KENT INTERNATIONAL (MANSTON) AIRPORT – RESULTS OF...

BW/ST/JF(484)

KENT INTERNATIONAL (MANSTON) AIRPORT – RESULTS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION REGARDING THE EXISTING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT

To: Finance, Best Value and Performance Review Panel – 7 July 2005Full Council – 21 July 2005

Main Portfolio Area: Development Services

By: Brian White - Head of Environmental Services

Classification: Unrestricted

Ward: Whole of Thanet

Summary: This report contains the results of the public consultation undertaken and invites Members to consider and agree the issues to be included in the successor Section 106 Agreement.

The report explains the scope of ongoing work to examine the technical/statistical performance of the existing Section 106 Agreement since 2000.

Finally, the report recommends a framework for carrying the Council’s position, informed by public opinion and technical appraisal regarding the Airport operations, into negotiations for the successor Section 106 Agreement.

For Decision

1.0 Introduction and Background

1.1 In 2004, Council agreed that public consultation be undertaken concerning the existing Section 106 Agreement.

1.2 The Finance, Best Value and Performance Review Panel has overseen the process of setting up and implementing public consultation. Throughout it has been cognitive of minute 54(A) of 2004, “that the Chief Executive, or his nominee, be authorised to prepare appropriate questionnaires and leaflets for the public consultation in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Leader of the Opposition”.

1.3 Because of the importance and complexity of the Section 106 Agreement, a Member Working Party reporting back to the Panel has been agreed and established. The remit of the Working Party is, “to oversee the evaluation of the existing Section 106 Agreement and the process of public consultation, analysis of feedback and production of reports (minute R317A). Membership comprises:

Councillor M Roberts“ D Green“ W Hayton“ M Tomlinson

1

Councillor R Nicholson“ M Harrison“ A Poole“ D Hart“ S Tomlinson“ Mrs J Kirby

The Working Party is facilitated by Mr John Bunnett, Strategic Director.

1.4 The Working Party has met on 2 February, 15 February, 21 March, 9 and 28 June.

1.5 The Working Party is maintaining an interest in three discrete streams of work:

- public consultation on the existing Section 106 Agreement;

- the assembly of technical information regarding performance of the Agreement since it was signed in 2000;

- the Night-Time Flying Policy 2005, and its monitoring reports.

The Panel has agreed that the Working Party should remain in place until at least Full Council in September.

1.6 Public consultation has been structured to include the following:

(i) Public Meetings in Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate. Attendees at these three meetings were invited to take part in focus groups;

(ii) Public Meetings in the parishes of Manston, Acol, Minster, Monkton, Cliffsend and St Nicholas;

(iii) Road Show of the district by coach visiting 13 principal locations over daytime, evening and weekend periods.

(iv) Engagement of MORI to:

- produce a widely distributed questionnaire;- conduct a 500 person telephone interview;- design and conduct 10 key stakeholder interviews.

(v) Establishment of a website about the Section 106 Agreement;

(vi) Radio and newspaper campaign to raise awareness;

(vii) Two public meetings at Sturry and Herne Bay, within the Canterbury district.

1.7 MORI has produced a report on the work it conducted. That report is attached at Appendix 1. MORI was commissioned to produce its own report with key findings. It was considered important that the Council did not, and could not be said to, show any bias in its consultation programme.

1.8 The purpose of the Council’s own work on consultation was twofold. First, to impart information about the existing Section 106 Agreement, and then to listen to and capture feedback. In this regard it is understood that there are no conclusions to consultation. Rather, the results and content of what communities said can usefully

2

inform debate and highlight areas of concern to carry forward into the successor Agreement.

1.9 To facilitate a consistent approach at all Public Meetings, the same format was followed. It included a presentation from the Head of Environmental Services, with the Environmental Health Manager, Mr Paul Martin, available to answer questions on noise monitoring and air quality. Each meeting also included a presentation from Planestation, made by either the Airport Director, Mr Alastair Robertson, or Mr Paul Tipple. The presentations were followed by a ‘Question and Answer’ session with the public. Comments were noted and included in the consultation feedback. The Public Meetings in Margate, Broadstairs, Ramsgate and the Canterbury district were all chaired by Sir Alister Hunter, Chairman of the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee.

