NewPoliticalSystem  Index  Home  New  Links Groups  

Chairman     `We are on Agenda Item 3 – Questions from the Press and Public.
We have eight questions on your sheets tonight. They are on your papers. Once again, in order for us to receive these questions it is necessary for us to suspend Council Procedure 13.1. I so move.
Would the Vice-Chairman please second?

Mr Binding     In 2004 Bromley Council were approached with a proposal to extend the operating hours at Biggin Hill. They adopted best practice. They commissioned a study to determine what impact these flights would have on those living near the airfield. Why has Thanet District Council not commissioned a similar study?

Our answer is that this Council is dealing with a proposal from Planestation to introduce 11 night time flying arrivals in its summer schedule within the context of the 106 Agreement Planning. The Position and context of the approach by Bromley Council to Biggin Hill is therefore not really comparable. However in its review of the 106 Agreement the Council has instructed aviation specialists to review current practice in England across the sector. Including, for example, Coventry, where for the first time a 106 is being negotiated.

I hope that satisfies your answer.

Chairman     The Question is from Mr Ward. Mr Ward, thank you.

Mr Ward     Mr Chairman. The Section 106 Agreement prohibits regular scheduled night flights at Manston. If the Council chooses to breach this agreement what confidence can anyone have that the Agreement, or any future version of it, provides any protection for them?

Chairman     Deputy Leader to reply please.

Councillor Bayford     Thank you Chairman. Mr Ward thank you for your question.

The Section 106 Agreement does provide for the production and introduction of a night time flying policy, and this has been the case since it was signed in the year 2000. The fact is that a proposal from the airport to introduce such a policy has never previously been received. As soon as the proposal was made known the Council ensured that it went into the public domain and it will ensure that the valid concerns expressed by residents, Parish Councils and others will be included in that policy. These actions reinforce the value of the Agreement and our community should continue to have confidence in it.

Chairman     Next Question, Mr Britton please.

Mr Britton Certificates of Lawfulness issued for Manston cannot be used to expand or intensify use of the airfield. Regular scheduled night flights have never taken place from the airfield. Can Thanet District Council explain whey the introduction of regular scheduled night flights does not constitute a change of use requiring planning permission?

Chairman     Councillor Kirby to reply again.

Councillor Kirby     Thank you Chairman. Thank you Mr Britton for your question.

The Council has taken legal advice on this matter and whether or not the introduction of the 11 nighttime arrivals constitutes a change of use requiring planning permission. The advice is that it may as a matter of fact and degree. Officers recommend prior approval is not required because – three points actually – the degree of the proposal for a policy enabling 11 arrivals each week, only four of which are between midnight and 0055 and with nothing beyond that time. The arrivals are sought for a six months period and nothing more. Comprehensive consultations are about to commence on the existing 106 Agreement, and the success of the 106 Agreement will shape the framework and develop the airport. The officers report that their conclusion that a planning application is not required for this degree of activity was not a borderline decision. It is clear that only a limited change in terms of degree and timescale is proposed.

Thank you.

Chairman     And next Mr McCarthy. Mr McCarthy.

Mr McCarthy     Thank you Chairman.

Can the Council explain why they are allowing Manston to be developed without a full environmental impact assessment, that would be mandatory to any other developer?

Chairman     Councillor Kirby again please.

Councillor Kirby     Thank you ………………… for that one.

The report before Council this evening concerns a very limited number of night flight passenger services over a six month period during this coming summer. The existing 106 Agreement provides for night time flying policy to be developed and put in place. This is what the report before Council recommends.

Thank you.

Chairman     The next question was to be put by Mr Clayson. Mr Clayson is not present tonight. The Leader will reply to Mr Clayson in writing. We, therefore, move on to a question from Mr Medwell. Mr Medwell please.

Mr Medwell     Have the objectors to the airport operation been able to supply any credible evidence that noise on the flight-path to and from Manston generated by EU Jet aircraft amounts to anything greater than the passage of a nearby railway train or a heavy lorry? (Not heard on DVD – copied from members of the public questions)

Chairman     Deputy Leader please.

Councillor Bayford     Thank you Chairman. Mr Medwell thank you for your question.

The nature of these things being what it is, I'm afraid I rather suspect that protestors might have statistics that prove that jet aircraft are slightly more noisy than lorries and trains, but what I would like to do is really address the spirit of your question which I think is in support of the expansion at the airport and its operation through EU Jet. It's interesting tonight that there are eight questions. I think seven of them could be regarded as being non-supportive of what we're trying to do here this evening, and your question is the only one that perhaps is in support. That's seven to one. That's a totally different proportion to that which I experience with people who talk to me about the airport. Almost unanimously people are supportive of the airport and are welcoming what's happening up there, and I do think that we have a situation where what is happening at the moment is that we have a vociferous minority against a silent majority.

Chairman     Thank you, and Mr Rosso.

Mr Rosso As the 106 Agreement is still being negotiated and is therefore still in place, how can the Council legally grant EU Jet/Planestation permission for night flights this coming summer?

Chairman     Leader to reply.

