Thursday 17 March 2016

March consultations

On the 15th and 16th of March 2016 Mssrs Cartner and Musgrave held the 3rd Public consultation prior to putting in a a planning application to Thanet Council in April. Prior to the consultation they mail dropped Thanet the following leaflet



These consultations were, as expected, subject to the normal "massive" protests outside by the many supporters of Riveroak the failed developer.

The overview of the site will look like this

Each element was shown separately
This shows they are endeavouring to cater to the problems that exist currently in Thanet with two primary schools, a community hall and GP with Pharmacy.
2500 houses to be built over a 10-15 year timescale with a range of housing. A mention must be made of the edition of homes for seniors because ever since two homes closed in Broadstairs Thanet has had a shortage of beds which is not getting any better.
The building of an "East Kent Sports Village" including a 50M Swimming pool, and sports pitches will enhance the whole area and if done properly will increase the possibility of events being put on which will put Thanet on the map.
130 hectares of parkland (one third of the site) to include cycle paths and parkland. This will also preserve the Northern grass to enable historic aircraft to use it to enhance the expansion of the Spitfire museum.
The planning applications will be submitted in April however it is likely (if past performance is anything to go by) to be refused. This will ensure at appeal the decision will be taken out of TDC's hands.
This site is full of handy advice should anyone wish to write with their thoughts on the matter. I have added some handy hints to save you clicking to it but I would recommend saving the link.

Link: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/p/how-to-object.html?m=1

Important info: In quite a few areas the local planning authority has still not succeeded in putting its Core Strategy in place, and even where a Core Strategy has been adopted, it may not yet have been fleshed out by other DPDs. In such cases, some or all of the policies in the old-style Local Plan will still apply, although as old Local Plans become increasingly out-of-date, the weight to be given to them is much reduced, especially where they are seen to be inconsistent with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework
Among the material considerations which a Council must also take into account is ministerial policy and guidance, set out in various government circulars and in the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF), published in March 2012, which replaced the previous series of Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). The NPPF is of considerable importance in areas where a Core Strategy has not yet been adopted by the local planning authority. It has led to numerous appeals being allowed for housing developments where the local council cannot demonstrate that it has a committed 5-year land supply for housing.

The following points, on the other hand will not be taken into account in deciding on the acceptability of the development in planning terms :

• The precise identity of the applicant;
• The racial or ethnic origin of the applicant, their sexual orientation, religious beliefs, political views or affiliations or any other personal attributes;
• The reasons or motives of the applicant in applying for planning permission (for example if the development is thought to be purely speculative);
• Any profit likely to be made by the applicant;
• The behaviour of the applicant;
• Nuisance or annoyance previously caused by the applicant [unless this relates to an existing development for which retrospective permission is being sought];
• Concerns about possible future development of the site (as distinct from the actual development which is currently being proposed);
• Any effect on the value of neighbouring properties


And especially for the MP for Riveroak
Don’t waste time writing to your Member of Parliament. Even if he or she is persuaded to write in on behalf of constituents, the views expressed will carry no greater weight than those of any other objector. An MP has no authority or influence over the Council, and certainly cannot arbitrate or mediate in planning matters or act as some sort of appeal tribunal.

