Representation by Phil Rose
- Date submitted
- 6 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I wish to register as an interested party.
You would like to know what aspects of the DCO application document we think the inquiry should address. I think you should bear the following in mind when assessing the relative importance of issues brought to your attention by the public, and when allocating time for them at the Inquiry.
RSP submitted some 4,500 pages for public consultation.
RSP submitted some 10,500 pages with their DCO application.
In the DCO application, there were significant changes to key elements that had appeared in the original pages – RSP can presumably provide a full list – e.g. relating to Air Traffic Movements (ATMs). ATMs are key for everyone. ATMs matter to the PI because they are one of the criteria for NSIP status. ATMs matter to the applicant because they are one of the criteria for NSIP status, and because they underpin the business model. ATMs matter to the residents because all the downsides for residents – e.g. noise pollution, air pollution, traffic impacts – are directly related to actual ATMs. The potential number of ATMs now being discussed by RSP (up to some 80,000) is dramatically larger than the number that was consulted on. If a comment from the public doesn’t refer to the new, higher number, the author may be unaware of it. The thousands of new pages in the DCO application include key issues (e.g. Health Impact Assessment, Funding) that RSP were apparently allowed to leave out of their public consultations. Public comments on these “new” issues will be less detailed at this stage, but are likely to be more extensive by the time of the Inquiry.
You won’t see anything on these “new” issues from those who mistakenly believe that the proposals in the consultation documents – e.g. on the USB thumb drive supplied by RSP – is all that has been said about what has been applied for. Again, with RSP publishing a full list of all the issues that appear afresh in the DCO application, and those that have changed since the consultation documents, it should be easy to dismiss the trivial, leaving the key issues in sharper focus.
I see the major issues as follows:
Health Implications: • Night Flights – number, timing, distribution, volume and frequency • Noise – comprehensible projections, realistic compensation • Pollution – comprehensible projections • Public Safety Zones – location and scale
Other Implications: • Traffic – new traffic plan needed, road load and wear • Impact on tourism in Ramsgate & Herne Bay • Impact on “heritage” Ramsgate • Broader Environmental impacts, Climate Change and biodiversity implications
The Application itself • Business case • Employment Forecasts • Funding • Need and Alternatives
My particular and long-standing concern is night flights – I am strongly opposed to the threat of night flights, which RSP has consistently underplayed. I also have concerns regarding RSP’s business projections, which pivot entirely on [Redacted] Azimuth III report. I have analysed this report and found it to be critically flawed. I would be happy to speak to either topic, or both, and I’m happy to liaise/dovetail with other speakers if required.