Thanet District Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee - 30/08/2011

By Cllr David Green - Labour Vice Chair.

 

 

On Tuesday I proposed, and Peter Campbell seconded, that a report, from the Council’s Airport Working Party, on the monitoring of activities at Manston Airport including Night Flights policy be adopted by the Thanet District Council (TDC) Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and forwarded to Cabinet. The committee voted 8 to 7 with all Labour Councillors and Cllr King in favour.

 

“1 (a) The Council adopts a policy of not allowing scheduled, pre-planned or otherwise timetabled flights between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00

(b)  That a period of 1 hour at either end of the flying day be allowed for late/early arriving flights only.

(c)  That a penalty be applied to any flights arriving during the 1 hour periods

(d)  No take-offs will be allowed between 23:00 and 07:00 hours

(e)  A schedule of exceptions to the above will be prepared to include ‘mercy flights’, and flights, medical emergencies, coastguard movements etc.

 

2.    In respect of aspirations to be carried into a successor to the current Section.106 agreement;

(a)   Consideration be given to requesting the Airport owners whoever they may be at any given time to contribute to the cost of a TDC Airport Officer and that requirement is included in a new section 106 Agreement;

(b)   A new Section 106 Agreement is negotiated within 12 months.

 

3.    A further Term of Reference be added to the Airport Working Party; purpose that investigation is undertaken to the relationship between a possible Parkway Station and the Airport and the current need for it.

4.    Quarterly or half yearly reports are received by Thanet District Council on the performance of the Manston International Airport as measured against the section 106 Agreement.

5.    Thanet District Council be recommended to ask the Manston International Airport operator to review the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee (KIACC).”

 

The local Labour Party has been pressing for the issue to be addressed, as it should be, through the Planning system for years now. We argued through the Council’s airport working party and Scrutiny system that clarity over the current policy of no night flights was essential.

 

Thanet District Council, as the local Planning Authority has a clear duty to produce a Local Development Framework, against which local businesses, developers and residents can plan their future in terms of land use and environmental impact.

 

It is clear, that the Council has failed in this duty with regard to the future development of Kent International Airport. The environmental agreement that controls the conditions of use of the airport (section 106) was devised in 2000 and was anticipated as being updated every 3 years. In the intervening years it has served the community well, allowing development of the airport, but protecting residents from the worst environmental impacts. However, the aircraft industry and environmental standards have moved on. A new agreement is required, and the airport owners need a clear guide to what is acceptable.

 

The airport owners have produced a master plan of how they would like the airport to develop. It is aspirational as one would expect, and optimistic with regard to predicted traffic and jobs created. In the absence of planning guidance from the Council, the danger is that the master plan will become mistaken for Council policy.

 

Through inaction, the Council has allowed a myth to develop that all that is required is some minor adjustment to the conditions of the old s106 agreement that will allow the relaxations of environmental control that the master plan requires. As far as night time flying is concerned it is clear from reports commissioned by the airport and separately by the Council, that the environmental impact would be severe. This reinforces the legal opinion obtained on at least two occasions that night time flying represents sufficient intensification of use as to require fresh planning approval.

 

We believe a clear, balanced policy that protects the vulnerable public is required, but will allow future development of the airport allowing competition with other similar airports.

Response to Manston Airport press release of 16th August 2011

The statement that the Labour Group at Thanet District Council is suggesting 'more onerous restrictions' at Manston Airport is absolutely and totally wrong!

Thanet Council Labour Group Leader Councillor Clive Hart said "The Labour Group simply stands by the current 106 agreement that has served Thanet well for the past decade. The 106 agreement also forms the basis of recommendations from a recent cross-party TDC Airport Working Party. We are certainly not calling for any 'more onerous restrictions' than already exist".

The Labour Group wish to make it absolutely clear that we are restating the current position of the council and in no way predetermining any decisions that may or may not have to be made in the future.

Night time flying

 Thanet District Council meeting - Thursday 14th July 2011.

 

(MOTION - INTRODUCTION - LEGAL ADVICE - OUTRAGE)

 

1) THE MOTION:

 

The following written motion to council was submitted by Cllr Clive Hart and seconded by Cllr Alan Poole (Thanet Labour Leader & Deputy Leader at TDC).

 

'The Council adopts a policy of not allowing scheduled, pre-planned or otherwise timetabled flights between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00.  That a period of 1 hour at either end of the flying day be allowed for late/early arriving flights only.  That a penalty be applied to any flights arriving during the 1 hour periods.  No take-offs will be allowed between 23:00 and 07:00 hours and a schedule of exceptions to the above be prepared to include ‘mercy flights’, and flights for medical emergencies, coastguard movements etc'.

