Saturday, 9 April 2016

DCO vs CPO Questions

For those that haven't been following the Manston saga (its getting to feel like Eastenders) currently there are 3 different strands of the story. Riveroak (an American Real Estate Investment LLP) have failed twice to persuade Thanet Council to be their partner in Compulsorily Purchasing (CPO) the land from the rightful owner Trevor Cartner and Chris Musgrave.
So now they are trying to take the land by use of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) at the same time Thanet Council under UKIP are looking to find alternate partners to CPO the land whilst the legitimate owner are preparing to submit their own plans for the land.

Confused well it certainly is for the Save Manston Airport (SMA) supporters Facebook page as they are still stuck in the past with Riveroak their preferred option, and with 10000? supporters they feel what they know is right and everyone else is telling lies.
They state The DCO out trumps anything that the owners and TDC are doing and they believe its a done deal and the clock is running.

Unfortunately some members of the Public have been asking searching questions and it seems what SMA have been promoting is wide of the mark but whatever you do don't tell SMA. The questions are as follows and can be found here

Well what does this mean? it's quite simple as the last paragraph states "if this were to occur ..... and their relative public benefits ......would be carefully taken into account by the relevant Secretary of State before deciding" In other words neither DCO or CPO takes precedence.


What does this mean? In plain English the questioner wants to know whether Riveroak's plans are a NSIP or not.
The answer is quite simple the planning Inspectorate have no idea because "no application has yet been made" further they go on to say "If an application is made it will NOT BE ACCEPTED for examination unless the Secretary of State is confident that it is an NSIP"

Finally the last question.
So the questioner would like to know if TDC is successful in finding an indemnity party and is also successful in the attempt at a CPO (that would depend on it being better that the owner's plans for the site) then could Riveroak take the land in their attempt at an NSIP?
The answer is clear it would depend on there being a compelling public interest and this would include a consideration of the (at that time) land use. So to shorten the answer if TDC and partner were successful in turning it back into an airport Riveroak would be buggered.

Finally on a lighter (sic) note the two errant Northwood Councillors have made it into the papers again this time on charges of theft and in Councillor Smith's case assault as well.
Link to Gazette article Thanet Gazette

The leader of the Council responded
" "Neither the council nor I was aware of these criminal proceedings until yesterday. Nor had we been given the extent of medical information revealed yesterday.
Given their respective reported illnesses, and their need to defend these proceedings and other matters, I do not see how these councillors can properly represent the interests of Northwood ward."The right thing for them to do would be to resign as councillors, for the benefit of the people of Ramsgate, and for the sake of their own health."

Finally someone remarked to me that Collins and Smith were "the gift that keeps on giving" however I hope that her Agoraphobia and his multiple illnesses clear up so they can be held to account for their failures

84 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These questions I would of thought would be legally needed by TDC so there will be documentation.Who would of been the experts that would of billed TDC for the public advices?or would that public info be secret.HD.

      Delete
    2. Can't properly worded foi's be used to ascertain the true position and publicise this issue properly ?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Tim Howes is the legal bod at TDC...

      Delete
  2. The responses to the questions about CPO/DCO are interesting. I can understand how an investor might take a punt on a CPO or a DCO, especially if they have been led to believe that they might be able to pick up a large tract of land on the cheap. It seems far less likely that they would be prepared to pay out for the costs of a CPO, only to have the deal snatched away from them at the final stage by a competing bid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The competing bid could be part of an ring there for a good deal around.Auction houses have had these problems and still do,there's so much profit to chop up who knows?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. I don't think the Section 106 agreement is relevant. It was a voluntary agreement between the airport owners and TDC. However, it was never updated or enforced and Brian White stated in writing that he didn't think it was enforceable because of the persistent failure to enforce it over many years. He also pointed out that there was no practicable mechanism by which it could be enforced. The council didn't consider that when they drew it up. Now that the airport has closed, TDC and SHP ought to arrange a meeting where they could agree to tear it up. They could do this because it was a voluntary agreement. If the airport were to reopen it would require planning permission, which it has never had, and this would trigger the requirement for a statutory environmental impact assessment. The planning permission would need to set limits for the scale of the development and the hours of use. A new Section 106 would need to be drawn up in conjunction with the planning permission, setting out the environmental controls which would need to be applied.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Yes Manston is finished - closed 2 years now - except for the possibility of another new town with SHP...