Councillor Ezekiel     Thank you Chairman.

Until the successor Section 106 Agreement has been subject to comprehensive public consultation, which will initially focus on the performance of the current Section 106 Agreement, the existing Agreement remains in place.

The existing Section 106 Agreement does provide for the introduction of Nighttime Flying Policy.

Thank you.

Chairman     The final question from Mr Kirkaldie.

Mr Kirkaldie     Thank you Chairman.

If the Planning Inspectorate who conducted the local public inquiry were misled into believing that there was no requirement for night flights, should the public inquiry not be reopened?

Chairman     And final answer from Councillor Kirby.

Councillor Kirby     Thank you Malcolm for that one.

In fact the Local Plan was not misled by any chance at all, but the proposal to include 11 nighttime, passenger service arrivals, into the airport from Kent International emanates from Planestation, not us. The Council had no knowledge of the proposal until a couple of days before it became public. Consequently, the proposals could not have been included in the Local Plan Inquiry, which as you know expired a few months ago.

Thank you.

Chairman     ……… to all members of the public who have taken the trouble to ask questions. It does provide an opportunity for you to quiz members of the Council and I hope you found the session helpful. We move on therefore to Agenda Item 4 – Recommendations of the Cabinet – and I formally move the recommendation of the Cabinet set out in the agenda before Council. Would the Vice-Chairman please second?

Councillor Fullarton     I second Mr Chairman.

Chairman     Thank you. And first of all I call upon Councillor Nicholson please.

Councillor Nicholson     Thank you Chairman

First of all I'd like to mention some points of from this report and I think it is disappointing that none of the responses from locals were worthy of printing for Members' information – I think it would have been helpful and in 1.6 of the Supplementary Report it clearly states that there are to be 11 night-flights but the recommendation asks us to agree 16, and we can only asked why? The current 106 legally binds both parties between the Council and the airport operator – no one else – and that is an important point in this, to a six month consultation for the introduction of night flying policy, so how can the period over Christmas – yes – be seen as nothing other than scandalous for taking this decision. TDC are responsible for ensuring the 106 is adhered to on behalf of all residents within the area it covers, and if we are to agree this proposed schedule this evening we're all undoubtedly be setting the scene for the future and it is nonsense to imply that we can agree this for one year and then if we wish somehow refuse it the next. I think Thanet District Council will be laughed out of court. This, Chairman, is a Trojan horse with fundamental consequences for all of our futures.

I also note in this report that this fevered activity started on the 13^th December and by the 17^th December the EU Jet schedule was advertised. What I want to know is why is Thanet District Council in such a hurry to rush through these Agreements without taking proper consultation and also properly getting the best advice possible from experienced consultants. So whose tune have we been asked to dance to here? And again I have no doubt that the Company knew that this was a real probability that we're going to have night flights, and no doubt the airport operator also must have known. The both have Business Plans. I contacted IATA who set up the scheduling conferences and are held every year – one in June and one in November – only the date in the month changes, so they must have had plenty of forewarning about this and could have given us a lot more time to prepare and consider this properly. And furthermore, and as has been mentioned earlier, all the flights to land from the western side. I ask Members to note the content of the Canterbury City Council response. Of course pilots must always make safety paramount, but what of those flights that save time and fuel by deliberately landing from the east over Ramsgate. What penalties are there? Para 1.4 of the Supplementary Note mentions penalties within the current 106, so let's quickly look at them and the Second Schedule para 151, and I quote yes the penalties are applicable to those planes with a noises classification in excess of QC4, and we all know that these planes, yes their QC is .05. So no matter what they do there is nothing within the current 106 that can actually apply any penalty for any breaches for anything that has been agreed this evening, and I and the Labour Group will not support these recommendations for these reasons. Whilst we can and support the airport and those that operate out of it, this must not be at any price environmentally, and the Council should expect its dealings to be legal and, therefore, we must stand up for what we all agreed. We cannot in any way make a considered decision this evening and we must not be hurried into one.

And just finally I'd like – perhaps Council should note that within that six month period that everyone talks about, which can't be adhered to we're being told, that since Planestation informed the Chief Executive and myself at the same time, one sixth of that time has already passed – one whole month. Six months is not a long time. We could still do this and we should still do this. This Company must have known. I would love to see their Business Plan and I think we are being bounced into this so, therefore, I will be voting against this Chairman.

Thank you.

Chairman     Thank you. Leader please.

Councillor Ezekiel     We have actually taken note of a lot of what Councillor Nicholson has already said. Hence Chairman I wish to alter the recommendation, but before I do alter that recommendation I'd like to thank Councillor Dennis Hart who came along to Cabinet and gave his full support, although he did raise certain concerns, but did give his support to Cabinet at the time and I think I'd like to thank you for that as it must be difficult to go against your Group view.

I think it is essential that we support EU Jet at this moment in time and the development of the airport. To answer some of Councillor Nicholson's points. The slot conference took place on the 25^th November. I have met with, obviously, the Chairman of Manston. He informed me that they went along with time slots – lots of hands going up – Chairman – some points of order I think.

