would produce a Green Travel Strategy, and each and every development that came forward would produce a Green Travel Plan to demonstrate compliance with the GTS.

6.1.2 TDC felt that the target set for employee travel was slightly ambitious, and should be 20% by the year 2010.

6.1.3 A quality partnership should be established to ensure minimum disturbance to villages close to the airport that might be affected.

6.1.4 Mr Herron said that Wiggins had accepted TDC’s comments. A final version of the document was close to completion. This would then be put before TDC Cabinet, Dover District Council and Canterbury City Council.

6.2 Noise Monitoring: (noise monitor readings were circulated round the table)

6.2.1 Paul Tipple reported that readings that had been taken had all utilised the mobile monitoring equipment. Within days, the fixed monitor would be positioned on the roof of Clarendon School, and the mobile monitor passed across to TDC who were currently drafting a protocol for its use. Mr Tipple felt there were ways it could be used more constructively than, say, in a private garden to simply test out a noise, important though that was. It could, for example, be used for testing out new noise abatement routes before putting them into place. It was that type of issue that the protocol would hopefully tease out.

6.2.2 The Western monitor was now to be located in the car park at St Nicholas. This was a more suitable site that the one previously pursued. A formal revision for planning approval had been submitted to Thanet District Council for the new site. Mr Tipple confirmed the Chairman’s understanding that this site was directly in line with the flightpath but slightly further than the recommended distance from start of roll.

6.2.3 Referring to the Noise Level Report submitted, Mr Tipple explained that actual monitor readings had been correlated to the logs (held by the Airport) of arriving/departing aircraft. From that exercise it had been possible to identify peak noise events prompted by departures and arrivals expressed in average maximum decibel level over the past five months, i.e. the Report identified peak noise of aircraft flying over the noise monitor terminal.

6.2.3.1 The Report clearly showed a reduction in peak noise activity since January due firstly to efforts by the Airport authority to limit noise-intrusive aircraft, plus the move from Chapter 2 to Chapter 3-compliant aircraft. Readings for April and May showed an expected downward trend.

6.2.3.2 Mr Tipple said this first set of readings identified what the key elements of future strategy should be for management of noise. Focus should be on working with airline operators to establish their fleet mix plans for the next 5-10 years, recognising that over the next 4 years, the airline industry would be working towards the Chapter 4 situation. There was a need to establish whether airline operators’ plans for improved fleet mixes would actually see further reductions in overall peak noise activity.

6.2.3.3 The Report demonstrated in decibel terms the maximum noise levels. Newer aircraft now using Manston would significantly reduce the average maximum noise impact. Further, as passenger operations, which used quieter engined aircraft, commenced, the noise footprint would start to contract.

6.2.3.4 Mr Tipple thought there was now a basis on which LMA and TDC, in consultation with MACC, could begin to structure a decent strategy for managing noise.

6.2.4 In answer to Nick Cole’s query concerning the Monkton monitor, Alastair Robertson reported that planning permission was awaited from TDC. The monitor would be positioned at 6,700m or 6,800m from start of roll, rather than the recommended 6,500m. Nick Cole doubted that the car park was the centre point, but Mr Robertson said Manchester Airport Consultancy had plotted the site. Mr Cole still maintained that aircraft flew nearer Monkton than the St Nicholas roundabout, and therefore would not fly over the monitor. Paul Martin said that if one compared the position of the monitor with the noise contours that had been based on flightpaths, it was dead centre. Nick Cole said the noise contours assumed that aircraft actually followed that pattern, whereas in fact on many occasions they flew directly over the school. He proposed that the mobile monitor be installed at St Nicholas School until the fixed monitor was installed.

6.2.5 Martin Tapp welcomed the Report. He would be delighted if the mobile monitor were located at St Nicholas school, but did not totally agree with Nick Cole regarding flightpaths actually taken by pilots. He asked how much spread there was at 6,500m. He thought that an average maximum decibel level of 94.7 was very high bearing in mind that until all extremely noisy aircraft were phased out, actual maximum levels were occasionally much higher than 94.7 decibels. Mr Tapp requested that actual maximum levels were shown in addition to the overall average.

6.2.5.1 Paul Tipple understood these concerns. The Airport owners were keeping their obligation under the S106 Agreement by which they were required to demonstrate a 5% reduction in noise, and figures presented to the Committee showed progress towards achieving that, recognising that a full year’s readings were not yet completed. Secondly, as many would have read, reprieves were being given across the continent of Europe to the reintroduction of Illyushin 76 and older Chapter 2 aircraft. Umpteen requests had been received from airline operators wanting to reintroduce these aircraft to Manston. Notwithstanding the fact that the airport continued to make a financial loss (although that situation was improving), all such requests had been refused. Mr Tipple felt that this was a clear demonstration of the Airport owners’ commitment to reduce noise.

6.2.6 John Garland wondered why noise levels of arrivals up until May had been higher than departures. Paul Tipple explained that noise levels varied with aircraft type, payload etc. and Trevor Herron confirmed that as arrivals approach at a lower angle therefore being at low height for a longer period of time, more noise is generated. The CAA had stated that arriving aircraft were now noisier than departures.

