Representation by Rick Everitt
- Date submitted
- 8 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
In my experience as a resident of Cliffsend – and formerly as a local councillor in the centre of Ramsgate – the impact of night flights, which it is clear are an essential element of this application, is significant. Although Cliffsend itself cannot form part of the flight path to Manston, because of its position in relation to the runway, the noise generated by planes preparing for take-off at night time is extremely disruptive to sleep. The impact is severe even in the southern part of the village, which is further away from the airport. This was tolerable under the previous operation because night flights were relatively few, but the scale envisaged under this application is extreme. In respect of the town itself, the impact of noise from planes coming in to land is considerably greater. The negative medical effects of disrupted sleep are well established, including the impact on the ability of children to learn. Other environmental damage will necessarily follow from the use of jet engines in such close proximity to residential areas. Ramsgate’s economy is heavily based on tourism and its prospects for regeneration are dependent on providing an attractive environment for visitors, including those staying overnight. Anything which damages the town’s reputation will undermine the work being done to build up the local economy and further undermine the employment situation. Successive Thanet council administrations of different political parties, including one elected specifically to support the reopening of the airport, have found the applicants’ plans to be undeliverable, based on detailed expert reports. The airport as proposed in this application does not offer sufficient benefits to the community, either in terms of employment or services to local people, to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the quality of life of those living around it. Neither is it clear that any benefits it did provide would outweigh those available under alternative plans. I am not opposed on principle to any use of the site as an airport and recognise both the sentiment that local people have about its past and the need for greater employment opportunities, but the proposal put forward is unacceptable in terms of its overall impact, particularly in the context that there are alternative proposals from the land owners.