APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from: Len Claisse (KAPC Canterbury); Roger Latchford (TDC); Gerry Glover (Minster PC).
Members endorsed the Chairman’s proposal to send best wishes to Gerry Glover, who was not at all well, for a speedy recovery.
The Chairman welcomed members of the public.

1.1 Paul Tipple wished to clarify item 3.5.8. which stated that 50% of EUjet’s fuel requirements would be supplied by KIA. This had been incorrectly interpreted by a number of commentators as meaning that EUjet was being subsidised by the PlaneStation Group, which was not the case.

2.1 Item 5.3: Pollution Monitoring. New mandatory limits on Benzene levels were shown on the latest readings. (see item 6.3)

3.1 Development of Infrastructure: Alastair Robertson reported on progress.

3.1.1 The Border Inspection Post and warehouse had been completed and was close to being handed over by the contractors, at which stage approval would be sought from the European Commissioner for marketing to airlines wishing to bring fish and meat produce into the UK.

3.1.2 New car parking facilities had been put in place, currently with a capacity for 681 cars, and an ability to extend to 1,000 subject to passenger demand.

3.1.3 The Terminal Building had been thoroughly refurbished. Additional passenger space had been supplied and refreshment areas modernised. Considerably enhanced security equipment, had been introduced, and a no-notice inspection by the Department for Transport had confirmed that levels of security complied in every way with requirements.

3.1.3 The possibility of a new terminal building was being considered in the long term, as more passengers were attracted to the Airport.

3.2.1 Business Development – EUjet

3.2.1 Adrian Rabet of EUjet said that bookings had exceeded initial hopes and satisfactory flight-schedules had been maintained. Passengers had expressed satisfaction with the aircraft, and local residents had commented on the lower-than-expected noise level. EUjet was delighted that the partnership between the Airport and Airline was working so well.

3.2.2 The airline was currently flying from Manston to Dublin, Amsterdam, Gerona, Nice, Prague, Jersey, Copenhagen, Murcia and Faro. Early in October, flights would be introduced to Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow and Shannon.

3.2.3 The Chairman had been aware of comments regarding flights commencing at 6.15am. Alastair Robertson said that the Airport’s interpretation of the S106 Agreement was clear and unambiguous. The Agreement limited night flying to exclude operations between 23.00 and 07.00 with the exception of passenger flights departing to European destinations, which were permitted from 06.00hrs. Business travellers needed to get into Europe early a.m.

3.2.3.1 Pete Binding (MAG), whilst understanding the needs of the business community, did not see the need for flights to depart at 6.15am on Sundays. Mr Robertson explained that these flights facilitated connection to flights further afield, where aircraft needed to complete three rotations each in a day, necessitating 6.15am departure. Further, the S106 Agreement did not differentiate between flights for business or tourism purposes.

3.2.3.2 Whilst some members expressed their relief at the low level of noise accompanying the EUjet flights, Pete Binding thought it important to understand that there was another point of view. Whilst he had found EUjet aircraft quieter than MK, he and other residents had nevertheless found the early morning flights loud enough to wake them on several occasions A couple living in St Nicholas had told Mr Binding that they were considering selling their home as they feared that if EUjet operations expanded to the extent proposed, the disturbance would become intolerable.

3.3 Other Business Development

3.3.1 Paul Tipple said there was little to add to the extensive media coverage regarding the EUjet operation. This effectively laid the foundation for Manston becoming an important regional airport able to promote economic development across Kent and contribute to meeting the demand for air services in the South East – very much in line with Government’s own expectations as a result of its extensive consultation on the future of air services across the UK.

3.3.2 In addition to the recent and sizeable investment made in improved passenger handling and car parking facilities, it was hoped that the Border Inspection Post and Cargo complex would attract quality cargo operators, and improve the long term sustainability of the airport.

3.3.3 The unexpected departure of MK Airlines had been a disappointment. MK, a valued operator, who for nearly five years had enjoyed high levels of service from the Airport, had benefited from a most favourable commercial agreement on landing charges and handling fees. Constructive dialogue on a new scale of charges had taken place, but fees had not been raised to anything approaching the rates claimed in various press statements. Investment in the new cargo complex had been predicated on attracting new operators in complementary airfreight sectors to those of MK Airlines. Discussions with operators were in progress.

