NewPoliticalSystem  Index  Home  New  Links Groups  

INTRODUCTION

I am the Secretary of the Manston Airport Group. We are a group of several hundred local residents who are concerned about the development of London Manston Air. The objectives of the Group are as follows :

• To continually monitor the development of the airport.
• To ensure that the development is environmentally acceptable.
• To disseminate information to interested parties, particularly the local community.
• To help and advise those affected by the development.

Paragraph 2.18 of the Thanet Local Plan, Deposit Draft, June 2001 reads as follows :

We would concur with this advice. However, in relation to airport development it is important to recognise that noise and vibration caused by aircraft are exempt from UK environmental legislation. The only powers available to local authorities to limit or control aviation noise are their planning powers. Consequently, it is essential to ensure that these planning powers are used to the full if environmental protection is to be assured.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

The Thanet Local Plan, Deposit Draft, June 2001 contains a number of statements of fact and figures. The facts are frequently not referenced and the basis for the figures quoted is frequently not given. We would like to query two of the figures and one of the statements used in the document.

Paragraph 1.1 of the plan states that Thanet is an area of high unemployment (currently 8.3% - January 2001)

Residence-based unemployment rates, published by the Statistics Resource
Unit at the House of Commons Library reveal very different figures :
January 2001
North Thanet 5.3%
South Thanet 4.8%

June 2001
North Thanet 4.5%
South Thanet 4.0%

I have assumed that the figure given in the Local Plan is derived from the National Statistics Office. The unemployment rates given by the House of Commons Library differ from those published by National Statistics (NS), which express the number of unemployed claimants as a percentage of the number of jobs plus the number of unemployed people in the constituency. As the NS rates can be biased by large-scale net commuting, the Library believes that its residence-based unemployment rates provide a better measure of local deprivation.

In paragraph 1.11 it states that 11,000 people commute out of Thanet to work each day. It would seem that Thanet is an area of large scale commuting and the NS rate, which is quoted in paragraph 1.1 may be a misleading indicator of social deprivation in the area.

The difference between the two sets of unemployment rates lies in the denominator used. The House of Commons Library rates express the number of claimants resident in each constituency as a percentage of the estimated economically active population resident in each constituency in 1997. In contrast, the NS unemployment rates express the number of claimants resident in a constituency as a percentage of the 1999 workforce (the workforce is comprised of the number of jobs in the constituency, regardless of whether the jobholders are resident or not, plus the resident unemployed claimants).

It is very important that the true level and scale of unemployment in Thanet is established for two reasons :

One of the objectives of the plan is to reduce Thanet unemployment to the Kent average. Leaving aside the argument over whether this is a sensible target, it is obviously important that the unemployment rate is known, if success in meeting this objective is to be measured.

Anecdotal evidence from local businesses shows that they are already experiencing problems filling unskilled vacancies. It may be that the levels of economic development envisaged within the Draft document, will simply require a large influx of labour into the area, placing unacceptable strain on an already stretched infrastructure.

The second figure which needs to be queried is the figure of 4000 jobs which will allegedly be created by airport development. It is stated that 1000 jobs per 1 million passengers and 1000 jobs per 100,000 tonnes of freight is a ‘rule-of-thumb.’ However, many regional and sub-regional airports fall well short of this figure. Last year Manston moved 30,000 tonnes of freight. If the rule-of-thumb were correct this should mean that 300 people are employed. However, last year Manston employed just 130 people.

TDC claims that it is adopting a cautious approach to planning for the airport and claims that it is planning for 1 million passengers and 150,000 tonnes of freight. If the rule of thumb were correct these levels of traffic would result in 2500 jobs. There appears to be a discrepancy between the ‘rule-of-thumb’ and the projection being given.

If the airport is held to be the major solution to Thanet’s problems, it would seem important to have a more detailed and accurate picture of its likely economic impact ; in particular, a realistic projection for the jobs that are likely to be created.

