Representation by Karen Roper
- Date submitted
- 3 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The Public had understood that a full and thorough Consultation process was the condition of a Planning Application being accepted for consideration by PINS. As the 3,200-page document upon which we were consulted has since increased to over 11,000 pages, and includes significant changes, the Consultation has thus been rendered invalid. PINS has also been made aware that feedback from the Consultation was incomplete as the choice of venues for, and timings of, events were insufficient to allow a presence for all interested parties; and stakeholders who would be living, working or studying directly under the flightpath or adjacent to the runway itself were scoped out. PINS also received evidence that presentations and soundbites deliberately misled the public concerning significant content of its documentation about e.g. night flights, noise quota, employment etc.
Applying the Acceptance tests to the RSP application, the Planning Inspectorate itself noted many omissions/discrepancies: PINs considered that the Funding Statement lacked proof of adequate funds and assets, and information about its directors, staff, existing and potential investors, accounts, auditors and shareholders. PINS requested further information on the sources and availability of funding for the Noise Mitigation Plan, questioned whether RSP could meet conditions of the Human Rights Act 1998, and wanted further evidence to support declarations that investors will underwrite blight and compensation claims. Indeed, PINS expressed concern about numerous unsubstantiated statements concerning funding.
PINs detected that RSP omitted from the Environmental Report figures to Inform the Appropriate Assessment, omitted evidence of referenced post-consultation discussions with Natural England and any other statutory body regarding ecological effects, that there remained omissions in ecological survey data, inconsistencies in the relocation of the existing MoD aerial and Manston Museums, the development footprint within the Northern Grass, and in RSP’s worst case assessment of ecological effects and mitigation required.
The work of PINS and the Secretary of State should be transparent and accountable to the public whom they serve. Decisions should not be made on a personal whim, or in yielding to pressure from MPs whose loyalty should be to constituents rather than to friends running a private company for profit. In accepting the RSP application for examination, however, PINS is seen to be overlooking the flawed consultation process and the significant weaknesses, uncertainties, contradictions and omissions in the application. In examination, therefore, we cannot help but fear that PINS will likewise disregard the overwhelming weight of factual and expert evidence signalling the negative environmental and health impact of the conceived airport hub upon this area, as well as the absence of need for, and potential failure of, this project. A valuable brown field site, ideal for the mixed development planned by its owners, lays idle; whilst around it the equally valuable Grade 1 Agricultural land of Thanet is being earmarked for housing without any infrastructure. We appeal to PINS not to extend local misery here by blighting us, and our many regular tourists, with yet another period of uncertainty and collapse, as a private company once again tries to exploit Manston to the detriment of Thanet residents, our economy and health; only for RSP to then achieve what many of us believe to be their real long-term lucrative objective of building houses on the site anyway. Where the PINS’ reasons for accepting the RSP application remain questionable, we are now looking to the Planning Inspectorate to inform its actual decision regarding the award of a DCO with thorough and careful reference to expert advice, and local feedback.
My personal objections to the proposed level are based upon the following: As a resident living 500 metres from the Manston runway for 25 years, during its sporadic previous lives I have had first-hand experience of the pervasive stench of aircraft fumes, of conversation outside being overpowered by the noise of planes landing and taking off, of sleep regularly interrupted by ‘unscheduled’ flights at night, and of months of sleepless nights in stressed anticipation of early scheduled passenger flights.
As an owner of a Grade 2 listed building, I take seriously my role of ‘caretaker’ to this gracious building, but fear for its future in standing up to the effects of a busy airfreight hub on its doorstep. As a parent, as well as educator, I am horrified at the harm which would be inflicted upon our young by noise interrupting both their study and sleep, and pollution further undermining their long-term health and life chances.