Saturday, 14 June 2014

Thanet District Council’s Leader Iris Johnston on Manston Airport Compulsory Purchase Order

An additional Manston post here which is made up of my recent email correspondence with Iris about the airport cpo.

Please remember that this is an important issue and don’t get sidetracked here into the normal typos and limited grammar associated with fairly busy people communicating with various devices, some using American predictive text.

I have sorted the emails out into the right order and coloured mine blue and Iris’s red to make them easier to follow, I have also edited out the; “was that a typo in the last one” “yes sorry I meant to say….” Stuff.

Anyone wanting to check my previous stuff on Manston should click on this link http://thanetonline.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Manston%20Airport and then when the get to the bottom of the pages of posts click on the “Older Posts” 

On 12 Jun 2014, at 19:26, michaelchild@aol.com wrote


Hi Iris before I get to the point of this I still haven’t heard anything about the Pavillion consultation.


Anyway on to the main thing I wanted to talk to you about which is the Manston Airport cpo, a combination of blog comment and talking to locals about this is giving me some concerns about this one.


In the first instance I have reservations about the idea of a freight hub rather than an airport that people can fly from, I am yet to be persuaded of either the economic or environmental viability of this working at Manston where there is no fuel pipeline, so all the fuel would have to be trucked down from the M25 and all the freight trucked up to the M25.
On the cpo front I am a bit concerned about the cost involved here and do wonder whether KCC would be in a better position to investigate the viability of a cpo and have an electoral register of sufficient people supporting it and in the airport catchment area to justify the expense.
There are some concerns that many of the Save Manston Airport are not Thanet taxpayers or on the Thanet electoral roll and a quick internet investigation just now seems to confirm this.
There is even some grounds to support that many of those involved actually come from areas where they would be adversly affected by other airport projects, anti Lydd Airport expansion anti Boris Island and so on.
I know you met some of the leaders of the SMA group today and I would like some assurance from you that the group pressuring TDC to cpo Manston is actually made up of members of the TDC electoral roll, I ask this particularly as I gather the council is already incurring expense on this front and I want to be sure that there is a reasonable demand for a cpo from TDC council taxpayers.
Perhaps you could let me know the proportion of the petition signatories that are on the Thanet electoral roll, so that I could reassure blog readers that the council is spending the extra money with the support of council taxpayers.
Don’t misunderstand me I am pro Manston and should like to have the economic benefits of a regional airport, there can be no doubt about my support of the airport being genuine I have several years of blog posts about Manston published on the internet and in the public domain.
I am however very concerned that TDC just isn’t in a position to fund a cpo and that the money being spent on investigating this will be wasted.   
Best regards Michael






From: Iris Johnston 
To: michaelchild 

Sent: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:44

Subject: Re: Manston cpo


Thank you very much Michael, Yes officers plus Cllr Nicholson and Cllr Green and myself met with the Chair and Committee of Save Manston this am and. I have no doubts about their sincerity. I have met nearly all before at the Public meeting and since at various places especially  at Manston. I don't know about any infiltrators involved the campaign from anti Lydd or Boris island. I think that would be hard to prove. The Council is getting quite rightly legal advice and as a responsible authority must be seen to examine all possibilities. I have gone out of my way to talk to or meet in person with colleagues and officers all interested parties. I have had contact with English Heritage and families who once owned the land. The CPO request will come to Council now on the third of July and then on to Cabinet. Democratic services check the validity.
TDC do not have the funds to buy an airport and must have a watertight agreement with a third party for a back to back arrangement. Nothing changes for me on night flights from the s106 and I have said before I wonder if  the flight path over Ramsgate seems to be rather more than we all agreed many years ago. We are doing our best and it is probably time KCC and Government stepped up to help. The Taskforce hasn't met since Clive went to London weeks ago and I have made my concerns clear this is vital. I am seeing Mrs Gloag in early July.Regards, iris




Iris. My main concerns are about the way that TDC are running public consultations and public petitions online. I really don’t think my friend in Australia who has his own aeroplane and likes aviation should be able to petition TDC and influence the way my council tax is being spent.


I do understand that there will be people who are not on the Thanet electoral roll but are employed by local businesses and therefore do indirectly contribute to TDC via apportioned business rates and that there is a contribution to TDC via central government.


