Agenda item

This report advises the Committee of the petitions presented at Council meetings, received by the council or sent via the e-petition facility, including a summary of officer’s response to the petitioners.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out petitions received and a summary of Officer’s responses to petitioners.

The Committee was informed that in accordance with the Council’s petition’s scheme, Mr McLennan (lead petitioner) for the ‘Say NO to Rochester Airport Masterplan’ petition had asked for the petition to be referred to this Committee.

The Chair invited Mr McLennan to address members.

Mr McLennan representing all the signatories of the “Say NO to Rochester Airport Masterplan” addressed the Committee and explained that there had been an oversight in the petition process on his behalf, as he had not collected the addresses of those who had signed the petition, however he was in the process of collecting all addresses in order for the petition to be properly validated.

He informed the committee that the petition statements addressed to the Council were not prescriptive, instead they were seeking the Council to consider all the options available. He expressed concern that the proposals set out in the Masterplan had a wide range of safety and environmental impacts, which would be prejudicial to the local community.

Mr McLennan then addressed the committee on each of the responses to the petition and raised the following:

Ensuring residents safety – Mr McLennan stated that it was an individual pilot’s responsibility to decide whether to fly in difficult weather conditions. The creation of a single paved runway increased the risk of accidents occurring, as the final decision on whether it was safe to fly remained with the pilot.

Consultation process – Mr McLennan felt that the consultation process had been compromised, as earlier publication documents contained the views of the area Ward Councillors. The purpose of the consultation was not to try and influence public opinion.

He stated that parts of the local community could not raise their concerns over noise sensitivities owing to a previous civil agreement.

Economic Strategy – Mr McLennan questioned what independent studies had been carried out in respect of the financial returns that would be made on the airport. Providing the results of an independent study would allow residents and businesses to consider the proposals and allow for a range of options to be explored.

Financial Investment – The WS Atkins financial statement confirmed that having a paved runway was not financially justifiable. As a business Rochester Airport would not make significant financial return on its investment. The creation of a single paved runway would increase the non-domestic rate of the airport site to £300,000 a year.

Mr McLennan referred to the development of Buckmore Park, which had resulted in this site encountering financial difficulties and subsequent bankruptcy. He considered that should the proposals for Rochester Airport go ahead then similar issues could occur at this site unless there was a significant increase in air traffic and flyers to cover the costs.

The committee thanked Mr McLennan for addressing his concerns and he responded to a number of questions from members as summarised below:

·        The percentage/number of accidents that had been caused by pilot error at Rochester airfield was 50%. This was 9 in total, since 2000.

·        The local community supported the airfield in its current guise, and they realised that it was part of the infrastructure of the area.

·        It was not possible to compare the safety of an aircraft with that of a car, as residents did not get the choice of whether they lived underneath the flight path of a light aircraft and it would be costly for those residents under the flight path to move out of their home.

·        Concern that the proposed runway in the masterplan would end 135 metres from the nearest house.

·        All possible options in relation to the land at Rochester Airport should be put forward to the local community for consideration.

·        The current proposals did not show how the Council could make a return on its investment.

·        There had been no dialogue between residents and the Council in regards to the financial aspect of the airport.

·        The land at Rochester Airport was not being maximised under the current proposals. The creation of 1000 jobs was not enough with regard to the potential of the land, if the land was properly developed more jobs could be created.

·        The consultation has been rushed through over the summer when many people are not available to respond.

Mr McLennan thanked the committee for allowing him to address his concerns.

Decision:

The committee noted:

1)     The responses to the petitions in paragraph 3 of the report and the responses to the Lead Petitioner on the ‘Say NO to Rochester Airport Masterplan’ petition at Appendix A.

2)     The concerns raised by the Lead Petitioner on the ‘Say NO to Rochester Airport Masterplan’ petition outlined at the meeting.