Representation by Mrs Susan Holton
- Date submitted
- 1 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
As Nethercourt residents living 1.75km from the end of the runway we will be particularly affected by plans for a 24/7 cargo hub at Manston with planes at approx. 135m almost directly overhead.
Ramsgate (Nethercourt) starts at 1.3km from the runway, not 4km stated by RSP. New houses are planned even closer at 1km. There is no Public Safety Zone in RSP’s plans. Our homes and indeed our lives could be at serious risk from this development in the event of an accident.
The consultations failed to disclose the true scale of RSP plans – far larger than any previous airport and with many more flights(1).
We told at the consultations that there would be NO night flights, but the application asks for a QC of 3028 including QC4 yet RSP supply limited and inadequate assessments of the impacts of their proposals and no cap on numbers.
We would be badly affected by noise (day(2)and night(3) ) pollution (especially particulates etc) vortices and vibrations as there is no option to alter flight paths to avoid our area or indeed the whole of Ramsgate. Site construction and trucking of goods / fuel will also increase pollution.
Many studies prove that aircraft noise significantly impairs health, including a statistically significant association between exposure to aircraft noise and risk of hospitalisation for cardiovascular disease, particularly among older people living near airports of which Thanet has a higher than average population.
Children living under flights paths have been shown to have deficits in long-term memory and reading comprehension and there are many schools under the flightpath at least 3 at approx. 2.5km.
Having experienced previous operations at Manston we know that effects have been underestimated(4) due to methods of modelling used.
The residents of Ramsgate are relying on PINS to thoroughly investigate RSP not only regarding the points detailed above but also the speculative nature(5) of this application , their poor business case, lack of funding transparency, dubious economic viability (3 previous failures) no track record of aviation experience except insolvency, numerous reports concluding Manston is too far from London to succeed (6), contradictory numbers of flights quoted, lack of fuel pipeline and effects on wildlife to list just a few others.
Surely it cannot be right that the DCO process is being used to favour one private business over another when there are other suitable redundant MOD sites in the UK that could be considered.
(1) The Government’s 2018 National Policy Statement on airport capacity in the South East does not identify a need for a freight hub at Manston. It states that any proposals for airport expansion should be judged on their individual merits, including potential negative effects. Therefore, adverse effects on community health from air quality and noise impacts need to be given full weight against claimed economic benefits of the proposed development.
(2) 12.7.70 Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within the communities are subject to minor to moderate adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate, Pegwell Bay and Manston as a result of the Proposed Development. The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of shared open spaces within these communities during the daytime.
(3) 12.7.72 Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within the communities are subject to minor to moderate adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate, Manston, Wade and West Stourmouth as a result of the Proposed Development. The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of shared open spaces within these communities during the night-time.
(4) 12.8 Summary of Significant Effects
(5) See especially the Applicant’s plans to include the so-called Northern Grass within the DCO footprint, which the applicant himself concedes is not required as part of a functioning airport. Though the applicant says his interests are strictly confined to aviation, previous speculative inquiry by one of RSP’s principal Directors indicates the need for careful examination.
(6) See reports by Falcon Consultancy, Avia Solutions, York Aviation and Altitude Aviation Advisory.