3.3.4 In response to Cllr Dennis Hart, Alastair Robertson agreed to arrange airport tours, in the New Year, for interested MACC members. ACTION AR

3.3.5 A resident had enquired, through Peter Ditton, whether assurance could be given that any new cargo operations would utilise more modern aircraft than those that had caused disturbance in the past. Alastair Robertson, whilst unable to give categorical assurance, confirmed that new cargo business was targeted at a better class of operator.

4. S106 AGREEMENT – renegotiation

4.1 The Chairman requested an update on the timetable regarding renegotiation

4.1.1 Paul Tipple said there had been a series of constructive discussions between PlaneStation and TDC. The terms and conditions as set out in the extant S106 continued to prevail. Mr Tipple thought there would be very little substantive change that would cause people concern. Thanet District Council was in fact so far successfully applying even sterner conditions in some respects, particularly with regard to future master planning activity at the airport. It was the joint intention to present a draft to full Council early in October, and in the light of Council’s deliberations, proceed to formal public consultation.

4.1.2 Brian White said the new S106 would move forward and build on the successes of the previous agreement. One reason why the present timetable had been set by councillors was that it would allow time for the public to acquire experience of the noise levels by the type of flight now in operation. TDC believed this was very important to the process of public engagement.

4.1.3 Bernard Clayson was confused as to how the S106 could be renegotiated on environmental terms when an Environmental Impact Assessment was not in place. Brian White said the S106 was somewhat different to an EIA in that it was specific to noise levels in the context of Kent International Airport to certain key parts of the process, for example the night flying schedule. Mr White said the proper home for those issues, so that the operator, airlines, the Council and general public understood how the law worked through the planning system, was actually a S106 Agreement. Although it was related to the process of EIA, it was not quite the same thing. Mr Clayson understood that, but repeated that four years after the signing of the S106 Agreement between TDC and PlaneStation, there was still no EIA.

4.1.4 On the subject of planning, Mr Clayson asked whether Public Safety Zones had been defined, and if so whether they had been published. Mr White said it was not incumbent upon TDC as planning authority, nor the airport itself to provide a comprehensive EIA through EU regulations. An overriding Environmental Statement had been provided that had since been built on by the Airport Operator. Mr White felt it fair to say that a platform had been reached in the growth of the Airport, and that it might be appropriate at the next stage of airport development for Council to look at the regulations that now formed part of UK law, and to visit the overarching Environmental Statement provided and take that through the process of Environmental Impact Assessment.

4.1.5 Paul Tipple endorsed the points made by Brian White. It was consistent with the way in which the airport had approached the masterplan. It had started with the strategic masterplan that tried to quantify the impact of growth in traffic at the airport. External consultants had been engaged to produce an Environmental Statement, which established a quantum baseline stating what was happening on the ground at the airport at that moment. Some people considered that it did not go into the level of detail expected for the Council to be able to give planning permission for subsequent developments. Mr Tipple argued that it did, as it provided an enormous amount of detailed information, but importantly, the subsequent developments that had taken place at the airport, as the Committee had publicly acknowledged, essentially boiled down to two things: the impact on the road network, for which external consultants (Babtie) were commissioned to produce the Transport Assessment (circulated to members); secondly, aircraft noise as a result in the increase in air traffic movements. That too had been properly assessed in the work that Bickerdike Allen/Manchester airport had done as external independent consultants. Mr Tipple argued that there was enough documentary evidence, independently produced, to be able to provide the Council with an informed basis on which it could exercise its official responsibilities. When there was another step change in growth at the Airport, which probably would be associated with some form of extension to the existing passenger handling facilities, he would expect to be told that an Environmental Impact Assessment specific to that planning application was required, together with a scoping statement setting out exactly what needed to be done.

