5.1.1 Under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 1999 an Environmental Statement should contain:

5.1.2 On the basis of the scoping opinion (presented in Chapter 1) we have divided up this Chapter into three sections:

5.1.3 The assessment of impacts will assess the proposed development and therefore the sources of impact in the context of the sensitive receptors that may be affected by the airport development.

5.1.4 A tabulated summary of all proposed mitigation is then provided, drawing on the significant impacts identified in the assessment.

5.1.5 Finally these impacts are then discussed in more depth. This discussion is structured on the basis of the structure used in Chapter 4 to describe the baseline environment.

5.2.1 On the basis of the existing airport operations and the proposed development of the airport, a list of key sources of impact have been identified under the following headings:

5.2.2 Abnormal events are events where deviations from normal operations result in unintended releases of pollution to the environment.

5.2.3 Details of the sources of each impact under generic activities are presented in Table 74 and Table 75.

5.2.5 Where sources of impact are related to sensitive receptors, impacts can be identified and a significance defined. Chapter 4 identified a range of key sensitive receptors (Table 78). The potential impact these sources may have on the receptor is judged under three categories of significance (Table 79).

5.2.6 These significance scorings have been developed in the context of this EIA. The lowest significance rating (1) implies that the source of impact will have a negligible or minor impact on the receptor. It is suggested that this impact is not substantially different to other anthropocentric influences or natural variation.

5.2.7 Where an impact was expected to be more significant, but evidence has determined that the impact will infact have no serious consequences to the environment a rating (2) is applied. This applies particularly to impacts associated with noise and air quality modelling where evidence suggests that the sources of impacts will not have an adverse impact on those identified receptors.

5.2.8 Where a significant impact is predicted, four possible ratings under a score of ‘3’ are assigned (Table 79). Where no acceptable or appropriate mitigation measure is available, a rating of ‘3e’ is assigned.

5.2.9 All impacts where a rating of 3d are assigned suggest that current uncertainty requires that further definition be achieved as the airport develops.

5.2.10 Impact matrices have been developed to present significance of impact where a potential source will effect a sensitive receptor.

5.2.11 Where necessary, significance ratings of impacts will present a range of potential impact, if it is likely that the source may be subject to variability in its nature. In assessing each impact the worst case scenario will be selected, discussed and mitigation presented.

5.2.12 Legacy pollution although a potential source of impact is not included within this rating process as ground contamination at LMA has already undergone a rigorous assessment (Gibb, 1999). The findings of this assessment and potential impacts are presented later in this chapter.

5.3.1 All significant impacts will require mitigation to reduce their potential impact on sensitive receptors. Significant impacts, details of each impact and proposed recommendations for mitigation are presented in Table 85. Any potential residual impact once these measures have been put in place is also presented.

5.3.3 Each recommendation has been numbered for ease of reference.

5.4.1 In order to qualify and support the assessment made in the first part of this chapter and to provide more detailed explanations of mitigating measures presented above, a discussion is provided below.

5.4.2 The development of LMA will have an impact on the views and sense of remoteness within Thanet. This will be caused by the construction and development of large buildings, the movement of aircraft and vehicles and the growth of ancillary airport development in the locality of LMA. This impact is largely unavoidable, but with care in the design process the impact can be minimised. The appropriate use of landscaping and natural screening will assist in removing harsh lines and the urban feel of the airport development but such screening will in itself impact on the views available across the chalk plateau. LMA have been careful so far in seeking to ensure that all development follows a north-south axis to reduce the impact of views from the south or north across the plateau. The impact on westerly and easterly views is inevitable and it is suggested that most effort for landscaping and screening be focused in mitigating this impact.

5.4.3 Lighting may have an impact on the sense of remoteness and quality of life of local residents in the LMA area. Since the rural area within which the airport is located is characteristically very open, largely devoid of trees and vegetation and poor control of outdoor lighting could have a substantial effect on the character of the area well beyond the locality of the site.

5.4.4 In 1994, the Institution of Lighting Engineers (ILE) produced Guidance notes for the reduction of light pollution. This identifies 4 different ‘environmental zones’ in which different light reduction should be applied:

5.4.5 The Deposit Draft of the Thanet Local Plan (2001) categorises Manston Airport as falling within the E3 zone. Table 86 identifies the ILE standards suggested for each zone.

