Representation by Mike Straw
- Date submitted
- 8 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object as a resident to this development because the following inter-related points.
The development is not needed and nor is it a Nationally Significant Project - the applicants are using the NSIP process to by pass normal town planning and CPO procedures.
If the DCO consent is granted and the significant numbers of flights proposed do not take place within an agreed time period what mechanisms are there in place for the consent to then lapse and a new permission is required for the actual flight movements ?
The proposed development is not viable - to be viable the applicants will need to provide significant amount of expenditure on infrastructure - both on and off site - to serve the operational needs of the airport. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that they will actually fund - without public expenditure - the necessary infrastructure costs.
Past experience has shown that commercial passenger flights are not viable at Manston and the applicants are misleading the public and local residents that commercial flights will actually take place if the DCO is granted - in order to obtain local support.
The scale of development if actually needed to meet the UK freight needs - is not needed at Manston - there are alternative sustainable locations at Heathrow; Gatwick; Stansted; City and East Midlands and Birmingham airports. The applicants have failed say why Manston is the only location to meet the need.
The applicants base ther case because Manston has a disused existing run way - which was originally built by the RAF for wartime purposes. There are many other such disused airstrips in the UK and why have not these sites been considered?
4.The adverse environmental of the development - in terms of noise, air pollution and vehicular traffic generated by the development - will not only adversely affect residential amenity of residents along the flight path - but will also adversely affect the regeneration of the Thanet towns as a leisure and tourist and retirement destination. This will - contrary to what the applicants claim - actually reduce local jobs because of the impact on inward investment in Thanet's leisure and commercial and residential sectors.
The former airport site should be developed - as was proposed in the local plan for a mixed use employment and residential led development to serve the needs of East Kent and the wider south east - as well as helping London meet its growing housing needs.
The considerable increase in flight movements resulting from the development will not combat climate change - indeed the reverse and the fuel emissions can nly increase CO2 emissions. There are though alternative methods to meet the UK's freight needs - such as potential increase in freight movement from the continent by the channel tunnel or greater use of ports in the South/South East - especially at Ramsgate. These alternatives have not been have to be assessed by the applicants.
6.No decision on the DCO should be made until the Thanet Local Plan is adopted and also the determination of the application by the current owners.
It is therefore concluded that the proposed development is both premature and it is also neither a sustainable or deliverable development which is contrary to National Planning Policy advice and the DCO should be refused.