Paragraph 2.52 of the document states that the Council has worked with the airport operator and expects the operator to adopt ‘best practise’ to ensure that the operational requirements of the airport are balanced against the genuinely held environmental concerns of those most affected. As one of those who is most affected I can testify that this paragraph means nothing. There is no such thing as ‘best practise’ in aviation terms. Every airport is different and each develops its own operational practise according to the nature of business using the airport and strictures placed upon it. Allowing the airport operator to adopt best practise is effectively to allow them to adopt those practises they wish to adopt. We would like to see this paragraph modified to say that the airport operator should be required to agree the most appropriate operational procedure with the Airport Consultative Committee (MACC)

Paragraph 10 of PPG24 (Statutory Planning Guidance Note 24 issued by the DLTR) reads as follows :

The Manston Airport Group believes that Thanet District Council has been concerned to avoid placing obstacles in the way of the development of Manston. We believe that the development is already causing an unacceptable degree of disturbance, and we do not believe that the issue of intensification has been properly considered. We do not believe that the Local Plan Deposit Draft, June 2001 contains sufficient measures to ensure that Thanet District Council (TDC) complies with its environmental obligations.

One of the measures which could be used to ascertain whether unacceptable disturbance is taking place would be the level of complaints. The airport operators have set up a formal complaints system. Since setting this system up, the total number of complaints has risen steadily. In the three month period, March-May 2001 the airport received 587 separate complaints from more than 100 individual complainants. Many of these complaints were about ‘unacceptable’ noise levels.

The Manston Airport Group is deeply concerned by these figures. If such high numbers of complaints are being generated when the airport is operating at such a low level of flights, it seems possible that far more complaints will occur if it becomes busier.

In order to properly understand our objections to the proposed local plan, it is necessary to examine the recent planning history.

PLANNING HISTORY

The last local plan was adopted in April 1998. The MoD had announced their intent to dispose of the airfield in January 1998. The local plan contained no specific reference to development of the airport. The Council produced a supplement to the local plan known as the Central Island Initiative, which was adopted in August 1998. This supplement was not subject to the same range of consultation procedures as the local plan itself, particularly not in Ramsgate, the town where residents are likely to be worst affected by the airport’s activities.

The airfield was originally requisitioned by the MoD. It has never been granted any specific planning permission to act as an airfield, or for aviation to take place there. The MoD applied to Thanet District Council (TDC) for a series of Certificates of Proposed Use or Development, on the grounds that civil aviation had been taking place for more than ten years, without enforcement action. The purpose of these certificates was to define the lawful use of the site and buildings in planning terms. These certificates were granted by TDC. The Council did not seek in issuing these certificates to define the nature or scale of aviation that was permissible.

At the time when these certificates were issued TDC believed that the airport benefited from permitted development rights. Airfields have extensive permitted development rights. Essentially, the only two forms of development which would have required planning permission would have been a new terminal or a runway extension. TDC did not believe that they would be in a position to limit the scale or nature of aviation conducted at Manston in response to planning applications, since they did not believe that planning applications would be necessary, other than for a runway extension or a new terminal.

Two local residents challenged the Council’s decision to issue the two lattermost Certificates of Proposed Use and Development through a process of judicial review. Believing that the Council lacked planning controls over the airport development, the two residents sought to challenge the Council on the grounds that they had a duty to define the nature and scale of aviation that could take place at the airport, by imposing limits on the certificates, which had been granted. When this case came to the High Court, barristers acting both for Wiggins Group PLC (the airport operators) and TDC conceded that the airport did not, in fact, benefit from permitted development rights.

As a result, the Wiggins Group PLC now have to apply for individual planning permissions for each planned piece of development. There are a number of downsides to this process. Perhaps the major downside is that each application for planning permission is considered in isolation and in the absence of any overall development plan. It has not been possible for Councillors to consider the cumulative effect of development.

