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 (M.A.C.C)

The Chairman welcomed Brian White, Head of Environmental Services, TDC. He also pointed out that, in addition to representing Broadstairs Town Council on MACC, Cllr Bob Bayford, as Deputy Leader would also speak on behalf of TDC as appropriate.

2. MATTERS ARISING

2.1. ILS Beam: Alastair Robertson confirmed that the ILS had been operational since 3^rd November. Cllr Flaherty thought aircraft noise had been marginally less since the installation, but would be in a better position to report at the next meeting.
2.2 Item 2.2.1: Paul Tipple confirmed that photographs showing the siting of the Pegwell Bay discharge were being forwarded to Vera Hovenden, as requested.
2.3 Item 6.1.10 The Secretary had been provided with a faxed copy of Calibration details of the noise monitors, requested by Cllr Roberts. It was agreed to forward a copy to him (as he was not present), and to Bernard Clayson at his request. Action TMS

3.1 Refinancing: Tony Freudmann reported that £49.5m gross had been raised from some 60 institutions, who would between them control substantially less than 50% of the Company. Of the money raised, subject to resolution at the Wiggins Group AGM to be held on 5^th January 2004, a substantial part would go to repay short and medium term debt, but in simple terms the Company would be left with around £20m working capital and long term debt secured against Manston Airport with the Bank of Scotland. It was satisfying that some major institutions had supported the project. Mr Freudmann said the last few months had been difficult, particularly as the Airport continued to run at a loss. There was pressure on the company to turn that round as quickly as possible, which Wiggins would now have the finance to do.
3.2 Future of Air Transport – White Paper: Mr Freudmann referred to the summary of the announcement by the Secretary of State that day, and outlined the key elements as follows:

3.2.1 A second runway to be built at Stansted in 2011/2012
3.2.2 A new runway to be built at Heathrow as soon as possible after Stansted – 2015/2020 period with various safeguards
3.2.3 No action would be taken to overturn current planning against a second runway at Gatwick until 2019. Option of two new runways at Gatwick not supported
3.2.4 Maximum use of the existing single runway at Luton was supported, but no second runway
3.2.5 There was no case for a 2^nd hub airport in the SE of England
3.2.6 A new airport at Cliffe was not supported
3.2.7 There was no support for development at Alconbury for passengers or freight, which had been a potential threat to Manston.
3.2.8 There was considerable scope for London City, Norwich, Southampton, Southend and Manston to help meet demand for air services. Nor should the potential for Lydd, Shoreham and Biggin Hill be overlooked.

3.2.8.1 Mr Freudmann said Wiggins were reasonably satisfied that this represented constructive response to the representations made. A short press release was to be issued that day, welcoming the recognition of the considerable scope for Manston; the end of uncertainty concerning Cliffe and Alconbury. Manston now had a clear run until 2011 – the earliest date on which any new infrastructure would be created.
3.2.8.2 Cllr John Bragg referred to the proposal to keep under review the case for a possible new runway at East Midlands to cope with anticipated growth of freight movements and growing passenger volumes. Tony Freudmann found it difficult to see how East Midlands Airport could accommodate any significant development due to constraints imposed by lack of available land.
3.2.8.3 Mr Freudmann pointed out that the document concluded by stating that it did not support any of the other proposals for alternative locations put forward during consultation. The Government would not take steps to artificially constrain demand for air traffic, such as raising fuel duty, but would work together with the industry to reduce the environmental effects of airport development.

3.3 Florida flights: Tony Freudmann confirmed that the company had, in October 2003, signed an agreement with an airport in Melbourne, Florida to run and develop their international terminal. Melbourne airport already had about 0.5m domestic US passengers travelling with major airlines. Melbourne had approached Manston, recognising its potential for continental capacity, and a population likely to welcome the availability of flights to Florida.

3.4 Mr Freudmann reported encouraging response from one or two tour operators, who, having cut back operations into Florida, were now looking to resume in 2004/2005, and there was a good chance that at least one would operate out of Manston. Mr Freudmann said that, unlike Orlando and Sandford Airports, Melbourne did not have slot constraints. This advantage was being promoted in the start of discussions with operators out of UK into Florida. There had been favourable response, together with encouragement from East Kent travel agents.

3.5 Public authorities in Florida were also keen to encourage traffic from Florida to East Kent. With their cooperation it was hoped that, of the seat allocation on flights of around 350 passengers, around 80-100 could be reserved for US travellers inbound to East Kent.

3.6 It was hoped that, following last month’s visit by Melbourne Airport executives, an announcement would be forthcoming within the next few weeks.

