Wednesday, 11 June 2014

Manston Airport Update

When Roger Gale announced that Thanet District Council were going to try to compulsory purchase Manston Airport I sent the council the following customer services feedback. It is important to understand that the council is obliges to reply within ten working days.
To
Customer.Services Customer.Services@thanet.gov.uk

Could you kindly answer the following questions about the compulsory purchase by TDC of Manston Airport as announced in a press release by Sir Roger Gale today.
My understanding is that Manston airport has no planning consent as an airport and runs on a S 106 and would therefore qualify for cpo as a brownfield site rather than specifically as an airport.
1 Does the council intend to grant planning permission for the airport?
2 Would they have to obtain an environmental permit “EP”?
3 Would the council be prepared to fund the work necessary to obtain and EP?
4 Assuming the running costs of the airport were the same as when Infratil were running it £20k per day, funded £2k by airport charges, £10k by Infratil and £8k by the UK government via the MOD, does the council intend to reopen and fund the airport?
5 Would the UK government via the MOD £8k per day funding still be available?
6 Does the recent surrender of the airport’s Civil Aviation Authority Licence impact on the site’s status as an airport in terms of compulsory purchase?
7 Assuming the council compulsory purchased the site is there any way having sold on or leased to a third party all or part of the site that the council could guarantee continued use for aviation or would the council have to run the site as airport operator to ensure this?

Best regards Michael
Anyway I phoned the council on Monday and the said they would respond on Monday but the didn’t.

So I phoned them yesterday and the same thing happened.

So I phoned them today.
I have just received the following email from them.

Hi Michael,

I understand from our Customer Services team that you have been asking for an update on the council’s position on Manston Airport.

Please be assured that we are publishing the very latest information in respect of the airport and the council’s options on our website  as soon as this becomes available.

I have included a link to our latest statement which has just been updated today:  http://thanet.gov.uk/the-thanet-magazine/news-articles/2014/june/manston-airport-–-latest-council-update/

Apologies for not coming back to you before now. Please assume that the latest information will be updated to the website as soon as we have further information to share.

If it helps I can send you an e-mail as a prompt as and when this changes.

Kind regards 

A bit of a ramble about the cpo petitons and stuff, just my own thoughts but I would appreciate any comment saying where peole think I am wrong. I don’t think TDC engaging in a cpo is likely to work, my feelings about Sir Roger Gale’s package (RiverOak are after all seven hedge fund mangers with no verifiable connection to aviation and TDC are the district council and don’t represent the catchment of the airport) is, it is just a political ruse to avoid pressure on KCC. I guess SMA could produce a viable petition to KCC requesting a public consultation on KCC engaging in a Manston cpo, I guess the main problem here is that realistically we would be looking at a council subsidised airport and a brownfield development site value in the £700m ballpark. Without planning permission any claim to it being an airport isn’t attached to the site but is an agreement with the company that Ann Gloag bought.

What I mean here is that on the day the council bought the airport site they would have a brownfield site with no planning consent as an airport, I don’t think there is any way they could acquire the company that holds the agreements under which Manston functioned as an airport.  

My guess is that you would be looking at the council doing the work for an EP environmental permit and then applying for planning consent, with the resultant ecological study and public enquiry. What I am saying here is that any council buying the site would then have to fund turning it into an airport with planning consent in order to be able to pass it on to an operator with an agreement that it remained an airport.


Another factor here is that for a council to do this, the council would almost inevitably have to raise council tax above the referendum threshold, so the council wouldn’t be able to fund it unless the public agreed by referendum.  

84 comments:

  1. So how much will the investigation on whether a CPO is possible cost TDC. They must now already how much the report on whether Manston can be a viable airport is going t cost and the legal checking could be a bottom less pit. I look forward to checking TDC's list of invoices over £500 for June onwards.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter Manston is an important local issue, repost without the troll baiting if you wish. I refer you to the comment guidelines below.

      Delete
  3. I can't imagine who they could ask. The industry has voted with its feet and abandoned the site.
    Facts are facts. It failed. Move on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lets hope they dont use the Thanet blog troll as he cant state a fact even if his sad life depended on it

    ReplyDelete
  5. Haha! Purple Om, please let them use the usual pro-suspects.
    This will, in all seriousness, be the final nail in the coffin for Manston.
    If it were a blank-page feasibility study, any old business-speak would suffice
    but unfortunately, the old site is in a worst place than it was even a year ago.

