I am writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate.
Firstly, I’m disappointed in the lack of opportunity presented to the 40000 people in Ramsgate to participate in the Consultation. Although RSP saw fit to directly mail and or leaflet people living within a few hundred yards of the site, such an outreach was not offered to Ramsgate’s population. They were expected to find out by reading a local paper (very poor circulation) or by word of mouth via social media. When I contacted RSP to find out why some dwellings near the site had been contacted directly, I was told:
“With regards to your second point, in order to prepare for our application for a Development Consent Order to rebuild and reopen Manston Airport we are legally required to make a ‘diligent inquiry’ to establish who owns and occupies the land that will be affected by the project.”
The implication is that people who live in Ramsgate, under the flight path, won’t be (in RSP’s) view, affected by the Development.
So the likely impact on Ramsgate and its residents was uppermost on my mind when I visited the Ramsgate Consultation. Which brings me to my second point: I managed to talk to one of the Consultants about the anticipated noise levels over Ramsgate. First, he said that it was not possible to give an answer, because the flight paths were not decided. I pointed out that the map he was standing in front of clearly showed several flight paths, both approaching and departing Ramsgate. I pointed out that there were no noise contours on the map. He explained that because the DCO was in respect of the infrastructure alone, then noise didn’t matter.
Is this in fact the case? That the Consultation is only about the bricks, mortar and concrete, and nothing about the environmental impacts of the operation?
My third point concerns the issue of Night Flights. I managed to talk with [a member of the RSP team]. She assured me that Night Flights were only included in the documentation because the CAA required it. There was no intention to have night flights per se, she said.
This appears to be at odds with Q6 of RSP Consultation Feedback form, which says:
“As part of the development of the project, RiverOak have been exploring the potential impacts and benefits of limited night flights at Manston Airport. Night flights will make Manston Airport even more attractive for air freight and will allow us to explore more opportunities for benefits in the region but come with additional impacts. We have assessed for up to eight flights a night but we have not made a decision about whether to include night flights (or how many) in our application” [attachment 1]
So, no night flights or an indeterminate number depending on business opportunities?
I understand that the Consultation is being held under the auspices of the Rochdale Envelope. I looked up a Guidance Note and two things struck me.
“.. taken with those defined parameters of the project, the level of detail of the proposals must be such as to enable a proper assessment of the likely environmental effects, and necessary mitigation - if necessary considering a range of possibilities”
and
“This does not give developers an excuse to provide inadequate descriptions of their projects. It will be for the authority responsible for issuing the development consent to decide whether it is satisfied, given the nature of the project in question, that it has ‘full knowledge’ of its likely significant effects on the environment. If it considers that an unnecessary degree of flexibility, and hence uncertainty as to the likely significant environmental effects, has been incorporated into the description of the development, then it can require more detail, or refuse consent’ (para.95 of the Judgment[sic])” [attachment 2]
This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It seems that RSP has written off Ramsgate. They - it can be concluded from their own words - do not consider the town to be affected by the project.
The Consultation was a farce. One consultant was most unsure as to what he was talking about, and, indeed, seemed to be making it up as he went along. [Another consultant's] assertions were at odds with RSP’s own documentation. And Rochdale Envelope or not, how is it possible to make a meaningful response to a consultation when crucially important information on noise impact and night flights is either missing or contradictory?

I respond to your points under three headings.
Land referencing and diligent inquiry (heading)
In respect of land referencing, please refer to previous advice issued in April 2017: attachment 3
The process of due diligence also applies to an Applicant’s identification of persons who it thinks, if a DCO was made, would or might be entitled to make a relevant claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973; or s152(3) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Such persons are referred to as ‘category 3’ interests.
Where a person is not identified by an Applicant to be a category 3 interest who could make a relevant claim, that person is not precluded from making a relevant claim, or from applying to an appointed Examining Authority to become an Interested Party for the purposes of the examination of an application (under s102(A) of the PA2008).
Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) methodology (heading)
The Proposed Development is EIA development, and Chapter 11 of the Applicant’s Scoping Report identifies the potential for significant noise effects to arise during construction and operation of the proposed airport. It is available to view here: attachment 4 In its Scoping Opinion, the Planning Inspectorate stated that noise and vibration effects are a potential main issue and should be included in the Environmental Statement (ES) for the Proposed Development. The Scoping Opinion is available to view here: attachment 5
The ES will be a material consideration in the Examination of any application that is made.
In respect of the Applicant’s proposed assessment methodology, the Rochdale Envelope principle is an accepted way of dealing with uncertainty in preparing applications for development consent. The Applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and explain clearly in the ES which elements of the Proposed Development have yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. Where some flexibility is sought and the precise details are not known (eg specific flight paths), the Applicant should assess a worst case scenario based on the maximum likely envelope of potential adverse impacts that the Proposed Development could have. This is to ensure that the full effects of a development as it may be constructed have been properly assessed.
In respect of the Proposed Development, we understand that the Applicant intends to represent the maximum potential adverse impacts through assessing route swathes (see next section).
In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees. Together with the excerpt from the feedback form which you provide, the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its EIA and presented in the ES.
We note that Chapter 12 of the Applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report sets out its current understanding of noise effects arising from the Proposed Development and also considers matters such as mitigation and compensation for noise impacts.
The Airspace Change Process (heading)
The Planning Inspectorate attended a process evaluation workshop with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Applicant on 12 June 2017. The note of the meeting is in the process of being finalised and will published to our website shortly. Appended to it are the slides from a presentation delivered by the Applicant.
The Applicant would be required to redesign the airspace around the airfield in order to make an operational cargo airport viable. Airspace redesign is subject to a separate ‘Airspace Change Process’ (ACP) which is owned by the CAA. From the Applicant’s presentation we understand that the ACP is subject to its own technical environmental assessment requirements (including specific requirements in respect of noise) and consultation processes. We understand that the ACP will require for precise flight paths to be provided to the CAA. These flight paths would be required to fall within the route swathes assessed by the Applicant as part of the EIA associated with the preparation of the application for development consent.
For advice about the ACP and how to make comments on an airspace change proposal, please contact the CAA directly using the appropriate channels.