4.1.6 Bernard Clayson referred again to Public Safety Zones and Paul Tipple stated that this was for the Department for Transport to instigate. Alastair Robertson explained that the DfT required an assessment as to the requirement of PSZ when a certain level of activity was reached. It was up to the DfT to say when they considered that such a point had been reached, and to indicate the requirements of such a PSZ. At the present stage, such a demand had not been made. In response to Mr Clayson’s further query regarding permitted planning development within an expected PSZ, Brian White said there was nothing in planning law allowing any planning authority to anticipate what might happen.

4.1.7 Mr White agreed with the Chairman’s suggestion that it would be convenient if the consultation period were to last until the end of 2004. This would give Committee members time to establish the views of their respective groups and bring them to the MACC meeting to be held on 15^th December.

4.2 Transport Assessment – Babtie Report

4.2.1 Paul Tipple reported that Babtie had concluded that the strategic highway network was sufficient to support the envisaged levels of movement by car and other forms of transport. (M2 and A299 approaching Manston from the West). There would be issues over the winding road between the Business Park and the Airport, and the consultants had recommended a change in prioritisation of the Spitfire junction. Due process would include public consultation on the redesign of that junction which would improve safety.

4.2.2 The consultants had recommended an improved right hand turn into the Airport passenger terminal and car park. Linked to that was the wider issue of whether the Manston Road running from the Spitfire Museum to the Airport and on through Manston village should be closed to all but airport traffic. The recommendation was in favour, subject to following the due process of preparing detailed technical assessments on the impact of such closure. These assessments were being studied by independent experts and if there was an acceptable technical solution, identifying both the impact on the wider road network and the mitigating measures, then the proposal would be put to public consultation before any decision were taken by the Airport to make a formal submission to the Council.

4.2.3 Mr Tipple was conscious of the concerns expressed by Manston Parish Council of the effect on minor surrounding roads if Manston Road were to be closed. That was linked in turn to whatever would eventually be the masterplan for accessing the Westwood development.

4.2.4 Also to be taken into account was the progress made on the East Kent Access – involving dualling part of the A256, eventually extending to the Lord of the Manor, plus the impact on that of the closure of part of Manston Road.

4.2.5 Cllr Dennis Hart confirmed that traffic through Manston Village needed mitigation. He was certain that the closure of part of Manston Road would have a dramatic effect on the safety of the villagers. Cllr Hart did not agree with views expressed by Manston Parish Council. To close the road to all but airport traffic should not include heavy goods vehicles. Cllr Hart asked all parties – KCC Highways Dept. TDC and PlaneStation to consider that, and also the roundabout on Haine Road that had been proposed some time previously.

4.2.6Peter Ditton, for Manston Parish Council, wondered how Cllr Hart knew what views had been expressed at Parish Council meetings without attending any of them.

4.2.7 John Garland felt that, with minimal public transport systems in place, road closures did not help general traffic flow. Whilst he appreciated the problem at Manston, he suggested that a better solution would be to build a by-pass to take the traffic away from Manston, rather than just shut it down. Peter Ditton commented that there already was a by pass, namely Haine Road and what was known locally as the Top Road.

4.2.8 The Chairman said that closure of Manston Road was clearly a sensitive issue and that comments that had been made should be taken into account in reaching a decision.

4.2.9 Whilst acknowledging that rail services were not within the scope of the Babtie Report, the Chairman was aware that Paul Tipple was involved in watching closely the KCC drive to ensure that Thanet would benefit from a fast service through the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Mr Tipple confirmed that it would be a key part of the strategy as it would reduce road traffic. An announcement was expected from the Dept for Transport and the Strategic Rail Authority shortly, and indications suggested that SRA would be ordering new trains to enable a fast service to operate from London, via Ashford, through Canterbury and to Ramsgate, opening up the possibility of putting in some form of Manston Parkway station. The timeframes that Mr Tipple understood the SRA was working to had been delayed, but by mid-2008 new fast rolling stock could be expected to be in operation with an overall journey time from Ramsgate to London of about 1hr20m. Meanwhile, negotiations were in progress with four train operating companies who were preparing to bid for the integrated Kent Franchise which would come into being in April 2005. All public authorities across East Kent including the business sector had been pushing hard with each of the operating companies to find innovative solutions to reduce significantly the current journey time of close to 2hrs.

4.3.1 Since the June meeting, members had received copies of the report prepared by Bickerdike Allen and Manchester Airport. At that meeting, Paul Tipple had reported that the overall coverage and shape of the noise contours during the three year period to September 2003 had shrunk.

4.3.2 Mr Tipple confirmed the Chairman’s assumption that, should the stage be reached when planning permission was sought for development based on a major increase in traffic, it would be necessary for projected contours to be commissioned.

5. Airport Statistics

5.1 Complaints: Alastair Robertson reported that the number of forms and complaints received showed an increase over the same period in the previous year, although the number of individual complainants had reduced. During June/July 2003 there had been 596 heavy movements, in comparison with 472 during June/July 2004, showing that fewer aircraft were generating a higher number of complaints. The activity that had caused the most complaints to the Airport had been Das Air circuit training on 3^rd June (19 complaints). Two aid flights to Sudan by IL-76 aircraft had also attracted complaints. Mr Robertson pointed out that these aircraft were not permitted to use Manston, except for emergency aid flights.

5.1.1 The Chairman had received a complaint that the new complaint form was in box-tick format and did not give the facility for detailing the reason for complaint, such as the setting off of car alarms, sleep disturbance, dislodging of roof tiles, etc. The Chairman requested assurance that such information could be conveyed by letter accompanying a form, as the Airport would presumably need to know the cause of complaint.

5.1.2 Alastair Robertson said the Complaints Form had been changed at the request of one of the most regular correspondents who had experienced difficulty in completing the original format due to disability. Mr Robertson agreed to review the format with a view to including a general comment section. ACTION AR

5.1.3 The Chairman noted that the number of complaints during the current period citing off route flying totalled 99, as opposed to zero during the same period in 2003. Mr Robertson said there was no indication that aircraft had been flying off-route, but it would appear that some people’s perception varied from that of the Airport.

5.1.4 Referring to the Top 10 Complaints, the Chairman noted that, for the first time, the majority (six) of these had involved aircraft other than those of MK Airlines. Mr Robertson said that as Das Air rarely trained at Manston it was possible that the different size of aircraft and different aircraft noise had some influence. He also pointed out that 17 of the 19 complaints about Das Air had been received from 2 people.

5.1.5 In answer to Bernard Clayson, Mr Robertson confirmed that a map identifying indicative routes had been produced in 2000, to provide information to people living locally and those considering doing so. This had been provided to the local press recently. Mr Robertson agreed to supply copies to members. ACTION AR

5.1.6 Cllr Ron Flaherty said he heard numerous comments from his electorate, particularly regarding low-flying aircraft, but it should be recognised that comparatively few individuals were of a mind to go through the process of making a formal complaint. Cllr Flaherty felt that, to the public, it appeared that nothing was being done about complaints. The idea of installing the ILS beam had been to raise the altitude of flights coming into to turn at about the 2-3,000ft level, but many aircraft were still coming in below the designated altitude. It was impossible to prove that pilots were adhering to the designated altitude without upgraded radar equipment. Cllr Flaherty asked the Chairman if a statement could be produced to give to residents who telephoned stating that PlaneStation were backing Canterbury City Council’s pressure for the installation of such equipment, when financing became available.

5.1.7 The Chairman said the way in which non-complainers got their complaints heard was through their local representatives at the table. A number of representatives were particularly good in that respect.

5.1.8 Alastair Robertson confirmed that the Airport did not have a method for proving that aircraft followed the glidepath as decribed by the ILS. The Airport was looking at the installation of a new radar system during the next couple of years, which would allow tracking of aircraft, confirmation of height, and record information. Mr Robertson was sorry that coastal residents were experiencing an increase in low-flying, for which there was no obvious reason. Monitoring of the situation would continue.

5.1.9 Cllr Flaherty repeated his request for a statement to give to the general public explaining up front what had been done and what the Airport intended to do, rather than figures simply being presented and noted.

5.1.10 Cllr Bob Bayford (Broadstairs) said that before the individual number of complainants had been included, it had been thought that hundreds of people were upset by the activity of aircraft and the Airport. In fact figures showed that 17 people had been moved to make formal complaints. Cllr Bayford had not personally received any complaints.