3.7 Cllr Flaherty thought the outcome of the Strategic Rail Authority consultation was vital to the above. Paul Tipple reported that as a result of productive discussions that the East Kent Partnership had held, it had become clear that the SRA’s formal proposal was to run, from 2007, new fast trains from Ramsgate via Canterbury, Ashford and on to St Pancras; at the same time, as these trains would be parked overnight at Ramsgate, to run new trains on the North Kent line on a stopping service to the Medway Towns, from thence non-stop to London. Journey time would be about 1hr 10mins. In addition, the SRA were looking at ways in which the new trains could be routed through Shakespeare Tunnel, thereby bringing Dover into the equation. A final decision from the Secretary of State was awaited.

3.7.1 Cllr Flaherty thought it was all very well the SRA stating what was required but there seemed to be no commitment from Government. Mr Tipple reported that Government was, before Christmas, meant to be taking decisions on contracts for the new trains. Mr Tipple felt that announcement would indicate a clear commitment to run those trains into E. Kent. SRA’s next phase would be the detailed timetabling, projected to take place in March/April 2004, resulting in a document to be submitted to interested contractors. Mr Tipple felt the SRA’s projected 2007 completion date was tight in terms of getting sufficient numbers of the new trains built and in service.

3.7.2 Paul Tipple agreed with the Chairman’s assertion that a large part of the County’s resources over the past month or two had been devoted to endeavouring to ensure that the recommendation from the SRA actually came to fruition.

3.8 Development: Paul Tipple reported that Wiggins were about to open discussions with TDC on improvements to the passenger terminal and related infrastructure improvements in order to provide essential capacity to support future scheduled and charter operations. Contracts for the new warehouse/border inspection post facility would shortly be let with the aim of starting work at the beginning of January 2004. The visual aspect of the bespoke facility would considerably improve the area involved – the patch of land between the existing cargo shed on the west of the airport, and the MoD motor transport building. It was hoped that the facility would be operational by June/July. Improvements to the road access to the new facility would include off road parking on Airport land for the residents of Pouces Cottages. The detail would be discussed with residents.

3.8.1 Environmental Statement: Wiggins had accepted the views and concerns set out in TDC’s response to the Environmental Statement submitted in early 2002, which had been the subject of extensive consultation. These included the need for a Transport Impact Assessment, the need to address noise and noise management, and to better understand the nature of the induced employment that would result from the Airport’s planned future development.

3.8.1.1 Mr Tipple reported that most of this follow-on work had been going on over the past year, but had not been brought formally to fruition pending a final understanding of the next phase of intended development. Once the exact detail of the development proposal was available it would be possible to align formal assessments and planning applications.

3.8.1.2 Brian Lear (TDC) said he was satisfied with what had been said, but the Council would want to see the details at the time of any planning application being submitted. The principle of a document that was "live" and continued to be updated and improved as developments occurred was something with which TDC was comfortable.

4. AIRPORT STATISTICS – previously circulated

Alastair Robertson summarised the following:

4.1 Complaints: A total of 428 forms had generated 889 complaints, from 31 individual complainants. This compared with 156 forms generating 260 complaints during the same period in 2002, from 26 individual complainants.

4.1.1 The increase in the number of complaints principally related to noise and low flying.

4.1.2 Of the Top Ten complaints generated, the first five related to late night flights of which members were aware. Tony Freudmann would elaborate on these later in the Agenda. Only one daytime flight had caused complaint (4no.) but no procedures had been breached. The remaining four flights, although late in the evening, had not in any way infringed the S106 Agreement.

4.1.2.1 Cllr Bob Bayford noted that although there had been more late flights in the same period the previous year, fewer complaints had been made. Alastair Robertson’s records showed that the majority of relevant flights in the 2002 period had been by lighter aircraft for HM Coastguard, plus three by commercial aircraft.

4.1.2.2 In response to Cllr Bayford’s further enquiry regarding complaints of off-route flying, Mr Robertson stated that only one flight had been identified as in fact being off-route, having turned late over Herne Bay/Beltinge.

4.2 Departures Summary/Runway Utilisation: Mr Robertson said figures in general showed a similar pattern to figures for the previous year. Climatic conditions prevalent in Autumn/early Winter had to be taken into account.

4.3 Section 106 Compliancy Report: Movements between 2300-0700: Of the 14 such flights in September 2003, six had been by heavy aircraft, the remainder HM Coastguard; October 2003, eight heavy aircraft and four HM Coastguard; November 2003, two heavy aircraft – no others.

4.4 Mr Robertson drew attention to the additional information sheet detailing late flights that had occurred. These had generated a total of 51 forms identifying 82 specific complaints.

