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.

MANSTON AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Minutes of meeting held at 7.30pm on 25^th September 2003
in the Departure Lounge London-Manston Airport

2.1 ILS Beam: In response to Cllr Flaherty, Alastair Robertson reported that the ILS was still not operational as had been hoped. There was a difference of opinion between the contractor and the CAA on the siting of the beam which apparently was some 2 metres off centre. Mr Robertson welcomed the Chairman’s proposal that MACC write to the CAA in support of urgent commissioning. LMA was in contact with the CAA two/three times each week on the issue. AGREED Action AJH

2.2 Item 5.5: The Chairman referred to the short report from the Environment Agency, tabled at the meeting. The Mudflat Survey had been completed by the consultants, and results showed little, if any, effects on the quality of the water discharged at the outfall in Pegwell Bay from the runway run-off. English Nature had been reassured and both they and the Environment Agency were to meet Wiggins shortly to discuss the consent application to discharge. This had to be submitted to the EA in the first week of January 2004

2.2.1 In response to Vera Hovenden, Paul Tipple said the precise siting of the discharge pipe was on the shore below the Viking ship. The area into which the discharge flowed depended on tidal movement and current, but did not extend much beyond 200 yards of the outfall. It would be virtually impossible to detect beyond that distance due to the high quality of the discharge. Mrs Hovenden accepted Mr Tipple’s offer of providing photographs. Action PTAlastair Robertson had, as agreed, provided Nick Cole with a copy of the confidential report concerning the incidence of low flying over Monkton. Responding to Mr Cole, Mr Robertson confirmed that it was in order to show the report to parishioners. Mr Cole expressed the disappointment of parishioners that it had taken 16 weeks to reply to their complaints.

2.4 Cllr Fullarton (KCC) asked for an update on the alteration of road signs that still indicated Kent International Airport. Alastair Robertson reported that LMA had asked KCC via Babtie for a quote for the Airport signs, and had been waiting more than sixteen weeks for a reply. Cllr Fullarton agreed to chase the matter up. Action JF

3. SECTION 106 RENEGOTIATION

3.1 The Chairman reminded the meeting that the Sec 106 Agreement between Wiggins and Thanet District Council would technically expire after three years at the end of September 2003. It would however remain in force until such time as an updated version had been negotiated.

3.2 Brian Lear (TDC) had had discussions with both the current leader of the Council and the leader of the opposition. The intention was to leave the renegotiation until Spring 2004 by which time the restructuring of the Wiggins Group would be complete. The desirability of input from MACC was confirmed.

3.3 Paul Tipple welcomed this news. It was broadly the timeframe in which Wiggins would be looking to submit formal planning applications for improvements to the Airport’s passenger handling capability, and would be the right time to focus on what changes might be needed to the Section 106 Agreement. Mr Tipple agreed that MACC should have the opportunity to contribute to the negotiations at an early stage in the process.

3.4 Malcolm Kirkaldie asked whether night flying would be banned in the revised agreement. Brian Lear said that all aspects of the existing agreement would be considered in the renegotiation. Mr Kirkaldie said there had recently been a notable increase in night flights. The Chairman said that night flights would be covered later in Alastair Robertson’s report. The night flights currently taking place, under the terms of the S106, attracted fines that were paid into the Community Fund, thereby informing the committee of how many such flights took place.

3.5 The Chairman felt the Committee would be glad to be allowed to make a full input into the updated agreement. He added that, although it was entirely acceptable in current circumstances that there should be a delay until Spring 2004, it would be wrong to let the matter slide indefinitely. He hoped the parties concerned would do their best to stick to the forecast timetable. Members agreed with Paul Tipple that it would be helpful to have the item on the December Agenda, in order for all concerned to begin discussing possible changes. Members were invited to bring their initial thoughts to the December meeting in order to involve the Committee at an earlier stage than on the previous occasion. The Chairman agreed with Cllr John Bragg (Dover DC) that a structured timetable would be useful.

3.6 Malcolm Kirkaldie asked whether the renegotiation of the S106 would take place before or after the public enquiry into the Local Plan. Brian Lear said the intention of TDC was to have the renegotiated S106 in draft form before the enquiry.

3.7 Brian Lear confirmed to Cllr Ron Flaherty (Canterbury CC) that Canterbury and Dover Councils would be formally consulted.

