Residents groups and locally concerned individuals came together at the Royal Yacht Club in Ramsgate on Thursday (July 20) to discuss the proposed reopening of Manston airport, which has been closed since 2014.
Representatives from resident associations in the East Cliff and West Cliff areas of the town, along with members of various local community groups and residents of the villages, were present.
The main concern for those present was the 24/7 flight schedule of the proposed new cargo airport. Local business people, especially those involved in the hospitality trade, were concerned that permanent night flights would spell the end to tourism in the town with a serious loss of jobs, far in excess of anything proposed by the new cargo airport developers.
Other concerns raised included damage to children’s sleep patterns if such flights were to go ahead. A teacher from one of the local schools informed the meeting of his experiences with low flying aircraft noise while trying to teach.
Several speakers said they were gravely concerned by a lack of consultation by developers RSP, pointing out the fact that the area directly under the flight path, central Ramsgate had not been leafleted by RSP, while areas like Birchington and Chislet which are not under the flight path apparently were. This lack of awareness by local residents of the town greatly alarmed several speakers. Many spoke of encounters with neighbours who were totally unaware of any proposal to re-open the airport.
There was opposition expressed to the plan to build 2,500 houses on the site but given the choice the general consensus of the meeting was that housing would be preferable to a 24/7 cargo airport. Concerns were raised regarding the large scale shipments of highly flammable aviation fuel by road, estimated at least 30 to 40 tanker loads per day, the airport not being connected to the underground fuel network that supplies all major airports.
The effect of a 24/7 cargo airport on property prices was also mentioned along with the damage to the general environment from low flying aircraft, emitting pollutants from aviation fuel and anti-freeze. It was noted that the Council for the Protection of Rural England recently expressed grave concern regarding the re-opening of the airport.
The meeting ended with a resolve to hold elected representatives to account. There was a feeling that neither the local members of parliament nor the district council had the welfare of Ramsgate at heart. A general agreement that all legal channels should be investigated including seeking a judicial review into the legality of opening a 24/7 cargo airport in close proximity to such a large urban population.
Report No To Night Flights
RSP Statement 12 months ago…
RiverOak dispels night flight myths
July 18, 2016
RiverOak have issued a statement to counter discussions on night flights.
“RiverOak investments would like to dispel the myth that 18 flights a night are planned for Manston Airport under our proposals. The reference, which is being wilfully misused in media interviews, can be found on pages 134-5 of our Environmental Scoping report and relates purely to the accepted methodology for assessing the significance of noise disturbance at night and certainly not to any plans that we have for Manston Airport.
We know that the reintroduction of airport operations is of concern to some residents and so we are committed to being absolutely transparent at every stage of the DCO process to enable the community in East Kent to make informed decisions on our proposals. Indeed, it is for this reason that our environmental studies will be so thorough and will be published for consultation, along with all other aspects of our proposals, as soon as they are ready.
RiverOak Investments urges any local residents with questions about any aspect of our proposals to come along to our remaining informal consultation events this week, starting today in Herne Bay from 14.00-20.00 at the Kings Hall, to talk to members of our expert team, including Amec Foster Wheeler who are undertaking the environmental assessment.”
Ends
Why is it in Herne Bay? Why not Ramsgate where the airport actually is?
It was in Ramsgate
The RYC is not a very big room though, is it?
Unfortunately, the quote about night-flights provided by RSP in 2016 is out of date. The Planning Inspectorate has confirmed that the documents provided to them by RSP include a provision for night flights. In addition those cocuments provide for the airport to be staffed 24/7. At the consultation events conflicting information about night-flights has been given to concerned residents. These concerns have now been documented and recorded on the Planning Inspectorate web-site.
RSP have included night fights in their application. They’ve been glossing over this at the consultation events, but if night flights aren’t required, why put them in the application in the first place?!?