4.5 Cllr Flaherty asked Mr Robertson if it were fair to say that complaints had to be lived with, as it appeared nothing could be done apart from identifying incidents. Did members have to tell their electorate that they were wasting their time? The Chairman recalled that, until the current quarter, the number of complaints had steadily decreased. The number of complaints had quadrupled over the same period in 2002. To what extent did this increase relate to the exceptional night flights?

4.5.1 Alastair Robertson said figures would have been only marginally better had those flights not taken place. There had, in the last three months, been a dramatic increase in complaints received from a handful of specific complainants. Mr Robertson said complaints received were taken very seriously and consideration was given to ways of mitigating the noise, where possible adjusting flight paths. It was not a waste of people’s time to complain. The Airport wanted to know what was going on in the community, and the adverse effect that the Airport had, in order to change some procedures, where possible, when planning for the future.

4.5.2 Malcolm Kirkaldie said he had submitted a number of complaints. He did point out that, in addition to himself, he had complained on behalf of all his family.

4.5.3 Cllr John Bragg accepted that one complaint form could be from a group of people. However, he felt that the number of complaints was extremely low, with only 31 people complaining during the current quarter, considering the extent of the population. Mr Robertson explained that in each of the three months in question there had been five main complainants producing 152 forms in September, 179 in October (when the night flights occurred), and 97 in November, the balance having been submitted by individuals. Malcolm Kirkaldie stated that he submitted dozens of complaint forms each month.

4.5.4 The Secretary added that at the DfT consultation on new Guidelines for Consultative Committees, representatives from London City, Gatwick, and Prestwick committees had said they received few complaints as residents accepted that little could be done except when expansion was planned. The case at Manston was different in that it was a developing Airport, and changes had already been made wherever possible.

4.5.5 Cllr Flaherty felt that although residents recognised the existence of the Airport, there was an acceptance over the last two years that aircraft had been approaching over Herne Bay at around 15-1600 feet. Now that the ILS beam had become operational, Cllr Flaherty sought assurance that the beam would raise incoming flights to a height of 2000 feet over Herne Bay/Beltinge are

4.5.6 The Chairman said that assurance could not be given by the complaints system. What the discussion showed to him was that individual complaints deserved to be looked at seriously and given the best answers possible – which, with experience, the Airport had got better at. The more complaints received, the more difficult it became to answer them in minute detail. The Chairman felt the Airport was providing that customer service and occasionally drawing lessons from the pattern of flights. He did not feel any substantial lessons could be drawn from the number of complaints, nor from the trend. More important were objective factors such as addressing the question of night flying, noise monitoring and mechanism currently being developed, and radar tracking of outgoing aircraft when finances permitted. The Chairman’s recommendation was that those were the measures that should be looked at to provide the kind of reassurance sought.

4.5.7 Alastair Robertson said as the ILS beam had been operational for only a few weeks, it was too early to say conclusively whether or not there had been any significant improvement in the situation. However, he assured Cllr Flaherty that any pilot, given the opportunity of flying an ILS approach against anything else, would always take that opportunity.

4.5.8 Robin Tapsell said that, despite previous assurances from Mr Robertson, aircraft did overfly Monkton village but residents felt there was no point in making official complaints, as nothing had been done. Mr Robertson agreed with Mr Tapsell that it was important for residents to file complaints in order for accurate assessment to be made. There had, on Sunday 7^th November, been an Air Atlanta training session carrying out 12 visual approach circuits to Runway 10. A visual approach would vary slightly from the route of an ILS approach. Mr Tapsell accepted Alastair Robertson’s offer of sight of a map indicating the route. Mr Robertson said this was a difficult issue and he believed that an aircraft in such close proximity to the runway would not have veered sufficiently from the centre line to be several hundred yards south over the village of Monkton. Agreed to continue ongoing discussion outside the meeting. Action AR

5.1 Noise Monitoring: Paul Tipple reported that over the last three months, there had been a reduction in noise levels generated. The bar chart for Clarendon School November readings showed a peak in departure noise. Manchester Airport had made the following observations on these readings:

5.1.1 there was no difference in the performance of the two monitors

5.1.2 there was a difference in the location of the two sites, Clarendon being directly under the extended centreline and closer to the start of roll from Runway 10 than St Nicholas was to the start of roll from Runway 28

5.1.3 peak departure noise levels at Clarendon were higher than those recorded previously, although the overall noise climates were generally the same

5.1.4 November figures showed a notable increase in the number of particularly noisy departures, two of which exceeded 101dB. These particular movements had had a significant and disproportionate effect on the average

5.1.5 in any noise monitoring regime, there was always the issue of the relationship of the monitoring site and the track taken by aircraft

5.1.6 there were differences in the geography between the two sites

5.17 Manchester Airport would like to introduce an additional portable monitor at Clarendon in a more open area to see if noise reflection was an issue, possibly leading to a distorted figure

5.1.8 Manchester had also suggested that, in parallel, it would be helpful to sit down with the airline operators concerned to enable the noise experts to understand the operating practices and procedures that pilots were working to.

