VALIDATIONREPORT ON DOCUMENTSSUBMITTED BY MANSTONINTERNATIONALAIRPORT RELATINGTOAPROPOSED NIGHTFLYINGPOLICY

23rdJanuary2012

PARSONSBRINCKERHOFF 6DEVONSHIRESQUARE LONDON EC2M4YE 44(0)2073371700 1 www.pbworld.com

ContentsPage
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 ReviewofProposedNightFlyingPolicy........................................................................................................................ 3 AviationintheSouthEastofEngland.................................................................................................................................3 ExistingNightFlyingSituation ............................................................................................................................................3 TheProposedPolicy............................................................................................................................................................3 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................................................3 ReviewofEconomicImpactofNightFlyingPolicy........................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................4 ReviewoftheAirTraffic&FreightForecasts ..................................................................................................................... 4 ReviewoftheEconomicImpactAssessment ..................................................................................................................... 6 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................................................8 AReviewoftheNoiseReport ...................................................................................................................................... 9 TheNoiseimplicationsoftheSection106Agreement ...................................................................................................9 ApplicantsProposedNightTimeNoisePolicy .................................................................................................................. 11 Mitigation .........................................................................................................................................................................11 Summary...........................................................................................................................................................................11 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................................................12 PlanningAdvice ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................13 PlanningBackground ........................................................................................................................................................13 HighCourtChallenges.......................................................................................................................................................15 IntensificationPlanningPrinciples.................................................................................................................................15 ScopeforConsideringIntensification...............................................................................................................................17 JudgingIntensification ......................................................................................................................................................19 LegalOpinion ....................................................................................................................................................................20 ConclusionsonPlanningIssues ........................................................................................................................................21
23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page1of21

Introduction
ThanetDistrictCouncil(TDC)receivedasubmissionfromManstonInternationalAirport(MIA)onthe27thOctober2011. The existing planning agreement between TDC and MIA requires that the airport develops and agrees a night flying policy, including management and control, before scheduled night flights can take place. TDC considered the policy documentation submitted and concluded that there was a need for an independent validation of the technical data; togetherwithamoregeneralreviewofthecasefornightflightsatMIAaspresented. Onthe28thNovemberTDCappointedParsonsBrinckerhofftoundertakethisvalidationandreviewwithascopethat wouldconsider: Thesuitabilityofthemethodologyused Atestoftheassumptionsmade AreviewofthePlanningsituation ParsonsBrinckerhoff,withtheagreementofTDCdevelopedthisscopetoconsider4maintopicswhichformthebodyof thisreport: Areviewoftheproposednightflyingpolicy Areviewoftheeconomicbenefitspresented AreviewoftheNoiseReport ExpertPlanningadvicerelatingtothesubmission.
23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page2of21

ReviewofProposedNightFlyingPolicy
AviationintheSouthEastofEngland
Inordertoputtheproposedpolicyintocontextitisconsideredessentialtofirstconsiderthecurrentstatusofaviation intheSouthEastofEngland. ThepolicyfromCentralGovernmentappearstorestrainthe developmentofnewfacilities,suchasthe3rdrunwayat LondonHeathrow,whilstacceptingthatthedemandforaviationservicesissettodramaticallyincreaseinthenext20 years.Theconclusionisthereforethatbetteruseneedstobemadeoftheexistingfacilities. Despitetheglobalfinancialdifficultiespassengernumbersarecontinuingtogrowatabout5%yearonyearthroughout Europe.TheincreasedtrafficatMIAmayrelatetomorecargooperationsbuttrendsinpassengernumbersaregenerally followedbycargooperations.Itisthereforereasonabletoacceptthatthereisanincreasingpressureontheexisting facilitiesintheSouthEastandthatanyremovalofconstraintsatMIAwouldhelptomeetthisdemand.

ExistingNightFlying
SomenonschedulednightflightsdooperatefromMIA.Nightflightsaredefinedasanyaircraftmovement(takeoffor landing)thatoccursbetween2300and0700.IntheyearuptoSeptember2011,MIAreportedatotalof43nighttime movementsofwhich31werebetweenthehoursof2330and0600.TDC&theairportconsultativecommitteehavethe datatovalidatethesefigures. Itisreasonabletoexpectanyairporttohandlesomenonschedulednightflightsbutthecosttotheairportitselfisquite highasfullstaffingisrequired(e.gFireFighting)andsoafullshiftisworkedbystaffevenifonlyoneaircraftisinvolved. Airportsthereforeseektomaximisetheirefficiencybyintroducingscheduledservicesthatcanbereliedupontomake fulluseofthestaffandfacilities.

TheProposedPolicy
Theproposalistoallowaircrafttooperatethroughoutthenightwiththecontrollingconstraintbeingboththeamount ofnoisedisruptioncaused,andwiththeactualnumberofmovementsperyearbeingcapped.Thenoiseandeconomic impactsofthisPolicyareaddressedlaterinthisreport.Fromanaviationoperationalaspectitisobviouslyintheairports best interest to have no constraints on its operations. This will allow any prospective business to be pursued by the airport.

Conclusions
Overall we are satisfied with the approach and values used for the aviation / operational aspects of the proposed policy.

23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page3of21

ReviewofEconomicImpactofnightflyingpolicy
Thishighleveldraftreportissplitintotwosections:
A review of the Air Traffic & Freight Forecasts (pages 3 to 18 of the York Aviation Report); A review of the Economic Impact Assessment (pages 19 to 36 of the York Aviation Report); Introduction

TheplanbeingputforwardforconsiderationbyMIAistoallow...scheduledpassengerandfreightservicesinthenight timeperiod,withbothalimitontotalmovements,andonatotalpermittedNoiseQuotaCount,inwhichoperating aircraftareassignedaQuotaCountvalueandthesearetotalledovertheyearwithanupperlimitset.Thisformof QuotasystemisalreadyinuseatotherSouthEastAirports,notablyHeathrow,GatwickandStansted.Thenighttime rulesgenerallyapplyfrom23:00until06:00withashoulderperiodateitherendofthenight,withslightlylessstrict rulesgenerallythisis23:0023:30and06:0007:00. MIAbelievesthattheabilitytooperateatnightwillbeacrucialfactorinattractingaregularairfreightserviceprovider whichwillimprovethefinancialviabilityoftheairportintheshortterm.Thisfinancialviabilitywillensuretheairportis abletosustainoperations,which,theybelieve,willfacilitateafuturegrowthinpassengernumbersinthemediumto longterm.MIAcontendthatwithoutanapprovednighttimequotasystemthepotentialeconomicbenefittothelocal areaandwiderregionwillbeseverelyrestricted.

