Representation by Naomi Grady
- Date submitted
- 8 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
As a Ramsgate resident, mother to two school-age children and a Ramsgate independent business owner (employing 10 Ramsgate residents), I would like to register my strong opposition to the granting of a DCO of the former Manston Airport site.
I require that the following issues be thoroughly interrogated during the determination of the application.
Impact on health of Ramsgate residents: Specifically an examination of air and noise pollution and the adverse impacts and damage to the population’s health and well-being. RSPs own documentation cites adverse health impacts on residents and schoolchildren.
Clarification on night flights and impact: RSP and both local MPs have stated that there would be no night flights as part of the RSP proposal yet RSPs own documentation implies extensive night flying.
Loss of tourism and tourism jobs: Since the airport closed, Thanet has seen one of the highest increases in visitor numbers and spend. The district saw 16.8% more day trips to the area and £293million was spent in the area as a result of tourism, an increase of 19.4% in 2015 compared to 2013. My business is located besides Ramsgate’s Royal Harbour and services the growing leisure and tourism trade. We are dependent on the footfall around the harbour, which is seeing year on year increases. The noise and pollution from cargo planes will make the harbour a less attractive place to visit and anything that will impact on visitor numbers will result in closure of my business and loss of jobs.
Impact of Heritage assets and conservation areas: Ramsgate has one of the highest concentrations of nationally significant listed buildings in the country and the country’s only Royal Harbour. Ramsgate was named as a Heritage Action Zone by Historic England in November 2016.
Biodiversity of our natural environment: Specifically the impact on Pegwell Bay National Nature Reserve which is a Ramsar Site of International Importance
I also believe that the following should be examined:
• Qualifications and experience of the applicant. The applicant has no relevant experience of developing or operating what they are proposing • Financial credibility of the applicant. The applicant has not proved financial credibility • Due diligence on the applicant. • Economic viability of the proposed development - several aviation 'expert' report have revealed that the proposals are not economically viable.
I trust that the examiners will use evidence and facts in determining that this is not a viable project for a DCO.