Facebook link
Holiday Inn Express Minster 16/3/2016 15:00 to 19:30
Seems SMA is worried however what an idiot
In other news the minutes from the 1st meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Riveroak have been published.
"Summary of key points discussed and advice given: 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) to its website. Any advice issued under s51 would not constitute legal advice upon which the attendees, or others, could rely.
RiverOak
provided a brief introduction and background to the scheme. Manston Airport was
fully operational up until 15 May 2014, until this date the airport’s operation
was covered by the relevant Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) licence. RiverOak
indicated that in November 2013, the airport had been purchased by Ann Gloag
(co- founder of Stagecoach) and subsequently closed. There had been no
operation on site since May 2014.
RiverOak
noted that it was their intention to reopen the airfield and redevelop elements
that are in a current state of disrepair. RiverOak stated that the revised
business strategy for Manston Airport would primarily focus on increased cargo
capacity. RiverOak also suggested that there may be potential for alternative
aeronautical operations including some passenger capacity at a later stage.
RiverOak stated their assertion that the proposals for Manston Airport would
constitute a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) in accordance
with the Planning Act 2008. RiverOak provided a brief overview of their
indicative development proposals which could include: increased parking for
aircraft; altering taxiways; construction of a new control tower; facilities
for handling cargo and the inspection of the goods coming in
and out; construction of office space; runway lighting; radar; and fencing.
RiverOak suggested there would be enough physical space on site for these
alterations as the site is 680 acres. RiverOak confirmed that the one fixed
feature of the site is the 2,750m long runway.
The
Inspectorate explored how the indicative development proposal relates to s23
PA2008. In particular the discussion focussed on the provisions of s23(1) and
whether the proposal would be considered a construction or alteration project
and from what starting point the developer would consider the proposals were
having the effect of increasing air transport movements of cargo. RiverOak
indicated that the previous capacity of Manston Airport was in the region of
2,000 air transport movements of cargo aircraft per year (approximate 3 planes
in and out per day). RiverOak outlined their current calculations whereby
proposed air transport movements of cargo would satisfy the threshold
requirements outlined in PA2008 (for example in s23(5)(b)).
The reference to
‘capable’ in, for example, PA2008 s23(5) was noted and discussed. The
provisions of PA2008 s35 were also noted.
RiverOak
discussed the current state of the site and the assets that had been removed
since its closure as an operational airport in May 2014, noting for example,
runway lighting, instrument landing system and the fire station. RiverOak
provided a brief overview of the discussions undertaken with the current owner
of the site and subsequently with Thanet District Council with a view to the
authority acquiring the site via a Compulsory Purchase Order.
The
Inspectorate enquired about the planning history of the site and RiverOak noted
some planning applications for change of use by the current owners. RiverOak
anticipated that an application for the Stone Hill Park development would be
submitted later in 2016.
The
Inspectorate enquired about the relevant policy background for such a scheme.
RiverOak outlined that whilst the Thanet Local Plan refers to Manston Airport,
it recently expired. The Government’s announcement in respect of the drafting
of an Aviation National Policy Statement was noted, and its relative timing in
respect of an anticipated submission date for this proposal was subsequently
discussed.
RiverOak
explained that there was an extant s106 agreement dating from 2001 that covered
matters such as opening hours and a curfew for aircraft flying from Manston
Airport between 2300 until 0700. Under that s106 it was highlighted by RiverOak
that there are currently no restrictions on numbers of aircraft flying to and
from the airport. The use and relationship of s106 documents with the
Development Consent Order (DCO) process and any appropriate requirements
included within a DCO was noted by the Inspectorate.
The
key highways surrounding the site were discussed, including the A299, the
dualling of the route from the M2 to the Channel Tunnel and local B roads.
RiverOak indicated that once detailed master planning had taken place this
might provide a clearer indication of what road improvements would be
incorporated as part of the airport proposals.
