And then there was one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far so good

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

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

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

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

(a)a plan sufficient to identify the land;

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

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

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

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

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

(Thanks for the clarification Marie)

 Michael Child poses the following point

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

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

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

Blog post link

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

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

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

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

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

Cliffsend Cliff Hanger or Beau's blunder

On the 28th April 2016, on the second anniversary of the closure of Manston, Cliffsend Village had their annual meeting. Riveroak were afforded 25 minutes to give a talk and answer some questions. Roughly 50 people attended to hear Tony Freudmann talk.

Afterwards Beau Webber posted the following to his many admirers in SMA.
The highlighted text is by this author.

"On Thursday 28th April Tony Freudmann of RiverOak (RO) addressed a very congenial crowd of around 50 people at Cliffsend Parish Hall. It was a very factual account, acknowledging that, whilst RO were initially very disappointed that the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) with Thanet District Council (TDC) didn't go ahead, they accept that the possible risk perceived by TDC, (that of being involved in a multi-million pound project such as Manston Airport, despite the fact that RO were indemnity partners), was too much for a small district council to cope with.
RiverOak are now working with HM Planning Inspectorate (PINS) with regular meetings and discussions, all of which are minuted and can be read on the PINS website, to develop and validate RiverOak's plans for the Development Consent Order (DCO). Manston Airport is being considered as being of national importance, therefore attaching the title of NSIP (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) to the DCO. RO’s aim is to achieve acceptance of their DCO application by PINS by the end of 2016. Acceptance is not the end of the process but will be a big step towards securing the full DCO.
Specialist legal, planning and environmental teams were appointed in January and have made significant progress. However they are so far not being allowed access to the airport by the present owners, as is legally required. During their last conference call with the Planning Inspectorate RiverOak raised this matter. The Planning Inspectorate have power under the Planning Act 2008 to order site access.
RO anticipate the Manston project will over time involve capital expenditure in excess of £200Million as it will involve major reconstruction and additional work on the airport site, to enable Manston to have the capacity to handle ( an additional)* edited as this is what PINS will require) 10,000 freight movements a year, as well as improving the site access and infrastructure around Spitfire corner. RO will also liaise with both the Spitfire and RAF museums before final plans are in place. RO anticipate costs of at least £15Million to replace all the basic infrastructure removed by the present owners.
Very extensive environmental assessment will be undertaken to look into effects on air quality, noise pollution, water quality, wildlife, etc.
The scope of the environmental study is expected to provide the Isle of Thanet with the most thorough health check of the centre of the island that has ever been produced to date.
Employing local people will be a priority and involving educational programmes is part of the submission. Manston is anticipated to be roughly comparable with East Midlands Airport in the future, which is mostly freight but with passenger flights too. There the current figures are that the airport supports a total of 6,000 jobs on an annual turnover of approximately £100 Million.
RiverOak intend to hold pre-consultation(s) in June or July, with a full formal consultation to be held in the late summer. Local residents will have their chance to express opinions and these will be listened to and acted upon."

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

Several questions from members concerned about the above statement were asked but answers were in short supply.

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

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

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