Truth, Lies and Politics

"In a propaganda war the first casualty is the truth" and it's the same in any campaign especially in the fight to reopen Manston airport.
The other quote is "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" and that is the essence of a propaganda campaign as the pro supporters have a history of salting their "facts" with a dose of truth. Take the following post:

Firstly the Girdler's were tenants albeit for a number of years therefore by definition it wasn't their hangar..
Riveroak's CEO is Stephen DeNardo is an independent director of Brookfield Property Partners based in the West Indies who with a Quatari consortium forced a buyout of Canary Wharf. He isnt the Chief Financial Officer but is the Chair of the Audit Committee and as Brookfield is listed on the New York Stock Exchange they have to abide by their rules

According to the NYSE rules "no director qualifies as 'independent' unless the board of directors affirmatively determines that the director has 'no material relationship' with the listed company, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the company" So why bring this tenuous statement up at all? Unless you are trying to portray Riveroak as something they aren't.

"As CFO George (Yerrall) has investors committed to 5 times any reasonable value of Manston"
This is in an apparent move to say how rich RO actually are however the statement is let down by several things. Firstly no one knows what Manston is worth but more to the point why didn't RO offer a reasonable sum in 2014 for the airport seeing it had been up for sale for 22 months previously to being bought by Ann Gloag.

"TDC officers are refusing to prepare papers for the Overview and Scrutint Committee meeting on the 16th November" 
Sorry Bryan, but did you understand the reason for the O&S Committee? Papers do not need to be prepared per se as their raison d'etre to ensure the Cabinet's decisions are based on proper controls. "It does not have any decision-making powers, but monitors the performance of the Leader and Cabinet and scrutinises services and policies throughout the district." Therefore by definition it looks at the evidence that has been prepared for the Cabinet and if they believe decisions are incorrect then they have to refer it back to the Cabinet.

"Due to the lack of a CPO the hangar is currently owned by Ann Gloag and her cronies"
Talk about incorrect and emotive. Firstly there isn't a CPO because no suitable partner has been found to start one, secondly Land registry says the owners of that company are cartner & Musgrave not Ann Gloag. (She does have a pecuniary interest but not ownership)
"Sir Roger Gale is currently calling for a coalition at TDC to vote the CPO through"
He certainly is however not for the reasons he would have you believe this is politics after all. In case anyone wondered TDC cannot vote a CPO through they have firstly to find a legitimate partner then they have to set the ball rolling and its the Secretary of State that makes the final decision based of some fairly fundamental rules.

Re Manston Airport

Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

______________________________

NOTE OF ADVICE

_______________________________

1.      The new ownership of the site since previous legal advice will be a major factor when the Council is deciding to make the CPO and when the Secretary of State is deciding whether or not to confirm a CPO. The overarching public interest test is whether there is a compelling case in the public interest. As the Circular advises (17), an authority should be sure that the purposes for which it is making the CPO sufficiently justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected.

 

1.      It should be emphasized that any decision to make a CPO requires proper consideration of a likely interference with the owners’ human rights. Before proceeding to any CPO the Council should seek further information on their plans for the site from the new owners. The Council must be in a position to assess the degree of interference with the landowner’s human rights, and also, if appropriate, to consider the benefits of their alternative proposals for the site to strike the public interest balance.

1.      In seeking to justify any CPO the Council would have to show that the benefits of what it proposed would be so extensive that (notwithstanding the merits of the new owners’ proposals) the public interest v human rights balance would still be in favour of the CPO.

Propaganda War

Socially....

It is what the people of Thanet and East Kent want. Where do I start? even if the whole of the FB group SMA are all local (which they aren't) or real people (which they aren't) they only represent 12% of the Thanet Electorate. That's the 1st lie

It will improve connections for business and ultimately again for passenger traffic. Since 1999 no civil aviation concern has ever made a profit at Manston and in fact even when the latest venture with KLM was up and running the average was less than 50% full (CAA figures) However in actual fact there are no plans for passenger flights in the submission from Riveroak. Further Lydd has had its licence extended so with a bigger catchment area they are better suited to provide those links. Another lie

Restoring the flight training company TG Aviation to its rightful home is morally the right thing to do.If it is then they need to discuss that with Cartner & Musgrave, however aren't they at Lydd now?

