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.

KENT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (K.I.A.C.C.)
previously known as 
Manston Airport Consultative Committee (M.A.C.C)

The Chairman and committee welcomed back Gerry Glover.

APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from: Alastair Robertson; Leigh Herington (KCC); Nick Cole (Monkton PC) alternate Robin Tapsell; Bob Bayford (Broadstairs Town Council).

The Chairman read out a letter from Tony Freudmann stating that he had left PlaneStation Group on 4^th March. Mr Freudmann thanked the Committee for its contribution to what he felt was a democratic process.

2.1. Item 8.1.3: St Nicholas Monitor. Investigation into the abnormally high readings in August was still ongoing. (see following Item 6)

3.1. It was agreed after a vote, that the name of the Committee be changed to Kent International Airport Consultative Committee to fall in line with the recent change of the title of the Airport.

4.1. Airport infrastructure: Mr Tipple reported on plans to extend the car parking facility from 650 to 1100 spaces, to cater for the increasing number of EUjet passengers. Archaeological surveys, assessments of likely impact of further road developments and traffic growth were being undertaken before plans were submitted to Thanet District Council.

4.1.1. Cllr Dennis Hart, referring to the December 2004 meeting, asked whether planning application was to be submitted for the construction of a new passenger terminal. Mr Tipple stated that, as a result of the internal improvements made to the existing building, it would not be necessary until such time as passenger levels rose to 200,000p.a. (predicted by the end of 2005).

4.2. Planestation: Passenger reaction to the EUjet operation had been favourable, with the exception of those who had been subject to late arrivals and departures. Delays had been caused partly by air traffic control problems, and partly by technical difficulties that had necessitated wet leasing BAE 146 or B737 aircraft.

4.3. Queries were raised regarding the effect on the local community of aircraft other than Fokker 100s used by EUjet, and future additional passenger and freight operators.

4.3.1. Paul Tipple stated that the aircraft generally used by the Eastern European passenger operators, with whom discussions were in hand, were B737s. British Airways Cargo, with whom discussions with Planestation were ongoing, currently utilised 3x747-100F and 1x747200F aircraft, which had a Quota Count of 4 on take-off and QC2 on arrival. This operator had no current schedule operating after 11pm.

4.3.2. Cllr Hart hoped that the steep angle of ascent of Fokker 100 aircraft could be achieved by B737s, and suggested that if a similar angle were followed on descent, the duration of noise disturbance would decrease. Paul Tipple said that, as far as he knew, B737s were capable of operating in a manner similar to that of the Fokker 100. Regarding angle of descent, it was thought in the industry that a steep angle of descent created greater noise disturbance overall. It was hoped that work currently being undertaken with Manchester Airport would produce a more sophisticated understanding of the impact of noise by modelling different scenarios.

5. KIA – Quarterly statistics - Paul Tipple (papers previously circulated)
      a. Sec 106 Compliancy Reports
       b. Complaints
       c. Runway Utilisation etc

5.1. Complaints:

5.1.1. EUjet training flights during the quarter had attracted several complaints. These flights had, however, been conducted within the terms of the S106 Agreement.

5.1.2. There had been understandable concern about the many late departures of EUjet aircraft (later than 11pm). The aircraft temporarily leased to replace Fokkers undergoing maintenance had to return to their base having arrived at the Airport before 23.00hrs.

5.1.3. Cllr Hart asked for confirmation that, under the current S106 Agreement, these late flights did not attract the imposition of fines. Both the Chairman and Brian White (TDC) agreed that the part of the S106 covering night flying was less than perfect. Mr White confirmed that the current S106 did not capture those late arrivals. There was some ambiguity as to whether these flights were "regular". Currently, penalties applied only to aircraft with a Quota Count of 4 or more. TDC officers were studying the subject, which had been raised during current consultation with local communities.

5.1.4. Cllr Latchford stated that late flights had been accepted until the end of September, the current S106 was currently being put out to public consultation, and hopefully late flights would be better covered in the renegotiated Agreement.

5.1.5. Len Claisse was concerned that increased flights under the imminent summer schedule may increase the number of late flights. Paul Tipple was not confident that EUjet would be able to continue to fly to schedule. Much would depend upon which aircraft would actually fly home from the longer distance routes coming in between midnight and 1am. The Airport had, therefore, told EUjet that it did not want the leased aircraft utilised on those routes.

