3.1. Tony Freudmann reported the successful outcome of Wiggins restructuring and refinancing and the subsequent repayment of mezzanine debt and other liabilities. At the EGM on 5 January 2004 shareholders had also passed a resolution giving effect to the change of the company’s name to PlaneStation Group plc. Mr Freudmann also reported that the Group’s Chief Executive, Oliver Iny, had been relieved of his duties on 8^th March. The Group’s directors would appoint an interim Chief Executive.

3.1.1. Mr Freudmann had been assured that these changes would not affect the policy regarding Manston or the Group’s other airports. It was important to make the point that the major investors who were involved in the changes, were those who had subscribed to the Group’s equity offering in respect of which Manston was the central part.

3.1.2. Management of Manston would remain unchanged, with Alastair Robertson as Airport Director, Tony Freudmann Chairman of the Airport Company, Paul Tipple Director of Corporate Affairs, and Geoff Lansbury as Chief Executive of the Airport.

3.1.3. Mr Freudmann concluded by stating that a decision had been made to change the name of the airport to Kent International Airport-Manston.

3.2. Business Development – passenger traffic

Paul Tipple referred to the announcement (previously circulated) confirming that a conditional agreement was now in place between the Airport and EUjet who wanted to use Manston as a UK hub for their future scheduled passenger services throughout the UK and into Europe. EUjet was raising the funds needed to support the operation with the active support of Rothschild, its stockbrokers. Mr Tipple said there was every confidence that the required funding would be secured in the near future. At that point it would be possible to announce the route destinations and other details. EUjet would be operating Fokker 100 aircraft – a Chapter 4 modern jet aircraft seating 108 passengers – which should help considerably in minimising the noise impact of the operation.

3.2.1. EUjet had forecast 300,000 passengers in the first year, increasing over a 3yr period to over 2m passengers. Mr Tipple said as it was clear that the present terminal building would be inadequate, plans were being finalised to put in place minimum essential extensions to the building, together with associated car parking facilities. A formal planning application would be put forward to Thanet District Council. In support of that application, Mr Tipple was due to meet Babtie, who were concluding the formal Traffic Impact Assessment which would identify the impact of road movements into and out of the Airport and surrounding area as a result of the projected passenger throughput. The TIA would also identify what essential immediate road improvements would need to be made.

3.2.2. Mr Tipple stated that Bickerdike Allen had been commissioned to draw up a new noise contour on the premise of the Fokker 100 being the main passenger aircraft.

3.2.3. It was hoped that these two documents, allied to that part of the earlier Environmental Statement addressing non-traffic and non-noise issues would be sufficient to enable TDC to take a view. A presentation on the development would be given to MACC as soon as possible.

3.3. Border Inspection Post: Paul Tipple reported that work was well under way and on course for an expected operational commencement in the summer.

3.4. Environmental Impact Assessment: The Chairman referred to previous meetings when TDC had stated that a fuller Environmental Assessment would be required at such time that any major planning application was submitted. It appeared from Mr Tipple’s report that the two documents proposed covered the two areas of potential controversy, i.e. noise monitoring of air traffic, and ground traffic.

3.4.1. Brian Lear said TDC was aware of the intention, and a view would be taken when formal application was received.

3.4.2. Pete Binding pointed out that as the Fokker 100 aircraft had a quota count of 0.5, they would be exempt from the S106 Agreement and therefore permitted to fly at any time of day or night. Alastair Robertson said that the flying hours would be within the terms of the S106. Brian Lear pointed out that, regardless of quota count, no regular night flights were permitted under the S106 without an agreed night flying policy. No approach had been made in this connection.

3.4.3. In response to various questions, Paul Tipple explained that, for commercial reasons, actual destinations had not yet been made public. It was expected that there would be some 29 route destinations across Europe (including the UK and Ireland) all well-known and established airports. Initially the Airport would need to recruit about 100 extra staff and it was understood that EUjet would also be recruiting a similar number from the local catchment area. The EUjet fleet would initially comprise 5 aircraft, increasing to 7 to cover the winter schedule projected to commence in October 2004.

3.4.4. Dennis Hart asked whether the planning application would accommodate any other airline operators attracted to Manston. Paul Tipple confirmed that plans for extension of the passenger terminal would allow for estimated peak hour usage and for peaks associated with wide bodied transatlantic charter flights to Florida.

3.4.5. Nick Cole asked where the parking space was to be allocated, but Mr Tipple was unable at present to identify the exact location apart from stating that it would not be south of the A299, and would be within easy reach of the terminal building.

4.1.The Chairman asked the two negotiating partners whether there had been any progress. Brian Lear said a timetable for discussions was being set up.

4.2 The Chairman said there had been remarkably few contributions from community representatives (Acol PC and Manston PC only), and he encouraged those Councils and community groups who had not submitted comments to give the matter serious consideration, copying any responses to the Secretary, Paul Tipple and Brian Lear. Several bodies had expected a draft on which to comment and Brian Lear confirmed that it was the intention to submit a draft to MACC members for comment.

Alastair Robertson summarised the following:

5.1. Complaints: A total of 214 forms had generated 488 complaints, from 26 individual complainants. This compared with 227 forms generating 387 complaints during the same period the previous year, from 17 individual complainants.

