|
Controls at
airport are given away
GALES VIEW. By North Thanet MP Roger Gale
Isle of Thanet Gazette 24th Mar.
IT IS, I think, time to shed the light of a little reality and truth upon the future of the former RAF Manston and the environmental controls -or lack of them -that may be applied to the commercial development of that
airfield.
It was already apparent in the mid-80s that the Royal Air Force would wish to vacate Manston.
With that in mind, and looking to the future, Thanet Council, the then Thanet South MP Jonathan Aitken and I sought to facilitate the construction
of a new passenger terminal to open the potential for civilian aviation and the creation of a regional airport.
A long lease for the necessary land was acquired from the Ministry of Defence property services and with that lease went a guarantee that the RAF would continue to provide air
traffic control. The planning consent for the new buildings carried with it a clear restriction, enforceable by Thanet Council, over the hours of civilian use of the airfield.
(It was not, of course, possible or desirable to impose controls over the hours of military flying.)
These restrictions -now discussed as "the Section 52 agreement" -were designed very
precisely to regulate not only the passenger terminal and apron, but as the relevant documents very clearly show the
hours of civilian flying to and from Manston. That agreement was reached to put Manston on an
equal footing with other regional airports such as Bournemouth, Southampton, Bristol and
Plymouth- all of which exercise controls over night flying and to strike a balance between the successful
development of the airfield and protection of the environment.
Thanet Council, having failed to reach a voluntary Section 106 agreement with the new developers, Wiggins, before granting an existing use licence,
has sought belatedly to negotiate new terms for the operation of Manston.
The first proposal brought forward by the council, a draft Section 106 agreement, that has been negotiated behind closed doors is, after the preamble, the release of
the operators from their obligations under the old Section 52 controls!
The council recommends in its "consultation" document the replacement of such controls as currently exist over night flying with a
night flying noise control policy" put forward by the airport operator -a bit like asking the wolf to see Little Red Riding Hood home safely!
Dr Ladyman, at present the MP for Thanet South, in his own support of this
miserable document suggests that "the existing controls on aircraft movements, inherited
from earlier councils, are of no use whatsoever".
While that would be true if those responsible for the enforcement of the controls were to neglect their responsibility, better legal brains than mine and, dare I suggest, Dr
Ladyman's, do not share his view.
"The developer," we are told, "will decide who is to get help with noise insulation for their homes". The map that accompanies the "draft" Section 106 agreement. not published with the council's advertisement in the loc4t pre8$, describes the "footprint" of noise within which some householders may qualify for noise
insulation.
That footprint is so tightly drawn around the airport runway as to be of benefit to
virtually none of my North Thanet constituents and to very few in South Thanet either.
It is interesting to note that those who, like me, believe that this "draft" Section 106 is a shoddy
proposal cobbled together after the event, are accused of creating "an excuse to make
party-political points" and of expressing the views of "people who would rather the
airfield failed".
Might we not have the interests of our environment and of those who live on the
flight-path and that we represent at heart? As one who was instrumental in securing the preservation of Manston as an airfield, I heed no lessons from
latecomers to this saga.
Those who really want to see the airport's development should put rather more effort,
as I have done, into securing good, fast rail access to a Thanet Parkway station while recognizing there is
a balance to be struck between Commercial development and quality of life.
"London Manston Airport" does not exist except as a slogan. The original concept of Kent
International as a good regional airport playing a significant role within the network of European aviation can, I believe, succeed.
It is my view that the Section 106 agreement as proposed has no serious part
to play in this potential success. It is a scrap of cloth designed to cover up the \1aked
weakness of a council that has been out-manoeuvered.
The original Section 52 agreement offers the people of Thanet a better deal. We should stick with it and require our council's
members and officers to see that it is, when necessary, enforced.
We should also seek to ensure that all future developments at Manston that are of any
significance or environmental impact should be the subject of proper scrutiny and planning
consent.
Index Top
|