Representation by Nigel Padgham
- Date submitted
- 3 September 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I support continued aviation use of Manston, and retention of the current runway in any plan (no asset stripping). I believe the Avia report was too dismissive of the massive expected increase in air transport, and the need for cargo transport while (if) Heathrow's third runway is built. Beyond 2031 is too far to call, and the expenditure on upgrading Manston very small in comparison to Heathrow or Gatwick, and the implementation timescale would be very short. However, the area North of Manston Road is very large, and could be developed for housing without an impact on the aviation business. If the asset of the current runway goes, a smaller runway would allow continued General Aviation use, and provide an amenity and encourage business if sufficiently long for business jets (not as per the Stone Hill plan), but it would not generate the same scale of employment in services or engineering, and be more fragile economically. It would also be very close to the housing, and might suffer from noise nuisance complaints restricting activity still further. The adjacent business park is only half occupied according to the plan, and so industrial development should be focused there. The proposed Parkway station could be just south of Manston, with the proposed improvement of train journey times, it would be an ideal link for the airport, and support air passenger services to be developed in the longer term.