A mixed used development will only add to the demands on the existing services in the area and risks (through incremental changes at Planning) a high density development that is unsustainable for local schools, GP surgeries, and other services.
As per normal that will be dealt with under existing planning laws something that the pro supporters know little about. Before you say you do can you please explain just why the plans for 850 houses at Manston Green got passed?

Economically....

It will generate real jobs straight away. High quality jobs, not building jobs and zero hour contracts for warehouse staff relating to a project that nobody in the area asked for or wants.
You quite obviously have no knowledge of Riveroaks plans as they project less staff than were made redundant.

Although they do show a nice little earner for the Exec in charge. I wonder who that will be?

With Emergency Search and Rescue services provided by Bristows and Airbus in the mix inward investment would arrive in short order.
Except they aren't. They have gone to Lydd and there is no plans currently to bring them to Manston.

The high-tech recycling, tear-down, flight training and Cargo operations would just be the start of a new phase and renaissance for Manston Airport. The past operators are not a good indicator of the potential for the airport for many reasons.
Tear down is not high tech. Cargo operations is the only thing Riveroak are offering in fact their projections do not include Flight training or anything else. "The past operators" such as Wiggins and Planestion, run by Tony Freudmann, made such a success that they went into receivership taking with it much hard earned money from locals. Tony Freudmann walked away with a smile on his face according to locals who were at the terminal on the day he closed the doors.

The bigger picture to relieve other South East airports and free up slots for Passenger flights at a time when existing airports are at capacity provides an economic advantage to Manston Airport and provides a neat solution to a complex problem.
Except that the recent deliberations of the Parliamentory committee did not even short list Manston and that when it was asked to consider it by Infertil. Manston has been rejected in their deliberations at every turn since.

Environmentally....

Saving Manston Airport effectively saves Thanet's major Green Belt between the North and South of Thanet. Airports need large open areas with large grass run off areas - Manston Airport offers this.

And so does the plans from Cartner & Musgrave. In fact they are better because people currently cannot access this area as its blocked by a fence which stops people enjoying the area. A new parkland will open this up for leisure in a massive way.

The fact the runway sits above a major aquifer makes it an ideal position to protect the aquifer whilst using the land in an non-invasive manner. There is little need to build high density property and the existing road network is sufficient and in place. 
The proposals (which are still being consulted on) have no high density housing on and only call for 2500 houses.
A tear-down facility has the potential to harm the environment as does spillage from hydraulic fluids and aviation fuel.
There is a significant risk from deicing fluids and from spillage of aviation fuel ( a greater risk currently due to the lack of fuel farm and refuelling from tankers)
Any commercial use will be only allowed after consultation with planning and input from Southern water. In fact much has been allowed to be built piecemeal on top of the aquifer with little being done to regulate it by Southern Water.

Building a mixed use development risks contamination of the aquifer close to an area where fracking of old coal mines may begin causing localised earthquakes.


Fracking is not possible anywhere near the Manston site due to the geology of the land. You would do well to review the people who gave this advice as it is simply scaremongering much like the whole campaign.

The area is unsuitable for housing due to the nearby military base, firing range, sealed contamination from the Cold War and the sensitive animal rearing for testing business nearby
Have you actually been to the site as there is existing housing there. Have you looked at Esmonde Drive etc. There seems to be no issues for the residents that live there. Do they perhaps glow in the dark?

Then we get to the lies being pedalled by the 3 Tories on Thursday's Cabinet meeting supplemented by the 4 Councillors that defected from the UKIP party and set up on their own. Besides the fact that they have let down those that voted for UKIP their moral compass should have told them to resign and stand again. At least Mark Reckless had the courage of his convictions.

Firstly there has never been plans for 10000 houses submitted to TDC plannin.