ReviewoftheAirTraffic&FreightForecasts
AirTraffic ThebasisoftheanalysisprovidedbyYorkAviationisthepassengerandfreightforecastscontainedwithinMIAsMaster PlanpublishedinNovember2009.Wewouldnotethatdespitetheforecastsonlybeingtwoyearsold,theairportisnot achievingthelevelofforecastpassengergrowth,however,wewouldalsonotethattheaviationsectorissufferingdue totheglobaleconomiccrisisandtherefore,mostotherUKairportswouldnotbeachievingforecastssettwoyearsago. York have further based their analysis on the passenger and freight forecasts for 2018 when they believe the wider aviationmarketwillhaveseenarecovery.Wewouldagreethatafixeddate,suchas2018,isappropriateforthistype ofanalysis,however,andasrecognisedbyYork,noadjustmenthasbeenmadetothe2018figuretotakeintoaccount thedownturnseenduring2009onwards.Inouropinionitishighlylikelythatthe2018planningassumptionusedis significantlyoverstated. WewouldagreewiththeYorkcommentarythatthelikelyshorttermgrowthinpassengertrafficwouldbedeliveredby awaybased carriers, and that to reach the 2018 Master Plan forecast the airport will have to attract based aircraft. Carrierswithbasedaircraftwillrequiretheairporttooperateaflexibleopeningtimetabletofacilitatescheduledflight timesbutalsotooffertheabilitytopositionaircraftorofferadhoccharters. 23rdJanuary2012 ValidationReport Page4of21

Therefore, in the short term we do not believe that the airport can justify a night flying quota system to support passengergrowth.Wewouldpartiallydisagreewiththebulletsprovidedat2.14[oftheYorkReport]thatsuggestthe resultanteffectsofnothavingbasedunitswouldbe;fewerdestinations,lesslikelihoodofkeyEuropeancitylinksand feweroverallpassengers.GiventhegeographiclocationofMSEitisunlikelythatcarrierswouldshowmuchinterestfor inboundtrafficfromkeyEuropeancitylinkswewouldarguethiswouldonlyberelevantifMIAwasstrategicallyplaced neartoalargecityoraregionwithalargecatchmentarea. WithoutseeingtheunderlyinganalysisusedbyYorkAviationtocreateTable2.2itisdifficultforustoaccuratelyassess thelikelylossoftrafficwithoutnighttimemovements.YorksTable2.2showsthatby2018overhalfoftheforecast passenger traffic would be lost without night movements. At first appearance this does not seem unreasonable; however,togrowto989,000passengerswithoutanybasedunitsisveryunlikely.There arenoexamplesofairports within the UK that have passenger volumes of approximately 1million passengers per annum without based units. Therefore, the argument that a block on night flying would prohibit based aircraft is not supported by the evidence available. Abanonnighttimeflyingwouldalmostcertainlyprohibitalargenumberofpotentialcarriers,however,couldworkfor somecarriersreflecting thenatureof theiroperations.Anypotential carriersdecisionwillalsobeinfluencedbythe commercialarrangementstooperatefromtheairportforexample,theairlinecouldbeincentivisedtoonlyoperate between07.0023.00. Freight We would agree that over the short to medium term, without significant capacity being built into the South East of England,freightvolumesatHeathrowAirportarelikelytofallastheairportallocateslanding/takeoffslotstohigher yieldingpassengeraircraft(assuming noadditionalcapacityisadded).Wewoulddisagree,however,thatMIAwould likely benefit in any substantial way from these freight volume decreases. Stansted, and Gatwick to a lesser degree, have significant capacity to accept additional freight volumes and are strategically better located close to motorways andmajorconurbations.ForthisreasonwewoulddisagreewithYorkscontentionthatItisfortherelocationofthese services that MIA is ideally geographically located. MIA, whilst only 50 minutes from the M25 at Junction 2, is not strategicallypositionedforfreighttobedispatchedanywhereotherthanthefarSouthEastofEngland. TheYorkcommentaryregardingthenatureoffreightoperationsiscorrectandtheyimportantlypointoutthatfreight operations are very different from passenger traffic above all, freight providers need flexibility and a ban on night flyingwouldundoubtedlyhindertheabilityofMIAtoattracteitherregularflightsorabasedoperator. Figure 2.1 [para 2.32] contains a map showing Countries Leading to Arrivals between 23.00 07.00 In The UK After 23.00 Departure from Origin. Whilst the map accurately shows the countries from which originating flights would arriveatMIAbetween23.00to07.00thereisnorationaleprovidedastowhy23.00hasbeenusedasadeparturetime. Wewouldagreethatfreightcarrierswillwanttowaituntiltheendoftheworkingdayforgoodstoarriveandbeloaded ontoaircraft,however,wouldcontendthatanearliertimeshouldbeusedforthisanalysis.Wewouldadd,however, thatevenifanearliertimewasusedthemajorityoftheareasoftheworldidentifiedforsignificantfreightincreasesin comingyearswouldarriveatMIAduringthe23.0007.00period. 23rdJanuary2012 ValidationReport Page5of21

Para 2.36 demonstrates that, based on current UK freight arrival times, MIA would only be excluded from 9% of the scheduledfreightmarketifthenightflyingbanweretoremain.Thispercentagewillalmostcertainlyincreaseoverthe medium tolongterm,withadditionalflightsfrom Asia,butoverallwedonotbelievethatthisprovidesacompelling argumentforsignificanteconomicbenefittotheregionasaresultoftheintroductionofanightflyingquotasystem. YorkAviationhavenotprovidedanyoftheircalculationsusedtoestimatetheannualfreightlossof40%,ifanighttime quotasystemweretoberejected.Wewouldagreewiththecommentsmadeinparas2.40and2.41thatwithaquota systeminplace,itwillbeeasiertoattractabasedcarrier,butwewouldneedtoseethecalculationsandassumptions usedingettingto40%beforethisfigurecouldbevalidated.