The consequences are seen in Policy EC3. A whole list of criteria are laid out for determining whether individual planning permissions for airport development will be granted. The fourth criterion is as follows :

Manston has a single runway. Last year (2000) that single runway was used to handle 984 air-transport movements. Gatwick has a single runway. Last year that single runway was used to handle 252,773 air-transport movements. The Wiggins Group PLC have issued press releases stating that Manston is operating to capacity. This demonstrates that the capacity of Manston is not limited by its runway but by peripheral development. It is easy to envisage a situation where a series of individual proposals for peripheral development are submitted. When considered individually, it might be considered that each would not result in a significant intensification, but together these proposals would clearly expand Manston’s capacity. The current planning process does not allow the Council to consider the effects of cumulative development. In consequence there is a real danger of piecemeal development taking place without appropriate consideration of the overall impacts.

EC Directive 85/337 seeks to ensure that the likely environmental impact of major development projects is assessed, before they are authorised. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that those authorising development should be aware of the likely environmental impact.

The provisions of this Directive are incorporated in UK legislation by way of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations, 1999.

The key element of the legislation is that where ANY development which is LIKELY to have a SIGNIFICANT environmental impact is proposed, an assessment of the LIKELY impacts must be conducted BEFORE the project is authorised. There are no lower limits to this requirement. In other words, a very small development may still be likely to have a significant environmental impact, and assessment will be a legal pre-requisite.

To date TDC have passed several individual pieces of planning permission for development of the airport. The most significant of these are listed below :

Erection of a control tower, security fencing, runway lighting and instrumentation to meet CAA requirements for a civilian aerodrome.

Laying 20 acres of additional apron space and taxiways to provide a significant expansion of ground-handling capability at the airport. This application also included provision for a maintenance hangar for DC8 aircraft.

TDC is currently considering an application for a further 5.4 acres of apron space and a large hangar for paint-spraying aircraft as large as a Jumbo jet.

TDC has formally decided that these developments do not require environmental impact assessment, either singly or in conjunction with one another.

Paragraph 12, PPG24 gives guidance to local authorities in relation to EIA and airports :

Manston has a runway in excess of 2100m. It can, therefore, be argued that development of Manston is a Schedule 1 project and that EIA should have been mandatory prior to initiating development.

Where non-Schedule 1 airfield development of more than 1 hectare is proposed, this will be classified as a Schedule 2 project for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations, 1999. For Schedule 2 development, the local authority is obliged to consider whether EIA is required. Some suggested thresholds for adjudging ‘significance’ are set out thus, in Appendix 3 to the Regulations.

To date, Thanet District Council has not received a proposal either for a new terminal or for a runway. However, the total area of development for which planning permission has been sought is greater than12 hectares. Whilst a 12 hectare development might not be considered likely to increase the capacity of a large and busy airport such as Heathrow, the same cannot be true at Manston. In fact, the proposals submitted to date are intended to increase freight traffic by 500%. TDC has decided that this will not constitute a significant increase in air traffic. The Manston Airport Group disagree. Given the current level of complaints it seems likely that such a large increase might well expose local residents to unacceptable noise levels and an Environmental Impact Assessment should have been ordered.

The Manston Airport Group believe that the Local Plan Review document must stipulate that no further development be allowed to take place in the absence of an EIA. Sections 45 and 46 of DETR Circular 2/99, deal with the problems associated with authorising ‘creeping’ development :

“In general each application (or request for an opinion) should be considered for EIA on its own merits. The development should be judged on the basis of what is proposed by the developer.”

“However, in judging whether the effects of development are likely to be significant, local planning authorities should always have regard to the possible cumulative effects with any existing or approved development. There are occasions where the existence of other development may be particularly relevant in determining whether significant effects are likely, or even where more than one application for development should be considered together to determine whether or not EIA is required.”

“For the purposes of deciding whether EIA is required, a particular planning application should not be considered in isolation, if in reality it is properly to be regarded as an integral part of an inevitably more substantial development. In such cases, the need for an EIA (including the applicability of any indicative thresholds) must be considered in respect of the total development. This is not to say that all applications that form part of some wider scheme must be considered together. In this context, it will be important to establish whether each of the proposed developments could proceed independently and whether the aims of the Regulation and Directive are being frustrated by the submission of multiple planning applications.”

