I am writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate
I was dismayed that people in Ramsgate were not contacted by RSP informing them of the consultation taking despite living directly under the flightpath. Whereas for example people in Chislet and Birchington (neither nowhere as close to the flightpath as central Ramsgate) received personal letters inviting them to attend a presentation/consultation. Was this a ploy to limit the number of objectors I wonder? Instead, Ramsgate residents were left to find out by either the local paper or social media.
During the consultation taking place in Ramsgate I was given conflicting answers as to whether night flights were happening. One consultant said they were not, and had only been included in the report because PINS demanded it. However another consultant said that they might be necessary and a third one said that the flightpath would be altered so that most planes coming in at night would come in from the west (not possible as this would fly in the face of the conventional practice of flying into prevailing winds). The lack of noise contours for Ramsgate worried me a great deal. It appears no consideration has been given to the impact of noise on Ramsgate residents.
No-one could tell what the procedure for compensation to residents for loss of value to homes would be.
Job claims of 30000 jobs in the East Kent economy are laughable and when I challenged a consultant, they admitted the figure was untrue.
What I am trying to convey to you is that the proposal appears to be vague, or else downright untrue and lacking precise information what the impact of a cargo hub would mean for myself and local residents.

Please refer to extant advice about how the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation will be tested if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate: attachment 1
In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie 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 Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.
In respect of claims for compensation, this is a matter dealt with outside of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Matters of financial compensation do not fall to be considered during the scope of the Examination which is limited to the consideration of whether the proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers meet the tests set out in the PA2008. Broadly such claims can be made by persons or organisations whose land or whose rights in land could be affected by a Proposed Development. Their land or rights may not be subject to Compulsory Acquisition powers sought in an application or indeed be within the land to which an application relates, but they may have a right to compensation under either Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, s10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or s152 of the PA2008, if their land or interest is affected by the development.
The issue of compensation could arise in the event that development consent is granted, and the Applicant implements the Development Consent Order (DCO). As these matters are governed by the relevant compulsory purchase legislation (see above), the claim and any associated amount of compensation may be something for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to consider. However, the adequacy of funding to meet any likely future compensation liabilities arising from the implementation of a DCO, and any mechanisms proposed by the applicant to secure the funding, are issues which would be considered by the Examining Authority as part of an Examination.