ReviewoftheEconomicImpactAssessment
TheoverallapproachusedtoconsidertheeconomicimpactofMIAintermsofbothoperationalimpactsandimpacton thewidereconomyistocategorisetheseimpactsinaccordancetothestandardframeworkadvocatedbyACIEurope (EconomicImpactStudyKit,2000): DirectOnSite; DirectOffSite; Indirect; Induced;and Catalytic/Wider Theexamplesofusergroupsgeneratingeconomicactivityforeachcategoryaresuitablyassignedandrelevanttothe activities at Manston Airport. It is noted that the report generates quantitative estimates of direct, indirect, and inducedimpactsoftheairportproposals.Catalyticorwiderimpactscannotberobustlymeasuredduetotheindirect relationshipbetweenairtravelandeconomicactivity,andthishasbeenidentifiedinthereport. The purpose of this review of the Economic Impact chapter of the report is to validate the quantitative assessment methodologyaswellastocommentonthesuitabilityofthequalitativeanalysisofthewiderimpacts.

AssessmentMethodology
Evenbeforetheliftingofnightflyingrestrictionsistakenintoaccount,thereisexpectedtobeconsiderablegrowthin passengernumbersatManstonAirportby2018.TheseforecastincreasesaresetoutinManstonAirportsMasterPlan. Fortheeconomicimpactassessment,theDoNothingscenariocomprisesthesituationwherenightflyingrestrictions are still imposed in 2018. This then allows for assessment of a Do Something situation where a comparison can be madewithnightflyingrestrictionsliftedandtheadditionalgrowththiswouldimply. Althoughweagreewiththisapproach,itwouldbeusefulforapresentdaybaselinefiguretobeprovidedinorderto assesstheextentofgrowthby2018foreachscenario.Whileanestimateforgrowthhasbeenincludedinparagraph 3.28,thisshouldbefurtherjustified.TheMasterPlanexpectsfurthergrowthby2033andthereforethequantitative assessmentshouldalsoincludetheeconomicimpactforthisperiod.
23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page6of21

TheassessmenthasnottestedascenarioinwhichManstonAirportexperiencesunlimitedactivityduringthenighttime period,astheAirportproposestouseaNightTimeNoiseQuotaSystem.Shouldthisquotasystemnotbeusedthen economicactivityattheairportcouldbeunderstated. A regression methodology has been used to forecast future direct employment on the site. Employment at six comparator airports has been plotted against workload units. Justification of the inclusion of these airports (and exclusion of other airports) should be provided to ensure that the best airports are being used as part of the methodology.Wewouldalsoseekpassengerthroughputdataonthesesixairportstoensuretheyarecomparableto Manston. Although we agree with this overall approach, an outlier within the regression analysis shows an airport with approximately5,500employeesfor7,000,000workloadunits.Thisappearshighcomparedtotheotherfiveairportsand couldthereforeimpactthelineofbestfit(denotedbytheR2value). Weretheoutliertoberemovedfromtheanalysis,thelineofbestfitwouldbecurved,demonstratingeconomiesof scale, where increased workload units can be addressed by increased staff productivity. Paragraph 3.15 identifies existing low productivity at the airport, due to certain jobs being required regardless of workload volume. Therefore increasedproductivitywouldbelikelytoabsorbsomeemploymentincreases. Indirectandinducedemploymenthasbeencalculatedasamultiplierof0.5foreachdirectemployee.Thisisbasedon workfromAirportCouncilInternational(TheSocialandEconomicImpactofAirportsinEurope,2004).Figure5.6from thisreportwouldsuggestthatthemultipliershouldbeslightlylower,althoughduetotherelativelylowlevelsoffuture employmentforManstonAirport,theeffectofalowermultiplieroneconomicimpactwouldbesmall. TheassessmentprovidesaGVAperheadintheSouthEastof20,923tocalculatetheeconomicbenefitofeachjob. Giventhatthisamountincludesthosewhoarecurrentlynotearning,perhapsamorecomprehensiveapproachwould betouseGVAperemployee.Nevertheless,thisprovidessomecomfortwithrespecttotheeconomicappraisalasif anything;theappraisalisunderstatingthefulleconomicimpact. Whenestablishingtheeconomicbenefittothelocalarea,themultiplierof0.25isnotbasedonanyspecificevidence. The multiplier should consider the existing local employment of the airport, employment rates and the availability of requiredskills.Calculationsofeconomicimpactofdirect,indirectandinducedeffectsareotherwiserobustandfollowa standardrecognisedmethodologyforanassessmentofthistype.ThereportsuggeststhatNightFlyingwouldgenerate 1,452jobsand30.4mGVA,buttheaboveissueswouldneedtobeaddressedbeforethesefigurescouldbevalidated. WiderEconomicImpact TheargumentswithregardtothewidereconomicimpactarerobustandweconcurwithYorkAviationsconclusionthat these cannot be readily quantified. Removal of night flying restrictions would allow Manston Airport to develop a greaternetworkofrouteswiththefollowingbenefits: Touristscanaccessordepartthelocalareafromagreaterrangeoflocations(asdefinedbychartedflights);and

23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page7of21

Businessescandevelopstrongerlinkswithotherlocations,particularlywhereearlymorningbusinesstravelis facilitatedthroughimprovedairservices.Theseimprovedserviceswillenablebusinesstravelleraccesstokey Europeancitiesmuchearlierintheday.