Chairman …….

Councillor Ezekiel     Sorry.

Chairman     I have Councillor Hart down to speak

Councillor Ezekiel     I thought he was wanting to make a point of order. Sorry.

He informed me that they went along with time slots that would have fitted well within the original and existing 106 Agreement. However, they are the new kids on the block and the time slots they were given meant that some of those times were outside of the existing 106 Agreement. Indeed 16 of them were outside of the existing 106 Agreement. Following negotiations they put some of these slots up – they put all of the slots up to see if they could indeed bring those times down and bring them back to within the existing 106 Agreement. They managed to move five of those slots. There are no flights, for example, coming in from Newcastle after the 11 o'clock curfew. I hope that does help you in some way and that once I have read the recommendation you will fully support EU Jet and the development of Manston Airport.

Chairman if I may continue on. 
One - Only EU Jet passenger aircraft with a QC of 0.5 shall be permitted to land. 
Two - All arrivals will be from runway 28, the west. Any exceptions must be report, and with justification. 
Three – The policy will apply for the six months of summer 2005, April to September, and no longer. 
Four -Aviation industry best practice noise monitoring of night flying must be in place prior to any arrivals and throughout the six-month period. 
Five – Using (bell rang) ok. Using specialist aviation consultant advice regular reports on performance, especially direction of arrival and noise, shall be produced by the airport for the Council; and 
Six – Penalties to apply for additional nighttime passenger flights.
We are not prepared just to roll over, as you may think, but we will support the airport and EU Jet on this occasion.

That's the proposal Chairman

Councillor Bayford     Second and reserve the right Chairman.

Chairman     Thank you. Sharon do we have that in writing?

Just bear with us a second please.

In view of the gravity of the motion. This is a very important issue, I'm going to ask the Legal Officer to read the amended motion as it is now being proposed. The Legal Officer will read the motion out to you before we go any further.

Peter Borley     The Leader had reduced his amendment to writing. He read out the six main points. It does have a preamble which Members and members of the public should hear. The full wording is that –

The principle that the 11 scheduled night time arrival flights each week during the six months summer period of 2005 be accepted with the Chief Executive or other officers as he may determine delegated to negotiate the detail of the proposed night time flying policy. That policy shall include –

1. Only EU Jet passenger aircraft with a quota count of 0.5 shall be permitted to land;

2. All arrivals shall be from runway 28, the west. Any exceptions must be reported with justification;

3. The policy will apply for the six months of Summer 2005, April to September, and no longer;

4. Aviation industry best practice, noise monitoring of night flying must be in place prior to any arrivals and throughout the six month period;

5. Using specialist aviation consultant advice regular reports on performance, especially direction of arrival and noise shall be produced by the airport for the Council; and

6. Penalties to apply for additional night time passenger flights.

Chairman     Deputy Leader.

Councillor Harrison     Chairman if I may?

Chairman     I think, yes.

Councillor Harrison     It's a question actually on the amendment

Chairman     Yes. Please do.

Councillor Harrison     You mention the penalties should apply for the nighttime flights. You haven't stipulated what the penalties are. Are they – is it proposed that they are the existing penalties in the existing 106?

It is. Right. Thank you.

Councillor D Green    …. penalties should apply to any additional nighttime flights. By that do you mean any in addition to the 11 that you're allowing?

Councillor Ezekiel     To be quite specific – yes is the answer.

Chairman     I've got Councillor Kirby, Dennis Hart, Clive Hart and Councillor Mrs Johnston. Councillor Alan Poole. We'll start with Councillor Kirby please.

Councillor Kirby.     Thank you Chairman.

Occasionally, once in a lifetime you get an opportunity to develop an area, and I think EU Jet has in fact given us this opportunity for this area and I fail to see why the Opposition are coming out in cloud cuckoo land and in fact opposing this. Councillor Hart was very, very supportive in the Cabinet meeting of the 16^th December when he raised a few questions, which we ourselves had in mind for the future of this proposal, but most of these proposals have been overcome now, and I cannot see that the proposal for the future of a few flights between March to September are causing this kerfuffle, and quite frankly if we turn this down now we'd be laughed out of court in any sort of proposal for the future of Thanet in the future. I think we should go for it, take it, accentuate the EU Jet proposal for the area. Out there there's a great public waiting for a lead from the Council and I do believe we should give this lead, and for a few flights proposing to come late at night – in fact I speak for many people who live on the flight path, I do. My last business did, and I find that the proposal to object to it is totally daft and quite frankly we're dammed if we do and we're dammed if we don't, and I'd be rather dammed if we do.

Thank you very much.

Chairman     Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Hart

Councillor D Hart     I haven't a big to speech to make. I have one question to make and it might show some light on the decision by the Group here on this side of the room. Why at this late stage have we been offered this recommendation.? Why couldn't that recommendation have gone out with the covering report? I'm sure after the Cabinet meeting, and yes I spoke, not in support of nighttime flying. In fact are started off by saying I didn't like the information that came from EU Jet and Planestation. I reiterated that we couldn't stand in the way of the economic benefits and gave eight proposals which would mitigate both sides of the island. But since that period of time, since the Cabinet meeting, we've been able to write a report yet we haven't been able to put those recommendations as put forward tonight, and I would like to know why it has taken so long for that to come about?

