What do the 10000 on SMA want?

When Save Manston Airport (SMA) Facebook page started nearly 2 years ago who would have thought that over 10000 members would be imprisoned within its closed society. This is a site where dissent is not only frowned upon their "thought police" ensure only one voice is heard. "Riveroak, Riveroak" is the cry and Freudmann is their saviour as they are seen as the only possible way of saving "their" airport.

"Thank goodness SMA have such great administrators, we may have the odd SHP spy sneaking into our group but they daren't have open anti airport conversation on here"
Now the last time I looked Christine this is a society that thrives on free speech however in SMA land (or is that a totalitarian society like North Korea) having free speech is frowned upon, No sorry that's deleted and the owner of that errant thought is instantly removed.

For Cherry here is a novel thought 95% of freight into Heathrow arrives in the belly of passenger, yes that's right PASSENGER planes. So opening Manston as a freight HUB doesn't help Heathrow one tiny bit.
Now imagine the surprise then that a recent poll on this totalitarian like closed group asked the 10000 profiles this question "Use Manston for local UK flights non-world flights?" then various different alternatives were added broadly into passenger or freight options.

So what does this mean? Firstly because no one is allowed to be a dissenter the logic says everyone must want "airport" however the party line is a freight Hub promoted by Riveroak and accepted without question by the Central Politburo so it comes as a surprise that that isn't what those that bothered to vote decided was their objective.
Some figures 10000 profiles and 6% bother to vote at all that is 608 after 24 hours and of them 75% want passenger flights. ARE YOU LISTENING RIVEROAK? not a freight hub after all.

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.

March consultations

On the 15th and 16th of March 2016 Mssrs Cartner and Musgrave held the 3rd Public consultation prior to putting in a a planning application to Thanet Council in April. Prior to the consultation they mail dropped Thanet the following leaflet

These consultations were, as expected, subject to the normal "massive" protests outside by the many supporters of Riveroak the failed developer.

The overview of the site will look like this

Each element was shown separately

This shows they are endeavouring to cater to the problems that exist currently in Thanet with two primary schools, a community hall and GP with Pharmacy.

2500 houses to be built over a 10-15 year timescale with a range of housing. A mention must be made of the edition of homes for seniors because ever since two homes closed in Broadstairs Thanet has had a shortage of beds which is not getting any better.

The building of an "East Kent Sports Village" including a 50M Swimming pool, and sports pitches will enhance the whole area and if done properly will increase the possibility of events being put on which will put Thanet on the map.

130 hectares of parkland (one third of the site) to include cycle paths and parkland. This will also preserve the Northern grass to enable historic aircraft to use it to enhance the expansion of the Spitfire museum.
The planning applications will be submitted in April however it is likely (if past performance is anything to go by) to be refused. This will ensure at appeal the decision will be taken out of TDC's hands.
This site is full of handy advice should anyone wish to write with their thoughts on the matter. I have added some handy hints to save you clicking to it but I would recommend saving the link.

Link: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/p/how-to-object.html?m=1

Important info: In quite a few areas the local planning authority has still not succeeded in putting its Core Strategy in place, and even where a Core Strategy has been adopted, it may not yet have been fleshed out by other DPDs. In such cases, some or all of the policies in the old-style Local Plan will still apply, although as old Local Plans become increasingly out-of-date, the weight to be given to them is much reduced, especially where they are seen to be inconsistent with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework
Among the material considerations which a Council must also take into account is ministerial policy and guidance, set out in various government circulars and in the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF), published in March 2012, which replaced the previous series of Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). The NPPF is of considerable importance in areas where a Core Strategy has not yet been adopted by the local planning authority. It has led to numerous appeals being allowed for housing developments where the local council cannot demonstrate that it has a committed 5-year land supply for housing.