5.1.6. Cllr Flaherty referred to the proposed night-time flying policy (Agenda item 9a) which proposed that all late arrivals approach from the west and that any exceptions should be reported with justification. This meant that most late aircraft would arrive over Herne Bay. He wondered anyway if it was feasible. Cllr Roberts was confident that 80-90% of late arriving aircraft approached from the west. Malcolm Kirkaldie disagreed. He regularly experienced late flights arriving over Ramsgate when there had been no apparent wind conditions.

5.1.7. Paul Tipple understood that with wind speed of over 5 knots, it was normal practice for aircraft to land into the wind. With wind speed below 5 knots, the pilot could determine, with advice from Air Traffic Control, to land on whichever runway would cause the least disturbance to Ramsgate residents. Mr Tipple said that it was wholly unreasonable and unacceptable for pilots to needlessly deviate from designated routes. Such contraventions should be addressed. There were weaknesses in the recording system that required attention by the Airport Company. However, without a more sophisticated recording system, it was not possible to provide reliable tracking of aircraft.

5.1.8. Cllr Hart reported a rumour that EUjet pilots had been told that it was cheaper and more cost effective to fly in over Ramsgate, rather than circle round to approach from the west. Paul Tipple agreed to investigate. ACTION PT

5.2. Replies to complaints: The Chairman said that at a sub-group meeting last year, Alastair Robertson had agreed to improvements to the terms of standard letters sent in response to complaints. The suggested improvements had not yet been put into practice. In the absence of Alastair Robertson, Paul Tipple reported that the matter was being addressed. It was also the intention of the Airport to, where possible, publish advance notice of training flights.

6.1. Noise Monitor readings: Paul Martin pointed out the reduction in noise levels at the Ramsgate monitor since the departure of MK freighters. Readings at St Nicholas had shown abnormally high readings for August 2004, December and February 2005.

6.1.1. As reported at the December meeting, the mobile monitor was to be used in conjunction with the fixed monitor to validate accuracy and assess causes for these abnormal readings. This exercise had been delayed by health and safety rejection of the proposed site, and by staff shortages. Mr Martin introduced Penny Button, newly recruited to TDC to assist investigation into this and other issues.

6.1.2. Cllr Dennis Hart had noted from the Alan Stratford report, for TDC, that the use of two noise monitors at each end of the runway had been recommended, to provide more accurate readings. Mr Martin said that the mobile monitor would be utilised for that purpose.

6.1.3. The Chairman, said the accuracy of the readings from the western monitor remained a serious issue. Robin Tapsell, who lived 1 mile from the St Nicholas roundabout, frequently saw aircraft flying directly overhead, a considerable distance from the monitor, and continuing in a straight line.

6.1.4. Summing up, the Chairman said the problems were:

6.1.4.1. inability to site the fixed monitor at the western end of the runway in the specified position directly in line with the runway

6.1.4.2. problems with siting the mobile monitor in order to proceed with investigations to be carried out

6.1.4.3. the fact that whereas arrivals followed a direct line, departures did not, thereby not flying directly over the noise monitor.

6.1.5. Malcolm Kirkaldie requested consideration of the provision of two hand-held monitors to enable the registration of off-route flying incidents.

6.1.6. The Chairman asked that urgent consideration be given to providing more accurate readings, particularly with the imminent commencement of the EUjet summer schedule which was to be closely monitored.

6.1.7. Paul Tipple said the situation had changed as, at the time the 2 fixed monitors had been installed, their purpose had been, essentially, to monitor the noise from large wide-bodied aircraft that had had to maintain certain flight routes. The introduction of significantly smaller aircraft provided the opportunity to engineer flight routes, in particular departure routes, that would avoid the key populated areas particularly to the west. Mr Tipple understood that the Alan Stratford Report, (which had not been yet been given to him) advised the use of additional monitors. He suggested a splay of monitors at the western end to enable noise tracking of inbound aircraft on a straight course, as well as of departing aircraft going in different directions

6.1.7.1. Paul Martin confirmed that the change in type of aircraft using the Airport had raised new issues. Part of Penny Button’s work would be to look at benchmarking the airport against the standard of other similar airports.