    It is game over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never under-estimate us English. We stopped Hitler from taking Manston, so we'll certainly stop Gloag.

      Delete
    2. A bit offensive for you to compare AG to the Fuhrer. However, I won't ask Michael to take it down as it will be funny if she sues you.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Was talking to 5 Scots guys taking things out of manston to take back to Preston at the b/bar tonight its all over for the airport lol all you pro-manston chew on that i hope you choke !!!!!!

      Delete
    5. You hope that all those trying to save local jobs choke? Very nice.

      Delete
    6. What do you expect when pro-Manston say they will reinstate night flights over Ramsgate weather the people of Ramsgate like it or not, and you have been very annoying

      Delete
    7. Most of the people in Ramsgate support night flights too, and the ones who don't like it shouldn't live near an airport in the first place.

      Delete
    8. As for the asset stripping, the only difference this will make is that it will cost us ALL more to finance the CPO. So I wouldn't gloat too much, as you'll have less money to spend down the pub with your new Scottish pals.

      Delete
    9. If you think TDC will try for a CPO I dont. The cost cant be justified as Michael has said £700 million that's the sort of money for a bridge over the river Thames. But I know you think that Manston is shut not closed so you might be thinking £700 million isn't a lot of money for 144 jobs.

      Delete
    10. And who came up with the £700 million figure? That's right, some bloke who runs a secondhand bookshop. This is why they're asking experts instead.

      Delete
    11. Peter brownfield building land in this area is fetching about £1m per acre and the site is 700 acres, the past amounts the airport has sold for as an airport, considering that it is the airport operating company holds the permission to be an airport seems to have been in the £20m ball park and the there is of course the £1, so I guess the £700m was the top end. So what do you think it's worth?

      Delete
    12. I think it's worth about £300 million as a brown field site at max but after its had houses built the cost would be nearer £900 million

      Delete
    13. I would say the cost of building the houses would be £300 million so if Gloag was compensated at £600 million that would be about right for a CPO

      Delete
    14. I haven't the faintest idea what it's worth, unlike you two self-appointed experts.

      Delete
    15. We know you don't have a clue

      Delete
    16. And I know you two don't have a clue. Difference is I don't delude myself.

      Delete
    17. Actually, you are deluding yourself if you think that the majority of people in Ramsgate are in favour of night-flights. There have been several consultations on this subject and the results have consistently demonstrated that the majority are opposed to night-flights. I wouldn't rely on these studies alone. Unlike yourself, I live in Ramsgate and I speak to my neighbours. In the road where I live 23 of the houses are against night flights and 5 say they don't think the flights would disturb them. I would add that these 5 people aren't in favour of night flights; they just aren't going to get involved in opposing them. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to where you obtained your information about the people of Ramsgate; or did you just make it up because you thought it made you sound intelligent and authoritative?

      Delete
  6. I can give TDC a Manston viability report for free.
    Manston Airport Master plan.

    Its interesting in this report that it details staff numbers at the time (2009) as

    Department Employees
    Air Traffic Control 14
    Engineering 7
    Airfield Operations 6
    Customer Services 2
    Management / Administration 3
    Fire Service 21
    Aircraft Handling 14
    Fuel Services 5
    Motor Transport 2
    Security 14

    Less than 90 and presumably another 50 or so were taken on last year for KLM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We obviously need more cargo night flights then.

      Delete
    2. Your earlier 'Expert' Charles Buchanon stated that night-flights were not a factor. He was the CEO in case you'd forgotten.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  7. I am really pleased to see the cautious language of this press release. It indicates that councillors have taken on board my warnings about the potential costs and liabilities. The only thing that concerns me is the implication that the councillors are still waiting for the officers to sort this out. I am left wondering whether the officers left at TDC have sufficient experience and knowledge of the airport to competently seek external advice. Anybody who has engaged with the legal system knows that you have to get the wording of your questions just right.