2.0 The Current Situation

2.1 The consultation process generated the following outputs, all of which are attached to this report:

Appendix I - The MORI Report;

Appendix II - A summary of public opinion expressed at Public Meetings, at Town and Parish meetings, and the Section 106 Road Show;

Appendix III - Consultation response from the Council for the Protection of Rural England;

Appendix IV - A suggested future Section 106 Agreement provided by the Manston Airport Group (MAG);

Appendix V - Consultation response from Monkton Parish Council;

Appendix VI - Report to Canterbury City Council Executive – 21 June 2005.

2.2 The appendices contain the results of the market research and the wider public consultation expressed during the three month period of the consultation period. Written consultation responses from organisations are all appended. This ensures that those concerned can be confident that what they put in writing is being made available to Council. Letters and e-mails from individuals are not appended, but all have been acknowledged, recorded and retained on file.

2.3 The results of the consultation are self-evident from the appended material. Some differences in emphasis can be noted between different geographical areas. For example, those living beneath flight paths were more likely to be concerned about noise, night-time flying and the aircraft routes, the latter being a concern highlighted in particular by residents at a Public Meeting in Herne Bay. At that meeting most speakers identified a need for ground radar enabling individual aircraft movements to be tracked and recorded.

2.4 Perhaps because consultation was coincident with the 2005 Night-Time Flying Policy, the subject of night flying was raised at all Public Meetings. Planestation made the point that night flying would not normally be sought in the future, because it is expensive in terms of staffing and not necessarily attractive to customers.

3

2.5 Most parts of the consultation programme revealed a low awareness of the precise content of the Section 106 Agreement and how it aims to control environmental impacts of the Airport. Relatively little feedback was received, in terms of volume, about how Planning Law could control the Airport. On the other hand, some consultees were very well informed and interested in this subject.

2.6 At this stage it is possible, from public consultation and market research, to identify broad issues, and therefore subject matter, to be accounted for in the successor Section 106 Agreement.

ISSUES SUBJECT(to be carried forward to the

successor Section 106 Agreement)

(i) Public understanding of the Section 106 Agreement and what it does is low.

Clarify and improve monitoring reports, and provide regular updates to the public.

(ii) Public awareness of current plans and potential expansion of the Airport is low.

- Planestation to articulate its plans;- these to be reflected in the Section 106 Agreement.

(iii) Noise is more likely to be a problem for those living beneath the flight path.

- Improved noise monitoring, reporting and logging of aircraft movements;

- Better information available to the public.

(iv) Opposition was expressed at Public Meetings to Night-Time Flying.

- Review of the Summer 2005 statistics, and control via cut-off times, or quota.

(v) Off-route aircraft. - A clear programme for installation of ground radar enabling aircraft movement logging.

- Logging to be linked to noise monitoring.

(vi) Runway use, and reason why direction of arrival/departure changes.

- Wider reporting of runway use and clearer explanation of runway selection.

(vii) Public understanding of ‘humanitarian/emergency flights’.

- Clearer definitions needed.

4

ISSUES SUBJECT(to be carried forward to the

successor Section 106 Agreement)

(viii) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) not applied by the Planning Authority.

- Explicit triggers set within the context of the Airport’s expansion programme for EIA.

- Cross-referenced to Airport Masterplan.

(ix) Penalties inappropriate. - To review against Aviation Industry.

(x) Air pollution. - Improve reporting and maintain monitoring at Best Practice.

(xi) Perception that cargo flights will increase, with increased environmental impact (especially noise).

- Explicit expansion/business growth plans from Planestation.

- Explicit triggers within the Section106 Agreement at appropriate levels to mitigate environmental impacts.

(xii) Poor handling of complaints. - Explicit procedure for capture, investigation and reporting.

- Clarity role of Local Authority.

(xiii) Disturbance from early morning (06.00 – 07.00) flights.

- Include with Night-Time Flying review.

(xiv) Noise monitoring is inadequate.

- within the Section 106 Agreement, and in proportion to increased numbers of aircraft movement, expand reporting from existing permanent monitoring and deploy the mobile monitoring equipment. Stipulate appropriate triggers to extend monitoring.

3.0 Framework for Development of the Successor Section 106 Agreement

5

3.1 The Airport Working Party has maintained a high level of knowledge about the current operations of the Airport. It has produced valuable steerage on the production of information and reports.

3.2 Initially, the focus was the programme of public consultation, but it has also taken an overview of the technical information being collected regarding the performance of the existing Section 106 Agreement since 2000.

The aviation consultants, Stratford, have been instructed to assemble the final data on noise contours, runway usage, total aircraft movement (by category), etc. in order that a technical commentary with trends on how well the Agreement has worked can be produced, and reported to Full Council in September.

This report will comprise an additional chapter to the Stratford report. Effectively, the work will comprise an additional layer of information to reinforce that provided by public consultation.

3.3 The framework for collection of information and reporting is shown below:

Public Consultation

Main subject areas raised with Planestation

Technical Appraisal ofSection 106 Agreement

DetaildevelopedwithPlanestation

Review of Night-Time Flying Policy

SuccessorSection 106Agreement

3.4 Because the Section 106 Agreement is voluntary, construction of the new document will rely on the participation of Planestation. It is therefore essential that Planestation remains fully informed, and engaged in the process of putting into place the new Agreement.

6

Working Party

Finance Best Value

Performance Review Panel

Council October 2004

Finance Best Value

Performance Review Panel

CouncilJuly 2005

Working PartyFinance Best

Value Performance Review Panel

CouncilSeptember

2005

Working PartyFinance Best

Value Performance Review Panel

CouncilDecember

2005

4.0 Options

4.1 Agree the recommendations of the report.

4.2 Amend the recommendations of the report.

5.0 Corporate Implications

5.1 Financial

5.1.1 There are no financial implications of this report. Officer time and meetings necessary to properly address this important subject is funded from approved revenue budgets.

5.2 Legal

5.2.1 There are no legal implications of this report. At this stage the Council is merely gathering information and receiving opinion before advancing towards the next Section 106 Agreement.

5.3 Corporate

5.3.1 The Council has carried out a comprehensive consultation process. It must now reinforce the process by keeping all interested parties informed.

6.0 Recommendations

6.1 That Full Council receive this report and endorse the content of paragraph 2.6 as the subject of further detailed work on the successor Section 106 Agreement.

6.2 That Full Council agrees the framework for development of the successor Section 106 Agreement (set out in section 3 of the report), and receives a further report regarding the technical performance of the Airport against the content of the existing Section 106 Agreement at its September meeting.

6.3 That the Airport Working Party continues to work with Officers and meet as necessary on this subject, and reports via the Finance, Best Value and Performance Review Panel, to the Council’s Section 106 team to support it in representing Thanet in negotiating the successor Section 106 Agreement with Planestation.

7.0 Decision-making Process

7.1 This matter is a key decision.

7.2 The decision is subject to call-in.

Contact Officer: Brian White – Head of Environmental Services – Extension 7007

7

Appendix II

Summary of Public Consultation Opinions expressed at Town and Parish Public Meetings and at the 106 Roadshows

summary of public consultation opinions report June 2005

Summary of Public Meetings and Roadshow Consultation Feedback

This appendix features a summary of the comments expressed by local people in the towns and villages of Thanet at public meetings and 106 roadshows. These were held in the district throughout a three-month consultation period.

This appendix is made up of three parts:• A report summarising in graph format the views of those who volunteered to take

part in focus groups at the town meetings held in Broadstairs, Margate and Ramsgate. These groups answered questions based on a topic guide which featured questions relating to the 106 agreement.

• A table summarising the general comments expressed during the public consultation meetings related to the places in the district where those views/concerns were raised most.

• A spreadsheet summary of the feedback specifically relating to the content of a S106 agreement which were recorded at the town and parish public meetings and at the roadshows.

This appendix does not contain the analysis of the MORI public consultation survey questionnaires which can be found in Appendix I. The following data draws together people’s views and comments and highlights their particular areas of concern.

summary of public consultation opinions report June 2005

Planestation/Thanet District Council S106 Public Consultation:

Analysis of Focus Group Feedback from the Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs public meetings

Three public town meetings were held in Broadstairs, Margate and Ramsgate during the S106 consultation. A standard format was used for the meetings and people were invited to participate in focus groups before the open forum where they could express their views at the microphone. The focus group were facilitated by council officers.

The purpose of the focus groups was to provide people with the opportunity to participate in the consultation process away from the question and answer forum and enable people to express their views in relation to the questions contained in a 106 topic guide.

The report contains the comments from three focus group meetings in Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs. The Ramsgate group had an attendance of 74, divided into eight groups. In both Margate and Broadstairs there was an attendance of 14, divided into two

groups, one of which consisted of six councillors. The percentage has been calculated for all questions by the attendance

number, that is 74 or 14. Some of the questions were multiple answer, for these percentage totals

more than 100%.

Q1a: How much do you feel you know about the proposed airport expansion?

