All local authorities must produce a local plan, which provides a framework for development to take place within their area. Thanet District Council is no different and in 1998 they produced the Isle of Thanet local plan. 

As with all local plans this document was subject to an impressive array of local consultation procedures to ensure that everyone knew what was planned. 

Unfortunately, circumstances can change and in the case of Thanet things changed in a big way when the MoD decided that it was going to sell RAF Manston, a wartime aerodrome of around 700 acres, situated in the middle of the Isle of Thanet.

A recent debate in the House of Lords centred on the adequacy of planning legislation in respect of these proposed new airports, and the MoD was roundly criticized for its determination to sell these sites to the highest bidder regardless of other factors. 

In the case of RAF Manston the local MP, Dr. Steve Ladyman opposed the decision to sell the base to a property developer called Wiggins Group PLC. 

Thanet District Council were also none too-pleased by the MoD's choice of new owner. 

They had previously experienced problems with Wiggins who had been charged with constructing the new Manston business park, but had allowed the site to deteriorate to a point where the Council were forced to issue a compulsory purchase notice against them. 

However, the MoD pressed ahead with the sale and were contracted to sell the site to Wiggins at the end of March 1999 for the princely sum of £4.75M.

The airfield comprises 700 acres of land and the price of development land in this area is something in the region of £100,000 per acre. 

So it would appear that the MoD sold this airbase for a fraction of its true value. 

How was it that no-one else bid more for this property and why did the MoD part with it for so little ? For the answer to this question we need to examine the history of Kent International Airport (KIA).

KIA is a 38acre civilian enclave enclosed within RAF Manston. It comprises the current terminal building and a taxiway on which passengers can embark and freight planes can be loaded. 

However, the runway is not incorporated within this enclave. 

In 1988 the owners of KIA negotiated a 125 year legal agreement with the RAF under the terms of which the RAF were obliged to maintain the runway, the air-traffic control and to provide emergency services. 

While the airfield remained an operational airbase the RAF needed to do all of these things anyway and so the legal agreement was of no cost to them.

However, by the mid-90's the airfield had declined in strategic importance and RAF policy changed . 

At this point it became apparent that the legal agreement signed with the owners of KIA was a millstone round their necks. 

The cost of providing runway maintenance, air-traffic control and Fire and Rescue services has been estimated at up to £3.0M per annum and this meant that the RAF faced a compensation claim of £50-100M if they wanted to close the base and terminate the agreement with KIA.

Operations from KIA have not been very fruitful for the owners in recent years. 

The last major passenger service was to Yugoslavia and this was curtailed by the outbreak of war in the Balkans. 

Since that time sporadic freight activity (4 or 5 planes per week) has taken place. 

However, the majority of flights at the airfield have been by light aircraft for flying lessons. It is clear that the operation of KIA was previously only viable because of the legal agreement with the RAF which meant that the RAF picked up the costs for running the airfield.

Knowing all of this it therefore comes as something of a surprise to discover that the ownership of KIA changed hands as late as June 1997. 

Wiggins Group PLC purchased KIA and with it the legal agreement compelling the RAF to pay for running the airfield. 

Six months later the RAF announced that they were pulling out from the airfield and less than six months later Wiggins were named as the successful bidders to purchase the remainder of the airfield.

So Thanet District Council found itself with a local plan, that contained little specific information about the development of Manston aerodrome itself. 

Their solution was to produce a Technical report identifying issues associated with the sell-off of the airfield and a further report (EDAW) presenting planning policies to address those issues. 

These reports were intended as guidance to prospective purchasers of the airfield. 

Unfortunately, these documents were not subjected to the same range of consultation as had been the case with the local plan. 

Consequently, insufficient consultation took place and nobody noticed a significant omission.

The Technical Report clearly identified aircraft noise as a potential major problem for local residents. 

Manston has only one runway which points directly towards Ramsgate, a Victorian seaside resort of some 40,000 residents. 

The town begins around half a mile from the Eastern end of the runway and the 3 mile runway approach route lies diagonally across the town. 

