Last chance! Get your submission in now!

Riveroak Strategic Partners (RSP) consultation ends today.  Weren’t aware of it? Didn’t know? You are not alone.

Huge swathes of the flight path have been ignored in their alleedged attempt to contact people affected by their proposal.  We’ve had people contacting us in their droves saying they knew nothing about this.

You need to respond to RSP with your concerns and we’d advise you copy in Thanet District Council as well.  We’d be really pleased if you copied us in too.  All emails provided below.

At No Night Flights we’ve been beavering away on our own submission which may help you with some points of your own.  Apologies, we know it’s long but the consultation that RSP have conducted has been so deeply flawed and inadequate that we needed to go into the detail of this.  It’s still massively clearer than their documentation and much easier to read!

Enjoy it here.

For all your responses:

Send to: manstonconsultation@bdb-law.co.uk (RiverOak)

Copy in:
Cllr-Chris.wells@thanet.gov.uk (leader of TDC)
Iain.livingstone@thanet.gov.uk (head of planning)
Madeline.homer@thanet.gov.uk (chief executive)
Adrian.Verrall@Thanet.gov.uk (Officer head of local plan )
Manstonairport@pins.gsi.gov.uk (planning inspectorate)

For Herne Bay Residents
Ian.brown@canterbury.gov.uk (head of planning and regeneration)
Simon.cook@canterbury.gov.uk (leader of Canterbury City Council)

Also if residents could send us copies of the emails or even just to say you have sent one to the above addresses that would be great. the email address for Nnf is now no.night.flights140@gmail.com

Angry? You should be. So now what?

RSP says at in their PIER document 12.9.56: “In Year 20 approximately 10,139 dwellings are forecast to be exposed to maximum noise levels in excess of 80 dB LASmax at night.”

What does this mean?

1. 10,139 dwellings probably means 20,000 to 30,000 people
2. 80 dB LASmax means that these people will hear a number of planes, each making a noise of 80dB, at night. 80 dB is loud, very loud, especially at night when you’re trying to sleep
3. What is RSP planning to do to protect these people? Nothing. Absolutely nothing
4. Why is that? Because RSP claims that nobody notices an 80dB plane going over until there have been 18 of them in a night and RSP will have only 8 a might.

You might want to write to our MPs, Gale and Mackinlay, and ask them if this is what they want for tens of thousands of their constituents – up to 18 flights a night at 80dB and no protction from RSP whatsoever. (If it is what they want, let’s vote them out)

You might want to respond to RSP (and do copy PINS) telling them this falls far short of the World Health Organisation’s guidelines (it does) and that it will affect our health and well-being (it will) and that you are against it and that you want RSP to commit to an 8 hour night curfew.

You might want to tell PINS that nobody, nobody, from RSP has explained to you what this means, nor even drawn it to your attention. If you didn’t know that this level of night noise is in RSP’s plans PLEASE tell PINS that you have just learned this from us and that you’re horrified. We’re sure you are.

 

We’re shocked by just how badly RSP plans to treat us, and our opinion of RSP’s behaviour to the local community was pretty low to start with. Seriously, this makes it clear that they don’t intend to take account of their impact on us at all.

Sadly, there is loads of other stuff like this that RSP is hiding in its 3,900 pages. Don’t feel you need to wait before you tell RSP, PINS and the RSP groupies -Gale and Mackinlay – what you think. Nothing’s stopping any of us from sending in more than one response.

Here’s the list of email addresses to send your response to the RiverOak (RSP) consultation. It’s probably best to send to RSP as the main address and CC the others in.

manstonconsultation@bdb-law.co.uk (RSP)
Cllr-Chris.wells@thanet.gov.uk (leader of TDC)
Iain.livingstone@thanet.gov.uk (head of planning)
Madeline.homer@thanet.gov.uk (chief executive)
Adrian.Verrall@Thanet.gov.uk (Officer head of local plan )
Manstonairport@pins.gsi.gov.uk (planning inspectorate)

For Herne Bay Residents
Ian.brown@canterbury.gov.uk (head of planning and regeneration)
Simon.cook@canterbury.gov.uk (leader of Canterbury City Council)
Also if residents could send us copies of the emails or even just to say you have sent one to the above addresses that would be great. the email address for Nnf is now no.night.flights140@gmail.com

Here’s a little quiz for you.

Ready?

What do the following have in common?

Manston School House Nursery
Chatham and Clarendon Grammar School
The Elms Nursery School
Priory County Infant School
Masque Theatre School
Fledglings Nursery School
Ellington School
Christchurch Church
Spitfire and Hurricane Memorial Building
Pie Factory Music

Any thoughts?

Thinking it’s maybe that they provide valuable learning/leisure/spiritual activities for our young people?
Wrong.