Conclusions
Theoverallapproachconformstowhatwewouldconsiderindustrystandardforaneconomicimpactassessmentof thiskind.TheuseofDirectOnSite,DirectOffSite,Indirect,InducedandWideremploymentimpactsiswellrecognised forsocioeconomicimpactstudies. Wehavesomerelativelyminorqueriesandthesecentrearound: Wewouldliketoseemoredetailastohowworkloadunitsarederived(especiallytherelationshipbetweena passengerand100kgoffreight); We would seek more detail on the six comparator airports and the extent to which these are similar to ManstonAirport; Fortheregressionanalysis,therearecomparativelyfew(six)inputsusedaswenoteabove,oneofthesesix valuesisanoutlieranditsremovalfromtheanalysiswouldindicateadifferentR2valueaswellasacurvewith adecliningslope.Asexpected,theshapeofthiscurvewoulddenoteproductivitygainsasincreasingworkload unitscouldbehandledbyproportionatelyfewerstaff;and Useofamultiplierof0.25forthetraveltoworkarea,althoughhavingarelativelysmallimpact,needsfurther justification. Given that Manston Airport currently employs a proportionately large workforce for a small throughput, growth of passengers and freight in the short term may not necessarily lead to a significant employment and hence economic impact. WewouldthereforeliketoseemoreevidenceofthethresholdwherebyManstonAirportachievesaspecifiedlevelof throughputsuchthatadditionalemploymentisrequired. Overall,however,wearesatisfiedwiththeapproachandvaluesusedfortheeconomicassessment.
23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page8of21

AReviewoftheNoiseReport
TheNoiseimplicationsoftheSection106agreement
ASection106agreementappearstobeinplacedatedSeptember2000whichsupersedesa1988agreement(whichhas not been provided). This agreement was valid for three years, or continues until a new one is in place. The original reasonforthe106agreementisnotstated. The second schedule of the Section 106 relates to Night Time Flying Noise Policy, requiring the airfield operator to submitandagreethepolicysixmonthsbeforeregularflyingcommences.Thefollowingrestrictionswereincludedinthe schedule: NoaircrafttooperateatnightwithaQuotaCountinexcessof4; Aprocessofsharingdatawiththecouncilonnightoperations; AdoptUKbestpractice; Apolicyexemptionisinplacefor0600and0700fordeparturestoEuropeandarrivalsfromNorthAmerica; Finesforbreachesarespeltout. In relation to noise limitations, the daytime noise contour is benchmarked against the 63 dB(A) contour from 1996. Details of an Insulation Scheme, Noise Abatement routes, preferred departure runway and noise monitoring are also laidout. Therearenospecificrequirementsforthenighttimenoisepolicy,andbynotspecifyingatimeperiodinsection8,(see below)itisunderstoodtoapplyequallytonightaswellasdaytimeoperations.

23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page9of21

However, there are several problems with this interpretation. Firstly, with little or no night flying currently, the 5% reductionperannumwouldpreventanyadditionalnightflyingthatisnotcurrentlyexemptfromthepolicy.Secondly, thearbitratorinthisinstanceisfromanInstitutethatdoesnotexistintheUK.Thenearestequivalentwouldhavetobe established,andthatwouldbetheInstituteofAcoustics,althoughtheywouldnotbedisposedtoappointsomeonein themannersuggested. WithouttheuseofSection8,theonlyrestrictionsthatappeartoapplytonightflyingarethoseforplaneswithaQC>4 (1.5.1)andabanontrainingflights(1.5.2).Therearenostatedrestrictionsonthenumberofmovementsofaircraftthat complywithpara1.5.1and1.5.2. ItisinconceivablethattheoriginalintentoftheauthorsoftheSection106agreementwouldnothavebeentorestrict thenoiseimpactatnightanditisbeyondthescopeofthisreviewtospeculateastothereasonswhythishasoccurred.
23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page10of21

ApplicantsProposedNightTimeNoisePolicy
Theapplicanthaspublishedtheirproposednighttimenoisepolicyontheirwebsite,whichissubjecttothisreview.The policyisbackedupbyanassessmentundertakenbyBickerdikeAllenandPartners. TheBickerdikeAllenreportentitledMANSTONAIRPORTAIRCRAFTNIGHTNOISEASSESSMENTREPORTdated25.10.11 presents a detailed literature review of current noise policy in the UK as they relate to night time operations, and concludes that the LAeq,8hr and the SEL should be used to control night noise. This is in accordance with current practice. However, whilst this literature review appears to be comprehensive, it fails to reflect the weight given to each document reviewed, and where it considers the faade or window loss to correct outdoor to indoor levels it mainly considers the situation with windows closed, allowing a 27 dB loss. This of course fails to consider the partially open windowsituationdescribedinbothWHOguidelinesandPPG24,which mightbeexpectedinthelatespring,summer and early autumn months of the year. This corresponds to the months of year covered by the summer timetable in whichthebulkofactivityoccursatmostairportsintheUK. Therefore the thresholds suggested by the applicant as being appropriate for Manston may be understating the impacts,particularlyforthosewithinthe9095SELcontours,whereonlyaslightimpactispredicted.Evenattherate of1in75thatmaybewokenupbyaircraftmovements,the312people(Table11)predictedtobewithinthiscontour couldgiveatleast4complainantsfor2.3eventspernight,anotinsignificantnumberofdisturbances. Inrelationtothenoisepredictions,thecalculationsappeartobefullyinaccordancewithcurrentgoodpractice,subject tovalidationoftheinputdata(byothers). InrelationtotheproposedQCquota,theexclusionoftheshoulderhoursfromthenighttimeperiodisoutofstepwith otherairports,andwouldresultinacrammingofmovementsintotheshoulderhours,timesinwhichmostoftheUK population is attempting to get to sleep, or before they would normally wake. This would be the reality with the restrictionsascurrentlywritten,astohavethemovementsinthenightperiodswouldincurfinancialpenaltiesforthe airportoperator.

