Thursday, 15 December 2016


Last night, 14th December 2016, TDC planning reversed a decision made to refuse "change of use" for 4 buildings on the Manston site.
A brief synopsis
The following planning applications were received on 23 May 2015:
- F/TH/15/0458 for the change of use from airport use to general industrial use for
Building 4, Manston Airport, Spitfire Way, Manston.
- F/TH/15/0459 for the change of use from airport use to storage and distribution
use for the Manston Airport Cargo Centre & Responding Vehicle Point, Spitfire
Way, Manston.
- F/TH/15/0460 for change of use from airport use to general industrial for a
temporary period of 3years for Building South of Terminal (Hanger 1), Manston
Airport, Manston.
- F/TH/15/0457 for the change of use of Building 870, Spitfire Way, Manston Airport
from airport use to general industrial use together with four storey extension and
insertion of windows

Members considered the planning application for the change of use of Building 870,
Spitfire Way, Manston Airport from airport use to general industrial use together with
four storey extension and insertion of windows, under reference F/TH/15/0457, and
refused the application for the following reason:
- The proposed development, by virtue of the loss of a building for aviation use,
would create the potential need for additional buildings within the countryside and
would not constitute essential airside development, contrary to Thanet Local Plan
Policies CC1 and EC4 of the Thanet Local Plan, and paragraphs 14 and 17 and
guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

The applicant then appealed and this appeal is due to be heard by virtue of a full public enquiry on the 24th January 2017.

Since then the Council has requested a full report on the viability of an airport being fully up and running in the foreseeable future as any policy set out in a Local Plan must be evidence based. (You know those strange things called facts not wishes, not opinions but those hard solid facts much despised by a section of the population)

So last night the Planning Committee met again in the light of the Avia Report, the recent resignation of the Planning Chair and the realisation that the position is now untenable.

In recommending the withdrawal of the opposition to the appeals, it is considered that
the Council would be acting reasonably in response to the available evidence in
forming its position on the appeals before the Planning Inspectorate.

 What would be the consequences to TDC if they failed to be reasonable?

The advice outlines is that if officers’ professional or technical advice is not
followed, authorities will need to show reasonable planning grounds for
taking a contrary decision and produce relevant evidence on appeal to
support the decision in all respects. If they fail to do so, costs may be
awarded against the authority. In this case, officers and counsel consider
that the Council cannot substantiate the reason for refusal for the change
of use of these specific buildings, given the new evidence before the
Council and the direction of Council policy for the site within the draft local
plan. For this reason if the reason for refusal on each appeal is not
withdrawn officers consider there is a substantial risk of significant costs
being awarded against the Council by the Planning Inspectorate.
There are no funds allocated for any potential fines meaning that that any
decision other than that recommended will result in spend that is outside
of the budgetary framework.

To put the other side would there be any financial consequences to SMAa if they bullied TDC planning into carrying on the refusal to grant "change of use"?


Was this predetermination
To listen to the ostriches in the Save Manston Airport Association (SMAa) it is all a conspiracy and a stitch up by Chris Wells.

This is a sample of how wild and wacky their collective minds work and I do hope that UKIP councillors have their bodyguards well paid. However a brief look at the facts will show there is no conspiracy and no attempt to subvert the will of the electorate. In fact the one constant since 2014 is the repeated failure of Riveroak to adhere to their side of the pact with SMAa.

Where have Riveroak failed

2014 Just prior to the final closure of the site Freudmann (along with Riveroak in tow) approached Ann Gloag and offered (allegedly £7M) the "full asking price" however Ann Gloag refused mainly because Freudmann wnated the £2M in the Manston Skyport bank account. (there may be other reasons but I couldn't possible comment on someone else's business acumen.
Riveroak then failed to convince TDC (under Labour control) they had the money to support TDC in a CPO.
2015 we have a change of leadership at TDC and UKIP allowed RO to try again however once again RO fail to deliver. (No proof of money and no viable plan)
No other viable business comes forward to partner TDC in returning Manston to an airport and RO decide to see if they can blag the National Planning Inspectorate in allowing a Development Consent Order. Yet even here, now into 2016, they fail as they are advised not to start formal consultations until they have applied yet they set up unofficial ones manned by SMAa personnel where people opposed to a freight hub are intimidated and questionnaires mysteriously disappear.
Now late in 2016 they are asking the landowners for permission to access the land to conduct assessments which have been rebuffed. Turning to the PI to order access they have failed to even answer basic questions on their application.
We have a report, requested by TDC for policy SP05 (use of land at Manston), The Avia Report which determined that even if all their ducks line up in a row Manston cannot be viable before 2031. This report was released on the 4th October 2016 and immediately Riveroak issued a stern letter to TDC saying the report was flawed and they would issue a formal rebuttal. Again they fail as it is now the 15th December, the report has been used to overturn the denied planning permissions and has changed the new Local Plan.