Thank you.

Chairman     I'm sure the Leader will take that on board in his summing up.

Hold on please.

There's a member of the public with his hand up. I'm sorry sir, I have to tell you that there is no provision within Council procedures for you to take part in the debate. I'm sorry. You have to put your question forward as was done earlier in the evening. I'm sorry.

Councillor Clive Hart please.

Councillor C Hart     I shall also be voting against this motion.

I fully support the development at Manston Airport, and I'm fully behind it. I've been spending last weekend delivering leaflets with my colleagues in Margate Central with an article supporting and begging residents to use the airport and make the most of it. We're not against it at all, and we've got to make that absolutely clear. I'm fortunate to represent a ward that reaps all the benefits of the airport, with none of the drawbacks. The aeroplanes fly straight across and miss Cliftonville completely, as they do Councillor Ezekiel's ward and as they do Councillor Bayford's ward. The fact of the matter is that we are Thanet Councillors. We're not just ward Councillors. We're Thanet Councillors and we've got to protect minorities as well as the majority and the fact is that if I lived in this flight path I would be very concerned that this was setting a precedent. That's the real concern here. We're representing residents. It's no good saying that we're either for the airport or against the airport, or you could say exactly the same you're either for the people or against the people. It just doesn't make sense that argument. We need full consultation. As our Group Leader said you've been bounced into this and we could set a dangerous precedent.

Chairman     Councillor Mrs Johnston.

Councillor Mrs Johnston     Thank you very much Chairman.

Obviously I support the comments that Councillor Nicholson made earlier and I certainly support the point about Trojan horses. If we say, fine, go ahead at this stage. What will happen in the future. Many years ago I was involved in campaigns about Heathrow and the people complaining about no sleep and all the rest of it. So we know what can happen. You allow a few, then it develops further and next year someone else agrees to more and more. Its of very much of concern to people of Herne Bay and I am very surprised that we haven't actually mentioned Colin Carmichael's letter on which Canterbury City Council have had debate. In today's Herne Bay Times there are pages devoted to this and there's a particular comment from Roger Gale here, who is described as the MP who actually takes in the airports, so Steve Ladyman will be interested in that one and what he says is that the Council has ensured that the majority of flights will have landed before 11.00pm. Only two will land after that, unless there are delays. Now that is the message that's going out to the people of Herne Bay and my understanding from what we're all saying this evening, there's more than two. Also in the same newspaper Mr Gale writes one of his nice letters not complimenting me, as you can imagine, and he describes here, and I want some assurance on this one because it's very worrying for the Labour Group. The present Conservative Leader of Thanet Council, and this is Roger Gale's letter, Richard Nicholson, has already confirmed that he does not propose so and so to happen, so I think someone needs to talk to Roger. May be the Christmas spirit is still in the system.

Thank you.

Chairman     Councillor Alan Poole please.

Councillor A Poole     Thank you Chair.

Firstly I would like to say that I fully support the airport and believe that a successful airport is vital for the economy of Thanet. I've used EU Jet twice already, which is probably more than can be said of some of the Opposition over there. That said, I cannot honestly support the proposed extension to the airport operating hours. A lot of thought, time and energy went into producing the 106 Agreement to provide a right balance between the rights of the airport operator and the rights of the residence. The 106 Agreement limits flying hours to 17 hours per day with seven hours of peace and quiet. This proposal will extend the operating hours to 19 hours per day and reduce the peace and quiet to five hours. I can't survive on five hours' sleep and I don't expect anybody else to. There is no such thing as a quiet jet engine. This proposal is totally unacceptable and will surely be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the people of Ramsgate and the surrounding area. Also totally unacceptable is the way the whole process has been handled. There has been a complete lack of public consultation on this vitally important issue. The leadership have allowed themselves to be bounced by the airport operators into making a bad decision. The leadership have already publicly stated that they are happy to extend the hours of operation and appear to be colluding with the airport operators to destroy the 106 Agreement. This indicates the leadership's total contempt for the people of Ramsgate. I've a feeling that if the runway was aligned north-south instead of east-west the Leader would be showing a bit more interest in the wellbeing of the residents.

If you vote for this proposal you will be driving a coach and horses through the 106 Agreement. It will be a worthless document after tonight. The next step is likely to be a 747 freight aircraft arriving at 4 in the morning.

I will be voting against this proposal and suggest that anyone with half a conscience to also vote against it. Don't allow yourselves to unwittingly agree with the proposal that will render the 106 worthless. It's the only protection the people of Ramsgate have.

Thank you.

Chairman     Thank you Alan. Councillor Harrison please.

