Thanet rejects Manston night flights
More than 2,000 residents air their views
More than 2,000 residents took the time to air their views as part of the council’s public consultation on proposals for regular night-time flying at Manston Airport. The majority were opposed to the implementation of regular night-time flying, with approximately 73% opposed, 26% in favour and 1% not clearly stating a position.
The main reasons given by those who were opposed were:
- the likely disturbance to sleep
- the effect on health and quality of life
- unacceptable noise levels
- the likely detrimental impact on the local economy
- overstating the potential economic benefits.
Those in favour stated the reasons for their support as including:
- jobs/employment opportunities
- regeneration of Thanet
- their desire for the airport to develop
- night flights needed to ensure the future viability of the airport
- Airport has been there for many years
The responses were also analysed by area to ensure that the council gathers the views of those who live under the identified flight path, those who live within Thanet and those from outside of Thanet. The results were approximately as follows:
Leader of Thanet District Council, Cllr. Clive Hart, said:
“Firstly I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to take part in this consultation. We know that it’s such an important issue for local people and that’s clearly reflected in the high level of response. The feedback from this consultation will now be considered by Councillors, alongside the findings of the Independent Assessment completed by Parsons Brinckerhoff and the proposed policy itself, to agree the council’s consultation response to Infratil.
I am sure every Councillor will be carefully analysing these results to see what residents have said, before we finalise our response.”
A report is due to be considered by members of the Airport Working Party on Wednesday 4th April. The report then goes to Scrutiny on Tuesday 24th April, Cabinet on Thursday 10th May and will then be considered at an Extraordinary meeting of Full Council on Thursday 24th May.
Clive Hart, Consultation Manston, Night flights, TDC
Reader Comments (101)
At the start of the consultation I wrote to Laura Sandys voicing my concerns. Ms Sandys then forwarded these concerns to TDC. Today I have received a reply from Ms Sandys, attaching the response from Barry Mileham, TDC's 'Business Information & Improvement Manager', dated 21st March 2012.
Alarmingly it states:
"Legal advice sought confirmed that the council's role in relation to Infratil's proposal was that of consultee only. As the council has no right to veto Infratil's adoption of a Night Flying Policy in terms of its Night Flying Policy Proposal but can only raise non binding objections on well founded grounds, the Leader took the decision that the expenditure required to undertake a more high profile marketing (?sic?) campaign was disproportionate in the current economic climate."
This is deeply concerning on a number of levels:
1) Should TDC's role have been to 'conduct a marketing campaign' for the introduction of night flights?
2) The use of the phrase 'legal advice sought' makes it unclear who sought this advice - almost certainly the last TDC administration who were in favour of night flights, so what is the motivation of the current administration in hiding behind this, when they made it absolutely clear in their election manifesto that they would oppose night flights and seek planning permission as it represented a significant change of use?
Anyone familiar with marketing will know that the client dictates the outcomes of such advice to a certain extent as they are paying for it.
3) It could be extremely useful for the Labour Group, newly in charge at TDC, to claim that the council has no say in this matter, i.e. "Despite our election manifesto stating we would not allow night flights, the report says we have no say, so we have not betrayed the electorate".
This is plainly nonsense. If the current Section 106 had no power to stop night flights they would have started some time ago, without the need for any public consultation. If Infratil's lawyers, probably more competent and undoubtedly better funded than TDC's laywers, had thought they could have got away with introducing night flights without the consent of TDC, they would have done so a long time ago.
A glance at Cllr David Green's (Labour) blog fom last year is elucidating:
http://eastclifframsgate.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/labour-night-flights-resoution.html
If you scroll down to his response to one of the comments you will find:
"What should have happened, and we have argued for years, is that the issues around the airport should have been dealt with through the Local Development Framework. Then, proper independent studies could have been comissioned into both potential economic benefit and deficit, and overall environmental impact.
The TDC administration has failed Thanet by not doing this, and are allowing the developer to call the tune. Silly games are still being played by officers failing to follow the Council's constitution and interfering in the Scrutiny process to block debate over the narrow night flights issue.
Labour has found itself, having a manifesto commitment to the proper control of night flights, being frustrated by unconstitutional trickery. Hence the resolution to Council. Anything else would be seen as breaking our election promises. I'm sure you would agree that promises made to the electorate at the election should be acted upon."
13 June, 2011 09:42
How can this be reconciled with Barry Mileham's response?
Even more sleepless now!