4. AIRPORT STATISTICS 

 Alastair Robertson pointed out that the quarter covered was June/July/August 2003, but that he would, at the end of his report, refer to activity over the last few days.

4.1 Complaints: In comparison with the same period in 2002, the number of complaints had fallen. Of the ten incidents attracting the most complaints, the top three had been training flights.

4.1.1 Investigations into an Astraeus training flight on 5^th June had shown transgression of at least two regulations. As a consequence, permission for that operator to conduct training at Manston had been withdrawn indefinitely.

4.1.2 TNT training on 20^th August, and Air Atlantique training on 21^st August, whilst relatively quiet aircraft, had attracted complaints by reportedly flying over land rather than the sea. Although LMA records could not confirm this, eye witness reports were accepted and both airlines written to expressing displeasure at their training disciplines. TNT had responded with profuse apologies, and Mr Robertson was in correspondence with the senior training officer in an attempt to remedy the situation. As yet, no response had been received from Air Atlantique.

4.1.3 The Chairman asked whether there had been any training flights during the quarter that had not attracted complaints. Mr Robertson said there had not – training flights always generated complaints due to their repetitious nature.

4.1.4 Dennis Hart asked whether LMA had reached the stage whereby it was possible to indicate whether complaints were justified or otherwise, as at other airports. Alastair Robertson regretted this was not possible, and would not be so until such time as a more sophisticated radar system was installed. He hoped such installation might take place within, say, the next 18 months/2 years. Mr Robertson said it was not always easy to establish whether or not an aircraft was breaking rules, and when a complaint was received, the airport did its best to make an unbiased assessment.

 

4.2 Runway Utilisation: Mr Robertson said figures in general showed that the desired balance of 70% (Rnwy 28) – 30% (Rnwy 10) had been achieved. However, atmospheric conditions in August had resulted in 67% runway 10 utilisation, and 33% runway 28. The Chairman noted that this was the first month since the airport had been in civil operation that the proportion had been reversed.

4.3 Section 106 Compliancy Report: For the benefit of members of the public, Mr Robertson explained that each month a report was sent to MACC, TDC and to Head Office management to indicate how the Airport had complied with the basic principles of the Section 106 Agreement. These reports gave an indication of the volume of traffic through the Airport and the number of movements outside specified S106 hours of 0700 and 22.59

4.3.1  During June there had been two night flights, one commercial flight that had attracted a fine, plus a coastguard flight patrolling the Dover Straits. In July, ten movements were recorded out of hours, five of which were commercial (two of which attracted fines), and five coastguard flights. Of the four night flights in August, two were commercial flights attracting fines, and two were coastguard flights.

4.4.2 During the quarter, 2 engine runs had taken place between the hours of 2100 and 2300, but no complaints had been received.

4.4.3 Three of the reported Incidents Under Investigation had been dealt with under para 4.1 above. Mr Robertson said that the incident on 10^th June, when vortex wake from an arriving 757 had ripped roof tiles from a house in Ramsgate, had been a very serious incident that could have had a far more serious outcome. As reported at the previous meeting, measures had since been put in place to avoid recurrence, by changing the approach procedure, specifically for 757 aircraft which were prone to generating wake turbulence under specific atmospheric conditions. Under these new procedures, such aircraft would no longer approach over Ramsgate. LMA had made a without prejudice payment to the householder covering the cost of damage, and repayment of these costs would be sought from the airline operator.

4.4 Late Activity during September 2003: Alastair Robertson referred to the number of recent late movements: Air Atlanta B747 arrival at 2337hrs on 9/9/03; MK B747 departure at 2313hrs on 22/9/03; MK B747 departure at 2337 on 23/9/03; L1011 Tri-Star departure at 0208hrs on 24/9/03.

4.4.1 All four were technically commercial flights and had attracted fines. Mr Robertson said that these flights, of which there may be one or two more to come, were at the behest of the British Government in support of military operations in other parts of the world.

4.4.2 Vera Hovenden (Cliffsend) asked why, when residents had telephoned Manston concerning the L1011 Tri-Star departure, they had been told there had been no such flight. Alastair Robertson had concluded that there had been a misunderstanding as to which day of the week had been being discussed, and he apologised for any misinformation.