Councillor Harrison     Can I say first I'm not going to sit here and be lectured by people like John Kirby about my commitments to the regeneration and redevelopment of Thanet. Indeed if it hadn't have been for the actions of the people of the Labour Group you probably would not have had a successful airport as we've got already. So let's not forget that. So I'm not going to be lectured by people like him about my commitment to develop and regeneration. Neither am I going to sit here and listen to a Council that professes itself to want to consult with the people and work with the people when we have leader's reported remarks, crass and insensitive remarks about people not buying houses under flight paths of aeroplanes. That is not the way to work with and get the favour and support of the people of Thanet. So that's something else.

Let's turn now to the 106. What some Members over there appear to have forgotten is the 106 Agreement is with the airport operators. It's not with EU Jet or any other aircraft airline operator that comes in and out of Manston. The 106 Agreement is with the aircraft operators. So we must bear that in mind.

Turn quickly to the Slot Conference that was apparently attended probably by EU Jet and Planestation as well. Nobody is going to convince me that on the 25^th November they decided – oh it would be a good idea to go and apply for some extra slots, let's go to the Conference tomorrow. They must have known about this a good two, three or four months before they even considered going to the Conference, and it's no good Councillor Ezekiel shaking his head because we know they forward plan on these things. They don't decide the day before. At the time they had the idea to apply for extra slots to fly in and out of Manston, that was the time they should have approached this Council. That is the time any consultation process should have been undertaken and we should have been having this debate and this discussion before Christmas, and by now we would have had a pretty good idea of where we would have been with it, so as I say, as Councillor Nicholson has said, and somebody else said, it's going to be a Trojan horse.

Can I ask. Will the same latitude be given to any other airline operator Planestation may attract, or are we just going to say that this is going to be exclusive to EU Jet or is going to be granted to any other operator that they may attract. I think you can't have one rule for one person and one rule for another. There is nothing to stop another operator coming to Planestation saying we want to fly from 6.00 in the morning to 1 o'clock the following morning. You couldn't say no. You wouldn't be in a position to say no because you've set a precedent. I doubt very much whether the amendment is legal because you cannot stipulate from what direction a plane lands. That is entirely up to the Captain. The Captain has the safety of the aircraft at the foremost of his consideration at all times, so I don't think you can stipulate whereabouts where a plane will land from.

I think that everything that has been said tonight, certainly from this side of the table, indicates that we are supportive of Planestation and the development of the airport, but we are not going to stand by and let the people of Ramsgate become Guinea Pigs and scapegoats for what may be an experimental thing, I think so. I would urge everyone to oppose this, the same way as the Labour Group is going to.

Thank you.

Chairman     Forgive me. Did I have Councillor Elizabeth Green or Elizabeth Poole. I think. I think I had Elizabeth Green, did I? Yes.

Councillor E Green     Thank you Chair.

Whilst again, like my fellow Members, being fully supportive of EU Jet, I also have concerns for the residents of Ramsgate. Planes can arrive up to an hour late, and if the time is extended it will be far worse if they will be arriving an hour late in the middle of the night.

I also have concerns that this is the thin edge of the wedge, although I do agree with the Trojan Horse. I think it could be very problematical, particularly with all the freight negotiations we've seen taking place. If we start having freight planes coming in in the middle of the night, may be to get deliveries to the markets in London early in the morning, it could be very difficult and I do have concerns in that area.

I am particularly surprised at a recent Council meeting there was a lot of talk from the Cabinet Members about a huge, extensive consultation with the residents of Thanet. I'm very disappointed this hasn't taken place and I'm voting against this on the grounds that it isn't taking place and residents are not having their full say, and in fact I think many are not actually aware of what's taking place tonight.

Chairman     Councillor Mrs Gore please.

Councillor Mrs Gore I'm somewhat mystified about the requirement of direction to land because those who were here when the Central Island Initiative first came out were taught, quite clearly, that planes must land and take off into the wind, and that the prevailing wind in this area is south-westerly to westerly. This means that planes landing over Ramsgate in the prevailing wind will have to land over Ramsgate because they will be landing from the east into the west, or from the north-east into the south-west. They have no choice. Cannot risk people's lives from the air, nor can you risk the people's lives on the ground if the plane came down. This is my reason for requiring consultation with the people of Ramsgate and the rest of Thanet, because there have to be landings over Ramsgate unless the wind is in the other direction, or on the very rare occasions when we have no wind here, and how often is that Mr Chairman?

Thank you.

Chairman     I have two more before the Seconder and winding up. Councillor Mrs Dark please, and then ………

Councillor Mrs Dark     Thank you Chairman.

I feel I've got to say something very brief. I am a Ramsgate Councillor. I'm also a resident of Central Ramsgate and, therefore, as other people here on the flight path. I've listened very carefully to what Councillor Gore has said about wind direction. I'm very, very worried that all these plans of planes possibly being able to come in through the west. I can't see it happening. I think Ramsgate is going to get the brunt of it.

I'm not against EU Jet. I think the whole development of the airport is absolutely essential for this area. I have to vote against this because when I decided to try and be a councillor, especially for Ramsgate, I felt that my duty was to speak for the people in my area, and I've been going out onto the street. I have been talking to my residents. I have been talking to residents in other parts of Ramsgate as well, and nobody but nobody wants night flying, so I have to go against it.