    The other thing that concerns me slightly is the implication that TDC can do nothing until they receive this advice. The councillors can most certainly do something. In the absence of any advice about whether it is possible or not, it is still perfectly possible to debate whether it is desirable to CPO the airport. If you eliminate all of the mushy, sentimental clap-trap about the airport, as the poster above (7:27) illustrates, it really isn't worth saving. Almost any other activity will generate far more jobs than the airport has in its disastrous 15 years. It is high time that councillors had a debate about this, rather than assuming (as they have throughout) that the airport is good for the area. After 15 years of failure, the time is right to debate whether it has all been a well-intentioned, bad mistake and whether it's time to move on. You don't need advice on the intricacies of issuing a CPO to have this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Irrespective of whether TDC can determine if a CPO is financially viable or not, does anyone know if the purchase of this airport meets with the criteria for a CPO?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Biggin Hill, Rochester, Shoreham, Southend, Lydd, Redhill, Duxford, Old Warden and others within a quick hop from Thanet ... all smallish, provincial aerodromes that appear to survive an flourish. Any ideas what they have that Manston lacks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A positive attitude from all the locals + support from their local councils perhaps?

      Delete
    2. Guess you are right Peter. Biggin is/was owned by London Borough of Bromley who acquired it when the RAF pulled out and I believe Shoreham may be owned by Brighton Council. I don't know enough about the others to comment. Both the locations I mentioned certainly do enjoy a more positive local view than that which is demonstrated here in Thanet. As for council support here ... words really do fail me.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  11. I am in the fortunate position to live in London and have a holiday home in Margate. I am very sorry for the Manston airport supporters, but the re-opening of the airport will never happen. Think about the effort involved to reacquire the license alone. But most telling should be the numerous years of uncommercial running of the airport. It clearly demonstrates that there simply isn't a market for an airport in Kent.

    Thanet is great for tourism. Always has been and as long as the beaches are there, always will be. Instead of all the effort to help people fly away from it you should focus on getting people to it. This will create employment (for example the new hotel in Fort Crescent has created 10 new jobs http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Victoria-Hotel-set-open-doors-Margate-week/story-21208277-detail/story.html) and revenue for all kinds of small businesses. (Including naked rambling tours, Peter.)

    700 acres of brownfield. It doesn't need much imagination to see a holiday home park, swimming paradise, woodlands, fishing lake, cycle park, etc. there. For all in Thanet and beyond to enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on, but imagination is in very short supply, especially within TDC. For the theoretical money that's being talked about in pursuing a CPO, even the money being wasted on 'independent' viability reports, there must be many more options that benefit the whole of Thanet and not just 100 or so part-timers, most of whom live outside the area.

      Delete
    2. just what is needed 12.51 theam park. holiday village,swimming complex with proper pools. ice rink. boating lake expand the spitfire & hurricane complex with other air graft etc ect

      Delete
  12. I took a walk around the Royal harbour Friday all the military road arches that used to be buzzing with the noise of lathes drill adzes forges and hammering have as the demand has fallen of for ship repairs gradually changed their use to cafes antique shops and stores still many employed possibly as many as twenty years back my point is that Manston must do the same there is no demand for it in its old form as has been well proven these past fifteen years so a great deal of thought must be put in to plan for its future possibly small light aircraft combined with other leisure pursuits it will never be night flights one the residents will not stand for it two any councillors giving permission to operators to destroy ones quality of life can be taken to the court of human rights in Strasborg {there are details on the web if you look} as for our council doing a CPO they cannot look after the empire that they have and it should go to a referendum if they do consider it and the way Peter's mind works if his neighbours dog bites him then it is his fault for living next to a dog owner so do not tell 30,000 resident to move. In the long run Ann Gloag will have the last word if its houses then a lot of our young people may have the chance of home ownership.
    Stargazer.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Noted that there are still three large aircraft at Manston this morning. So much for ITV Meridian news a few weeks ago with 'The last flight ever leaves Manston'. Will they be allowed to leave or will Ms Gloags' houses be built around them?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is it true that the leader of the Manstophiles, the baseball-capped Keith Churcher, lives in the Medway towns?

    Now, with Boris Island being considered on his doorstep, isn't it time a little more about this person's background and real motivation was published. Has he ever worked at the airport? At any airport? Owned property near the airport?

    There's an argument building that he's done more to damage the pro-Manston case than actual good. I have spoken with a number of ardent airport supporters this week who are unhappy with general tone of the online efforts (too much WW11, too much nostalgia and not enough real debate). They are also unhappy at the way the focus has been lost and how Ann Gloag has completely controlled the agenda all the way through.

    The old phrase 'Who put you in charge?' springs to mind.



