Back to list Manston Airport

Representation by Ramsgate Heritage and Design Forum (Ramsgate Heritage and Design Forum)

Date submitted
8 October 2018
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses

The Ramsgate Heritage and Design Forum, comprising members of the Ramsgate Conservation and Advisory Group and the planning sub-committee of The Ramsgate Society, ask the Examiners to consider the following points:

  1. Ramsgate has around 450 listed buildings and four conservation areas. In 2017, it became one of only eight Historic England’s first Heritage Action Zones (HAZ), alongside cities like Coventry and Hull. Ramsgate is still the only HAZ in the South East Region. The HAZ is a 5-year programme covering the whole of Ramsgate. Its aim is to use the town’s heritage assets to leverage sustainable economic growth.
  2. The Applicant identifies and maps only one of the four CAs (Volume 9, 5.2.4 Figures 9.3, 9.5).
  3. The centre of Ramsgate lies directly on the flight path to Manston. Incoming aircraft approaching from the east would cross the Royal Harbour at an altitude of about 300 metres and 4km out from the runway, then progressively descend for the next 2.7km over the built-up area. This is a key factor in noise disturbance and in assessing the potential for physical damage to building fabric.
  4. The official data from Manston's most recent operational period establish beyond doubt that most of the town is likely to experience sound levels in excess of 60dB SEL. Maximum sound impacts from aviation were regularly recorded at over 100dB. The aircraft noise modelling output from the Applicant has significantly underestimated the noise levels that would be experienced in reality.
  5. The assessment of the impact of the proposed operations is misleading. By choosing to ‘scope out’ detailed environmental assessment beyond one kilometre of the airport perimeter the significance of impact on the heritage assets of Ramsgate is both limited and inadequate.
  6. Insufficient regard to the effects of aviation on the historic environment including for example the physical damage caused by noise and low frequency vibration, and the human response to noise. Aircraft noise and vibration constitute a major disruptive factor for the residential occupiers of Ramsgate’s listed buildings, particularly given the age, construction and limitations of acceptable sound proofing and insulation measures.
  7. Failure to weigh the detrimental effect of overflying these heritage assets 24/7 on those local communities needed to sustain their fabric and character. The consequence will be to deter people from moving to the town and also to persuade those to move away who currently invest time, energy, and money in sustaining those assets.
  8. Failure fully to address the visual impact of the proposals on heritage assets such as Ramsgate Royal Harbour and the negative impact on the reviving tourist industry, a major source of employment.
  9. The close proximity to the proposed airport, its location directly under the flight path, and the intensity of its 24-hour operation, puts Ramsgate at serious risk from the effects of noise, vibration, pollution and visual disturbance. Collectively these factors would combine to make Ramsgate a far less attractive town in which to live, work, and visit, adversely impacting on much needed regeneration.
  10. In summary, the Applicant fails to recognise the quality and significance of Ramsgate’s heritage assets and understates the potential damaging impact of the development upon them.