Representation by Dr Rebecca Gordon-Nesbitt
- Date submitted
- 8 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am making this representation as South Thanet’s prospective Member of Parliament. To the extent that I will be able to influence the future of the Manston site, I believe it my duty to represent the interests of the majority of constituents.
I listen to the views of people who inhabit both sides of the argument over whether or not an airport should operate at Manston. I understand that there is an abiding affiliation to the airport ingrained in the culture of long-standing residents. However, there is a considerable gulf between a regional airport with a few hundred daytime-only cargo flights per year and the current proposals for an international cargo hub handling many thousands of jumbo jets. I note with great concern the absence of any cap on numbers, day or night, and the stated potential for over 70,000 air cargo movements per year.
I am incredibly concerned about the implications of night flights for the health of South Thanet’s residents, and I am unimpressed by the so-called noise mitigation plan put forward by the applicant.
Research literature tells us that sleep disturbance causes increased susceptibility to a range of long-term health conditions including cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity. Data held within Kent Public Health Observatory ([Redacted]) show that the section of the coast affected by the airport already has a higher incidence of these long-term conditions.
Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement admits (paragraph 12.7.55) that, by year two, over 11,000 local homes will be experiencing noise of 80 decibels per night as a result of the project and that nearly 17,000 local homes will suffer at night if this project goes ahead. However, estimated compensation is focussed very narrowly on the 225 properties expected to be exposed to averaged out noise levels above the night-time SOAEL of 55 dB LAeq, 8hr.
Even for the 225 homes, the proposed insulation payment is not a full-cost payment, and I object to any of my prospective constituents being expected to pay to protect themselves and their families from this development.
Decisions about the country’s infrastructure should be taken holistically. You should be aware that the hospital serving the same catchment area as the airport is likely to lose its stroke unit, meaning that people suffering a stroke in Thanet will have to travel over an hour to reach the nearest specialist unit. This will lead to increased death and disability and would be compounded by sleep disturbance.
North Thanet’s MP currently supports to closure of the local stroke unit while South Thanet’s MP says he supports the retention of the unit while refusing to take action to prevent its closure. These combined positions demonstrate a disregard for the health of local people that I fear extends into their enthusiasm for a cargo hub. This suspicion is compounded by the fact that South Thanet’s MP maintains a company called Mama Airlines, offering flights between Manston and Malaga and raising serious questions about conflicts of interest.