Registered Office: 128 Southwark Street, London SE1 0SW,

phone 020 7981 2800

fax 020 7981 2899.
e-mail info@cpre.org.uk
http://www.cpre.org.uk or
Thanet branch

CPRE Kent’s Response to Consultation on Section 106 Agreement

Night flights
The certificates of lawful use regarding the operation of Manston only allow
for use as at the time of their being issued. At that time there were no night
flights at all, and daytime use was limited. Hence any new agreement must
limit flights to this, unless planning permission is applied for to extend
operating hours.

The council, at its meeting of 13 January, 2005, stipulated that the

temporary night-flying policy would include aviation best practice noise
monitoring, and that this must be in place before the night flights started.
Best practice requires two fixed noise monitors covering the flights
from each end of the runway, but there is no evidence of the two additional
monitors being provided – using one mobile monitor plus two existing fixed
monitors does not accord with ‘best practice’, especially as the mobile
monitor should be used to investigate complaints or other concerns.

Nor is there evidence of other night flights apart from the 11 allowed flights
being prohibited or penalised. For example, the airport consultative meeting
on 22 March, 2005, recorded the concerns about "the many late departures
of EUJet aircraft (later than 11 p.m.)" (Minute item 5.1.2). However, nothing
was said about these paying a fine or that the airport would prohibit them in
future. Likewise, the airport stated a lack of confidence in even being able to
operate to schedule (Minute 5.1.5). This therefore brings into question the
validity of this consultation.

If the airport ignores a formal motion from the council, and lacks confidence
in operating to schedule, why should it take any notice of any future
‘agreement’ with the council?
In the Aviation White Paper, the Government said that each night flight
would need to be justified – this means every night flight. This has not been
done for existing flights, nor have fines been levied for many of the flights
landing or taking off in the night.
The Local Government Association has a Strategic Aviation Special Interest
Group, to which Thanet, and other East Kent District Councils, belong. It has
stated that: "no evidence has been produced by the Government or the
aviation industry to justify claims that night flights have an overall economic
benefit." (SASIG Night Flights Press Briefing, 1 November, 2004). There is
therefore no economic justification to allow night flights.

Having flights between 2300 and 0700 means people will rarely achieve
eight hours of uninterrupted sleep, especially if there is activity before 0700.
The council should be ensuring that its residents can sleep properly.

Noise Levels
This issue is covered in the comments on the Draft Stratford Report, below

Road traffic management

A major impact of any expansion is increase in road traffic. If passengers
and staff are allowed to come by road, then this increases road traffic and
the parking needed. Increasing road traffic increase noise and pollution. The
problems on the A28, for example, the road most likely to be used by traffic
from Ashford, are already severe, and any increase would cause air pollution
limits to be exceeded, and congestion increased.

The Kent Environment Strategy progress report for 2005, produced by Kent
County council (KCC), states that road traffic has continued to grow in the
last two years, and what is worse, that the proportion of travel by car has
also increased. Any agreement must include stringent requirement for
transport to be by non-car modes. This requirement must be more than just
a "green Travel Plan" – it must have targets of at least 40%, for use of
modes other than the car.

Air pollution
Kent Council has an environment strategy which seeks to preserve and
improve Kent’s environment. One of the indicators is that of air pollution,
and the 2005 progress report shows that days when air pollution is
moderate or high, have increased by 44% in rural areas and 133% in urban
areas over the last two years. Quite clearly all local authorities need to
ensure that their own areas reduce the problems and do not make these
figures any worse. Therefore any agreement must include measures to
reduce air pollution, whether from the aeroplanes or from road vehicles.

Climate Change Emissions

Aviation emissions are more damaging than those from ground-based
sources, due to the effect of ‘radiative forcing’ – the impact is more than
three times the impact of the carbon dioxide emissions alone.
The UK has targets – both international (Kyoto) and national – of 60%
reduction in emissions by 2050. Expanding aviation will cause this target to
be missed.