But frankly the question of whether TDC raises a cpo for Manston airport is only likely to affect council tax and the TDC website should first ensure that there is some check when people join and have the ability to influence the council that they are on the electoral roll or at least work for a local company.
Then there should be some option on the TDC website for people who are against, in this instance, the cpo can say so.
I don’t realistically see how TDC could ensure any buyer of Manston used it as an airport, as the site doesn’t have planning permission as an airport and the agreements which allowed Manston to operate as an airport were with the companies operating airport, which cannot be purchased by cpo, and are not attached to the site.    
Best regards Michael





From: Iris Johnston
To: michaelchild 

Sent: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:55

Subject: Re: Manston cpo


Dear Michael
Officers are in charge of validating all petitions and before Council I and all Leaders will meet with the Chairman to agenda confirm. I will ensure all signatures are validated and of course there are also paper petitions on their way. I have made it very very clear to Sir Roger etc that we do not have the money to CPO but MUST look at all options. Kind regards,  Iris
On 14 Jun 2014, at 11:42, michaelchild@aol.com wrote:
Thanks Iris I will turn it into a blog post later, I guess the problem that may come up is that because of the information the officers asked for when they set up the E-petition scheme looking wrong to me, it may be impossible to validate the signatures on it. As far as I can see you can sign the E-petition as many times as you have email addresses, but two people who are on the electoral roll, say husband and wife sharing the same email address can only sign it once.   
Best regards Michael


Will get back to you after I speak to officers!!

Picture credit, the picture comes from the book I publish http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/catalogue/1997_twilight_of_pistons.htm the first two chapters of which are here http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/tp/ and here http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/tp/id3.htm and give some useful information on the early days of commercial aviation at Manson. 

144 comments:

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. note "Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone" below anon at 3.26

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

      Delete
    3. On his criteria at 3:36 michael will be censoring his own comments 3:26.

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

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

      Delete
    6. Frankly anon if you can’t use common courtesy in your comments then they get deleted, read the comment guidelines below. Then write a comment related to the discussion thread, without you playground use of peoples surnames alone.

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

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

      Delete
    9. What's wrong with early elections too? TDC is rotten and has collapsed

      Delete
    10. Right a quick go at responding from the top down, anon we live in a democracy with rules so basically you can’t trigger an election before the date it is due.

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

      Delete
    12. Michael is always a bit scared to mention TDC corruption for some reason

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

      Delete
    14. Anon read the comment guidelines pay particular attention to playground behaviour like referring to real people by their surnames only, basically if you don’t like the comment guidelines comment elsewhere, start your own blog, or something.

      Delete
  2. Surprised there has been so little comment from the hundreds of Thanet people who lost their money in the Planestation collapse.
    There is interesting reading on the PPRuNe Forums (The Professional Pilots Rumour Network) archive.
    For instance:

    deedave
    3rd Mar 2007, 15:40
    Airport Management, passenger predictions, and press releases......


    Steve Fitzgerald, Feb 2007-

    "Our business plan anticipates growth to around 500,000 - 600,000 passengers over the next three years." (ie, by 2010)


    Steve Fitzgerald, Sept 2005-

    "We are hoping to build a target figure of 700,000 passengers by 2009"


    Steve Fitzgerald, Oct 2005-

    (At interview) "Sure, this could become another Prestwick (2m pax) within 5 years"


    EUjet, Dec 2004-

    "Next year, the company hopes to fly 880,000 passengers from Thanet"


    Oliver Iny, Aug 1999-

    Predicts 4-6 million people at MSE.


    Tony Freudman, Dec 98-

    Predicts 1 million people at MSE.

    ReplyDelete
  3. First off, is there any justification for a CPO on this site other than Gale wanting the last word in his dealings with Gloag? Is there any precedent of a council issuing a CPO on an airport? From Iris' email it seems they will only entertain a CPO if a third party, by which I assume she's referring to RiverOak, will immediately take it off their hands. So what do they know about them which we don't, other than their press release which simply said what people wanted to hear? And is that legal - to forcibly take it from one developer and simply sell on to another property investor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point 3:42 CPos are usually issued for derelict or dangerous sites not to swap owners because the council feels like it.

      A cpo for manston would be relevant to clear the site and pollution cleanup.

      Delete
    2. 4:47 - actually there are a number of reasons for a CPO, including the one below. I have quoted it in its entirety, as I am afraid there tends to be rather a lot of speculation and guesswork on these sites.

      "From time to time, authorities may receive requests from the community (by petition or otherwise) to acquire community assets that are in danger of being lost to the detriment of that community. If the owner is unwilling to sell, the implication is that the community would ask the authority to use its compulsory purchase powers to acquire the asset."

      Delete
    3. How much pollution is at manston

      Delete
    4. That is interesting information, Anon 5.33. Please can you give the source of the quote?

      Delete
    5. Anon this is part of the localism act, but would only apply if the petitioning part of the community could finance the cpo, perhaps with some help from the local authority.

