Representation by Nethercourt Action Group (Nethercourt Action Group )
- Date submitted
- 2 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Following a public meeting please accept this submission on behalf of residents living in the Nethercourt Ward in Ramsgate. The situation is unique with the Nethercourt estate as it is the nearest Ramsgate community to the airport directly under the flightpath, only 1.3 kilometres from the end of the runway. We are aware of no other residential areas so close to a runway end in the UK.
We are looking to PINS to bring a swift end to what we regard as a totally unrealistic bid to create a freight hub on the derelict Manston site. This community has lived with the blight from a failing airport for many years under 3 separate owners until it finally closed nearly 5 years ago. Our relief at the closure and interest in the exciting plans of the owners were set back when we realised RSP had applied for the DCO.
We wish to be certain that the impact of a proposal of the size envisaged on the 40,000 Ramsgate residents under the flight path is fully appreciated by the Examining Authority in making their recommendations and wish to be registered as interested parties. We hope for a thorough examination of an application we feel to be fundamentally flawed.
There is also overwhelming evidence that RSP did not inform residents of their consultations. At a recent meeting of over 100 residents, when asked if any had been informed by RSP of their consultation, no-one living in Nethercourt had been informed. We know that Thanet District Council have drawn attention to deficiencies in the consultation. The few of us that did manage to attend were treated with abuse and intimidation from the applicants.
We believe the application fails to truthfully and thoroughly assess the detrimental effects of the application on Ramsgate and would ask the inspectors to examine: • Safety Concerns. The application’s failure to properly consider safety concerns with aircraft flying so low over our houses. Our experience is of vibration, vortices and turbulence causing damage to our property as it did when Manston was operational, high cross winds and 80% of landings over Ramsgate. RSP have not considered Public Safety Zones (PSZs). It looks like they are manipulating ATM numbers in their application to keep them below the threshold of 18,000 ATMs. RSP’s ATM figures seem to vary with whatever is needed for the various requirements of a DCO. When Manston was operational cargo ATMs were limited, even with this low number there were several dangerous incidents. Given the number of ATMs RSP are proposing (the airport would be capable of 83000 ATMs p.a.) the risk increases greatly (1; 10,000 risk?). Because Manston is located on a headland it suffers with crosswinds and sea mists which add to the potential risks. If a plane were to crash on takeoff/landing (most air crashes happen in the first three minutes/last eight) there is no doubt it will come down on a highly populated area. Airports of similar size to this proposal have done PSZ assessments as best practice. If this were necessary it would involve several houses being deemed unsuitable for habitation due to safety concerns and put a planning blight on the whole estate. We consider it essential that the Examining Authority consider the need for Public Safety Zones. • Noise Impact. Noise, particularly from night flights, which will affect our sleep and our health. The methods used in the application to consider noise contours, average day and night noise, and noise mitigation are deeply unsatisfactory and need to be properly examined. They are trying to disguise db levels by using averages. Previous experience has been noise levels are loud enough to be unable to hear telephone calls, TV or talk, especially in the open like parks gardens or the beach. RSP admit it will lead to a permanent detrimental change in people’s lives. Noise levels of 90-100db were regularly recorded over Ramsgate. Schooling under the fight path had to stop. You would not be allowed to work in an environment with sound levels above 85db without hearing protection. RSP are saying they will put a noise monitor 6.5km from the runways end which will put it at sea, what use will that be? Experience in the past, when Mr Freudman was in charge at Manston, was that everything was done to circumvent accurate readings from turning off noise monitors, placing them where they gave false readings to getting aircraft to take off in such a way they avoided them. RSP’s noise mitigation plan is anything but, it certainly will not alleviate any blight. Sleep disruption causes another range of health problems including heart problems and mental health. Thanet already has disproportionately poor health outcomes. • Pollution. We want to raise the issue of pollution during the examination stage as this issue has not been dealt with fully or robustly in the application. When Manston was operational Nethercourt was subjected to showers of unburnt fuel & antifreeze which seriously affected the enjoyment of our gardens and other open spaces. This is on top of the pollution from jet engines (noxious fumes & particulates). That same pollution means we may be affected by major health problems associated with living near an airport, particularly if we suffer from any form of lung disease. There is also pollution from VOCs while refuelling and storing of Avigas and dust from brakes and tyres. The amount of HGV’s and tankers needed to service a cargo hub will also add to the general pollution. There appears to be no proper assessment of the impact of airport pollution against this background. • Education. Disruption to children’s schooling at the 4 schools under the flight path was marked when Manston operated previously. Disruption, based on the applicants’ predictions will be far more severe with planes overflying between 200 and 300m so frequently. Children are also particularly sensitive to Interrupted sleep from night flights. At a recent meeting, an executive headteacher of four local schools expressed serious concern over the prospect of a major airport with flight paths so low and the inevitable impact on children’s health and developing cognitive abilities. • Environment/Ecology. The impact on the local environment and ecology needs to be properly examined. Pegwell Bay, a SSSI, is in close proximity and RSP are proposing to use a tunnel that exists there for run off of surface water. We consider the environmental impact assessment outlined in the application to be insufficient. • Night Flights. DBD, RSP’s legal team have confirmed that the application and business case includes night flights. The conflicting statements from RSP and the less than clear language used in the application plus the lack of any information about routes, schedules, types of planes etc mean it is impossible to establish exactly how many flights or what types of plane would be envisaged and so any impact and mitigating factors cannot and have not been properly examined. RSP appear to want a quota system with no cap; their application for night flights needs rigorous examination. • Business Case. The business case put forward by RSP is less than convincing and relies far too heavily on one person’s work against which we would wish to see weighed the four independent aviation expert reports into the viability of Manston. The economic benefits and jobs forecast in the application are highly speculative and need careful examination. IN addition, they have insufficiently considered the negative impact on the local economy and loss of jobs inevitable due to a freight hub airport in such close proximity to a town very reliant on its visitor economy.
These are all concerns we would wish PINS to investigate employing experts in the various fields if necessary. We have names & addresses of signatories of this submission but were told it was not necessary to include them now.
We are aware that this is over 500 words but it has proved impossible to put the very many concerns of so many people in any fewer. We have contacted PINS and have been told that an application of over 500 words is acceptable.