The current Local plan calls for 15660 dwellings to be built before 2031. With just under 4000 already being built or with planning permission granted. That's DWELLINGS not houses remember. So around 11000 DWELLINGS left to find on land in Thanet in the next 16 years.
As a minor point the maths is totally incorrect as the average in a household is 2.3 not 4.
The biggest reason people have issues finding a doctor or dentist is to do with the housing density allowed within the town centres so enabling a controlled expansion out of the centre of town will mean more room to breath and more opportunities for young people to get out of the private rental market.

So with feeling I say to the Pro supporters STOP SCAREMONGERING.

Has the fat lady begun singing

In short this is unlikely to be the end of the ongoing Manston saga simply because TDC cannot say NO MORE.

Last night 29th October 2015 the UKIP Cabinet voted 5-1 to reject Riveroak's bid to become an indemnity party. What they didn't vote for was an end to the CPO of Manston Airport.

Today the war of words continue. Konnor Collins ( a Ukipper who defected ) threw down the gauntlet to Chris Wells.

Not sure this is very bright however its his future. Councillors should behave with a lot more decorum IMO.
The Thanet Gazette reports the following today

THE spokesman for the Manston airport site owners, Ray Mallon, says Sir Roger Gale is to blame for Thanet council's failed attempts to compulsorily purchase the airfield.
Mr Mallon launched an attack on the veteran North Thanet MP after the council last night rejected US hedge fund RiverOak for the second time as a partner with which to reopen the airport.
Conservative Sir Roger has long championed the American firm as a suitable financial backer to fund a Compusory Purchase Order (CPO) of the site for the local authority.
Mr Mallon said: "There are three elements to the CPO process. First of all, the council needed a financial partner, secondly they have got to advance the process and thirdly they have got to win it.

"Thanet District Council was not able to jump the first hurdle, it failed miserably.
"So who do I blame? I do not blame Thanet District Council. I do not blame the officers of Thanet District Council.
"I blame the Member of Parliament, Sir Roger Gale. This is down to him- he is to blame for this folly.
"To begin with, he got into bed with RiverOak without realising what substance they had. On top of that, he has acted as their advocate.
"He did not question them publically, but did more than question others.
"He attacked and smeared all and sundry who dared to disagree with him. He attacked the current Thanet council leader [Chris Wells, Ukip] as well as the previous leader [Iris Johnston, Labour].
"On December 3, he used the words 'political cowardice' to describe the leadership of the council.
"I would submit it was more cowardly for Roger Gale to hide behind Parliamentary privilege [at a Transport Select Committee hearing] and call Ann Gloag a liar."

Also today Bob Bayford said he would like to lead a "coalition of goodwill" political speak meaning I'm gonna have a vote of no confidence then ignore officer advice and stitch everyone up like we did over Pleasurama in 2009

The supporter pages are full of recriminations and advice

Well will the Vote succeed currently the numbers are as follows
UKIP 27 (however Vince Munday will be resigning and another election will be held)
Tories 19
Diggers 5
Labour 4
Independant 1

Assuming both labour and Indie abstain then it will be 26 to 24.

Time will tell as to how together the UKIP party is but really does Bob want the poisoned chalice that is Manston?

Riveroak - Why not

The report into the suitability of Riveroak to be an indemnity party to facilitate the CPO process has been published today and it doesn't pull any punches over the way Riveroak has managed the whole process.

The history of this whole sordid process goes back to Riveroak being rejected by the Labour administration in December 2014 and little has changed since despite UKIP saying they would get the planes flying again.

3.0 RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 The objective of seeking an indemnity partner is to ensure that if the Council

determines to pursue a CPO a viable airport comes into sustainable long term

operation as quickly as is reasonably possible without any residual cost to the Council.

3.2 A majority interest in the site was acquired by new owners in September 2014. The new owners state they intend to bring forward regeneration proposals for the site. The new owners have a business record that includes the Discovery Park Enterprise Zone.

3.3 The new ownership of the site and any proposals put forward would make it much

more challenging to demonstrate an overwhelming case for compulsory purchase.

This compares to the situation before September 2014 when the then outright owner

had announced no specific proposals following the airport closure. Given the now

increased challenge of securing a CPO, it is essential that the Council establishes

thoroughly on objective grounds the financial status of any prospective partner. The

assessment must have due regard to the potential scale of the project, and the need

to demonstrate that resources are available to complete it.