      Delete
    3. the 106 was a voluntary agreement between TDC and a now non-existent company. There is doubt it has any validity now as one party no longer trades

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. The new owner doesn't want an airport therefore the 106 is redundant

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. The Section 106 is not enforceable because penalties are not specified for most of the sections. The only way TDC would be able to enforce a clause is by going to court and asking to have the airport shut down for failure to comply. A judge is extremely unlikely to grant such a request because of the long and documented failure of the council to even attempt to enforce it.

      Delete
    8. Nonsense 18:51 - the fines are detailed in it

      Delete
    9. Fines are detailed only for breaches of the night flying policy. No penalties are specified for failing to do any other aspects of the agreement. For example, the owners were obliged to produce updated noise contour maps on a regular basis. They never did, but no penalties were specified in the agreement. In relation to the fines specified for night flights, some of these were never paid. The airport operator blamed the airline and the airline left the airport. If you read the wording of the agreement the fines should have been enforceable against the airport operator. But, if they refuse to pay, what can TDC do? In practice nothing in the agreement was ever truly enforceable.

      Delete
    10. 11:42 why exactly are the fines not enforceable? TDC could collect the fines. Fines were specified (c.£1K per plane?)as increasing with continued breaches and as you say some fines were collected.

      TDC as the planning authority could have issued fines for other noncompliance as with any development.
      The contract is with the airport and they can sue/ban the airlines if they wanted to.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TDC approved Konnor a years sick leave now Wells calls for his resignation: typical TDC idiocy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. only to July anon keep up

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. When Riveroak fail with the DCO come CPO as they will then the lawsuit will begin,If the 106 becomes a problem like a few more problems in the pot then the RiverOak team will go for compensation.That's where Antony Freudmann comes in handy with hes long term mate sir Roger Gale MP.HD.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. who is Binding and can you not copy his post from Facebook?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Richard I don't think you understood the question. Who is he some sort of inspector? Did he work at the airport? what area of expertise does he have in aviation? That's what was being asked. Its like having someone say they have a cancer without having been toa doctor, no good without relevence

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. did I touch a nerve Richard. So he has no aviation expertise thanks for answering.
      No what has this to do with the Original Post. It seems you are somewhat obsessed with various subjects and twist all Barry's posts to get back to your pet subject. I'm surprised you haven't been pulled up about being off topic

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. I don't understand why aviation expertise would be important. The comment Richard referred to was about a section 106 Agreement which is a planning document. In any event, virtually none of the people involved in running the Save Manston Airport campaign have any professional aviation expertise. There are plenty of plane-spotters but nobody who would have the kind of background that would allow them to judge whether Riveroak's planbs to reopen the airport are viable.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. ah the "he was a member of a committee and is therefore an expert" argument so you are inferring as he sat on a committee he knows what he is saying. That's really funny I'll have to remember to sit on some committees to get letters after my name.
      You have no idea whether he knows anything or not. Have you ever met him?

      Delete
    10. It is typical of the por-airport lobby that they attack the individual rather than dealing with the points which are being made. It is a statement of fact that the airport has never been given planning permission and that by authorising it's existence using certificates of lawfulness, TDC evaded the requirement to demand a statutory environmental impact assessment or risk assessment. It doesn't matter who says this, it is true. It is a matter of opinion whether the Section 106 was any good, but it is unquestionably true that it was never updated or enforced as originally intended. It is also a matter of fact that it was a bilateral agreement which can be modified or dissolved by the two parties. The wording of the agreement makes it clear that it is between the council and whoever owns the site; that would be SHP. In summary, I can see virtually nothing which has been said which is untrue and which cannot be proved with the most cursory research. This whole tactic of attacking the messenger is both distasteful and intentionally destructive.