4.4.3 Mrs Hovenden also asked whether recent aerobatic flights had been for training purposes. She had been asked by residents if such flights could take place over the sea. Alastair Robertson explained that as the pilot was practising aerobatic routine for airshow purposes, he required a datum line such as a runway or road. Future flights would be directed elsewhere.

4.4.4 Nick Cole reported that the most disturbance from the MK departure at 2337 on 23 September had been caused when the aircraft circled over the sea at Minnis Bay, then returning over Thanet to join the flightpath to Dover. Could these flights not be directed round the coast to pick up the Dover flightpath? Mr Robertson referred to the Section 106 Agreement which said that aircraft departing out to Dover from the Westerly runway should take off from Runway 28, turn right at 1.5 nautical miles, fly up to the coast climbing to 3,000ft, before commencing a right turn back over Thanet at 4,000ft down to Dover. Alternative routes could be considered, particularly at late hours when other air traffic services would be unlikely to be disrupted. Mr Robertson continued that the route had been designed for a particular purpose. Whilst Nick Cole agreed that the route was designated in the S106, it was clear that night flights were taking off in breach of the S106. Mr Cole felt sure that no residents (or District Cllrs) would object to flights being re-routed outside that Agreement. Mr Robertson stressed that such night flights were not in contravention of the S106, which allowed for an element of non-scheduled flying on payment of a fine if an aircraft was below a specific Quota Count. Mr Cole accepted that, but still requested that these aircraft be re-routed. Alastair Robertson agreed to look at the matter again should flights during such hours recur.

4.4.5 Malcolm Kirkaldie reiterated Mr Cole’s feelings. Ramsgate was similarly disturbed as flights took off and again as they circled back to head towards Dover. Mr Kirkaldie said when he had registered complaints regarding this "double-dose" of noise, the latter part had been ignored. Were the aircraft not by then in Manston airspace? Mr Kirkaldie felt that the S106 needed alteration in order to resolve the situation. Alastair Robertson said LMA controlled the airspace up to a height of 3,000, at which point control was passed to London Air Traffic Control.

4.4.6 The Chairman felt that the key point was that the agreed route was proving to be disturbing, particularly with night flights, and there appeared to be circumstances which might make it possible to change that to create less disturbance. He was grateful to Alastair Robertson for his offer to look into the matter.

4.5 In conclusion, Mr Robertson reminded MACC, and informed the audience, that LMA were always pleased to arrange to visit various local clubs and organisations to explain and discuss any aspect of the Airport’s operation.

 

5. SITUATION REPORT - Wiggins Group plc

5.1 The Chairman welcomed Geoff Lansbury, congratulating him on his appointment as Chief Executive of the Airport.

5.2 Mr Lansbury said his appointment was a statement of the confidence and ambitions Wiggins had for the airport. It was felt important that a main Board Director should be Chief Executive of the airport, thereby giving the Airport representation on the main Board of Wiggins.

5.3 Referring to the suspension of Wiggins shares, Mr Lansbury said the shares had been suspended at the request of the company as it had been negotiating the terms for a sizeable refinancing package. Negotiations were virtually complete and it was anticipated that, subject to Stock Exchange approval, a circular to shareholders would be issued on 6^th October, and the AGM scheduled for the end of October. This would provide the Wiggins Group with a significant injection of funds effectively removing its indebtedness and providing a platform for expansion of the Planestation network – now a core element of the business. The name of the company would likely change to Planestation, highlighting the company’s move away from property development. As such, shares would be listed under Transport rather than Building/construction.

5.4 Business Development:

5.4.1 Mr Lansbury said that Wiggins’ investment of £6m on new taxiway and aprons had increased cargo-handling capacity from 30,000 to over 250,000 tonnes p.a. The current month’s throughput figures would be close to a record.

5.4.2 With regard to the local community, Mr Lansbury emphasised the importance of MACC as a conduit to ensure that the Airport’s growth was sustainable and took into account the view of the community as a whole. As Chief Executive, he would be available to both MACC and any member of the public wishing to discuss any element of the business. The company tried to minimise disturbance, whilst benefiting the community. It was appreciated that the movement of cargo brought the benefit of jobs, but what was probably more important to local people was the opportunity to fly from Manston.