5.4.6 The deposit draft suggests that future policy will be to ensure that all new outdoor lighting should demonstrate that it is the minimum necessary for safety, security or working practices and that such development should seek to minimise the degree of light glare, spillage and tresspass and sky glow so as not to result in the loss of residential amenity, harm the character of villages or the countryside, or cause disturbance to identified wildlife areas. This assessment has recommended that LMA use lighting appropriately to avoid impacts on local residents. It is suggested that the limitations presented in Table 86 for Environmental zone E3 be used as a guide in all lighting design.

5.4.7 Airport lighting is likely to have some minor impact on birds. Nocturnal birds in flight may be disorientated by lighting from the airport. It is considered that mitigation measures presented above will have some impact on reducing this effect, but it is believed that any residual impact will be insignificant.

5.4.8 The footprint of LMA has been established for many years. LMA have no plans to date to develop any adjacent land for the airport outside of this current footprint.

5.4.9 Wastes from the airport and aircraft could have significant implications for local waste disposal facilities including landfill. Although outside the scope of this assessment, LMA have established a waste minimisation policy and this will play a key role in future waste management.

5.4.10 Thanet and the surrounding area support a wide range of habitats and species, the most important of which are protected through international, national and local designations and through various management agreements. Within a radius of 10 miles there are approximately 37 sites under some nature conservation designation.

5.4.11 Thanet and its locality support a diverse range of habitats. These habitats in turn support a diverse range of species. Many of these species are on the edge of their geographical range and many are in decline due to a range of human influences.

5.4.12 The habitats of Thanet and the surrounding area and the species that depend upon these habitats are under threat from a range of different human activities (Table 34).

5.4.13 On the basis of the recorded threats to habitats in Thanet, it is unlikely that the development of LMA will exacerbate any of these, with the possible exception of potential pollution to surface waters especially in Pegwell Bay.

5.4.15 Surface water run-off from the airport and its subsequent discharge via and outfall into Pegwell Bay poses a potential risk to the ecological value of this site by polluting sea water and sediments within Pegwell Bay. Since this area is an important regional, national and international site for nature conservation, particular attention should be paid to how such surface water is controlled.

5.4.16 The principal threats to the site are releases of hydrocarbons from airport activities as a result of accidental spills or oily run-off from paved surfaces. However, given the proximity of Pegwell Bay to the Thames Estuary it may be that there is already an elevated baseline level of hydrocarbons in sediments as a result of shipping and heavy industry. In this assessment, no quantification has been made as to the nature of baseline pollutants within sediments.

5.4.17 As a precaution, LMA have plans to implement stringent surface water controls through the implementation of a surface water management strategy. This is presented below under the section on water quality.

5.4.18 In the unlikely event of an accident at or near the airport, there is the potential for a significant adverse impact on local ecology. Mobile receptors are unlikely to be affected directly as they can move away from danger, but their habitat will be damaged. An aircraft incident in Pegwell Bay, for example could lead to a significant disruption to a breeding season for birds. Invertebrate and plants would be directly vulnerable to accidents.

5.4.19 In the event of an accident LMA has developed procedures for dealing with spills that have received approval from the Environment Agency. LMA will continue to work closely with statutory bodies to ensure the effectiveness of this response plan.

5.4.20 The development of LMA does not encroach directly on designated conservation site. Furthermore all developments will take place within the existing perimeter of the site and therefore there are no ecological losses due to land take.

5.4.21 Most of the land within the airport boundary that is not paved or occupied by buildings is open semi-improved grassland. Semi-improved grasslands have historically been rising in their potential value in Kent (KCC, 1994) but through insensitive management their value may decline. The greatest threat to grasslands in Thanet and elsewhere in the UK is their lack of management. Lack of management leads to loss of species diversity and scrub encroachment.

5.4.22 The grassland at Manston is managed through a cutting regime. This generally produces a sward of relatively uniform height and structure, which in the absence of other strong environmental factors leads to a fairly uniform species composition. The grassland within the airport has been selectively sprayed with pesticides to control insects in order to reduce potential sources of food for birds. Although the grassland is likely to support a large number of invertebrates such application regimes cannot be altered for reasons of safety

5.4.24 Poor management of waste on site may attract unwanted birds and as a result encourage the need for further culling activities. LMA will ensure that it continues to manage its waste effectively to prevent birds scavenging for food. LMA will continue to use good housekeeping to prevent scavenging and ensure the use of closed waste containers across the estate. This will also deter foxes.

