M-A-G  MACC INFO  WIGGINS TDC MP's LINKS  NEW OOP's                          If you want to make comments or find out more about the Manston Airport Group, email on 
g r o u p @ m - a - g. f s n e t. c o. u k  or post to P.O. Box 311, Ramsgate CT11 9XL. ALL enquiries are confidential.

2. MATTERS ARISING
   

3. BRIEFING by CHAIRMAN
    3.1 For the benefit of new members, the Chairman outlined the formation of the Committee and its purpose as a forum for discussion in accordance with guidelines issued by the Department for Transport.
     3.2 He emphasised that all members represented organisations and had a duty both to bring the views of their organisations to the table and to report back to them on proceedings. Enquiries received by the Chairman and Secretary had suggested that in some areas little such dialogue was taking place.
     3.3The guidelines issued by the DfT were currently under review. Most of the proposed changes involved procedures that MACC already followed. (see item 8)

5. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
    5.1 For the benefit of new members, Paul Tipple outlined what Wiggins had achieved and hoped to achieve at the airport. He described how the Section 106 Agreement placed certain obligations on the Airport in terms of growing the business and providing the necessary supporting arrangements, including for example the establishment of the MACC, noise management, strategic master planning and the development of an environmental statement.
    5.2 The Airport’s strategic master plan had been based on an exhaustive piece of research conducted by Arthur D Little. That had concluded that the Airport could expect to see passenger traffic of between 4-6 million passengers in the mid-term with the potential to attract 10 and 15 million passengers in the longer term if the acknowledged shortfall in runway capacity were to persist until 2020. Independent studies conducted on behalf of the local and county authorities had reached similar conclusions about Manston’s mid-term potential for passenger traffic. The draft local plan for Thanet and Kent County Council’s draft Structure Plan reflected these projections and acknowledged Manston as having the potential to become a major cargo airport facility serving the South East.
    5.3 In respect of development on the Business Park, Mr Tipple referred to the recent application from Invicta Produce Ltd for planning consent to construct a warehouse to process fruit and vegetables from Kent farmers, and in time to provide the opportunity to process fruit/vegetables flown in to Manston from abroad.
    5.4 In parallel the Airport was pressing ahead with the creation of a Border Inspection Post that would allow for the importation of meat/fish produce and serve as a ‘Gateway’ into the EU. It was hoped that the new facility would be operational by the turn of the year.
    5.5 On environmental issues the Airport was working closely with the Environment Agency in conducting further dye tests of surface water runoff and its eventual discharge into Pegwell Bay. Also, Wiggins had commissioned a mud flats sample survey at Pegwell Bay to establish the impact of its discharge on the microbiology of the area.
    5.6 Ron Flaherty asked whether there had been any development in securing passenger flights. Mr Tipple stated that discussions that had been adjourned due to the Iraq war had now resumed.
    5.7 Bernard Clayson asked when the company would produce an Environmental Impact Assessment, rather than an environmental statement.
        5.7.1 Trevor Herron explained that environmental statements were produced by developers and submitted to the local authority, whereas Environmental Impact Assessments were produced by local authorities. In this case, a draft statement had been submitted to TDC. This had been returned to Wiggins with TDC’s comments and requests for additions, but had not yet been resubmitted to TDC. In response to the Chairman, Mr Herron agreed that it was usual for an EIA to be submitted with individual development proposals, but this was not necessarily the case.
        5.7.2 Malcolm Kirkaldie asked how an EIA might affect other local schemes, such as Ramsgate Renaissance. Were there any proposals to mitigate noise outside the airport boundaries? Mr Herron explained that within the Local Plan there were provisions to act within government legislation regarding any new development within certain noise contours.
    5.8 Paul Tipple concluded by saying that security at the Airport was to be further upgraded by way of new perimeter fencing and the installation of CCTV systems.
    5.9 Nick Cole asked whether there had been any development on Wiggins’ previous intention of selling off part of the airport, but Tony Freudmann said the current situation was that Wiggins as a company was to be refinanced which should provide new investors following the Group’s Annual General Meeting in August.
    5.10 The meeting noted that, as requested at the last meeting, the Chairman had written on the Committee’s behalf to the Strategic Rail Authority about a faster railway service for East Kent.

6. SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
    6.1 Renegotiation: The Chairman said the S106 had come into effect in September 2000, and was valid for 3 years, but would continue in force until such time as renegotiation had taken place.
        6.1.1 Trevor Herron explained that he had not formally written to MACC on that point, firstly to give new members time to familiarise themselves with the Agreement, and secondly because some conditions contained within the existing agreement had not yet been met, i.e. the noise monitoring system remained incomplete; and development predicted at the time of the initial negotiation had not taken place. For these reasons, it was TDC’s intention to start renegotiation at the end of the summer, resulting in a new Agreement for the New Year.
        6.1.2 Paul Tipple believed there was now a wider understanding of the development of the airport, which should make renegotiation easier. After the original S106 had been agreed between TDC and Wiggins, the MACC had been given little time in which to consider the wider issues. He therefore suggested that the Committee be given the opportunity to feed its views into the debate, and that these be taken into consideration by the two principal parties.
        6.1.3 The Chairman suggested that members start studying the S106 Agreement now with their appointing bodies so as to decide on what suggestions for improvement to bring forward when negations began.
        6.1.4 Gerry Glover was concerned that continuity would be disrupted due to changes within the negotiating parties following local elections. Responding to Ron Flaherty, Trevor Herron agreed it would be desirable to bring Canterbury and Dover Councils into the process at an earlier date than previously.
        6.1.5 Tony Freudmann felt that the original negotiations had been facilitated greatly by having both officers and elected members of TDC included. Were Canterbury and Dover councils to be included in the renegotiation, this would cause delays unless both officers and elected members were in attendance.

    6.2 Noise Monitoring
         6.2.1 Referring to the latest graph of noise readings Paul Tipple noted the slight decrease in average maximum levels.
         6.2.2 Installation of the Western monitor, on land owned by Kent Highways had regrettably still not taken place.
                6.2.2.1  Mr Tipple apologised to the meeting for this, though saying that some of the delay had been caused by factors beyond Wiggins’ control, most recently a ruling by Kent Highways regarding hire of contractors. He hoped the monitor would be installed in 2 or 3 weeks. Considerable concern was expressed about the delay, with the Chairman pointing out that the installation was now two years behind the requirement of the Section 106 Agreement. Readings from the Clarendon School monitor were providing valuable information linking readings with the relevant noise complaints received, and this showed how important it was that the second monitor should come into operation quickly.
                6.2.2.2 Nick Cole was more concerned about the installation of the ILS beam, as he felt that to be an integral part in the noise abatement measures, going hand in hand with noise monitoring.
                6.2.2.3 In response to John Fullarton, the Chairman confirmed the existence of a mobile monitor in the control of TDC, which reminded Nick Cole of his suggestion that the monitor be used on the roof of St Nicholas School.
                6.2.2.4 Paul Tipple, answering Peter Bagley who wanted the monitor to be used in Manston village, said that an approach to the Environmental Health Officer had been made and that it was hoped to set up the mobile equipment fairly shortly.
                6.2.2.5 Trevor Herron agreed to arrange for the list of suggested mobile monitoring sites to be forwarded to the Secretary.       
            6.2.3 John Garland had noted the wide area over which the smell of aviation fuel carried, and the length of time covered. Jim Mannering (Cliffsend) confirmed that the duration was hours rather than minutes.