An indicative redline
boundary was discussed. RiverOak consider the land within such an indicative
redline boundary is under single ownership. It was noted that former
RAF housing was located
to the north of the scheme. This housing is still occupied and is located just
outside the indicative red line boundary.
RiverOak
indicated that there was local public support for the proposals and suggested
that there had been support from Members of Parliament for the re-opening of
Manston Airport. CAA licences were discussed and RiverOak explained that
licences are post-holder specific and a formal application would be required.
RiverOak confirmed its intention that the Manston Airport scheme would be
planned and developed to the satisfaction of CAA standards.
Controlling
airspace was discussed. RiverOak noted that Manston Airport is outside of the
London airspace boundary (London TMA) and therefore a different management
process is used compared to that of London airspace. RiverOak indicated that
airspace for Manston Airport is capped by physical slots.
There
was discussion regarding the possibility that a s53 application could be needed
regarding gaining access to the site. The Inspectorate noted their Advice Note
for further information and advice regarding s53 applications.
The
future timetable for the scheme was discussed. RiverOak stated it would
prioritise a review of its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) data; some of
which is available from 2014 when the airport was last open. PINS discussed the
likely timescales for submission of an EIA scoping opinion request and the
approach to establishing the baseline for assessment. RiverOak confirmed that
an EIA would be prepared and that a scoping opinion will be sought. RiverOak
stated that the precise timescales would be agreed at a later date and
following the appointment of appropriate consultants. However, it was indicated
that the request would be made as promptly as possible. PINS did advise careful
consideration of the timing of the request in order for the scoping opinion.
RiverOak
indicated a likely submission date of Q4 2016. The Inspectorate advised that
this was a tight timeframe particularly with regard to environmental survey
information and noted the risk that if sufficient preparatory work wasn’t
completed during the Pre-application stage (including considering the scheme in
sufficient detail) this could impact significantly during both the Acceptance
and Examination proceedings if the application was accepted."
Point 1 When did Riveroak discuss the site with Cartner & Musgrave?
" I've just spoken with Ray Mallon. He confirms that there was a meeting with RiverOak and Trevor Cartner & Chris Musgrave about 15/16 months ago. This was the time when they had just taken over ownership of the site. The meeting was very brief - "about nine or ten minutes" according to Ray, and came to an end because RO were "... completely off the wall". About the same time there was an equally short meting with Ann Gloag. Since then, there has been nothing.
So, it seems to me this does not constitute full consultation with the existing owners, as would be required by a CPO or indeed a DCO"
" I've just spoken with Ray Mallon. He confirms that there was a meeting with RiverOak and Trevor Cartner & Chris Musgrave about 15/16 months ago. This was the time when they had just taken over ownership of the site. The meeting was very brief - "about nine or ten minutes" according to Ray, and came to an end because RO were "... completely off the wall". About the same time there was an equally short meting with Ann Gloag. Since then, there has been nothing.
So, it seems to me this does not constitute full consultation with the existing owners, as would be required by a CPO or indeed a DCO"
Point 2 Freudmann told the SMA AGM that public consultation would take place in May 2016 however the Planning Inspectorate have stated an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) would invalidate their application if not enough time was given to that and a Public Inquiry.
I rather think that the Section 106 agreement, upon which RO rely, was created at a time TDC were concealing water supply contamination from their electorate. This was four years after the North Thanet MP concealed the water supply contamination when addressing the Commons. And six years after the water supply contamination was allegedly concealed from High Court evidence of 3 tory cllrs.
ReplyDeleteGOOD,that'll do nicely lets dig up the past by looking into the future thanks RiverOak you dumbies.HD.
DeleteThe new large sewer at Government Acre suggests lots of problems with Thanet water
DeleteRiveroak and Freudmann are just wasting everybody's time. The legislation they are trying to use is intended for major projects which require years of planning and supporting studies. They need to answer one simple question. How do you intend to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment when you don't own the site, don't have access to the site and don't have a cat-in-hell's chance of being permission to go on site ?