6.2.7 Martin Tapp asked for more details of the current situation following the rescinding of the EU directive. Alastair Robertson said the situation was somewhat vague. On 31 March, Chapter 3 regulations had come into being and Chapter 2 aircraft were now prevented from flying in European airspace except for (a) maintenance and (b) to carry out aid flights for humanitarian relief. Thereafter, considerable pressure had been put upon individual governments to identify specific airports within their national boundaries that might be suitable for taking noisier aircraft. Hahn, Ostend and an airport in France, all in the middle of nowhere, had been identified as being able to accept, if airline operators so chose, such aircraft without detriment to the local environment. LMA had been asked by airlines if the Airport would like to put itself forward as an airport suitable for those circumstances. London Manston had declined the offer.

6.2.7.1 Mr Robertson added that if an airline operator wanted to bring an aircraft into any airport in the European community, for maintenance, they were required to seek approval from the CAA who may grant exemption to fly Chapter 2 aircraft to an airport for maintenance purposes. LMA had received 2 or 3 such requests. This was something that, as far as Mr Robertson understood, an Airport could not refuse.

6.2.8 The Chairman said it was clear that the arrival of the first noise monitor readings was regarded by the Committee as a significant advance. He hoped TDC would be able, as quickly as possible, to grant planning permission for the siting of the second noise monitor. He asked that TDC take into consideration the request that the mobile monitor be used in the interim to take readings, for example at St Nicholas School.

6.2.8.1 Trevor Herron thought it likely that there would be many requests for use of the mobile monitor, and he felt there was a need to agree criteria beforehand.

6.2.8.2 The Chairman had thought it a reasonable suggestion as, before the Eastern point at Clarendon School had been identified, the mobile monitor had been used there. He thought that principle could logically be used at the Western end without anticipating the provision of the protocol.

6.2.8.3 Paul Tipple suggested he took the suggestion to Manchester Airport consultancy for professional advice on what it might produce. If that looked useful, he was, in principle, happy to comply. ACTION PT

6.2.9 Responding to the Chairman, Paul Tipple confirmed that final checks were being made to validate the 16hr continuous Leqs produced from the new readings Mr Tipple would report results to the next meeting. ACTION PT

6.3 Noise Insulation: Paul Tipple confirmed that professional advice had been taken from Manchester Airport, who, he understood ran one of the country’s better noise insulation schemes.

6.3.8 Following the norm of the aviation industry, people living within the 63db 16hr Leq contour would be eligible for support for the installation of noise insulation. Standard practice was for an Airport to commission a company to install such systems and make technical assessments to ascertain appropriate levels of insulation. It was also the norm that householders would be expected to pay 20% towards costs. Taking the 63db contour that was produced for the Environmental Statement, and on the assumption that final checks on actual noise readings confirmed this, the area initially eligible for grants would be the houses at the north tip of Cliffsend. The area would be clearly delineated once it was clear where the boundary lines were. The scheme was on target for September 2002.

6.4 Surface Access: Paul Tipple reported that, in order to provide the required Traffic Impact Assessment, various measuring devices had been installed on roads surrounding the Airport, and the actual monitoring work was in hand. Kent CC, Kent Highways and TDC had been involved to ensure that the scoping conformed to their requirements. Although previous studies had been undertaken, these had not studied the impact of development of the Airport on trunk roads from the East, nor on the road network to the North and NE of Manston. As a result there was no baseline case from which to assess the impact of the growth of the Airport and no historical data.

6.4.1 It was necessary as a first phase to establish the existing level of traffic running through that road network and make an assessment of the Airport’s existing impact, in relation to both freight and associated business traffic. Once this was in place, it would then be possible to assess the impact of a projected throughput of 1.5m passengers together with associated employee and service traffic, and cargo throughput of some 250,000 tonnes.

6.4.2 By progressively identifying the impact and graduating that over a period of time, it would be possible to project exact thresholds at which certain aspects of the Airport’s development would necessitate surface access improvements. This would ensure that the necessary surface access improvements were in place before the Airport development itself.

6.4.3 Babtie would then take a longer term view of what the impact would be at a 4m passenger mark.

6.4.4 Mr Tipple hoped that this work would be finished by September 2002.

6.4.5 Cllr Flaherty asked whether Canterbury City Council and Dover District Council were included in the Kent Highways consultation. Trevor Herron replied that although neither Canterbury nor Dover Highway Management Units had been consulted, Kent Highways should operate in response to those two units.

6.4.6 Paul Tipple pointed out that the assessment was in research mode and there was a need to establish facts and receive considered advice. He had no doubt that Kent Highways had taken into account all interested parties in order that the assessment was as thorough as it could be. There would thereafter be the opportunity to put all pieces of the jigsaw together, take a Kent-wide view, particularly an East Kent view, of the overall impact of the road highway network. At that point, a sensible discussion could be had on how to handle the basic facts.

6.5 Pollution Monitoring: Paul Martin from Thanet District Council’s Environmental Health Department, gave a presentation explaining the air quality assessments being carried out around Thanet.