Instead of having meetings where there is a danger of some if not most disappearing up their fundaments, why not register your concerns either through the RSP request for comments or direct with the Planning Inspectorate? That said, the deadline to do so is running out. The real culprit here is Thanet District Council (TDC); for whatever its views are on the re-opening of Manston Airport, it should have made every effort to ensure those for and against the airport were told how to communicate their views. Instead, TDC seems to have buried its head in the sand.
There is no 24/7 Night flight “schedule” Night flights are VERY expensive to run and are generally not profitable or not needed! Its so sad to see this false dialogue being disseminated as if it was some kind of fact – it isn’t! People need to listen to what is actually being said and ignore the blatant lies put out by people who are threatening the Thanet economy.
Ian – maybe you can explain why RSP included night flights in their application if they have no intention of running them?
Night flights where “scoped” like everything else in the DCO. You can’t take a position on anything unless you can show you have examined all the possibilities. In another area with no population night flights might be acceptable and desirable but what would it say to the Thanet community if RiverOak had omitted to discuss Nightflights? Everyone would be up in arms saying they are “hiding it in under the carpet” or something! Basically you are damned if you do mention Nightflights and damned if you don’t! THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR NIGHTFLIGHTS! Period.
What will also be significantly different this time is that flights at any time of day can be fine tuned to accommodate the local populations in both Herne Bay and Ramsgate as there will be Instrument Landing Systems at both ends of the runway – not just the Ramsgate end heading west. This means aircraft can fly in from either end at any time the airport is operating. In theory all flights could come in from the South West and mostly avoid Herne Bay and not go near Ramsgate. New flight paths are coming to the UK because they are needed also GPS navigation now makes more sensitive routes possible. People should be optimistic. Nobody wants to harm the tourist trade in Ramsgate or anywhere else for that matter. People should listen to the facts and not react to the spin that certain local politcians with their own cynical agenda want you to hear!
If RSP don’t intend to have night flights, why have they included them in their application? They are so contentious that they would have been crazy to include them on some kind of whim.
They’re included, and that means they form part of the application and any subsequent DCO – that is undisputable.
Sadly you did not read or understand the answer I have given you. Beyond this I really cannot help you unless you use the faculties you may (or may not have) been equipped with.
You need to check the actual references to night flights rather than assume it’s a given
Apart from Herne Bay, where else are you doing consultations? I cannot remember seeing any advertised. Why has central Ramsgate, where the flight path is, not been leafleted?
I soke with George Yerrell last year and he told me they were asking for night flights. Tony Freudmann said the flight times were down to the freighters . I spoke to a young lady at the Sands consultation and she told me there would be a flight every 14 minutes. She was there for RSP. I noticed in the information given that they would ask for another hour each end of the times for flights which are 6am to 11 pm.how many hours does thaT leave free of airtraffic ?Am I wrong in thinking they want to fly 5am to 12 midnight? If not why mention it?
Have you written to the concerned authorities to express your objection to night flight? If not then stop moaning and don’t you think matters have moved on in the last year? Check with the Planning Inspectorate if you’re not happy.
Night flights? So what?
We will get used to it. Just like we used to.
As a resident of Ramsgate I am concerned that I wasn’t informed of this meeting held at the Yacht Club. Can you tell where it was advertised as I would like to have made my pro airport feelings known at the meeting?
This is the first time I have heard of this meeting! The antis are all too ready to say RSP didn’t tell them enough about their consultations, despite a half page in the Gazette . Not their fault if you didn’t read it. And it was on their website. And it was announced on various Facebook and Twitter social media sites, amongst others. Not RSP’s fault if you didn’t see it. They obliged all the legal PINS requirements.
Like Davo, you and others should have been informed not just by RSP, as required, but also by TDC to ensure all, for and against, had a right to reply
Well either they have plans or they don’t! Make your mind up?! Which is it? The fact you are contracticting yourself proves you know nothing. QED. Because RiverOak SP discuss Nightfights DOES NOT INFER they are planning them. All it means is that they have considered them. ANY AND ALL Nightflights are subject to agreement with the local council. Discussion with PINS merely covers the all conceivable factors and does not enshrine any rights to pursue Nightflights without consultation with the local council which happens at a later stage.