The majority from all three groups said they had heard of airport expansion but knew nothing about it.

Both the groups from Margate said they had heard of airport expansion but knew nothing about it.

Planestation/Thanet District Council S106 Focus GroupPublic Consultation 1: 07/07/05

Question 1a

0.0020.00

40.0060.00

80.00100.00

Know alot

Know afair

amount

Know alittle

Heard ofbut knownothing

Neverheardabout

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Q1b: Do you support or oppose the proposed airport expansion?

Groups could record more than one response, so that the bars on the chart represent the percentage from the groups who expressed a particular response.

A majority from Margate, 86%, supported the expansion Two-thirds of the Ramsgate group were opposed to expansion Just over half, 52%, from Ramsgate opposed on environmental grounds. The Broadstairs group either supported or opposed expansion

Q1c: What are the advantages of the proposed airport expansion?


The councillors group in Broadstairs did not register any opinion The Margate group thought the advantages would be economic, opting for the

creation of new jobs and boosting the economy Travel convenience was the greatest advantage perceived by the Ramsgate

group [55%], the only town to select this option. Opinion in Broadstairs was equally divided between new jobs, boosting the

economy and a higher profile for Thanet.


Question 1b

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

Opp

ose

Opp

ose

onen

viro

nmen

tal

grou

nds

Opp

ose

onec

onom

icgr

ound

s

Opp

ose

onso

cial

grou

nds

Sup

port

Uns

ure

% o

f res

pons

esRamsgate Margate Broadstairs

Question 1c

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

Cre

ate

new

jobs

Con

veni

ent f

orho

liday

s/bu

sine

sstra

vel

Pro

vide

boo

st to

econ

omy

Incr

ease

hou

sepr

ices

Hig

her p

rofil

e fo

rTh

anet

Loca

lin

frast

ruct

ure

impr

oved

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Q1d: What are the disadvantages of the proposed airport expansion?


The councillors group in Broadstairs did not register any opinion Ramsgate listed disadvantages in all categories Air and noise pollution cited as the greatest disadvantage by the Ramsgate group

[78%] Margate selected noise, traffic and inadequate infrastructure as the greatest

disadvantages The Broadstairs group was concerned about the increase in flights and noise.

Q2a: What are you feelings about the previous night flight restrictions?

The Councillors group in Margate recorded no opinion The councillors group in Broadstairs did not register any opinion The majority from both Ramsgate [90%] and Broadstairs [43%] supported night

flight restrictions In the Margate group 42% opposed restrictions


Question 1d

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Air

pollu

tion

Incr

ease

infli

ghts

Incr

ease

inno

ise

Incr

ease

intra

ffic

Low

er h

ouse

pric

es

Infra

stru

ctur

eno

t abl

e to

cope

% o

f res

pons

esRamsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Question 2a

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Supportrestrictions

Opposerestrictions

Have nostrong

feelings

Other

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Q2b: What are your feelings on the new proposed flight arrival times between April and September?

The Councillors group in Margate recorded no opinion The councillors group in Broadstairs did not register any opinion In Margate 42% supported new flying times The times were opposed in both Ramsgate [70%] and Broadstairs [28%]

Q2c: What are your feelings on the new proposed flight take off times?

The Councillors group in Margate recorded no opinion There were no recorded responses from Broadstairs Opinion in Ramsgate was almost equally divided


Question 2b

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Support newflying times

Oppose newflying times

Other

% o

f res

pons

esRamsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Question 2c

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Support f lyingtimes

Oppose flyingtimes

Other

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Q2d: Are the current regulations restrictive for the airport operators?

The Councillors group in Margate recorded no opinion There were no recorded responses from Broadstairs The majority in Ramsgate, 58%, did not think the current regulations restrictive.

Q3a: If the airport is to be expanded what do you think needs to be brought with it?


Margate and Broadstairs recorded 100% support for road links. Ramsgate recorded 73% for road links and 85% for rail links.


Question 2d

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Yes No Don't know

% o

f res

pons

esRamsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Question 3a

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Road links Rail links Other Nothing

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Q3b: Can the current infrastructure cope?

There were no recorded responses from Broadstairs All responses from Margate and 76% from Ramsgate did not think the current

infrastructure could cope.

Q3c: Are you aware of a S106 Agreement, drawn up in relation to the airport?

The Councillors group in Margate recorded no opinion There were no recorded responses from Broadstairs Half of the responses from Ramsgate were aware of the agreement 57% from Margate had limited awareness.