The following points, on the other hand will not be taken into account in deciding on the acceptability of the development in planning terms :

• The precise identity of the applicant;
• The racial or ethnic origin of the applicant, their sexual orientation, religious beliefs, political views or affiliations or any other personal attributes;
• The reasons or motives of the applicant in applying for planning permission (for example if the development is thought to be purely speculative);
• Any profit likely to be made by the applicant;
• The behaviour of the applicant;
• Nuisance or annoyance previously caused by the applicant [unless this relates to an existing development for which retrospective permission is being sought];
• Concerns about possible future development of the site (as distinct from the actual development which is currently being proposed);
• Any effect on the value of neighbouring properties

And especially for the MP for Riveroak
Don’t waste time writing to your Member of Parliament. Even if he or she is persuaded to write in on behalf of constituents, the views expressed will carry no greater weight than those of any other objector. An MP has no authority or influence over the Council, and certainly cannot arbitrate or mediate in planning matters or act as some sort of appeal tribunal.

The people at Stone Hill Park writing in SOUTHEAST BUSINESS said the following

"
“Local MP, Sir Roger Gale, is actively supporting the bid by RiverOak to pursue a Development Consent Order to acquire the site and turn it into a cargo freight airport capable of handling 12,000 cargo movements a year (that’s 6,000 take-offs and 6,000 landings). This follows on from two failed attempts by RiverOak to convince Thanet District Council that it would be a suitable partner to try to acquire the land by way of Compulsory Purchase Order.
The DCO pre-application, now lodged with the Government, is for an airport capable of handling a sixfold increase in the largest cargo movements Manston has ever handled in the past. It would make Manston the second busiest air cargo hub in Britain, behind only East Midlands in terms of freight-only aircraft movements.
Our prediction that RiverOak’s CPO attempts would fail has proven correct and we are confident that any bid to compulsory acquire the land through DCO will also fail as it is not in the public interest.
We also believe the enormous set-up costs and lack of demand for such a freight airport will mean the plans would never get off the ground. The industry trend is for major passenger airlines to sell vacant space in the belly hold of long haul passenger aircraft to carry cargo, thus taking goods directly to the major centres for distribution, like London and the Midlands. We cannot see how anyone could undercut this in order to create a major cargo hub at Manston.
However, the potential delay and uncertainty this DCO process could cause is bad for the local economy and frustrating for local people. Therefore we have sought the advice of industry experts in order to give local people a clear picture of what RiverOak’s plans would mean for them.
The freight airport would result in a cargo plane, typically a 747 400 series, flying between 300-600ft over East Kent every 40 minutes, every day and night of the year, or more often during the day if night flight restrictions are in place. Particularly affected by the noise would be Ramsgate and villages surrounding the airfield that sit beneath the flight path.
Those who have worked in the industry tell us that typically, 12 trucks are used to unload a cargo plane and depart to various destinations so surrounding villages would not only have to contend with the loudest noise from continuous plane movements but also up to 400 articulated lorry movements every day in and out of the airport.
Historically the principal cargo flown into Manston was flowers and vegetables such as aubergines, peppers and courgettes with seasonal spikes between December and Easter.
In terms of the local economy it would seem self-defeating to support the mass importation of such perishables into the Garden of England when locally £135m is being invested into the state of the art, environmentally responsible, Thanet Earth at Birchington.
This incredible high tech greenhouse business is currently the UK’s largest producer of peppers, tomatoes and cucumbers with plans for further expansion.
We believe Sir Roger‘s obsession with the US investment corporation RiverOak has blinded him to the needs and wishes of his electorate.
Stone Hill Park’s plans, drawn up after extensive consultation with local communities, will provide 2,500 new homes, thousands of jobs, community facilities such as school, health, leisure and greenspace. This, along with a multi-million pound windfall to local councils and public services will provide a solution to the continued long term socio-economic decline of East Kent.
Sir Roger/RiverOaks plans for a cargo freight hub have been subject to zero public consultation to date and will:

• bring noise pollution on a scale never seen before that will destroy the Georgian tranquillity of Ramsgate and surrounding area
• inflict enormous strain on local roads and villages
• flatten property prices.

All this without providing any solution to the local demand for jobs, homes and community resources.”
RiverOak’s application for an air cargo hub at Manston can be viewed at: http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/south-east/manston-airport/

Truth will out

SMA seem not to have complete agreement

Bryan obviously wants to make a point about Ann Gloag using Facebook's new Emojis

Seems the rest of the committee doesn't. Shame censorship rears its head and the post gets deleted.

