Wednesday 30 March 2016

Riveroak's DCO carries on

An update has been issued by the Planning Inspectorate as there was a further meeting on the 23rd February. Meeting notes below. I have highlighted the interesting points and strangely RO haven't commented on them but SMA seem to be acting as their spokeperson with their typical spin.

Attendees 

The Developer: 

Tony Freudmann (RiverOak) 

Niall Lawlor (RiverOak) 

George Yerrall (RiverOak) 

Chris Cain (Northpoint Aviation) 

Tom Henderson (Bircham Dyson Bell) 

Alexander Hallatt (Bircham Dyson Bell) 


The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) explained its openness policy and its statutory duty to publish any advice issued under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) on its website. Any advice issued under s51 does not constitute legal advice upon which the attendees, or others, can rely. Introductions were made by everyone present and individual roles were explained. 

RiverOak provided an overview of activity since the last meeting and confirmed that various consultants have been appointed to the scheme. RiverOak anticipated a meeting of the combined consultancy team imminently with the aim of discussing the preparation of a masterplan. 

RiverOak provided some observations about the air freight industry in the UK and particularly in respect of the South East System. RiverOak believed there to be a current and future undersupply in dedicated freight capacity and highlighted where they considered there to be constraints on existing airports.
 


Now this is difficult to understand as RO seem to be existing in a parallel universe from such bodies as "the Economist" Link here They say quite clearly in the article " The volume of goods travelling by air has risen marginally over the past year but airlines’ cargo revenues have fallen from a peak of $67 billion in 2011 to around $50 billion a year now." and "A dramatic fall in sea-freight rates—of more than 75% since 2012 on some routes—as a result of overcapacity among shipping lines has encouraged customers to switch from sending some non-urgent deliveries by air. Excess capacity among the airlines themselves has done further damage. Since the financial crisis, there has been no let-up in the growth of passenger demand, so carriers have been expanding their fleets. This means the amount of cargo space in the belly of passenger planes has risen sharply. Combined with flat demand for shipping by air, the result is that average capacity utilisation across the air-cargo business has fallen to 43.5%, the lowest since the crisis. So, customers have been able to demand big price cuts.
  RiverOak indicated some of the working assumptions being considered in supporting their application in respect of, for example, average freight tonnage per aircraft movement. The PA2008 definition and thresholds associated with airport development were discussed. 

RiverOak confirmed that they believed their application would be under s23(1)(b) as an alteration to an airport due to the remaining physical infrastructure on the site and noted in respect of PA2008 s23(5)(b) they were likely to consider that the airport had zero capacity because of its current physical state. 

RiverOak confirmed that letters had been sent to certain landowners in respect of seeking access on to their land to undertake survey work. Timeframes had been identified for response in that correspondence however, it was noted that to date no responses had been received. Hardly surprising

The considerations in respect of a s53 authorisation request were discussed and The Inspectorate noted the importance of evidence to accompany any such request. The Inspectorate’s Advice Note 5 was highlighted. 

RiverOak provided an update on the proposals and confirmed the intention that Manston Airport would be capable of providing over 10,000 additional freight movements by 2024/2025, with further growth beyond that date. There would also be low cost and charter passenger flights.

In real terms considering that would be the minimum number of flights to achieve acceptance for a DCO, however this equates once you add on KIA's best year a minimum of 33 flights a day. A figure SMA try and avoid mentioning. This is the flightpath for those unfortunate to be under 33 Jumbos all day and night
 

RiverOak explained that their current thinking was based on a range of scenarios that would be subject to the masterplanning approach. RiverOak provided some background context in respect of the need and operation of a ‘dismantling and recycling’ facility for decommissioned aircraft. RiverOak also noted plans for the site that could include enhancing the tourism offer and location of an Aerospace Park. 

The Inspectorate were interested to understand what elements would form part of a Development Consent Order (DCO) application for the site and how the development of the site, as controlled through the DCO and associated certified document and plans, was proposed to be phased. The existing accesses for freight and passenger vehicles from the existing road networks were explained. 

RiverOak noted the highway network in the vicinity of the airport and noted one junction in particular that would potentially require improvement. RiverOak also highlighted a public highway that runs through the centre of the site. 

RiverOak noted that the outcome of studies, assessment and masterplanning work would provide more detail about any off site highway mitigation works. 