      Delete
    11. I think the argument about people being experts and knowing anything could easily be applied to most of the people running the pro-airport campaign. You could ask what Beau Webber knows about aviation, given that his field of research is nanotechnology. You could ask what Andy McCulloch knows given that he was a ferry captain. You could ask why we would listen to Sparki when he is a disc jockey. Do I need to continue?

      Delete
    12. Peter Binding was an excellent and hardworking member of the Airport Committee and raised many concerns over flights etc. Appalling that he isn't a councillor and the other twits are.

      Delete
    13. Hi 08:17 from what you've wrote I take it that TDC and the company now out of business who partnerd TDC can't change anything on the 106.

      Delete
    14. The agreement is between the owners of the site and TDC, so the agreement is now between SHP and TDC. They are free to meet and tear it up if they wish to do so.

      Delete
    15. The S106 is a dead duck like Manston in general and Riveroak in particular. By some elaborate legal chicanery the airport was to reopen then full planning permission and environment and cancer safeguaards would be required.

      After 2 years derelict Manston is finished. But it will affect the political carers of those who sought to reopen it and ignore the environment safeguards...

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I see Richard,The whole buy the ex airport land for airport use is 100% a trick.The plan woz and still is is to get the land(Give the airport a go)Fail after about two years while putting some housing Northside,then continue to build all over the land like said northside president.I sat in front of Freudmann&co and was told about the plan with the help of Gale who would basically blackmail Mrs Gloag into doing what Gale demands.I let Mrs Gloag know what I know what Gale is doing to her.After telling certain people what I know about Gale&co and that I'd told Mrs Gloag these people become silent.If I had'nt of entered the plot before RivernoOaktrees had of turned up about now the airport would of fail for the last time and the northside would be some % completed,leaving the go ahead to fill the rest of the ground with as many propertys as possible.This is still the plot but with all the TDC&co secrecy the plan B will be legal action in civil court.What Freudmann,Gale and under advice from these two Riveroak didn't exspect woz for Me to come up and all the problems they have come up against and future problems.This whole 'Manston'easy money maker has dug up so past that now the hole all these people are in is impossible to get out.I woz aloud to run about from county to county with strange monies and Colombian conections ,which the police knew about but have not been troubled in any way shape or form becouse I gave info on Gale,Freudmann&co who are activity breaking the Law of the land.Humpty Dumpty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Thay are to some degree.HD.

      Delete
    3. Gloag like Infratil simply ignore the S106 - and TDC helped her do so as with Infratil

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. TDC removing the Manston monitors with Infratil is particularly criminal isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did TDC remove the monitors with Infratil or before with the previous company running the site?

      Delete
    2. TDC removed them with Infratil for several years from 2004. This continued with Gloag from 2013 ie pretending there was monitoring etc.

      The monitors seem to have been in place with Wiggins before 2004 but fewer flights.

      Delete
    3. Thax for the info 16:25. When you say 'seem' how would that be seen to be the case?

      Delete
    4. 18:07 The monitors were removed by TDC and Infratil from 2004 so they would seem to be in use by Wiggins before then. The Airport Committee would know: Wells, Bayford, Gideon etc

      Delete
    5. The removed monitors can't be legal surely or am I mistaken? Who would be the body who monitors the said committee? 14:31.

      Delete
    6. Yes 20:52 it's completely illegal. Full council and police and public monitor the airport committee

      Delete
    7. TDC didn't remove the monitors, but they allowed them to be removed. At the Consultative Committee it was reported that the monitors had been removed by Manchester Airport, but it was never explained what right they had to take them. TDC should have got to the bottom if this but didn't bother. The location of the mobile monitor remains a mystery.

