Friday, 14 July 2017

The Manston DCO consultation noise compensation post


With only a week to go before the Manston DCO consultation completion deadline I have been trying to work out the situation about noise compensation for those people who live at the end of the runway approach in the bit where aircraft can’t turn so have to fly over houses.

As far as I see this is mostly a swathe over Ramsgate about a mile and a half wide with the runway line going up the middle.

The main place I looked was to see what happens with other airports using the DCO legislation and because DCOs are fairly new, the only other instance where they intend to use a DCO is the third runway at Heathrow.

In the case of Heathrow the situation is fairly clear, if they want your land, your house or your business then when it is subject to the cpo it will be subject to a current market valuation based on the value of your house if were unaffected by the airport expansion and they will pay you this plus 25% see https://your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/local-community/property-compensation/

If you equate Heathrow to Manston the distances don’t look quite the same as at Heathrow the airport own much more land at the eastern end or the site, beyond the end of the runways. So the bit they describe as the wider zone, if applied to Manston and Ramsgate would appear to reach across to the coast.

Here they are offering to buy your property for unaffected market value plus 25% and or offer a sound insulation scheme.

I have to admit I was expecting something like this in the RSP documents but haven’t been able to find anything.

This surprises me because for the DCO to be accepted pins or the DFT, however you like to think of them, have to have proof that RSP have the funds to pay for the compensation and I don't see how they can do this without knowing how much the compensation will be.


The big added difference with the flight path over Ramsgate is the conservation zone and the listed buildings which would be much more expensive to insulate if double-glazing were to be allowed by English Heritage.

My understanding is that however the flight paths are arranged flying over Ramsgate is essential.

I suppose there is also the possibility that what is seen as normal compensation for airport development at Heathrow wouldn’t apply at Manston, but this would seem unlikely.

So have I missed anything or have I misunderstood something.

Here are the books that went out in the bookshop today http://michaelsbookshop.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/the-pale-horseman-in-bookshop.html lots of magic, so the answer may be there. 

8 comments:

  1. http://rsp.co.uk/documents/consultation/10-interim-consultation-report/

    "1.2 This consultation also forms part of RiverOak’s initial engagement on the design of airspace and procedures associated with the airport. As such it is an opportunity for members of the community to highlight any factors which they believe RiverOak should take into account during that design phase. Having taken all such factors into account, the subsequent proposals for flightpaths and airspace will be subject to a separate round of consultation once the DCO application has been made."

    Therefore compensation for people under the flightpath will be sorted after this 2nd consultation about the flightpath.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The CAA designate the flight paths and they aren't going to do that until the DOC has been settled. Thought all knowing book shop owner would have known this - he's an expert on everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My understanding is that

    1 there will be a noise issue this is clearly set out in rsp’s PEIR which gives figures for engine types they expect to use.

    2 overflying Ramsgate is unavoidable, so in terms of noise issues affecting the town any changes in flight paths don’t change the final approach where it is basically too late to make a turn before landing.

    3 that in order for the DCO to proceed at all pins have to be satisfied that rsp have the funds any compensation claims that may come up, the main 2 being the existing landowners compensation and the people with homes and businesses under the flightpath, which I would expect to be insulation costs for those who want to stay and relocation costs for those who don’t. Essentially that rsp like Heathrow have the money to cover the most compensation they could need to find.

    Something like airport site 700 acres, 283 hectares, designated brownfield independent valuation https://www.kent.gov.uk/.../0008/53882/Land-prices.pdf puts southeast non agricultural land prices, residential in the av £4m per hectare ballpark with the lowest in Dover at about £1.75m and industrial in the £1.1m ballpark.

    I think the whole point of a DCO is that at the point of application all of the main issues should have already been sorted out, the pins phrase is front loaded, after this the only official consultation the general idea is that the whole DCO project then goes ahead pretty much as thrashed out during the pre application stage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      So what exactly is your point? I know that you have always been fervently against the RSP intention to create a freight hub. Are you endeavouring to show us that in your view RSP is doomed.

      Delete
    2. John not exactly sure really as completing the consultation and the points people are making on the internet are helping to clarify issues. I would say there is never a cut and dried right solution with these issues, but if local proposals have aspects where there is a lack of professional understanding then historically we have sometimes got into the worst case Thanet situation which is large and important sites wasted like Pleasurama.

      I think a key here is that the DCO can’t proceed without rsp proving they have the money to fund compensation and somehow they don’t seem to have even got to the point of saying what the compensation would cover.

      I would say that Heathrow, the other big airport expansion project moving towards a DCO is worth a look at.

      I guess that as there has never been an airport expansion DCO there is an area where everyone involved lacks experience.

      Delete
    3. Michael, Are you seriously asking me to believe that RSP do not have the money to proceed. At the risk of being frank, just because you do not know is not proof of anything.

      Michael, As usual you are scratching around looking for evidence against RSP; and also garnering hits on your blog.

      Delete
    4. John. According to pins for the DCO to accepted rsp have to prove that they have the money for all of the compensation and that this proof will be published on the pins website. I would say that rsp not publishing a defined level of compensation as part of their documentation would suggest that there may be issues that are yet to be resolved. Most financiers would I think be concerned about an open-ended aspect like that, inasmuch as I can see how the Heathrow package would work, how spreading it over a year would mean that the amount of finance needed would be limited and how just the existence of the package would be likely to preserve property values.

      Delete
  4. Paul sorry about this I think I pressed 3 when I should have pressed 4 and deleted your comment, here it is

    Paul Eaton has left a new comment on your post "The Manston DCO consultation noise compensation po...":

    http://rsp.co.uk/documents/consultation/10-interim-consultation-report/

    "1.2 This consultation also forms part of RiverOak’s initial engagement on the design of airspace and procedures associated with the airport. As such it is an opportunity for members of the community to highlight any factors which they believe RiverOak should take into account during that design phase. Having taken all such factors into account, the subsequent proposals for flightpaths and airspace will be subject to a separate round of consultation once the DCO application has been made."

    Therefore compensation for people under the flightpath will be sorted after this 2nd consultation about the flightpath.

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.