6.2. Pollution monitoring: (papers previously circulated)

6.2.1. Paul Martin outlined the new format of Air Quality Reports. Levels remained well below the Annual Mean Objective.

7. SECTION 106 RENEGOTIATION and PUBLIC CONSULTATION (paper previously circulated)

7.1. Brian White updated members on the current position regarding public consultation. Meetings had commenced with parish councils. By mid-May results of feedback from local meetings and the Mori questionnaire would be completed. The intention was to use Mori to produce a report to be submitted to full Council in September. Opinions from the public needed to be married together with empirical data from the report by Alan Stratford Associates and from monitoring of the Night Time Flying Policy. Final results of the complete consultation would be submitted to TDC in December.

7.2. Cllr John Bragg asked whether Canterbury City and Dover District Councils would be consulted, as had been the case during negotiation of the existing Agreement. Mr White confirmed that he was in contact with officers of both Councils and that correspondence had taken place with several groups in those areas. All information made available to Thanet residents would be available to Dover and Canterbury.

7.2.1. Mr White said that at present there was no definitive list of key stakeholders but he would notify the Secretary when this became available from Mori. ACTION BW

7.3. The Chairman referred to the statement in the paper that the Stratford report was public domain. He asked how the document had been made available to the public. Brian White said the draft report had been posted on the TDC website.

8.1. Proposed Night Flying Policy  

8.1.1. Brian White reported that the proposal for summer night flights had been put before Cabinet in December, and full Council in January, when it had been agreed in principle to support the proposal.

8.1.2. Referring to the section on runway usage by arrivals, Mr White said that Council had wanted to protect the interests of the largest group of residents (i.e. Ramsgate). The reason for the reporting of exceptions together with complex monitoring was to assist in involving local opinion and guide future decision taking.

8.1.3. The final version of the Policy would be forwarded to the Secretary for distribution to all Committee members. ACTION BW

8.1.4. Cllr Hart said that he had, at the meeting of cabinet, clearly expressed his concerns. He had been told on that occasion by the Chief Executive of TDC that the proposed night-time flying policy was a temporary agreement for the period of the S106 consultation, and would be included in that consultation. However, at the full Council meeting, it had been stated that the Night Flying Policy would form part of the S106, but it would NOT be included within the public consultation. Whilst he had supported agreement to a temporary policy, Cllr Hart was concerned at lack of consultation with local residents concerning night flying arrangements, as night flying was clearly included in the S106 Agreement.

8.1.4.1. Mr White said it had been made clear at the Council meeting that the night-time flying policy proposed by Planestation to assist the first twelve months operation of EUjet, could be accepted within the terms of the S106 Agreement. The required six months’ consultation had not been possible due to the timing of the Slot Conference. Over the Christmas period, the Council had made best efforts to involve as many members of the public as were interested. The existing S106 Agreement now included a temporary Night-Flying Policy covering a six month period

8.1.4.2. Mr White confirmed the Chairman’s understanding that:

8.1.4.2.1. the Night Flying Policy to be issued would specify that it was for a limited term covering the summer schedule;

8.1.4.2.2. when public consultation had been completed, views from the public on this issue would be considered in drawing up new night flying clauses in the new S106 Agreement;

8.1.4.2.3. such clauses may or may not include a night flying policy.

8.1.5. Mr White stated that the timing of the consultation was intended to allow for review of the night flying policy in October, and report back to full Council in December along with information that Council would have considered itself.

8.1.6. Peter Ditton (Manston) asked for confirmation that the reference to EUjet passenger aircraft did not include those aircraft that were wet-leased. Paul Tipple suggested that aircraft be limited to those with QC of 0.5 or less.

8.1.7. Cllr Flaherty wished to put on record that Canterbury City Council had taken a balanced, cross party view and had agreed to take a fair share of the night flights.

8.1.8. Bernard Clayson wondered whether limiting the night flying policy to EUjet aircraft only would compromise the position of the Airport regarding contravention of the CAA licence. This stipulated that terms and conditions offered to one operator, must be offered to any other operators who may use the Airport in future.