The people at Stone Hill Park writing in SOUTHEAST BUSINESS said the following

"
“Local MP, Sir Roger Gale, is actively supporting the bid by RiverOak to pursue a Development Consent Order to acquire the site and turn it into a cargo freight airport capable of handling 12,000 cargo movements a year (that’s 6,000 take-offs and 6,000 landings). This follows on from two failed attempts by RiverOak to convince Thanet District Council that it would be a suitable partner to try to acquire the land by way of Compulsory Purchase Order.
The DCO pre-application, now lodged with the Government, is for an airport capable of handling a sixfold increase in the largest cargo movements Manston has ever handled in the past. It would make Manston the second busiest air cargo hub in Britain, behind only East Midlands in terms of freight-only aircraft movements.
Our prediction that RiverOak’s CPO attempts would fail has proven correct and we are confident that any bid to compulsory acquire the land through DCO will also fail as it is not in the public interest.
We also believe the enormous set-up costs and lack of demand for such a freight airport will mean the plans would never get off the ground. The industry trend is for major passenger airlines to sell vacant space in the belly hold of long haul passenger aircraft to carry cargo, thus taking goods directly to the major centres for distribution, like London and the Midlands. We cannot see how anyone could undercut this in order to create a major cargo hub at Manston.
However, the potential delay and uncertainty this DCO process could cause is bad for the local economy and frustrating for local people. Therefore we have sought the advice of industry experts in order to give local people a clear picture of what RiverOak’s plans would mean for them.
The freight airport would result in a cargo plane, typically a 747 400 series, flying between 300-600ft over East Kent every 40 minutes, every day and night of the year, or more often during the day if night flight restrictions are in place. Particularly affected by the noise would be Ramsgate and villages surrounding the airfield that sit beneath the flight path.
Those who have worked in the industry tell us that typically, 12 trucks are used to unload a cargo plane and depart to various destinations so surrounding villages would not only have to contend with the loudest noise from continuous plane movements but also up to 400 articulated lorry movements every day in and out of the airport.
Historically the principal cargo flown into Manston was flowers and vegetables such as aubergines, peppers and courgettes with seasonal spikes between December and Easter.
In terms of the local economy it would seem self-defeating to support the mass importation of such perishables into the Garden of England when locally £135m is being invested into the state of the art, environmentally responsible, Thanet Earth at Birchington.
This incredible high tech greenhouse business is currently the UK’s largest producer of peppers, tomatoes and cucumbers with plans for further expansion.
We believe Sir Roger‘s obsession with the US investment corporation RiverOak has blinded him to the needs and wishes of his electorate.
Stone Hill Park’s plans, drawn up after extensive consultation with local communities, will provide 2,500 new homes, thousands of jobs, community facilities such as school, health, leisure and greenspace. This, along with a multi-million pound windfall to local councils and public services will provide a solution to the continued long term socio-economic decline of East Kent.
Sir Roger/RiverOaks plans for a cargo freight hub have been subject to zero public consultation to date and will:
  • bring noise pollution on a scale never seen before that will destroy the Georgian tranquillity of Ramsgate and surrounding area
  • inflict enormous strain on local roads and villages
  • flatten property prices.
All this without providing any solution to the local demand for jobs, homes and community resources.”
RiverOak’s application for an air cargo hub at Manston can be viewed at: http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/south-east/manston-airport/

53 comments:

  1. Well written Barry.
    Brilliant advice and tips for submissions of feedback.
    All in all a very positive week for the former airport.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Roger isnt blinded he knows full well what hes doing and what he has to gain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A)Topping up hes cash savings for all the help he has/is putting in for his mates.B)Getting back at Mrs Gloag.And last and by far the least looking like he is working for the good of local people.HD.

      Delete
    2. Well HD according to FOI response our Roger was hiding quite a bit from the Defence Select Cttee he sat on ........... I just sent the Home Secretary an email about the implications of this BTW.

      Delete
    3. Remember the winter gardens meeting in early 2014,when Gale said after I stood up and walked to the stage and gave paperwork to the woman next to Nicolás reed'Why not Manston'...This is a red hering,A lame duck.That was me ( Humpty Dumpty),As on U Tube.I was outside telling his lady friend how corrupt Gale is when he appeared walking up to the entrece of the winter Garden,she rushed to his side and told him,he saw me went a reddish greeny color and slipped into the building.I made a quick phone call to Mrs Gloag(which is logged on my phone for this day&time)then entered the building 5 or so minutes after they had started.Only after Gale had seen me Walk in and sit down did he revile that he had to shoot off early for a very important meeting to do with the airport,and gave himself and his lady friend 5 minutes to get there,which was the escape plan to flee.sir Roger Gale MP is an active crook along with tony Freudmann who have plotted to Rob by way of decepción the people of Thanet,and tuck up Mrs Gloag in all sorts of ways.Roger had cut into hes holiday to be there on that luckey day he held in his hand a letter from RiverOak,Freudmanns,Joshi's mates.What dated posted marked letter?or was it hand deliverd? And where was the very important meeting THAY had to rush off too? Roger is a fampot,and lets see how far whots her ñame backs Roger up,calling me names in front of people on camera,I just might sue sir Roger Gale MP for that.HD.