ReplyDeleteI think their biggest problem is Thanet having highest COPD rate in UK.
ReplyDeleteWhat does COPD mean?
ReplyDeleteWhat may also be interesting is that at the time of the Section 106 agreement 2004 Fuji was buying out Sericol.
ReplyDeleteChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Lung illness. The chemical that contaminated Thanet water supply was cyclohexanone. In COPD the exhaled breath has elevated levels of cyclohexanone. But it requires expert medical research to address the question of whether drinking water contaminated with it would damage the respiration biochemistry and cause COPD.
ReplyDeleteThax Richard,who would be the the best trusted independent expert/body to undertake the research?
DeleteLung disease is caused by air pollution ie Manston planes. Drinking water affects kidneys....and jet fuel contamination was at manston and cyclohex at sericol and thor
DeleteIn 2009 the Health Protection Agency started research. I don't know what happened after that. I have some FOIs asking about it.
Deleteanon 15 45 I receive a war disablement pension for lung damage copd from army service incident 1970. So with 46 years of lung damage / copd experience I have learned a thing or two. Lungs breathe in air with a very low level of CO2 in it. Then the lungs have to maintain in their depths a much increased CO2 level of 7%. And there are ways of training that create the blood carried products to the lungs to help them maintain their essential biochemistry. One of the signs of copd is an increase of exhaled cyclohexanone. What needs to be looked at is if, like affecting CO2 levels by bloodborne chemicals, cyclohexanone in drinking, by inhalation or by touch contact can damage the lungs.
DeleteCyclohexanone in huge amounts was Sericol Mixed solvents and mercury is Thor.
Thor has not started on mercury remediation yet. The mercury operation at Thor should have been accounted to both Dr Kelly Inquiry and the Iraq Inquiry.
You haven't learnt much....breathing cyclo causes lung damage and this would be traceable on exhaled breath. Lots of research exists on how toxic it is. Its not a unique sign of lung damage in itself...
DeleteShould the Thanet Nhs be recommending regular lung cancer tests...TDC have some explaining to do. Yes Wells and Latchford were on the Airport Committee
DeleteCOPD
DeleteThere is little research into chronic exposure to cyclohexanone.
Yes 21:01 because people rapidly die off...
DeleteAnon 23 14 Oxymoron. If people rapidly die then they would not remain alive for exposure to become chronic. Jog on/
DeleteSilly 08:37 rapidly is how you define it...your lung damage has lasted 46 years so hardly serious for example.
DeleteContamination at Manston and Tdcs role in misding monitors and fines with infratil and gloag will be interesting. ..Wells as a tory with Latchford was on the airport committee...
ReplyDeleteIf even Riveroak recognised there are no night flights 23-6am why did these routinely happen...?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the Raf housing mentioned? How many people live there
ReplyDeleteRichard its clear from Riveroak's intentions that they intend to DCO the land so they can attempt to get 12000 cargo movements a year. That is 33+ 747 jumbos a day landing over Ramsgate. I doubt this will reduce the noise and pollution will it?
ReplyDeleteIndeed it will increase airborne pollution. The point is that will be breathed by a populace already exhibiting the highest COPD rates in the country.
DeleteWhich is why I wrote to Planning Inspectorate in December about application of the precautionary principle. Arguing that the principle requires that scientific uncertainty be reduced to an available minimum. And that minimum is achievable by epidemiology research on the health of Thanet populace.
When an NHS team offered tests at Westwood didn'tthey refer one in seven tested to their GPs for COPD ?
When the S 106 was created in 2004 TDC were concealing the massive contamination of aquifer. Exactly as Riveroak have done so far in their application to planning inspectorate.
An irrational application. The serial concealment of material facts.
And even at just 3 flights a day Thanet had 4x the EU air pollution levels....hence Tdc removing monitors and covering up the pollution fines as long as possible
Deletehow about 33 flights a day anon?
DeleteAnon 19 47 You have not made an exclusive case for the removal of monitors.
DeleteA monitor can show a source of air pollution. It can also rule it out in whole or part. That latter option would indicate that another source of air pollution existed. Just saying. Disciplines of evidence.
When I was a lad our family lived in the caretaker flat at a council welfare clinic/ambulance station. Mum was caretaker and dad was ambulanceman.
DeleteOne of my tasks, after my morning paper round, was to fetch in coke for the boiler and courtier stoves. And to open up the hot water boiler so the coke would be glowing. This was for the physio expectoration of lung patients who attended an outreach clinic. Their expectorant was immediately burned. These patients were expectorated in the room that held the boiler coke stove.
We have suffered in Thanet, since a Thanet Online blog 2008, a perception that lung illness can only result from what is inhaled. There has been a further "Smokescreen" about socio economic groups who smoke more. And a confusion between "Causation" and "Causative factor". That confusion is even being exhibited by HD who wants to go to a lawyer.
What had caused lung disease in the men who were expectorated next to the boiler ? Nothing they had inhaled. It was caused by something that got into them by the soles of their feet. Strongyloid. For these men were former POWs of the Japanese. They had acquired a worm in the jungle that burrowed into them via their feet.
If only the anon Thanet and the Thanet Online medical wisdom had been available back then in the 60s outreach clinic !
"Gather together men smokers over there and non smokers over here. Smokers your lung problems are due to smoking go home. Non smokers you are 20% of the total hence statistically insignificant go home."
We have dullboy anon above who tells us that what we inhale damages lungs and what we drink damages kidneys. Clearly if only this profound anon and Thanet Online medical wisdom had been known back in the 60s at the outreach clinic
"Gather together men. The pesky strongyloid got in via yer feet. Go only to a chiropodist. Dr Anon of Thanet says that only the route of entry will exhibit disease. "
Clearly, concerning Thanet pollution, my position is that expert medical inquiry is meritted. Medical experts agreed with me. To look at Thanet disease rates to see if causative factors can be identified and case made for extra medical care provision.
I argue that such an inquiry is meritted to either allay or to inform concern. That is also to compress medical scientific uncertainty to an available minimum consistent with the precautionary principle the Planning Inspectorate should apply.
This precautionary principle was denied by TDC, by concealment of material facts, as an option to Thanet people at the time the original Section 106 agreement was made.
22:17 and 09:24 is almost completely incoherent beyond a random trip down memory lane that jungle worms somehow cause lung cancer in uk and not air pollution
DeleteStrongyloides is threadworms that infect the intestines. Nothing to do with lung cancer although they can infect any organ by spreading. Burning saliva sounds like witchcraft and of minimal use.
DeleteAs the in house expert can you make it more clear what you mean anon 18:42.HD.
DeleteWow a doctor? So where did you find this info anon 18:56.HD.
Delete20:36 I can't clarify what it means as I can't work out what Richard is saying. Now he's confusing animal diseases with manmade industrial pollution at Thor etc isn't he?
DeleteOK Richard I'll be in the UK by end of February.Get as much info together so as to show a Lawyer and we will take the paperwork to see whit can be done.HD.PS cost U nishmans Ill take care of all Legal costs.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in getting an official epidemiology research done. To either allay or inform concerns. A damages action would fail on causation without that research. Don't waste your money HD.
DeleteYou would be better to be looking, with your lawyer, at what used to be called mandamus against the secretary of state. But I wait to see what FOIs bring and whether Chris Wells, Iris Johnson and Roger Gale reply to my email.
The Thanet health stats are facts. Argument on their basis can be made to the Planning Directorate without mentioning contaminated water supply. I have written to Planning Inspectorate already in December introducing the water contamination history as part of argument to apply precautionary principle.
And I plan to put in a submission if RO get that far. The Inspectorate appear to have fired a shot across RO bows re environmental impact assessment so it is looking OK so far.
I am already in touch with lawyers in some criminal cases and I am an officially called witness for National Crime Agency.
You know as much as me as far as the contamination FOIs are concerned. I made the FOIs but the answers are public domain.
OK Richard.HD.
DeleteWhat would epidemolgy research prove beyond what's already known? As you say yourself the health and pollution stats are now known
DeleteRichard can you share the email you sent to Wells, Gale etc ?
DeleteThey know perfectly well that they can't get anything like that number of cargo flights per year. Freudmann was centrally involved with Wiggins and if that kind of volume was out there he would have been a lot more successful in attracting some of it. Nobody in the airline cargo business thinks that Manston is viable; there's far too much competition from existing airports. The whole furore over runway capacity is politically inspired nonsense. There's plenty of runway capacity in the South East; just not at Heathrow or Gatwick at specific times of the day and specific times of the year. The whole issue could easily be solved by removing the CAA from the equation and allowing each airport to be run as a business. The CAA's role should be restricted to safety. As for Riveroak's motives, you have only to recall that Tony Freudmann presented TDC with a plan to build housing on the Northern Grass. Coincidentally, in a week when SMA are gnashing their teeth about TDC not keeping records of contacts, no formal record of Freudmann's meetings with the council was ever kept. But the plan for housing is there for all to see. It hasn't evaporated and would be back in play if Riveroak got anywhere near owning the site.
ReplyDeleteFreudmanns plan is with RiverOak is to sell the land for building plots after failing at making the airport work 100%.To get the land sir Roger Gale is STILL doing his bit! Ann Gloag knows what he treid on her as do I.Look at the wintergardens meeting on U Tube 2014 where U can here ME say "The Moneys in Place"IE Me Telling sir Roger Gale his back hander of CASH is Waiting for him.Have a look he didn't question me infact he said at one point' God help anyone that stands in the way'That was for Me! You can also see Gale wisper to his right hand man then that man looked at me and blanks me while I had my hand up to speak WATCH THE U TUBE FILM.Lets not forget he had to rush off for a meeting which couldn't wait,after I told Sands out side before the meeting that Gale is corupt.He can prove/document this moody meeting,NO HE CAN NOT 100%.HD.
DeleteRivernoOaktrees are doomed to failure!.HD.
DeleteIf this is true it needs to be properly documented and investigated by Panorama, newspaper journalist etc. would explain why Gale opposes the 3 new investors attracted by Tdc
DeleteHousing is part of the new Cartner plan...
ReplyDeleteyup they have said they would like 1/3 housing, 1/3 parkland, and 1/3 job creation. Why not mention the rest anon?
Delete3000 houses...and 19:58 when would you expect to see jobs created? 2 years? 5 years?
DeleteHousing and only Housing is Freudmann/Riveroak plan.
DeleteWe know that Cartner and Musgrave's plans involve housing. They have published their plans for all to see and are about to hold further public consultation on those plans. TDC has all of the planning powers it needs to restrict the volume of housing that goes on the site. Those who are worried that it will end up covered in housing are exhibiting fear that the council they have elected will not do its job properly. In contrast. Riveroak has not published its plans or displayed them to the public. Most of the people who proclaim their support for Riveroak have never seen their plans. If their plans are not damaging to the area, why have they chosen to try to bully their plans through without first obtaining public endorsement?
DeleteWhy indeed?
DeleteWell said 08:04 although clearly you have too much faith in TDC being competent.
DeleteA more relevant question is how much if any housing Thanet needs
Admin moan
ReplyDeleteIf people cannot post with comments about real people then the post will end up in the spam filter. So please do not mention real people
Thank you
Barry that's a catch 22 or have I missed somethink?.HD.
DeleteDoubt this will get posted Barry but as long as you read it that's all that matters. Very nice endorsement of your blog from John Buckley. Hope you've seen it.
Delete