8.1.9. Mr Clayson felt that the public were confused as to the line between daytime and night time flying hours. For example, how could an aircraft fly at 1am and not be classed as a night flight? Mr Clayson thought a General Flying Policy would be preferable to a Night Flying Policy. Brian White agreed that the phraseology used in the current S106 was confusing.

8.1.10. Malcolm Kirkaldie noted that during the imminent six month period of night flights, there could be as many as 1,000 night flights before any discussion took place, causing great disturbance to the residents of Ramsgate. He felt that the S106 Agreement had let down the public.

8.1.11. Cllr Roger Latchford said it had been made quite clear to Cabinet that the choice had been whether or not to support EUjet and its future in Thanet. The prediction of thousands of night flights was without basis on current information. The aim of the public consultation was to produce a revised S106 Agreement to include the views of the population. Cllr Latchford said it was important to ensure that the revised S106 Agreement would be well-written and would serve the best interests of all the public, including Ramsgate residents.

8.2. Monitoring the Night Flights  – proposal by the Chairman

8.2.1. The Chairman presented the attached paper that had been previously circulated to members.

8.2.2. Brian White confirmed that the information would be collected by both Planestation and TDC, in an agreed format. The views of KIACC and other organisations would be taken into account.

8.2.3. Malcolm Kirkaldie felt that the information should be brought to the next KIACC meeting for discussion, rather than in six months’ time. However, the majority of members agreed that the six month period was necessary in order to ascertain the full effect of the EUjet summer schedule.

8.2.4. Cllr Bragg requested that figures supplied by the Airport should include justification for any deviation from the Night Flying Policy.

8.2.5. Cllr Hart totally supported the Chairman’s proposals. His greatest concern was the provision of reliable, accurate noise readings from suitably sited monitors, which should be in place before the Summer Schedule. Currently, EUjet, or any other operator, could justify any deviation by claiming prevailing windspeed, without fear of reprisal.

8.2.6. Ian Minter, referring to Paul Tipple’s earlier statement (Item 6.1.8) suggested that the current noise monitoring system was out of date, having not been adjusted to cover the change in type of the greatest number of aircraft using the Airport, coupled with the lack of tracking equipment.

8.2.6.1. Paul Tipple said the system, designed in 2003, was sophisticated. Meteorological information provided the Airport with prevailing windspeeds, enabling the explanation of deviations, based on advice from Air Traffic Control. There was little more that could be done to improve matters, apart from better placing of the mobile monitor, with the obvious exception of tracking equipment.

8.2.6.2. Brian White was confident that the proposed monitoring of night flying would enable the provision of an accurate picture of the effects of the summer schedule.

8.2.7. In answer to the Chairman, Mr White confirmed that a Night Flying Policy would be in place before the commencement of the summer schedule.

8.2.8. Summing up, the Chairman said reservations had been expressed as to the quality of the readings from noise monitoring, and he hoped that the TDC team had noted the concern expressed on the length of time involved in improving the system in order to address these concerns.

8.2.9. IT WAS AGREED that the next two meetings be held in July and October.

8.2.10. The Committee AGREED to the Chairman’s proposals as above, with the addition of figures supplied by the Airport as suggested by Cllr John Bragg.

9.1. The Chairman reported:

9.1.1. the Fund panel had agreed that administration of the Fund be handed over to Thanet Community Development Trust for an experimental period of one month

9.1.2. a grant of £20,000 had been made to Thanet Community Transport to cover the purchase and one year’s insurance of a community bus, to be used for charitable purposes. The bus would be signed to show that the Airport Community Fund had donated it

9.1.3. there was currently a balance of £8,323 in the Fund

9.1.4. Paul Tipple stated that £32,000 was still owed to the Airport by MK Airlines relating to fines incurred by the flights to Iraq.

10.1.The Secretary would negotiate dates convenient for meetings in July and October, at a venue to be advised.

10.2. Cllr Hart suggested TDC Council Chamber, which had the advantage of sound amplification and recording equipment. Gerry Glover suggested Minster Community Centre. Members would be advised as soon as possible ACTION TMS

Please note:  Next meeting to be held on Thursday 21st July in the TDC chamber at 2pm.