    6.3 Aircraft Noise Assessment and Mitigation – draft report

        6.3.1 Copies of the report by Bickerdike Allen Partners in conjunction with Manchester Airport had been circulated in advance of the meeting.
        6.3.2 Introducing the discussion Paul Tipple said the paper contained two important points: confirmation that arriving aircraft created more noise than departures, and that the noise contours for the period up to 2005 reflected fairly accurately the actual noise readings obtained from the noise monitor on Clarendon School in Ramsgate, over which aircraft approach Manston.
        6.3.3 The noise contour map for 2001 showed the greatest concentration of noise encapsulated in the 63dB contour embracing the north west corner of Cliffsend progressively moving outwards to the 60dB contour reaching St Lawrence and the 57dB going beyond the main road (A255).
        6.3.4 Projections had been made for 2005 assuming passenger numbers of 1.5 million and 125,000 tonnes of freight involving the same type of aircraft as now (Boeing 747-200 and DC8-62F). As a result the forecast contour was similar to the current contour although there were small increases in noise in the Ramsgate area. An airport handling 1.5m passengers and freight could result in an increase of some 3dB. Such an increase, whilst discernible would not usually be significant. However, were the Airport to be successful in its efforts to promote use of the airport by quieter aircraft types and to phase out the noisiest aircraft types then the future impact would be broadly similar to that of today.
        6.3.5 Mr Tipple said the paper had been tabled to prompt constructive debate, and to determine how in the light of the information it provided we might sensibly work towards formulating an effective noise management strategy that acknowledged the need for balance between commercial growth of the airport, and the impact on communities affected.
        6.3.6 In response to John Garland, Paul Tipple confirmed that once the Airport moved into profitability more stringent rules for airfreighters could be introduced, as suggested in the Report. In addition, at that stage, new radar equipment could be ordered which would enable accurate tracking of aircraft. This would not only indicate non-compliance with noise abatement routes, but also provide the capability of pinpointing individual incidents.
        6.3.7 Jim Mannering commented on the small number of Cliffsend residents who would benefit from the noise insulation scheme. He felt that some residents would find if difficult to finance the 20% of the installation cost not provided by Wiggins. It did not seem fair that a few people should have to pay towards noise insulating their homes, when the whole of Thanet should benefit from the development of the Airport. Mr Tipple said that noise contours would be updated annually and should they expand, more residences would qualify under the grant scheme.
        6.3.8 Paul Tipple confirmed the Chairman’s understanding that although Manston Village did not fall within the 63dB contour, the mobile monitor was to be installed there for a period to accurately assess the noise situation.
        6.3.6 Both Ron Flaherty and John Fullarton found it difficult to relate noise contours to the actual noise monitoring results for individual aircraft. Clarendon School did not fall within the 63db noise contour, yet aircraft had registered 97db on many occasions. Most members felt that averages did not give a true picture of the disturbance created by one or two extremely noisy aircraft each day.
        6.3.10 Nick Cole thought the report gave less regard to the western end of the runway simply because it was less populated than other areas. The noise disturbance was the same, regardless of the number of residents. Mr Cole felt it was misleading to compare contours of average yearly levels with actual instances of disturbance.
        6.3.11 Paul Tipple said that although the Report confirmed that the main effect was in Ramsgate because of the density of population, its forecast of noise levels and mitigation measures applied to the western end as much as to Ramsgate. Disturbance was the same regardless of population density, and the measures proposed did not differentiate between densely or sparsely populated areas.
        6.3.12 Paul Tipple explained that the construction of the noise contours followed established practice across Government and the aviation industry. Whilst it was not possible to diverge from that practice, Mr Tipple accepted that what people heard was actually more than was reflected in noise decibel contours. The important question, however, was what could be done to lessen the noise that people were actually hearing. It was incumbent upon the Airport to influence airline operators to improve the age of their fleets. Passenger aircraft were known to be considerably less noisy than airfreighters, so growth in that area should not have a material impact on the noise people were hearing.
        6.3.13 Mr Tipple said one step had already been taken at the time of the move from Chapter II to Chapter III aircraft. Many sites in continental Europe had agreed to accept some of the older Chapter II aircraft that were moving towards Chapter III, because of the need to maintain that business. Manston had been approached, but had refused that quite lucrative business, not wishing to reintroduce high noise levels.
        6.3.14 Referring to page 3 of the report, John Garland disagreed with its statement that "general aviation activity does not significantly affect noise exposure". Mr Tipple said the point would be reached where general aviation activity would have to decrease. Alastair Robertson added that a visiting party from Herne Bay/Beltinge the previous week had commented that the small aircraft did not disturb them at all. Mr Robertson also stated that since the removal of the grass runway, general aviation activity at Manston had dropped by 30%.
        6.3.15 Malcolm Kirkaldie pointed out that paragraph 3 on page 12 stated "…noise exposure is mainly due to the occasional landing of large freighter aircraft over Ramsgate". Mr Kirkaldie said that "occasional" should be replaced by "daily". Alastair Robertson confirmed that the type of freighters mentioned on page 13 were DC8’s that complied with the bottom margin of Chapter III, and that they would continue to be in use at Manston. Mr Kirkaldie further felt that use of reverse thrust was on the increase, contrary to recommendations in the Report.
        6.3.16 In answer to a question sent in advance to the Secretary by John Bragg, Paul Tipple said that comments made in the present discussion would be noted and a further document tabled.

