Representation by Andrew Local
- Date submitted
- 9 September 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
How can a site that has never successfully operated as an airport, despite many hundreds of thousands of pounds investment, ever be classified as a site of National Strategic Significance? When the site went up for sale there was no interest from the government in purchasing it or keeping it open. No government document on transport proposals, certainly in the last 20 years, have placed any strategic importance in keeping Manston, or any other small airfield open. Despite large sums being spent by Kent and Thanet councils, and private companies, over many years Manston has never managed to succeed as an airport due to its location stuck on the edge of east Kent with half of its catchment circle being water. In addition the road network is very difficult to circumvent if anything occurred blocking the dual carriageways, as often happens.
Environmental Impact (Noise & Pollution) When the airport briefly operated there was a S.106 agreement which prohibited flights between 11pm and 7am except in exceptional circumstances. River Oak effectively want to rip up that agreement and operate 24/7 causing untold misery to residents wanting undisturbed sleep. There are many documents available from the World Health Organisation which clearly prove the adverse effects on health to those living near any airport. The noise and pollution mitigation strategies suggested by Riveroak are woefully inadequate. Their quota system for quieter planes is the equivalent of one neighbour approaching another and saying "I'm going to keep you awake all night, it's OK though I am only going to use an electric drill instead of the pneumatic one". How can it be right that an airport, which even by optimistic projections, would only employ a few hundred people in the first decade of operation be permitted to keep many thousands of people in a permanent state of sleep deprivation and all the associated health problems that entails? If a factory unit was proposing a 24/7 operation using machinery they would be forced to make it an almost silent operation to avoid keeping neighbours awake at night. Why don't the same rules apply to airports? As for the environmental impact on health of aircraft fumes, there are again plenty of reports stating the dangers. Thanet has a very high number of elderly people, and those on long term sickness benefits, many of whom have lung/heart issues. An airport operating with large cargo planes and the pollution they generate is not going to assist them any more than the general population.
Cost If the government wants to make Manston airport a national asset then the whole country should pay towards it not just the people of Thanet/Kent via TDC & KCC. Manston Airport has already had many thousands of tax payer and private money thrown at it to try and make it work with no success. The sums so far mentioned by Riveroak just do not seem to stack up. It seems to be a case of lets get it open and see what investment we can once its running. As witnessed at Southend, to get an airport running could cost £100M, no where near the sums being mentioned so far by Riveroak.
Public Backing The Save Manston Airport group and Riveroak often point at surveys that state the public back the reopening of Manston airport. Yes, a consistently high proportion do back it but if you then add the question similar to "Would you back it opening 24/7, as in night flights?" the percentage falls to almost single figure percentages. This was evidenced when Minster Parish Council did their Health Check a few years ago. Those supporting the airport to not give it unequivocal backing, it is backing with conditions.