    ReplyDelete
  15. I have just returned after administering blog with my ageing phone and aging eyesight with sun reflection and the internet phone signal in Deal, so if I zapped any legitimate comments please accept my apologies.

    Anything that looked as though it was going down the road what’s wrong with some individual’s personality got zapped, one written in caps got zapped and I have added don’t do this to the comment guidelines.

    I think the idea that writing a comment about a local issue and then adding, please sir little Jimmy poked me, will get the whole comment deleted is beginning to get through.

    On to Manston, and I think I am getting the idea of what’s going on here, there are certain undeniable facts, like:

    Members of the Thanet electoral roll decided against night flights in a controlled public consultation.

    There as been no controlled public consultation to determine if members of the TDC electoral roll want TDC to put a cpo on the Manston site.

    There as been no controlled public consultation to determine if members of the KCC electoral roll want KCC to put a cpo on the Manston site.

    I did ask a couple of local developers what they thought about the cpo and got confirmation that what Purple Om said about the cpo was in the right ball park: “I think it's worth about £300 million as a brown field site at max but after its had houses built the cost would be nearer £900 million, I would say the cost of building the houses would be £300 million so if Gloag was compensated at £600 million that would be about right for a CPO”

    My guess is that if there is anything that can be done to save any aviation activity on the site it will be related to the aviation museums there and would probably involve some sort of heritage funding, but I don’t think this would work for the whole site, the expenses are far too high.

    It does look like the TDC cpo is something of a political ruse so that politicians can say, “we did something to save the airport” it also looks expensive at every level, even the cost of finding out that it isn’t viable looks very expensive. So perhaps TDC should hold an online consultation with the same parameters as the night flights one first.

    I certainly don’t think any council should embark on a course that is almost bound to result in a referendum to determine whether the council can raise the council tax without getting some gauge of their voters feelings, as this process, the referendum, costs around £100k.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanet is too far from anywhere 'important' to have a commercially viable airport.....it just doesn't have a decent catchment area. Think of the catchment area of Southend airport...massive compared to Thanet....but the passenger numbers there are lower than have been quoted as potentially available to Manston !! It doesn't even make sense to locate a freight airport here unless landing charges were so low they compensate the huge costs of hauling goods by road to where they are needed.

    Time to say goodbye to the airport romance and look to what other benefits the land will bring...apart from the millions that Gloag will make and anyone who thinks she didn't buy Manston purely for the land value is deluded in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I would say the airport is worth as much as someone would pay for it. That's £1 in 2013, £7mill if you listen to Gale in 2014 and however much infratil paid for it in 2005.

    Now TDC would look pretty stupid if they chose this moment to step in when they had 18 months to buy it for a song from infratil. That doesn't usually stop them, but I think this is a step too stupid for even them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not the place for unsubstantiated allegations please, unless of course you can find the link to the twitter comments which I can’t

      Delete
  20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry Michael.

    Try @kirrien_wilson ( founder of the new proAirport 'Manston Works') and just follow down about 6 tweets for the photo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh whoops, god knows what will happen when people find out I am not a shop assistant after all.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. Peter if you want to go down the road of some sort of showdown about personal credibility with another individual why not open your own blog to do it. Please try and stick to debating the issues here, Manston is an important issue locally, with plenty of people who lack credibility on both sides of the fence and at the moment Twitter would seem to be another place to explore this.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Peter I thought I deleted them immediately, however I guess you could be referring to the Twitter link to one of the pro Manston campaigners, are we going down a Michael can’t win road here, damned if I delete it damned if I don’t?

      Delete
    6. Yes, because you have different rules depending on whether or not they support your own agenda. The link you've kept proves nothing without knowing the full facts (the guy may well have had more than none job, just as he claims), yet my own statement was true, and you know it... and don't go down the "but he has mental issues" road, as how do you know this pro-Manston campaigner isn't also on "medication" (or an alcoholic like other anti-campaigners)?

      Delete
    7. Peter if you don’t like the dialogue by a high profile save Manston campaigner the ask Twitter to remove it, to me it is pertinent because it adds to my concerns that people outside to the TDC electoral roll are influencing how my council tax is spent.

      You true statement, is this the one you have removed? Because if it is then what was it?

      With the disabled, mentally or physically I do hope I show no discrimination, if they abide by the comment guidelines their comments stay and if not they go. What I do take issue with is comments suggesting people who have mental illnesses should be treated differently, or that receiving some sort of treatment makes them lesser people and that this should be a way of invalidating their comments.

