SP05 Manston Airport site

Because we have a local plan in consultation stage the former brownfield site at Manston has caused some discussion in TDC's planning department. The current draft plan has had to be amended as no viable plan has come forward to enshrine the brownfield site for aviation use. The current draft plan has this to say about Manston.

This has changed for 2 reasons firstly No credible offer has come forward since the airport closed and secondly because TDC has spent £50K of ratepayers money to get an evidenced based report into the viability of a functioning airfield.
The rationality of the decision is laid out as follows:-

The policy has now become the following

Needless to say the many airport supporters are incensed with Chris Wells coming in for the normal hate speech which the admins of the various groups are failing to deal with, however the worst of the vitriol is aimed at the prospective new owners of the housing with xenophobia and racism top of the list.
So what started with a letter in the Gazette has been blown up out of all proportion with the final nail in the coffin of the former airport site.  See previous blogpost
https://promote-ramsgate.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/put-up-or-just-shut-up.html

Any screenshots that are publishable will be added to the blog

Put up or just shut up

Today the 11th of November 2016, Armistice Day, the Thanet Gazette has printed a letter from our esteemed leader, Chris Wells.
I reproduce it on here and I hope that what he writes is actually understood by the pro-Manston supporters. I'm not holding my breathe.

To Beau Webber you talk of Riveroak preparing to spend £300M to £400M however talk is cheap. When they last prepared a business plan with costings their credit line available was $1.6M and a letter from a midwest bank of $400K.
So Beau why are you still believing their lies? Have you never heard of gilding the lily or the word "The Mark". Just because you are desperate to succeed should not blind you to the fact that you are being taken in by a confidence trickster.

Ruth you are asked why you do not accept the Avia report? (paid for by TDC at a cost of £50K from public funds) It was requested because the Local plan (currently being written) has to have evidence to support Manston as a viable business. The Falcon report (£10K) said it would take £100M and 20 years to make it a viable going concern. The Avia report has said it will unlikely to ever be a going concern yet you and your fellow protesters will not accept it despite your having zero aviation experience.
So what did Riveroak (to remind you no other suitor has come forward) do about a report which says it will never be a success. Well to remind you again, they said:

So Avia deliver their report to TDC on October 4th 2016, 9 days later Riveroak make a statement but a whole month later Riveroak are continuing to develop their "plan" but no rebuttal as yet.
I will remind you airport supporters we have been here before in 2014 Riveroak were asked for a business plan and they failed, 2016 has come and gone nearly and Riveroak have failed yet again.
It isn't surprising though as they have zero experience with running an airport and Freudmann, their lead, only has experience in failure in running Manston.
On the 2nd November the anti Riveroak supporters said:
 

"It criticises Avia for not reporting on the RiverOak business plan. This’ll be the business plan that we have all been waiting for since early 2014, we presume – you know, the business plan that is soooooo confidential that it can’t be released until RiverOak swagger in to the Planning Inspectorate with its DCO application sometime in 2017. Hilarious. Here’s a tip, RiverOak – if you want any of us to take your business plan seriously, you had better show it to us. As a fantasy that exists only in your own hive mind, it’s having no impact in the real world whatsoever.
The lawyers’ letter criticises Avia for relying on anonymous interviews. It seems to have escaped RiverOak’s attention completely that RiverOak is relying entirely on anonymous investors to pony up the dosh for its Manston caper and has steadfastly refused to share so much as a name.
The letter criticises Avia for producing a report that is “without evidence”. Now that is a piece of comic genius. How many times have we asked RiverOak where their 10,000 cargo flights are going to come from in a completely flat air freight market? Or their 20,000 cargo flights? Or their 500,000 to 600,000 tonnes of freight? Or their cargo customers who won’t want a single night flight ever, no siree? We have never seen a jot of evidence to support these wild fantasies of a successful daytime cargo airport in Thanet that will knock spots off rival East Midlands Airport. Without evidence? That's RiverOak's favourite way of operating.
The letter criticises Avia for ignoring “six respected studies” that apparently support the RiverOak claim that there is loads and loads of air freight out there just swishing around looking for a UK airport to use. Bizarrely, the letter doesn’t go so far as to name any of these studies, not even one. Nope, not so much as a hint. We would say this was entirely “without evidence”, wouldn’t you?
Anyway, we can hardly wait to see this “detailed rebuttal” from RiverOak as and when the team can get around to writing it. Don't rush 'em - their crack team has only had four weeks so far in which to do this. Let’s hope that when it finally does reach daylight, this rebuttal is stuffed full of evidence; data; sources and names… unlike anything that RiverOak have produced to date."

BTW you do know Freudmann earnt £170K as a consultant to KCC in 2005 and KCC lost £100K when Planestation folded. A great track record.
So to the last group "Why Not Manston" I make no apology in posting the words of the TDC Leader (a man that you vilify at every opportunity)

"If you are dissatisfied with the rigor of the Avia report, then I trust you will apply the same standards to Riveroak's failure to supply any business plan that can be evidenced. After three years work, the charge of scandalous complacency sits with you (and all pro-Manston supporters My words not Chris's) as much as anyone else"
He further says:
"I say to you all and through you to Riveroak - Show me the Business case and the money"


Time and time again Riveroak has only one consistency and that is failure, failure to produce a viable business plan, failure to produce evidence of enough money, failure to do anything to further their case except words and more words. It is past time to produce a plan or sod off back to the US of A. And while you are at it take Freudmann with you.

So I will say the words that Chris felt he couldn't bring himself to say.

Riveroak put up or shut up

DCO vs CPO Questions

For those that haven't been following the Manston saga (its getting to feel like Eastenders) currently there are 3 different strands of the story. Riveroak (an American Real Estate Investment LLP) have failed twice to persuade Thanet Council to be their partner in Compulsorily Purchasing (CPO) the land from the rightful owner Trevor Cartner and Chris Musgrave.
So now they are trying to take the land by use of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) at the same time Thanet Council under UKIP are looking to find alternate partners to CPO the land whilst the legitimate owner are preparing to submit their own plans for the land.

Confused well it certainly is for the Save Manston Airport (SMA) supporters Facebook page as they are still stuck in the past with Riveroak their preferred option, and with 10000? supporters they feel what they know is right and everyone else is telling lies.
They state The DCO out trumps anything that the owners and TDC are doing and they believe its a done deal and the clock is running.

Unfortunately some members of the Public have been asking searching questions and it seems what SMA have been promoting is wide of the mark but whatever you do don't tell SMA. The questions are as follows and can be found here

Well what does this mean? it's quite simple as the last paragraph states "if this were to occur ..... and their relative public benefits ......would be carefully taken into account by the relevant Secretary of State before deciding" In other words neither DCO or CPO takes precedence.

What does this mean? In plain English the questioner wants to know whether Riveroak's plans are a NSIP or not.
The answer is quite simple the planning Inspectorate have no idea because "no application has yet been made" further they go on to say "If an application is made it will NOT BE ACCEPTED for examination unless the Secretary of State is confident that it is an NSIP"

Finally the last question.

So the questioner would like to know if TDC is successful in finding an indemnity party and is also successful in the attempt at a CPO (that would depend on it being better that the owner's plans for the site) then could Riveroak take the land in their attempt at an NSIP?
The answer is clear it would depend on there being a compelling public interest and this would include a consideration of the (at that time) land use. So to shorten the answer if TDC and partner were successful in turning it back into an airport Riveroak would be buggered.

Finally on a lighter (sic) note the two errant Northwood Councillors have made it into the papers again this time on charges of theft and in Councillor Smith's case assault as well.
Link to Gazette article Thanet Gazette

The leader of the Council responded
" "Neither the council nor I was aware of these criminal proceedings until yesterday. Nor had we been given the extent of medical information revealed yesterday.

Given their respective reported illnesses, and their need to defend these proceedings and other matters, I do not see how these councillors can properly represent the interests of Northwood ward."The right thing for them to do would be to resign as councillors, for the benefit of the people of Ramsgate, and for the sake of their own health."

Finally someone remarked to me that Collins and Smith were "the gift that keeps on giving" however I hope that her Agoraphobia and his multiple illnesses clear up so they can be held to account for their failures

Riveroak's DCO carries on

An update has been issued by the Planning Inspectorate as there was a further meeting on the 23rd February. Meeting notes below. I have highlighted the interesting points and strangely RO haven't commented on them but SMA seem to be acting as their spokeperson with their typical spin.

Attendees 

The Developer: 

Tony Freudmann (RiverOak) 

Niall Lawlor (RiverOak) 

George Yerrall (RiverOak) 

Chris Cain (Northpoint Aviation) 

Tom Henderson (Bircham Dyson Bell) 

Alexander Hallatt (Bircham Dyson Bell) 


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) on its website. Any advice issued under s51 does not constitute legal advice upon which the attendees, or others, can rely. Introductions were made by everyone present and individual roles were explained. 

RiverOak provided an overview of activity since the last meeting and confirmed that various consultants have been appointed to the scheme. RiverOak anticipated a meeting of the combined consultancy team imminently with the aim of discussing the preparation of a masterplan. 

RiverOak provided some observations about the air freight industry in the UK and particularly in respect of the South East System. RiverOak believed there to be a current and future undersupply in dedicated freight capacity and highlighted where they considered there to be constraints on existing airports.
 


Now this is difficult to understand as RO seem to be existing in a parallel universe from such bodies as "the Economist" Link here They say quite clearly in the article " The volume of goods travelling by air has risen marginally over the past year but airlines’ cargo revenues have fallen from a peak of $67 billion in 2011 to around $50 billion a year now." and "A dramatic fall in sea-freight rates—of more than 75% since 2012 on some routes—as a result of overcapacity among shipping lines has encouraged customers to switch from sending some non-urgent deliveries by air. Excess capacity among the airlines themselves has done further damage. Since the financial crisis, there has been no let-up in the growth of passenger demand, so carriers have been expanding their fleets. This means the amount of cargo space in the belly of passenger planes has risen sharply. Combined with flat demand for shipping by air, the result is that average capacity utilisation across the air-cargo business has fallen to 43.5%, the lowest since the crisis. So, customers have been able to demand big price cuts.
  RiverOak indicated some of the working assumptions being considered in supporting their application in respect of, for example, average freight tonnage per aircraft movement. The PA2008 definition and thresholds associated with airport development were discussed. 

RiverOak confirmed that they believed their application would be under s23(1)(b) as an alteration to an airport due to the remaining physical infrastructure on the site and noted in respect of PA2008 s23(5)(b) they were likely to consider that the airport had zero capacity because of its current physical state. 

RiverOak confirmed that letters had been sent to certain landowners in respect of seeking access on to their land to undertake survey work. Timeframes had been identified for response in that correspondence however, it was noted that to date no responses had been received. Hardly surprising

The considerations in respect of a s53 authorisation request were discussed and The Inspectorate noted the importance of evidence to accompany any such request. The Inspectorate’s Advice Note 5 was highlighted. 

RiverOak provided an update on the proposals and confirmed the intention that Manston Airport would be capable of providing over 10,000 additional freight movements by 2024/2025, with further growth beyond that date. There would also be low cost and charter passenger flights.

In real terms considering that would be the minimum number of flights to achieve acceptance for a DCO, however this equates once you add on KIA's best year a minimum of 33 flights a day. A figure SMA try and avoid mentioning. This is the flightpath for those unfortunate to be under 33 Jumbos all day and night

 

RiverOak explained that their current thinking was based on a range of scenarios that would be subject to the masterplanning approach. RiverOak provided some background context in respect of the need and operation of a ‘dismantling and recycling’ facility for decommissioned aircraft. RiverOak also noted plans for the site that could include enhancing the tourism offer and location of an Aerospace Park. 

The Inspectorate were interested to understand what elements would form part of a Development Consent Order (DCO) application for the site and how the development of the site, as controlled through the DCO and associated certified document and plans, was proposed to be phased. The existing accesses for freight and passenger vehicles from the existing road networks were explained. 

RiverOak noted the highway network in the vicinity of the airport and noted one junction in particular that would potentially require improvement. RiverOak also highlighted a public highway that runs through the centre of the site. 

RiverOak noted that the outcome of studies, assessment and masterplanning work would provide more detail about any off site highway mitigation works. 

RiverOak discussed the potential for compulsory acquisition of land currently associated with two operational museums, the land could be required in respect of highways improvement. However, RiverOak noted their intention that the museums would be provided with upgraded facilities as part of its development, whether there is a need for such highways improvements or not. 
Seeing as the main purpose for a Freight Hub is in the movement of freight and the most economic route is from the Minster Roundabout, straight out onto the A299 it is surprising that the junction for improvement is the one involving the Museums. Now that makes one wonder just why they want to take back land gifted to the museums in perpetuity. Putting my cynical hat on I wonder if this is related to Freudmann coveting building houses on the Northern Grass from 2014. 
It makes little sense to make HGV's (over 100 a day if the DCO succeeds) towards Westwood Cross instead of towards Minster along Spitfire Way. 

The night time curfew was discussed; RiverOak noted that night time landing is permitted if the planes have not been scheduled. RiverOak indicated that it was possible that some night flights would be required. RiverOak confirmed that noise control and mitigation would be a key part of their environmental study and consultation process. RiverOak discussed CAP 168 that sets out the licensing requirements in respect of operational management and the planning of aerodrome development. 
This is what was said at the Winter Garden meeting right back at the start and what Airport supporters have been denying ever since. Now the cat is out of the bag it seems SMA have gone on the defensive denying on Social Media that's what Riveroak want. Well sorry they are their words not mine




RiverOak confirmed that any considerations flowing from this document in terms of powers/works/land would clearly be reflected in their DCO where relevant. The role of the relevant local authority (Thanet District Council) was noted and discussed. RiverOak outlined their evolving engagement strategy with the Local Authority. Given the timetable to submission, 
Now this is funny considering the public vilification of Councillor Chris Wells orchestrated by the airport supporters on Social Media. They even have a dedicated Facebook page where the posts are personal attacks on one man

The Inspectorate offered to ‘host’ an early meeting between RiverOak and Thanet District Council. 
Good luck with that one PI!!!
  RiverOak queried the Inspectorate’s approach in relation to transboundary effects. 

The Inspectorate noted that RiverOak should refer to Advice Note 12 on the subject and should also include reference to any likelihood of transboundary effects arising as part of any request for a Scoping Opinion. 
Link to Note 12
  RiverOak noted their intention to achieve a first draft of the masterplanning process by early spring. RiverOak anticipated that a Scoping Request may be submitted to The Inspectorate by late spring and were currently planning their public consultation activities to take place in late summer. 

So to summarise Night flights and the taking back of the land from the museums. Should any Airport supporter be reading this it would be advantageous for RO to make a public statement on both areas instead of letting SMA be their spin doctors. So far two own goals on the public perception front but that surprises no one.

Sad, Mad or Bad

Kevan Konnor Collins, subject of this post (link) has decided that it is easier to remain in hiding by producing a sicknote to the Gazette reporter that knocked on the door. So we thought we would look at the facts again and ask some serious questions.

The MOD said "
THE Ministry of Defence says its initial checks with the Parachute Regiment have found no record of a Thanet councillor's disputed service with the unit.
A spokesman for the MoD said enquiries with the members of "airborne fraternity" had failed to identify Democratic Independent Group leader Councillor Konnor Collins as a veteran.
Cllr Collins has previously stated he served 19 years in the Parachute Regiment, rising to the rank of Regimental Sergeant Major and receiving numerous commendations for gallantry.
The ministry was unable to officially confirm or deny Cllr Collins' claimed service without extensive checks with the Army Personnel Centre's disclosures department. However, the MoD did confirm enquiries with 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment, a unit which the councillor has been photographed wearing the badge of, had "drawn a blank""

Read the story here (link)

So did Collins use his alleged non-existent service to gain some sort of advantage at the TDC elections and is he still doing so. Take a look at what was published on Facebook.

Then once elected he carried on with this history. This collection of emails was sent by Collins during the training period when he was an independent councillor.

Values and Behaviour seems something sadly missing in his repertoire however some of the comments from pro manston supporters state he was led into faking his army career so we were wondering just who knew him well enough to manipulate him or is this just another red herring.

It also seems many believe that the silence from Collins is more to do with the potential harm to the Pro Manston cause because he is the founder of the only political group who have made it their only hobby to get Manston reopened. Personally I think the electorate deserve more from their councillors and others think the same.

 So we have a situation that doesn't go away despite being known about since October 2015 and must be getting worse for Collins's self-esteem and reputation but what is the same whether he is Sad, Mad or Bad is the letting down of the people who live in his ward and they deserve a councillor who will look after them.

I will ramble on here if more information comes forward because I am surprised the Leader of the Council is letting this situation get worse.
A statement from the Council Leader this morning:


"Chris Wells The MOD's statement to the Isle of Thanet Gazette that they can find no record of Konnor Collins ever having served with the Paras has confirmed wha...t many have suspected for some weeks. Konnor Collins is a con man. Even that understates the awful nature of what he has done. Konnor Collins, in lying about his military service, has stolen the virtue and bravery of those who have actually won the medals he falsely claims.

Collins was unmasked by his own bluster, using medals he has not earned on an application to the court for damages against three fellow members of the Council. He sent it for publication in the newspaper before the defendants knew of his accusations. And from that single act of reckless bravado, the extent of his lying and cheating has gradually been revealed.
Collins claims disability on the back of a non existent army career. He may be disabled, but he ain't no military veteran.
Partner of many years, Helen Smith, was elected alongside him, their appeal being based on these disgraceful lies. Named, shamed, and beneath contempt for any who have served in the armed forces, both should immediately resign as councillors, having clearly brought their elected office into disrepute.
Behind them stands close friend and PA, Dr R John Pritchard, who claims academic excellence, research and legal experience, and has known since before the election that Collins military record was not provable. Pritchard could have stopped Collins being elected; and as Vice Chair of Save Manston Airport, could have saved SMA the embarrassment of publicly backing conman Collins.
54 councillors do their best for the isle. Clearly these two, and their trusted PA, have been in it for all the wrong reasons. All three should slink away in their shame, and trouble us no more.
Chris Wells. Leader UKIP Group South Thanet. 07825203043
Press release, 28 January 2016

DIGging a hole

In May when UKIP won in Thanet one of their biggest issues was finding the right calibre of candidate and in the quantity needed to run the Council. And when 5 of their new found Councillors decided to jump ship after throwing all their toys from the pram and form their own group called the Democratic Independent Group (DIG) the local political pundits had a field day.
Now it seems there is something strange in their group, The Councillor for Northwood seems to be a strong supporter of the Pro Manston campaign however he seems somewhat cagey about his own personal credibility and has been challenged by the "Walter Mitty" group who take exception to people "stealing valour" from genuine heroes

Now take a serious look at the medal cluster which include an MBE, The Conspicuous Gallantry Cross (CGC) The Military Cross (MC) and the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC)

Yet this (alleged) decorated war hero tried to join the Royal British Legion a year ago and was declined. Why!! it seems he said he was a Regimental Sarjeant Major in the Paras, he served in the Black watch and did a stint in the SAS during which he assisted in an embassy siege in Peru.

The Walter Mittys have always provided their evidence to the person they are outing which would have occurred in December 2015 so its odd that no comments has been forthcoming from Konnor but then he seems to spent much time out of the limelight in Margate hospital.

His former leader Chris Wells had this to say

And when that statement occurs we will post it on here, however I really don't understand why a more proactive stance on vetting the candidates cannot be done. It seems you cannot just trust people's word anymore.
Also Kandy Jones you are such a hypocrite defending someone because someone makes an allegation yet you and your mates have no problems spreading innuendo, hearsay and bile when it suits you. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. or even "let those without sin cast the 1st stone" and from what I hear certain people campaigning in Newington are doing just that, Maybe you should ask your mate why he is doing it "a smear campaign before truth" so funny

seems Dan you and your mates have no hesitation in spreading rumours. Pray where is your truth of why I live in Southampton now and just what is it I'm supposed to have done to FORS? Your mate keithy says everyone is innocent until proven guilty but one word from you and oops.

Groupthink and the rise of the thug

"The term “groupthink,” defined by psychologist Irving Janis in 1972, refers to how cohesive groups of people make and justify faulty decisions. People affected by groupthink usually feel pressured to conform to the views expressed by an influential group leader. They hesitate to voice concerns for fear of being shamed or ostracized, and, in the absence of dissent, they assume all other group members approve of the decisions being made. Alternatives to the group’s actions are either dismissed or never considered at all. Outsiders who raise objections are often regarded as enemies and dehumanized.
Groupthinking most often arises in homogeneous, insulated groups that possess no clear guidelines for decision making."
Janis’s research uncovered eight symptoms that indicate groupthinking:

1. Illusion of Invulnerability – The group believes failure is impossible.
2. Collective Rationalization – Group members invent reasons to ignore warnings and refuse to objectively evaluate their stance on an issue.
3. Inherent Morality – The group assumes all its actions are ethical and beneficial.
4. Stereotyping – The group creates negative views of opposing groups to avoid rationally addressing objections to its activities.
5. Direct Pressure to Conform – Members are discouraged from dissenting.
6. Self-Censorship – Members willingly refrain from expressing doubts or objections.
7. Illusion of Unanimity – Because dissent is never voiced, members assume everyone in the group agrees with the decisions made.
8. Mind Guards – Some members voluntarily act to shield the group from dissent or criticism.

 Cllr Wells told "Kent on Sunday" I think what's happening is we're seeing inexperienced councillors coming under serious pressure from a very nasty campaign group and being really frightened.

 Well Chris you are stating the obvious here and its been happening since the campaign stalled back in September 2014 when negotiations with Riveroak stalled.

 Accusations of bribery and corruption abound. Attempts to force people to resign are seen as the way forward. If we cannot get the councillors to toe the line then attack member of staff with email campaigns intended to frighten them away. see below

Lets look at what really happened. Manston was run by various firms including Wiggins and Infertil over many years and all failed to make a profit no matter whether it were passenger or freight services. Their losses were considerable however that is ignored.
In 2012 Infertil put the airport up for sale and asked Price Waterhouse Cooper to market it. In 22 months no one came forward, that's NO ONE, NIL, NOTHING. Why did NO ONE in the aviation industry come forward. another fact ignored by the pro campaign.

In November 2014 when the negotiations had stalled under Labour KCC's leader Paul Carter made a statement at County Hall. The Pro Campaigners have made it their life's work to vilify the man when all he has done is point out the obvious. Now the same vitriol has be aimed at Chris Wells leader of UKIP at Thanet Council. Putting aside the politics and looking at why the whole process has ground to a halt the common denominator seems to be the reluctance of Riveroak to disclose their financial affairs and provide TDC with the information they need exactly the situation Iris Johnson found themselves in 2014.

David Green (in Iris Johnson's cabinet)

14 October at 18:35

Way back in pre history, when I was involved in the Manston issue, I asked Riveroak 3 questions to determine whether I could support them as a indemnity partner.
1. If we (TDC) signed up, would they disclose the source of their funding.
2. Would they allow TDC to withdraw from the CPO process at any point without penalty to TDC
3 Would they accept a covenant on the land when TDC handed it to them that restricted its use to aviation related use only.
Their answer to each was NO!
I guess Chris Wells has reached a similar position.

So what do the pro supporter's do?
3. Inherent Morality – The group assumes all its actions are ethical and beneficial.
Anything against the groupthink has to be destroyed and of course anything goes including memes like this

Outsiders who raise objections are often regarded as enemies and dehumanized
 
4. Stereotyping – The group creates negative views of opposing groups to avoid rationally addressing objections to its activities.

So all groups or individuals who state the bleeding obvious like it's all over are attacked and vilified and of course anything they post is treated just like the Word of God.

So as this campaign nears its end where do the supporters go after its all over? Some will pledge their loyalty to the dying end, however as in most campaigns the vast majority will simply get on with their lives with the thought they have done their best but they were beaten by the monied classes. None of them will admit the truth that the bullies didn't succeed and the rest allowed them to get away with the bullying because they hadn't the courage to tell them to stop bullying.