RiverOak discussed the potential for compulsory acquisition of land currently associated with two operational museums, the land could be required in respect of highways improvement. However, RiverOak noted their intention that the museums would be provided with upgraded facilities as part of its development, whether there is a need for such highways improvements or not. 
Seeing as the main purpose for a Freight Hub is in the movement of freight and the most economic route is from the Minster Roundabout, straight out onto the A299 it is surprising that the junction for improvement is the one involving the Museums. Now that makes one wonder just why they want to take back land gifted to the museums in perpetuity. Putting my cynical hat on I wonder if this is related to Freudmann coveting building houses on the Northern Grass from 2014. 
It makes little sense to make HGV's (over 100 a day if the DCO succeeds) towards Westwood Cross instead of towards Minster along Spitfire Way. 

The night time curfew was discussed; RiverOak noted that night time landing is permitted if the planes have not been scheduled. RiverOak indicated that it was possible that some night flights would be required. RiverOak confirmed that noise control and mitigation would be a key part of their environmental study and consultation process. RiverOak discussed CAP 168 that sets out the licensing requirements in respect of operational management and the planning of aerodrome development. 
This is what was said at the Winter Garden meeting right back at the start and what Airport supporters have been denying ever since. Now the cat is out of the bag it seems SMA have gone on the defensive denying on Social Media that's what Riveroak want. Well sorry they are their words not mine




RiverOak confirmed that any considerations flowing from this document in terms of powers/works/land would clearly be reflected in their DCO where relevant. The role of the relevant local authority (Thanet District Council) was noted and discussed. RiverOak outlined their evolving engagement strategy with the Local Authority. Given the timetable to submission, 
Now this is funny considering the public vilification of Councillor Chris Wells orchestrated by the airport supporters on Social Media. They even have a dedicated Facebook page where the posts are personal attacks on one man

The Inspectorate offered to ‘host’ an early meeting between RiverOak and Thanet District Council. 
Good luck with that one PI!!!
  RiverOak queried the Inspectorate’s approach in relation to transboundary effects. 

The Inspectorate noted that RiverOak should refer to Advice Note 12 on the subject and should also include reference to any likelihood of transboundary effects arising as part of any request for a Scoping Opinion. 
Link to Note 12
  RiverOak noted their intention to achieve a first draft of the masterplanning process by early spring. RiverOak anticipated that a Scoping Request may be submitted to The Inspectorate by late spring and were currently planning their public consultation activities to take place in late summer. 

So to summarise Night flights and the taking back of the land from the museums. Should any Airport supporter be reading this it would be advantageous for RO to make a public statement on both areas instead of letting SMA be their spin doctors. So far two own goals on the public perception front but that surprises no one.

43 comments:

  1. So RivernoOaktrees have Masterplans,like Adolf once had.I wonder at what stage the Gang will come across/pull out the bag the reson to take legal action in the courts! I surpose that would be Freudmanns Call being the man in the know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The man in the know throughout though ? Which may not be at all helpful to a Riveroak cause ?

      Delete
    2. At the end of the day the 'Man' in the know will knock himself and RivernoOaktrees&Co bandy,while dragging sir Roger Gale MP down with them.I wonder who's going to crumble first and at what stage.HD.

      Delete
    3. I wonder who/where the other chances are coming from,Is it that time for the Irish lady to appear,Antony?.

      Delete
    4. What ever RO want to do at the old Manston airport could it not happen at Lydd? In a smaller way.

      Delete
  2. In order for the airport to be successful it has to have 24 hour operation day and throughout the night flights. This is what makes the airport that RO helped to fund in the US and also East Midlands airport successful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting viewpoint however not one shared by many living 800ft below each plane landing through the night

      Delete
  3. Manston radar removed this week as in the Gazette...

    Separately are the Stolen Valour councilors really not going to be at TDC for 12 months before being sacked?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Many Thanet people do still want an airport and night flights and pollution...perhaps they're just idiots?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep they haven't particulately thought it through.

      Delete
  5. Perhaps these Many Thanet people hate Mrs Gloag so much thay would back some American building firm with a crooked ex lawyer backed up by a orrible macuvilen MP who blows both ways depending on the Gale!...Oh they have/are.
    Whomever turns up next can't be as bad as the Annex Aviation/Riveroak builders/airport Mob,surely not?