5.1.9 The Committee agreed with Paul Tipple’s proposal to instruct Manchester to proceed without delay so that information would be available for the next MACC meeting. Mr Tipple agreed to Brian Lear’s request that TDC be informed of the results. Action PT

5.1.10 Steve Anderson of MK Airlines confirmed Alastair Robertson’s explanation that noise generated depended upon the weight of the freight carried. MK Airlines would be happy to work with Manchester and to vet the settings of the aircraft engines in use. Mr Anderson agreed that the figures appeared very strange.

5.1.11 Malcolm Kirkaldie did not find the figures at all strange. Having been in the military himself, he felt sure that the situation arose from the use of old aircraft, with a massive weightload, using full throttle to get airborne. Mr Kirkaldie said that had there been a proper Environmental Assessment, this would have been picked up many months previously. He had watched aircraft struggling to get to sufficient height and he feared that, without some action, there would be an incident.

5.2 Noise Insulation update: Paul Tipple reported that responses had been received from all residents qualifying under the scheme. Meetings had been held with residents, each individual case having been gone through. It had been agreed that certain properties already fitted with secondary glazing would be given the full amount of the grant to provide acoustic loft insulation. This had been agreed because much of the noise suffered by those residents was a result of aircraft taking off to the east virtually alongside properties close to the runway.

5.3 Pollution Monitoring: Readings had been previously circulated. Brian Lear confirmed that they remained well within WHO requirement.

5.3.1 Cllr Bragg requested information on new mandatory limits referred to in the White Paper. Brian Lear agreed to provide these as soon as they became available. Action BL

5.4 Night Flights: Tony Freudmann reported that since September a total of 17 flights had operated between the hours of 2300-0700. Of that number, 14 had been involved in meeting requests of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad for airlifted assistance in support of the civil reconstruction of Iraq, and three had been aircraft under charter to the British MoD for flying troops to and from Afghanistan. Thanet District Council had discussed the matter at a recently held meeting.

5.4.1 When LMA agreed, in August 2003, to support the flights to Iraq, it had been on the basis that departure times would be within normal operating hours. However, as the security situation in Iraq deteriorated, increasing the risk of attacks to aircraft landing at Baghdad, Manston had been asked to delay departure times. Mr Freudmann accepted that these flights had occurred at extremely unsocial hours.

5.4.2 Mr Freudmann assured the meeting that, contrary to public speculation that the aircraft had been carrying hazardous cargo, no munitions or any other hazardous material had been involved. He was, however, not in a position to reveal the exact nature of the cargo.

5.4.3 The MoD flights to Afghanistan at the request of the British Government had involved flying British troops undertaking their UN responsibilities. The late arrival on 9^th September had been due mainly to air traffic delays en route to Manston, whilst the late departures on 24^th and 30^th September had been caused by a series of unforeseen technical difficulties.

5.4.4 With regard to the acceptability of the flights in relation to the Section 106 Agreement, Mr Freudmann confirmed that acceptance of the CPA sponsored flights to Iraq had resulted in the quota of 12 humanitarian flights permitted in any calendar year being exceeded. However, when the Sec 106 Agreement was signed in September 1999 it had not been envisaged that the UK, let alone Manston, would have been handling relief flights to war areas.

5.4.5 Mr Freudmann repeated that there was no intention of trying to ease in a night flying operation, in fact 8000 tonnes of commercial freight business had been rejected earlier in the year. Wiggins had signed the S106 Agreement and had every intention of adhering to its terms.

5.4.6 Before the next TDC meeting in February, there was an onus on the Company to ensure that Council members were as fully briefed as possible.

5.4.7 Cllr Bob Bayford (Deputy Leader TDC) reported that the Council had taken the decision to uphold the terms of the S106 Agreement completely. Although recognising that many issues were involved, the Council had been unimpressed by the edict from CPA that these flights should be treated as humanitarian. It had been decided to seeking assurance from relevant authorities as to the nature of the flights, brief Council members at the next TDC meeting, and then consider policy concerning fining.

5.4.7.1 Brian Lear felt Council members were looking for an understanding of whether the cargo fitted into the immediate, or medium/long term, relief of suffering in that country.

