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.

Minutes of meeting held at 2.00pm on 15 December 2004 at Manston Village Hall

APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from:
Leigh Herington (KCC); John Fullarton (KCC); Roger Latchford (TDC); Gerry Glover (Minster PC) alternate Dennis Neville; Nick Cole (Monkton PC) alternate Robin Tapsell.

1. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 15^th September 2004, having been previously circulated, were accepted and signed by the Chairman as a true record.
   
2. MATTERS ARISING

2.1 Item 5.1.5: Flight route maps. In response to Len Claisse, Alastair Robertson stated that at present there was no way of ensuring that aircraft adhere to the published routes.

2.2 Item 5.1.6: Tracking equipment. Cllr Flaherty had been informed that the CAA had stated that the Airport was to upgrade the radar system in January/February 2005 – not three years ahead as had been advised at previous meetings. Alastair Robertson explained that the upgrade referred to by the CAA was of an interim nature, which would indicate only the height of aircraft. Cllr Dennis Hart felt it was important that the Airport was equipped with a sophisticated monitoring system. There was a system of potential borrowing available to local government and Cllr Hart asked that Planestation discuss with TDC whether or not the Council could assist Planestation with potential borrowing. Brian White felt sure that officers would be instructed accordingly. Alastair Robertson pointed out that the cost involved was £3.8m.

3. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT REPORT – EUjet Summer Schedule

3.1 Members were passed copies of a letter dated 13^th December 04, from Planestation to Richard Samuel, Chief Executive of Thanet District Council. The letter informed Mr Samuel of the Company’s plans to support EUjet’s summer schedule of operations for the period April-September 2005. The letter included the following points.

3.1.1 It had not been possible to accommodate the entire schedule within the Airport’s normal operating hours, and sixteen flights per week would arrive back at Manston after 2300hrs. With four exceptions, the late arrivals should land before midnight. The ETA of the remaining four would be 0020, 0030, 0040, and 0055.
3.1.2 In deciding whether or not to support the schedule, Planestation had given careful consideration to the terms of the S106 Agreement. At the time of the drafting of the Agreement, the potential for night flying centred on the use of the Airport by dedicated cargo aircraft with a Quota Count of 4 or more, and the S106 catered for irregular night flights. The presumption that night flights would be by noisy cargo aircraft was evidenced by those paragraphs where the emphasis was on only permitting use by aircraft with a Quota Count less than 4.
3.1.3 Planestation believed that the commercial imperatives and operating circumstances were justified given the overall long-term benefits to the region of a successful scheduled passenger operation.
3.1.4 The fact that the Fokker 100 aircraft operated by EUjet had a Quota Count of 0.5 meant that actual noise disturbance to residents was at the absolute minimum of any noise disturbance scale.
3.1.5 The summer 2005 schedule envisaged no departures from Manston between the hours of 2030 and 0600.
3.1.6 For these reasons, Planestation were consulting with Thanet District Council on the following night-time flying policy:
3.1.7 "That where scheduling imperatives and slot allocations so require, and where reasonable endeavours have been taken to avoid the need for it, the Airport’s resident airline shall be permitted to land 12 aircraft per week between the hours of 2300 and 2400 and 4 aircraft per week between the hours of 2400 and 0100 providing such aircraft have a Quota Count of no more than 0.5".
3.1.8 It was regretted that the full six-month consultation period was being curtailed, due to the airline industry’s slot allocation cycle.
3.1.9 Bickerdike Allen were to be commissioned to undertake an independent assessment of the impact of occasional night-time aircraft noise on local communities, recognising that the approach used differed from that used for daytime flights.
3.1.10 EUjet and the Airport Director would be invited to review operating procedures with the aim of identifying measures that would minimise arrival noise.
3.1.11 In the light of resulting recommendations, the Company would consider what further noise amelioration and mitigation measures might sensibly be introduced. Results would be available for full scrutiny and made available to inform the consultation process.

3.2 Richard Samuel stated that he had received the letter by e-mail the previous day. Thanet District Council did not intend to establish a position before carefully considering the contents. The Council would try to take a balanced view of environmental and economic implications but there was a need for discussion with Planestation. Mr Samuel realised, however, that a statement would need to be made by the end of that week, when the new schedule would be published.

3.3 During questions and discussion that followed, various points/suggestions were made:
3.3.1 TDC would not consult on the issue of night flights
3.3.2 Members present could not give the views of their electorate without being given time to consult
3.3.3 There was concern at the lack of consultation due to a decision being needed within two days
3.3.4 the Night Flying policy must be restricted to EUjet only
3.3.5 time for consultations must be allowed on time changes
3.3.6 installation of equipment to ensure strict adherence to routes should be treated as a matter of urgency – not 3-4 years ahead
3.3.7 aircraft deviating from specified routes should be subject to fines
3.3.8 EUjet should raise the ticket price on late flights, the difference donated to organisations for the elderly, who would suffer more .from night disturbance
3.3.9 the night arrivals were essential in order to get the EUjet fleet back to home base
3.3.10 there was not likely to be any call for night flights during winter months
3.3.11 whilst EUjet flights were considerably less noisy than freighters, it should be remembered that disturbance would be greater during the Summer when windows were often open
3.3.12 were these night flights to be agreed to, EUjet may ask for more next time round
3.3.13 there was no point in asking the meeting for views, as the flight slots had already been arranged
3.3.14 The late flights Monday – Thursday were not as contentious as those scheduled for weekends including Sundays.
3.3.15 The policy be agreed for a trial period only

3.4 The Chairman pointed out that MACC had no power over the decision. TDC had said there would be full consultation regarding renegotiation of the S106 Agreement, but there would be no consultation on the issue of night flights. The subject was one of the most important parts of the S106 Agreement, and he would hope that the Council would listen to, and take note of views expressed.

3.5 The Chairman said the situation had taken everybody by surprise, including Planestation. In responding, TDC would have to balance the added disturbance the flights would cause to central Ramsgate against economic factors.

3.6 Members were invited to e mail their comments to Richard Samuel (CE Thanet District Council) by midday the following day. Mr Samuel had found the discussion and points raised very helpful.

3.7 The Chairman concluded by saying there would be no point bringing forward the date of the next MACC meeting, as the decision on the summer night flights would have been made. As the subject formed an important section of the S106 agreement, the consultation process of the renegotiation of that agreement would be the main item on the March Agenda.

3.8 In response to Cllr John Bragg, Paul Tipple said Planestation did not see the reported possible expansion of Lydd Airport as a threat. Great concern had been expressed by CPRE and other bodies particularly with regard to the need for extension of the runway at Lydd. Mr Tipple felt that the lack of infrastructure made expansion unlikely.

4.1 Tony Freudmann said an announcement to the SE media would be made at 7am Thursday 16^th December, followed by a press conference to be held at 10.30am Friday 17 December.

5.1 The Chairman reported on a special sub-group meeting held on 7 December 2004, between representatives of Planestation and of the airport management, and a selection of community representatives who had shown most interest in the subject.

5.2 It had been agreed that the following improvements be investigated:

5.2.1 Entry into Council/Parish council directories and websites
5.2.2 A block Airport advertisement in Yellow Pages to include the complaints line number.
5.2.3 Working hours during which calls were answered live were to be extended.
5.2.4 Digital message recording, which would improve reliability, was currently under investigation.
5.2.5 Better arrangements would be made to ensure continuity during staff absence, and a taped response should a backlog arise.
5.2.6 Terms of letters of response to complaints would be reviewed and improved.

5.3 Alastair Robertson had found the meeting useful and felt that more had been achieved in less formal surroundings than in full committee.

5.4 The Chairman thought it would be useful to review the system on an annual basis and he hoped that the measures proposed would improve current arrangements. ACTION TMS

6.1 Brian White confirmed that the consultation process would start in January 2005. He stressed that the Council had been adamant that the existing S106 Agreement would form the basis of the public consultation, and that technical consultants would be employed. Issues would, in the first instance, be identified in a national and regional context. As the Agreement was between Planestation and TDC, it was necessary for those two parties to agree on the issues that would go out to consultation.
6.2 Views would be sought from public and stakeholder groups, including adjoining District, County and local Councils, community groups and MACC, on how those issues could be addressed.
6.3 The Chairman pointed out that the consultation would be well under way by the time of the March meeting of MACC. Dennis Hart hoped that the Chairman would bring forward the next MACC meeting to enable proper consultation to take place.
6.4 Brian White agreed to inform MACC of the proposed timescale, and agreed to circulate the format of the consultation questionnaire when this had been received from the consultants. ACTION BW

7.1 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.

7.1.1 The incident attracting most complaints had been an EUjet training flight on 28^th October. EUjet departures between 0600 and 0700 had also attracted several complaints.

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

7.3 Section 106 Compliancy Report: Movements between 2300-0700: There had been 2 HM Coastguard flights in August. There had been 57 movements during September, 63 in October, all except four being EUjet departures. The September/October figures for heavy departures reflected the decrease in MK operations. Two Air Africa International freighters had arrived before 0700, attracting fines of £1,000 each.

8.1 Noise Monitor readings

8.1.1 Paul Tipple said the readings clearly showed the point at which MK Airlines had ceased operating from Manston.
8.1.2 It was noted that one particular EUjet aircraft had, on more than one occasion, generated considerably higher level of noise than similar aircraft. Mr Tipple and Alastair Robertson would discuss this with airline operators in addition to the fact that some aircraft were flying off route, particularly on departure.
8.1.3 The St Nicholas monitor showed abnormally high readings for August, which were under investigation. The result would be sent to the Secretary for circulation. ACTION PT
8.1.4 Paul Martin (TDC) reported that the mobile noise monitor was to be located in central Ramsgate from December 04–May 05 to replicate the offset position from the centre line of the western fixed monitor. This would allow comparison and correction of noise readings from the western fixed monitor.
8.1.5 It was proposed for 2006 to site the mobile monitor in North Cliffsend to provide additional resolution of noise levels given that this was a relatively high exposure area subject to some noise insulation assistance.
8.1.6 All data would focus on Single Event Level to identify aircraft above ambient and traffic levels. Locations would need to be acoustically suitable, risk assessed for access purposes, have a suitable power supply, be away from high ambient levels, secure, and permitted by the landowners concerned.
8.1.7 The Chairman noted that the Mobile Monitor Location Plan did not include a site in Monkton. Nick Cole had been requesting such a siting for two years to confirm that despite assurances to the contrary, aircraft were still overflying the village.

8.2 Pollution Monitoring

8.2.1 Paul Martin reported levels well within Government and WHO Air Quality Objectives.
8.2.2 In the short term, no increase in pollution levels had yet been registered since the introduction of EUjet flights.
8.2.3 Mr Martin agreed to a request from Malcolm Kirkaldie to provide an annual analysis to enable monitoring of any increase in levels due to increased air traffic. The increase in the level of nitrogen dioxide in October had been due to atmospheric conditions prevailing at the time, preventing the nitrogen dioxide from dispersing.

9.1 The Chairman stated that the Fund group had, since March 2003, dispensed £19,700 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 balance of £28,000 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. This balance provided resources to exceed the normal project limit of £500, should a suitable major sustainable project be found.

9.2 Malcolm Kirkaldie suggested contributing towards the development of the disused Hoverport site. Richard Samuel reported on the project under development by the National Trust, following a recent contaminated land survey. Thanet District Council would like to see the land returned to natural use and various ideas were being explored. East Kent Partnership had provided funding for some of this work. However, Mr Samuel did not feel that the project was suitable for the Airport Community Fund, and that sufficient public funding would be available

9.3 Paul Tipple was keen to help voluntary organisations with transporting local children to playing fields.

9.4 The Chairman reported that the Fund Group would hold a short meeting at the end of proceedings where these matters would be further discussed.

10.1 Gerry Glover had expressed his thanks for the good wishes of the Committee and hoped to be able to attend the next meeting.

11.1 The Secretary would negotiate dates convenient for a meeting in early March. The Chairman said there was no point bringing the date forward as consultation could take place in the context of renewal of the S106 Agreement.

11.2 An alternative venue needed to be found, mainly due to poor acoustics in Manston Village Hall

11.3 Members would be advised as soon as possible.

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 4.30pm