Lydd boss attacks council over refusal recommendation
LYDD airport bosses have launched a blistering attack on the district council – days before a decision is made on development plans.
Shepway councillors will decide tomorrow (Wednesday) whether or not to allow the runway to be extended and a new terminal to be built.
An officers’ report, made public last week, recommends refusal but Jonathan Gordon, the airport’s managing director, said the conclusion was based on “seriously flawed and unreliable" data.
He said: “Shepway District Council commissioned an assessment report from Bureau Veritas which reached the conclusion that, in respect of a Special Protection Area outside the airport boundary, bird populations would not be able to live alongside noise from aircraft and aerodrome bird control.
“This is simply a manifestly unreasonable conclusion and is not supported by reference to extensive experience at any other airport in the world. The authors of this report, from Bureau Veritas, have fundamentally misunderstood the evidence presented to them by Lydd Airport.
“Our team of consultants includes international experts on bird behaviour near aerodromes and they are baffled by Bureau Veritas’ conclusions.”
Mr Gordon said repeated requests for a meeting with Bureau Veritas to resolve misunderstandings before the report was published were not granted and the result is that a key document relating to the application has come to “quite simply the wrong and unsupported conclusion”.
He added: “Given the importance of this decision to the economic future of the Marsh, I hope councillors will take the time to closely scrutinise all the information, particularly the booklet we have posted to them in the last few days.”
MP Michael Howard has also announced he is backing the expansion plans and has “reopened discussion” on a scheme to protect Marsh homeowners’ property values, which could come into force if permission is granted.
But the Lydd Airport Action Group has rubbished these claims.
Spokesman Louise Barton said: “Michael Howard and Lydd Airport have acknowledged that the airport will reduce house prices.
“Their jointly proposed package for falling house values will never fully compensate homeowners for the degradation of their quality of life as a result of increased air and noise pollution. This compensation is only likely to be available to residents located close to the end of the runway whereas the airport will adversely affect thousands of residents within and beyond Shepway.
“These residents will not receive compensation but will suffer a reduction in the quality of their lives as a result of air and noise pollution due to aircraft and increased road traffic. “House price compensation does not prevent the loss or degradation of precious bird, animal and plant life habitat across Romney Marsh.
Councillors should vote against this application in line with the recommendation of the SDC officers’ report.”
A spokesman for SDC said: “We do not want to get into a public debate about the applications until the council meeting on Wednesday - which we believe is the right and proper place for such deliberations.”
5 Comments
by Stu, Kent
Wednesday, March 03 2010, 8:44PM
“Whilst I commend your commitment to the environment, I'm afraid you're living in a dream world. The Marsh has to live in the here and now. We simply cannot afford to turn down investment and the opportunity for job creation. Are these green jobs coming to the Marsh? I do hope so! But even then, the NIMBY movement will shout THEM down! Wind-farms? No no no! A factory to produce electric cars? Not in my backyard! This is what it comes down to. Unreasonable opposition to a fantastic opportunity for a terribly deprived area. I'm lucky - I have a career. Many in the area aren't so lucky, they rely on private sector investment today.
I believe that the facts make clear, when seen with an open mind, that the impact of the airport is minimal. This is not Heathrow we're talking about!
People want to fly. It's a simple fact! I rely on air travel for both business and personal reasons. Your argument seems to be anti-air travel in general, and this isn't really the place to make that argument. I can make many statements about the futility of electric cars in protecting the environment, but this is not the forum to do so.
I came into this with an open mind, and whilst you appear willing to engage in debate, one only needs to look at LAAG to see their is nothing open minded about their campaigning. You are mistaken in thinking that my comments regarding bully boy tactics were aimed as a personal attack on yourself. There can, however, be no mistaking the general hysteria generated by the anti-lobby, which seeks to shout down all opposition. It's a sad state-of-affairs that NIMBYism appears to be so prevalent across the county. unfortunately.”
by Robkin, Kent
Wednesday, March 03 2010, 7:46PM
“Those who dismiss the opposition without looking with an open mind will never find the answer.
Sorry but I can't see any hysterics or bully-boy tactics in my comment. please explain.
Up to a million new jobs can be created in this country by investing in green technology e.g. building, installing and maintaining renewable energy, new forms of transport (the motor car may be obsolete in 20 years time with peak oil, so I already use an electric vehicle) and improved insulation, etc. etc.
What does the opposition have to offer? Same old same old - noise, pollution, diminishing fossil fuels. Not a future for my kids, thank you.”
by Stu, Kent
Wednesday, March 03 2010, 5:26PM
“Green jobs? What green jobs?
I've looked closely at both sides of the argument before making a judgement, and have been put off by the hysterics of LAAG. There's simply no evidence of any great increase in noise or pollution as a result of a small runway extension and a new terminal.
I'm sorry, but the bully-boy tactics of the vocal minority don't wash with the majority of people in the area who welcome with open arms investment into the area. A "slump" in quality of life? Hardly. I'm tired of this hyperbole.
What there IS evidence of is the desperate need for jobs and money coming into the area. The greater good MUST prevail, and I dearly hope the councillors have the courage to not be bullied.”
by Robkin, Kent
Wednesday, March 03 2010, 4:37PM
“I couldn't agree less with Stu, Kent. Noise and emissions will vastly increase (There's no such thing as an environmentally friendly aeroplane).
Quality of life will slump for the poor locals, who would be better employed in green jobs which will benefit us all.”
by Stu, Kent
Tuesday, March 02 2010, 1:04PM
“Fingers crossed the councillors will do the right thing and say YES to the expansion.
For crying out loud, there's been an airport at Lydd for 50 years! The planned expansion is not that big, but it's going to get people in the community into jobs. What could be more important than that?
And as for Lydd Airport Action Group - typical selfish NIMBYs who couldn't careless about anyone but themselves. The Marsh needs jobs!! A fall in house prices for a handful of malcontents is a SMALL price to pay for a chance for the Marsh to get back on it's feet again economically.”