5.4.27 Some of these sites would, if threatened by airport development, have to be considered as of regional or national importance, with the appropriate level of detailed excavation and post excavation research. Therefore the following measures will be taken:

5.4.29 It should be noted that aerial surveys are not currently available of LMA and this has prevented an aerial archaeological survey of the airport and as a result limits the extent of this assessment. It would be advantageous for the airport to permit such a survey to be conducted in the future, in order that any additional baseline information within LMA can be obtained before further development.

5.4.35 Air pollution from construction activities are likely to have some impact on the environment principally as a result of dust. No quantification of this aspect has been conducted in this assessment, but it is anticipated that LMA will co-operate with TDC to ensure that all requirements under Local Air Pollution Control (LAPC) are adhered to. Air quality implications from the dismantling of LMA not considered in this assessment.

5.4.36 Water is a significant feature of Thanet. The low lying marshes around Thanet, the River Stour and its catchment, the coastal area and the extensive and major aquifer under Thanet are all important water resources for the region. Groundwater in Thanet is coming under increased pressure from the abstraction of water for agriculture and potable purposes. As a result there is increasing concern that declining underground water resources leaves this supply vulnerable to pollution.

5.4.37 The study has identified a large range of activities within the airport that may have an impact on surface water quality. As such LMA will adopt a range of measures.

5.4.38 The principal risks to surface water result from the run-off from paved areas across the airport. LMA are in the process of implementing a surface water management strategy which includes a range of management and physical controls to guard against discharges to the environment. Since most surface water will ultimately be discharged into Pegwell Bay, LMA recognise the need for detailed monitoring of surface water quality before it is released to the environment. LMA will conduct harmonised proportional sampling of balancing ponds to ensure that consent limits provided by Southern Water are not exceeded. Once the balancing ponds are in operation, LMA will review their spill response procedures to ensure that balancing ponds are isolated in the event of a spill.

5.4.39 De-icants have been identified as a potential risk to the environment. As a result, LMA will ascertain what peak levels of discharge are likely from the use of deicants and in consultation with the Environment Agency, ensure that these fall within any discharge consent. The provision of balancing ponds and the intention to connect all areas of LMA to these ponds in the longer term mean that appropriate measures are being taken to mitigate this risk.

5.4.40 LMA will ensure that all surface water drainage to soakaway occurs outside the inner protection zone of the aquifer and that it can be controlled by conditions that form part of the statutory consent of the agreement.

5.4.41 Accidents pose an additional risk to Pegwell Bay and LMA will ensure that there are effective response procedures to minimise the impact in the event of an accident.

5.4.42 In the Upper Chalk the main mechanism of groundwater flow is through fracture flow via joints and the chalk can therefore be considered as having the potential ability to transfer a wide range of pollutants.

5.4.43 The Gibb (1999) report suggested that the transmissivities within the Upper Chalk may vary considerably because of the changes in lithological characteristics of different horizons within the succession. As such the permeability of these rocks can also be highly variable between locations (which on the whole is governed by the density and interconnectivity of fractures).

5.4.45 Environmental risk assessments conducted by Gibb (1999) of a range of legacy pollutants are provided in Appendix 9. These summarise the potential pollutant from the identified Areas of Potential Concern (APC) listed in Chapter 2.

5.4.47 The measures presented in this assessment for the management of fuels and chemicals are likely to mitigate any impact from the future use of fuels on site.  LMA will need to continue to place a high priority on the potential for existing hydrocarbon contamination to cause pollution.

5.4.48 Unexploded ordnance on site remains a potential concern and all development must take adequate measures to identify and manage any unexploded ordnance discovered.

5.4.49 These assessments conducted by Gibb identify that the significance of most of these areas of concern are minor and no remediation is required. A number of more significant risks are identified. These refer only to land that might be developed for as housing. No housing is planned in the area. The Gibb report also identifies a number of areas as requiring minor remediation in the event of development for industrial use or redevelopment. LMA should ensure that the necessary remediation is conducted for development that is conducted in any of the identified areas of concern.