The Office of National Statistics (22 July 2004) stated that transport
emissions in the UK have risen by 47% from 1990 to 2002. When you
consider that aviation accounts for just under half the transport emissions,
then it is clear that we need to apply strong brakes to aviation, to recover
the 106% increase in aviation emissions since 1990, otherwise all our efforts
in using more efficient cars and greater use of public transport will be
wasted.

The potential impact on Thanet of climate change is enormous. Thanet was

an island, and any increase in sea level will put it at risk of becoming one
again. In the 1953 floods, trains could not get through from Faversham to
Whitstable along the coast, instead the line from Canterbury to Whitstable
had to be used. While the airfield would be needed to bring in supplies when
the sea breaks through, it will be useless for wider Kent traffic.

Economic impacts
Manston has been promoted purely on the basis of bringing jobs to Thanet,
but economic benefit would most likely be negated by the costs of protecting
Thanet from the rising sea.
More immediately, expansion of low-cost aviation has seriously harmed
cross-channel traffic via ferries and the tunnel. The loss of employment in
these services is far greater than any possible employment benefit from the
airport.

Dover District Economic and Social Benchmark Report, July 2001, states
that:
“The overall trend is one of increasing employment in the District since
the mid 1990s but still about 5,000 jobs below the level of 1991. The
major job losses were as a consequence of shedding of jobs by Sealink,
Hoverspeed and Dover Harbour Board, the loss of about 1,000 customs
agents with the creation of the Single European Market as well as the
completion of the Channel Tunnel.”

Table 10 shows Transport & Communications falling from 12,000 employees

in 1991 to 5400 in 1998, a fall of 6,600. These falls are despite spending
£10.5 m on the Cruise Port, Western Docks in 1996. An airport would need
to have over 16 million passengers per annum (assuming 400 jobs created
per million passengers) to compensate.
While many of those jobs have been lost in Dover and Folkestone, some will
have been from Thanet and other districts in East Kent. If support for
employment is the local councils’ serious objective, then it should be focused
on the rail and shipping services, especially as these have far lower negative
impacts.

A very detailed study of the effects of noise on house prices was carried out
in Birmingham (The valuation of transport-related noise in Birmingham, DfT
November, 2004). This gave a value of £135 per annum in increased rental
value, at 1997 rental values, for just a 1 dB reduction in railway noise from
80 to 79 dB Leq. This would of course translate to higher values for aviation
because of its more disturbing characteristics.

The "Environmental Economy" is worth £8bn in the South East (source:

SEEDA). Much of that is due to tourism, and tourists come to the south east
because of the historic beauty and for the tranquillity of the area.
Encouraging aviation is contrary to that vision, and would therefore damage
the environmental economy.

However against the small economic benefit of some employment and

income taxes, are the huge losses due to people flying abroad and spending
their money overseas. The UK’s tourism deficit is around £14 bn, and for
Thanet, which has traditionally benefited from tourism, any further damage
to its tourist industry (due to noise and pollution) would negate the small
economic benefits.

It is well known that oil supplies are becoming scarcer- one forecast is that
peak output will be achieved next year (2006). While that is debatable, the
price of oil is very high, and shows no signs of imminent decrease. That
being so, the risk of the airport finding it difficult to succeed is very high,
and therefore the Council should fully consider this risk before supporting
airport activities.

The Stratford Report

Page: Paragraph: Comment:

1 1.1 The final paragraph says: "As a general point, a number of the
issues raised are difficult to properly assess since it has not been possible to
review, or establish the existence, of background studies by the airport, such
as any relating to environmental assessment, surface transport assessment,
forecasts for the next 5 to 10-year period of expected air traffic growth, and
the nature of this traffic." If the council’s own consultants cannot come to an
opinion on issues, then how does the council expect the public to do so?
2 1.2 The report is apparently purely a ‘desk report’ and it provides no
guarantees of accuracy or timeliness, which seems surprising.