Mitigation
ThemitigationschemeproposedbytheoperatorgoesfurtherthanthatrequiredbycurrentGovernmentguidance,but appears to reflect more the economics of the airports expansion than the risk of noise complaints from the larger aircraftmovementsatnight.Itmaybemoreappropriatetoproposeathresholdbasedonthenumberofmovementsof >QC2aircraft,aswellasthe48dBnighttimenoisecontours,aswellasthe90dBSEL.

Summary
Theapplicanthaspresentedasubstantivenoiseassessmenttounderpintheirnightnoisepolicy,andatfirstglancethis seems to tick all the right boxes. However, the failure to consider the impacts with windows open, coupled with a mitigationschemethatpotentiallymaynotreflectthenoiserisksfromlargeraircraftmovementsatnight,maynotbe asfavourabletoprotectingthelocalamenityfornearbyresidents.

23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page11of21

Hadthecouncilbeenconsideringaplanningapplicationfornightoperationswith5338propertiesabove48dB,and312 exposedtothe95dBSingleEventLevel,itisunlikelythattheapplicationwouldbeseenfavourablyunlesstherewasa substantiveeconomicargumentforitsapproval.

Conclusion
Theanalysisofthenoiseimpactshave,inouropinion,resultedinanunderestimationofthepotentialadverseimpacts onresidentsinthearea.

PlanningAdvice
23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page12of21

Introduction
This section of the Report considers the planning background to the Airports operations, including the Certificates of lawfulnessofdevelopmentattheAirportandthetworesultingCourtJudgementswhenlegalchallengesweremadeto theCertificates. ConsiderationisgiventotheS106AgreementthatgovernsoperationsattheAirportandassesseswhetherasaresultof the implementation of night flying activities there would be a material change of use of the land arising from the intensificationoftheactivitiesattheAirport,andthuswhethertheCouncilcouldreasonablyseekaplanningapplication fromtheAirportoperatorstocarryouttheseoperations. ItshouldbenotesthatinpreparingthisReportwehavenotseencopiesoftheoriginalCertificates,althoughtheCourt judgements provided did make extensive reference to them. We have also sought clarification of any other planning permissionsorAgreementsissuedposttheCertificatesbyThanetCounciltoconfirmwhetheranysuchpermissionsor AgreementsplaceanyrestrictionsorconditionsontheactivitiesoftheAirport.Thisclarificationisawaitedatthetime ofdraftingthisReport.

PlanningBackground
The Airport benefits from a series of Certificates of Lawfulness of proposed use or development to follow the approachoftheCourtsthesearereferredtobelowasLDCs. The Court judgements explain the background to the issuing of the LDCs in some detail which it is not necessary to repeathere.InsummarytheLDCsweresoughtbytheMinistryofDefence,inanticipationofthetransferofthesite fromtheMoDtonewownerswhowouldoperateitwhollyasacivilianairport. ThepurposeoftheLDCssoughtbytheMoDwastoconfirmthattheanticipateduseofthewholeofthelandasacivilian airportwouldbelawfulandthatitwouldnotrequireplanningpermissiontoundertaketheuse.TheMoDsetoutthat thesitehadbeenusedasanAirportformilitarypurposesformanyyearsandinturnpartsofthesitehadbeenusedfor civilianpassengertransportformanyyears. TheproposedLDCsareunderstoodtohavesoughttoestablishtheuseofthelandingeneral,theuseofbuildingsfor specificpurposesandclarificationofthegeneralandspecificextentofthesiteandareaswithinit. TheCouncilgranted4LDCs,twoin1998andafurthertwoin1999. LDCs 98/399 and 98/399 confirmed the lawfulness of the use of the land and a specified list of buildings for civilian purposes. The LDCs are understood to include plans and schedules but have no other specified details or conditions/restrictionsrelatingtotheoperationoftheAirport.

Two further Certificates were issued in 1999, 98/377 and 98/400. It is understood that these again specify a list of buildings and the more general confirmation that the use of the Airport for civilian purposes was lawful given had operatedassuchforatleastthepreceding10years.

23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page13of21

TheLDCswerethesubjectofaHighCourtChallengeandasubsequentChallengetothejudgementoftheCourtsonthe firstmatter.Thesechallengesareconsideredbelow. InSeptember2000aSection106AgreementwasenteredintobythenewoperatorsoftheairportandtheCouncil.Itis understoodthattheS106wasissuedasastandaloneplanningobligationandwasnotspecificallylinkedtoanyofthe LDCs. TheS106dealswithanumberofmatters,thekeyissueforthisReportbeingnighttimeflying. The second Schedule of the S106 sets out that there will be no night time flying at Manston (except in specified exceptionalcircumstances)untilsuchtimeasanighttimeflyingpolicyhasbeenpreparedandlodgedwiththeCouncil. TheschedulesetsoutthattheownerswillconsultwiththeCouncil,whointurnwillbeallowedtimetoconsultonthe proposed policy. It is important to note that the wording of the S106 makes it clear that whilst the Council will be consultedandtheirviewswillbeassessed,iftheairportdecidesnottoadheretoanyviewsorsuggestionsastochanges tothepolicy,theyareundernoobligationtodoso. InsimpletermsiftheairportownersissueapolicyandconsultwiththeCouncilonit,theycanchoosetoignoreany viewssetoutbytheCouncilandbegincarryingoutnighttimeflyinginaccordancewiththepolicy.Thereisnothingin theS106ofitselfthatwouldenabletheCounciltopreventnighttimeflyinginthisinstance. ItwouldbepresumedthatthereasonforthiswordingisthatgiventheLDCshadestablishedtheuseoftheairportas lawful, without restriction, the airport owners would not have entered into a S106 Agreement which would have preventedapartoftheactivitywithoutplanningapprovali.e.nighttimeflying. Insteaditwouldappearreasonabletosuggestthattheownersagreedtoissueaclearpolicyonnighttimeflyingrather thanagreetoanabsoluteprohibitiononnightflyingwithoutplanningpermissionbeinggranted:theywouldtakethe viewthattheLDCshadalreadyineffectgrantedpermission. Inschedule2,at1.5itisnotedthat,ineffect,theairportwillbefinedeachtimeitexceedsnoisequotasforanighttime flightevenifanoisepolicyhasbeenprepared. Thisappearstobeafinancialmechanismfornoisecontrolratherthanaplanningrestrictiononnighttimeflying.Itis difficulttoseewhatenforcementactioncouldbetakenagainstabreachofthisclauseinplanningtermsbeyondfailing to pay the specified penalties. The clause does not prevent the noise: it only sets out a financial penalty for noise breaches. The LDCs issued in relation to the airport contain no restrictions on night time flying, so no planning application or variationofconditionetcisrequiredtoflyatnight.SimilarlytheS106iswritteninsuchawaythattheairportisnot requiredtoapplythroughtheplanningprocesstoundertakenighttimeflying.