5.1.11 Bernard Clayson pointed out that he passed forms/and the e mail address on to telephone complainants, but only the most determined people would go through the process, which was thought by many to be a waste of time. Mr Clayson felt that complaints should be dealt with by an independent body, such as MACC. Alastair Robertson responded that he would be delighted for MACC to take over the responsibility but warned of the difficulty.

5.1.12 John Garland asked whether the 17 regular complainants had been contacted with a view to opening a dialogue. Mr Robertson declined to comment.

5.1.13 The Chairman did not see how anybody except the Airport could run the complaints system, as only the Airport knew what was happening. He knew it was a very time-consuming exercise. Everybody including the Airport accepted that the information available about air movements was not as precise as they would like because the very expensive equipment that was able to track aircraft departures after leaving the runway was not yet installed. The Chairman said that very few airports of a similar size possessed such equipment. The committee had noted with interest the Airport’s intention to try and install that kind of equipment within the next couple of years or so. Presumably the more traffic grew, the more money would become available with which to buy the equipment.

5.1.14 The Chairman said it had been accepted that the statistical exercise was of limited value in the sense that some people were more inclined to complain than others, and if it was found that there were only 17 people producing a very large number of complaints, this only represented the views of 17 people. It had always been accepted that there were quite a few people who were upset by noise but it was not in their nature to complain. Therefore the actual quantity figures in the statistics did not mean a great deal. However, some conclusions could be drawn from the trends, the changes in numbers of complaints, the number of people complaining, where the new complaints came from. So far as reflecting views was concerned that were not being brought to the attention of the Airport through the complaints system, it was the business of the committee, through its representatives, whether at meetings or by telephone to the Chairman or Secretary, to bring those complaints to the committee’s attention. Some were individual complaints, some were expressions of general concern that had been discussed in Parish Councils, with differing weight of concern and differing numbers of people behind them. That kind of comment had, in the past, been taken very seriously. The Committee knew that Ron Flaherty had pushed repeatedly to get the ILS beam installed, and there were a number of factors, some outside the control of the Airport, that had delayed that installation. Now there were comments from Herne Bay that there were still people being disturbed by low flying. The Chairman was sure that the Airport would try to find an explanation. He concluded by looking forward to the day when aircraft would be able to be tracked, making the whole system simpler.

5.2 Departures Summary/Runway Utilisation: Alastair Robertson reported that the 70%/30% target had been missed by a considerable margin

5.2.1 Section 106 Compliancy Report: Movements between 2300-0700: There had been 5 HM Coastguard flights in June, none in July. There had been fewer heavy movements in comparison with the same period in 2003.

6.1 Noise Monitor readings (previously circulated)

6..1 The Chairman noted that whilst readings from the Clarendon monitor showed average levels for arrivals and departures of around 89dba, the readings at the St Nicholas end were slightly lower at 75-77dba for arrivals and 86dba for departures. Paul Tipple reminded the meeting that the St Nicholas monitor was, due to difficulty in obtaining optimum siting, not on the same line as the Clarendon monitor. TDC with Manchester Airport was in the process of carrying out a series of trials using the mobile monitor to ensure that calibration of the Western monitor was correct, and to attempt to account for the apparent disparity.

6.1.2 Pete Binding noted that the readings from the St Nicholas showed departure levels as being higher than those for arrivals. Mr Binding had thought that the departure route towards St Nicholas avoided the village, therefore the noise levels for departures should be lower than levels for arrivals.

6.1.3 Paul Tipple confirmed that whilst arrivals overflew the village, the departure route went to the east, avoiding the village. It was hoped that Manchester would be able to resolve the issue on completion of the calibration check. Mr Tipple agreed that, based on earlier advice received from Bickerdike Allen, the understanding had been given that in general arrival noise was higher than departure. Having spoken to a resident of St Nicholas, Mr Binding felt that the noise graph did not represent the situation experienced by the people of St Nicholas. Paul Tipple confirmed that it had not been possible to site the monitor in the village, and the different routes for departure and arrivals added to the difficulty.