3 2.2 It quotes paragraph 3.2 of the Aviation White Paper, which

requires that the economic benefits of night flights must be assessed on "a
case-by-case basis". This means that each night flight must be justified by
the airport. As SASIG (to which Thanet District Council subscribes) has
already stated that there is no economic justification for night flights, this
means that any night-flying policy only needs to cover dire emergencies
where life could be at risk.

3 2.3 Manston is a designated airport under Section 35 of the Civil

Aviation Act 1982, by virtue of SI 2002/2421, so the Airport Consultative
Committee is a statutory requirement.

5 2.4 The penultimate paragraph refers to the UK regulations achieving

a reduction in the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise,
so this must be the target.

5 2.5 The second paragraph reinforces the need to manage noise. The
UK National Ambient Noise Strategy requires that noise does not increase
and in particular stresses the need "to preserve environmental noise quality
where it is good." As east Kent generally has a tranquil environment, this
need is of paramount importance, especially as research shows that change
in noise is important (see below). Aviation noise is well known to be the
most intrusive of the different forms of transport noise – the hierarchy is
accepted as being: road, rail, aircraft.

6 2.6 This section can now be amended to include Planning Policy

Statements. PPS 1 covers the objectives of the planning system, requiring
recognition of the limits of the environment to accept further development
without irreversible damage. Likewise the new UK Sustainable Development
Strategy, Securing the Future (7 March, 2005) first guiding principle is:
‘Living within environmental limits’.

6 2.7 Reference is only made to residential developments, but PPG 24

also refers to noise-sensitive buildings such as schools and hospitals. As the
th
public meeting at Chatham house School showed (11 April, 2005), noise
from aircraft passing overhead prevented speech being heard, and that was
despite an amplifying system being in use. Hence aeroplanes using the
airport must be sufficiently quiet to avoid such problems.

8 3.1 The first sentence is misleading. While noise is the major,

immediately obvious, environmental impact, the consequential impacts of an
airport are far greater. These impacts include that of climate change and air
pollution, caused both by the airport activities themselves and the
infrastructure associated with the airport – especially, in the case of
Manston, road traffic. Therefore all the impacts, and their costs, need to be
included, before any benefits from the activities can be considered. As
indicated in Paragraph 1.1 above, the lack of a forecasts for development
and hence the lack of a full assessment of the potential impacts of such a
forecast, means that the airport should only be operating services as allowed
in the existing Certificates of Lawful Use.

8 3.1 The second paragraph is wrong. While research has been carried
out, there are still huge gaps in knowledge about the noise environment and
its effects around airports. In addition there is evidence continuing to
emerge the psychological effects of noise. So the precautionary principle
must be applied to avoid damage to people’s health and well being. This is
very important in Thanet’s case because it has been shown (for example at
the Seattle Tacoma Airport) that the adverse effects are concentrated
around an airport, while the benefits are provided to people well away from
the airport. The people in the rest of Kent may appreciate the self-sacrifice
of the people of Thanet in providing the airport, but it is Thanet that would
suffer the worst effects.

8 3.2 Here again the complexity of noise has been over-simplified. A

cursory glance at tables of logarithms will show that a doubling (log 2) is
actually 3.01 dB.

8 3.4 The last sentence shows why using an average, such as Leq, is
totally misleading when applied to relatively noisy events such as aircraft
landing and taking off. Current measurement of noise using Leq hides the
impact of the great variation in noise levels as an aeroplane goes over,
especially if A-weighted filtering is used, which diminishes the low-frequency
end of the noise spectrum.