      Delete
  3. When will Mackinlay and Gale reopen Manston? If not then they should resign as I was their key manifesto point

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gale would only reopen Manston/SHP if Freudmann&co got a hold of it,then level it after giving it a go! and get the go ahead for what the SMA supporters don't want,A London overspill.

      Delete
  4. Won't building at SHP cause:

    •bring noise pollution on a scale never seen before that will destroy the Georgian tranquillity of Ramsgate and surrounding area
    •inflict enormous strain on local roads and villages

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would it anon and who do you think jumbos landing will affect.

      No why should it if the planners get it right.

      Delete
    2. Well building takes place in one site. Aircraft move and take the noise with them ?

      And aircraft create airborne particulate pollution. If that was over Thanet the people are already over one fifth on long term incapacity and with the highest lung disease rate in UK. What could possibly go wrong ?

      Delete
    3. Brillante answer Richard,Spot on.

      Delete
    4. You forgot all the jobs which would come to the área,Anon 13:03.

      Delete
    5. What jobs? SHP saying there'd be jobs to get approval?

      Delete
    6. The jobs which first come from building etc ect jobs to service once built new and relocated company jobs,more people in work from the local áreas.More people spending money localy bringing new businsses to the área creating more jobs and so on.

      Delete
  5. Why just mention two homes ion Broadstairs closing when in fact a significant number in Thanet have closed. Two main reasons-too costly to run or closed by CQC for poor care standards. Also the amount of money available from social services to fund care is minimal and families cannot afford the top up fees. No doubt the plans for elderly care will be provided by housing associations who are also subject to the same funding cuts or are provided for from housing benefit as rooms are let on a rental basis with care provided from the social fund. Either way they stay and we pay as I am sure a vast amount of this scheme will be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the simple reason that when mum was in QEQM and looking for a home KCC adult social care cited that as the reason mum was offered Sittingbourne

      Delete
  6. FOI re Briefing to Section 106 aviation environmental impact consultant

    TDC are now overdue to respond to request.

    Still no reply from Chris Wells. Iris Johnston has stood down as Labour leader for reasons of being unwell. But Iris replacement Jenny Matterface has emailed me. I think now it is fair to give Jenny time to get into her new role.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wouldn't it be a turn up if Riveroak suss that the Section 106 of TDC, foundational to Riveroak cause, was set up by TDC deception. And instead of troubling the Planning Inspectorate they take TDC and Roger Gale to court ?

    I await the TDC response to see where the wind really lays.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes Richard wouldn't it.Who knows whats in the plan B when the DPO/CPO collapses.How about going the Battersea finders fee turnout but this time by mistakes made by Freudmann&co making a better Job of making a legal claim against TDC ect etc.Oooo I must be a pain in the A....HD.I Know.

    ReplyDelete
  9. TDC response to delay in answering FOI and my reply

    At the moment the facts (or refusal to disclose the facts) are not known.

    I suspect increasingly that the Section 106 agreement was created by deception and by neglect of TDC Environmental Health duties. But await the TDC response.

    What ever the response from TDC the concern remains at Roger Gale MP concealing the water contamination and remediation facts from the Commons in 2000.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 09:20 yes good that Iris has gone...but what will Jenny do? The Labour leader title is just being passed around now to give all 5 a go rather than any specific policies

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. maybe ask her anon

      Delete
    2. I am hoping 12.17 to get more details about Labour cllrs being lied to about the scale and duration of the water supply contamination. From the stage of remediation (then secret) I can infer that some Labour cllrs were lied to during the late 90s Labour administration of TDC.

      When I revealed the true facts by FOI 2008, and gained Kent Health Protection Agency agreement 2009 that epidemiology research should ensue, Iris was clearly then in a position to create the true back story (even if she had not known before).

