Representation by Frances Purcell
- Date submitted
- 8 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I’m a resident of Ramsgate. I’m beyond alarmed, despairing and depressed about this proposal. It heralds the destruction of Ramsgate’s unique & stunning features which should be preserved for capitalising on, to serve as a key & thriving part of our economy & attraction; & also for the Nation for posterity. We have the jewels of the only Royal Harbour in the UK; dramatic cliffs; & the combination of an abundance of physical heritage builds & natural protected coastline waters & life. The core framed with the ever-increasing vibrant buzz of bustling 21st century leisure facilities to enjoy them from; many newly-establish here. It works, it’s real , it’s positive; & there’s so much more can be gained, & so much further to go. Much has been re-recognised & re-valued , invested in & restored; & new initiatives enrich it – eg the War Tunnels opening up; & the Christmas Lights ‘competition’ on all the Harbour boats, makes TV news. Both attract visitors in months that was once ‘off-season’. Many agencies have been key in this transforming regeneration, & many residents are among them. It’s also the case, that significant numbers feel nothing for any of it, or even aggravated. And with reason. Ramsgate needs a diverse economy; far more employment opportunities here, & at more levels & ranges of interests. And jobs with potential , & chance for decent pay. Night flights will never work with where we have got to in this. And its guaranteed – permit none, they’ll be asked for & secured in no time. Offer any at the outset, more will follow. A cargo business cannot be viable here without them. Essential anyway; but given our remoteness, it’ll be the lure in number & noise level. RSP already mention QC4s which Heathrow don’t permit to take off. That can be QC8 in practice according to CAA Research. If the cargo 24/7 even looks like a go-er; there’s immediate risk for all achieved. Confidence a factor. If it starts, if not successful, it’ll have to keep trying; all goes into reverse either way. If the range & quality of jobs materialise; that’s all we’ll have – the Listed builds will slide back into decaying state, Few would invest costly maintenance, if value’s blighted , & enjoyment of life here. And what if the Airport jobs doesn’t work out as hoped for either. There’s no mention of the increasing role of automation. In terms of our existing economy & for National posterity, the proposal doesn’t sufficiently assess the importance of Ramsgate’s historical features. That’s in number , in functions they’re serving, & their inter- dependence with other assets here, as well as the part of their owners in this. The history of the assurances many had over night flights at the airport needs understanding a little more too. When unlike anything else I can think of in life, ordinary people are given information in ‘sound measure science’ language that to most is naturally largely hard to impossible to know what it really means much of the time, to feel able to get a sense of the reality of the noise levels involved. Or acknowledge that the methods & measures are not as reliable as they appear. There’s research challenging some key factors mentioned. That in Ramsgate’s physical situation to the runway & with particular further factors applying here; realistically, there’s no effective ‘sound-mitigating measure’ possible. It’s mentioned that the noise will be significantly heard on our main beach. That tourism will be affected in places of proximity, but not in surrounding areas. But that visitors to the Airport will contribute to tourism. I think Ramsgate merits far more focused attention, because it has incomparably the most to lose in this. The airport would never have been planned to be put in this location at the outset.