Take a look at this and, while not a compulsory obligation on the part of a local authority it is strongly advised but TDC still has its head buried in the sand.
http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Advice_note_2.pdf
The reason there is pressure at some airports for night flights is lack of day time capacity.
RiverOak are investing £10s millions in ensuring Manston always has enough day time capacity, by upgrading from the current one cargo stand, initially to nine, and later to up to 19, as demand requires.
This is because night flights are hugely expensive in running costs, and they prefer to avoid that with
the up-front stand construction.
All this is in their on-line documents- please go read : http://www.rsp.co.uk
TDC was under no obligation to inform local residents about RSP’s consultation. Tey were asked to respond to RSP’s Statement of Community Consultation and they did. They pointed out that they hadn’t been provided with the masterplan or the preliminary environmental information and so, they didn’t know what local people were going to be consulted on. They said that the extent of the proposed postal consultation was inadequate. They stated that all residences and businesses within a 3km radius of the airport AND within 1km of the potential flight paths should be covered by a leaflet drop. They stated that, in the absence of flight path estimates all residences in Ramsgate, the villages and Herne Bay should be leafleted. Large numbers of people are now complaining that they didn’t know about this consultation but TDC did exactly what they should have done. The consultation was inadequate and this is likely to reflected in TDC’s comments to the planning inspectorate. Here’s a link to TDC’s response to the draft statement of community consultation: https://www.thanet.gov.uk/media/3832020/TDC-Response-to-Draft-SOCC-9th-March-2017.pdf
Anyone who does their research will find that a large proportion of cargo is carried at night. Fresh fruit, vegetables and flowers are flown over night so that they can arrive in the supermarkets the next morning. Postal items are flown overnight so that they can be delivered the next day. Freight flights departing for or destined for major airports will often use the cheaper, off-peak slots which mean that they need to arrive or depart in the middle of the night. RSP has included a provision for night flights in its application to the planning inspectorate and, when questioned at the consultation events, representatives were not able to assure people that night flights wouldn’t be required. It isn’t realistic for RSP to claim that they will be running a freight depot with no night flights and people are quite entitled to be concerned.
Not sure my reply went. So, anyone that does their research will find that well over 95% of air cargo is carried in the bellies of passenger aircraft. The number of pure freighters flying is a very small % of total flights overall. Take Heathrow – the 95%+ figure still holds good but, as you are aware, there are no night flights at LHR. LGW has night flights but almost exclusively charter business. The main scheduled carriers use daytime slots pretty much as at LHR. So, do proper research and you’ll find the overwhelming volume of air freight is not carried at night.
Cheggers’ comments here, and on another thread last night, were accurate in STATING what “Many people” are saying, save that the number of such people is not so much “many” as it mainly appears to comprise a small and unrepresentative group of opponents of the airport and its re-development and re-opening for purely aviation related purposes. Proponents of the plans on which RSP’s public consultation took place place generally are unconcerned about these scare stories.
Cheggers shows little understanding of the methods and practices to which the Planning Inspectorate expects DCO applicants to conform.
Cheggers also fails to understand that what s/he and his/her comrades believe to be “the worst affected areas” are in fact far from being so, or how such assessments are established. That’s true in relation to apprehensions about air pollution and with regard to noise levels.
The matters complained about are unlikely to be attributed to a loss in value of property where they relate to the continuance of an existing authorised use. The airport was first established as an airport in 1915/16 and only closed three years ago. More importantly, the land on which the airport stands has only ever had one authorised use ever since the airport was established, and that is for use for aviation-related purposes.
It is far from likely, given the findings of the Planning Inspectorate in relation to the Stone Hill Park appeals for change of use, that any application for any non-aviation use of the airport will succeed for generations to come. Even if there was the will and skill to push that forward in the teeth of a DCO, it would fail the public interest test. Anyone who followed the course of the Stone Hill Park public inquiry even before its outcome ought to fully understand that.