      The accounts produced by Infratil which are on their website say that it costs £12k per day to run the airport. The best they ever managed in receipts to offset this was £2k per day giving a loss of £10k per day.

      the doc you want is this one http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06366.pdf

      Delete
    6. Iris isn't really thinking straight on this one. She concedes that TDC doesn't have the money to buy the airport and talks about a "back to back agreement with a third party" who will, presumably, be expected to step in and run it as an airport. In other words, the council will be using its powers to CPO a property on behalf of a commercial organisation. This is, inevitably, going to be challenged in court and, as there is no precedent for a council misusing its powers in this way is likely to be a landmark case. I would be surprised if it is resolved in anything less than two or three years.
      For a start, TDC will have to prove, in court, that an airport at Manston is viable. I can't imagine how they are planning to do this when there are 15 straight years of evidence that it is not. Does the council have the money to fight this case? Even if they do have the money, have they asked the local taxpayers if they would like their taxes to be used in this way? If the council doesn't have the money, will they be relying on "the third party" to pay for the court case as well. Then, we would have the obscenity of a commercial company paying the council to fight a legal case on their behalf. Does a council have any remit to represent a company which has no roots in the area? I think not. And what if they lose the case? Costs for a case of this sort could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds; even millions. If TDC has its name on the papers, TDC will have to pay those costs. What certainty can they have that the "third party" will stump up the cash if there is no longer any commercial gain to be had? It seems to me that they will have to draw up a legal agreement about the legal representation and who pays if the case is lost.

      Finally, could I just point out that it's going to be one hell of a legal agreement that obliges a third party to run an airport at a loss for an indeterminate period of time. I can't imagine any commercial organisation agreeing to any such thing unless there is a massive kick-back for them.

      In conclusion, I really hope that Iris and chums have thought this through to its logical conclusion. I can see no way that this will not end up in court and I can see no way that TDC can win that case easily. It's going to be horribly messy and expensive, and the people who make the decision to get us into it should be liable for surcharge if it all goes pear-shaped, as seems highly likely to me.

      Delete
    7. Thank you, Michael. I suppose the worry must be how KCC and TDC construe "some help". I cannot imagine the airport supporters being willing to come up with the huge sums involved, but then both councils' budgets are already stretched to the limit. I share 3.42's concern about the legality - and morality - were a CPO to be used to grab the site from one owner to give to another company.

      Delete
    8. The quote by 5:33 is irrelevant to the CPO of Manston. Manston airport is not a "community asset." It is a commercial company which has decided to close down because it isn't making any money. The land belongs to Ann Gloag. It is not, and never has been a community asset. Prior to be civilianised it was an RAF base and prior to that it was farmland. It never belonged to the community and so, it could never be defined (in law) as a community asset. I'm afraid the quote given is used to justify the CPO of a community hall or theatre, which is in danger of being sold to developers. It was never intended to be used to allow councils to rescue failing companies. Somebody has been desperately scouring the legal textbooks to find some justification for this CPO. I ask again. Which mischievous imp started this ball rolling, knowing full-well that it could never go anywhere?

      Delete
    9. My own take on this is that SMA have been taken for a bit of a ride by being directed towards petitioning TDC and towards producing a petition which goes only as far as getting the council to decide.

      I think that SMA would stand a reasonable chance of petitioning KCC to hold a public consultation on the issue.

      Something along the lines would the council taxpayers of Kent be prepared to pay extra council tax to cpo the airport and subsidise it.

      If this consultation showed that there was a reasonable consensus among the members of the Kent electoral roll then KCC could decide to raise council tax.

      This would then trigger a referendum as the law at the moment means that to raise the council tax above the level that they need to anyway can only be done with a referendum.

      Delete
    10. It isn't irrelevant I am afraid, as it doesn't appear to matter if it has never been a community asset before. Again, not trying to follow the previous comment's speculation, the same document states "Additionally, in 2011 revised Government guidance was issued covering the right of community organisations to call on local authorities to issue compulsory purchase orders on land or buildings which are unused and have been, or could be, of benefit to the community. " where surely the "could be" might apply in this situation or at the least be down to opinion?

      It goes on to discuss about funding of the CPO, but seems to refer to previous sections of the same Crichel Down Rules which doesn't seem to specify that the local authority has to fund it, but just asks them to detail where the funding is to come from, including how much is to come from other parties (including private sector).

      It all seems a typical nightmare of legislation superseded by other legislation, appendices and cross references. It also seems a minefield of information that could be interpreted in various ways and a lot of it is about providing "justification" rather than proof etc. No surprise they need legal experts to take some time to dig out what is actually valid and current, and I suspect also must often lead to legal action because of the non-specific nature of this type of wording and when some of it appears to refer to itself as "guidance".

      Delete
    11. What's happening with pleasurama too? The councillors seem stuck

      Delete
    12. Fair point 6:48 michael but any such referendum would need to refer to new planning permission and environmental assessment and pollution at manston

      Delete
    13. I think that basically because the site had no planning permission as an airport and all of the agreements were with that company that Ann Gloag bought, which can’t be made the subject of a cpo, were a cpo to succeed what was bought would be a brownfield site with no planning permission so that moving to a situation where this site became an airport would have to start from square one.

      I think it unlikely that the council could just issue an agreement and the airport could start operation without planning consent.

