Representation by Way Forward
- Date submitted
- 7 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
This group comprises of a small community living between 250 to 800 meters south of the Manston runway.
Comments on some of our listed houses by RSP are that “Modern background noise is likely to be limited and asset may be sensitive to changes in background noise.” As this is a particularly tranquil area, where birdsong is the main background noise, RSP significantly underestimates the scale of change we will experience.
When Manston began as a private enterprise some 20 years ago, it was little more than a provincial airport. There were few scheduled daytime flights and unplanned night flights were less than one a week. Even so, this provoked some disturbance for members of our community. Located to the side of the runway, residents of Way hear all aircraft movements: taking off, landing and taxiing.
RSP has stressed throughout consultations with the public that there are “no plans” for night flights; and only when challenged has admitted that there will be no “scheduled” night flights. As cargo flights are usually chartered, it is true that they are neither planned nor scheduled. But, whatever the qualification, the effects for residents will be the same. RSP has attempted to conceal that its proposals clearly show evidence of night flight planning.
Reports have shown that, in residential areas, outdoor aircraft noise levels of 60 dB(A) in the daytime and 45 dB(A) at night are associated with an increased incidence of hypertension. Even RSP has made clear that “aircraft noise would increase to a point where there would be a perceived change in the quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities”. There is substantial evidence about the negative effects of noise and air pollution, particularly upon children and the elderly. In the past we were regularly subjected to the smell and fumes from aircraft which aggravated the asthma suffered by our children and, in terms of the type and number of aircraft which RSP expects to welcome, these effects will be considerably intensified.
Compensation from RSP is very limited compared to, for example, the Heathrow proposals. It has proposed a noise mitigation budget of only £5.6m (£4,000 per household over 63db). According to RSP’s information, all of the houses in the Way Forward group are within the 54db contour; and some within the 60db contour, but most of us would not be eligible for any compensation. WHO states “severe annoyance is felt at 55db” and, with the blight of a nearby Cargo Hub airport dramatically transforming the character of our hamlet, house prices would be bound to fall. Even as uncertainty hovers over the project, homeowners in the area are already experiencing difficulty in attracting buyers.
There are many claims (unsubstantiated) from airport supporters, and the two local RSP MPs, that over 85% of Thanet residents want the airport back. Not only is this figure unsubstantiated, but support is based upon false claims and myths, e.g. that the airport will provide “30,000 jobs within East Kent and the wider economy”, that there exist many other brown field sites just as suitable for housing developments, that the resurrection of the airport will spare Thanet further housing development: “we want an airport not houses!” As a result, thousands of houses are now being planned for green field sites, but without the corresponding infrastructure conceived by its owners for the Manston development.
PINs itself has expressed concerns about funding. It should also take into account that Labour rejected RSP’s CPO plans when it ran TDC, and UKIP also rejected RSP as indemnity partners due to a lack of financial information.
PINs should also reflect upon RSP’s flawed consultation process, which deliberately scoped out major stakeholders, stifled opportunity for critical inquiry and feedback, and extended its documentation from 3,900 pages for the first application to over 11,000 pages now submitted to PINS. In addition, a number of our members who live within a kilometer of the airport were supposed to have had information from RSP, but received nothing.
Three attempts have been made, over some 15 years, to make Manston a commercial success - all have resulted in financial loss for investors. There have also been six reports by aviation experts as to the viability of Manston as an airport, all reporting that the site is unsuitable. It is therefore clear that any attempt to open the airport would fail, but by then there would be irretrievable damage inflicted upon this historic and beautiful area.
We therefore urge PINS to reject the DCO application by RSP.