    ReplyDelete
  6. 10,000 people are backing Sparki....you may be right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where do you get 10,000 "people" anon? many are fake profiles, some have been included without their knowledge and others jumped on the bandwagon but haven't ever commented. Regular commentators equal maybe 200 real people and their physical turnout at events equal maybe 10-15 people. Their committee is shambolic even at the AGM they never produced accounts, so who knows what they do with the money they collected

      Delete
    2. Out of interest of 10,000 people in Thanet applying health stats over 2,000 are long term sick and Thanet's highest rates of lung disease in UK would also be present.

      So we are expected to believe that these people are voting to be drenched in airborne particulate lung irritants ?

      I have heard of the ill informed. But SMA must be the ill uninformed

      Chris Wells continues to elect silence under request to consult TDC QEQM cttee and report water supply contamination facts to QEQM. He is also electing silence re the original S106 agreement, scoping opinion of TDC and how Thanet health inequality and water contamination was allegedly kept out of the 106 environmental impact assessment.

      That would be the S106 foundational to RO cause I reckon. With RO readying to ask Planning Inspectorate for new scoping guidance.

      I am not sure it is right that two absent pro Manston cllrs should be allowed to continue as cllrs at this time.

      Delete
    3. yes the Stolen Valor are trying it on to avoid explanations

      Delete
  7. Nothing todo with this whole manston affair is right.I'm going to write a book on all the players on this mess.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You are right about SMA not producing accounts for the money they've spent. Of more interest is where their money comes from. They act as cheerleaders for Riveroak.

    ReplyDelete
  9. TDC still delaying answer to FOI re original Section 106 information to aviation environmental impact consultant Did TDC conceal Thanet health inequality and history of water supply contamination ?

    Since another fortnight has elapsed I am now asking for internal review.

    As I reported above Chris Wells is also opting silence.

    And another FOI requesting information about TDC scoping opinion to Wiggins Teape S106 environment impact assessment seems to also be approaching delay.


    Obviously I await the facts. But I sense a reluctance from TDC and its leader to provide the facts. TDC is already holding on to two absent pro Manston cllrs in spite of the embarrassment of the expose' of a Walter Mitty.

    Riveroak would appear to base their application, to Planning Inspectorate, upon the 106 that their man Freudmann was involved in creating over a decade ago. I suspect, but await the facts, that the 106 was created by deception and breaches of the criminal law statutory reporting duties Terrorism Act 2000.

    I submitted a crime complaint against PCC Ann Barnes last year re allegedly covering up in this matter. Misconduct in Public Office. Her then CEO Mike Stepney "Disapplied" the crime complaint. I then submitted a judicial review application naming Cllr Iris Johnston as an interested party. As leader of TDC who also sat on the Kent Police and Crime Panel (to whom the PCC is answerable)

    The High Court advised that Mr Stepney as CEO did not have jurisdiction to take the decision. Iris quietly left the PCP. The PCP elected silence. I wrote to county solicitor asking him to endorse the PCC CEO decision so I could judicial review it. The county solicitor elected silence. Cllr Peter Campbell replaced Iris on the PCP without declaring his association with the former leadership of Kent Adventure Training Corps (An aspect of complaint against Mrs Barnes)

    Another Cllr I listed as an interested party was Cllr William Hayton re his evidence to High Court 1998, he continued to elect silence. Did he conceal inquiries at Sericol and the history of Sericol contamination of Thanet water supply ? Did he conceal those facts when on oath at Aldwych High Court 1998 ?

    Did he conceal KCC Youth protection inquiries re Kent Adventure Training Corps ?

    Did he conceal MOD Police inquiry called in by REME Corps Secretariat ?

    Did he conceal Met anti terrorist branch inquiry called in by Cllr Sebastian of TDC ?

    Did he conceal that Kent Police Authority (on which he sat) had called for inquiries and report ?

    Did he conceal internal police inquiry into failed warrant raids on back street drugs labs in Thanet ?






    ReplyDelete
  10. Gale was something to do with the Adventure training crops KCC at the same time Freudmann sorted the 106,they were chummy then as they still are.As thick as thiefsss so the saying gos.HD.

    ReplyDelete
  11. With the Panama Papers offshore corruption surely TDC can't continue to remain silent on Pleasurama and the BVI tax haven companies?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Richard. You may wish to amend your FoI request in respect of the Section 106 Agreement. the company which owned the airport was called Wiggins. It was unrelated to Wiggins Teape which was a paper manufacturer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slip of the pen thank goodness there is plenty of paper to write a new one.