3.4 Any viable indemnity partner needs to demonstrate the resources to acquire by private treaty well before the stage of seeking a CPO.

3.5 There are numerous local authority examples of stalled developments or developments where the partner proves not to have the financial capacity to complete the agreement. This experience in other local authorities emphasises the need to ensure a prospective indemnity partner has the resources in place to acquire the site and complete the development. Once the land transfers to the indemnity

partner any redress for delay or non completion could prove difficult to pursue. The main purpose of the CPO is for the authority to achieve a viable development, so the status of the indemnity partner to deliver the development in its entirety is highly relevant.

 Of more relevance is this :"The Council does not have the resources to proceed with any CPO and the subsequent development in the event the indemnity partner could not raise investment resources."

All the above are excerpts from the decision to reject RO the 1st time around, so what is different this way round?

"The main material change since the December 2014 Cabinet decision is the provision of an escrow account which will guarantee the funding of the CPO process. This is welcomed and means that the CPO process can be run at no cost to the authority as a whole process rather than the step approach as originally proposed"

However this is about choosing an indemnity partner not about running a CPO process a fact that Riveroak fail to understand. TDC have to ensure everything is in place prior to starting a CPO not start it and hope everything is in place 

However the purpose of the Council using its CPO powers is not to run a CPO process, but to ensure that a viable airport comes into sustainable long term operation as quickly as is reasonably possible without any residual cost to the Council. In order to do that, both the land acquisition and airport development, will need to be funded.

The only evidence to support other funding are two non binding, conditional and redacted letters of support and a similar letter of support from an American company

There is uncertainty about how any shortfall in funding will be met and indeed the offer of a bond at any stage of the CPO process now appears to have been withdrawn by RiverOak.

Officer conclusions 

 There remains the lack of evidence that financial resources are in place or proposed to be in place to acquire the land prior to the confirmation of the CPO despite the fact that the Council is obliged to attempt to purchase the land by negotiation in parallel with the CPO process.

There is insufficient evidence currently available for the Cabinet to be satisfied that a proposed CPO is likely to be successful which would justify its entering into an indemnity agreement. There is good reason to consider the principle of the CPO alongside the decision to enter an indemnity agreement.

Finally the officers and legal advisers stated:

Given the above, your legal advisors and officers are not satisfied at this moment in time that the information or assurances provided to date by RiverOak justify the Council deciding to make a CPO or as part of that process to support the appointment of RiverOak as the Council’s indemnity partner in advance of deciding whether to make a CPO

Well it seems this has provoked the Pro Facebook sites into a frenzy and I will post some of the more lurid comments here. Needless to say they do themselves no favours with the tone of the remarks.

.

The legal advice

As it gets closer to the 29th October the propaganda war has intensified with Riveroak leaking their solicitors Wragge's advice out into the public domain with the view to pushing their supporters into making a major effort to seek to influence the Councillors at TDC. 

It must be recognised that TDC have been here before when Iris Johnston and her colleagues came to the same conclusion over Riveroak that Chris Wells and his colleagues must come to. The advice that they used to come to this conclusion was given and is reproduced below and is actually the same as Wragges have given Riveroak. The only difference is in its interpretation. The advice is reproduced below. I have added my comments between the pictures however their are two fundamental issues.

Firstly "The overarching public interest test is whether there is a compelling case in the public interest" There are many on the pro side who believe that the public interest is served by making planes fly again from Manston. However for many different reasons that is fundamentally flawed.

Jobs: Riveroaks 5 year plan only envisages 139 jobs

Environmental: It has long been known that planes, especially 747's, are polluting and at only 800ft over Ramsgate noisy as well.

Profitability: In the last 20 years it has never made a profit.

Secondly "Before proceeding to any CPO the Council should seek further information on their plans for the site from the new owners" There is no evidence that TDC has ever discussed with Mssrs Cartner & Musgrave what they intend to do with the site. This is mainly due to their perception that they are only currently deciding whether Riveroak will make a suitable indemnity partner.

