You say (7)

#Manston #nightflights

---

NO Night Flights Please

I live about 300 metres from the flight path and they are clearly audible when flights are landing outside of permitted times as it is.

Also, am concerned for residents living directly under the flight path and the effect interrupted sleep patterns would have on children's learning. Friends of mine enjoy visiting Ramsgate but have stated they would not continue to do so if night flying started.

---

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

---

Please take note that we are AGAINST Night Flights between 11pm and 7am at Manston Airport.

How can it be justified to have Night Flights into and out of Manston Airport ? There are enough hours in the daytime to have these extra flights, why on earth should night time be even considered.

On a number of occasions we have been woken up from our sleep either around midnight or around 5am with a plane going into or out of Manston and I can tell you on all of these occasions we have been unable to settle back to sleep for quite some time. My husband and I are pensioners, we need quality and quantity sleeping hours. We need our good health to enjoy the rest of our lives living with good quality air, not polluted air.

We live under the flight path, and whilst we are quite happy to hear and see planes going in and out of Manston during the day we are not happy with the prospect of having them during the night.

As to the extra employment, there is no way the amount of people you have quoted as getting the extra work be justified, dream on we are not fools.

And what about our property, we have already taken a downturn in value because of the economic crises, night flights will make it even worse. We do not want our property devalued any further thank you very much.

---

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

---

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'.

Thank you for your time

---

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

---