Thank you.

Chairman     Thank you. Councillor Wells.

Councillor Wells     Thank you Mr Chairman.

I quite accept that Councillor Harrison doesn't want to be lectured to on the subject of regeneration, but I will lecture to him on the subject of listening. The Council Leader made it quite clear that when the Slot Conference occurred EU Jet went to the Slot Conference asking for timescales within the permitted 106 Agreement. They came back with allocated timescales that were different. That is the nature of the motion we are debating tonight. That is the nature of the problem that Planestation, EU Jet and ourselves actually face for a limited period of time for this one Slot Conference period. It does not actually impinge upon the larger wider consultation for the 106 Agreement renewal in general, which is to come during the course of this year. It is a one off position which deals with a limited period of time, which may damage development to the airport in the long term if that short term permission may not be given.

Councillor Clive Hart said to us very clearly that we were Councillors for Thanet rather than one particular ward or one particular area, and I think that has to be taken very much into account here if this is going to be an economic regenerator of the area, then we must do everything that we can to see that it is given the assistance within the realms of safety, and if aviation requires that it lands over Ramsgate we've already stated in the amendment that that should be reported and that will give us actually a very good basis to decide whether or not within the 106 Agreement to come we should revert to the position of not having night time flying. There is nothing better than a real experience for making that decision.

Thank you.

Chairman     Councillor Green please.

Councillor Green     The current Leader of the Council came to us with a proposal for a new 106 Agreement, which he says was arrived at after extensive discussions between our officers and Planestation. I cannot believe that during that discussion the question of evening night flights was not discussed. I do not believe that so I ask the question what message was given to Manston Planestation on that point?

A little while ago Planestation went to their backers in the City and raised a considerable amount of money. In order to do that they must have given them their backers a Business Plan, and I would suspect that one of the factors in that was that they already knew that they had this Council's agreement to allow night flights, and that's how they got the money.

The negotiation of the original 106 that Planestation finds now so inconvenient was negotiated by people on this side and has served both the airport and Thanet well. We've allowed the airport to develop whilst maintaining the support of the majority of the people. By not following that 106 Agreement and by allowing a coach and horses to be driven through it, to use another cliché, this Council risks losing the support of large numbers of people in Ramsgate for this operation, and I think that's a great shame.

I actually agree with the current Deputy Leader's remarks that have been reported in the Press that the current request to allow night flights is an attempt to bounce the Council into accepting night flights outside the carefully laid down procedure for discussion and consultation laid down under the current 106 Agreement. I actually agree with that. Quite unusual for me to agree with Bob, but I think he's right on that, and that's why I will be voting against this.

Chairman     Councillor Latchford.

Councillor Latchford     Thank you Chairman.

Charles De Gaulle said that since a politician never believes what he says he is quite surprised at being taken at his word. It's rather interesting that Councillor Hart is surprised that we took him at his word when he attended the Cabinet meeting. It's interesting to note what's been said here about people, we're listening, I'm listening, to my constituents and all this business. We all listen to our constituents, and as a Member of Birchington Parish Council, the Parish Council is fully behind and in supporting these flights because it considers them to be important to the survival of EU Jet and the operations from Manston. It is also interesting to note that over 600 jobs have been created; 450 of which are from this area. 95% of them are allegedly, I was informed today, from Thanet. So if anybody flies EU Jet, and I've flown EU Jet, and I agreed with everything said by Councillor Poole. The airline is a good airline. The air crew, the stewardesses and the stewards are keen, young, enthusiastic Thanet people. They've been given a chance of a job in an area that's depressed. They've genuinely been given it. They love their jobs. You go to check-in. You're received superbly. Everything is done correctly. It is a really good experience. Over 200,000 bookings have been received by EU Jet since they started in September. 200,000 bookings means that 200,000 people can't be wrong and there's not 200,000 people sitting in the back row today. The aircraft are acknowledged to be the most silent of their type and they are stage 4 aircraft. We heard from Councillor Green that they've raised £30M to improve and increase their operations. This is a fact. It's been done. To even suggest that it's in collusion with Thanet District Council is a ridiculous statement and not worthy of the gentleman.

Thanet and Kent, in particular, had been marketed last week in Holland by Planestation and next week they're marketing us in Spain. This can only be good for tourism in our area and we've got to encourage them. I really cannot understand what I've heard. This is pure politics that's going on here. It's orchestrated and it's politics in the extreme. Next week another course for cabin and ground staff starts with new recruitments. This is all positive and I will be supporting this motion.

Chairman     Thank you.

Councillor Peppiatt is your hand up or not. It is. Your turn then please.