2) THE INTRODUCTION:

Introducing the motion at Thursday evenings meeting, Labour Leader of the Opposition Cllr Clive Hart said,

"Firstly, and I want to make this absolutely clear, we are not against the airport. We in the Labour Group most sincerely want to see a thriving airport creating good jobs for the people of Thanet.

However, we hear constantly of Thanet being termed as a ‘dumping ground’ in relation to social and economic issues and sadly, statistics show overwhelmingly that poor health standards here in Thanet are far worse than the average for the South East and even the whole country.

On a personal note, I have witnessed at first hand the effect that sleep deprivation can have on an individual. One of our wonderful grandsons has decided that for him, daytime starts anywhere between 3am and 5am and the cumulative effect of this over several months has had a devastating effect on his equally wonderful mother’s health and wellbeing.

Hopefully, that situation is a temporary one. The prospects for many Thanet residents if we are not clear as to what is and what is not reasonable could be permanent misery.

At this evening’s meeting we have heard what happens when there is a lack of ongoing monitoring in relation to grants and again in relation to a lease negotiated in good faith many years ago by this council.

The current section 106 agreement was put in place over a decade ago and has served Thanet very well indeed, but sadly the last two Conservative administrations at TDC have failed to review the agreement every three years as was originally planned, and it is clear from recent reports sponsored by the airport that they now see the 106 as an outdated agreement and will soon be pressing to extend their operations at night.

Chairman, America and Europe are currently experiencing very tough times due to the actions of a few bankers who saw loopholes in regulations and exploited them at all our cost.

We in Thanet suffer disproportionately from almost every social and economic ill. We do not need to add poorly regulated night time flying across our island as a further environmental problem.

The Labour Group therefore believes the council needs to give a clear steer as to what is and what is not environmentally acceptable here in Thanet. We support the airport but not at any environmental cost to the people of Thanet.

Chairman, I move the motion printed at item 8a in the agenda and option 2.2 to debate the motion".

 

3) THE LEAGAL ADVICE:

 

However, the TDC Legal Monitoring Officer advised the Chairman that the motion could not be allowed for complex legal reasons and pointed to a letter of advice from Bevan Brittan LLP (dated 14th July - the very day of the meeting) that had been left on councillors seats just minutes before the start of the meeting.

 

4) THE OUTRAGE

 

An intense debate on the extremely late legal advice followed in which Labour councillors explained that the motion had been handed in person by Cllr Hart to the Legal Monitoring Officer more than five weeks before the meeting on the 7th June and that the Monitoring Officer had read it and accepted it as a valid motion. A month later the motion had also been accepted onto and clearly printed in the council agenda as item 8a.

 

During the debate it also became clear that on the evening before Thursday's council meeting (13th July) Cllr Bayford, the Conservative Council Leader, had raised objections to the motion and that as a direct consequence further legal advice had been requested on the very day of the council meeting.

 

After the meeting Cllr Clive Hart said "TDC had my written motion to council for more than five weeks and the only thing I was aware of during the whole of that period was that it had been accepted onto and printed in the council agenda. The motion was submitted to support the councils own TDC Airport Working Party recommendations that had been 'left off' of the agenda of an Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting in error and the actual wording of the motion simply confirmed the basis of the existing 106 agreement that the Conservative administration had failed to review for the past eight years".

 

Note:

 

The night flying motion to council was also directly in line with the 2011 Thanet Labour Manifesto that proved so successful with the public that it helped Thanet Labour to increase its number to twenty six councillors at TDC, just one short of the Conservatives.

With three Independent councillors, May's elections left TDC with no party in overall control.

Tesco/Arlington development Margate

RESPONSE TO DECISION

 

Margate Central Ward Councillors Iris Johnston and John Watkins have worked with the residents of Arlington House and nearby neighbours to try to get a sensible solution for the much neglected site.

Cllr Johnston said "Everyone has been in agreement, that due to Freshwaters years of neglect, the site is crying out for regeneration. Residents were very fair in their submissions and only wanted what was best. Traffic management, a right to a quiet night life and sufficient parking were high on their lists.

Mr Pickles, Secretary of State, has ignored our concerns and obviously given very little time to this application. We all want to work together for what is best for Margate and the Planning Committee really should have agreed to my request to bring the final decision to Full Council so that any outstanding issues could be addressed".

At the original Planning Committee Meeting an amendment tabled by Cllr Alan Poole to restrict deliveries to between 07:00 and 23:00 was ruled illegal by the Planning Officers. The reason given was the developers would not agree to it! The object of the amendment was to limit the potential noise nuisance to local residents.

Thanet Labour - Making serious matters clear

At the meeting of Thanet District Council on the 14th July Thanet Labour Group will put forward two motions to council in line with their 2011 Manifesto.  In doing so Labour councillors will make it absolutely clear what is acceptable and what is unacceptable here in Thanet with regards to two serious issues.