To quote the Inspector’s report into Heathrow terminal 5 Inquiry (paragraph

21.3.32 et seq.): "The expert witness for the Department (of Transport) did
not attempt to hide the deficiencies of Laeq measures in general and Laeq
16-hour in particular. He accepted that the relationship between Laeq and
community annoyance was statistically weak. … The greatest single criticism
of the Laeq approach was that it failed to give adequate weight to the
number of aircraft movements. As the Department acknowledged, even a
difference of half a decibel could be significant and the area enclosed by a
contour could increase by 15% to 20% for each 1 dB increase in Laeq level…
The Department accepted that many complaints came from people living
outside the area exposed to 55 dB…The evidence confirms the Department’s
view that the contours are not faultless and that other factors can and must
be taken into account. "
More recent work for CPRE (Aviation, Noise and the Countryside, Transport
Research Laboratory June 2003) shows that changes in noise levels are
particularly significant. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges shows that
just a 1 dB change in noise increases the number of people bothered by
20%, but there is no comparable data for aviation noise. Given the
disturbing nature of aviation noise, the disturbance due to a change in noise
levels is likely to be even higher than for changes in road noise.

Noise is basically vibration, and if the noise is loud enough it can cause
vibration damage to buildings. In addition aeroplanes can cause turbulence –
at least one event is known to have removed roof tiles. Hence any future
agreement needs to include restrictions to avoid such damage, by ensuring
both that the flight paths are sufficiently high and that the noise and
turbulence is sufficiently low to avoid damage.

Hence more precise tools are needed for showing aviation noise impacts,
including Lmax. The number of events is also important.

12 3.8 This shows the importance of proper radar to track aircraft

movements, which should be an essential requirement for continuing use of
the airport.

12 3.9 The third paragraph refers to the importance of the local

authority having a suitably qualified independent source to monitor and
advise on noise issues. The independence of this source is paramount if
impartial advice is to be given.

13 3.10 The last sentence refers to the reporting of action taken as a

result of complaints. This is the major gap in the complaints system, as it
appears that little action is taken, despite complaints.

14 to 19 We would expect that the council wish to implement the best

practice for the airport, to maintain the environmental quality of the district.
Looking through these summaries, such practice would include:
Limitation of operating hours: weekdays from 0630 to 2130, Saturdays 0630
to 1230, Sundays 1230 to 2130, Bank holidays 0900 to 2130
• Daily limits on ATMs, including limits for weekdays and weekends
• Limitation on factored ATMs based on noise category
• A maximum permitted noise level
• Approach of 5.5 degrees or steeper
• Noise surcharge on planes exceeding noise limits
• Noise monitoring from four monitoring points
• Landing and take-off fees including charges related to Gross vehicle
weight, noise level and emissions
 • Noise contours that reduce in size year on year

Track-keeping system
Detailed response to all complainants

21 5.2 The penultimate paragraph refers again to the lack of noise

contours and lack of forecasts.

21 5.2 The final paragraph refers to the need for Sound Exposure Level
measurements of the Fokker aircraft used by EUJet. However, the council
needs to put in place management that will cover any prospective aircraft,
hence the best practices listed above are what is required.

22 6.2 The first sentence is misleading. At least four ‘city’ airports have
no night flights (Belfast, London, Norwich and Southend) while the rest have
restrictions of some sort. As Manston is effectively a city airport because of
its proximity to Ramsgate, the best practice of those with no night flights
must be followed, especially in view of the lack of economic justification for
night flights.

22 to 28 6 The consultants identify numerous weaknesses in the

existing Section 106. It is astonishing that the council has gone out to
consultation without indicating that it will incorporate these criticisms into
the draft revised agreement. Section 6.16 highlights why there has been so
much concern about Manston, because the monitoring and enforcement has
not been visible, if indeed it has been taking place. As the council has a legal
duty to care for its inhabitants, we expect the council to state firmly its
intention to implement rigorous monitoring and enforcement, as well as
correcting the weaknesses described here.

24 6.7 Good practice requires at least two noise monitors at each

end of the runway.

29 to 32 7 This brief review of some other agreements, shows that

management of Manston needs to include:
• A minimum public transport modal share for all traffic coming to the
airport- at least 40% should be the initial target
• Financial obligations to pay for associated infrastructure such as public
transport, rail and roads
• Good practice as shown above

39 Appendix B2: These summer 2005 contours show the contours

expanding beyond that of summer 2001, and hence a deteriorating noise
environment.