I write further to the statement issued by Tony Freudmann to KMTV, which was published yesterday and which is at approximately 19 minutes into the broadcast which can be found at the following link :
attachment 1
In this broadcast, Tony Freudmann is quoted as saying, "Some of the people in Ramsgate are just about having no night flights, some just don't want an airport at all and some worried about noise.
If you look at the Planning Inspectorate you will find the impact assessment which concludes there will be no impact, or if there is it will be negligible."
This statement directly contradicts the information regarding noise which is presented in RSP's application, which, for example, includes the following statements :
"During the daytime:
? Moderate adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate;
? A moderate adverse impact is predicted at Pegwell Bay; and
? Minor adverse impacts are predicted in Manston."
"Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within the communities are subject to minor to moderate adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate, Pegwell Bay and Manston as a result of the Proposed Development. The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of
shared open spaces within these communities during the daytime."
"During the night-time:
? Moderate adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate;
? Minor adverse impacts are predicted in Manston;
? A minor adverse impact is predicted in Wade; and
? A minor adverse impact is predicted in West Stourmouth;"
"Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within the communities are subject to minor to moderate adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate, Manston, Wade and West Stourmouth as a result of the Proposed Development. The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of shared open spaces within these communities during the night-time."
(taken from the Environmental Statement volume which can be found here : attachment 2)
The impacts listed above are, specifically, identified as not being negligible, and this is made clear in the impact assessment.
Can the Planning Inspectorate please advise whether they consider that it is acceptable for an applicant to publish lies or disinformation, about their proposed development, especially when such lies appear to be designed to downplay the likely impacts of the proposals.
If there is another explanation as to why Mr Freudmann has given such a quote containing incorrect information, then I am more than happy to be informed as to what the explanation is.
I'm sure that RSP and BDB will be more than happy to publish a retraction of Tony Freudmann's statement on their own website. Could BDB, on behalf of RSP, confirm whether this will be done.
This email should be considered as a S. 51 request and should therefore be published in full on the relevant section of the Planning Inspectorate website.

We cannot comment on statements made by applicants, or anybody else, which relate to the impacts of a Proposed Development. In this case, the evidence provided in the application documents dated 17 July 2018 is the definitive evidence provided by the Applicant upon which the appointed Examining Authority will commence its examination.
The Planning Inspectorate may consider seeking to clarify comments made by an applicant in the media if they relate to a misrepresentation of the Planning Act 2008 process.
Helpfully your email is copied to RSP/ BDB.