The Manston Airport Group believe that, in the case of Manston, the aims of the Regulation and Directive are being frustrated by the submission of multiple planning applications. We believe that Policy EC3 as written will allow this situation to continue. We believe that Policy EC3 must be amended as we have suggested, to ensure that a full EIA is conducted before any further development is authorised.

It may well be argued that TDC has signed a Section 106 Agreement with the airport developer, and that this agreement required the developer to perform an EIA. It may be argued that the requirement for EIA need not be included in the local plan since it is already included in the Section 106 Agreement. Regrettably, TDC has not enforced the Section 106 Agreement in a number of important respects :

The Green Transport Strategy was due to be produced by the end of December 2000. This has not been done.

Noise monitoring equipment was due to be installed by the end of June 2001. This has not been done,

The airport operators were required to supply the Airport Consultative Committee with statistics on runway departures. This has not been done.

A Master Plan for development of the airport was to be submitted to TDC by the end of March 2001. This plan was not submitted on time and the Council has sent back the plan, which was eventually submitted, claiming that it does not contain sufficient detail.

It seems unlikely that an EIA will be performed by the end of September when it is due.

This catalogue of failure to adhere to the current Section 106 legal agreement indicates that it would be foolish to presume that the commitment to performing an EIA will be adhered to.

OBJECTION TO POLICY EC3

For the reasons given above, we would like to suggest that Policy EC3 be amended as follows :

Points 1), 2), 3), 6), 7) of EC3 should be retained as in the draft.

Point 8) should be amended to read as follows :

The reason for this change is obvious ; if it can be demonstrated that there will be no contamination then the potential for contamination does not exist.

In summary, we are proposing that TDC should not authorise piecemeal development of the airport. We are proposing that TDC should demand an overall development proposal for the site and that this should be accompanied by an EIA. We are proposing that a single Section 106 Agreement should be drawn up, rather than the series of such agreements suggested by TDC. The reason for this is that whilst the development needs of the airport may change, the environmental protection required by local residents remains the same. If the agreement is drawn up to provide a specified level of protection it should not need to be altered significantly as the airport grows. There are precedents for such agreements at other airports.

Within the plan it appears that TDC would like to have its cake and eat it :

Paragraph 2.52 reads as follows :

Paragraph 2.65 reads as follows :

The Manston Airport Group would suggest that a ceiling on development may well be required in order to meet the environmental concerns of those living under flight paths. The experience of residents living in the vicinity of other airports would suggest that airports become more intrusive as they expand. The scale of expansion is related to the environmental disturbance caused. We believe that an EIA will give information about the likely environmental impacts of the airport, and that this information could be used to set a ceiling for growth. Indeed, if Policy EC3 is amended to include the suggestion that TDC should demand an overall development proposal, this proposal will need to contain details of the nature and scale of aviation activity which is proposed. We would like to see a paragraph inserted into the plan, stating that a ceiling on growth may well be required to afford local residents an appropriate degree of environmental protection.

Policy EC4 stipulates that the developer must prepare traffic impact studies for particular thresholds of development. This policy should be amended by adding :

Wiggins have submitted a Master Plan for development of the airfield to TDC. In this plan they reveal that they would like to close the B2050 which runs through the middle of the airfield. The Master Plan says that they would like to close this road within 5 years.

The closure of this road was not envisaged in the supplementary guidance to the previous Local Plan (The EDAW report). The EDAW report envisaged a possible closure of the B2050 at a point between the terminal building and Manston village. This closure would protect Manston village from traffic generated by the airport. The EDAW report stipulates that the airport developer would be required to pay the full cost of this closure (EDAW report, SPG 11).

Furthermore, the EDAW report stipulates that the developer will be required to pay the full cost of upgrading Manston Court Road (SPG 12).

Since we now know that the airport developer wishes to close the B2050 at a different point to that which was envisaged in the EDAW report, it is appropriate that the Statutory Planning Guidance should be amended to ensure that the developer pays for any new road which is required.

