Representation by Georgina Rooke
- Date submitted
- 9 September 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I own a house on West Cliff Road Ramsgate, which is approx. 3.5 kilometres from the disused runway at the former Manston Airport and directly under the proposed flightpath. I bought the house in 2015 with a view to retiring to this section of the Kent coastline. It enjoys protected nature reserves (Pegwell Bay and Sandwich Bay), a wonderful stretch of six blue flag beaches, has the only Royal Harbour in the UK and is home to over 400 listed and historic buildings in the conservation area, where I live. In fact, my house is a stone’s throw from the family home of Augustus Pugin famed for designing the interior of the Houses of Parliament, now owned by The Landmark Trust. After many years of decline the area is enjoying something of a revival. Ramsgate is less than two hours from London (approx. 60mins by train) and is a popular holiday destination.
Should RSP’s proposals to build a cargo hub of National Significance succeed it will destroy my retirement plans and my investment in Ramsgate as a holiday destination. There will be airplanes taking off and landing approx. 200m above my house and garden, to the tune of 83,000 ATMs per annum day and night.
Given the severity and consequences of this proposal to me personally I have taken a keen interest in RSP's developing plans over the past two years, as well as those of the current owner SHP. I have educated myself of the viability of Manston returning to commercial aviation use by studying the reports of independent aviation experts including York Aviation, Falcon Consultancy and Avia Solutions. I have also read Kent County Council's report regarding the viability and suitability of Manston as an airport.
I understand and support the principle that where the country requires national infrastructure projects of scale there will inevitably be individuals, villages and towns that are sacrificed for the greater good. My principle objection to RSP’s proposals is that all the evidence suggests that they will never reach a size or scale to deliver the sort of benefit to UK Plc that warrants the damage and loss to local inhabitants and protected areas that will ensue. A cargo hub of lesser scale will neither benefit UK Plc nor homeowners, small business owners vested in tourism, protected areas (and the wildlife that inhabit them), local school children, or the local population at large.
All the independent aviation experts are unanimous in concluding that Manston is not viable as a commercial airport. The reasons given are grounded in the market dynamics of the freight industry that favour the proximity of London and East Midlands Airports; industry trends that favour passenger flight belly-hold transportation; the existence of more than sufficient capacity at these existing airports to challenge Manston as a viable competitor plus their plans to continue to invest. To add to Manston’s challenges to take market share from these sizable and well-funded operations aviation experts suggest that Manston’s geographic location and small catchment area make it unattractive to target customers.
Finally, it is my belief that the present legal owners of the site will make a positive contribution to the area with proposals that adhere to Her Majesty’s Government’s strategy nationally. Their proposals will create much needed homes, including affordable housing. The site will also create secondary manufacturing jobs, state of the art leisure facilities and heritage aviation that will benefit locals and visitors to the area. This contrasts with RSP’s plans which, if given the go-ahead by PINS, will cause significant harm and suffering to people such as myself without delivering benefits on a national scale that the DCO process appears designed to facilitate.