Representation by Ramsgate (Ramsgate )
- Date submitted
- 5 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Submission from Ramsgate Town Team Executive Committee Ramsgate is a beautiful, long-neglected coastal town that is starting to revive. It depends heavily on tourism – in particular, visitors to Ramsgate’s Georgian and Victorian heritage and to our peaceful coastline, including the SSSI at Pegwell Bay. We have just been designated a Historic England Heritage Action Zone, and this year hosted the National Kitesurfing Championships which brought new visitors to our lovely coast.
Riveroak Strategic Partners, however, envisage a different future for Ramsgate. Their 24-hour cargo hub would bring noise, pollution and distress, as their PEIR openly states: "12.9.68 Considering that the impact is permanent … significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate… The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in quality of life … or a perceived change in the acoustic character of shared open spaces… "
This impact (explicit in RSP’s documentation but far from explicit in their limited local ‘consultation’ events) would damage residents’ lives and destroy our visitor economy.
In its place, we are offered the possibility of 400 new jobs – but as cargo handling is largely automated, we know that few jobs will actually be created.
Previous passenger airports at Manston failed as our semi-island location limits available passengers. RSP now hope to try freight, anticipating 10,000 cargo movements a year, but serious obstacles remain: • Many night-time flights would be required to give the facility any chance of success, with a night-time Quota Count of over 3,000 proposed. This has understandably raised grave concerns for residents, as medical research associates disturbed sleep with numerous physical and mental health problems, including increased risk of heart disease and stroke. • Local road infrastructure is poor: as the Road Haulage Association recently commented, “the road network in that part of Kent is not geared up to accommodating hundreds of HGVs.” • Most freight is carried in the belly of passenger planes nowadays, making a cargo-only airport an anomaly in the 21st century. • Existing airports that handle substantial cargo, including Stansted and East Midlands, both served by good road networks, have spare capacity. This makes it hard to see how the overwhelming national need a DCO would require has been established.
Finally, we have no confidence that RSP actually has the capacity to deliver an airport. It appears the company was set up specifically for this proposal; we have seen no evidence that they have the financial capacity for a project of this size - or indeed experience of running an airport.
We are concerned that this is simply land grab: after a period of major disruption during which many residents will leave the area and tourism businesses close, the airport will fail again and the land be available for housing. The existing owners of the site also propose housing, but alongside a business park with quality jobs, open space and leisure facilities. We urge you to dismiss the DCO application, end the long uncertainty and allow these plans to move forward, to the benefit of the town and the UK economy.