|
KENT INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (K.I.A.C.C.)
previously known as
Manston Airport
Consultative Committee (M.A.C.C)
Manston Airport Consultative Committee was set up as a forum
to discuss issues relating to the airport development. Members include:- the
Airport operators, Thanet District Council, Kent County Council, and
representatives of the local community.
Draft –
subject to approval
Minutes of the meeting held at 2.00pm
on Tuesday 5 December 2007 at the Passenger Terminal Building, Kent
International Airport
Present:
Chairman:
Paul Twyman
Secretary:
Pauline Hodding
Members:
Peter
Binding
Manston Airport Group
John Bragg
DDC & Sandwich Town Council
Len Claisse
KAPC Canterbury
Bernard Clayson
St Nicholas & Sarre Parish Council
Jack Cohen
Birchington Parish Council
Gerry Glover
Minster Parish Council
Jon Inchley
Acol Parish Council
Jack Mannering
Cliffsend Residents Association
Substitute
Members:
Jo Roberts
Thanet District Council
Robin Tapsell
Monkton Parish Council
Nigel Whitburn
KALC Dover
Reporting to
Committee
Matt Clarke
KIA
Paul Martin
Thanet District Council
Brian White
Thanet District Council
In
attendance:
John Worrow
Birchington Parish Council
G & W Arnheini
D Carter
Z Cohen
P Ditton
J Dudley
Kent Regional Newspapers
T Garbutt
R Goodban
Manston Parish Council
D Halton
E Oxlade
D Nearn
MW Nicher
and other
members of the public.
APOLOGIES
Apologies for
absence were received from Nick Cole (Monkton Parish Council), Sandra Hooper (KALC
Dover), Richard Nicholson and
Michael Roberts (Thanet District Council).
1.
CHAIRMAN’S WELCOME AND REMARKS
The Chairman welcomed members of
the public to the meeting and advised the 30 minutes would be available for
questions at the end of the business..
2.
MINUTES
The
Minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2007 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman. There were no matters arising.
3.
AIRPORT
UPDATE
3.1
Matt Clarke gave a presentation which covered Infratil, Kent
International Airport, aircraft movements, passenger services, freight, and
investment completed to date. The
aircraft using the airport included MK Airlines 747s on daily flights; one
Cargolux 747 weekly freight flight; Oasis Honk Kong 747 weekly training
flights; Egypt Air A300 twice-weekly flights and other smaller craft on
business flights averaging at twice a day
3.2
Two new routes for 2008 were announced with destinations of Las Palmas and
Jersey.
3.3
Investment in the airport to-date included renewal of infrastructure and
purchase of new equipment.
3.4
The airport masterplan detailed work in progress on the framework to
deliver future development and the Committee was advised of recent IATA
statistics which indicated that, on average, 4000 jobs were created per 1
million passengers around airports in Europe.
4.
AIR
QUALITY REPORT
4.1
Paul Martin presented a report on nitrogen dioxide and benzene air
quality and explained that monitors around the airport also measured road
traffic pollution. This had been
extended to air traffic and was paid for by the airport
operator.
4.2
Diffusion tubes to absorb pollution were attached to lampposts in 25
locations. The tubes were sent away
for measurement and comparison of levels with national figures.
Hotspots and changes in levels were noted, such as the increase in road
traffic arising from the opening of
Westwood Cross. The work was
undertaken in partnership with the Environment Agency and other agencies in
Kent.
4.3
The monitor located at Windermere Avenue was the only one of its kind in
Kent and the data it contained could be accessed by computer 24 hours a day, 365
days a year. However, due to the
very sensitive nature of the monitor, changes in atmospheric conditions could
cause unreliable readings.
4.4
Three of the diffusion tubes were located around the airport and the results for
2007 showed higher pollution levels in winter due to cold air, and normal levels
for residential areas with the majority of the pollution arising from road
traffic.
4.5
Nitrogen dioxide levels were mainly below the annual mean and the spikes on
the graph did not correlate with aircraft movements. Benzene levels showed
some build-up but again did not correlate with aircraft movements and the
average was quite low. The
monitoring equipment had failed at the end of November, had been sent away for
repair and was expected to return the following week.
4.6
The figures for the previous year showed no upper level readings and
KIA was the only airport outside Heathrow and Gatwick to have this level of
monitoring. Results were available
on www.kentair.org.uk .
4.7
Noise monitors were located at each end of the runway and registered
sound pressure levels from which the average and peak levels were reported.
Constant monitoring was provided by the airport operator and results
were submitted to KIACC and TDC for scrutiny.
This information would be available on the internet in the future.
4.8
In response to questions from the Committee it was clarified that one
benzene monitor had been offline but over the 3 month period reported to the
previous meeting all levels had been satisfactory.
There was no noise meter at St. Nicholas at Wade because that location
was too quiet and monitors were more effective along the runway and on the
roundabout under the flight path of departing aircraft.
It was not possible to monitor both incoming and departing routes with
only one meter.
4.9
Brian White clarified that empirical evidence was required in order to
monitor trends and measurements taken from the same locations over a period of
years would indicate any changes. Understandable
information was needed in the public domain and, to date, no complaints had
been received about noise level trends, but only in respect of disturbance
from individual aircraft movement.
4.10
The results of the monitoring were linked to the S106 agreement with
the Planning Authority and a major component of the agreement was the
establishment of annual noise contours against which reported increases or
decreases could be measured.
5.
SECTION
106 AGREEMENT
5.1
Brian White explained the agreement between the Local Planning Authority (TDC)
and the airport developer, the relevance of the developing masterplan and the
requirements for the developer and operator to comply with the terms of the
agreement.
5.2
The S106 agreement made in 2000 was voluntary and not tied to a planning
consent. TDC was currently taking
stock of how the agreement had worked and its Scrutiny Committee would be
reporting to Council on the strengths and weaknesses.
Discussions would be held in 2008 between TDC and the airport operators
on the content of a new agreement tied to the masterplan.
5.3
Noise abatement routes had been mentioned at the previous meeting and
these had been agreed with the previous owner of the airport.
When Infratil had taken over, a local search had shown that the S106 did
not specify the preferred noise abatement routes in the document, nor were they
appended to it by a separate agreement. Infratil
had complied with the exact content of the S106 agreement on ‘noise abatement
routes’ but it had been unaware of the routes used by the previous airport
owner.
5.4
In response to questions it was explained that the S106 agreement was a
legally binding document. The
airport operator had complied with the requirements as prescribed in the
document as far as TDC was aware. The
2000 S106 was the only one in existence as, in 2005, when a review had been
planned, the then airport owner had gone into administration.
5.5
The Chairman asked when TDC would review the S106, when the Working Party
would meet, when would it ask KIACC for its input and when would the new
agreement be finalised. Brian White
responded that the Council prior to elections in 2007 had reviewed the S106 and
the findings were available to the public. In
view of the draft proposals for the masterplan, a Working Party had been formed
but had not yet met. KIACC’s
interest would be conveyed to the first meeting which would be held on 12
December 2007.
6.
COMMUNITY FUND
6.1
Brian White reported that there was no final balance but £13,000 in
community fund contributions had been invoiced and paid.
In the current financial year £3,000 had been paid and an invoice for £1,000
for breach of the S106 was to be sent out.
6.2
Matt Clarke stated that this amount was not for a breach of the S106.
There were no fines and there had been no breaches for night-time
movements since Infratil had acquired the airport.
The S106 agreement expressly provided for non-scheduled flights between
23.00 hours and 06.00 hours. Contributions were payable in the event that a
night-time flight was noisy and exceeded a Noise Quota Count of 4.
6.3
The Chairman recommended that a proper definition of fines was needed.
7.
DISCHARGE UPDATE
7.1
Matt Clarke explained the rules covering drainage from the airport and
advised that there was no pollution leaving the airport and damaging Pegwell
Bay. A team of people was employed
to check for rubbish, leaks, etc. and containment measures were required by the
Environment Agency in case of spillage.