Councillor Peppiatt     I really don't understand how you can say that you are in full support of the operation, and full support of the airport and the regeneration of Ramsgate if at the other hand you're restricting the activities of the airport on these few flights. It's not as if it's a major issue. I know it is for you, but it isn't. It's 11 flights only and only four of those are after midnight and I really cannot understand how you can put your hands on your hearts and say you're fully supportive when in fact you're tying the other hand behind the back of EU Jet. There's a wider consideration than that and that is that it's not just only benefiting Thanet. It's benefiting East Kent as a whole. I know that businesses at Ashford are beginning to use the line for flights to Manchester and up to Scotland and they're then able to extra business. So we're not just restricting Thanet we're restricting the whole of East Kent as well, and particularly I hope as a result of this we can give a stronger base for the airport to operate and for the airline to be successful. If this is not done. If you tie their hands behind their back I can see that in a few years time, perhaps a year's time, we shall see no EU Jet and no flights out of Ramsgate at all. It gives a wrong message completely to give so much credence to the protesters who are annoyed about the noise. There's, finally, a wider consideration and that is the one that Councillor Latchford's brought out, and that is the employment prospects. It certainly has a knock-on affect. The more successful the airport is the more successful Thanet will be. The less successful the airport it means the wrong move in the way of the economic development of this area.

Thank you.

Chairman     And before I call on the Deputy Leader do I have any other speakers. Simon. Yes.

Councillor Day     I would just like to say that I support EU Jet fully and if we don't have a passenger airport running here we could have the problem of a maintenance airfield with planes flying over being tested for safety over our heads. I'd far rather have a passenger jet service and will support them as far as we can to keep them going.

Thank you.

Chairman     Elizabeth Poole.

Councillor E Poole     Yes, thank you Chair.

Just very quickly. Councillor Peppiatt you kept using those words restrictions as though they were something that should be regarded with horror. Yes we want to support the airport and the expansion, but everybody needs restrictions. We have speed restrictions. We have age restrictions. We have laws that prevent us from going in and helping ourselves from shops. When it comes down to protecting the people we need restrictions and we have to look to see that these are the right restrictions.

Thank you.

Chairman     This is a very important subject and I want to make sure that everyone that wishes to speak is given every opportunity. I see no more hands so I'll call on the Seconder. Councillor Bayford.

Councillor Bayford     Yes thank you Chairman.

I don't want to go over any of the arguments again. I think they've been pretty well covered this evening. I'm happy to support the recommendation, but in doing so I have to express my astonishment that the Labour Group are not supporting the recommendations tonight. Particularly after Dennis Hart gave his qualified support at the Cabinet meeting, which seemed to me to be the sensible …

Chairman     Excuse me. Which point of order are you referring to.

Councillor D Hart     I have been named.

Chairman     What do you see is wrong?

Councillor D Hart     I have been named on numerous occasions tonight and I wish to respond to being named and clarify the point.

Chairman     I'll take that as a point of personal explanation and please make your point.

Councillor D Hart     Thank you.

I explained quite clearly when I went to the Cabinet meeting and I expressed quite clearly tonight that I was not happy with the information that came from EU Jet. I was not happy with the intent of Planestation for their summer schedule. I then went on to produce eight proposals and since that time those proposals, or rather tonight those proposals, those mitigating issues, have been explained. The amendment came – the recommendation that we have before us came tonight. None of the Members in the Council Chamber tonight have either seen the letter that I wrote to the Chief Executive. The writer of the report, Brian White, had not seen my letter until 5 o'clock this afternoon and it quite clearly states within that letter my actions. Within that report as well there is no regard to that, and I'm not mentioned at all.

Chairman     Councillor Hart. I must ask you to be brief and make your point very quickly and wind up.

Councillor D Hart     Right – the position is that when you take part in a democratic vote within a Group of a sufficient nature such as this, you stand by that decision, and if at the last minute, at the nineteenth hour, a proposition comes through and you've already agreed with that then you must stand by that, and I think everybody in this room agrees with that, and please do not try to embarrass me or my Group into a situation that you are tonight.

Thank you.

Chairman     Councillor Bayford if you wish to start your time, because ……..

Councillor Bayford     I won't need three minutes, but I would be grateful if I could start again.

Chairman     If you wish because we have lost the thread.

Councillor Bayford     I apologise to Councillor Hart. I wasn't meaning to embarrass him at all. In fact I was actually commenting and really complementing him on the common-sense that he showed when he attended the Cabinet meeting. I thought that that common-sense was actually going to be replicated through his Group tonight and that's why I'm astonished that that hasn't happened and to a man they've all stood up and said we're totally supportive, however, we're not going to vote for it tonight. I couldn't understand that. It's a fledgling operation at the airport. We've heard enough about the need that this airline has to be supported and we have to give it all the help that it can get, and genuinely astonished, and then the penny dropped. There are elections around the corner, and not for the first time the Labour Group in this Chamber have traded principles for votes. May 1995 in this Chamber refers.

Thank you.

Chairman     Then the Leader to finally wind up please.

Councillor Ezekiel     It saddens me Chairman to have heard some of the comments tonight.

(Noise in the background)

Councillor Ezekiel     Chairman, are we going to have the rabble again.

We've heard from Councillor Johnston how she's supporting her constituents in Herne Bay…..

(Councillor Mrs Johnston in the background)

Chairman     Could we not have any interruptions please.

