The international airport of the RAF London Kent Ramsgate Manston have introduced a new system to tell complaints of the noise through its Web site. Complaining it to the peoples who want to bring the flights of the freight of the night to one rooftop close to you cannot be the most efficient way to become heard above the din, but at least that is paying to the little o service of the edge to the tidal wave of the complaints that the airport has attracted of the residents of Ramsgate.The form says that all the fields marked with an 'astrix' are obligatory. I assume that it would very well be 'gauling' to have you the complaint rejected! Ha ha I made the funny joke just as Mr. Eastcliff!
Estale to complain it here the airport
5 comments:
Is there an online form to praise them & to ask for more flights?
Yes he has but you can chuff you if you to think that I am going to give a linking to that one!
i believing of that systems happening that enable £1.00 flights happening.
More flightiness's = more repossessions maybe thinking?
The EA states (in a letter to KIA dated 6th July 2006) that the BFI no1 (at KIA) to pose an unacceptable risk to groundwater and clearly has for some time. Couple this risk to the SPZ 1 and 2 we should be asking what risk assessments have taken place in the event of a major pollution incident - and what assessment has taken place regarding our water bills if god forbid something does happen? Will we have to have potable water brought in and who is going to foot the bill? Up to 100,000 litres of fuel could end up in the SPZ's (in the worst case) if this application and the discharge consent does not get into the finer details?
One only has to look at the environmental clean up bill for the recent Canada (Halifax) 747 crash -again will it be the airport alone to bear the costs or will the water rates for Thanet have to go up due to the expense of bringing more water from outside the area.
The EA have yet to deal with the full discharge application from the airport owners and state “that no guarantee can be given regarding the eventual outcome of an application” so in effect we do not even know how large the holding tanks are to contain the worst case scenario? On the subject of the character of the area - this is a moot point given that no discharge consent has yet been obtained and the area that has to be excavated may well increase in size which effectively means what mitigation can take place to keep the height at 1.5m? Whilst its welcoming to see some of these issues being put in the report other issues pertaining to this application have not - due to delays getting information back from public bodies.
Further to the above all parties have yet to deal with how they are going to manage a large aviation fuel spillage in the grass area that is the main part of the SPZ2. Certainly nothing on this subject ahs been put in the public domain or to KIACC
my precious bodily fluids.
Post a Comment