One might also consider how the tort of nuisance is defined in law. In general terms, the term refers to breaches of a complainant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property. There are distinctions between public and private nuisance, but in both there is a reasonableness test, public policy issues may intrude, and of course lawful exercises of other rights may limit or prevent an occupier of land from achieving any redress. If there’s been a temporary cessation of the relevant rights of others (as occurred when the present owners of the airport sought to achieve a contrary use of it but has yet to make any or any sufficient headway towards an unreasonable expectation, especially in the teeth of great and persistent local objections, then the chances of recovery might be very remote.
Much of the confusion about how much or little noise there is in Ramsgate overlooks the manner in which those are calculated. Noise levels are assessed according to the times events occurs and the period of each one’s duration, they that is then averaged along with relevant periods when no problems occur. Thus “Noise exposure is generally used to indicate the noise environment averaged over a time interval. Research indicates that LAeq is a good predictor of a community’s disturbance from aircraft noise.” The time intervals over which such noise is averaged may be very much longer than objectors may appreciate: all day long, for instance, and across the whole length of summer nights. See https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1521_Environmental_Annex.pdf
Thus background levels are taken into account, as are the nature and persistence of other sources of noise. A noise above a certain level but lasting at that level for only a few seconds and repeated only once or twice an hour will tend to be considered insignificant if it is scarcely audible against a relatively significant background level of noise that is far more persist even to the point of being more or less constant. Thus the brief duration of an aircraft flying over a town may have little overall effect upon raising the overall level of noise that occurs. The areas of Ramsgate that are frequently mentioned in connection with aircraft noise are in many cases anyway afflicted by heavy levels of road and rail traffic or other sources of noise, and those noise sources may mask the perceived impact of the aircraft noise.
In the end, even if it were to be established that relatively high levels of noises were of such a level or persistence as to present an arguable case that the source of that noise should be eliminated or constrained, that would not necessarily be the end of the matter, for quite apart from the lawful uses and history of the alleged nuisance, and all evidence taken by the Examining Authority during the Preconsultation Stage of the DCO, in the end the relevant Secretary of State has an unfettered discretion to balance these matters in whatever way he wishes (provided he does undertake that balancing exercise in his mind), and it would seem very odd indeed if he will reach a decision that will NOT give most weight to what in the national interest. He will doubtless have it in mind, too, that planes are far more quiet today than they were in previous decades when the operation of the airport clearly enjoyed high levels of public support. Most people found the operation of aircraft over the towns tolerable in the past and especially with the lower noise levels of current aircraft types, they will no doubt find it tolerable again.
Much has been made (by a few) about the CPRE’s opposition to the redevelopment of Manston into and airport capable of meeting and surpassing the requirements of development consent for it to be regarded as a nationally significant infrastructure airport. The CPRE’s opposition is scarcely surprising. It is against all significant airport expansion plans and seeks to put pressure on the Government to reduce airport capacity. Is that likely to carry much weigh in the mind of the Secretary of State for Transport? I think not.
RJP – you win. You have beaten me into submission with your extreme verbosity.
Never mind the quality, feel the quantity!
Then reply with a cogent response rather than object to various aspects of the re- opening of Manston without foundation. Cheggers opined that with proper research one would find that the majority of cargo is carried at night. Very simple research would have revealed the exact opposite.
Good to see that the full horror of RSP’s consultation has been fully documented. Good luck with getting a DCO accepted with this on record:
https://nonightflights.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/nnf-response-to-rsp-scc-1.pdf
Now we have dealt with the ridiculous notion that most airfreight is carried at night, could you please explain why a cargo hub would be disastrous for the area
I don’t know what Roy Davies is on about. We all know that the majority of freight is carried in the bellyhold compartments of passenger aircraft. But this isn’t the element which RSP is targeting with its plans. RSP is aiming to secure most of the UK’s dedicated freight traffic. As I correctly said, much of this market involves shipment of perishables and time-critical items. It will arrive and depart at night. Maybe those who are claiming that there will be no night flights can explain how else they will be flying in cut flowers which need to be in a supermarket in Maidstone by 08:00.
