Representation by Susan Carroll
- Date submitted
- 3 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I disagree that with the Application’s statements that consultation with residents of Herne Bay was adequate: 1) All households under the flight path did not receive delivered postcards. Only 0.225% of the town’s population were identified as attending the consultation events. Canterbury City Council expressed “concerns regarding the adequacy of the consultation process” including failures under PA 2008. (6.2 Consultation Report Appx 46 letter) 2) Misleading statements made by RSP at the consultations included repeated denials of plans for night flights, an allowance for which is included in the Application. (2.4 Noise Mitigation Plan para 1.6). A survey by Canterbury City Council in 2012 found 80% of Herne Bay residents opposed night flights.
I disagree with Application statements re the noise impact of the airport, as follows:
1) That the Noise Mitigation Plan (Doc TR020002/APP/2.4) will avoid “significant adverse effects of noise” and its assessment that only a maximum of 225 properties will experience ‘significant annoyance’ from 17-83000 cargo flights p/a.
2) Over Herne Bay the estimated height of aircraft is 2400 feet – at which aircraft noise is at 66-80 dB (NATS statistics). The World Health Organisation statistics on aircraft noise describes ‘moderate community annoyance’ at a threshold of 50 dB and ‘severe annoyance’ at 55 dB.
3) I live under the flight path in Herne Bay. In 2004-5 some freight flights landed after 2330 hrs and at 0600 hrs – a factor which significantly contributed to my contracting a serious illness and enforced retirement aged 52.
4) 5.2-2 Environmental Statement vol 2 chap 11-16 Table 12.3 I disagree that the three locations selected in Herne Bay gave an accurate assessment of baseline noise levels against which to measure the impact of aircraft noise, viz: (i) a 100m deep strip of land between the mainline railway and A299 dual carriageway; (ii) one of two main thoroughfares through the town; (iii) a main exit route from the town and adjacent to the mainline railway.
I disagree with the Application’s assessment of the impact on local road networks of the cargo hub (5.1 Environmental Statement 4.1.56).
1) Maximum HGV movements are estimated at maximum 64,906 p/a, whereas East Midlands Airport with less freight has 182,500 HGV movements p/a.
2) The Application lacks detailed consideration for required road capacity beyond the immediate access to the airport. The A299 and M2 (the only fast access route to Manston) are only 2-lane and already busy with HGV traffic.
I disagree with the Application’s claims of Manston potential economic benefits:
1) No independent assessment identifies a market potential for a cargo airport Manston to reach operational levels required to qualify for national significance; previous attempts have failed.
2) 5.1 Environmental Statement para 4.1.50 states 3417 jobs at Manston by 2020 but the existing owners propose 2000+ jobs on the site.
3) Inadequate assessment of the negative impact on the East Kent economy whose tourism/ leisure industry, and property values, have shown significant growth since Manston closed. Another failed attempt at an airport could reverse that growth with severe socio-economic impact.