Friday, 25 May 2012

Council response on night-time flying


Although supportive of Manston Airport, Thanet District Council agreed
at Full Council last night (Thursday 24 May) that it could not support
the introduction of the airport’s proposed scheduled night-time
flying.

Councillors were considering the council’s consultation response to
proposals submitted by airport owners Infratil to introduce night flying
operations between 23:00 hours and 07:00 hours.

Concerns over the potential noise and environmental impacts, as well as
strong public feeling against night-time flying, meant the majority of
Councillors did not support the airport’s consultation proposals,
submitted to the council in October 2011.

As well as underestimating the potential negative impact, members also
felt that expert advice provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff in an
independent report, questioned the potential economic benefits.

Members took three votes on recommendations from Cabinet following
their meeting on Thursday 10 May. All three recommendations, as detailed
below, were approved:

1. That subject to any further comments that Council may wish to
make, Council agrees the consultation response to Manston airport’s
night time flying policy as set out at Annex 1 of the report.

2. That Council confirms that Thanet District Council fully
supports the day-time operation of Manston Airport but further
recommends that as a Consultee, the Council cannot support the
introduction of scheduled night-time flying operations between 23:00
hours and 07:00 hours for the following reasons:
a) The council’s consultation shows 73% of respondents are
opposed to night-time flying;
b) Noise and environmental impacts are underestimated;
c) The number of jobs generated and the economic benefits may be
overestimated;
d) The probable detrimental impact of night-time flying on
Thanet’s recovering Tourism Industry;
e) Concerns raised in the World Health Organisation’s assessment
of the impacts of disturbed sleep;
f) There is concern that the night-time flying proposals have not
considered Article 8 of the Human Rights Act;
g) The Airport would need to address whether the proposed
night-time flying policy constitutes a ‘plan or project’ for the
purposes of the Habitats Regulations and then follow the further
requirements of those regulations as relevant.

3. That Council authorises the Director of Community Services in
consultation with the Leader of the Council to provide final written
comments to Manston Airport incorporating any amendments considered
necessary.

Leader of Thanet District council, Cllr. Clive Hart, said: “Last
night’s decision follows months of careful consideration. After
listening to the concerns of local people across Thanet, and taking
expert advice on the proposals, we were clear that our response to
Manston could not support night-time flying. As a council we do support
the airport and recognise their position as a key local business in the
area, however this can’t be at any environmental cost.”

The council’s consultation response will now be submitted direct to
Manston Airport. 

16 comments:

  1. what about the aquifer during the day and cleanup?

    ReplyDelete
  2. probably Manston will be a dump as Thor or left derelict like the hoverport why havent councillors cancelled the 106 permit already and called in the police

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do not have the authority to cancel the 106 and breaches of it are a civil and not criminal matter, hence no police. Is that clear enough for you or would you like it explained in a comic strip 17:42.

      Delete
  3. TDC signed the 106 permit, along with planning permission for an airport, but don't have the authority to cancel it? Who does then? And the police can be called in for pollution, fraud, misuse of public office etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no fraud by the airport. If there was misuse of public office that would involve the council calling in the police to investigate themselves. Unlikely since it was a Labour administration that first signed the 106 agreement. Where exactly is the pollution other than that normally generated by aircraft which, with a licence to operate, is not criminal. There is no authority to withdraw the 106 which, like any contract in law, cannot be broken other than in event of a serious breach. Then again that is a civil not criminal matter. You do seem to have a bit of a problem with the old understanding box, 18:32.

      Delete
  4. Didn't Infratil and TDC remove the monitors so no fines? The public can call in the Police to investigate the council if they understandably want to cover things up.

    Removing monitors would be a serious breach along with banned aircraft landing - so we are agreed that TDC can cancel the 106 which is the exact opposite of what you said earlier.

    Polluting the aquifer and Pegwell/Blue Flag beaches would be beyond normal airport pollution. You seem willing to excuse the airport anything even to your own ill-health.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly you are talking utter rubbish that would be thrown out of court if it ever got that far. If there was a case the present anti-airport administration currently leading TDC would pursue it. There isn't so live with it. On the other hand, if you are so convinced you are right, try a private action against Infrantil and TDC. Even better, try phoning Margate police HQ and see if you can get them to arrest some one. I look forward to reading what success you have had in next week's Gazette.

      Delete
  5. You seem to be using insults now rather than agreeing you were talking nonsense on the 106. And are avoiding the issue of TDC and Infratil allowing a dangerous airport - even to endangering your own health. With Sandy arrested the Polcie are taking an interest in the goings-on at TDC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No insults, just suggestions so you can try to prove your point. The 106 cannot be cancelled by TDC and the police will not take action against Infrantil. However, since you profess to know better, try doing something about it like going to the police with your complaint. Time really to put up or shut up.

      Delete
  6. apart from manston what is happening with Thor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Last time I saw a Thor it was at RAF Hemsell in Lincolnshire. Surely these disappeared with the switch to a submarine carried nuclear deterrent strategy. Then, of course, there was earlier a Nordic god of thunder. Is there some other Thor?

      Delete
  7. 22:41 you've gone back to saying TDC can't cancel the 106 they signed? Why is that? Of course they can. And why would the Police not investigate Infratil? Why so concerned to allow Infratil and TDC to pollute the aquifer etc?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 09:52, this is getting a bit playground with 'yes they can' and 'no they can't' so, I will have one last try. TDC cannot cancel the 106 and the police will not investigate Infratil unless there is criminal activity. A breach of the 106 is not criminal. If you don't believe me try phoning the police. I am not seeking to allow anyone to pollute the aquifer but would suggest that Infratil are no more likely to than the RAF were during their 70 odd years and are probably a lot less likely to than the sort of alternative proposals dreamt up by the airport protest group.

      That apart I am out of here because this is infantile.

      Delete
    2. 0927 Thor is the mercury factory near Hornby

      Delete
  8. 11:16 what you say does not make sense. Like any 106 of course TDC can cancel it, and removing the required monitors is criminal hence TDC and Infratil denying it to date. If you don't want the aquifer polluted then why support the airport on top of it?

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive and anonymous derogatory comments about real people will be deleted. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.