5.5.1 Recent studies have suggested that road access to Thanet and Manston has a capacity for predicted growth of traffic in the area of 25% by 2015 and a large growth in traffic to the airport (ADL, 2001). Predicted figures for the growth of traffic along the principal arterial roads into LMA are presented in Table 88 and Table 89.

5.5.2 Predicted figures for the growth of traffic along the principal arterial roads into LMA have been found to increase by as much as 40% above predicted growth figures for 2010 as a result of the airport. The majority of the increase in traffic will occur along the A299 as a result of passengers arriving by car. The daily traffic levels on this route are expected to increase by 30% between 2001 and 2010. The maximum daily traffic however, is only just over half the conservative capacity for this route.

5.5.3 Other significant traffic impacts are expected to be as a result of the severance of the B2050 within LMA and the impact of airport related traffic using minor roads in the airport vicinity. LMA will work with TDC under supplementary planning policy specified in SPG (1998) to meet the cost of the closure of Manston Road between the western boundary of Manston village and Manston Court Road to private traffic only with allowance for buses and cyclists, in order that the character of the village and safety of the villages be maintained.

5.5.4 LMA will conduct a Transport Impact Assessment to determine the full extent of traffic impacts as a result of the airport development. In addition, LMA will work with TDC to meet the cost of any road closures and ensure that the character and safety of those villages affected is maintained.

5.5.5 LMA will limit construction traffic flow to within reasonable operating hours and ensure that reasonable measures will be taken to avoid temporary severance in access during construction for local residents. Where temporary severance is necessary, LMA will ensure adequate provision is made to allow for, and minimise disruption to, local residents’ access.

5.5.6 The growth and development of LMA will not have any negative impact on existing bus or cycle routes. It is anticipated that future development of the airport will have a positive impact on public transport in the area.

5.6.2 On the basis of predicted air traffic movements, noise contours for 2000, 2001 and 2005 have been produced for LMA by Manchester Airport. These represents noise from aircraft movements only and do not include noise from airport operations.

5.6.3 Although a slight increase in the size of contours occurs between 2000 and 2001 (Maps 19 and 20), it can be seen that there is a substantial reduction in the size of the contours between the 2001 16 hour Leq contours (Map 19) and 2005 contour (Map 21). Areas for a number of these contours have been calculated and are presented in Table 90.

5.6.4 Noise is a major and growing source of pollution. It can interfere with communication, increase stress and annoyance, cause anger at the intrusion of privacy, and disturb sleep, leading to a lack of concentration, irritability, and reduced efficiency (Morris & Therival, 2000, 50). Noise can also affect property values and community atmosphere in addition to causing disturbance to animals.

5.6.6 Closer to the airport, noise levels will cause moderate annoyance to residents.

However, the density of residential areas in the rural area in the locality of the

airport is substantially lower than in the Ramsgate area.

*These levels exclude noise levels actually within LMAs boundary.

5.6.7 Noise levels for 2001 are generally worse than those predicted for 2005. Levels are reduced in 2005 as a result of improvements in aircraft design. A list of assumptions used in this modelling by Manchester Airport is provided in Appendix 3.

5.6.8 World Health Organisation general environmental criteria suggest that 45 Leq is a night time limit for the restorative process of sleep. However, research on the effect of night noise, whilst finding very little effect on sleep indicated that below outdoor noise levels of 90db (A) aircraft noise events are most unlikely to cause any measurable increase in the overall rates of sleep disturbance experienced during normal sleep" (DT, 1992). This evidence suggests that aircraft noise is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on residents, particularly young children who are likely to be night sleeping before airport operations end each day at 2300 hours. In support of this, TDC has specified that noise will not be a determining factor in planning applications where noise levels reach up to 57 Leq.

5.6.9 TDC deposit planning policy states that "between 57 Leq and 63 Leq noise will be taken into account in determining applications, and where appropriate conditions will be imposed to ensure adequate protection against noise."