      It is not, as far as I am concerned, a case of what Jenny can do. I want to make the case, if facts support it, that the S106 foundational to Riveroak cause was created during a history of substantial lies and was created by deception.

      If TDC properly briefed their S106 aviation consultant circa 2001 then he should/would have advised them about precautionary principle and statutory reporting duties Terrorism Act 2000. Now I must wait to see what the current FOI brings out.

      I would hope that Jenny is asking Labour colleagues how they feel about having been lied to and whether anyone asked them to keep quiet after 2008 when my FOI revealed the truth to them.

      Delete
    3. Richard, the S106 and Riveroak is a dead duck now. Jenny should be asking about the aquifer contamination and missing monitors and cancer/mortality rate and the problems at Thor you've raised.

      Delete
    4. Anon 15:32 S106 and Riveroak are not dead ducks they are now both part of the whole.The Jenny part you write of should go ahead,lets see what Jenny is made of! From what i've heard Jenny isn't going to take any monkey business from anyone.HD.

      Delete
    5. Does anyone really believe after 2 years that Manston will reopen? And even if it did that the S106 wouldn't be tightened up?

      Delete
    6. Anon 13.11 how do you define your issues and objectives ?

      Delete
  11. SHP is a 4th town again like WCross isn't it? We don't need or want this many houses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another village you mean. Not many towns are that small

      Delete
  12. So Mr Smee was the man I met at the spitefire café who flashed a reporters ID to me from his hip.Why has he kept quite on the info I gave him in early 2014 about Gale/Freudmann and the plan?.HD.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's pro airport so unlikely to publish anything which might go against the airport opening.

      Delete
    2. So he's not intrested in Truths,pity that,he could of saved a lot of time wasted by Freudmann/Riveroak and thier MP,but then again time wasting seems to be one of there Best forms of attack.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps you should send your info to a journalist that is anti the airport and see what becomes of it or maybe send it to Chris Wells at Tdc

      Delete
    4. Anon 18:42 who would be the journalist to contact with guts,does any come to mind?.Mo of UKIP received info by email in early 2014 so I take it Chris Wells has acted the way he has because Mo let him know,tricky one for all.

      Delete
    5. P.S 18:42,The Directors at RiverOak also were put on warning about Freudmann&Gale by email and by thier actions are 'On the firm'to steal by any trick possible the land!and when that does not happen sue whomever they can,Fruedmanns plan B/insurance policy.Humpty Dumpty.

      Delete
  13. Anyone know what Dreamland sued TDC for and the costs we paid out? Wells has clammed up

    ReplyDelete
  14. 3.99% tax increase at KCC - doesn't that require a referendum if over 1.99% How much for other Kent organisations? Is it really 40% for RTC?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RTC 40% tax increase??? What have they done?

      Delete
  15. does anyone know what the slipways is supposed to be?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'd try Channel 4 perhaps Michael Crick or Jon Snow

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sent a short note to Michael Crick by email some weeks ago,Nothing not a Word back to me,Maybe it has something to do with an ING 1 millón euro bond I showed up with;part of a 5 billón euro bond series that ING couldn't/wouldn't pay up on in 2010! Coz they were skint at the time.For sure everybody who I have contacted regrading whots whot on Gale/Freudmann&co in early 2014 are keeping very very quite! I surpose the only way now is to make a fuss,in words and pictures.

      Delete
    2. What's the ING bond of the slipways?

      Delete
    3. The ING Bond was part of an answer to anon 19:53,nothing to do with the slipways im afraid.

      Delete
  17. I have emailed Chris Wells and copied it to Roger Gale and Jenny Matterface.

    I ask Wells at the earliest convenience to notify Planning Inspectorate that questions about the legality and standing of the original Section 106 have been registered with him as leader TDC.

    And to notify that the alleged lies and concealments in the creation of the S106 are subject of allegation they criminally breached the statutory reporting duties of the Terrorism Act 2000.

    I have also copied this to the Planning Inspectorate.