5.4.7.2 Gerry Glover reported an allegation that had been made on Radio Kent the previous week that the Sec 106 Agreement had been breached because, regardless of the cargo, when it was known in advance that time limits would be breached, there was an obligation to advise TDC accordingly. Mr Glover said that if such an obligation was part of the S106, more care would need to be taken should similar occasions arise.

5.4.7.3 Ron Flaherty considered that a copy of any such advice on proposed late flying should be forwarded to Canterbury City Council.

5.4.7.4 Malcolm Kirkaldie then passed a sheet of questions round the table. The Chairman said that some of the points had been answered in discussion. He suggested that he and the Secretary obtain relevant statements from those to whom the remaining questions were addressed, and circulate the response to MACC members. Action: AJH, TMS

5.4.7.5 The Chairman said a number of points had emerged from the discussion, in particular a question as to the definition of "humanitarian flights" - no such definition was contained within the S106 Agreement. TDC would be making its own investigations on this point, and reach its own conclusions. But even if the flights were designated "humanitarian" the S106 Agreement permitted only 12 such flights in any one year – and this number had been substantially exceeded. The question here was whether exceptional circumstances justified this and (given that the figure of 12 had been arbitrarily chosen by the negotiators) what number of night flights per year should be regarded as tolerable.

5.4.7.6 Steve Anderson of MK Airlines thanked LMA for the support his company had received and apologised for any inconvenience caused to local residents. Those involved had been acting to support their Government with the situation in Iraq. Mr Anderson thought LMA should be applauded for their efforts.

6.1. The Chairman reminded the meeting that the current S106 remained in operation until such time as it had been renegotiated. Brian Lear confirmed that such renegotiation was due to take place in early 2004, to give new members of MACC the opportunity to consider the matter fully, after which a draft document would be put before MACC for consultation.

6.2. The Chairman asked whether, as had been requested at the previous meeting, members wished to put forward any suggestions (apart from Noise Management and Night Flights). Members accepted the Chairman’s invitation that, in the first instance, they forward suggestions to the Secretary for take up by the negotiators. There would still be time to produce a summary for the next MACC meeting.

6.2.1. Robin Tapsell asked whether TDC would be writing to Parish Councils for views. Whilst pointing out that all adjacent Parish Councils were represented on MACC, Brian Lear said TDC would be happy to accept views from individual Parish Councils.

6.3. The Chairman proposed that any suggestions should be forwarded by 1^st February 2004 to: Brian Lear at TDC, to the MACC Secretary, and to Paul Tipple. This would ensure that MACC and the two negotiators were fully informed. Action: Community Representatives

7.1 The Secretary had previously circulated a report detailing grants amounting to a total of £8145.00. The balance remaining was £3919.76. Three further applications had been received for consideration. The Chairman thanked committee members for publicising the Fund.

7.1.1. Len Claisse asked whether the night flights discussed earlier would attract fines adding to the balance. The Chairman said this would depend upon the decision taken by Thanet District Council in February, in the light of advice the Council received.

8.1 Election of Chairman and Secretary: Paul Tipple informed members that the appointment of the Chairman and Secretary had lapsed in March 2002. It was, therefore, necessary for the committee to decide whether or not it was content to approve the re-election of the current Chairman and Secretary for a further period of three years, up to March 2005. Nick Cole, although absent due to a company board meeting, had expressed his view that the committee had been well served and proposed re-election. Mr Tipple was happy to second the proposal, and both Chairman and Secretary were re-elected.

8.2 New draft Guidelines for Airport Consultative Committees: (previously circulated to members) The Department for Transport had, after consultation, issued new Guidelines after a period of twelve years. Both the Chairman and Alastair Robertson, Airport Director, had been pleased to note that Manston, although a developing airport, already complied with the majority of suggestions that had been made during the consultation process.

8.2.1 The Chairman reinforced the guideline that Consultative Committees were not a dispute resolving body, but a forum for discussion.

8.2.2 Malcolm Kirkaldie asked if an arbitration system could be set up to resolve differences of opinion. The Chairman agreed with Alastair Robertson and Brian Lear that the S106 was a legal agreement between TDC and Wiggins, the terms of which had to be followed. Mr Lear added that TDC were happy to discuss problems that may arise.

8.3 Timing of MACC meetings: Members were content with the current arrangement of quarterly meetings, three held in the afternoon, the fourth (to which public and press were invited) in the evening.

9 DATES of MEETINGS 2004: The Chairman said proposed dates would be circulated with the Minutes, after consultation with Thanet District Council and the Airport.

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 4.45pm.

Dates for future meetings: