And then there was one

Well it seems Riveroak are the only player left in the long running Manston saga. Story from the Thanet Gazette
"Thanet council is expected to take no further action in looking for an indemnity partner for the compulsory purchase of Manston airport - but has claimed two groups are interested in buying the site.

Thanet council carried out a soft market testing exercise to seek interest for a CPO partner after American firm RiverOak was rejected by the authority for a second time in October.

A Prior Information Notice calling for expressions of interest was opened on Friday, January 15.
Five were received by the deadline of February 9.
The interested parties were then given until February 12 to respond to a follow-up questionnaire.
Three of these were deemed valid.
But Thanet council did receive interest from other parties, prompted by the CPO soft market testing process.

One party is approaching the current owners, Stone Hill Park, to negotiate a purchase and so did not participate in the soft market testing process.
Thanet council says that group is backed by sovereign wealth funds and potentially public sector pension funds and is considering investing up to £150million. This would be subject to a feasibility study showing that investment in the airport makes economic sense.
Another party also wanted to express interest in acquiring the site and was also directed to talk to Stone Hill Park bosses
In a report due to go to Cabinet members on June 16 Director of Corporate Governance Tim Howes states: "Based on the assessment one can draw the conclusions that in terms of the key lines of enquiry, the market cannot deliver on the council's requirements; there is no established market which is able to deliver, or an adequate number of operators; the market has no capacity to deliver the requirements and there is no cost or other benefits in taking this matter further."

Mr Howes recommends Thanet council: "take no further action in respect of the interested parties."

Council leader Chris Wells said: "The sovereign wealth fund group came to us through contact with SuMA (Supporters of Manston Airport) and that has been a very interesting development and one that we will continue to pursue - but not in the context of a CPO which they are not interested in.
"East Kent Chamber of Commerce have also been involved in engaging this potential new investor and the chamber and ourselves continue to engage with those who would make investments in Thanet."
Cllr Wells said the outcome would be down to market negotiations between the would-be investor and Stone Hill Park.

So what will it cost the one single investor who thinks they might invest up to £150M. Well 2500 houses planned at a cost of £200K each equates to £500M potential and that's a conservative estimate. So ask yourself reader would you sell out?

So how is the DCO going with Riveroak. The continue to discuss matters with the Planning Authority and little notes keep popping up from the PA. The latest is here (link to latest note)

So far so good

So we still have the terrible idea of at least 12000 aircraft movements including nightflights over this area 

So it seems that the LEGAL owners of Manston (Stone Hill Park) have refused to let Riveroak in. I wonder why? Maybe its to do with their failure to tell anyone how much of the land they want to steal.

RiverOak's lawyers, BDB submitted a 6(1)(b) notification as specified in Regulation 6(3) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009, but it was missing a required piece of information. (* a red lined map of the area )
This is what regulation 6 of those regulations require to be submitted when a notification is made regarding an EIA, such as the notification submitted by BDB on behalf of RiverOak.

(3) A request or notification under paragraph (1) must be accompanied by—

(a)a plan sufficient to identify the land;

(b)a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development and of its possible effects on the environment;

(c)such other information or representations as the person making the request may wish to provide or make.

The missing information was the area to be covered by the DCO.

Seems like RO aren't keen on disclosing which bit of land they want to compulsorily purchase. Is it because they don't know (which would be amazing after 2 years)? Or are they trying to hide something?

My guess is they don't want to disclose the red lined plan showing which land they want to include in the DCO. Could it include the housing behind Jentex? Or the cottages close to Helicharter? That would be contentious.

(Thanks for the clarification Marie)

 Michael Child poses the following point

"The Planning inspectorate have said in their advice that it is important that interested parties consult with RiverOak now i.e. in this pre statutory consultation stage, because the statutory consultation is front loaded.

I take this to mean that unless the content of the statutory consultation is decided by all of the interested parties then it is unlikely to be an effective part of the DCO. However RiverOak so far don’t seem to have answered any correspondence from interested parties."

Personally I, and many others, seriously thing Riveroak are attempting to make their consultation as difficult as humanly possible for any one to complain about what they are up to. 3 meetings with Parish Councils poorly advertised and no opportunity to give and accept feedback. A website that doesn't respond to any comments. Riveroak being based in the US of A not answering emails. No UK based  point of contact. It really is a nonsense.

Blog post link

So how are the pro airport people taking it. Funny you should ask

Dot I have some bad news for you and, of course, a correction. Firstly I am real unfortunately for you and I take exception to your scurrilousness lies. How very dare you talk about me behind my back especially when you dislike me talking about you. Now the correction: You have this arse about face your friends and colleagues are the ones threatening to shoot Gloag and do nothing else but make nasty vicious comments about anyone not pro airport including me, Marie and Robert Bird. So just imagine if you and your friends hadn't made those threatening comments we would have nothing to talk about.

 I do agree Dot SMA are "petty and ridiculous". Just so you understand you continue to make nasty comments about me and I will give you the publicity you richly deserve.
To Continue
SMA's fall out continues

Yes Dot you are viewed as the mouthpiece of Riveroak, You are hostile to anyone not toeing your party line. You are also nasty, vindictive and out of control.

Oh and putting more pressure on TDC planning to get your petty, vile and unneeded view across is again why the normal people of this world dislike SMA so much.