6.1.4 Bernard Clayson could not give the readings a great deal of credibility. Landings flights, almost without exception, lined up with the church directly in the middle of the village, whereas the departure route could be either to the left or right of that. When they were closer to the northern wing, they were nearer to the monitor but not in line with it. Mr Clayson said that in the middle of the village during a landing, the noise was incredible. When he stood outside his front door during a departure, he could catch the roof tiles.

6.1.5 Nick Cole asked where the mobile monitor had been sited in St Nicholas, and whether it had been used in the Village. Brian White for TDC who were responsible for utilisation of the mobile monitor, did not have the detailed programme to hand. Mr Cole repeated a previous request that the mobile monitor be situated in Monkton for a period as the statistics showed that aircraft were flying off route. The Chairman asked Brian White to remind Manchester of this request as there had been consistent complaints from Monkton that, surprisingly, departing aircraft were overflying. ACTION BW

6.1.6 In response to a further query from Nick Cole, Alastair Robertson confirmed that Manston had recently hosted a number of fighter aircraft that had been taking part in air shows in SE England. Pilots were, on arrival, briefed very specifically on noise abatement procedures and where they should/should not be turning. If they were overflying the villages, Mr Robertson was grateful for that information and briefings would be reinforced before the next occasion.

6.1.7 Cllr Dennis Hart requested that TDC provide readings taken from the mobile monitor. Brian White agreed to provide a report for circulation with the minutes. ACTION BW

6.2.1 Paul Tipple apologized for the delay in processing some of the sound insulation grant applications. Those relating to secondary glazing awaited confirmation from residents wishing to proceed. As soon as such confirmation had been received, Totalglaze Systems would carry out the installation. Cliffsend residents whose homes were already fitted with secondary-glazing and who were seeking acoustic loft insulation had found the quoted cost unaffordable. Revised quotes had been forwarded to residents, and Mr Tipple planned to meet at an early date with each of the residents involved to see what accommodation could be found.

6.3.1 Brian White drew attention to the new WHO Air Quality Objective for benzene to be achieved by 31/12/10 at an annual mean of 1ppb. Readings from the monitors around the airport were well below this requirement.

6.3.1 Pete Binding, noting that latest readings were for the month of May 2004, before the start of the EUjet flights, asked how it could be ensured that levels kept to the WHO requirements as air traffic increased in the manner projected. Brian White said levels would continue to be monitored, and any increases would be noted. He felt it would be more helpful if the figures could be produced in trend line format. The Chairman said that raised the question of whether, when the stage was reached when an Environmental Impact Assessment was required, projections of pollution levels would be a part of the EIA or not.

7.1 The Chairman stated that the Fund group had, since March 2003, dispensed £16,282.34 in grants of up to £500 for various local causes around Thanet and the Herne Bay area who were also affected by air movements. There was currently a total of £23,000 in the Fund, most of which was part of the money paid in fines in respect of the aircraft flying last Autumn to Iraq carrying the new Iraqi currency. The Fund group, at its last meeting when the balance was £19,000, decided to continue its policy of considering and, where appropriate, paying out small sums on requests for assistance under the current rules. In the likelihood of having a substantial balance to expend in the fairly new future, ideas for larger projects were being sought, either from committee members or members of the public. Suggestions should be made either to local representatives, or by e mail to the secretary.

7.2 Bob Weaver asked whether some of the money could be used to help Cliffsend residents finance sound insulation, but the Chairman explained that the money was intended for causes that helped and improved the quality of life of the community. He thought it advisable to retain those rules, rather than move into helping individuals, on the edge of schemes already in place.

7.3 In answer to Pete Binding, Alastair Robertson thought there was a balance of £22,000 still to come in from the £52,000 fines imposed on the flights to Iraq, and measures were in hand to obtain settlement. Mr Robertson agreed with Mr Binding that as the S106 Agreement was between the Airport Operator and TDC, it was the Airport Operator, not the airline involved, who was responsible for payment of fines. Should there be no alternative solution, the Airport would pay the outstanding amount.

Wednesday 15^th December 2004 at Manston Village Hall 2pm

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 9.15pm

KIACC INDEX