|
MANSTON AIRPORT
CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
MINUTES of the MEETING held on
27 September 1999
at the Airport Passenger Terminal
PRESENT
Sir Alistair Hunter Chairman
Tessa Sherriff
Secretary
Tony Freudmann
Managing Director -Manston Airport
Alastair Robertson Director of Operations -Manston Airport
LeighcHerington
Kent County Council
John Fullarton
Kent County Council
Alan Poole
Thanet District Council
David Jillings
Thanet District Council
Dennis Hart
TDC -representing Ramsgate
Sam Hodgson
Acol Parish Council
John Garland
Birchington Parish Council
Andrew Baker
Manston Parish Council
Martin Tapp
St Nicholas Parish Council
Robin Tapsell
Monkton Parish Council
Ian Minter
Thanet Chamber of Commerce
John Elliott
Pfizer Ltd
Peter Binding
Manston Airport Group
John Fisher
Canterbury City Council
Stephen Sadler
S E England Development Agency
John Bragg
Dover District Council
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from:
Oliver Iny
Wiggins Group
Barry Coppock
Thanet District Council
Nicholas Cole
Monkton Parish Council
Ray Razzell
Minster Parish Council
The Chairman welcomed those attending as alternates to members unable to be present.
2. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 1999 having been previously circulated. were approved and signed by the Chairman as a true record.
3. MATTERS ARlSING
There were no matters arising from the June Minutes that would not be covered under specific items on the Agenda.
4. FUTURE PLANS AND UPDATE
Tony Freudmann reported as follows:-
- Mr Freudmarnn confirmed that the CAA licence had been granted, and the official handover of the Manston Airport estate had taken place.
- Recommendations made in the Melrose report were high on the company's agenda.
- Immediate future plans included:-
the creation of further apron space -some 20 acres being required; and refurbishment of the terminal, including new technology.
- Considerable interest was being shown in low-cost scheduled passenger flights but these could not commence until certain procedures and refurbishment had taken place. The Passenger Terminal required a "facelift" which was expected to take place in Spring 2000, and during the interim period there would be an increase in cargo flights.
- Wiggins had a contract with MEPC to develop Manston Park. Plans for new hangars and other buildings would be submitted later this year.
- Air Atlanta Icelandic had been told that they could not use Manston Airport as a "glorified aircraft scrapyard", as appeared to be their intention. It had been suggested that they take a lease on a new hangar as an alternative to breaking up aircraft on open ground. Discussions were continuing.
- Consultants had been appointed to develop a Master Plan. It was anticipated that a scoping plan would be
completed by end 1999, and the full Plan by around March 2000. Wiggins would expect to enter into a Section 106 agreement with Thanet District Council six months thereafter .
Invited to add his comments, Alastair Robertson stated:
- There would be no more breaking up of aircraft on the Northern Grass. Another Air Atlanta aircraft would be arriving soon on long term maintenance project. In order to lessen the likelihood of disrupting the running of a licensed airport, this would be parked on the Northern grass.
- The CAA licence was a public document and copies were available from AR on request. The licence was for daylight VFR only. Some navigational systems were not yet complete, there being technical work required on lighting; also ILS equipment had not been approved by the CM although this approval was expected early October at the latest.
In discussion, the following points were raised: -
- Asked if they would like a guided tour of the Airport, a majority of members said yes. Agreed this be arranged sometime in November, in two groups, between AR, the secretary and interested members.
- In response to a query from Peter Binding (MAG), AR confirmed that the Airport's everyday Fire Category was 4, which restricted operations to small and medium sized aircraft and cargo flights. The Airport could however increase to Category 7 within its own resources, as necessary.
For Concorde flights, which required Category 9, equipment was borrowed to achieve the required category.
- There was no truth in the allegation (which had been made in a Press article) that French Air Traffic Control had jurisdiction over Manston airspace.
5. MELROSE REPORT
- Tony Freudmann confirmed that the Airport Owners would adopt all recommendations contained in the Report.
- It was agreed that as this was a privately commissioned report for the Wiggins Group, MACC should not attempt to endorse the report. Instead it should note it as a basis for further
work, should look at individual issues and monitor progress.
- Martin Tapp (St Nicholas PC) asked whether the Environment Agency were being consulted at all times since. Manston was a groundwater aquifer protected area. AR said Environment Agency would have to be consulted concerning increased apron space.
- The airport management was proceeding with installation of noise and air pollution monitoring equipment as recommended by Melrose. The noise monitors would be stationed at each end of the runway, 6.5km from start of roll, as required by regulations.
