Overview & Scrutiny

Thanet council's Overview and Scrutiny Panel will discuss the decision taken not to pursue a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for the Manston airport site with RiverOak as the indemnity partner.

Thanet council's cabinet made the decision on October 29. Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel David Saunders has called in the decision for the reason that "A presumption in favour of openness - Although the report is well presented, in the opinion of a significant number of members, the report may be read as being loaded to achieve the outcome."

Tonight's meeting at 7pm, Council Chamber, Cecil Street, Margate, is expected to be the first of a series of meeting on the cabinet decision. (Why?)

Campaigners for the airport have arranged a rally in front of the council offices in the build up to the meeting. (will more than 40 attend?)

What the Leader of the Council stated in the Gazette. Has anything changed?

Cllr Bayford seems to think that its ok to ignore officer's advice but then the Tories have a track record of doing just that when they were in charge in 2009 under Ezekiel.

What action can the panel take?

The Overview & Scrutiny Panel can make a call-in of the Cabinet decision (this has already happened). They can refer the decision back to cabinet with recommendations for reconsideration. Cabinet would then have to meet to consider the recommendations.

Or, if the Panel decides not to take any further action, the Cabinet decision becomes implementable from the date of the extraordinary OSP meeting.

Curiously O&S are allowing a Manston supporter 3 minutes to address the committee, something unheard of from past experience over Pleasurama.

In another development "Supporters of Manston Airport (SuMA)" have issued this rather provocative statement.

"We are not 'turning our back on RiverOak'. We wish them every success and acknowledge their commitment, however we do have to be pragmatic. They have spent a large amount of time and money and yet still have not succeeded at any attempt, even though some progress has been made this year. We are naturally very saddened and upset by this as we have had such a long relationship with them going back to when we released their first letter of intent in July of last year.
However, we were formed to save the airport not just to back one individual investor. It seems that although they are still determined, the chances of RiverOak now being successful are reducing, although they still might have ways to succeed including through the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
We speak and listen to all sides and form objective conclusions from what we hear. We do not abuse, speculate or apportion blame where it does not belong purely to accommodate our wishes. We do not indulge in creating pointless memes and bullying councillors and officers. (Oh really!! Ruth then open up SuMA and unblock people)

Our sole purpose is to see the airport reopened and there is nothing we have not done to further this aim.
We deal in facts and we are surprised that after our long history of supporting Manston and running this campaign that certain people have forgotten this. We knew that it would be controversial to express our knowledge of other investors without having the express permission to elaborate but the reasons for doing so were as follows. Firstly, to counteract the scepticism that many supporters have, seemingly just because Chris Wells said this was so. Secondly, to give hope to supporters that despite RiverOak's rejection there are still other irons in the fire. Thirdly, to open up the arena for healthy competition with multiple investors feeling able to come forward and be heard.
We're sure that the more sensible, rational supporters out there will be able to appreciate how another investor might feel when all they hear about is support for one company. Even the local MPs are backing the one company - where do they go? Who do they approach?
We know that it is frustrating not to know all the details at this time which is why we have been sitting on information for a while. All we can share with you is that we know that at least one of the companies Cllr Wells alluded to are in serious preliminary negotiations. Another very substantial investor has come directly to us at SuMA just because they did not know where else to go. We, of course, have passed these contacts on to people who we felt would listen and act accordingly.
We hope that very shortly a new round of soft market testing will be announced when these companies, still confidentially as last time, will be able to submit their plans in the knowledge that there is public support.
These are our sincerely held, objective views formed and agreed as a committee and none of our work is solely down to any individual, regardless of false accusations you may hear. If you don't want to read or believe our information and comments, then there is no obligation to look at any that we publish. We will also take very seriously any instances of innuendo or slander published about us, our comments or our actions, especially by those who appear more interested in causing trouble or attacking individuals than for this campaign to succeed." ( Not happening Ruth seeing as you block people who disagree with your point of view)

 So Ruth are you not needing a Freight Hub which is all Riveroak are promising. You will be there tonight supporting TDC in getting rid of RO so your "new" investors can have a clear run?

I will post the result of tonight's meeting as soon as I hear

O&S have made the decision NOT to refer to Cabinet and that is that. Next a vote of No Confidence in UKIP if they are brave enough