7.2
In the period 1915 – 2000 the MoD had not done anything and there had
been no rules applying to them. The
previous airport owners had done nothing either but Infratil was taking measures
at a significant cost.
7.3
Infratil was working with TDC and the Environment Agency on a concept
plan for an interception system and a discharge consent to be agreed.
Sensors would be located in a tank to detect pollutants and, if detected,
the outflow would be stopped and diverted to a separate tank.
7.4
Peter Binding advised that Pegwell Bay was a SSSI and thus very
sensitive. Fuel spillage was not the
only problem as fuel and de-icers on the runway would enter the drain and pass
to Pegwell Bay untreated.
7.5
Matt Clarke responded that an interception and sampling point would
provide information on the run-off so that it could be monitored and action
taken if necessary.
8.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
8.1
Q. Were any night flights planned between 2300 hours and 0600 hours?
A. Matt Clarke:
There was no intention to schedule such flights but a mechanism was
necessary to accommodate planes which could not meet their schedule due to being
delayed and new airline schedules. Many
airports around the country used a noise quota system which served to protect
the community from excessive noise while allowing for a certain level of
aircraft movements.
8.2
Q. Can TDC stop operations if
there is pollution such as S106 breaches or flying over the town?
A. Brian White:
The planning process was designed to deliver benefits to the wider
community but address social and environmental mitigation.
It was for Members of the Council to decide what to do about the
masterplan. The existing S106 had
been examined, with the results of public consultation, including a MORI poll in
2005 and the views in Canterbury, so that future planning decisions could be
guided by what had happened before. The
existing S106 was old and not as relevant as it had been in 2000.
8.3
Q. What will TDC do
immediately to stop Infratil flying
over towns?
A. Brian White:
The runway was where it was, aircraft must be in line with it and
Ramsgate was at one end of the runway. It
was not unusual for centres of population to be near runways.
8.4
Q. Was there any update on
internal and external scheduled flights and the information gathered in a recent
survey?
A. Matt Clarke:
Demographics and travel patterns were being considered in developing
passenger services and this information was used when talking to airlines.
KIACC would be informed by email as soon as updates were available but
certain information was currently commercially sensitive.
8.5
Q. Infratil removed a noise
monitor without telling TDC.
A. Brian White/Paul Martin: The
new owners changed noise monitor contractors
and the previous contractor took back a monitor which had later been replaced.
8.6
Q. Were there monitors at
both ends of the runway and a mobile monitor?
A. Brian White:
When there are two fixed monitors it is possible to statistically model
noise at those points and elsewhere. It
was standard airport routine to also have a mobile monitor to check that the
fixed monitors were operating correctly and to verify calculations, which was
why TDC required a mobile monitor. There
had been one before and steps were being taken to get a replacement.
KIACC would be informed when it had arrived and where it would be used.
John Bragg: This Committee had
requested a mobile monitor in the first place so that it could be taken to
locations where complaints had originated. When
that had happened it had provided useful information on noise levels.
Matt Clarke: The airport operator
would deliver the new mobile monitor to the Council for a decision on where it
would be used.
Paul Martin: previously TDC had
shared with KIACC a list of locations and agreed terms of reference.
This matter to be discussed at the next meeting.
8.7
Q. While it was pleasing that
a public meeting had been held, there had been very little publicity.
Radio Kent had mentioned the meeting but not the time.
A. Chairman: My Radio Kent
interview gave all the details but the local press did not pick up on the
meeting. Hard copy notices and
poster would be needed in the future. Parish
Councils had been informed as they were an important chain of information and
vital to the working of the Committee.
8.8
Q. The maximum level of
Community fund grants had remained the same for some time, so could the level be
raised?
A. Chairman:
A Sub-Committee had been set up to look at this
10.
NEXT MEETING
The
next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 11 March 2008 and it was
agreed that the next meeting to which the public would be invited should be in
September 2008.
The meeting ended at 9.25pm.
|