Cut flowers come by truck from Holland primarily – no planes involved.
RSP is proposing Manston as a hub not a destination airport
Clearly you didn’t know that the majority of freight is carried in passenger flights or you would not have made that ridiculous assertion
RSP is not aiming to secure most of the UK’s dedicated freight traffic; in time no doubt it would like to emulate East Midlands freight capacity. RSP has clearly stated that its plans are based largely on filling the shortfall in supply of freight capacity in the UK
No cut flowers by plane so one reason for night flights nipped in the bud
If you make these spurious assertions, check the facts first; next you’ll be saying that the birth rate in the UK has increased because the population of cranes has increased similarly
I despair of the constant lies and untrue allegations about RSP’s plans for Manston Airport. If just one of you bothers to read the link below, which spells out all the above myths spread about by anti-airport people, it will help dispel untruths.
https://youtu.be/jWU_S_K_YYo
Reading the updated RSP plans would indeed help but then what would the antis do?
I have spoken to George Yerrell who told me they needed night flights. I also spoke to a young lady at The Sands consultation ,who told me there would be a flight every 14 minutes 10,000 a year. Tony Freudmann told someone stood next to me that it will be the freight managers who will decide on night flights.
e
10,000 flights means 5,000 in and 5,000 out each year. Do your sums and that’s 14 planes day NOT A FLIGHT EVERY 14 MINUTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not surprised you’re opposed to the airport when you get your facts so wrong.
Wrong also: neither RiverOak nor freight managers will decide on night flights. That is the responsibility of the authorities and no-one else
Environmental output from 2500 homes, 5000 plus cars and the need for doctors, dentists, schools etc for 5000 plus children. Add the shortage of water, eletrical and gas supplies etc. Give me the airport any time. Manston resident.
Well said young man
These houses are not going to be built overnight. It will take years. Have you thought of the people on the council waiting list? Or do they not matter? 30% of those houses will go to social housing. Have a little pity for people having to live in substandard housing as that is all there is,so rather than see local people rehoused in decent acommodation you would rather see the air polluted?
First Thanet want’s the airport back then it doesn’t want it back…..
Resident’s are moaning about the lack of job’s,income,business to thanet……
resident’s are moaning about the lack of tourist trade to thanet when Marget & ramsgate have suffered with the loss of Bembom Brother’s Theme park,Sally Line & the Ostend crossing & the hotel,local shop’s have also suffered lack of trade due to this & with Westwood X been here & many shop’s relocating to the cross …..
Thanet need’s this airport reopened & used …..
It would bring thousand’s of job’s,income for the tourist,hotel & local shop trade…..
Which is so desperatly needed right now …..
These resident’s that moan about all the truck’s of fuel,the loss of housing price’s,children’s night routine’s interupted,the school’s moaning…..
i used to go to newington primary when i was a child & we had flight’s goin over & it didn’t bother anyone …..
So please think about the positive’s & not ur house price’s etc,think about the job’s,much needed income to local buisness’s,tourism etc ..
They’re just NIMBYs Mark
I must be one of the moaners. I do not trust the numbers given by RSP. I got it from the horses mouth that they will be doing 24/7 flights. Now because there have been protests they have changed their minds and say they will not have night flights but will not commit to an agreement that bars night flights. In your day they were not flying 24/7, there was some respite from noise and pollution. When do you think these thousands of jobs will materialise ?Not in my lifetime I think. After Wiggins failed, with Tony Freudmann on the board, as now, EU Jet flew and I have been on a plane with 5 other passengers. The price was worth it to me for a inland flight I never paid more than £48 return.They failed. Then came the next company. I did not use them because I could go by train 1st class for what what was being charged, cheapest was £120.00 to fly to Manchester. They failed. Where are they going to get the business from? None of the other commercial hubs are working to capacity.I have been to several consultations and the RSP people I spoke too ,non gave the same or even near, answer.At the Sands I was told there would be flights every 14 minutes. Manston nor surrounding towns and villages have ever experienced that amount of air traffic. Ramsgate will lose its tourist trade.This is something many people have given time and effort to and to have that destroyed is heartbreaking
Bembom Brother’s Theme park,Mr G’s & Quaser was the death of margate
Pleasurama,Westwood X,Sally & Ostende line’s was the death of ramsgate
All the major shop’s have left the town’s because there’s nothing here
Etam’s,tammy girl,dorothy perkin’s,woolworth’s etc THANET IS DYING
Thanet has never recovered from this & has suffered badly so the airport is needed to bring it back to life
Job’s,hotel’s,tourism etc would benefit from the increase revenue from this
Your so negative
U all protest u all want it back open then u want it not opened ….