      Delete
    8. If the council do it then it's legal and you must live with the resulting cancer. That's democracy.

      Delete
    9. Why have Wells and Fairbrass and homer not spoken up then?

      Delete
  16. But the bottom line is Thanet is ill. It drank contaminated water for 30 years but that was covered up. Having drank the poisoned water can it be permissible to then impose air poisoned by airport particulates ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/return-ruled-out-for-search-94201/

    The end of Manston and Gale and Mackinlay: good riddance

    ReplyDelete
  18. Whilst I see what Richard is saying I am in agreement with the Anon who question the side tracking of the blog by more of the same from Richard which quite honestly is off topic.
    This is a friendly warning Richard, you have been booted off the most populare Thanet blog and you are heading that way on here. I don't really have time to vet every post so unfortunately most will end up as spam. So apologies to anyone who is interested but the subject has run its course and will be removed at the admin stage

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Best of luck then Barry. I'll pop back every so often to see what progress you are making.

      Delete
    2. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/mums-shock-discovery-of-asbestos-94365/

      Is there a TDC/KCC asbestos register? Which buildings are affected?Which schools? We should be told

      Delete
  19. Thax Barry for letting Richard have his say on the matter,I for one have been intersted on the subject and will be having a closer look into this history.Once again thank You for allowing Richard to word his finds on your blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Richard makes some good points on the contaminated water and Mansotn and Thor pollution. Why the silence from our councilors of all parties?

      Delete
  20. What stupid councilors allowing themselves and their families and friends to be polluted...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The councilors allowing pollution prob wouldn't be affected.

      Delete
    2. Why 20:55?

      Delete
    3. councilors and their families are breathing the same air and drinking the same water aren't they? Why would they all want to cover up the missing monitors?

      Delete
    4. Home water filtration for one.If the check was made of their home water filters it would be more than a coincidence that these people have very good filters in there homes and prob the same firm installed them.Theres a quick check to put the cat amung the...

      Delete
    5. That's just silly 14:32 and their showeror bath wouldnt be filtered...- and breathing the Manston air pollution?

      Delete
    6. 14:32 is your typical Thanet bumpkin: big on empty opinions. they deserve to drink contaminated water

      Delete
    7. 17:10 filtered water inlet could be for all water which enters a home ie drinking,showering,bathing and watering the veg garden for example!from the main inlet like homes have in other Countries.Breathing the pollution around the old closed airport wouldn't affect the very people who don't live anywhere near the Manston air pollution.A 10:16 as a in your own hand you say typical Thanet bumpkin( which I'm not)how would you describe yourself for hoping I would deserve to drink contaminated water? And you live?

      Delete
    8. you're making it worse Bumpkin 23:27...

      Delete
    9. Really 17:20 with your comments and no answers I could quite easy mistake you to be Roger Gale MP,who would be top of the 'I just don't care'about pollution,or you once stayed at Canehill.

      Delete
    10. PS Try beginning your statements with capitol letters,17:20ish.

      Delete
  21. Gale and Mackinlay should resign after the failure of the Manston SAR they promised would return. We don't need this empty BS on the rates

    ReplyDelete
  22. A problem for Mackinlay with Manston as that was his only manifesto pledge. Blaming TDC- UKIP only goes so far. He can't expect to sit out 4 years now Manston is over

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mackinlay has done nothing in a year and nothing on the horizon. He should stand down and return to Chatham politics

    ReplyDelete
  24. Homer's had a year as the £110k TDC CE - do we need a review of performance?

    ReplyDelete
  25. 10:12 how do we review nothing been done? Where are the CE and Leader written reports that used to be issued each month? Are TDC still filming council meetings or are we back to secrecy and BS again?

    ReplyDelete
  26. A vote of no confidence in TDC raised by the councillors or a member of public would begin the process

    ReplyDelete
  27. Arlington House has asbestos it seems: about time it was demolished

    ReplyDelete
  28. good riddance to it and the huge Tesco

    ReplyDelete