Policy EC6 stipulates that land East of the existing terminal building will be protected to support operational requirements of the existing terminal. Wiggins have submitted a Master Plan for development of the airfield to TDC. This plan includes a map showing that Wiggins intend to construct a new terminal building elsewhere on the airfield within the next 5 years. It seems utterly futile to be protecting land for a use which is not intended. We would submit that Policy EC6 be removed in its entirety.

Policy EP5 states that “..development proposals that might lead to…..a significant deterioration in local air quality resulting in unacceptable effects on human health will require the submission of an air quality assessment…”

We would like to see this policy amended to say :

The reason for this change is that we believe authorising development which has an unacceptable effect on human health is a breach of human rights.

Paragraph 13.48 states that the Council will adopt the 1996 contour for the purposes of planning. This contour is more than 5 years old. It was based on a lower level of aviation activity than that which is envisaged in the current plan. Noise contours are not difficult to produce. A new one could easily be produced for Manston based on the assumption of 1 million passengers per year and 150,000 tonnes of freight.

We believe that the Arup contour should not be used for the Local Plan. We believe that a new contour should be produced to reflect the usage of the airport which the Council has used as the basis for the rest of the plan, i.e. at least 1 million passengers per year and 150,000 tonnes of freight. Since these are said to be cautious figures it may well be appropriate to include a margin of safety, and to use 2 million passengers and 300,000 tonnes of freight. It should be emphasised that even with these figures it will be possible to produce varying projections of noise contours, since the types of aircraft which it is assumed will be used will make a difference. A further difference will be generated if it is assumed that much of the passenger traffic will be holiday traffic and will take place in the Summer months.

The Council states that it is adopting a cautious approach in planning for the airport. We believe that this cautious approach should extend to environmental matters and that the noise contour used should be the worst case scenario. You can’t unbuild noise sensitive development such as a hospital, and a cautious environmental approach would ensure that noise sensitive development is not built in the wrong place.

Paragraph 7, PPG24 reads as follows :

Last year (2000) Manston saw 984 air-transport movements. This equates to around three air-transport movements per day. We would suggest that Manston is not a busy airport and that unless it becomes a busy airport dBLAeq is an inappropriate tool for assessing levels of disturbance. The important thing to recognise is that dBLAeq is an average value. The noise events that occur are averaged across a 16 hour day. We would suggest that unless Manston becomes busy, the Council should set noise exposure limits in terms of individual noise events. This process will require that the Council arrive at a numerical definition for ‘acceptability.’ Whilst this may be considered difficult to do, surely it is better than the current situation where no definition exists and so everything is, by default, considered to be acceptable. We would suggest that no resident should be exposed to an individual noise event greater than 90dBA.

7g) OBJECTION TO POLICY EP7

Thanet is a tranquil seaside area. Traffic noise is minimal and there are few industrial sources to boost the background levels. Ramsgate has become particularly quiet since the departure of Sally ferries. People living in this area have quite different expectations of the noise they find acceptable, as compared to people living in London, where there are high levels of background noise from traffic and other sources. Thanet has a high population of retired people who have moved to the area specifically because it is tranquil.

It is inappropriate to apply planning guidance which is derived from noise levels at London airports to Thanet. In the NEC categories, the figure of 57dBA is said to represent the onset of community disturbance. However, the basis of this study was a social survey conducted in an area around Heathrow in 1982. We would suggest that attitudes to noise may well have altered in 20 years and that this figure may well not be a valid indicator of ‘the onset of community disturbance.’ We would also suggest that Thanet is not Heathrow and that people’s expectations of noise is different in Thanet.

In order to address this issue we believe that Thanet District Council should conduct or commission social studies on a regular basis to coincide with the production of new noise contours. These social studies should aim to produce ‘disturbance contours’ which can be compared with the noise contours. In this way it will be possible to establish whether there is any link between the noise contours and levels of disturbance. We would suggest that the production of ‘disturbance contours’ be made via an additional paragraph in EP7.