 

 

The first notice of motion is in relation to night time flying and has been proposed by Cllr Clive Hart and Cllr Alan Poole the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Group at TDC. 

 

It reads: ‘The Council adopts a policy of not allowing scheduled, pre-planned or otherwise timetabled flights between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00.  That a period of 1 hour at either end of the flying day be allowed for late/early arriving flights only.  That a penalty be applied to any flights arriving during the 1 hour periods.  No take-offs will be allowed between 23:00 and 07:00 hours and a schedule of exceptions to the above be prepared to include ‘mercy flights’, and flights for medical emergencies, coastguard movements etc’.

Cllr Clive Hart said "night flights are a key issue covered in our Thanet Labour Manifesto for 2011 and the wording of our motion follows precisely the recommendations of the TDC Airport Working Party. The current section 106 agreement was put in place over a decade ago and has served Thanet well but the council has failed in it's commitment to update the agreement every three years and it is clear from recent reports sponsored by the airport that it may soon be pressing to extend its operations at night. The Labour Group therefore believes the council needs to give a clear steer as to what is and what is not environmentally acceptable here in Thanet. We support the airport but not at any environmental cost to the people of Thanet".  

The second notice of motion is in relation to live animal exports and was proposed by Cllr Michelle Fenner on 7th June.

Thanet District Council has just publicised the fact that it received legal advice on 23^rd June which “supports its views that there is no legal way to prevent the trade” but the unacceptability of the live trade remains unresolved.

There are still a number of conflicting legal documents from the UK law and various European Union regulations.

The fact that so far no UK court nor the European Court of Justice have justified the ban and that neither the UK Government nor the European Commission have legislated to prevent the trade does not stop TDC from taking part, as a stakeholder, in the EU review of its regulation on this issue to express its views and how it might be improved.

There will still be a motion on this issue from Cllr. Fenner at Full Council on 14^th July.

Cllr Michelle Fenner said "Since I submitted my motion on 7^th June I feel that TDC’s administration and Leadership have not been totally candid about the way they sought legal advice but I hope that in the interest of cross-party co-operation all elected members will support me at full council next week. I appeal to their sense of moral duty.”

East Kent opportunities and the EuroKent site

In recent years we in the Labour Group at TDC have had reason to voice concern over who exactly is deciding the direction of the district council. Our feelings, clearly outlined in our 2011 manifesto, are that all too often officers appear to be deciding the direction of TDC rather than councillors who have been democratically elected by local residents.

 

The East Kent Opportunities, Eurokent proposals are yet another point in question. Land clearly designated for employment use by councillors through robust council procedures is simultaneously being promoted by EKO (a joint TDC and KCC venture) to include a substantial housing development.

 

We simply cannot understand how council officers were ever directed to make proposals which go so blatantly against TDC's own established policies. At last weeks public 'consultations' EKO officers promoted plans that go totally against TDC Planning Policy and did so whilst at the same time clearly stating that EKO was 'answerable to councillors'.

 

None of our 26 member strong Labour Group of councillors have endorsed the EKO proposals and I cannot imagine that any of the 3 members of the Independent Group have been involved either. At best, some of the 27 members of the Conservative administration may have had some kind of involvement and in any event they are now clearly a minority of members at TDC.

 

In short, in a time of austerity and cut-backs, officers have been allowed to carry out a substantial and extremely costly amount of work on a project that may well not meet the requirements of the full council. Possibly worse still, employment opportunities for the site may well have been missed whilst officers have been clearly misdirected in their efforts.

 

Note: The Eurokent site is land between Westwood Cross & the Newington estate on either side of the new main road.

Who will pay for our crossing?

Dear Kent County Councillors,

Will you please use your dedicated funding to pay for our pelican crossing?

At the recent Joint Transportation Board meeting, a petition with 400 signatures from local residents of the Hereson Road, Ramsgate, was presented by Ward Councillors Alan Poole and Michelle Fenner requesting that the pedestrian crossing in the road be upgraded to a pelican crossing with traffic lights.

Using this crossing near the junction with Lillian Road has always been hazardous but it is now extremely precarious and dangerous. The opening of the new Tesco’s store has made the situation worse as customers park illegally on zigzag lines and on the crossing itself. The visibility for drivers and pedestrians is reduced. As a result there are numerous accounts of pedestrians nearly being run over whilst using the zebra crossing.

Cllr Fenner said: “We should not have to wait until a terrible accident happens for the crossing to be upgraded to a pelican crossing. The safety of pedestrians must be paramount.”

Cllr. Poole added: “We have asked the two Kent County Councillors, Bill Hayton and Bob Bayford, to use their Highway Allocation to fund the pelican crossing. According to the latest publication by the Thanet Joint Transportation Board they both have uncommitted KCC sums totaling £113.000 to be spent in their division, which should easily cover the cost of it. We are eagerly awaiting their response.”