5.6.10 A number of hospitals and schools may be sensitive to noise from aircraft landing and taking off from LMA. Map 24 provides an indication of the numbers of schools and hospitals that fall close to and within the 54 Leq contour in 2005. The WHO identifies that the 55 Leq is a limit to preventing significant community annoyance. This limit is an outdoor level and it is unlikely that schools and hospitals located between 54 Leq and 57 Leq will in fact suffer disruption from daily activities of the airport. However, further investigation should be conducted by TDC as the airport develops.

5.6.11 None of the local sites of nature conservation interest have any recorded sensitivities that are likely to be affected by noise, since all species of interest are herbs, grasses and lichens. However, birds using the intertidal habitats in Pegwell Bay for example, may well be disturbed by the levels of noise from aircraft landing and taking off.

5.6.12 LMA will adopt measures as specified in a Section 106 agreement between LMA and TDC to mitigate the impact of noise on local residents. These measures apply to residents who live within the 63 Leq contour for the period 2000/2001. The 2001 contour identifies that a small part of the residential area of St Lawrence fall within this contour. In addition a number of management controls will be applied to airport operations to limit noise impacts these include

5.6.13 LMA will continue to improve wherever practicable noise abatement procedures and agree maximum noise levels for aircraft movements which, taking account of the introduction of new quieter aircraft, will produce reductions in the noise impact for individual aircraft. In addition, LMA will require that aircraft should on approach be required to adhere to ‘continuous descent approaches’ from 6,000 ft, to avoid variations in noise volumes subject to air traffic control requirements.

5.6.14 It is expected that ground noise from the airport itself will impact upon local villages. No prediction of noise from this source has been conducted in this assessment, and it is proposed that LMA give careful consideration to the airport layout and how this can reduce the local noise impacts of day to day operations. In addition, it is proposed that measures should be taken over time to ensure that the significance of noise from ground activities is reduced either through the provision of physical noise controls or the movement of noisy activities away from noise sensitive areas. Finally, it is proposed that complaints about noisy ground activities should be included in a noise complaint measurement system.

5.6.15 Engine testing will have some impact on the locality and LMA is expected to meet restrictions set out in the Section 106. These restrictions require LMA to test engines only within certain hours during the day, to locate the testing area in a location that will minimise disturbance and to restrict the actual numbers of testing events at certain times of the day and night. It is proposed that in addition testing be conducted within a purpose built noise barrier to reduce the effects on nearby properties. Once this barrier has been established a noise assessment should be conducted to ensure that maximum noise levels do not exceed those agreed (Section 106). Noise from engine testing is expected to reduce in the future due to the phasing out of old aircraft and their replacement by newer, quieter types.

5.6.16 Noise from road traffic may have an impact on residents living adjacent to arterial routes into LMA. LMA will ensure that its Green Transport Strategy will seek to reduce any noise impacts from increased traffic levels as a result of the airport.

5.6.17 Noise from construction activities has not been examined in depth in this assessment since detailed plans for proposed development have not been drawn up. However, examples of noise levels from various construction equipment given an indication of noise levels directly adjacent to construction activities. It is recommended that management measures be established and good working practices maintained during construction activities to minimise noise pollution.

5.6.18 Studies to assess the cost of noise from aircraft have recently been conducted. Tinch and Schipper (1998 cited from DETR, 2000) have tried to identify ‘consensus’ values for Noise Sensitivity Depreciation Index (NSDI) which provides a measure of the percentage change in house prices associated with a unit change in noise quantity measured in dBA Leq (16 hour daytime). They found figures ranged between 0.5% and 1% per dBA. In other words a 1dBA Leq rise in the quantity of noise is likely to reduce house prices by 0.5-1%. The noise contours published for this assessment identify that noise levels between 2001 and 2005 will improve and not get worse. On the basis of Tinch and Schipper (1998), it is not anticipated that there will be any negative impact on house prices. More detailed assessment of changes in noise levels beyond 2005 will provide an indication of whether house prices beyond 2005 will be affected by the airport.

5.6.19 Noise assessment has not been conducted beyond 2005 at the advice of Manchester Airport. It is suggested that given the anticipated changes in technology and the consequential impact in reducing noise levels, such an assessment would not be worthwhile. However recent studies suggest that integrated noise reduction technology advancements covering engine, airframe and operational developments is forecast to reduce noise from future aircraft in the next 10 to 15 years by 10dB relative to Chapter 3 aircraft (ADL, 2001).

CONTINUE