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

      Delete
    15. Can't understand why you removed that one.

      Delete
    16. Anon you cannot refer to any group as loonies here anon, try one of the other blogs, start your own or modify your comments.

      Delete
  4. A step in the right direction, but she needs to try much, much harder. We'll up the pressure on TDC, KCC, ETC.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Meanwhile, some encouraging news us all:

    http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/CAA-reinstate-Manston-airport-licence-buyer/story-21231333-detail/story.html

    (Ignore the last bit, the flag is back!).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the flag is back then no doubt it will be removed again. Manston is finished as an airport and housing.

      Delete
    2. Is anybody left on site at manston now? A security guard or two?

      Delete
    3. Peter I think that SMA need to have a real think about what their objectives are, I don’t see anyone wearing a T-shirt saying “open a freight hub we can’t fly from” my guess is that if anything can be done it would be down the museum and historic aircraft road, perhaps with heritage funding and perhaps part funded by KCC.

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

      Delete
    5. Anon you cannot refer to any group as loonies here anon, try one of the other blogs, start your own or modify your comments.

      Delete
  6. So again do we have any viable offer from any verifiable aviation company to make a success of Manston or is it still promises, promises. When will people learn, clutching at straws springs to mind.
    However if Roger Gale puts his own money in then maybe!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have FAITH! That's enough (for now).

      Delete
    2. How many people at manston now peter?

      Delete
    3. Barry, Peter. I don’t think there is anything from any aviation company and I think that fact that Sir Roger Gale threw RiverOak into the public domain when it obviously has no verifiable connection with aviation was a very telling action. It pretty much says there is no airport operator that can be found to take on Manston, admission by omission if you like.

      Delete
    4. Faith Peter you need a lot more than that.

      Have faith is what the politicians said about Pleasurama until the penny dropped and for that we were called NIMBYS for stopping progress. Progress is what you get when something happens unlike the building at Pleasurama.
      Riveroak, on the face of it, are the same as Ann Gloag's company in having a track record in funding development and making money.
      Never forget much is said to get the deal but then good intentions fly out of the window

      Delete
    5. Michael, [your 11:28pm]

      You may well be right and you may well be wrong.

      I dispute your use of the word 'obviously'. It is wrong in this context bearing in mind that your conclusion emanates from nothing more than your own cursory examination of the internet.

      Delete
    6. John I think the problem here relates to the way the American media works. What those saying that RiverOak were involved in funding a major aviation freight hub in the US of A are saying is that they managed to do this without the American media noticing. This is a bit like one of the members of the royal family streaking at Ascot and the UK media not noticing, hence the obviously. I don’t think I was the only one trying to find some verifiable connection between RiverOak and aviation either and I somehow think that if someone had found a verifiable connection they would have mentioned it by now.

      Delete
    7. Michael, [11:43]

      I place your curious analogy neither here nor there.

      The problem here relates to the way you present your case. You claim that Riveroak is not concerned with aviation and intends to build on Manston. You draw your conclusion from evidence which is nothing more than a cursory wander around the internet. Against this I have Sir Roger Gale MP who trusts Riveroak to run Manston as an airport. I take into account that Sir Roger Gale has access to information that is denied to you. He has his own professional researchers, access to the House Of Commons Library and to Ministers, and has had discussion with Riveroak. I can add to this his many years of experience as a journalist and MP. You are not in his league. Looking at the evidence in the round I do not think it unreasonable for me to conclude that you are wrong about Riveroak, and that Roger Gale is right.

      Some would claim that Roger Gale is acting purely for political reasons. The same could be said of you.

      Michael, May I have temerity to suggest that you curb your tendency to go behind the facts in order to support your arguments. The fact is that you know little to nothing about Riveroak. Suspicion is not enough.


      Delete
    8. So, basically, what you are saying is that we (the residents of Ramsgate) should all trust Roger Gale, even though he doesn't represent our constituency and even though he has been inconsistent in the past when talking about the airport. Furthermore, he is an MP. I think you'll find that a healthy percentage of the population now hold most MP's in utter contempt following the expenses scandal and they aren't about to trust Roger Gale just because you say he's a good old stick. I'm afraid there will be no trust over this issue. Sir Roger will have to reveal what he knows about RiverOak, if anything, and will have to explain in detail how this deal is supposed to work. Following the Pleasurama fiasco, I would expect the local Council to insist that a substantial bond be lodged with a reputable third party tin the even that there is any backsliding over assurances which have been given. I think something in the order of £10 million would be appropriate.

      Delete
    9. Sorry 12.36
      I trust Michael Child far more than the lying MP that has fooled the unquestioning SMA group, who would listen to lies all day if it suited their cause.
      " Now I have a piece of paper in my pocket now i dont want to give false hope" LOL

      Delete
    10. Anon 4:38 pm,

      You miss my point. I was examining the evidence. The fact that you personally neither trust Roger Gale nor MPs in general, and presume that most people share your view, is not evidence.

      Delete
    11. John I guess my claim is that RiverOak are what they say they are http://www.riveroakic.com/ five real estate asset managers with a history of putting together deals to finance the building residential accommodation, shopping malls and medical centres.

      To my mind this means they are five foreign bankers whose primary interest would be to make as much money as possible out of any real estate site and over whom anyone in the UK would have very little control.

      Now I try to visualise them saying. “We could acquire this site for around $10m and if we do what we usually do and build on it would be worth around a $1b however if we acquire the site we wouldn’t do this instead we would run it as an airport”

      I honestly think that if there is any burden of proof required it really is to prove that RiverOak are not exactly what they say they are on their website.

      Delete
    12. Michael,

      What you visualise Riveroak as saying is is not in my view evidence.

      You go on to say, "I honestly think that if there is any burden of proof required it really is to prove that RiverOak are not exactly what they say they are on their website." Yes indeed and you have failed to provide such proof.

      But once again Michael you are wriggling around your various statements to the extent that I find it impossible to grasp what you actually believe, if anything.

      Delete
    13. John I believe that RiverOak is exactly what it says on their website and elsewhere on the internet. This is what Linked In has to say:

      “RiverOak Investment Corp., LLC invests in commercial and residential real estate through discretionary co-mingled, closed-end funds and private separate accounts.

      With a focus on creating value through repositioning and renovating, RiverOak pinpoints opportunities with demonstrated potential for superior risk-adjusted returns that provide investors with steady income and value creation.
      Specialties
      Healthcare and Medical Office, Student Housing, Multifamily, Office.
      Type
      Privately Held
      Company Size
      1-10 employees
      Website
      http://www.riveroakic.com/
      Industry
      Real Estate
      Founded
      1998
      Headquarters

      One Atlantic Street
      Stamford, CT 06901
      UNITED STATES”

      You appear to be saying that RiverOak is something else, possibly an operator of large airports, to me this seems unlikely an assertion based on information that is readily available to both of us. Now you seem to be saying that the onus is on me to prove that RiverOak are not what you say they are and are what they say they are. is this right?

      Delete
    14. Michael,

      No Michael, you are not right in your conclusion. What I am saying is so simple. It is this. I cannot personally prove one way or another whether Riveroak are capable of or intend to run Manston as an airport. And neither can you.

      I explained to you earlier and at length how and why on balance I trusted Roger Gale's judgement rather than yours. You can go back and study what I said, should so wish. To put it bluntly, you have persistently implied that Riveroak are concealing the truth. I have read your evidence. It is thin. I am not convinced by it. I do not trust your judgement.

      You are not obliged to prove anything to me.

      Delete
    15. No disrespects Michael, but I think I'll carry on accepting the judgement of a man who's been the local MP for over 3 decades rather than a secondhand bookshop owner, brilliant though you may be.

      Delete
    16. You both disagree with Michael only to be argumentative, you never state any facts just put questions to everybody who does not hold your point of view is this the only reason you comment how about a good reason for keeping Manston open or why in your view a CPO would be worth the money (without saying 7 million because thats the asking price that was never the asking price another lie form gale)

      Delete
    17. John Holyer sides with Roger Gale who has access to all the resources parliament can muster, yet he stands up in the house to as a question on behalf of VAT fraudsters supposedly running a multi million pound import export business in his constituency that only exists on paper.

      The river oak ' introducers' don't exactly have glowing references, and that comes from our very own justice system.

      River oak themselves don't advertise their business as infrastructure investment and management.

      Not for the first time John Holyer preaches political bias from Michael when is own stance is dictated by his own prejudice against Michael while ignoring facts that support michaels argument over his.

      Plus Peter Checksfield is on your side John - what a dream team.

      Delete
    18. Their Name,

      I have sided with no one. I just follow the evidence. While we're at in whose house am I supposed to have stood up?

      Delete
    19. Their Name,

      I withdraw my statement about Roger Gale defending fraudsters. I also withdraw my remarks concerning John and Michael and offer my apologies to both of them.

      I do hope that I have not upset Peter Checksfield for this was never my intention.

      I add a disclaimer that I am not Michael, nor am I in any way connected to him.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect they're a little brighter than those who buy houses near airports and then complain about the noise of the planes.

      Delete
    2. It has been an interesting political game this one. The Conservatives have been very clear in their support from day one. It feels like Roger has been using this as a big bat to hit Labour with locally and Labour have tried to side step the issue and say its KCC's responsibility. I think they are now using time as a way to side step the issue. And they seem to be doing the same thing with Royal Sands. I suspect that Clive over spent when in power and Iris is being told to calm the spending down.

      Delete
    3. Definitely the same old faces rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic. Which councillors should resign?

      Delete
    4. Duncan the Manston issue certainly keeps the spotlight off everything else at the moment, I guess with the MP and TDC elections coming together and not so far off now, we can expect more and more unrealistic suggestions

      Delete
    5. Yes apart from waiting for a cpo report what is iris actually doing as the new leader - and without the chief exec. Looks shambolic and pointless after a month

      Delete
  9. From now on I'm only answering questions from people who use their names (and only then if I want to). So if anyone thinks I'm ignoring them... I am!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oh dear. sorry Peter, but you really seem to have let this go rather to your head.

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

      Delete
    3. Will this do?

      Delete
  10. "I have said before I wonder if the flight path over Ramsgate seems to be rather more than we all agreed many years ago"
    Then why was nothing done to stop it?

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I never knew that the flightpath could be moved ? And why would they not force them to stop flying over Ramsgate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point om as iris and the councillors seem keen to hide their roles in the pollution and illegal flights and fines at manston

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

      Delete
    3. Ah Om, I think this really relates to the various agreements to only overfly Ramsgate when absolutely necessary, which sort of dissolved at one point to regular circular low training flights directly over the town.

      Delete
    4. Not exactly michael as every klm flight for example was over the town

      Delete
    5. And all the cargo flights. Does michael live in Ramsgate?

      Delete
  13. It is like watching a plane crash in slow motion. A CPO, on a "Back to back agreement", would not survive legal process. In any case TDC does not have deep enough pockets.

    For argument's sake assume a valuation based on the business model of the "Back to Back Agreement" operator. What value would he place on the acquired asset ? Ann Gloag might smile and settle for that on a CPO. Her company can buy it back for a quid a few years down the line. If a new operator makes a loss and becomes a housing developer then in steps Ann again and snaffles the lion's share of their profits. You cannot simply steal the potential of a site and pocket the profit.

    Iris must be just playing along with the Save Manston Brigade.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Can't make out why my comment about the flag waving SMA lot has been removed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blog guidelines anon, at the bottom, basically if you want to make insulting comments about any group i.e. all of the people in the orange group are stupid then start your own blog.

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

      Delete
  15. TDC are taking legal advice on a CPO for Manston. Which is the wise thing to do. However, it occurs to me that Iris could save the taxpayer money if she sought the free advice offered on this blog by the firm of 'Anon, Anon and Anonymous'. Similarly, Michael may be able to give her free advice gleaned from one of his books, and the vox pop of visitors to his shop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John I am the first to concede that there should be a better open public internet forum for local issues with expert input from those actually advising our political representatives. But as things are this seems to be the last remaining open forum, pretty much the only place where you can say something about local issue and get some sort of response, do you think I should close it down?

      Delete
    2. Ignore him michael - just another drab pensioner in denial over the corruption and pollution arolund tdc

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

      Delete
  16. Manston supporters prepare yourselves. You couldn't accept that it was game over on May 15th but as you watch your political allies one by one abandon you, don't say you weren't warned. Back to first principles - it wasn't viable, there were NO credible buyers, Ann Gloag has run rings around everyone and the site will be built on. Time to return the favour to your friends in Rochester and Lydd and sign a few of their petitions. I'm sure that geography won't matter to them either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 8:17 pm,

      That is your opinion and it could well be valid. But why the spite? Are you able to explain this? Is it perchance political tribalism?

      Delete
  17. Anon 7.07

    Just checked with a barrister no less and he's confirmed what you said about a back to back. The statute regarding CPO does not exist in order for a local authority to act as a broker or intermediary. The CPO is, in his opinion, a non-starter and those who called for it were either catastrophically I'll-informed or have wilfully allowed matters to get this far for purely political purposes. Expect the rug to be pulled long before October.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 8:21 pm,

      Interesting - are you able to substantiate all this.

      Delete
    2. Anon 11:48 am,

      Who has?

      Am I to take what you say on trust bearing in mind that I do not know you, nor your 'barrister'.

      Delete
  18. The CPO would only really work for ensuring pollution cleanup of the site and say a park. The museum could be funded by TDC like any museum. Why though is gloag not paying for the cleanup already?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Misunderstanding on pollution anon, the Manston airport pollution was noise, this has now stopped, air this was very small and has now stopped and potential fuel spillage which didn’t happen so isn’t there.

      The work that the EA required for Manston to achieve an EP (environmental permit) was drainage, to prevent a pollution event not the removal of pollutants, the EA have inspected the site and there is very little that they wanted removed, a couple of old fuel tanks I think the details can be found by following the links on this page http://michaelsbookshop.com/drink/ but no a cpo isn't used in this way.

      Delete
    2. What rot michael as idiotic as your previous assertion of the prevailing wind removing air pollution.

      With the airport closed of course there is no noise pollution now. But you ignore the air pollution and soil and water pollution that remains and was ignored by TDC but detailed by the Environment Agency.

      Delete
    3. Indeed, the rotting fuel tanks still need to be dealt with.

      Delete
    4. Tdc never enforced any clean up at manston. Wy not? What were the councillors doing expanding a site with serious pollution problems?

      Delete
    5. Gale did say that anyone thinking of building houses would have a big clean up or was he lying?

      Delete
    6. Gale mentioned the aquifer as a problem for housing but not for the airport. But is silent on it now. Why?

      Delete
    7. the elections are over, it back fired all his supporters voted UKIP lol

      Delete
  19. Tdcs £20m salary bill could easily be cut to fund a cpo and even pleasurama and port

    ReplyDelete
  20. On books Michael, how many are pulped each year and cannot they be provided to schools and charity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take about a ton a month for pulping anon, if you could prove to me that they would be responsibly disposed of I could deliver them to you instead if you like. Obviously you would need to take a ton at a time, perhaps you could redistribute them in some way, obviously as we have a large selection of books priced at 5p each it wouldn’t be expensive for you to gauge the demand.

      Delete
    2. What About shredding them to make insulation? I guess that would be a non-starter because they're flammable?

      Delete
  21. Lyndon T Palmer,

    What you say is interesting. I should be grateful if you could direct me to the sources which you are using to support your argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lyndon T Palmer,

      Your assessment is poignant and in the light of this let's ensure we do not make the same mistake with Manston.

      Delete
    2. Dear Mr. Holyer,

      Please could you point me to the sources you are using to support the argument that the airport is viable? If it isn't viable, you cannot support a CPO.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 4:44 pm,

      No, I cannot. Futhermore I have never claimed, as you suggest I have done, that Manston would make a viable airport. For reason that I have no evidence that Manston would make a viable airport. But I do not presume to use my ignorance of the facts to claim that as a result of my ignorance Manston must therefore fail as an airport.

      I live in hope that Manston can one day bring much needed jobs to our area. Perhaps you not share such a hope.

      While we are at it, do not presume to tell me what I can or cannot support.

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

      Delete
    5. Anon 5:44 pm,

      I anticipated that you would fail to grasp my point. Maybe you are worth one more try. Where have I said that Manston would make a viable airport? I have never done so. I do not know whether or not it would make a viable airport. I lack sufficient knowledge to conclude one way or the other. Perhaps you are prone to reaching conclusions reckless of your ignorance of the facts. I am not.

      Delete
    6. Furthermore Anon 5:44 pm: To you it is either Mr Holyer or Sir.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 5:44 pm,

      You rudely called someone by their surname. When Michael spots it you'll get zapped. Quite right too.

      Delete
    8. Mr Village idiot would be nearer the mark John...

      Delete
    9. Anon 6:31pm

      When the vacuous insults fly I can rest in the knowledge that I have struck and damaged my target.

      Delete
  22. SMA supporters say its always been an airport you must stop houses from being built it will lose jobs do a CPO well Ramsgate seafront has always been leisure and pleasure for residents and visitors alike and employed many workers and yet TDC want to build houses and flats there then let the developers have it looks like our council are between a rock and a hard place its ironic that both sites date back about fifteen years since the rot set in.
    Stargazer.

    Stargazer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stargazer have you proof the current developers on the Pleasurama site ever intended to build there, if you have can we see it as all we have to show for 12 years of waiting is some tombstones and a large pile of dirt at one end.

      Delete
  23. If you look at Ramsgate as my house (also in Ramsgate) as an financial example as how Ramsgate either goes forward and up or goes down and forgotten for another 20 years. If the airport was to reopen and air traffic were to increase by the proposed amount the same with night flights then the price of my house would decrease by about 30%. Now lets say that the airport stays closed and is never going to reopen and no longer Ramsgate is blighted by being on the flight path. Then my house would increase by at least 30% over the next year. Pricing out some less wealthy people. How will this benefit Ramsgate the richer the people the less run down the area is ( maybe not nice but a real fact) So if you want to live in an area that's boarded up and neglected without investment then support the airport. But if you want to see Ramsgate thrive all the shops in use packed with wealthy people spending their money investors clambering over each other to get into Ramsgate and start businesses employing more and more people then be happy that the airport has closed the best thing that could ever happened to Ramsgate for the people of Ramsgate. I have seem this happen many times in places where you would never expect unlike Ramsgate has the best potential I have ever seen, so it wont be long before we all start seeing the benefits of no longer being on the flightpath.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right om although you're forgetting the issue of improving the pollution

      Delete
    2. Many other benefits, noise, pollution. expansion, night flights, and so on

      Delete
    3. Strange, as since the airport closed I haven't seen even the slightest increase in business in the town or on the seafront. As for house prices, they will drastically decrease if / when houses are built on the airport site due to increasing supply and therefore decreasing demand.