Then we have the farce that is Kevan Konnor Collins, the name that must not be mentioned. Seems Beau has decided that nothing must come between SMA and a defunct airport even the truth. Collins being the leader of the only faction at TDC that has Manston as its only agenda item.

As soon as his farcical life was made a centrespread in The Sun out comes Beau with this proclamation

So remember SMA its not your belief in saving Manston that is important but it is the example you show to the world and if you don't care others will notice

Who owns Manston?

For a long while the Manston supporters have been saying Ann Gloag is the real owner of the former Manston Airport because that's the conspiracy they believe. The truth of the matter is much more mundane. Here is the current AR01 submitted by the current owners.

As you can see the Ltd Co was incorporated on the 17/9/2014 when it was known as Lothian Shelf (718) Ltd and this was changed on the 18/6/2015. It has currently 3 directors Pauline Bradley, Trevor Cartner and Joseph Christopher Musgrave. and 80 class A and 20 class B shares (these shares have the same voting rights so to all intent they are equal in value).

Pauline Bradley has a history with Ann Gloag so does this mean that its really Ann Gloag sitting in the boardroom. If anyone thinks that its because they misunderstand the different role of Directors and Shareholders.

Shareholders and directors have two completely different roles in a company. The shareholders (also called members) own the company by owning its shares and the directors manage it. Unless the articles say so (and most do not) a director does not need to be a shareholder and a shareholder has no right to be a director.
The separation in law between directors and shareholders can cause confusion in private companies. If two or three people set up a company together they often see themselves as 'partners' in the business. That relationship is often represented in a company by them all being both directors and shareholders. The problem with this is that company law requires some decisions to be made by the directors in board meetings and others to be made by the shareholders by written resolutions or by resolutions passed at general meetings. To complicate matters further, some decisions have to be made by the directors, but only with the shareholders' consent.
Whether a particular decision has to be made by the board meeting or the general meeting, or both, depends on the provisions of the Companies Act and/or the company's articles of association.
Companies Act provisions
Under the Companies Acts some decisions, such as changing the company's articles, can only be made by the shareholders. Many others are decisions for the directors but the directors may need the shareholders' consent, by means of an ordinary or special resolution.
Serious potential liabilities can arise if the directors do not obtain the approval of the general meeting when this is required. The relationship between directors and shareholders is a complex one. The directors are subject to the general fiduciary duty to act in the company's best interests. They are also required to account to the shareholders for their stewardship of the company, in particular by supplying annual accounts and by reporting to them annually..
While the directors are in control of the day to day running of the company, with access to information about its business and effective control over the calling and conduct of meetings, the shareholders have an ultimate source of power: any director can be removed from office by ordinary resolution:

What most people confuse is the ownership of the company which in this case is whoever holds the 80 class A shares and here the AR01 shows this is Invicta Asset Management Ltd.

So who is this Ltd Company. Back to Companies House for an explanation

So this shows that Invicta is another company registered at Discovery Park but is owned by FULS Ltd by virtue of being the legal owner of the 80 shares. So who owns Invicta? The shareholding shows the 1 share owned by FULS Ltd. Back to Companies House to see who owns FULS Ltd.

So back round in circles and the legal owner of FULS Ltd turns out to be Trevor Cartner.

So does Ann Gloag have any say and the short answer is NO. She has 20 class B shares and her representative, Pauline Bradley, on the board of Stone Hill Park Ltd so her voice can be heard but she doesn't own SHP neither does Pauline Bradley. She does however have a legal charge over SHP by virtue of a loan of (allegedly) £7M however that is no different from someone owning their home with a mortgage on it.
So what does Ann Gloag have? Well she does have 20 class B shares however as a shareholder she can be outvoted 80 to 20 so she has little control. So why have 20 shares and the simple answer is she can share in the profits the company makes as well as having her money back.

The next time someone says Ann Gloag controls Stone Hill Park ltd they are showing their lack of knowledge about how business works.

Manston latest

A new round of public consultations are to take place in March by the owners of Stone Hill Park

Facebook link

Pegwell Bay Hotel 15/3/2016 15:00 to 19:30
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"

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.