Representation by Chris Warner
- Date submitted
- 6 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
You have before you a DCO application to develop a freight hub on the disused Manston Airport site. Leaving aside the fact that the applicant’s credentials are largely unverifiable, could PINS be seriously considering taking away this site from the British company who legally own it, who have a proven track-record in development sympathetic to the needs of the area (housing, business use, leisure activities, a school and medical facilities), and, giving it to an offshore-registered company, with dubious assets, representing an American finance concern with no aviation experience whatsoever? There are some, bluntly, who have raised eyebrows that PINS have permitted such a clearly flawed application to get even this far. Whereas Riveroak SP claim that we NEED another cargo hub and that Manston is the best location for it, reality argues quite to the contrary. Currently operating airports cargo-carrying facilities, like East Midlands, Stansted and Luton all have spare capacity, are better placed geographically and have better local infrastructure to move freight by road transport. A number of investigations were carried out (by KCC, Avia and Falcon), all of which concluded that Manston was unviable. The only investigation which found to the contrary was that commissioned by Riveroak themselves by [Redacted] from Azimuth (sole trader), who, herself, like her clients, have no aviation experience of this kind. I should perhaps add that [Redacted], now with Riveroak SP, while employed by Infratil, presided over staggering financial losses at the airport.
In addition, I note that there is no Public Safety Zone in place, as, conveniently, their new revised ATM projection is now below the figure that requires one. I find this alarming as Ramsgate Town is closer to end of the runway at Manston than any other conurbation at any other airport.
Throughout their DCO application Riveroak SP have admitted that a cargo hub of the magnitude they propose, will have a catastrophic effect on the lives of the residents of the Isle of Thanet in terms of noise and atmospheric pollution, as well as vibration damage to buildings in an area with more Georgian architecture than the City of Bath. Classrooms will be disrupted every ten minutes by aircraft overhead making teaching and learning impossible. In each area, they agree that such a development will bring ‘permanent’ and ‘significant adverse affect’ to the occupants of Ramsgate, Manston, Pegwell, Wade and West Stourmouth. Regarding schools, they admit that their plan will bring about ‘Disruption or disturbance and interference with task’. On hospitals, they admit to ‘disruption or disturbance in the day and sleep disturbance at night’ Businesses (some of whom have already announced their intention to relocate if the cargo hub becomes a reality), will be unable to function. The burgeoning, yet fragile, tourist industry, based as it is on the cafe and restaurant culture centred upon the picturesque Royal Harbour, can only be adversely affected. Health will suffer from the particulate pollution of aviation fuel, known to exacerbate respiratory problems; constant noise, day and night, will cause strokes and heart-attacks, affect mental health and bring about dementia. Overall, ‘A perceived change in the quality of life’ (day and night), of the residents of this area.
All of this, they cheerfully admit will be the result of a cargo hub at Ramsgate on their current projections. However, their projections are inaccurate, claiming that noise levels will be no more than 58dB (average), whereas levels in excess of 90dB were recorded when the airport was last operational. Surely, these factors must come under the heading of ‘Noticeable and Very Disruptive’, to be ‘Prevented’, in accordance with the Government's Noise Policy Statement for England. The only way that can happen is to refuse the DCO.