23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page14of21

TheCouncilsplanningcontrolthereforeappearstobelimitedtofindingthatinoperatingtheproposednighttimepolicy onceissuedbytheoperator,thiswouldleadtoanintensificationintheuseoftheairporttotheextentthatamaterial changeofusewilltakeplace,andthatsuchachangeofusewouldrequireplanningpermission.

HighCourtChallenges
Two of the LDCs, 98/377 and 99/400 were the subject of a High Court Challenge. The challenge was mounted by membersofthepublicagainsttheCouncil. ItisimportanttonotethatsuchchallengescanonlybemadetothewayanLDC(orindeedanyplanningmatter)has beenconsideredandnottheoutcomeoftheprocess.Inthiswayachallengecannotbemadesolely,forinstance,to the grant of permission for a particular development. Instead a challenge could be mounted that in reaching the decisiontograntpermissionaCouncilhadfailedtotakeintoaccountkeyfactors,failedtoconsultproperly,orwrongly appliedtheregulationsetc. In this case the challenge was that the Council in not adding restrictions or conditions on the way the airport could operateaspartoftheLDCshadfailedtofollowthecorrectapproachinitsdecisionmaking. Thechallengefailed.ItisnotnecessaryinthisReporttoreproduceindetailtheCourtsfindingsbutinsummarythe Courtheld: ThattherewasnorequirementfortheCounciltoconsiderissuessuchasintensificationofuseoroperations.It couldhaveconsideredthembutinchoosingnottotherewasnoproceduralerror; Even if they had chosen to consider intensification they would have been entitled to conclude based on the historyofthesitethatplacingcontrolsorlimitationswouldnothavebeenpractical; WhilstalackofdetailorprecisionindraftinganyLDCmaycausetheissuingCouncilproblemslater,thislackof precisionisitselfnotunlawful;and GiventheCouncilhadissuedtheothertwoLDCs,containingnorestrictions,andtheseLDCswereeffectivelythe sameastheonesbeforetheCourt,eveniftheCourthadquashedthetwoLDCsbeforeitthiswouldhavemade nodifferenceastheusescouldtakeplaceundertheothercertificates. The decision of the Court on this High court Challenge was itself then challenged by the local residents. The higher Courtagaindismissedthischallenge,endorsinginfulltheapproachandjudgementoftheearlierCourt. Thefirstjudgementcontainsadiscussionontheprinciplesofintensificationintheplanningsystem,someofwhichis relevanttothecurrentsituationandisconsideredbelow.

IntensificationPlanningPrinciples
The concept of intensification is explained in the Planning encyclopaedia and referred to in the Court judgements at P55.Thisstates: 23rdJanuary2012 ValidationReport Page15of21

There may be a material change in use where an existing use has become intensified..mere intensification of a use doesnotinitselfconstituteamaterialchange.Itmustbeintensificationofsuchadegreeastoamounttoamaterial changeinthecharacterofause. ThequotationabovehasbeensimplifiedforthepurposesofclaritybyexcludingreferencestoaseriesofCourtcases thathaveexaminedthisissue.Itisimportanttounderstandthattheestablishmentoftheprinciplessetoutabovehas itselfresultedfromaseriesofCourtcases,inturnarisingbecausenowhereintheplanningactsorsupportingcirculars orguidanceisthereacleardescriptionofwhatconstitutesintensification. Intensificationmustbejudgedonasitebysite/casebycasebasishavingregardtothefactsandissuesineach. InthemajorityofplanningcaseswherethereisnoLDCinplacethetestaboveseekstodetermineifoneusehas,by virtue of intensification changed to another. The Court judgement refers to examples and these again result from testingovermanyyears: Ahobbyoperatingfromaresidentialpropertybecomesabusiness;itintensifiestothepointthattheresidential propertyisdeemedtohavechangedusefromahousetoanofficeorotherBclassuseortobecomeofmixed use.Thetestsofintensificationinthisexamplecouldbetheamountofthebuildingbeingusedforbusiness;the numberofpeopleworkingorvisitingthebuilding. Inthiscasetherewouldbeachangeofusefromoneuseclasstoanotherwhichrequiresplanningpermission.Thisis notthecase attheairportwhere nosuchstraightforwardchangeofuseclassfromonetoanotherwouldoccurasa resultofnighttimeflying. Theassessmentisnotwhetherachangeofusefromaclasstoanotherclasshasoccurred.Inthecaseoftheairportthe testisnot(asthejudgementreferstoit)whetherausehasstartedfromscratchandintensified,butwhethertherehas beenintensificationfromtheuseestablishedbytheplanningsystemaslawful,toapositionwhereitwouldbedeemed tobeunlawful. Inthecaseoftheairportitwouldappearthattherelevanttestofintensificationisfromthepositionestablishedbythe 4LDCsaslawfuluseattheairport. The Courts have also examined this issue in several cases. For example, Childs v Test Valley Borough. In this much reportedcaseacaravansiteexistedwithalawfulusecertificateforfourresidentialcaravans.Theapplicantwasrefused additionalcertificates,seekingtoestablishthattheuseofthesiteforeight,15,30and50caravanswouldbelawful. TheCourtsheldthattheextenttowhichintensificationconstitutesamaterialchangeisamatteroffactanddegree.In thiscase,thejudgedecidedthatthedegreeofchangeinthenatureoftheusefrom4caravansto15ormorewouldbe materialandplanningpermissionwouldberequired. AmorepertinentexampleagainreportedwidelyistheLyonscase.Thisissummarisedasfollows:

