Representation by Andrew Kane
- Date submitted
- 8 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sir/Madam
I write to strongly oppose the proposed DCO by Riveroak Strategic Partners (‘RSP’) in relation to the former Manston Airport site, Kent and to be registered as an interested party.
I live on Bellevue Road, Ramsgate, Kent with my wife [Redacted] son and [Redacted] daughter. We purchased our home in July 2008, having moved from Bedfordshire with the aim of providing our as yet unborn children with a better quality of life with blue flag beaches, promised regeneration and above all clean air. In 2008, the now defunct airport site was operational but small and which lurched from crisis to crisis before closing in 2014 due to ongoing financial difficulties. I can attest to the noise, pollution, impact on sleep and general nuisance that the previous airport site caused even with a relatively small number of flights. I live in fear of the potential impact on the health and wellbeing of my family should a DCO be granted never mind the financial implications on ourselves as homeowners. I also question the viability of the RSP plans and therefore strongly object to the DCO application for the following reasons:
• Expert opinions on viability of Manston- expert opinion such as [Redacted] CEO of the Road Hauliers Association when considering the use of Manston to deal with Operational Stack indicated that “It’s (Manton) a completely unsuitable location as the road network in that part of Kent is not geared up to accommodating hundreds of HGVs.’’ On the basis of this expert opinion one does wonder how a cargo airport, requiring a high volume of HGVs to provide fuel to and from the site and remove the cargo once delivered could ever thus be viable on such a location. Further, the Davies Commission of 2015 on airport usage in the South East found no use for Manston. The RSP business case for Manston has also previously, in their opinion, been supported by research carried out by York Aviation. [Redacted], managing partner of York Aviation subsequently said RSP had ‘’taken the company’s reports out of context. That work was about assessing the case for a major new hub airport, passenger and freight traffic, to service London. Our work in its entirety does not support the case for a freight airport at Manston.”
Without prejudice to the above, the RSP plans are alarming given their potential impact and should be rejected forthwith for the following reasons:
• Significant adverse effect on Ramsgate - RSP by their own admission admit that their plans will have a ‘significant adverse effect’ on the quality of life of people living in Ramsgate and further afield as a result of the noise, pollution etc that 83,000 freight Air Traffic Movements per year will cause. On the basis that expert opinion has found no role for Manston then why should a DCO be granted to impose a significant adverse effect on residents?
• Noise and pollution- How can my children be expected to be able to sleep with planes thundering over their house night and day, what impact will the resulting pollution have on their health and what does the future hold for them in terms of school attainment etc given the number of local schools directly under the proposed flightpath?
• Impact on homeowners and Ramsgate more generally- Having purchased a Grade II listed Townhouse in a Conservation area and having seen how regeneration has slowly evolved then I believe the granting of a DCO would reverse all gains that Ramsgate has previously made and at a serious financial impact to ourselves. Ramsgate is largely dependent on two things- tourism and attracting enough higher income families to relocate to support regeneration. Any potential gains achieved through a limited number of jobs being created at Manston would be lost hundreds if not thousands of times over by the impact of these plans. Tourism will cease given the proposed 230 flights per day and those residents who could afford to leave will leave consigning Ramsgate and the surrounding areas to terminal financial decline. Those residents who cannot afford to leave, or who find themselves unable to sell their homes due to the impact of the RSP plans, will have to live with the significant and permanent adverse effect on their quality of life which RSP have by their own admissions promised.
I therefore appeal to you to reject this application forthwith.
Yours faithfully
Andrew Kane