Representation by Mr Lionel Jermy
- Date submitted
- 5 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
First and foremost I believe that the application is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to make out a financially viable and sustainable case for reopening the airport.
In this regard I note that the applicant is a dormant company with issued share capital of £1 and nowhere in the documents submitted in support of the application can I see any guarantee from credible financial backers or a bank that funds are committed to deliver the full 'project masterplan'.
The proposal is essentially a business start-up proposal - and statistically most business start-ups fail within 3 years - in very competitive market. Furthermore, it is well known that the international air freight business is very competitive and operates on very small profit margins. The location of Manston, relatively distant from major population centres such as London and largely surrounded by the sea puts it at a competitive disadvantage to other regional airports from the outset.
To surmount this obvious planning hurdle - and compete with the financially much safer Stone Hill Park project (as there is an immediate nationwide demand for housing) - the proposal relies on predicted growth in air freight to scale up to a national infrastructure level even though. historically, the airport has failed even as a small regional airport. I agree with the submissions made by [Redacted] MEP on 01/10/18 that the growth forecasts are 'optimistic' and that the business case for the airport is 'overstated'.
I also endorse [Redacted] assessment of the environmental impact of the proposal and agree with the many consultation respondents who have expressed concerns regarding the health, safety and environmental implications of a busy cargo airport. In my view, RSP have understated these concerns in their Design and Access Statements and failed to demonstrate any measures which will materially reduce pollution and noise nuisance. Given the scale of their projected business plan I would have expected much RSP to be in a position to commit far more resources to address these issues from the outset.
In Section 2.14 (Design Objectives) of the first Design and Access Statement RSP state that one of the objectives is to ensure that new development respects and enhances the local character of existing areas and buildings, especially conservation and listed buildings but fails to give any meaningful detail as to how this objective will be achieved outside the airport site. I have met 100's of people who have relocated to Thanet and have bought listed or heritage buildings to restore or improve and believe that the air and noise pollution of a 24/7 cargo airport will drive them away (thus reducing private funding for maintaining heritage assets which will, in turn, hit tourism). The sheer scale of the proposal means that many residents not under existing or historic 'flight paths' soon will be because of the likely volume of planes circling the entire area for a landing slot.
I believe that the proposal is overstated, unsustainable and has a very high hidden cost in terms of its negative impact on the environment, heritage, tourism and the reversal of the recent migration of workers with better paid jobs to Thanet. As such, I believe that it is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected.