One thing that marks out the difference between the Riveroak Campaign and the real owners of the former Kent International airport is the willingness of Mssrs Cartner & Musgrave to engage with the public.
Today and tomorrow are consultation periods put aside for talking with the people in the area. Even then some of the pro supporters turned up to have their say. Today the 3rd December was the turn of the Pegwell Bay hotel and 8 people turned up to protest. Yes that's right a whole 8 people.
Postem
"
We've
passed the 200 mark (for the two days) with 2.5 hours still to go on
this, the second of this week's public consultation events"
Despite the success of the 2 days the propaganda machine by the unemployed mummy's boy Dan Light jumps into motion and he has to try and spin the success. Nonetheless he has been wasting his time as the majority of the people at the consultations were neutrals who came to see what the plans were all about.
Seems Dan will say anything to bolster their nasty campaign, still only one group will consider 8 people outside protesting when they have 9000+ members a success.
I'm sure they made a huge difference. Now down to business:
To summarise:
This looks like much more effort has gone into the protection of the natural chalk aquifer than when it was an airport as much of the area will be open access parkland with improved road access.
As the observant will notice the airport is only partly built over the main aquifer, In fact part of Nethercourt estate has actually been built on top of the aquifer and in fact Manston Green has been planned on top of the aquifer so housing development hardly seems to be an issue for the Environment Agency despite what the pro supporters might believe.
Hello Barry,thax for this info. Humpty Dumpty.
ReplyDeleteIs that a pickpocket on the far left? And benny hill in yellow behind the white board?lol come on baz you gota have a grin! I'd like to say that i really do feel for these people,when they see/here the truth they will be shocked.
ReplyDeletePS
ReplyDeleteBarry there are :9: you forgot the camera Man/Woman! Humpty dos'nt miss a trick!
And Sparki Delight wonders why he can't get a job. The photo says it all. LMAO
ReplyDeleteAh Bless and still lives with mummy
DeleteYou're saying now the drinking water supply is under the runway and that's ok?
ReplyDeleteThe map is from the EA I'm not saying anything. The Aquifer is just that a collective for groundwater some of which extends under Nethercourt. Some if you look extends to Westwood Cross.
DeleteYes you're not saying anything Baz. Because the aquifer is extremely contaminated already. And the heart of it is under the runway. And perhaps you have a naïve faith that the EA protected it and evaluated building the Nethercourt Estate on it. Never mind the huge number of prorposed houses by Stone Hill.
DeleteWhether that housing is needed is a separate point you also say nothing about.
Taking your points in turn
Delete1. Only one portion of the aquifer (top right at Poor Hole lane) is contaminated according to the EA
2. The EA failed to deal with the alleged mercury contamination hence why they stopped using it
3. Nethercourt is only on part of the aquifer and building control says done properly there will be no effect on the ground water
4. As aquifer's can be built on it is unlikely that the proposed 2500 houses will affect it. That will also be determined by planning and not anonymous posters to a blog
One slide mentions aviation use, any detail on what they have in mind ?
ReplyDeleteKite flying maybe.
DeleteBarry what do you think about this soft marketing process for CPOing Manston?If i talked you into buying a car and that car was'nt as good as i said it was,and then said to you don't worry i'll buy it from you but did'nt come up with the money,then you found out you could sell the parts for a lot more than you paíd for the car,would you part the car out?
ReplyDeleteCould you explain to your readership how one part of an aquifer can be contaminated in isolation Barry?
ReplyDeleteCould you explain why the Environment Agency position is the Poorhole Lane contamination will be a problem for foreseeable future ?
And could you explain impact assessment precautionary principle mate ?
And if it is your position that to compress scientific uncertainty to its minimum that could be done for CPO purposes without an epidemiogical research conducted by Health Protection Agency and funded by RiverOak.
Richard your questions should be dealt with by the EA not me however it is only (as far as I know) the Poor Hole lane area that the EA won't draw water from hence their need to pump water in from outside the district. Your final point is moot seeing as RO have been rejected twice by TDC.
DeleteIt has been made clear that the owners will have to provide an assessment should they put in PP in April 2016