This means that incoming aircraft are routinely as low as 200-300ft above the rooftops. 

Apart from the intolerable noise, some residents have suffered structural damage to their homes due to low-flying aircraft. 

To one side of the runway lies the village of Cliffsend where housing extends to within 200m of the runway.

A 1993 report (RUCATSE) from the DTI examined runway capacity in the South East and found that Manston was unsuitable for development as a major airport due to the proximity of the town. 

More recently this finding has been supported by the current government inquiry into sustainable development in the South east (SERPLAN). 

In light of these facts, the Council's planning guidance document purported to present policies to protect the local population from adverse development impacts. 

However, while the document is long on the various powers available to the Secretary of State it contains no specific policies that would enable Thanet District Council to control the level of aircraft noise and emissions. 

It would appear that the Council never had any intention of accepting responsibility for environmental issues associated with the airfield and assumed that someone else would do this for them.

Furthermore, the Council issued a Certificate of Lawfulness for the airfield and accepted an annual figure of 50,000 air traffic movements (ATM's) for the level of existing use. 

They failed to request any breakdown of these figures and it has subsequently emerged that the vast majority of these ATM's were by light aircraft from a Flying School based at Manston. 

In failing to distinguish between light, heavy, recreational and commercial aircraft movements the Council have given the developers scope to vastly expand heavy aircraft operations from Manston without applying for planning permission to do so.

Following the announcement that the airport was to be sold a number of local people began to question the terms of the sale and the level of protection that would be afforded them once the airport passed into civilian ownership. 

Replies received from the various bodies involved were not encouraging and as a result the Manston Airport Group was formed in November 1998. 

The founding members of the group pooled the replies to letters they had written and a pattern emerged. 

Thanet District Council were adamant that they would have no powers to control aircraft noise and that the only powers resided with the CAA and the Secretary of State (DETR). 

The CAA were adamant that they were not empowered to take environmental concerns into account and that this responsibility fell to the local Council. 

The DETR did not even acknowledge receipt of letters. And so it has continued. One monumental round of buck-passing with the hapless residents of Ramsgate sitting in the middle. 

Nobody will accept responsibility for addressing our environmental concerns.

More recently the DETR have begun to reply to letters. 

Unfortunately their response is that the issue should be dealt with by agreement between the developers and the local Council - the same Council who do not accept responsibility for limiting noise disruption.

In July 1998 the government brought out a white paper outlining its intention to develop an integrated transport strategy. 

This document highlighted the government's belief that projected demands for air travel would require a significant expansion of the regional airports. 

To soften the impact of this, they hinted at giving local Councils more powers to control aircraft noise. 

It would seem obvious that the policy declaration of expanding regional airports was of great help in selling former RAF bases to developers.

Unfortunately, the government's integrated transport will not be with us for another year or two or more, and in the meantime a whole new gaggle of regional airports, including Manston, will have been opened. 

If air travel is to form any element of the government's integrated transport strategy why are we opening and expanding new regional airports all over the place in advance of the strategy document? 

Friends of the Earth have called on the government to halt all sales of former RAF bases until the strategy document is ready. 

Regardless of whether it is fashionable to listen to Friends of the Earth you must admit that they have a point.

But returning to Manston, we are now faced with the twin questions of who is to blame for the debacle and what can be done to address the very real concerns of many local residents? 

As we approach the new Millenium it would hardly seem credible that we are opening a new civilian airport within 1000m of a large town, without a single limit or restriction on the operations that may be conducted there.

Is it the fault of the local Council who in the words of Lord Northbourne have adopted a cavalier attitude to the control of noise and pollution? 

The developers are open to criticism for the lack of public consultation over their plans. 

Can we blame the CAA who are not permitted to take environmental concerns into account when licensing an airfield ? 

Or should we blame Mr. Prescott since it is he who has the power to make the CAA take account of these factors ? 

Is it the fault of Mr. Prescott's so-called expert advisors at the DETR who seem to be content to wait for the inevitable problem, and will then be unable to reverse things ? 

The MoD have clearly behaved badly by selling to the highest bidder, regardless of local concerns.