Councillor Ezekiel     I was actually referring to a letter she wrote in the Herne Bay Times, I believe, but it doesn't matter. Have any of the Labour Group looked at the time slots? Do they realise that the vast majority of those times are ten past eleven and twenty past eleven, and yet they are the Group who negotiated a 106 Agreement, which enabled night flights to take place, and I see Roy is nodding his head. Thank you Roy.

? It only needs one plane per night to wake you up!

Councillor Ezekiel     It only needs one train a night to wake you up. It only needs one juggernaut lorry to go past your house to wake you up. Planes are not noisier than trains…

(Noise in the background)

Chairman     Please allow the Leader to continue.

Councillor Ezekiel     For Councillor Hart's information, and he's well aware, and it disappoints me that he thinks I'm still living in Cliftonville. I'm not. I'm actually living next to a railway embankment. My house – my flat is almost adjacent to a railway embankment, Chairman, and I can assure you the noise from the trains – you do get used to it, and you sleep through it, and I do sleep at night quite comfortably.

Chairman     Excuse me Leader. Councillor Hart you have a point of order?

Councillor C Hart     Certainly Chairman. I didn't say that.

Chairman     Which – Please stand up when you're talking and tell me to which regulation you are referring to

Councillor C Hart     Point of personal explanation.

Chairman     I'm not aware that you have been referred to personally.

Councillor C Hart     I was.

Chairman     I'm not prepared to take it. Leader carry on.

Councillor C Hart     It's outrageous. No consultation.

Chairman     Councillor Johnston.

Councillor Johnston     I think before Mr Gale gets even more upset Councillor Ezekiel described the people of Herne Bay as my constituents. Would he like to pass that on to Mr Gale. The election hasn't taken place yet. Just a personal explanation.

Chairman     Continue please.

Councillor Ezekiel     Can I wish you well.

I do like Roger Gale actually.

I would like to point out that a 106 Agreement is an incredibly strong agreement. It is woolly in places and part of that woolliness is around the night flights. The Labour Group negotiated a good 106 Agreement. We supported that 106 Agreement. We moved an amendment, which the Labour Group accepted within that 106 Agreement. Part of that 106 Agreement was, not let's beat around the bush, was to allow flights providing a night flying policy was in place, or six month's prior. However, there are exceptions, and this is an exception. If you chose to go against what you negotiated, that's your business. If you chose to go against EU Jet tonight that's your business, but you are letting down the people of Thanet. For your information I went to Cliffsend Parish Council last night.

? You should have gone to Monkton.

Councillor Ezekiel     I would have gone to Monkton.

? Monkton voted against it.

Councillor Ezekiel     Chairman.

Cliffsend Parish Council unanimously supported this Council's decision. I was quite happy to go along. I was expecting that within where they live there would have been a lot of opposition, an awful lot of opposition. When they were explained about the night time slots and the problems that EU Jet had in producing those slots, they accepted that and unequivocally gave the support.

(Noise in the background)

Councillor Ezekiel     It is changed.

I would have hoped with the recommendation put forward that you would have turned round to your Group and said we can support this now. You still have that opportunity to do that. You still have the opportunity to support the people of Thanet. Those youngsters that are working with EU Jet, those youngsters that are working in the airport. I also happened to go along to the Ramsgate School and meet with some of the children. They are totally supportive of Manston Airport. They can't wait. They look at that airport for jobs, creation of jobs. Come on. I understand the principles of which you were talking about before the recommendation. You can now turn round to your Group, Richard, and say we can support this. The number of night flights is minimal. The times that they are flying are ten past eleven, twenty past eleven. The vast majority of those flights are minimal. You would have gone with this. I'm convinced you would have gone with this. Stay with us. At the very least don't embarrass yourselves by voting against.

Thank you Chairman. I move the recommendation.

Chairman     Now you've heard the amended motion. Do Members wish the motion as amended to be read out again or are you happy to vote on it now? Does anyone want the motion read out again? Are Members happy to vote?

Peter Borley     The amendment is in the following terms:-

The principle that the 11 scheduled night time flights each week during the six month summer period of 2005 be accepted with the Chief Executive or other officers as he may determine delegated to negotiate the detail of the proposed night time flying policy. That policy shall include –

• Only EU Jet fleet passenger aircraft with a quota count of 0.5 shall be permitted to land;

• All arrivals shall be from the runway 28, the west. Any exceptions must be reported with justification;

• The policy will apply for the three months (should be six?) of the Summer 2005, April – September, and no longer;

• Aviation industry best practice noise monitoring of night flying must be in place prior to any arrivals during the six month period;

• Using specialist aviation consultant advice regular reports on performance, especially direction of arrival and noise, shall be produced by the airport for the Council; and

• Penalties to apply for additional night time passenger flights.

Chairman     The amended motion would you please indicate those in favour.

Any abstentions? No.

That is carried. That was an amendment. That now comes the substantive motion which I am going to ask you to vote on without further debate. So once again the same proposal, which now becomes the substantive motion. I have to ask you to again indicate those in favour?

Against?

And any abstentions?

Thank you that is carried.