      “You are wrong because your argument doesn’t make sense” is fine here. “you are wrong because you are receiving medical treatment for a broken leg, mental illness or support for a long term disability” isn’t.

      Delete
  22. Can someone explain in simple turns how a few Port jobs lost cost £3.4 million to save them for 3 years and now we seem to be trying to get TDC to cough up a lot of money to save what!! 144 jobs. Bow I'm not against Manston but my council tax or even Income tax should not be spend on subsidising a failing enterprise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry for me the principle here is I have no problem with TDC using £600m or whatever if that is what TDC council taxpayers want, but the TDC run petition to cpo Manston can be signed by anyone anywhere in the world, not just those on the TDC electoral roll.

      Looking at the SMA facebook page there are often comments encouraging nimbys from Lydd to petition TDC to buy Manston or people from Stanstead who don’t want expansion there to petition TDC, frankly I don’t mind them getting their own council’s to spend their council tax in this way, but I don’t think they should be getting TDC to spend mine.

      Delete
    2. So are we saving jobs or preventing houses being built?

      When FORS complained about Royal Sands we were called NIMBYS for stopping progess no one is calling SMA NIMBYS for stopping progress. A tad unfair methinks

      Delete
    3. When I was talking to the 5 guys that came down from Prestwick airport to take equipment from Manston I asked them since their local council bought the airport how was it doing they said it was losing millions so this is what we can expect. Do we really have the money?
      Also i would like to address your vote idea. If we had a referendum on weather TDC should try for a CPO on Manston do you really think Jo public is informed enough to make that sort of decision. Would they understand how much money £600 million was, in the scale of things or would they consider that amount to be what is costs TDC to collect the rubbish for a year instead of being able to build 5 queen Elizabeth bridges?

      Delete
    4. Bit of a credibility gap opening up here Om though I guess it may have been one of those sessions in the pub, but I thought it was the Scottish government that bought Prestwick and not the local council.

      Delete
    5. Yeah sorry your right its owned by the Scottish government but its still losing millions I dont want to see the government buy it or TDC.
      And yes i had a few drinks that night (Delirium tremens a very fine beer but strong)

      Delete
    6. Ah Om in a world where blogal infallibility could easily soon be mandatory there is nothing like a, whoops sorry I made a mistake to restore credibility in all those but the patently bonkers.

      And yes it does seem that despite paying £1 at least another £5m is already spoken for.

      Delete
    7. I could understand if it were losing a few thousand a year but for it to lose millions with 1500 employees why not just close it and save the tax payer a load of money anyway thats not the issue as the land up there is not so sort after as it is in the south east. Weather or not TDC/KCC can afford Manston, I dont think they will be able to lease Manston after they win a CPO as it would be seen as favouring one company against another

      Delete
  23. So Manston with a public price tag of £600 million is going to be a to little pricey. So it is going to stay in the owners hands.
    If savemanston and Ramsgate put aside their differences and join forces then Manston can be beneficial to us all Its so large that anything that's going to built there will impact on all of us. No one would want to see a sink estate in Thanet of that size. There will have to be houses built on there as this it how Gloag and co will make the most money and there will be no stopping her how ever much you want to this will only lead to more money being taken form the public purse. So how do we get the best out of this situation, having large plots at least half a acre in size, with good size 4-5 beds passive luxury houses with tree lined wide streets. This will bring wealthy people that will have the opportunity to moor their yachts in Ramsgate harbour and eat in places like the Ambrette in Margate this will encourage more top end places to open up and kick start Thanets rise. As we do have a fabulous part of the UK sitting on our door step with amazing architecture and very clean seas.

    ReplyDelete

  24. The real reason the Manstophiles don't want houses built has become apparent this evening....

    Their Chairman wants to turn the site into a Quidditch arena. There will be flights again but on brooms.

    Thank you and goodnight!

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Purple's comments are perfectly valid. Try playing the ball not the man 9.56. If you can't engage with a debate, why bother posting?

      Delete
  26. So, just 24 hours after splits opening up over on SaveManston over certain peoples real identity, we now have the Ukip woman tweeting out a press release to all editors stating that Sir Roge and Laura have stolen her ideas. Furthermore she's trying to split the two of them by demanding that Laura denounce the NoNightFlights that she once supported. Apparently, they won't let Ukip into their 'Think Tank' and she's got the hump.