5.4.3 The company had recently announced that it had signed an agreement with the city of Melborne in Florida where a new international terminal was to be built. The initial element of business for Wiggins would be using the terminal for flights to and from other Planestation airports, notably Manston. Mr Lansbury believed that was likely to be the first significant benefit to the community in terms of international flights. This new terminal was expected to be opened in the Spring of 2005, although before then it was hoped to utilise the existing terminal, currently used for domestic traffic in the US, by the Summer of 2004.

5.4.4 Negotiations with other carriers were ongoing, including scheduled flights to Amsterdam during 2004, opening up the international network for people from this area.

5.4.5 Contracts were being negotiated for £2m worth of business for improvement of security cameras, perimeter fencing, and the construction of the border inspection post (detailed in the Minutes for June 2003) that would provide entry from outside the EU for onward movement within the EU. Cargo business was expected to increase over the next year to over 100,000 tonnes per annum. This would inevitably increase the number of flights, but not to a significant degree.

5.4.6 Summing up, Mr Lansbury assured the meeting that Wiggins was stable; Wiggins had no intention of doing anything other than support the expansion of the Airport and the Planestation network as a whole.

5.4.7 Nick Cole asked whether there had been any developments at the business park. Mr Lansbury said the small development for Invicta Produce Ltd (mentioned in minutes June 2003) was now in the hands of solicitors with completion expected within a month or so. Expansion on land within the Airport was constrained. The Inspection Post and small adjacent cargo shed were crucial to support the projected 100,000 tonnes of cargo. There was space for one more hangar alongside the existing Hangar 3 and it was anticipated that immediately following completion of the first two, it would be necessary to let a contract for a further hangar on that site. Beyond that, Wiggins would be looking to provide off-airport warehousing and hangars commencing June 2004.

5.4.8 Gerry Glover asked when, in view of the expected increase in freight traffic, action would be taken regarding the re-alignment of the road to alleviate disturbance to residents of Pouces Cottages. Mr Lansbury replied that as part of the planning approval in place, when volume of business reached a certain level, a right hand turn would be put in place, together with the provision of off-road parking to assist those particular properties.

5.4.9 Cllr John Bragg thought that many members considered the biggest determinant in the airport’s development was improvement of the infrastructure. Latest news about high-speed trains was all negative for Thanet. There was no direct road access to the airport linked to the M25, straight through to the Thanet Way. Mr Lansbury agreed that a good rail link was important, but considered the road link to be very good. Paul Tipple said that discussions led by KCC with Ministers and recently with the Strategic Rail Authority had revealed that the SRA had yet to put forward any formal recommendations to the Department for Transport notwithstanding that they had held their public consultation at least six months previously. Mr Tipple thought it would be at least two months before receiving any indication from the Department for Transport as to what they would actually want to see happen. There had been much speculation in the press as to whether, following the recent opening of the Phase I of the CTRL, fast trains would in future for domestic purposes stop at Ashford or whether it would be possible to bring those trains further up to Canterbury and on to Ramsgate. The position, both publicly and privately, being taken with Ministers was that the desire was for fast through services from London, calling at Ashford and Canterbury and running rapidly on to Ramsgate. If it transpired that for essentially financial reasons such a service could not be achieved immediately then at the very least Government would have to commit to upgrading the Ashford to Ramsgate line so that trains on that section could run at significantly faster speeds. This would require upgrading of signalling and power supply and improvements to two level crossings. The effect would be to reduce the Ashford to Ramsgate journey time to around 25 minutes. On that basis it would be conceivable to connect to a fast train to Ashford with a subsequent journey time of about 32 minutes, making the prospect of an overall journey time from London to Ramsgate of just over an hour not impossible.

5.4.10 Mr Lansbury said that Wiggins recognised that an airport was not the best neighbour people wanted. However, Thanet needed a fast rail link and the existence of the airport was a very strong argument in discussions. In the SERAS report published last year, Manston received very little consideration. From discussions held since, Mr Lansbury hoped that Manston would feature more prominently the White Paper due out later this year. He believed that recognition would be given to the contribution that Manston could make, and that that in turn would assist in the argument in support for a fast rail link.