There was some discussion concerning the accuracy and positioning of noise monitoring equipment, e.g. whether this would give comprehensive readings of disturbance levels to neighbourhoods. It
was agreed that the proposed installation should proceed as planned, and the efficiency of the new equipment be tested in operation, before the adequacy of coverage could be considered. AR stated that after first findings, further noise monitoring equipment would be installed at local "hotspots", with a view to routes being adjusted to safely avoid habitation and thereby limit noise. ) , If the data produced was used to take out the noisiest aircraft, then a benefit would be seen.
- In response to various detailed factual questions raised by Martin Tapp on references in the Report, the Chairman suggested that MT raise these technical questions directly with Alan Melrose.
- Responding to MT's query on the precise situation regarding phasing out of Chapter 2 aircraft and exemptions, Tony Freudmann explained that this was outside the
Airport Owners' control, regulations being set down by the EU and UK. TF
understood that the date 'to be set for this phasing out was the subject of heated debate.
- MT had received reports of oil in water butts suspected to be the result of fuel emissions. Alastair Robertson confIrmed that air pollution monitoring was being put into operation in conjunction with Thanet District Council. Results would be made known to
MACC.
- Leigh Herington (KCC) requested that KCC be included with TDC in the air quality monitoring programme, in addition to the suggested ground transport study. But Dennis Hart (TDC) said air quality monitoring was rightly a partnership between TDC and Wiggins, not the whole
of Kent. LH asked that intelligence raised from any monitoring be made available. John Elliott reported Pfizer Ltd's wish to be involved.
- In response to an enquiry from the
Chairman, Tony Freudmann confirmed his expectation that, in accordance with the Melrose recommendations,
the Master Plan would be followed by an Environmental Impact Assessment, and then a Section 106 agreement with TDC. He indicated that a Section 106 agreement would be entered into within a year.
- Peter Binding (MAG) asked what would happen if a major operator of a new type, e.g. Fedex, wanted to operate from Manston before this process was complete. Would it not prejudice the terms of the agreement? TF said that, because infrastructure would be involved, such a development would involve collective consultation and agreement.
- At the request of the Chairman, TDC representatives confirmed details of their Policy Committee's recent decisions on consultation. Main consultation of the local community on planning applications would take place through MACC, but in addition, advertisements would be places in the local press, and parish councils invited to study the plans at TDC and make comments. It
was agreed that, because of the infrequency of MACC meetings, the mechanics of consultation with MACC would require further consideration.
- There was discussion about what proposed developments required consultation if there was a
General Permitted Development Order.
6. MEETING of Environmental Working Group
The first EWG meeting held 23 September had agreed the following starting points regarding establishment of a complaints line:
- a dedicated telephone line be installed immediately.
- for practicability this be an answer-phone asking complainants to leave their name
and address to which a complaints form could be sent.
- the answer-phone message be sympathetic, and advise complainant what information would be asked for on the complaints form.
- a target to be set that messages be monitored, and be responded to by sending forms within 36 hours.
- complaints forms be available also from TDC and possibly other sites around Thanet.
- fact sheets should be produced on appropriate issues, for distribution to complainants.
- extensive publicity of the complaints line would be needed
Alastair Robertson confirmed that the recommendations were being put into operation.
7. REPRESENTATION on COMMITTEE
- TUC had requested representation and had been invited some weeks ago to nominate a representative, who might attend the present meeting. (Attendance would initially be as an observer, subject to Committee approval). No reply had been received. Dennis Hart, a TUC regional member, suspected that the TUC had to go through its own process of electing a representative. He would remind TUC at their regional meeting next week.
- MK had been invited to attend as observer, with a view to representing Airlines on MACC but no MK employee had appeared. AR would investigate.
8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
There were no items submitted.
9. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
There was discussion as to whether the proposed public meeting should be postponed until the Master Plan was available for discussion. It was agreed that the commitment to hold a public meeting once a year should be honoured by holding one in December (in the evening). Date to be advised. Next year's public meeting might take place earlier, in a season when people would be more inclined to come to evening events. The December meeting would take place at the Airport -if this proved unsatisfactory, an alternative venue could be considered for next year.
The public would be admitted as observers only: since the purpose of the meeting was to progress ongoing business, participation and/or questions from the public would not be appropriate.
There being no further business, the meeting closed at 4.30pm.
Minutes.Sep.99
MACC
Index TOP
|