    6.4 Air Quality Monitoring
        6.4.1 Readings previously circulated were accepted. It was confirmed to Malcolm Kirkaldie that the current standard set by the WHO for Benzene levels was 5.0ppb.

    6.5 Sound insulation scheme update
        6.5.1 This had been covered in the previous item. Paul Tipple added that each house falling within the criteria of the scheme would soon receive documentation on the detail of the scheme and requests for information about individual properties that could be passed to contractors.

8. AIRPORT COMMUNITY FUND
        8.1 Members had received details of grants already made. The Chairman said there had been several further applications for funding, which would be considered by the fund group immediately following the main meeting. The balance of the Fund stood at £6,543.25.

9. GUIDELINES for CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES
    9.1 The Chairman said the Secretary had recently attended a meeting convened by the Department for Transport to assist the Department in its revision of the Guidelines for Consultative Committees, now 15 years old. Members had received minutes of that meeting, together with a copy of the original Guidelines. Developments would be reported in due course.

10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
    10.1 John Fullarton noted that some road signs still indicated Kent International Airport, rather than London-Manston Airport. Paul Tipple agreed to look into the matter. Action PT
    10.2 Nick Cole wished to record his disappointment at the poor representation by Thanet District Council. Roger Latchford thought it fair to point out that Mike Roberts, the second TDC representative, had been given that position only the previous evening. Ron Flaherty said that Canterbury Council had allocated committee posts quickly after the election, and TDC’s failure to allocate representatives to MACC earlier suggested they were not taking the airport seriously. The Chairman said that there had been some confusion about representation of TDC on MACC.
    10.3 John Fullarton noted from details provided by the Secretary that the alternate representative for Broadstairs Town Council was given as Cllr Kilvington, who was in fact no longer a member of the Town Council. The Secretary had been provided with the information since the local elections.
    10.4 The Chairman asked for members’ cooperation in providing up to date information to the Secretary.
    10.5 The Chairman also expressed concern regarding representation of Ramsgate, for whom no representative had come to the meeting. It was of great importance that there should be proper representation of the most populated community that suffered the greatest disturbance.
    10.6 The Chairman hoped that if any new members would like a tour of the Airport, they would arrange this with Alastair Robertson. Cllr Latchford had already done so. Mr Robertson would welcome this. He would suggest a convenient week and ask members to suggest which day/part of day, with a maximum of 4/5 members at a time. Action AR

11. DATE of NEXT MEETING

The date of the next meeting, to which the press and public were to be invited as observers, had previously been fixed for Wednesday 24^th September at 7.30pm. However, as Cllr Latchford said that clashed with a meeting of the Conservative Party, the Chairman said it might be necessary to amend the date to the 25^th. (now confirmed as the 25th September).

MINJUN03