5.4.11 The Chairman felt that whilst news of the possibility of passenger traffic would have been well received, similar reports in the past had not come to fruition. It was appreciated that an airport with no track record had difficulty in attracting passenger business. Could Mr Lansbury give any assurances that the developments he had forecast would materialise? Geoff Lansbury said that progress had already been made on the cargo side, and current negotiations for passenger traffic showed a significant chance of coming to fruition. He had staked his personal reputation to his Board that he could come to Thanet, and change things and make a difference. Rather than rely on the decision making of others, Wiggin’s intention with regard to the Florida airport was to create traffic itself with the assistance of other parties. There was a massive demand from people from Florida wanting to fly into London. Business would also come from Lahr in Germany leading to a Lahr, Manston, Florida link as well. Mr Lansbury’s target was, working together with his colleagues, to actually create the airline link themselves, whilst at the same time negotiating to attract other parties to come to the airport.

5.4.12 John Garland asked whether the planned Paint Spray Hangar, for which planning permission had been granted some twelve months ago, had been abandoned. Mr Lansbury said the Paint Spray Plant had not been shelved. There was still a possibility that a number of negotiations that had been abandoned over the last two years due to the uncertainty in the industry at the time, may yet come to fruition within a few months. Dennis Hart assumed, therefore that there may be an application forthcoming for change of use, but Mr Lansbury explained that the Northern Grass had been designated for all maintenance facilities, including paint spraying, in custom built facilities to be leased on a long-term basis in order to preserve the integrity of the freehold. There was no intention of selling any part of the Northern Grass.

 

6. SECTION 106 COMPLIANCY

6.1 Noise Monitoring: Paul Tipple said that the Noise Management Strategy Assessment presented at the previous meeting had been made available in libraries. The document had comprehensively reviewed the activities at Manston against the range of measures introduced, including the noise monitoring that had taken place on the roof of Clarendon School in Ramsgate over the past year/eighteen months, Noise Abatement Routes and the announcement of the Sound Insulation Grant Scheme. The report had concluded that, for an airport the size of Manston, at such an early stage of development, more had been done in the field of noise management than at many well established airports in the country.

6.1.1 Following discussion at the previous meeting, LMA was now trying to identify the phases in which further improvements could be introduced, the key to which would be the introduction of a new radar facility that would enable the Airport to improve significantly its ability to track and more accurately monitor aircraft movement. Also under consideration would be at what stage in the growth of air traffic movements it would be sensible to introduce an air pilots’ forum with the aim of improving flying techniques to help reduce the noise impact.

6.1.2 Mr Tipple confirmed that a second permanent noise monitor was now in operation at St Nicholas, having overcome difficulties with Kent Highways. The temporary mobile monitor at St Nicholas installed by Manchester Airport but now replaced, had itself not been in the optimum site, and this was reflected in the readings for July/August.

6.1.3 Moving to the Noise Monitoring Reports, Mr Tipple commented that readings showed noticeable increases in noise levels for both arrivals and departures. The readings for St Nicholas were significantly lower than those for Clarendon, despite similar aircraft types and routes. The figures had been distorted by RAF aircraft using Manston as a base before going on to air shows elsewhere. The Top Twenty noise events included the RAF movements which, Mr Tipple stated, were considerably higher than those for civil aircraft. Disregarding the RAF flights, the pattern had been similar to previous months, although the Clarendon monitor showed increased noise levels, primarily from MK Airlines. The 747-200 series aircraft were appreciably noisier than DC8 aircraft also flown by MK. Alastair Robertson was in discussion with MK Airlines to establish means of reducing the noise impact.

6.1.4 Referring to the considerably lower readings from the St Nicholas monitor, Mr Tipple quoted from advice received from Manchester Airport. This stated that the monitor was not sited beneath the extended centre line, but slightly to the north, whereas the Clarendon monitor was directly beneath the extended centre line. This would explain the difference in the recorded noise from the same aircraft between the two sites.

6.1.5 Nicholas Cole accepted that there was a difference in the mid point of the runway under each monitor. Noise registered at St Nicholas showed, contrary to the norm, that disturbance from arrivals was less than that of departures. Mr Cole suggested that the difference was nothing to do with the difference from mid-point of runway, but that aircraft were flying considerably closer to Monkton, and nowhere near the monitor. He had said on many occasions that aircraft were still flying over the village of Monkton. At a previous meeting, Trevor Herron had agreed to provide a list of proposed sites for the mobile monitor, but this had not been forthcoming. The Chairman reported that he had been given the report at the start of the meeting and copies would be circulated with these minutes.

