* * * * DONATE * * * * Support NoNightFlights

Thanet Blogs


* except "AHEM" flights: Aid, Humanitarian, Emergency, Military

You can make a donation to support our work... just click the button below.

« You say (24) | Main | Mixed reaction to consultation »

You say (23)

#Manston #nightflights


Dear Sirs,

The consideration of granting permission for night time flights based on jobs in this issue, must be dealt with on facts rather than hope using information supplied by the party who stands to gain. Quite understandably this information will be biased, as Infratil and their shareholders will gain considerably just by increasing their asset value should the Airport be given night flying permission even if it is never used. With that in mind, should you grant permission, as a protection I would suggest you impose a 'Windfall Tax' of 50% of their profits should they sell the asset within the next 10 years. If they are genuine in their intentions they will have no objections whatsoever to these conditions.

The question and consideration of new jobs will encompass 'E.U. Democratic Duty' on the Council's part with regard to the number of parties who stand to gain, and by how much, set against the number of parties who stand to lose and at what cost to them. The Majority defines the existing ruling under that Duty and would only be relevant in future litigation if The Council grants permission in its belief of job creation.

Notwithstanding the above, if The Council is correct in the belief that it holds the authority to allow night time flying then this is a 'Saleable Asset' . This asset belongs to the taxpayer and is deposited with the Elected Representatives to hold or dispose of in our interest. The base foundation of all business transactions is not to give away what can be sold. The Council cannot, under any circumstances, give away our asset to Infratil and its shareholders, to their gain and our loss, when a simple 'Licence' could possible raise millions. This direction would then be to raise revenue rather than create employment. If this reason is adopted by the 'Yes' group and a device is formulated that would achieve a considerable payment to our area, many objectors may change sides, as it is a fair and honest trade to compensate for their personal reduction in living standards to create the 'greater good'. I believe very few objectors think it is a good idea to subsidise a multinational organisation with their personal sacrifice based on a weak promise, that in reality, has cost Infratil very little.

However the entire issue as it now stands has nothing whatsoever to do with revenue or jobs. It is simply about one thing which is noise. It is obvious that if the planes were silent there would not be one objection. On the other hand, if the application was for a facility to land planes on the runway throughout the night, test their engines to the maximum, and then to take off again without creating any jobs, the application would immediately be refused by the Council on the grounds of noise disturbance.

My personal objection is that the job creation argument is too weak. The damage to the community and environment is too high. The opportunity to capitalise on an asset is not being considered, and that there is an element of naivety in negotiating with 'Big Business'.

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights


1) the flight path is directly overhead this property, & many others, & at best is no more than 200feet above ground level. Daytime noise is such that TV, radio, etc is blocked out & it is impossible to hold a conversation outdoors. This is WITH daytime ambient noise. I have been woken at all hours of the night with so called " late arrivals etc".

I have also had the benefit of a mobile noise monitor for several months supplied by TDC & this will confirm noise levels. The aircraft used are not modern quiet passenger craft; they are old, noisy, freight carrying jumbos operated from third world countries.

2) The European Court of Human Rights dictate outlines the right to undisturbed sleep & further the dangers to human health of differing types. There will be cases brought to this Court if the proposal is granted & this will implicate TDC.

3) There are currently only 110 people employed at Manston. The claim that night flights would significantly increase job prospects is quite untrue. Watertight studies prove that at best a further 23 jobs would be available & given the present workforce only 66% live in Thanet & are paid less than others in the area. Where is the benefit to Thanet??

4) Tourism , it has been suggested would also benefit. I would just ask for instance for council members to visit one of our jewels, i.e. Ramsgate harbour when a jumbo jet is on the flight path & see what our visitors think of that. That is forgetting the lovely villages in the area , including this one, & it's ancient church.

5) I would draw your attention to the report of Parsons Brinckerhoff in connection with the 2 previous items. Their report saw absolutely no benefit to the application.

6) If the application is granted there would nothing stopping Infratil in selling up as complete freight operation & such is their lack of profitability it has been suggested that this is the real motive behind the application. You & we would be completely lost !!

7) Finally, this proposal would eventually lead to a reduction in property values & therefore council tax rates---enough said??

Click to have your say in the Public Consultation on Night Flights

Reader Comments (1)

This may have already have been done BUT if these matters are put to a council vote will all those voting be required to declare any commercial interest they may have, directly or indirectly, arising out of the activities of Manston airport. The Equine Border Inspection centre springs to mind!
Tue, February 28, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterC.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.