23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page16of21

TheLyonscaseconsideredthenatureanddegreetowhichintensificationaffectedthecharacterofthelandinquestion. Theclaimantsoughttoquashaninspector'sdecisionupholdinganenforcementnoticerequiringareductioninaircraft numbersatDamynsHallAerodromeineastLondon. InMarch2007,alawfulusecertificatehadbeenissuedforthesitethatlimitedthenumberofaircraftto15.InApril 2009thenumberofaircraftpresentonthesitetotaled41. Theappellantarguedthattheinspectorhadfailedtogiveadequatereasonsforconcludingthatintensificationofthe aerodrome use had changed its character. The inspector followed the process set out in Childs, taking the certificate figure as his starting point. Applying common sense, he accepted that a breach of this figure by one or two aircraft wouldnotamounttoamaterialchange.However,hefeltthattheimpactongreenbeltopennessandthevisualharm causedby26extraaircraftresultedinamaterialchangeinthecharacteroftheuse. InbothChildsandLyonsanLDCwasinplacewhichsetanumberaslawfulandthusthedegreetowhichausecanbe carried out. Testing for intensification, and thus lawfulness, can therefore start with a figure set by an LDC. There wouldstillbeaneedforassessmentoffactanddegreeineachcasebutthatwouldbeagainstabenchmark. At the airport 4 LDCs exist but as has been noted above, and is reflected in the two Court judgements, these do not themselves set a formal benchmark position the Courts understood that whilst the Council were entitled to have consideredsettingbenchmarkstheyhadnotdoneso.

ScopeforConsideringIntensification
TheCourtinthesecondjudgementconsideredinpartthepracticalimplicationsofthelackofabenchmarkfigureinthe LDCswhenconsideringfuturedevelopmentsattheairport. Thejudgementnotes: In my judgement, upon the issue of a certificate, if that (intensification) question arises, the parties would be in no better or worse of, depending on whether or not the certificates have been issued. The certificates permit the continuationoftheexistinguse.Theydonotrelatetothequestionwhetherintensificationmightinvolveachangeof use.Thatpointcouldbetakenwhetherornotthecertificatehasbeenissued. Thejudgementcontinuesthatthereisprotectionforthefuturewithintheplanningsystemwhereaparticulartypeof developmentattheairportextendsbeyondpermitteddevelopmenttotheneedforaplanningpermission.TheJudge noted that there would still be a need for a planning permission, and the LDC would not prevent the need for permission. This is again relatively straightforward where for instance a new terminal building or runway extension was being examined.Thesethingsneedplanningpermissionandgiventheydonotexist.ThepresenceofLDCsconfirmingvarious thingstobelawfuldoesnothingtochangethisposition. In the case of night time flying however this is less clear cut in that it is an activity rather than physical building of structures.The2001judgementappearstocontemplatetheexampleofnightflying:
23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page17of21

There could in some cases, and night flying may be an example, be an increase in use which affected local amenity withouttheneedforafreshplanningapplication.That,however,wouldbethecasewhetherornotthecertificatehad beenissued. Itcontinues: Thecertificate,inmyjudgement,puttheoperatorsoftheairfieldinonbetterpositionwhenconsiderationcomestobe given to further developments on the airfield or, upon the raising of an argument that an intensification involved a changeofuse. The implications of this assessment appears to be therefore that whilst the LDCs do not specify a benchmark figure againstwhichintensificationcouldbeassessed,thisdoesnotmatter;theteststillremainsasaplanningtool. TheLDCsdonotgivecompleteandunfetteredrightsfornighttimeflying,onlyaconfirmationthatbyvirtueofwhathad happenedinthe10yearsprecedingtheissueoftheLDCs,thislevelofusewaslawful. ThekeyissuefortheCouncilnowthereforemustbewhatlevelofnighttimeflyingwastherehappeninginthe10years priortotheLDCsbeingissued,andthuswhatcouldbeconsideredtobelawfullyestablished.This,havingregardtothe courtjudgement,wouldtheneffectivelyestablishthebenchmarkagainstwhichtotestwhetherthenewproposednight timeflyingwouldinfactbeintensification. Given the passage of time since the LDCs were applied for it is unclear whether the evidence of previous night time flying,ifanyexists.ThisisamatterfortheCounciltoconsider. Thereis,however,anadditionalcomplicationinthiscasearisingfromthepresenceoftheS106agreement. TheS106wassignedinSeptember2000andspecificallyprohibitsRegularNightFlyingOperations,untilaNightFlying Policy Noise policy has been prepared and submitted to TDC. So, if the airport owners were to apply now for a certificatetoestablishthelawfulusenowoftheairportanditsactivities,itwouldbereasonabletoconcludethatasno regularnighttimeflyingoperationshavetakenplaceforover10years,anLDCissuednowmayeitherexpresslyorby implicationconfirmthatanyregularnighttimeflyingisunlawfulasithasnotbeenhappening. Ifthispositionisadoptedthenthebenchmarkforthetestofintensificationchangessignificantlytoapositionwhereno nighttimeflyingisdeemedlawfulatthepresenttime. However,thesubmissionmadebytheAirportinsupportofitsnighttimeflyingpolicysetsoutquiteclearlythatnight timeflyingistakingplace: 12. Consistent with the Section 106 agreement with TDC, there are no Regular Night Flying Operations at Manston. Such activity as there exists is unplanned and ad hoc, not operating to a planned schedule. The current level of movementsduringnighttimevariesfrommonthtomonth.Thereisnodirectcorrelationtotheoveralllevelofbusiness, northelevelofcommercialtraffic. Theneedforunplannednightmovementsisdrivenbyoperationaldisruptiontoairlinesschedulescausedbyavarietyof factorsincludingtechnicalfaults,weatherimpactsandlogisticdelays.
23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page18of21

The table below shows the monthly record of movements from January 2009 to September 2011, compared with the levelofnighttimeactivitybetween2300and0700,andbetween2330and0600.Inthe12monthstoSeptember2011,a totalof43aircraftmovementswererecordedbetween2300and0700,ofwhich31occurredbetween2330and0600. So, whilst the S106 prohibits it, night time flying is taking place presumably within the noise/quota/financial penalty structurealsosetoutbytheS106.IfthereforetheairportappliednowforanLDCitcouldpresumablyclaimthatthis levelofactivityislawful,andthusthiswouldformthebenchmarkagainstwhichintensificationshouldbeconsidered. Thisisnotclearcut.WhilstthereappearstobelogicintheS106pointsetoutabove,giventheprevioushistoryofthe airportandthirdparties,andgenerallygiventhenotoriouslylitigiousnatureofissuesrelatedtointensificationitwould berecommendedthatalegalopinionissoughtifrelianceistobeplacedonthisapproach.