Open ur eye’s to job’s,revenue to local buiseness’s,hotel’s,tourist trade it will bring in…..
Thanet has the worse unemployment in the country WAKE UP PEOPLE this is a fresh start for thanet
One that is needed to bring thanet back to life
SHP’s plans are to make lots and lots of money. The council should grasp the nettle and build affordable homes not speculators. As for the business units SHP is proposing, there are loads of similar empty ones all over Thanet plus there’s Disco Park. No-one doubts housing is needed but not by obliterating an asset that can generate jobs, services and training etc
The airport can bring in job’s,tourist’s,income for local business’s & bring life back to thanet
There is load’s of derilict building’s all over thanet that can be bought back into use such as housing,business’s etc
Bring back the airport which is an essential asset to the life of thanet
Remember it was once a military airport & don’t loose it
A successful cargo airport in this part of England is unlikely, to say the least. But the presence of such an airport would destroy Ramsgate’s hopes of reviving tourism. I need hardly mention the intolerable noise, the disruption to daily life and the damage to the health of the thousands of people who would be living under the flight path which the existence of such an airport would bring with it. Recent research has made clear how damaging aviation is.
Riveroak, like SHP and every other commercial company, wishes to make lots and lots of money. Any disapproval of SHP’s plans to profit should therefore be extended to Riveroak.
The council cannot afford to build many homes. The right-to-buy legislation introduced by Thatcher and not yet rescinded has devastated the supply of council housing in Britain. There are people sleeping in shop doorways, parks and beach shelters in Thanet. The site of the former airport should be used for housing and workplaces. SHP offers such a scheme. The government says Thanet must build new houses and it is obviously better to build them on a brownfield site than on agricultural land.
Why is a cargo airport in this part of the country unlikely to be successful? RO is proposing a cargo hub rather than a cargo destination airport.
2,500 homes and perhaps as many cars or more and the need for utilities would be far more polluting than an airport and where would the water from these homes come from? Who will provide the additional hospital facilities needed with 2,500 homes and possibly 6,000 people with them 2.4 x 2,500.
Airplanes are much, much quieter than ten years ago and far, far less polluting. Plus, the plans for the airport and existence of aviation-related businesses on site will provide jobs, training and business for the community at large.
SHP’s plans for workplaces is purely speculative and will only add to the large number of disused units around Thanet.There’s enough empty space at Disco Park to house a variety of businesses without building new places on spec. Building houses will only create jobs during construction.
The council doesn’t have to build houses – that can be done in conjunction with a housing association and there are plenty of schemes nationwide where the right-to-buy option does not exist.
How do you know what is good for THANET & not good
Thousand’s of new home’s,school,nursery,doctor’s is more polluting than an airport….
we don’t have the resource’s(water,waste management etc ) to make this happen…
Manston airport will be a cargo hub:
A cargo hub is were cargo is brought in by plane & then sorted & sent to it’s destination or plane’s refueled to continued to their destination….
A cargo airport is were cargo is left …..
