Thursday, 5 May 2016

Cliffsend Cliff Hanger or Beau's blunder

On the 28th April 2016, on the second anniversary of the closure of Manston, Cliffsend Village had their annual meeting. Riveroak were afforded 25 minutes to give a talk and answer some questions. Roughly 50 people attended to hear Tony Freudmann talk.
Afterwards Beau Webber posted the following to his many admirers in SMA.
The highlighted text is by this author.

"On Thursday 28th April Tony Freudmann of RiverOak (RO) addressed a very congenial crowd of around 50 people at Cliffsend Parish Hall. It was a very factual account, acknowledging that, whilst RO were initially very disappointed that the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) with Thanet District Council (TDC) didn't go ahead, they accept that the possible risk perceived by TDC, (that of being involved in a multi-million pound project such as Manston Airport, despite the fact that RO were indemnity partners), was too much for a small district council to cope with.
RiverOak are now working with HM Planning Inspectorate (PINS) with regular meetings and discussions, all of which are minuted and can be read on the PINS website, to develop and validate RiverOak's plans for the Development Consent Order (DCO). Manston Airport is being considered as being of national importance, therefore attaching the title of NSIP (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) to the DCO. RO’s aim is to achieve acceptance of their DCO application by PINS by the end of 2016. Acceptance is not the end of the process but will be a big step towards securing the full DCO.
Specialist legal, planning and environmental teams were appointed in January and have made significant progress. However they are so far not being allowed access to the airport by the present owners, as is legally required. During their last conference call with the Planning Inspectorate RiverOak raised this matter. The Planning Inspectorate have power under the Planning Act 2008 to order site access.
RO anticipate the Manston project will over time involve capital expenditure in excess of £200Million as it will involve major reconstruction and additional work on the airport site, to enable Manston to have the capacity to handle ( an additional)* edited as this is what PINS will require) 10,000 freight movements a year, as well as improving the site access and infrastructure around Spitfire corner. RO will also liaise with both the Spitfire and RAF museums before final plans are in place. RO anticipate costs of at least £15Million to replace all the basic infrastructure removed by the present owners.
Very extensive environmental assessment will be undertaken to look into effects on air quality, noise pollution, water quality, wildlife, etc.
The scope of the environmental study is expected to provide the Isle of Thanet with the most thorough health check of the centre of the island that has ever been produced to date.

Employing local people will be a priority and involving educational programmes is part of the submission. Manston is anticipated to be roughly comparable with East Midlands Airport in the future, which is mostly freight but with passenger flights too. There the current figures are that the airport supports a total of 6,000 jobs on an annual turnover of approximately £100 Million.
RiverOak intend to hold pre-consultation(s) in June or July, with a full formal consultation to be held in the late summer. Local residents will have their chance to express opinions and these will be listened to and acted upon."

To date (nearly 2 years) neither TDC or the public have seen any detailed plans by Riveroak so this statement by Beau is either him winging it or he is privy to Tony Freudmann's plans however when this statement was discussed outside of the confines of their closed Facebook page a different story emerged.
Firstly Beau confirms he has no idea what Riveroaks plans are. His statement is based on listening to Freudmann for 25 minutes without taking notes. I'll leave the reader to decide whether the financial information inthe above is correct or not
Several questions from members concerned about the above statement were asked but answers were in short supply.





Readers might be wondering just why this is important. Well lets look at some facts and figures from the "roughly comparable East Midlands Airport"
Firstly EMA in 2015 handled just under 78000 flights which equates to just under 9 movements every hour with more during the day and less during the night (correct freight mainly comes in during the night) That is one movement every 7 minutes. And further as already explained the operation is 24/7 fortunately landing and takeoff isn't over Ramsgate.
Turnover in 2013 was £50M based on 78000 flights which equates to roughly £700 a landing. If Manston wants to achieve "roughly comparable" figures based on 12000 movements then they will be charging £4000 per plane. As John says this doesn't add up.
Then we have jobs EMA supports (not employs) 6000 jobs based on a 24/7 regime, based on 12000 movements that equates to under 1000 jobs and most of them would be ancillary not direct jobs.
Then we have the issue of money Beau talks about expenditure of £200M over time (?) however money doesn't grow on trees and turnover doesn't mean profit however lets do some sums Beau says turnover £100M on 78000 movements equates to £15M when you have the same costs and 12000 movements. Now thats not profit because all businesses have overheads. In 2014 EMA made £16.4M on a turnover of £50M which if you bring that back to 12000 movements they will make £2,55M so how will they have the money to invest up to £200M in infrastructure?

PS Collins and Smith have failed to attend court for the 11th time and are now committed to Crown Court to answer charges of theft and in smith's case assault as well.

57 comments:

  1. Of course nothing Tony Freudmann and Riveroak say adds up and that gos for sir Roger Gale MP.As time gos by it's becoming more&more clear to more people that Freudmann&co under the umbrella of RivernoOaktrees and topped off with Gale are as I've stated in 2014 Tricking people so that they can with their masterplan take control of the SHP/Manston land and sell off to construction companys/company.Along this path Freudmann has come to belive that the possibility to take to court and demand monies from the Tax coffers.Freudmann belives himself and others are sitting on info that could bring legal and personal problems to some of the people who have an intrest in SHP.What Freudmann,Gale and the others have been up to makes Collins deceitful ways look like a white lie.
    Regards Humpty Dumpty or Paul edward Fay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see a new comment on the Walter Mitty Hunters page re Kevin Collins. A woman claims he abandoned her with a premature baby 17 years ago and he spent time in prison and that he is an out and out con man.

      Delete
    2. A perfect TDC councilor...

      Delete
  2. "Very extensive environmental assessment will be undertaken to look into effects on air quality, noise pollution, water quality, wildlife, etc.
    The scope of the environmental study is expected to provide the Isle of Thanet with the most thorough health check of the centre of the island that has ever been produced to date."

    Looks like Richard Card's arguments have made their mark on Beau's stated position ? A Thanet Health check eh ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1716 Richard...only if the RO proposal moves forward and then some years away. The cancer ward won't empty just yet

    ReplyDelete
  4. Roger Gale just emailed me to say that my email to Riveroak solicitors is actionable and libellous against him.

    So I have replied asking him to comply with pre action protocol civil procedure rules and send me a detailed claim letter citing the facts, stated by me, he would wish to dispute. And to spare me his bombast.

    He wrote that he has always been fully supportive of Riveroak DCO process which as a pre-requisite would rely on a thorough environmental impact survey.

    In my reply I argue he has misunderstood the issue. The issue is risk and public health survey involving an extensive history of concealing the history of Thanet water supply contamination. The application of precautionary principle should have triggered at the S106 stage. It did not but my position is to try to ensure it does trigger as part of the application to Planning Inspectorate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard,Gale says libellous against him,does Gale mean personal or/and the party Gale represented/represents?.HD.

      Delete
    2. If and i mean a big IF Gale has misunderstood,like he uses when it pleases him!then he should pack up his troubles in his old kit bag and do one.

      Delete
    3. To avoid pulling Barry's blog in I have not quoted what I wrote to Gale and Riveroaks solicitor that Gale seems to object to.

      What I can say is that as soon as he emailed calling the sentence in which he was named "Libellous and actionable" I replied inviting him to obey Civil Procedure Rules of High Court pre action protocol and send me a claim letter in which he sets out which facts cited by me he would claim are untrue.

      At this time Gale has not replied. I have not notified National Crime Agency as yet that Gale appears to wish to dispute my word. If he wishes to back up his email with action then I will report to NCA that my word is subject of dispute.

      Hansard shows Gale's address to Commons 2000 re Foreness outfall. He states he has long had a good relationmship with Southern Water. So why did he fail to mention the Sericol water supply contamination and the Sericol and Thor remediation projects that were being kept secret from Thanet ? If he wishes to report himself to Commons standards inquiry to establish whether or not the proper authority feel he did not mislead the Commons then good. Until then it is a matter of opinion after a long period in which he has not answered or explained even though an elected representative.

      The same with the Admiralty Board of Inquiry report on the 22.9.89 terrorist bombing of Deal Barracks. He knows the list of prior security issues has two missing. 1982 Brig Mike Harvey to MI5 and 1988/89 mine and others security breach warnings concerning his north thanet tory colleague who had gained work at Sericol. And his tory colleague's fellow Kent Adventure Training Corps leader who had gained work with Reliance Security at Deal Barracks. He knows that the Ferryman trilogy (Pat Monteath) identified his tory colleague and wrote that he was a fully paid up member of IRSF (political wing INLA) who sold information to PIRA. The significant thing here being that the author was not sued for libel.

      If Gale especially on Home Affairs Select and later PPS at Defence notified the Commons that there were serious omissions in the Admiralty Board report then I would review my position.

      If he had notified South East Regional Crime Squad (SERCS), the David Norris or the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiries that members of his north thanet tory party had been arrested in 87 for paramilitary collusion so that could have been examined in the context of arrests of UDA (hit men and drugs criminals based in Margate arrested by SERCS 1992) If he had notified SERCS of the theft inquiry of Cyclohexanone at Sericol a solvent used in back street drugs labs. That could have been examined in the context of UDA drugs criminals basing themselves in Margate. And of course if he did do these things I would notify National Crime Agency about what a diligent chap he was.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for publishing. For libel the statement would have to satisfy a number of tests including that it is untrue but believable by a reasonable man.

      I don't know whether Mr Gale is a bit rash but it appears unhelpful to his position that it is based on the premise the solicitor to Riveroak would believe what was written unless he corrected the situation ! The inference being he accepts he has concealed facts from Riveroak solicitor.

      If he has an explanation then please do not restrict it to Riveroak solicitor Mr Gale. Explain to your electorate.

      Delete
  5. Well said Richard, can you publish your RO email and Gale's reply here or a link to your blog? Several people would no doubt be willing to raise it with Gale

    ReplyDelete
  6. UK Anti Corruption Summit this week must be relevant for an inquiry into Pleasurama and BVI companies?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take a closer look at Pleasuramas directors and you will see whos who and how the companies operate offshore.

      Delete
  7. Second RO consultation to be held in Birchington.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please ask about the proposed risk, public health and environmental impact study they propose.

      Delete
    2. Second RO consultation in Birchington,Gale should be able to pop out hes shed to tune in then!

      Delete
  8. When? We need new elections over the electoral expenses fraud and Manston failure

    ReplyDelete
  9. RO have confirmed these meetings are informal briefings ahead of the formal consultation later this year

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adem Mehmet why don't you post under your real name

      Delete
    2. Good point Barry. I have still heard nothing further from Roger Gale.

      I have suggested 1987 as a suitable starting point to the history in the "Thorough environmental study" Gale claims to support as part of Riveroak application.

      I can only conclude so far that Mr Gale hasn't told Riveroak his knowledge essential to the environmental study. Oh dear.

      Hence I am bemused at the idea RO think they know enough to hold "Informal briefings".

      Delete
    3. Barry is that the Adem Mehmet who said that any councillor who supported the airport was effectively sacrificing Ramsgate. Thought you'd banned him.

      Delete
    4. anyone can post as Anon. Only after they post can a guess be made of their identity

      Delete
    5. Barry, I've been checking out Adem Mehmet, where does he live ? Can't make out if it's Enfield or Ramsgate.

      Delete
    6. Barry, it looks like Adem Mehmet might be anti airport. He's been banned from both SMA and Suma as they believe he has "Pickle tendencies"

      Delete
    7. Richard perhaps you should attend the next RO meeting or indeed go to them all and raise your points. Have you written to the DCO inspector ?

      Delete
  10. Pleasurama corruption etc on Tim Garbutt's blog: http://lovekentloveramsgate.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/anti-corruption-summit-and-kent.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Tim I thought you had emigrated

      Delete
    2. How is Pleasurama corrupt? And if it is what are TDC doing?

      Delete
    3. Pleasurama registered in BVI: 50% of all offshore tax havens - it seems to have been a collusion between TDC councilors and civil servants to shift funds offshore (with or without building anything). TDC art the very least have refused to call in the police for thorough investigation

      Delete
    4. 15:10 I think you will find that the police are the one that refused investigating on the report received in 2011.

      Delete
    5. 15:10 So police allowing TDC to use BVI company?

      Delete
    6. Aren't the TDC senior management liable for money laundering etc proceedings?

      Delete
    7. TDC has a money laundering rules compliance policy. Whether it followed it is the question.

      They do not have policy to link statutory reporting duties of Terrorism Act 2000 in to their proceeds of crime money laundering compliance.

      The situation with Manston appears to be that USA law protects anonymous investment and UK law does not.

      I think the situation with Pleasurama was that police would not have been called. It was TDC who should have refused to enter contract until the developer provided the financial source evidence and if the developer failed to do so then game over.

      This is nothing new with TDC. As has been pointed out about TDC licensing if one pub operator alone can make a profit in Thanet where others are all struggling then it should trigger money laundering suspicion compliance.

      But hey it's TDC.

      Delete
    8. There is a criminal duty to report on tax fraud now (as there as always was) - who at TDC would be liable with Pleasurama?

      Delete
  11. Gale in Thanet Gazette says that RO have committed more money to environmental impact assessment than has previously been the case. That would not be difficult because the amount spent before, as far as water and air contamination goes, was somewhere between zero and nil !



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Total spent by RO £600 on assessment Feb 2016.

      Delete
  12. Collapse of UKIp (again) and Manston- Hayton an Independent? Who knew?

    http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Newington-Ukip-councillor-Mo-Leys-resigns/story-29278983-detail/story.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. Manston and RO and TDC and UKIP are a busted flush: what a mess. We need new elections.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What's the score with Cllr Bill Hayton quitting tories ?

    ReplyDelete
  15. TDC fraud over EU c.£1M funds for not dredging Port: similar to Manston monitors fraud? Why names redacted when FOI?
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/521608/Interreg-2015-01-Thanet_DC-Investigation_report_Redacted.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  16. The last time Bill Hayton quit abruptly was as a Trustee of East Kent Maritime Trust. The trust ran Thanet museums with a TDC grant of about £120,000 a year.