6.4.6 Alastair Robertson pointed out that the St Nicholas monitor had been operational for only two months. He felt that it was too early to be definitive, and would like to see figures for a longer period. Mr Robertson asked the Committee to remember that the positioning of the Clarendon monitor allowed for the exact monitoring of inbound aircraft on Runway 28 and departing aircraft on Runway 10, i.e. on identical flight paths; at St Nicholas, inbound aircraft fly to the south of the monitor whereas outbound aircraft should fly directly over the monitor. Until there had been the opportunity of obtaining a larger sample of readings, it would be difficult to draw firm conclusions.

6.1.7 The Chairman said it was a great relief to have two permanent monitors finally installed. It would presumably take time to calculate the significance of the readings to ensure they were producing meaningful results. Although Mr Cole might be right that until radar had been installed there would not be accurate information on actual routes flown, presumably when figures had been received for slightly longer, LMA would be able to deduce more reliable information from them.

6.1.8 In addition, the Chairman said that even allowing for military aircraft, flights had not been getting any quieter. He pointed out para 8.1. of the Section 106 Agreement that stated: The owner will, having carried out twelve months of noise monitoring at the airport, agree with the Council new maximum noise levels for aircraft movements which will produce a significant reduction in the noise impact of individual aircraft over the previous two years of operation and which in no circumstances will be less than a 5% reduction over the average of the previous two years. The Chairman said the S106 agreement had set an ambitious target which there was still time to reach and he was glad that work had begun on working towards that target.

6.1.9 Cllr John Bragg felt it was necessary to know the range of readings from top to bottom in order to achieve the 5% reduction target. Were additional figures available? Paul Tipple said every noise movement was recorded but did that he did not have the figures with him. The range would be about 5-6 decibels, depending upon aircraft type. Excluding RAF aircraft and the one Ilyushin flight, it was the 747-200’s that created the greatest noise. As operators improved their fleet mix over time, it was reasonable to look at such a level of reduction in noise. As the commercial side of the operation grew, so the mix of aircraft would change. The injection of passenger traffic would bring quieter aircraft, as would the introduction of Chapter IV in three years time. Mr Tipple hoped to be able to reduce the noise level to an average of 85 decibels over a period of 2-3 years.

6.1.10 Cllr Mike Roberts asked how the equipment was calibrated and how often it was checked. Paul Tipple replied that the contract with Manchester Airport provided for the noise monitoring equipment to be checked every 2/3 months. Cllr Roberts requested sight of the calibration certificate. He could not understand why there was such a marked difference in readings between the two monitors. Mr Tipple said there was no difficulty in making these papers available, and he would ask Manchester Airport to provide an explanation. Action PT

6.1.11 Malcolm Kirkaldie pointed out that Clarendon School was sited in an area subject to high noise levels. Even with a reduction of 5 decibels, the level of high-pitched disturbance would remain very high. Over a period of time this would have an effect on young people’s hearing. Mr Kirkaldie said that when aircraft flew over the town of Ramsgate, the noise reverberated, making conversation impossible. He further maintained that use of reverse thrust was increasing rather than decreasing.

6.2 Noise Insulation Scheme: Paul Tipple reported that letters would be going out during the week to those households eligible for noise insulation grants, together with a brochure and application forms. Responses had been asked for by the end of October. A number of secondary glazing companies had been approached with the aim of running an open competition to identify one, or possibly two, providers to undertake the work.

6.3 Air Quality Monitoring: In the absence of Paul Martin, Brian Lear confirmed that readings, previously circulated, showed levels well within the requirements of the WHO.

7 AIRPORT COMMUNITY TRUST FUND: The Chairman reported that around a dozen grants of up to £500 each had been made. Thanks to the night flights reported earlier, there remained a substantial amount of money in the fund. The Chairman asked those present, including members of the public, if they knew of suitable projects that might benefit, to submit applications to the Secretary. New applications would be welcome.