So SMAa instead of vilifying UKIP turn your anger onto the fools at Riveroak who have yet to prove they are worth anymore than $1.6M with a credit line of $400K.

Of course this has been predetermined, it is call geography, as no commercial aviation business has turned a profit since the RAF left Manston. In fact how can it when the pool of customers is so small and the cost of running an aviation is so expensive. Wake up and smell the coffee

Having spoken with a few UKIP Councillors it is clear they do want Manston as a viable airport, despite what you fools think, yet wishes and dreams cannot survive in the cold, hard relity of a commercial venture. Riveroak are chancers and Freudmann is a "snake oil salesman" who are playing with your dreams.
The current rumour doing the rounds is that Riveroak has approached the owners asking how much the owners would pay RO to go away.
I also hear that they have told the PI they now do not need to access the land to do their Environmental Assessments, as they have enough information to complete that side of their application.
So to those fools leading the vile and nasty campaign to bully the rest of Thanet into accepting the failed organisation called Riveroak keep going but your time is growing short oh and keep buying that tinfoil you really need it


  1. Only a FOOL would overlook this and make a foolish assumption that the avia report is gold plated and accurate
    Disclaimer of Liability
    This publication provides general information and should not be used or taken as business, financial, tax, accounting, legal or other advice, or relied upon in substitution for the exercise of your independent judgment. For your specific situation or where otherwise required, expert advice should be sought. Although Avia Solutions Limited or any of its affiliates (together, “Avia”) believes that the information contained in this publication has been obtained from and is based upon sources Avia believes to be reliable, Avia does not guarantee its accuracy and it may be incomplete or condensed. Avia makes no representation or warranties of any kind whatsoever in respect of such information. Avia accepts no liability of any kind for loss arising from the use of the material presented in this publication

  2. except Kapo this isn't about the rights and wrongs of aviation, it is to do with the failings of Riveroak. Without them no other aviation company wants Manston which is the same as when Infertil tried to sell it for 22 months and failed

  3. The UKIP election promise - and Tory - was worthless including now secret meetings to reverse the airport plan and teeing up the Gloag New Town. Yet they even fail to speak up on the aquifer pollution. After 10 mints since election they have done nothing and should resign.

  4. Anon get your facts right. UKIP promised to restart the CPO process with a view to reopening the airport. A process that Labour pulled out of because Riveroak were secretive, and evasive. (I have still got their submissions to TDC which were laughable. I have no love for National UKIP yet no one takes Riveroak seriously anymore they cannot even apply for access to the airport land to do Environmental studies. You really must learn to separate "reopening the airport" from being puppets of Riveroak.

  5. So rumour has it that RiverOak are asking the owners how much to go away.I wonder if it was RiverOak related who offered me to walk away back in early 2014 from the airport/land deal.If only Margate police had investigated my concerns,I being offered money to walk away,attempting to blackmail me to walk away,and fear of life,all documentation on the front desk computer as had to be logged in as to speak in more detail to a detective which I did.HD.

  6. 14:54 you're confused - UKIP were elected to reopen the airport as you point out (a local UKIP and national UKIP policy). To suggest UKIP didn't know of or hadn't contacted Riveroak (or any other airport company) in May 2015 or earlier hardly makes their election promise more sustainable.

    And to suddenly end the policy a mere 6 weeks after being elected is dishonest.

    And your views on the aquifer with or without Riveroak? How is the cleanup going?

    1. The aquifer issue for Riveroak resides on Aarhus Convention and Precautionary Principle. The TDC position, in breach of Aarhus compliance since 2003, is that Thanet having highest lung disease rate in UK is a situation arrived at by coincidence. The fact is that in 2009 the then expert authority, Kent Health Protection, did not agree with TDC and stated public health epidemiology inquiry is required.

      The COPD rate is fact. Inquiry to establish causation and vulnerability has not taken place. Into that area of medical uncertainty RO propose to introduce airborne lung irritant particulates. Precautionary principle dictates that such an area of medical science uncertainty must be compressed by inquiry to an available minimum. I have complied with National Planning advice and made both TDC and RO solicitors aware of this.