Question 3b

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Yes No Don't know

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Question 3c

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Yes No Limitedaw areness

Know morenow

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Q3d: Do you feel the existing 106 has served the area well?

The Councillors group in Margate recorded no opinion There were no recorded responses from Broadstairs More than 60% of responses from Ramsgate did feel that the existing 106 had

served the area well. All the responses from the remaining group from Margate recorded that they did

not know.

Q3e: Are the issues surrounding infrastructure and environment adequately catered for?

The Councillors group in Margate recorded no opinion There were no recorded responses from Broadstairs 60% of responses from Ramsgate said that the issues surrounding infrastructure

and environment were adequately catered for. All the responses from the remaining group from Margate recorded that they did

not know.


Question 3d

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Yes No Don't know

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Question 3e

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Yes No Don't know

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Q3f: How effective has the current 106 been in ensuring a good deal for Thanet?

The Councillors group in Margate recorded no opinion There were no recorded responses from Broadstairs No one thought that the current 106 had been effective. Over half the responses in both Ramsgate [64%] and Margate [57%] said they

did not know how effective the current 106 had been.

Q3g: Who do you believe is currently responsible for monitoring the S106 Agreement?


The Councillors group in Margate recorded no opinion There were no recorded responses from Broadstairs TDC was thought to be the monitoring body by more than 50% of responses in

both Ramsgate [53%] and Margate [57%]. Planestation was named by 57% in Margate but only 9% in Ramsgate.


Question 3f

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Good Poor Don't know

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Question 3g

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

TDC KIACC Planestation Don't Know

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Q4a: Do you feel the airport operators have abided by / shown due consideration for their obligations under the S106 Agreement?

The Councillors group in Margate recorded no opinion The airport operators were thought not to have abided by their obligations by

about half of responses in Ramsgate [47%] and Broadstairs [57%] More than 40% of responses from Broadstairs [43%] thought that the airport

operators had abided by their obligations

Q4b: Are Planestation failing succeeding in regards their obligations?

The Councillors group in Margate recorded no opinion There were no recorded responses from Broadstairs Less than 2% from Ramsgate said no The majority from Ramsgate [55%] said yes


Question 4a

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Yes No Don't know

% o

f res

pons

esRamsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

Question 4b

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Yes No Don't know

% o

f res

pons

es

Ramsgate

Margate

Broadstairs

COMMENTS MADE DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THE BUS CONSULTATION ROAD SHOW

The general comments made in relation to the S106 Agreement during the Public Meetings and the Bus Consultation Roadshow have been drawn together in the tables below to illustrate

a) the most commonly expressed views of people attending the meeting or visiting the busb) the areas in which these views were most predominantly expressed by people attending

PUBLICCOMMENT

LOCATION AT WHICH COMMENTS WERE RAISED

1.NIGHT FLIGHTS

Net

herc

ourt

Clif

fsen

d

Ram

sgat

e

Man

ston

Bro

adst

airs

St N

icho

las

Bir

chin

gton

Min

ster

Aco

l

New

ingt

on

Mar

gate

Mon

kton

Support Airport but don’t want night flights

• • • •

Object to early morning take offs

• • •

Don’t want night flights

• • • • • • •

Concern cargo night flights may expand

• • • • •

Lack of confidence in council to balance commercial & public interest

• • • •

Concern night flights introduced without consultation

• • • • •

PUBLIC COMMENT LOCATION AT WHICH COMMENTS WERE RAISED

2.NOISE LIMITATIONS

Net

herc

ourt

Clif

fsen

d

Ram

sgat

e

Man

ston

Bro

adst

airs

St N

icho

las

Bir

chin

gton

Min

ster

Aco

l

New

ingt

on

Mar

gate

Mon

kton

Dissatisfied with noise monitoring

• • • •

Fokker 100 jets not big problem

• • • • • •

Fear of noise in relation to airport expansion

• • •

Noise unacceptable

• • •

Engine testing a problem

• •

Fear of noise related to cargo flights

• • • • •

Page 121/02/2009C:\Users\malcolm\Documents\106\S106 Consultation-21 July 2005.doc