5.1.1. The Chairman noted an increase in the number of complaints related to off-route flying, and Mr Robertson drew attention to the 60 complaints received from one Westgate-on-Sea resident.

5.1.1.1. Mr Robertson conceded to Cllr Bayford’s request that Complaints by Location indicated the number of complainants from each location. Nick Cole thought it should be remembered that in some locations, all complaints may be channelled through one source. ACTION AR

5.1.2. Of the Top Ten complaints generated, most related to MK flights, which was not surprising since MK Airlines formed the great majority of current business.

5.2. Departures Summary/Runway Utilisation: Mr Robertson said figures showed roughly 50/50 runway utilisation, rather than the 70%/30% target. This was because of unusual climatic conditions.

5.3. Section 106 Compliancy Report: Movements between 2300-0700: Of the 8 such flights, one had been by heavy aircraft, the remainder HM Coastguard.

6.1. The Chairman asked for any questions on the previously circulated report by TDC which detailed recent night flights to Iraq and neighbouring destinations, showing those on which fines had been levied.

6.1.1. Pete Binding queried the list of flights provided to TDC Councillors, and the list from which fines had been calculated covering the whole year. Sec 106 Compliancy Reports presented to MACC did not appear to match up with the list provided to TDC. For example, in May 2003, the information provided to MACC showed 10 night flights, whereas the list provided to TDC showed no flights having occurred in May 2003. Brian Lear pointed out that the 10 flights in question had all been Coastguard flights by light aircraft. Alastair Robertson confirmed that the information requested by TDC had referred to heavy aircraft only. Confusion may have arisen from the erroneous inclusion of one Medivac flight. Mr Robertson said S106 reports normally indicated the number of light aircraft movements, although unfortunately that information had been omitted on this particular occasion.

7.1. Noise Monitoring

7.1.1. Paul Tipple reported that as a result of discussions at the previous meeting Manchester Airport had been commissioned to research the apparent inconsistency between readings from noise monitors at either end of the runway, and to find a method of making the readings directly comparable. With the help of Paul Martin of TDC they had identified suitable siting for a portable monitor at the Clarendon School end, in a position relative to the St Nicholas monitor, so that comparisons could be made. This work was now ongoing, and would carry on for a three month period.

7.1.2. Mr Tipple confirmed in answer to a question that the portable monitor in question was not an additional one, but the one operated by TDC. The Chairman said this would presumably mean that the portable monitor would not be used for its intended purpose of testing noise levels at other locations until the exercise had been completed.

7.1.3. Nick Cole asked whether the suggested discussions on operating practices and procedures had taken place between airline operators and Manchester Airport. Paul Tipple said first priority was to get the mobile monitor installed.

7.1.4. Referring to proposed new noise contours, Bernard Clayson felt noise measures should be judged on the noisiest, not quietest, aircraft. Paul Tipple explained that noise contours depended upon aircraft types, and average noise levels. It was important that, as planning applications were submitted, TDC were sufficiently informed in order to appreciate the implications of operating, for example, the EUjet aircraft. The type of aircraft for the projected Melbourne flights had been factored in to the 2005 forecast.

7.1.5. Mr Tipple also confirmed that Manston was capable of handling transatlantic flights, as it had done previously. Alastair Robertson confirmed the existence of adequate emergency take-off space – which did not have to be actual runway. At present, current business did not require extension of the runway. Should specific long-range business require extension, this was likely to be at the Western end, as set out in the Master Plan. In response to Pete Binding, Paul Tipple agreed that for strategic planning purposes, it was right to identify where an extension would go, should the scenario arise.

7.2. Noise Insulation update

7.2.1. Paul Tipple reported that costings had been received from glaziers and loft insulation installers. Qualifying residents were being written to setting out prices and financial contribution required. It was hoped that by the end of March, glaziers and loft insulators would have been formally contracted. In answer to Pete Binding and Dennis Hart, Mr Tipple said some 50 residences qualified under the scheme, and should present residents have declined the scheme, new owners would be eligible to take up the offer.

7.3. Pollution Monitoring

7.3.1. Paul Martin reported that readings from the monitors around the airport were the lowest in the area.

8.1. The Secretary had previously circulated a report detailing grants made. A statement from TDC showed a total of £14,519.76 having been accrued. The current Fund balance was £6,529.76.

8.2. The Chairman said numerous enquiries had been received following TDC’s decision to impose fines of £52,000 on the Iraq flights. However, there were several stages of negotiation to go through before any of the money reached the Fund. Although it would be preferable to have a situation where no fines needed to be made, the Fund was a useful way of dispensing money to worthwhile projects around the community.

9. DATE of NEXT MEETING Thursday 3^rd June 2004

The Chairman said in view of projected passenger business, a new venue would be actively sought. Details to be advised. (see note below)

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 3.15pm.

----------------------

1^st April 2004

To All MACC Members:

Future meetings:

It has been necessary, due to difficulty in finding a suitable venue, to change the date of the December meeting. Details are as follows:

June Thursday 3^rd 2pm Manston Village Hall
December Wednesday 15^th 2pm Manston Village Hall
September Monday 6^th 7pm to be advised