|
KENT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (K.I.A.C.C.) KIACC – Position Paper from the Chairman February 2007 1.This paper represents my initial views on where the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee stands at present and what needs to be done for the future. 2.I have not yet received the promised briefing from Infratil or Thanet District Council but I have had the benefit of meeting a number of local people individually and have also been sent various documents by interested parties. I am grateful to those who have provided me with information, suggestions, and ideas. That said, this paper has not been shown in draft to anyone and what follows represents my own views entirely, though I suspect that they will be widely shared locally, particularly by those who have followed the Manston Airport Saga over recent years. 3.The overriding impression is of a community which is deeply suspicious of Infratil and of Thanet District Council in relation to their dealings with both KIACC and with individuals who have a keen and well-informed interest in the airport. There is a great deal of "back history", for example over the negotiations on the Section 106 Agreement. 4.Although Infratil cannot be blamed for the behaviour of Eujet and Planestation they do not seem to have done much to restore confidence. The farcical events and delays surrounding the selection process for the chairmanship of KIACC have not helped the situation. And on top of that, management changes at the airport have caused further delay. 5.My view is that both TDC and Infratil need to "pull their socks up" pretty quickly if they are to avoid a major row. They need to avoid the impression that the two of them are working "in cahoots" behind the backs of the community and that KIACC, to them, is a tiresome diversion which can be treated with contempt. 6.Infratil, in particular, need to be aware of the reputational risk involved in airport operators falling foul of local communities. They also need to understand that they are wrong if they think that, with the support of the District Council and the County Council, they have got any problems "sorted". Neither of these two levels of local government necessarily represents the views of the local community and neither of them have covered themselves in glory in their past handling of airport matters. 7.It is also worth recording that there is a legal obligation to hold at least one public consultative committee meeting a year. 8.The first issue, therefore, is to decide how to retrieve this sorry state of affairs. We need to set up the first of several meetings, starting next month (giving busy KIACC members sufficient time to sort out their diaries). I emphasise the word "several" because I have the impression that Infratil and TDC have a very "minimalist" approach to KIACC and want nothing so much as a neutered organisation which meets infrequently. At least over the next few months, however, there is a need for two or three meetings to deal with the backlog of work. 9.We need to sort out some important outstanding "constitutional" matterssuch as the composition of the Committee, public versus private meetings, secretarial support arrangements, venues for meetings, frequency of meetings longer term, the Committee's budget, how KIACC measures up to Department of Transport Guidelines, etc. We need to decide on a work programme– basically, a list of topics that need to be discussed in detail over the coming year.10.I set out in the following paragraphs what I believe to be the topics which KIACC needs to discuss. There may well be additional subjects which KIACC members and others would like to add.11.There is an urgent need to be updated on the Section 106 Agreementand its renegotiation. As mentioned earlier, there is a great deal of history on this subject and a degree of suspicion that history will repeat itself. There is a fear that an unsatisfactory new agreement will be decided upon with insufficient public involvement. If one believes in open and transparent local planning then KIACC is a vital element in the process. We need to be informed and we need to be involved. 12.There needs to be a discussion of the arrangements for noise monitoring. Information and involvement is sadly lacking on this subject, too. We need to have detailed information on where fixed monitors are currently located and what (if any) mobile monitors are being used – and, in each case, their specification; whether they are actually working properly; and how they are being used to check on flights. 13.We need to be told whether the ILS systemis actually working now and how it came about that the airport ended up without ILS for a period of months (on the basis that there might be some "lessons to be learned"). 14.We need a discussion of the complaints handling system: virtually every aspect of the current arrangements needs to be looked at afresh, from public information on how to complain, through the reporting form, to the feedback mechanisms. 15.We need a report on the fines system - is there any "missing money"; do the recovery arrangements need improvement? 16.The issue of water pollutionneeds a full discussion, preferably with the benefit of papers from TDC and the Environment Agency, providing a factual account of the run off and drainage into Pegwell Bay (and elsewhere if there are other problems), the risk to ground water, and an account of the current state of play on discharge consents. 17.At some stage – perhaps not immediately but I stand to be corrected – KIACC needs a discussion of the similar issue of air pollution. 18.There is an urgent need for a discussion of the sensitive matter of air safety– the general issue and concerns expressed about a particular operator. 19.There are a number of other issues which, on the face of it, appear to be of less importance or urgency at the present time but which may turn out to require urgent attention, such as the dismantling of aircraft. 20.Finally, last but not least, we need a comprehensive report from Infratil - supported, perhaps, by some aircraft operators and other businesses – on future plans for the airport. One of the aspects of the airport scene which puzzles me is that there does not seem to be much marketing activity going on even though, presumably, all those involved want to make a success of the facilities at Manston. Issues of commercial confidentiality may arise, of course, but it should be possible for business and TDC (and, I suppose KCC) to share their thoughts with us.
|