8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 Vera Hovenden said that, as she worked full time, she was unable to attend daytime meetings. She noted that, apart from the Secretary, she was the only female at the table. Mrs Hovenden asked the Committee to consider meeting more frequently in the evening – or each time – to enable more women to attend. The Chairman said this had been debated from time to time, but so far the balance had been in favour of daytime meetings apart from one a year to which the public were invited. Cllr Hart, whilst in favour of a balanced gender profile, would find evening meetings more difficult. The Chairman suggested contacting members by e mail to ascertain their views.

8.2 Malcolm Kirkaldie referred to commercial night flights being conducted "for operational reasons", and wondered whether this meant an increase in the number of early morning landings/ late night take offs. Would Alastair Robertson explain what these reasons were? Mr Robertson agreed to provide information for the next meeting. There was not yet a schedule in place, but a proviso in the S106 Agreement allowed for early movements for inbound flights from the United States. Action A

8.3 Bernard Clayson referred to minutes of the June meeting concerning the awaited Environment Impact Assessment. Trevor Herron had said that TDC were waiting for Wiggins to return the Environmental Statement.

8.3.1 Paul Tipple said further work was in hand to address the formal observations made by Thanet District Council on the Environmental Statement. The major focus was on developing a formal Transport Impact Assessment that would assess the likely impact of airport development on the road network and identify measures. Babtie had been contracted to produce the Assessment.

8.3.2 Weaknesses had also been identified with employment forecasts, in particular indirect and induced employment opportunities, predicted by Arthur D Little. Mr Tipple said no consultants could accurately forecast levels of induced employment for a particular district, rather than a region and that inevitably it would remain a grey area where ‘best estimates’ would need to be used.

8.3.3 Mr Tipple hoped that within the next 2-3 months there would be a more substantial Environmental Statement to re-submit to TDC, which would provide the basis upon which they Council would consider particular planning applications. It was usual for councils to take a view as to whether there was a requirement for an EIA based on the scale and nature of a particular development. Mr Tipple’s broad understanding was that in the context of the airport, the requirement for a formal EIA was most likely to kick in when considering the impact of the new passenger terminal development, rather than that of, say, a cargo warehouse or single hangar development.

8.3.4 Brian Lear said he would bring information to the next meeting as to what information had been requested. Action BL

8.4 Sam Hodgson asked whether there was any truth in reports of a Concorde aircraft being based at Manston. Paul Tipple said that British Airways had invited expressions of interest from those who might like to host one of the six Concorde aircraft for static display. LMA had agreed to put in a joint bid with Goodwood Travel of Canterbury. Nothing had as yet been heard from British Airways on their decision and a decision on the final shortlist of successful bidders was awaited.

 

 

9 DATE OF NEXT MEETING: The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday 16^th December at 2.30 p.m.

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 9.45pm

MANSTON AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
25TH SEPTEMBER 2003

MOBILE NOISE MONITOR LOCATION PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2003 to 2005 - CONSULTATION WITH M.A.C.C.

Introduction.

To supplement the fixed noise monitoring stations at locations under the immediate flight path to the east and west of the runway London Manston Airport has provided a mobile monitor. A protocol for the use of the equipment has been agreed with the Council and consulted upon with MACC and the equipment delivered to the Council.

A member of the Environmental Management Team within Environmental Health has been going through equipment familiarisation and we are seeking the additional equipment required in the field. The equipment will then be ready for deployment with the purpose of this report to identify priority sites allowing the members of the M.A.C.C. to offer their comments before a decision is reached by the Council.

Location Areas for 2003-4

October 2003 – March 2004 Manston Village – to ensure contours fairly represent noise level exposure, including ground noise where possible.

April 2004 – September 2004 North Minster – to consider boundaries of the noise contours for noise insulation considerations and the protection of any future development.

Proposed Areas for 2004-5

October 2004 – March 2005 St. Nicholas at Wade – as contours are based on ideal aircraft tracks this will evaluate if noise levels are as predicted and if not prompt consideration of whether routing is the cause.

April 2005 – September 2005 North Cliffsend – to provide additional resolution of noise levels given this is a relatively high exposure area subject to some noise insulation assistance.

The data will focus on the Single Event Level to identify aircraft above ambient and traffic levels. Locations must be acoustically suitable, away from high ambient levels, secure, accessible, serviced and permitted by the landowner.