But it seems most people either understand the justified objection that those of us under the flight path have, or see through the stupidly inflated job creation figures. Either way the Labour council's decision to weight the consultation towards those under the flight path now looks like a mere formality,
This looks like a pretty hard result to ignore. Question is what the legal way forward is now. I'm a bit confused about how the council are only "advising" and their judgment is not legally binding. What IS legally binding then? Is it now down to the need for planning permission for change of use?
One possible explanation would be that the sample size wasn't large enough to give a representative result. However, the numbers of people responding were substantial; certainly a lot more than would have been sampled by a polling organisation like MORI.
We know that the Council's consultation was run properly, with all residents given the opportunity to respond, and responses vetted by cross-checking names and post-codes against the electoral register. The airport's consultation was not run properly. Their flyer was only delivered to selected areas and we don't know what checking (if any) was done.
Under the circumstances, I think it's fair to say that the airport's consultation exercise was flawed and the results do not give a reliable guide to public opinion.
Worse still the Council was unable to put the basic facts before the electorate, relying on people ploughing through documents that many of the councillors don't even understand themselves, which I suppose is not unexpected considering the lack of intelligence, education, experience, care for the community and professionalism that some councillors show with appalling regularity.
Both consultations were flawed, and for a few weeks with the links on the TDC web-site they were the SAME consultaion that was flawed.
Unless there is a thorough audit made available to the public of the so-called TDC Night-time Flights Consultation, it remains an unreliable charade. We should be able to see the same information here as Canterbury CC published for it's residents. Anything less is unacceptable and frankly leaves the party in control of the Council and it's officers open to serious questioning and as the manufacturers of unreliable evidence at the public expense no matter how cheap it was.
Sorry Igloo, for a moment there I thought I was talking to a Labour Councillor!
http://tdc-mg-dmz.thanet.gov.uk/documents/s23874/Minutes%20,%2016022012%20Airport%20Working%20Party.pdf
I live off the flight line and have more faith in DIsney Land being built on Mars than Manston being any use as an employer or benefit to Kent. This part of the world relies on it's natural beauty for jobs, take that away and thousands will be at the dole queue.
Before Oh Dear weighs in with the inevitable b*llsh*t claim that nothing else could possibly go there let's have a look at what might be on the table:
A new prison was proposed. I believe this was blocked by our useless MP's. Prisons may not be very palatable institutions but they sure as heck create jobs and a new one is desperately needed. Could Oh Dear tell us whether he would accept this idea or is he against jobs?
A factory for manufacturing wind-turbines. By all accounts, Thanet wasn't in the running for this 1000 job project, because we couldn't provide a suitable site. I would have thought Manston was ideal, with easy access to the port and good links to the continent where much of the engineering expertise is coming from.
A hoilday park. With the end of cheap flights and the new economic reality, British people are looking for British holidays. They don't want Butlins. They want self-contained chalet accomodation with a range of leisure activities within easy reach. In Thanet, we have the best weather in the UK, access to sandy beaches, a great network of walking and cycling trails, Ramsgate harbour which, on a good day, surpasses most resorts in the South of France What we desperately need is investment in swimming pools and sports' facilities.
How much longer is this going to be allowed to continue before the penny drops? The airport isn't working and it isn't going to work. Over-reliance on the airport development has stifled economic development in Thanet for more than ten years and nobody has been allowed even to talk about plan B. We've had two owners and several airlines. None of them have been able to make it work. The Council should be making it clear to potential investors that they are prepared to welcome and accept alternative proposals for the site.
And trees, trees, trees, trees... this area was wooded!
And Mr Igloo, how was it you managed to miss out the fact that Cleanaway are keeping a close eye on the situation? Should things go miserable for the airport, they are still looking for somewhere to site the incinerators that were originally going to be sited near Faversham. Personally I would have rather have a a few seconds of aircraft noise than be slowly poisoned.
Your feeble attempt at humour only serves to expose the sheer extent of your ignorance and hypocrisy. I don't deny that incinerators produce toxic emissions, but you appear to be under the illusion that the airport is some sort of green option. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Recent developments in technology have allowed researchers to better monitor the airborne pollution levels at airports. The results are very worrying with levels of toxic nanoparticles and carcinogens at dangerous levels whenever jet engines are running. In a test case, in Denmark, it has now been accepted that airport workers, who have been exposed to fumes from jet engines, are entitled to claim compensation for the cancer which ensues.
This woman is no doubt one of yours? Have fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQm-Msbdfss&feature=player_embedded#!
How nice that you mention Pfizers, perhaps you share a common problem with Manston, that they are not the only ones not able to get one up in the early hours. Perhaps you should keep on taking the pills please consider/start taking the pills.