The Airport would bring in thousand’s of job’s(baggage,maintence,engineer’s etc)
It would bring Job’s to the Airport,tourism,local business’s & bring in much needed revenue to bring THANET back to life……
The pollution from car’s,buse’s etc in the summer on the isle of thanet is worse than a plane & i should know …
I live in ramsgate & buse’s drive pass my place up to 16x an hour & truck’s & car’s & all i smell is diesel,petrol fume’s all the time so the airport need’s to brought back to life & used …
& if u look in the paper’s their building thousand’s of house’s on a ten year building plan right behind westwood X so BRING BACK THE AIRPORT WE NEED IT
The pollution from car’s,bike’s,truck’s,buse’s is more polluting than plane’s
BRING MANSTON AIRPORT BACK TO LIFE THANET NEED’S IT
& if my maths is right 14 flight’s a day is a flight every 90 min’s approximately not every 14 min’s
So were do you anti-airport resident’s get your information from & it’s the AUTHORITIE’S that dictate how many,when the plane’s can fly not the company …
SO GET YOUR FACT’S RIGHT
BRING THE AIRPORT BACK !!!!!!
The airport has been shut for more than three years. Prior to closing it was a miserable failure and created few jobs. When it was privatised we were told that it would be employing 10,000 people by 2020. So, the statement that Thanet needs to the airport is patently untrue. In fact, the airport has caused massive damage to the local economy because it has prevented other things from happening. High tech businesses have moved to other locations becasue of the fear of noise and pollution. It’s time to move on. SHP’s plans for a mixed development will produce 2000 jobs; far more than the airport ever did or could produce. Thanet doesn’t need the airport. It needs jobs and SHP’s plans can deliver those jobs.
For Roy Davies who believes that all cut flowers imported into the UK come from Holland by lorry, here’s a link to show where they actually come from. The reason they now come by lorry is that they fly them into Schipol. They used to fly them in directly from Africa, Roy and would do so again if the airport was reopened. The flights come in at night so that the flowers are fresh in the shops in the morning. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/16/africa/kenya-flower-industry/index.html
I’m not aware of any major coastal holiday destination around the world that has not been served by an airport. There must be some, but those that I know are regularly overflown by aircraft, in many cases at very low altitudes.
Ramsgate is not an international tourist destination
San Diego: 1.4 million population, 32 million visitors, a tenth of the population is involved in tourism; busiest and most difficult single-runway international airport in the USA is the size of Manston and serves >20 million passengers per year; busiest international border crossing in the world; several military airports heavily used in the vicinity; one other international airport within the city limits and two general aviation airports; high residential property values. Or how about Miami Initernational Airport: “first in the United States by percentage of international flights and second by volume of international passengers, behind only New York–JFK”: 45 million passengers per year; handled more international cargo than any other airport in the United States. One other commercial airport and two general aviation airports serve the same metropolitan area; population under half a million people; 38 million tourists per year. Or try Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok…. Without their airports, how to you think they would rate as the world’s top tourist destinations?
mrs moore your comment ramsgate is not an international destination but it could be. so could thanet your comment shows the apperthy which holds thanet back. the airport is the start thanet can prosper and move forward i miss the airoplanes flying over if u read the report properly all airports have to allow scope for night flights for things like emergencys mercy flights etc not schduled flights stop this apperthy and let thanet grow
Do you live under the flight path Ms Wright? It will bee too late to try to get no night flights if they get Manston for a commercial hub . There will be no plans for passenger flights for years to come. It is not apathy but common sense that makes me wonder about the viability of Manston as a commercial airport. George Yerrall told me himself that they intend to have night flights , are they going to commit this to an agreement that there will be no night flights?.So there have been others flying but no one flew for 24/7. A flight every 14 minutes, I was told at the Sands consultation. There are no customers lining up to use Manston, they can go to the other airports that are underused .Ramsgate will never be an International destination for flights as we are too far from London, Not overmuch to see in Ramsgate at the moment nor will there be with a flight every 14 minutes.I volunteer for a Ramsgate attraction but this will be under the flight path and not be helped by an extraordinary noise every 14 minutes. How can you tell people about Ramsgate and it Royal Harbour and the Tunnels and St Augustine’s shrine with this overhead?
