Pictures of E Hodgkins holiday in Ramsgate 1928     |        thanetonline blog   More pictures   Even more pictures                                                    Title 65 Hi guys and gals, I think I may have identified a reason for the undue haste with which this proposal is being pursued. In 2003 the Department of Transport had to introduce measures to implement European Directive 2002/30/EC - Noise-related restrictions at Community Airports. The legislation repealed the old hushkit legislation, which sought to force aircraft operators to fit quieter engines to their planes and, instead, put the onus on the airport operator to reduce night-time noise disturbance around their airport. However, it only applied to big airports. The government proposed extending the night-time period at the London airports to 8 hours. The proposal was that night-time should be 2300-0700 instead of 2330-0600. Predictably, BAA objected and the DfT took their side. The night period has remained 2330-0600 at the London airports. However, five years on and the issue is being reviewed. The European Commission has concluded that the Directive has been ineffective in reducing exposure to night-time noise, largely because member states have not properly implemented it. The CPRE has published its own response to the new consultation agreeing that it has been ineffective. I believe that the government is being forced to review its implementation of 2002/30/EC and that extending the night-time period at the London airports is back on the agenda. I believe that BAWC could be trying to pull a fast one by moving their operations out of Stansted before any changes come into effect. The Directive would not apply to Manston because the number of aircraft movements is too few. If I am right, the information being presented to Councillors is highly misleading. It suggests that the 106 needs to be altered to extend the night period, because this is the night-period at the other airports in the running for BAWC's business. How would Infratil know which other airports are bidding for this business? This would be confidential information which BAWC would not release. The only thing they can know for certain is that Stansted will not want to lose the cargo business and will undoubtedly be bidding itself. But, if Stansted is facing the prospect of an extended night period, Infratil could be seeking to create a commercial advantage by getting the night period reduced at Manston. This would just be the thin end of the wedge. As soon as they get permission to fly at 2330, they'll start lobbying for 2400. As soon as they get permission for 0600 they'll start wanting 0500. Someone has to draw a line and, in a quiet area like Ramsgate, the line has to be pretty early. In my opinion (and I know I'm not alone) Manston is unsuitable for night freight business and, should be restricted to running day-time operations. There are other aiprot in the UK that are far better suited to night-time operations and they should be used for this sort of business. I might be wrong. This might all just be a ploy by BAWC to force down costs by threatening to leave Stansted. However, I think it would be rash and irresponsible of Councillors to authorise changes to the 106 until they have a full picture. They should be assuring themselves that this request to change the Section 106 Agreement isn't just a ploy give Thanet residents less protection against night-time noise than is given to residents living around the London airports. P.S. For three years since Infratil took over the airport they have done nothing about reviewing the Section 106 Agreeement. This review is years overdue and Infratil has failed to meet its obligation. Having ignored the document for three years, the Council is suddenly expected to drop everything and jump to Infratil's tune when they spot the opportunity of making a fast buck. Can anyone explain what Infratil has done to warrant such slavish subservience from our Council?