6.5.1 The Environment Act required Councils to monitor air quality. In Kent this was done through an air monitoring partnership, the first in the country. Kent County Council and local authorities across the county joined together for funding and to share information.

6.5.2 Passive monitors, which were cheap to install and simple to analyse, could spot long term trends and pick out hot spots on a monthly basis. They did not register peaks such as rush hour traffic. Results from these monitors were forwarded to MACC.

6.5.3 Real time monitors showed instant results such as monitoring traffic pollution at schools. Results were more difficult to read, the monitors were costly to run, and had a high capital cost necessitating secure sites.

6.5.4 In common with other airports, monitoring at Manston would record air quality from engine emissions, engine testing, paint spraying and stripping, construction vehicles, fuel operations and surface traffic. The Fire Training School was also under consideration as a potential site. Monitoring at the Airport would be proportionate to the scale of operations. As these increased, so would the level of monitoring.

6.5.5 The aim was to establish a baseline and look at long-term changes.

6.5.6 A monitor was now operational at Windermere Avenue under the approach path, to measure benzene, nitro-oxides and a wide range of pollutants from aviation fuel.

6.5.7 Monitoring was partly government funded with help from Wiggins with running costs.

6.5.8 Once it had been established that results were stable, these would be presented at each MACC meeting. An annual report would also be produced.

8.1 The Chairman stated that a cheque for £1,000 had been made out to Thanet District Council as payment of the fine mentioned in 5.2.4 above. This was being held until a Trust Fund had been established. The Chairman proposed the following action:

7.1.1 Thanet District Council manage the fund on behalf of MACC in a definable separate account to earn some level of interest.

7.1.2 A fund committee of 6 or seven MACC members be set up, including a representative from Canterbury and Dover, but essentially communities within Thanet, particularly those adjacent to the Airport. A representative of Wiggins and/or the Airport should be included.

7.1.3 The Trust Fund Committee conduct the majority of its business by correspondence.

7.1.4 Ground rules to be drawn up as to how money might be spent. Guidance suggested that monies should be spent on community projects with an environmental connotation, aiming at an amount of a few hundred pounds per time.

7.1.5 Any amount of money granted to be matched.

7.2 It was agreed that the Chairman draft proposals on the above lines. The Chairman suggested that community representatives give some thought to suitable projects in their areas that might qualify, if they applied, for expenditure of that kind. Details would be circulated to members. ACTION AJH

7.3 Paul Tipple said that when Wiggins came to consider putting its sponsorship programme in place, he would be happy to look at opportunities for that sponsorship to reinforce some of the projects.

8.1 Paul Tipple announced that the Minister for Aviation had agreed to officially open the apron and taxiway. Invitations were being sent out to all MACC members to attend from 11am - 2pm on 1st August.

8.2 Cllr Flaherty asked that, were he to find from previous minutes that the statement had been made that new radar equipment would be installed by Summer 2003, Wiggins would issue a formal statement as to the current position.

8.2.1 Paul Tipple pointed out that it took 18 months to develop a radar facility, to design and introduce it into a particular airport. New systems involving both primary and secondary radar cost £5m - £6m - not an easy decision at the current stage of the Airport’s development, notwithstanding the importance of having the facilities that a new system would provide. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would understand why, at that stage, it was extremely difficult for him, or any representative of Wiggins, to give a firm date as to when they might be able to commission that work.

8.3 Trevor Herron referred to the Government’s study of airports in the South East due to be produced last year. Latest date for publication was 22nd July 2002. This was a very important document. TDC would prepare a report on the document for MACC to consider.

8.3.1 Dennis Hart said there would be a very short consultation period and felt that a special meeting of MACC should be held, as the Government Study would be of significance to Manston Airport.

8.3.2 The Chairman reported that KCC Transport Committee had done its own research into Manston in preparation of this Report. Paul Tipple, Alastair Robertson, Trevor Herron (on behalf of TDC), representatives of Canterbury and Dover Councils, and himself (as Chairman of MACC) had been asked to give evidence. The Chairman had made the point that there could not be a consensus of opinion of the committee in view of the varied interests involved, but had given what he had thought was a general community view.

8.3.2.1 Regarding the consultation period for the Government Report, the Chairman doubted whether the issues involved were ones on which MACC would be able to comment as they were likely to be strategic issues. He felt that once the Report had been published, a decision could be made as to what, if any, action needed to be taken.

8.3.3. In response to Martin Tapp, Paul Tipple having spoken to DFT, thought the Report would be very large and consist mostly of statistics, maps and photographs. He had been assured however that the intention was to preserve the original time period for consultation. That would give a respectable amount of time in which to reflect upon what the Report actually said, and to offer a considered response. Mr Tipple had requested from DFT that a copy be sent direct to the committee secretary.

9.1 It was agreed that suggested dates for the September and December meetings be circulated with these minutes, the September meeting to be held in the evening and open to the public as observers.

9.2 It was further agreed that at the December meeting, dates for all four meetings for 2003 be fixed in advance.

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 4.40pm.

INDEX        MACC INDEX

KIACC INDEX