    For some months now Wells has failed to reply to my emails asking him to call a full council meeting with a view to creating policy for TDC compliance with the Terrorism Act 2000. The tory Cllr who allegedly misled the High Court in 1998 in these matters has been fully copied in and has also continued to elect silence.

    When Richard Samuel first became TDC CEO he did decide to copy some correspondence received by TDC, prior to his appointment, to the Police. This was not sufficient to comply with the statutory reporting duties of Terrorism Act 2000. Although it may have fulfilled his individual common law duty to report under misprision of treason.

    Cllr Pat Sebastian recently confirmed for National Crime Agency and IPCC that he called in Met anti terrorist branch in 1998. I do not yet know if Cllr Sebastian was one of the Labour cllrs being lied to about the Sericol water supply contamination at that time.

    It was REME Corps Secretariat who called in MOD Police in 1998. Hence it looks as if both Met AT Branch and MOD Police were misled in their Thanet inquiries the same year that a tory Cllr allegedly denied to High Court there were any inquiries.

    ReplyDelete
  18. TDC scoping advice to Wiggins and Manston Airport Consultative Cttee 2001

    This seems to be the point at which TDC should have included in a scoping opinion, re environmental impact assessment, the existing environmental and public health hazards. So that the Thanet populace, about to be subjected to a public health threat pincer movement, would have its interests properly protected.

    These then were the circumstances in which the S106 agreement was created.

    I am not sure why Riveroak would think the S106 still attaches to Manston and could be purchased with the site. But that aside the s106 foundational to Riveroak application to Planning Inspectorate does not look as helpful to their cause as they may have assumed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So in summary I emailed Chris Wells asking him to confer with TDC QEQM consultative cttee with a view to making a report to QEQM of the full history known so far of contamination of Thanet water supply.

    The anon, who frequently pops up to mention removal of monitors, will be pleased to know this matter is mentioned, as part of the whole, in the email to Chris Wells.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Did TDC remove the monitors? They were required as part of the S106?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is your take on this anon 12 56 ?

      I am stuck at the bit where Wiggins Teape ask TDC (Cllr Richard Nicholson) for a scoping opinion. And what that scoping opinion was and whether it included monitoring.

      Delete
  21. There was monitoring under Wiggins until c.2004?

    ReplyDelete


  22. 1.1 The Council has received a request from Councillors Helen Smith and Konnor Collins both of Northwood ward for an extended leave of absence from attendance at Council meetings on the grounds of ill health on Friday 18 March 2016.



    2.0 The Current Situation



    2.1 Under the Local Government Act 1972 if a Member fails throughout a period of six consecutive months from the date of his or her last attendance to attend any meeting of the Council he or she shall on the expiry of that period cease to be a Member unless the failure was due to a reason approved by the Council. Attendance in an official capacity at a meeting of a committee or sub-committee of the Council or at any meeting of a joint committee or other such body discharging functions of the Council or at any outside body meeting as a representative of the Council is deemed to be a meeting of the Council.



    2.2 The last meeting Councillor Helen Smith attended was a Citizens Advice Thanet Trustee Board meeting and AGM held on 21st October 2015. The last meeting Councillor Konnor Collins attended was a Planning Committee on 21 October 2015. Therefore if Councillor Smith or Councillor Collins does not attend a meeting by 21st April 2016, then they will cease to be a member of the Council.



    2.3 Councillor Smith and Councillors Collins submitted a request for leave of absence from attendance at Council meetings on Friday 18 March 2016, the reason given being severe illness and hospitalisation.



    2.4 It is suggested that a six month leave of absence be approved which would allow time for Councillor Smith and Collins to recover. However Council could decide to amend this time period making it shorter or longer if it wished. However long the extension, it is recommended that it start from the 20 April 2016.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Council meeting agenda this Thursday:
    http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=4088

    * item 12 details staff salaries....but doesn't actually say what the salaries and extra payments are...

    * Leaders Report: isn't included

    A joke of a council pulling the wool over the eyes of our baaaad sheep councillors

    ReplyDelete