JudgingIntensification
FromtheaboveitwillbenotesthateitherthereisabenchmarklevelofnightimeflyinginherentlysetbytheLDCsor thereisabenchmarkofnolawfulnighttimeflyingbyvirtueoftheS106.Whicheveristhecaseassetoutabove,the factthatthereisnowtobenighttimeflyingdoesnotinitselfconstituteproofofintensification. ItseemsthattheCouncilarestillrequiredtoapplytheapproachoffactanddegreeandformajudgmentastowhether aparticularnumericalincreaseisactualintensification. Intestingintensificationitcouldbepossibletotheeffectsofnighttimeflyingonthephysicaloperationoftheairport.It couldperhapsbesuggestedthatdifferentpartsoftheairportarebeingused;thatthereareadditionalbuildingsbeing built or used; that there are more aircraft on the site; that there is more (possibly open) storage of cargo; more movementsofpeople/increasedtrafficthanatpresent. ItwillbefortheCounciltoconsiderafullrangeofissues.Itwouldbenotedstraightawayhoweverthattheerectionof buildingslinkedtonighttimeflyingwouldbeinalllikelihoodPD.IntheothercasesitmaybethattheCouncilwillwant toasktheairportwhataretheimplicationsofitsnighttimepolicyonthephysicalappearance/operationoftheairport inordertoconsiderintensificationissues. Thekeyjudgementscouldhoweverstillendupbeingthechangeinthenumberofflightsatnightand/orthechangeto thenoiseenvironmentthatwouldresult. Thesubmittedproposednoisepolicydealswiththeissueofnumbersasfollows: 38.Inconjunctionwiththisproposal,theairporthascommissionedandimpactassessmentofthepotentialnoisethat this level of activity may generate. A copy of this report Aircraft Night Noise Assessment Report, October 2011 is providedwiththisproposal. The report has been carried out by Bickerdike Allen Partners, leading experts in the assessment of noise surrounding airports.Thisstudyhasassessedtheextentofthenoisecontoursthatarepredictedtoresultfromtheproposedlevelof activity,togetherwiththedwellingandpopulationcountswithineachcontour.Furtheritconsidersthelikelyperception ofthecommunityexposedtotheselevels,inlinewithUKstandardpractice.
23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page19of21

39. This study has been based on the activity level forecast in the Master Plan for 2018 combined with an internal assessmentofthelikelydistributionofbusinessthroughtheday.Thetablebelowdisplaystheestimateddistributionof aircraftmovementsfor2018. EstimatedAverageDaily MovementProfile Passenger Freight Total This indicates an average of less than two movements per night during the Nighttime Quota Count Period, and demonstratesthatlessthan3%oftheairportsoverallactivityisexpectedtotakeplaceduringthistime. Thisseemstosetoutthatcombinedpassengerandfreightflightswouldbenomorethan2pernightform23.00until 06.00.Thiswouldappeartobearound60flightspermonthorover700forayear.Thiscomparestothefiguressetout abovethatinthe12monthstoSeptember2011,therewere31movementsduringthesehours. The S106 and the proposed night time flying policy consider the issue of noise and the use of quotas. In previous sectionsofthisreportthesubmittednoiseinformationandthedegreeofchangeinthenighttimenoiseenvironment thatwilloccurasaresultoftheimplementationofthenighttimeflyingpolicyhasbeenreviewed. Onlybytakingallfactorsintoaccountcanajudgementabouttheimpactofthechangeinthenoiseregimeandthusthe degreeofintensificationbeformed. Itisworthfinallyonthisissuetopointoutthatwhilstthesetestscanbemadeagainsttheexistingsituation,itmustbe partofthetestingprocessastowhattheCouncilspositionisontheproposedlevelsofnighttimeflying.
If the Council considers that, for instance, a level of night time flying of 50% of the suggested level would be acceptable, then the test of intensification could be said to change to comparing this position with the proposed levels. This may have a significant impact on the assessment of the intensification issue.

07002300 23002330 23300600 06000700 49.6 5.1 54.6 2.8 0.4 3.2 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.8 0.4 3.2

LegalOpinion
Ashasbeennotedabove,andisrecognisedinthetwocourtjudgementsthatrelatetotheairportandthepreviousLDCs theissueofintensificationisamatterwhichhasbeenbeforethecourtsonmanyoccasions. Inthecaseoftheairportthetwocaseswerebroughtbythirdpartiesandthespecificgroundsrelatedtoconcernsabout intensificationoftheactivitiesoftheairport. WethereforerecommendthattheCouncilconsiderseekinglegalopinionontheissuesraisedbythenighttimeflying policyanditsplanningimplications.
23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page20of21

ThiswouldpotentiallyassisttheCouncilinformingajudgmentabouttheissueofintensificationitselfhavingregardto thediscussionsetoutabove.

ConclusionsonPlanningIssues
ThesubmissionoftheNightFlyingPolicydocumentsatisfiesthelegalrequirementoftheSection106,itsacceptanceby theCouncilisnotrequired. ItisrecommendedthatLegalCouncilOpinionissoughtonthequestionofintensificationofuse.

23rdJanuary2012

ValidationReport Page21of21