      Delete
  13. 50% of tax haven companies are in BVI. TDC and Keegan have some explaining to do on Pleasurama

    ReplyDelete
  14. SFP venture partners Inc is worth looking at. registered in Tortola BVI

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have had a reply from Planning Inspectorate and I emailed Riveroak solicitors about my concerns re Thanet Health Inequality, proper assessment supported by epidemiology of risk to ailing Thanet health of airborne particulates, the validity of the original S 106.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. can u post the letter here Richard? Others will want to write to them too

      And concerning the report of TDC wanting to build 15,600 houses but only allowing 500 of empty houses included in that figure - there are several thousand empty. Sounds like the civil servants rolling over when Whitehall and the building industry comes up with an imaginary number

      Delete
  16. I wonder who cracked the code to make sure Panamá pip opened up? Set a thief to catch some the long way round! Must of bin a yolkol.

    ReplyDelete
  17. OK Planning Inspectorate have noted the health inequality, epidemiology requirement, S106 questionable, water supply history of contamination concerns.

    At this time Riveroak have not made an application so we are way ahead of their public consultation requirement.

    But I wanted to get through to Planning Inspectorate (and to RO solicitors) before scoping advice for environmental impact assessment is discussed. And before Chris Wells and TDC get involved with Planning Inspectorate.

    Chris Wells is still electing silence. I asked him to consult QEQM Consultative Cttee of TDC to put together a report to QEQM of the history of Thanet water supply contamination.

    There is no response as yet on my two related FOIs to TDC.

    Could I be clear HD ? Gale and Freudman were associates at the time of the original S106 ? Was this also at the year 2000 when Gale concealed the THor and Sericol remediations and Thanet water supply contamination from the Commons in his address about Foreland outfall ? And were they associates 2003 when General de Chasterlain, Head of International Arms Decommissioners Good Friday Agreement, checked his terms of reference with a view to deploying the arms decommissioners to make inquiries in Kent especially in Thanet.

    Were they associates as long ago as 1989 to 1992 when Gale sat on Commons Defence Select Cttee ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gale&Freudmann links from the year 1997.

      Delete
  18. Keegan works for estate agent Terence Palmer who was involved in Pleasurama (still is?) what do they or Bob Bayford know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. doubt Painter is in the same league as Keegan & Hill. He is only a small estate agent

      Delete
    2. Who are Keegan and Hill? Painter was/is involved in Pleasurama

      Delete
    3. A BVI company is suspicious to say the least - what were TDC playing at

      Delete
    4. Still these people need a tea boy,if you get my drift.

      Delete
    5. Keegan is director at SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd and Hill is his son in Law

      Delete
    6. Painter employed Keegan for the former's Portugal properties as handyman? Bayford must have some idea sharing an office with Painter and as a senior council official at the time of the development and BVI mystery?

      Delete
    7. very odd that anon. Painter didnt have any estate agencies in Portugal, however Colin Hill did

      Delete
  19. Is anyone up to speed on Riveroak and the clash between TDC money laundering duties and American law rights for investors to be secret ?

    Am I right that Riveroak intended to indemnify TDC to buy Manston so they could lease it from TDC to get around UK Money Laundering law ?

    Iris Johnston (Facebook) says that Chris Wells did not do his homework on this (IE Before UKIP was committed to a pro Manston electoral position)

    So who is responsible for enforcing money laundering law in the new approach via Planning Inspectorate ?

    Just asking. My interest is in trying to get Thanet health inequality addressed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Were they associates as long ago as 1989 to 1992 when Gale sat on Commons Defence Select Cttee ? " That's the million dollar question. Freudmann was Head of Shrophire County Council. Could he have met Gale in relation to redundant military sites in Shropshire?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Freudmann had of met Gale then there would be footprints! from both parties.

      Delete
  21. Shaking head in disbelief at Gazette report re Cllr Collins and Smith getting a 9th adjournment at magistrates to charges of theft and assault. Charges from a month before they were elected as UKIP cllrs in 2015.

    Thanet !

    ReplyDelete
  22. Awful the Kent Fire station £1m project for the old swimming pool is limping along - disastrous waste

    ReplyDelete
  23. Konnor etc should be a TDC call in and sacked - a year without councillors

    ReplyDelete