3.NOISE

MONITORING TERMINALS

Net

herc

ourt

Clif

fsen

d

Ram

sgat

e

Man

ston

Bro

adst

airs

St N

icho

las

Bir

chin

gton

Min

ster

Aco

l

New

ingt

on

Mar

gate

Mon

kton

Monitors incorrectly placed

• • • •

Airport complaint system not effective

• • • • •

More noise monitoring terminals needed

• • •


4. DEPART

URE RUNWAY

S

Net

herc

ourt

Clif

fsen

d

Ram

sgat

e

Man

ston

Bro

adst

airs

St N

icho

las

Bir

chin

gton

Min

ster

Aco

l

New

ingt

on

Mar

gate

Mon

kton

Frequency of departures and landings

• • •

Concern about off route aircraft

• •

Want better monitoring of aircraft movements

• • •

Stricter penalties for flying off route

• • • •

Concern over direction of take-offs and landings

• • • • •



5POLLUTION

MONITORING

Net

herc

ourt

Clif

fsen

d

Ram

sgat

e

Man

ston

Bro

adst

airs

St N

icho

las

Bir

chin

gton

Min

ster

Aco

l

New

ingt

on

Mar

gate

Mon

kton

Concern about spread & smell of aircraft fuel

• • • • •

Call for monitoring specific areas

•

No evidence of any pollution & happy with airport operation

•


6 ENGINE

TESTING

Net

herc

ourt

Clif

fsen

d

Ram

sgat

e

Man

ston

Bro

adst

airs

St N

icho

las

Bir

chin

gton

Min

ster

Aco

l

New

ingt

on

Mar

gate

Mon

kton

Concern about late night early am testing

• • •

Call for full Environmental Impact Study

• • •


7 GREEN

TRAVEL STRATE

GY

Net

herc

ourt

Clif

fsen

d

Ram

sgat

e

Man

ston

Bro

adst

airs

St N

icho

las

Bir

chin

gton

Min

ster

Aco

l

New

ingt

on

Mar

gate

Mon

kton

Improved public transport to the airport

• •

Need improved infrastructure to support the airport

• • •



8SOUND

INSULATION

Net

herc

ourt

Clif

fsen

d

Ram

sgat

e

Man

ston

Bro

adst

airs

St N

icho

las

Bir

chin

gton

Min

ster

Aco

l

New

ingt

on

Mar

gate

Mon

kton

Footprint does not cover area adequately

•


9SUPPORT FOR

AIRPORT

Clif

tonv

ille

Net

herc

ourt

Clif

fsen

d

Ram

sgat

e

Man

ston

Bro

adst

airs

St N

icho

las

Birc

hing

ton

Min

ster

Aco

l

New

ingt

on

Mar

gate

Mon

kton

Convenient for travel

• • • • • •

Created jobs

• • • •

Unconditional support

• • • • • • •


Analysis of 106 Results

1. N

ight

Tim

e Fl

ying

2. G

ener

al N

oise

Lim

itatio

ns

3. D

wel

ling

Insu

latio

n

4. D

epar

ture

Run

way

5. N

oise

Aba

tem

ent

6. N

oise

7. P

ollu

tion

8. N

oise

9. E

ngin

e

10. G

reen

Tra

vel

11. P

enal

ties

12. G

ener

al

Tota

l

Parish MeetingsComments

Acol 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 10Cliffsend 3 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 10Manston 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Minster 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5Monkton 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 12

St. Nicholas 6 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 14 28Subtotal 19 5 0 6 0 4 5 5 1 3 2 20 70

QuestionsAcol 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 4 17

Cliffsend 13 6 2 0 0 1 4 0 2 3 0 0 31Manston 6 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 2 1 19

Minster 5 7 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 10 0 0 30Monkton 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 13

St. Nicholas 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 4 12Sub total 33 15 9 6 2 4 12 6 5 14 5 11 122

Public meetingsComments

Broadstairs 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Margate 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6

Ramsgate 9 3 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 18 39Sturry 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8

Sub total 14 3 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 29 55Questions

Broadstairs 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Margate 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 10

Ramsgate 9 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 17 33Sturry 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

Subtotal 14 0 1 3 1 4 0 2 0 1 3 23 52Bus RoadshowsComments

AcolBirchington 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6Broadstairs 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 7

Cliffsend 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Cliftonville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 6

Manston 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 11Margate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Minster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Monkton 5 0 0 1 4 1 2 0 1 1 1 8 24Nethercourt 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4Newington 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Ramsgate 5 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 13

St Nicholas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Subtotal 21 0 1 1 11 1 6 1 1 3 3 28 77

KENT INTERNATIONAL (MANSTON) AIRPORT – RESULTS OF...

Documents

Transcript of KENT INTERNATIONAL (MANSTON) AIRPORT – RESULTS OF...