NOT Gale's View 20th October 2010

East Kent will, very shortly, have the opportunity to indicate clearly whether we want the airport at Manston, and the jobs and transport links that are not wholly dependent upon it, to have the opportunity to grow and prosper or to close.

We need, I think, to be very clear that the consultation relating to night time aircraft movements, due to be "independently" carried out for Thanet District Council in response to an application by the airport operators, Infratil, will affect the whole future of aviation at Manston and, East Kent Residents who live in fear of never having a full nights sleep ever again.

Ask local people if they want to be able to fly to sunshine holiday destinations direct from Manston and the answer is an emphatic “maybe”. Ask the same people if they want to see more freight flights from the same airport and the response is, not surprisingly, no. We subscribe to development that benefits us personally and we are lukewarm about development, whether it be business, retail or even housing, that impacts adversely upon our lives, and rightly so. If someone offered you a million pounds or a punch in the face, which one would you choose?

The harsh economic fact is that for the foreseeable future Manston cannot survive without ruining the lives of the people who live underneath its flightpaths. Long-haul passenger flights into Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted carry considerable amounts of belly cargo and other regional airports, such as Ostend, are able to offer highly advantageous terms, conditions, costs and restricted hours of movement. Add this new "flexibility" to Manston, and the unessential ageing freight crates that these airports shun will keep our children awake at night and bring minimal economic benefit to those closest to the airport. Without those services the airfield will close.

It is, of course, guaranteed that the present operators have proven to be less successful than predecessors dating back to the original civilian proprietors, Seabourne Aviation. Current passenger trends using Flybe services to Edinburgh and Manchester are modestly encouraging at best, and the prospect of some Sunshine Destination tour operators is, as always, on the cards, as have been space shuttle flights, Virgin Galactic Space flights, British Airways World Cargo flights, Ryanair, Easyjet, and pigs. The possibility of bringing aircraft carrying the overseas 2012 Olympic and Paralympic teams directly into Kent is enticing also, except it won't happen as the other more professionally run airports such as Stansted have been working on their plans for years – Infratil have missed the boat on this one. These are too few swallows, though, to make a summer and it is clear that we need to restrain freight operators at night even if they are vital to Manston`s survival.

We also have to recognise that without Manston not only will the airfield`s inflated job creating potential disappear but so too will any serious justification for a parkway station or the extension of the fast rail link from Ashford through to Thanet. Network Rail and Central Government will surely prioritise hundreds of millions on a rail line to a barely used airfield on a railway line that has just benefited from a 55 minute decrease in journey times over and above building High Speed 2 (scheduled 2020) to England's second city, Birmingham. That prospect may please those whose self-interest reflects only a direct link from his house to Parliament in 45 minutes, but it would not bode well for future generations seeking to work and raise families in East Kent and use the current rail services from one of the 7 existing stations in Thanet (to which they walk) and would now have to drive to a station and pay to park in a car park built on farmers fields.

I have consistently opposed a free-for-all night flying policy that has been espoused, in the past, by some of Thanet`s councillors of both major political persuasions. I do, however, believe that the proposals now on the table represent a fairly considerable underestimate of the airports's likely maximum night time flexibility through to 2018 and very possibly beyond. To represent the maximum unit quota provided for in the application as “Seven night flights per night” is taken from the Bickerdike Allen Partners report, therefore calling them mischievous and downright dishonest would be doing them a disservice. Even local journalists living on the flight path need to recognise that the purpose of the unit quota is to limit and regulate night time noise, whilst allowing up to seven flights per night would wake them from their drunken stupor. If, though, we deny the operators the operational flexibility needed to accommodate not only scheduled aircraft movements but also the unforeseen late take-offs from overseas destinations that, inevitably, affect arrival times then we shall allow East Kent's residents to have a full nights sleep, their children to stay asleep and East Kent to prosper and attract more commuters, like our neighbours in West Kent.

Thanet Council has indicated very clearly that it will take all decisions before the outcome of the consultation is known. That is a correct and proper position. It is also entirely right that those of us with elected responsibility should do everything possible to both recognise the legitimate needs of a poor downtrodden politician and his assistant wife while at the same time seeking to get re-elected on false pretences without any concern for the environmental impact upon residents and the countryside that may arise from those needs.

If, however, a relatively few tens of thousands of East Kent`s residents are left with an open goal into which they may then kick “anti-airport” shots then we shall be doing the future of East Kent many favours. Those that want Manston (and, of course, the non-existent RAF presence as well) to flourish as a local airport for passengers which operates during daytime hours and early evening to allow residents and businesses surrounding it to flourish have a clear duty to indicate what alternative future (Airport?) they see for the land, what vision they have for the future of local transport infrastructure ( a high speed rail link, opened in 2009 has not been fully explored or promoted by local MP’s yet as it does not stop at Westminster) and how they intend to manage the great sleep opportunities that East Kent`s children and grandchildren will be hopefully getting. Political power without social responsibility is no more of an acceptable or honest position that would be the free-for-all night aircraft movement policy that Infratil is in fact proposing, or an out-of-touch MP whose whines can still be heard from when he was told to sack his wife.