Also I would like to work in London using our new HS1 line, sadly a weekly commute to London is impossible unless you have a huge wage to go with it! Bring down the cost of the 1 hour daily commute and Thanet will start to grow green shoots.
Anyone who pays their Council tax has an equal say. If this isn't the case, then those whose views are ignored are entitled not to pay. No taxation without representation.
As you all know, our "special" friend doesn't use his real name because he hasn't lived here very long and has no legitimate claim to be the mouthpiece of "The real people of Thanet."
Most 10 year-olds could point out the flaw: if they're silent, how do you know what they want, and how do you know it's exactly the same as what you want?
Unlike Australia, where voting is compulsory, the UK operates with a national electoral system that invites people to express their views at the ballot box. It requires that people get off their sofas and go to the polling station. Views that are not expressed are not counted. In the consultation conducted on night flights, the public were similarly invited to express their views. They did. Resoundingly. In fact, this was the largest response to a consultation the council has ever had, it seems. So it's pointless really wittering on about people who didn't express a view.
This consultation was publicised, open and allowed more than a simple 'yes' or 'no' in that it invited detailed comments that have been recorded. It's clear that the vast majority do not want night flights for a range of very good reasons. If the council chose to ignore these results, it would place them in a very sticky position with regard to any future consultation carried out on exactly the same basis.
[HBM: 700 what? EVERYONE who responded to this survey was self-selected. On the other hand, MORI would start with a "random, representative" sample, but would only get replies from those who wanted to spend time talking to a stranger on the phone. We DON'T know what the result of any other survey might have been, but we DO know the result of this one. You seem to be the only one who can't deal with it. I suggest you send your thoughts to Cllr Hart at TDC, where they might change the process, rather than putting them here, where they just get mocked or ignored.]
HBM
As you pointed out, an organisation like Ipsos MORI would take a random, representative sample which means taking an UNBIASED random selection of individuals from the community which, as an expert on these things, I'm sure you will agree is the only FAIR way of doing it. By the way maybe I should directing my comments to Bob Bayford who is also of the opinion that the results of this survey are "skewed".
I'd say the only thing that has rung true from either the supporters or non-supporters of Manston in the 4 years I have been here is the airports failure. I think that has been a pretty consistent message coming from anyone with a basic understanding of business (which does not include TDC or KCC.)
Infratil backed the wrong horse. They are now stuck with two lame duck uk airports they are trying to sell which have better value airports for sale in the same region.
They have realised this and are making a "no regrets" decision to sell.
That's a great endorsement for any potential buyer. Are buyers queuing around the block? I'd say no, which is probably a more informed and likely outcome than your bluster and bullshit threats of impending doom from some white knight operator who only wants to fly when it's dark.
Hope you find another job when it closes dear oh dear, but remember that real businesses employ people with business sense, not delusional views of reality.
Keep wishing and hoping but sadly for you and your tribe there is no happy ending. Look out for the A319/320s coming soon!
None.
Any potential buyers will be looking at the wider situation and thinking "do I buy a thrice failed airport at the end of the road in Kent against a backdrop of potential increased runway capacity 100 miles up the road at Heathrow, with 50% capacity at Stansted, with a new runway pencilled in at Gatwick in 7 years time, with Southend attracting two major airlines, with City expanding, with Luton expanding......."
I'll ring my mate oh dear and get his opinion. He knows what he's talking about.
I can't image any other operator is going to launch the northern-Europe to med workhorse in winter, so maybe oh dear has his malfunctioning crystal ball looking to summer 2013 for this a319/320 passenger operator that is going to fy through the night.
Or maybe he is just knows nothing.
We already have a survey/report (for what its worth), is their a similarity here 'worth' and is responding to a worth-less, oh dear I think their is!
Oh dear, believe it or not, is a part of that overall process. Rumour, false accusations, total untruths, all to get people questioning totally damning consultation evidence.
Charles Buchanan cannot run his own consultation. It's the council consulting, and they should have received the responses. If Charlie's follower are too stupid to send a copy to the council, why should their votes be counted?
Same reason no night flights could not hand in the thousands of signature petition against night flights. It's not going to be accepted. Who is to as that Charlie's supporters have already written into TDC and their numbers have been counted?
Be strong everyone, continue to bat off the nonsense and remember to make sure your councillors see what's really going on and what people think.
For night flights 68%
Against: 25%
Not bothered/interested: 7%
The only proper way to conduct a survey, ask the real people
[HBM: laughable]