    The owner of steam tug Cervia got the hump about how much it had been allowed to deteriorate over years of loan to EKMT. And so pre action discussions began. I contacted Charity Commission who informed me they already had an EKMT inquiry. I told them about the £300,000 Butler legacy income the EKMT appeared to have concealed in accounts to Charity Commission. EKMT had anyway failed to account annually for some 3 years. The Charity Commission should IMO have been listed as an interested party to pre action discussions about Cervia reparations.

    But the public purse should have been safeguarded by trustee unlimited liability. It has never been made clear how the two Thanet tory trustees suddenly disappeared as trustees. I think they were bound not to quit unless liability replacements were found. But TDC solicitor involved in the pre action discussions seemed to think his publicly funded role was first to protect tory Cllr wallets. Happily The Steam Museum Trust owners of Cervia took over the running of museums.

    Bill Hayton had a conversation in the late 90s with a witness to activity at 6th Thanet Range. A witness who then failed to come forward with evidence. I gather from the witness that a matter under discussion was whether he wanted "A political future in Thanet". Imagine my surprise later to see that a political future manifested for him in the form of a seat on KIA consultative cttee.

    ReplyDelete
  17. UKIP will just be led by the nose by the civil servants and do nothing: elderly sheep

    ReplyDelete
  18. Have you emailed UKIP TDC leader to say what you recommend they do Anon 16.45 ?

    What is it you want them to do ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wells can't even count let alone do anything he's useless

      Delete
    2. The Gazette reporting another Port fraud by TDC

      Delete
  19. I'm hearing reports of TDC blocking emails to councilors and staff - anyone know if this is true? Councillor addresses and tel no's seem to have disappeared too: c/o TDC?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Does anyone know why and when Pioneer Ind Est Ramsgate became a contaminated zone and why Whitehall water abstraction was not turned off ?

    ReplyDelete
  21. ="http://www.stowmarketmercury.co.uk/news/hundreds_dying_because_of_air_pollution_in_suffolk_and_essex_1_4539239"> Interesting read re Suffolk and Essex study

    Thanet is worse it has highest lung disease rates in UK

    But this is he first I have read of an ozone effect causing pockets of pollution problems in rural areas. A Cllr asked me some time ago whether there was a factor for causing disease in rural areas of Thanet so I emailed them the linkie.

    Is anyone else actually doing anything re Thanet Health Inequality and Manston implications beyond making short blog comments, of no consequence, anonymously ?

    An anon recently said he thought Barry was "Orchestrating" the opposition to Manston. Barry corrected anon he is not "Orchestrating" a group (opposed to the pro manston gang who have sought a virtual war of no consequence on social media. A gang who didn't even know RO have not yet made an application to Planning Inspectorate)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So who is orchestrating the opposition to the airport?

      Delete
  22. TDC has blocked E-mails to councillors and staff because Stone Hill Park's planning application is about to hit their desks. They don't want the switchboard clogged up with calls from idiots who have nothing more worthwhile to say than shouting "Airport."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So thats a good thing 21:40?

      Delete
  23. My question and Planning Inspectorate advice are now published on the website

    Is it in the public interest to fill the air, with airport lung irritant particulates, being breathed by the area with already the highest lung disease rates in UK ?

    To be fair the issues, of environmental hazard to public health, should have been addressed at 1987 (Excess airborne mercury Thor discovered by HSE); 1992 (Discovery of massive water supply contamination Sericol); 2001 et seq Manston Section 106 agreement (we know a determined TDC team dodged the statutory environmental assessment of Planning Law)

    Riveroak solicitors have not answered me. But they have been told. Roger Gale objected to what I told RO solicitors by claiming it was actionable and libellous. Clearly he places his own PR above the long overdue need to address health inequality suffered by his constituents. But after I invited a formal claim letter from Gale I have heard no more so far (3 weeks silence from the Gale)

    Chris Wells has never replied. Hence it seems he is refusing to report the history of water and air contamination in Thanet to KCC and Public Health England. To my mind he should be careful adopting that position at a time he claims to be seeking alternative CPO partners for Manston. The word fraud springs to mind.

    I also think that Riveroak may have a damages cause of action against TDC. If so Thanet may be glad to see the back of RO but they may be leaving with a bag of Thanet money ...............

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surprised not that RivernoOaktrees may have a go at a da
      mages c claim against TDC,it's all in the method of of messer Freudmann.HD.

      Delete
    2. Richard, have you provided your documents to the planning inspector leading the DCO ?

      Delete
  24. I see that now a Sovereign Fund turns up with an alleged £150 million offer to offer for Stone Hill Park. Since Manston is a strategic asset I imagine MI5 will be asking whose money is in the fund ?

    But surely the idea is not to dodge planning law environmental impact, as happened with the 106 agreement, and public health impact assessment by a new team dodging Planning Inspectorate and CPO ?

    ReplyDelete