Thinking they are vitally important centres for community and other activity?
Wrong.

Thinking they are all schools or nurseries….but wait a minute, there’s a church in there and……
Wrong.

No. These are all non-residential places of activity that will ‘significantly’ be affected by adverse noise effects if RSP get their way.

To quote from RSP’s extensive literature – “the significant effect will be characterised by potential disruption, disturbance or interference with tasks by the users of the buildings.”

“The users of the buildings”. That’s your children. The tasks that might be disrupted – that’s their learning, their reading, their sporting activities, their music playing, their acting, their praying, their ‘quiet’ time, their music listening, their attention to the teacher, their playing, their interaction with their peers. And what about their teachers. Their tasks will be disrupted too. “The users of the buildings” are under threat, make no mistake.

Please draw particular attention to this post to anyone who knows, or loves or cares about ‘users of these buildings’.

The screen shot is taken from RSP’s PIER Vol II Chapter 12.

27356080_189326835147378_5897498999433330003_o.png

RSP don’t want to inform you – we do!

We know that significant numbers of you under the flight path were not directly contacted by Riveroak Strategic Partners (RSP) to inform you about their consultation.

This doesn’t make for a properly conducted consultation.

No Night Flights has always aimed to make sure that people are in possession of the facts and that they are informed about any opportunity to make their views known.

Thanks, yet again, to the generosity of determined campaigners and residents, we are bringing our latest leaflet to you which gives you key facts and information about the latest consultation.  You should be getting one through your letterbox if you live on the flight path.

27072445_189198468493548_3049540763376879406_n.jpg

Send your views to manstonconsultation@bdb-law.co.uk

Or post to Consultation, Bircham Dyson Bell, 50 Broadway, London SW1H

By 16th February

RSP want night flights, that’s for sure

RSP have repeated so often that they don’t want night flights, that they don’t need night flights that many people have convinced themselves that this must be the truth.

Yet in their new documentation it is as clear as day that their intention is to send very many planes over our heads during the night.  It’s not surprising that they’ve had to come clean eventually but the sheer scale of what they are intending is a real shock.  And a real wake up call to residents as the numbers of people contacting us reveal.

An airport’s quota count (QC) is basically a budget for noise. Each type of airplane has a QC – which determines how noisy it is, so, for example a Boeing 747 is really very noisy and has a QC of 4.  You can learn more about QC here.  Last year, Heathrow’s QC was reduced. This means it’s overall noise budget for the year for night time flying was reduced – down to 5,150 a year from 5,498.  Residents near Heathrow have protested long and hard and have managed to use quite a bit of political pressure.  RSP wants a QC budget of 6,000.  Yes.  Higher than Heathrow. With a QC count less than that, Heathrow had on average 15 flights during the night during 2015-16. And Heathrow doesn’t allow planes with noise levels as high as  QC 4 rated planes to fly at night BUT RSP’s plans allow for planes at that noise level.  Planes noisier than those allowed at Heathrow to be allowed at Manston.

RSP continue to tell people that this is all just a ‘worst case scenario’ and that the QC is simply to allow for planes that run late or that it allows for up to 8 flights a night.  It’s not in their interest to make clear to people what an allowance of that size could actually mean.  As the evidence from Heathrow and other airports show, a QC allowance of 6,000 could mean very many more than 8 planes a night, every night.

Independent noise experts have assessed what night time flying means for the residents of Ramsgate.  In 2010 they let TDC know that with a Boeing 747 flying into Manston the population significantly affected by that noise level would be around 30,000 people.  Their recommendation to TDC at that time was that the adverse impact on such a significant chunk of the population was simply unacceptable. And we say it is simply unacceptable now.

Make sure you email RSP at manstonconsultation@bdb-law.co.uk

The Planning Inspectorate are also interested in your views about the consultation and how inadequate it has been, how much in the dark you remain and how concerned you are about the impact on your health, the environment, our heritage and our economy. Write to them at manstonairport@pins.gsi.gov.uk

From a report for the Airports Commission, 2015:

 

Both daytime (LAeq 16 hour) and night-time (Lnight) aircraft noise exposure were related to increased risk for a cardiovascular hospital admission. Compared to those exposed to aircraft noise levels below 51dB in the day-time, those exposed to aircraft noise levels over 63dB in the day-time had a 24% higher chance of a hospital admission for stroke; a 21% higher chance of a hospital admission for coronary heart disease; and a 14% higher chance of a hospital admission for cardiovascular disease. These estimates took into account age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and lung cancer mortality as a proxy for smoking. These results were also not accounted for by air pollution, which was adjusted for in the analyses. Similar effects were also found between aircraft noise exposure and mortality for stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. The study concluded that high levels of aircraft noise were associated with increased risks of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease for both hospital admissions and mortality in areas near Heathrow airport.