Personally this whole can of worms should have been nipped in the bud had politics not got in the way of reality as it would have been unlikely had TDC examined the current owner's plans and realised that a CPO was a waste of time and money. All Wragge's advice show is Riveroak think a CPO is a goer forgetting they have to prove to TDC they are suitable indemnity partners something the advice fails to do.

Advice given to TDC December 2014

1.      The Council cannot be expected to take a leap of faith. It must consider its ability to meet the tests set out in statute (section 226 TCPA 1990) and the Circular 06/04 on the evidence available to it in order to justify proceeding with a CPO (and to assess whether to do is worthwhile in light of the likelihood of it being confirmed by the Secretary of State if necessary).

2.      The Council need to be satisfied in promoting the CPO that it is able to meet the tests of Circular 06/2004 on the likelihood of the project going ahead.  The Secretary of State will not confirm a CPO unless he is satisfied that there is a real likelihood of the project going ahead.   If the Council take the decision to pursue a CPO, members would want to have assurance that a partner would take this forward. The Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the scheme is likely to go ahead based on a realistic assessment.  (Advice is given in Circular 06/04 paras 16 – 23, and Appendix A paragraph 16). 

3.      It may be that a scheme is not intended to be independently financially viable. Or it may be that the viability is uncertain. If so, it is necessary to consider where financial contributions will come from, and whether the Council itself would underwrite any shortfall. Evidence as to this will have to be produced in due course. In many cases, say for town centre redevelopment, it is not uncommon for the scheme to be promoted in partnership with a substantial and financially sound developer (e.g. a large supermarket chain) which will have entered into an indemnity agreement with the local authority. If so, then evidence must be available (subject to confidentiality considerations) to show that there is a real prospect of the scheme going ahead based upon assessments of scheme viability. In many cases, the S151 officer will be expected to certify (e.g. in a witness statement) that he was satisfied that the project was viable and/or that the local authority (or some other funding source) would meet any funding shortfall if the partner investment was not forthcoming, or provide evidence that the viability of the scheme had been independently assessed and the necessary agreements to deliver the scheme are in place. In the latter circumstances, evidence in relation to this may well be provided by the development partner. The key question in considering these financial issues is whether the Council will be able to show that there is a real prospect that the scheme will proceed, and to do so will provide as much information as possible as to the resource implications of proceeding (see in particular paragraphs 20 and 21 Circ. 06/04 and Appendix A para 16(iii). As noted above, the Council must be in a position to form a view on these matters in resolving whether to make a CPO.

4.      If the Council is unable at the outset to be satisfied that the key resource and financial tests are not fulfilled at the start, it would be very difficult to move forward unless they have a high degree of confidence that these matters will be addressed shortly.  This also begs the question as to why should the Council progress before receiving the necessary assurances? 

5.      The new ownership of the site since previous legal advice will be a major factor when the Council is deciding to make the CPO and when the Secretary of State is deciding whether or not to confirm a CPO. The overarching public interest test is whether there is a compelling case in the public interest. As the Circular advises (17), an authority should be sure that the purposes for which it is making the CPO sufficiently justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected.

6.      It should be emphasized that any decision to make a CPO requires proper consideration of a likely interference with the owners’ human rights. Before proceeding to any CPO the Council should seek further information on their plans for the site from the new owners. The Council must be in a position to assess the degree of interference with the landowner’s human rights, and also, if appropriate, to consider the benefits of their alternative proposals for the site to strike the public interest balance.

7.      In seeking to justify any CPO the Council would have to show that the benefits of what it proposed would be so extensive that (notwithstanding the merits of the new owners’ proposals) the public interest v human rights balance would still be in favour of the CPO.

8.      It should be remembered that a CPO is a last resort. Counsel does not agree with the implication (if this is the implication) within James Maurici QC’s advice to RiverOak that the Council should not seek to negotiate with the owners of the land with a view to determining whether a negotiated sale is possible.   Counsel would not advise against attempting to negotiate. Indeed, in order to strike the balancing exercise properly (and safely) it is in the Council’s interest to understand the new owner’s position, and their intentions for the land.

9.      The approach taken to determine whether the prospective indemnity partner is suitable before embarking on any CPO appears reasonable.