Mrs Moore, where do you get the information from that there will be a flight in or out of Manston every 14 minutes? Where do you get the idea that there will be no passenger flights for years to come? A hub airport in terms of cargo means transhipments as well as destination shipments; you’ve missed the point. Noise abatement rules bar old and noisy aircraft; so, to understand what I mean, go to West Hounslow and judge for yourself. RSP is also proposing other aviation-related businesses on site that will add to the airport’s commercial viability and as regards who the other investors might be, that’s a matter for the Planning Inspectorate as it’s likely to be commercially confidential. Mrs Moore, you seem to have based your argument on matters heard at meetings and, if you’re relying on the flight every 14 minutes error, what hope do you have of being sure anything else you say is correct. I believe everyone has a right to object to a planning application but an objection based on incorrect facts or simply NIMBYism will evaporate as it has no merit. I would suggest you read in full the various proposals made in writing by RSP both to the public at large and the Planning Inspectorate then make your objections accordingly.
As I said before, I was told at consultations, not hearing things at meetings.It was worked out for me that it would be a flight every 14 minutes.RSP have said it will be some time before they indulge in passenger flights. If the other passenger airlines could not make money ,what makes you think they can do it with RSP?
It could be correct that in isolation, KLM did not make money on the Manston/Schipol route but, overall, if passengers, not all of course, transfer to intercontinental flights in Amsterdam, it’s a win win situation. If you’re relying on the Avia report, even the authors warned no to do so in the disclaimer without first getting a lot more facts.
A flight every 14 minutes – check out the official statements and then comment
Every 14 mins is rubbish. Do your sums. Try 14 flights per day. Around 1 every 45 mins during the open hours of 7am to 11 pm. All as per a section 106 agreement with heavy financial penalties for outside those hours
polution? Try 2500 houses 4000 cars, delivery lorries to house, rubbish collection ect. etc.Thats not allowing for more doctors, dentists, schools and benefit payments to those living in social housing paid for by us. TDC residents
Mr Neale you forgot the hospital
I was told by one of RSPs people at the Sands Margate that it would mean a flight every 14 mminutes. I had a long chat with her but you believe what you want to believe if it makes you feel better. I do not know the ladies name but she was blond, plump about 5′ 3″ tall maybe 30ish very pleasant and was one of the designers of the plans. Thats the trouble with RSP you can never get two people telling you the same thing
We hear things and find they’re not always what we thought. According to DCO requirements, there needs to be a minimum of 10,000 a year. RSP won’t achieve that total from day one and so will build up to it. 10,000 equates to about 28 flights a day – how can that translate into a flight every 14 mins? You’re believing what you want, which is why I suggested you go back to the official documentation to check out the facts
It appears you have not read the report by SHP. Read it ,it’s on their website before commenting why don’t you read it?How do you equate 4000 cars with 2500 houses?
4,000 cars is 1.6 per household – not unreasonable. How many cars in your household or at your immediate neighbours’ homes? 2.1 persons per house – again not unreasonable – would generate 5,250 bodies at SHP with the consequent strain on utilities and infrastructure that SHP fails to address mainly because it’s not ‘their’ problem.
SHP also state they will be building over 10 years, not all at once.
in 8 houses around me there are 1 car per household for 7 houses and 2 cars for 1
You are not very well informed. People in social housing do not get free rent. They may be on low income jobs, zero hours contracts, or not able to get a job. Not everyone on benefits is a scrounger, that was put about by the conservatives under David Cameron. If you did not work it was because you did not want to as there are loads of jobs in Thanet! Get real,
Wittering on about big airports elsewhere in the world is utterly pointless. It tells you nothing about the viability of RSP’s plans. Following the devastating criticism of the consultation plans levelled at them by SHP, TDC and NNF, they are going to have to produce a lot more detail and they are going to have to explain where the money is supposed to come from. SHP’s critique is particularly damaging as it comes with supporting evidence from planning and aviation experts.
TDC has relied on a report by Avia that is seriously flawed in terms of its omissions but, more importantly, TDC was told by Avia not to rely on its report when challenging RSP’s submission. I suspect thatNNF and SHP relied on even more flimsy stuff to support their arguments.
The airport will great jobs. 2500 house will create the need for jobs.