      Delete
    4. 4.02 You know nothing of the property market.
      You will have to wait for a while to see an increase in the town.

      Delete
    5. Purple Om, your 2:09pm,

      You say, "I have seen this happening in many places were you would never expect...". This is interesting. Could you name these places as I would like to take a look for myself.


      Delete
    6. And could Purple Om also post a link to the figures that says house prices will rise by 30% Thanks.

      Delete
    7. Loving this new interest in wanting facts and figures to substantiate an argument from the airport supporters - shame this was never applied to Infratil's Master Plan, or anything that Gale has put forward in recent months. 3,000 jobs, sure. Thanet's economic saviour, a given. 1,000 jobs per million passengers, sounds about right. The South East's answer to airport capacity, you bet. Cargo hub, why not. RiverOak, I'd back them 100%. TDC vs Gloag, I'm right behind them every step. How much for a CPO? - oh well, I'm sure you know best TDC.

      Delete
    8. Hackney, Islington, sandbanks,kings cross, To name a few but there are so many all with less listed houses and beautiful views but I know you dislike where you live and think the only way for Ramsgate is to have jumbo's thundering over your head I now know that TDC will never obtain a CPO on Manston so your just going to have to move to a new flightpath. I would have moved if their expansion / night flights plans had worked and I would have lost 30% off the value of my house something you wont have to endure, maybe you will get more if you wait a while

      Delete
    9. I never knew King's Cross used to have an airport.

      Delete
    10. Purple Om,

      Thank you. I will take a look at the areas you mention in the light of what you have said. Though suggest London is not a reliable comparison bearing in mind London is unique. You may be conflating the issues.

      You come across as angry and insulting. I find this curious. I hope you will not be offended if I remind you that such an attitude only serves to destroy your argument in my eyes.

      In the meantime how do you "know" that TDC will never never obtain a CPO on Manston? Do you have inside knowledge?

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

      Delete
    12. Yes John, not unless you think TDC,KCC,or the UK government will pay £600,000,000 enough money to build 5 queen Elisabeth bridges for a failed airport because some guy from Rochester says so and lots of nimbys that live close to other airports say so

      Delete

      Delete
    13. I have seen your past comments to me as anon you are 1 of 4 trolls on here that will never state any facts, your just here to pick holes in the debate in my view a very sad man.

      You come across as angry and insulting. I find this curious. I hope you will not be offended if I remind you that such an attitude only serves to destroy your argument in my eyes.


      As you said
      When the vacuous insults fly I can rest in the knowledge that I have struck and damaged my target.

      Delete
    14. Purple Om,

      You should understand ......no on reflection you are not worth the effort. ..bearing in mind that you complain about anons and trolls while hiding your own identity.

      Delete
    15. Purple Om 9:10 pm,

      " yeah, yeah, yeah" - Good heavens, it transpires that you are old enough to remember the Beatles. Now the planes have gone you can turn the down volume , to please the neighbours.

      Delete
  24. You wait until all the unemployed from Peckham and Brixton move to the Manston Housing Estate because of the housing benefit caps in London, Ramsgate house prices will plummet!

    ReplyDelete
  25. I detect a racist undertone to the last post. Peckham and Brixton, both have large Afro-Caribbean communities. Is that your problem 7.12? You want to keep Thanet a white monoculture. Both Peckham and Brixton, for your information, are thriving areas in terms of infrastructure and wealth creation. Do you think the Windrush has just dropped anchor? Bigot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing to do with colour, but everything to do with the fact that the areas have a lot of young unemployed and high crime rates, and that the local authorities aren't paying their full housing benefits anymore so they want somewhere cheaper to live. Still, better than having two planes flying over Ramsgate every hour, eh?

      Delete
    2. Purple Om,

      Was it the planes flying overhead that has made you so angry, bellicose and intolerant? Maybe you are of a nervous disposition in the first place?

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

      Delete
    4. I'm not angry I'm very happy I bought a house that used to be on a flight path now a saint of a Scot has stopped them from flying and also made it very hard for it to be reopened.
      I'm counting my fat profit how about you what do you have to be happy about??????

      Delete
    5. Purple Om,

      You talk of profit. But surely you will only make a profit when you sell your house, and only then if you buy a cheaper house, or move to a cheaper area. Am I to take it you are planing to move?

      Delete
    6. No when your building up what you will inevitably leave behind for your loved ones.
      So when I mean profit as opposed to buying a house without the added boost of the airport closure
      But i thought you did not want to correspond with me?
      "no on reflection you are not worth the effort"
      I'll save you answering me I don't want to correspond with you

      Delete
  26. RiverOaks is a real estate company.
    As a Ramsgate resident, I am opposed to my council tax being used even for a cursory investigation of a CPO, as a CPO is obviously not designed for a local authority to take a private enterprise from one owner, and give it to another, particularly to a foreign company.

    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.