Representation by Peter Clarridge
- Date submitted
- 7 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I wish to object to this application because,
1.The business case for this application is deficient, reliant on assertions that whilst appearing plausible are not supported by factual evidenc,the financial projections of cash flow, profit and loss and investment.It is comprised of opinions ,conjecture and assertations.There have been 4 previous independent reports on the viability of Manston as an airport by aviation experts that have concluded that it is not viable,as unused spare slots for freight are available at other airports.Stanstead and East midlands Airport have superior geographic locations to serve centers of population which Manston lacks.The main drivers of air freight and passenger demand are UK GDP and the currency exchange rate.The UK Government Treasury, Bank of England and globally the IMF have difficulty predicting the next 12 months ahead .However RSP claim that it can forecast cargo and passenger figures 20 years in advance.What are the negative cost impacts caused elsewhere by the reopening of Manston in the East Midlands which is also like Thanet and econonomically depressed area.Will an airport regenerate Thanet ? When compared to the Stone Hill Park Scheme ,ggenerating council tax income,new build allowance, and jobs generated in Thanet ?The RSP business case does not adress the massive privatation of profitsand the socialisation of negativecosts and impacts on the locality.As aviation does not bear the full costs of the externalities it creates.Aviation is not agood example of converting wealth into human wellbeing.Aviation is one of the noisiest most polluting forms of human activity yet invented,and due to its international structure it avoids the majority of UK taxation,its fuel is not subject to VAT or excise duty or on aircraft maintenance .Could the inspectorplease concider this aspect in detail . 2.The figures of RHP on night flights are not transparent,as the worst case scenario is stated as 8 flights a night,why is the proposed night flight noise quota so large ? How was it arrived at and will the supporting calculation be reviewed by the inspectornd made public ? There is no cap on the maximum number of night flights ? Will the inspector please obtain clarity on these issues ?Substantial night flight operations are intigral to operating a large air cargo hub .How can RSP expect to operate aviable air freight operation without the extensive use of night flights ? As an example East Midland Airp ort the largest air cargo hub over half of the flights are at night. 3. The RSP estimate of additional HGV movements generated appears to be extremely low @ 64906 by year 20. When compared to East Midland Airport now @ 182,500 movements a year, yet by year 20 manston is forecast to overtake the air freight cargo tonnage of EMA. Will the inspector please probe the accuracy of the RSP forecast as the implicationts of gridlock on the road network are signifiant.THere is no figure for fuel deliveries to the airport via road tanker which would increase as the airport grows as flights increase and this would also increase HGV traffic.