    It's all going a bit T.U. up at the Brownfield.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 2:40 pm,

      And since you mention "real identity" who are you? No don't bother, I could not gove a damn.

      Delete
    2. Sorry anon 2.40 I am lost again, I think Twitter is a bit beyond me, could you give me a name or a link.

      Delete
  27. Have a good nap John?

    Surely, a fine and upstanding member of the local community such as yourself must care about who's in charge of SaveManston?
    Isn't it time to do your usual name, rank and number routine otherwise you just won't know who it is that you're saluting this week!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 3:35 pm,

      Your comment is ifantile. What is a "usual name, rank and number routine"? You should make an attempt to unscamble your confused thinking before opening your mouth.

      Delete

    2. 'ifantile'?

      Good work John.

      Delete
  28. The Save Manston campaign is primarily people who worked at the airport teaming up with the anoraks who used to sit outside the fence in their beat up escorts, desperately glumly waiting for a plane to turn up. What it isn't is local people (unlike MAG, SMEG or No Night Flights). My contacts on the tell me that they are desperately trying to work out how they are going to turn down the CPO idea. The first great hope is that officers manage to come up with legal or quasi-legal advice indicating that there insurmountable problems with issuing a CPO. Failing this, I hear they are thinking of getting a market research company to survey people in Ramsgate to find out what they think. This way they can say, it's what the people want, rather than have to face the appalling abuse they will inevitably receive from the nasty pro-campaigners. One way or the other, it doesn't look like anybody is talking in positive terms about a CPO. Seems like a mischievous imp may have started the CPO ball rolling, knowing that it would all come to nothing and that it would place councillors between a rock and a hard place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Airport will open again next summer.

      Delete
    2. Is this using the same crystal ball that said it wouldn't close ?

      Delete
  29. 7.12

    That's interesting and backs up what I think a Tory councillor I know was trying to tell me on Monday. His feeling was that there would be a backlash from the Manston supporters but nothing like as painful as the, as he put it, 'daily kicking' they'd get when the total cost of CPO from beginning to end was sussed out by the electorate and the drain on resources it would mean for other council obligations. How many hundreds of jobs, if not thousands would be sacrificed to even in theory, re-instate 140? They're a pretty dim lot commercially but they'll ditch Manston at the earliest to keep their seats. Remember, the airport would need planning permission, which it'll never get, a CAA licence which it'll struggle to get etc etc. it really is like watching the Titanic go down only slower.

    ReplyDelete
  30. No crystal ball needed There will be no CPO.
    Gloag will get planning for houses our only chance of getting something good will be to pressure TDC into granting her permission only if she builds luxury houses any other route she will appeal and win

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thanet District Council has announced that they have received an offer from RiverOakLLC to fund the CPO on Manston. It is a mis-use of a Compulsory Purchase Order to seize property from a private owner in order to give it to another private business, particularly when this other company is a US Company. Also, it seems to have escaped their attention that RiverOak LLC is a real estate company, with no background or connection in aviation. It is obvious if they are prepared to spend multi-millions acquiring the site, that they have plans other than to run an airport. The very thought that Thanet may turn over control to a US Company is beyond comprehension

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diane,

      On the CPO: what you describe may not meet with your approval but it is not against the law.

      Secondly, River Oak has been in discussions with the Transport Minister, our two local MPS and senior members of TDC. I hope you will not be offended Diane when I tell you that I trust their judgement in preference to yours.

      In passing, I notice that your post is nothing more than a rehash of Michael's recurring themes.

      Delete
  32. I did not say anything about anything being "against the law" - I am saying this is a mis-use and abuse of the Compulsory Purchase Order process. It is not designed to seize property from a private owner and hand it over to another private company.
    It looks highly suspicious, as RiverOak LLC is a property company that specialises in turning sites used for other purposes into housing estates. It has no connection in aviation as has been mis-represented.
    RiverOak would not be throwing millions across the Atlantic to rescue a failed airport, and they obviously have their eye on the land for building, where they can make the multi-millions. The difference will be that they will cram as many tiny houses on the land as possible, as they will be out to make as much money as possible, That is their modus operandi.

    John, I find that when people just throw out insults at other posters who are interested in the same subject as them, they have no debating skills. You are a rude person.

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.