Wednesday, 9 July 2014

Midweek ramble, council to discuss Manston cpo and the loss of a large proportion of their senior management.

Update I will try to insert the people tweeting from the council meeting here.





I don’t normally take much notice of council meeting agendas, but tomorrow’s is a bit unusual even by Thanet Standards, see http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=141&MId=3460

This is partly because the council’s chief executive is missing, unable to work or something, this may be related to the ongoing investigation and Cllr Ian Driver.

One aspect of this is it means Thanet Council has no returning office to manage elections at the moment.

“1.2 Although the Returning Officer has appointed Deputy Returning Officers in the past, those appointments have always been specific to one election and expire at the completion of that election. The Council therefore currently has no designated Deputy Returning Officer.
Council must designate an Electoral Registration Officer. Only Council can designate a Deputy Electoral Registration Officer, something which has not been done in the past.

1.3 Members will be aware that Dr. Sue McGonigal is currently not able to work, so there is no-one currently available to carry out the functions of the above roles, or to appoint a Deputy Returning Officer for a future election.”



The council also has no solicitor and as the solicitor was also the council’s monitoring officer the council has a temporary – Interim Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer.

Anyway the long and the short of all this is that the council has to have a bit of a senior officer shake up, so much of the meeting is about this.

On the airport front the council has the petition, which as I understand it is aimed at asking the council to discuss the cpo associated with the airport http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/documents/s37473/Petition%20-%20Kent%20International%20Airport.pdf the rules on this one are that the council should have received the petition 25 days before they take any action, so they may have to change the rules for this one.

I guess a bit of a problem here is that the petition was probably aimed at the wrong council and should have been aimed at KCC who while they don’t want to engage in a cpo are probably the only organisation that have even a chance. There are several reasons why TDC are the wrong organisation to engage in a cpo not the least of which is that they are the planning authority for the airport.

By this I mean that if the airport owner puts in plans for 10,000 flats and houses on the site and TDC turn the application down the owner has a fairly good case for trying to get compensation for the profit on building 10,000 flats and houses.

I know I have exaggerated this one a bit but I hope it serves to make the point.


Anyway “no worries” over discussing the airport cpo as further down the agenda the leader has a motion, see http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/documents/s37457/Notice%20of%20Motion%20-%20Manston%20Airport.pdf so as the Jamaican nurse said to back in the 70s “show me your motion” I found it hard to keep a straight then and find it hard to keep one now.

Petitioning the wrong council to do something they were going to do anyway seems, what’s the word here, “YOU CANNOT PETITION THE” sorry Mr Morrison someone closed the doors of perception on this one.

While there is a very strong internet campaign to save the airport and obviously it would be political suicide for any local politician to say anything against saving the airport. I think it may also have become impossible for any local politician to say anything realistic about the airport. My usual political sources have become very cagey when asked about the viability of this cpo in general terms.

With the airport cpo I have to admit to feeling something similar to how I felt when I first started to look into the Pleasurama development, I ask the obvious questions about aspect that don’t make sense to me and I don’t get the answers that reassure me.

How does a freight hub work at an airport with no fuel pipeline from the refinery, where all of the freight and fuel has to be lorried up and down to the M25 and past airports that are actually in a hub position, inasmuch as they are not mostly surrounded by sea?

Has anything done to investigate how a freight hub would affect the already very high particulate air pollution?

Are most of the people supporting saving the airport supporting an airfreight hub that they won’t be able to fly from?

Has anyone found any connection between RiverOak and aviation?

Is a TDC RiverOak cpo i.e. the council buying it from one company to pass it on to another in any sense legal and viable?

As the airport has no planning permission as an airport and ran on agreements that unlike a planning consent were with companies and not attached to the site, is there any way that having engaged in a cpo the council could ensure the site remained an airport?

Well the list goes on the latest being parkway, a passenger station next to an exclusively freight air hub, and I suspect that the political expediency has taken over from any logical direction.

The fact remains however that here in Thanet we have a huge brownfield site that has been bought by one of the wealthiest people in the country and we seem to be doing much more to antagonise her than we doing to find out her intentions.

My own feelings are that when she bought the airport it looked as though it had a reasonable chance of success and that when various interested potential customers pulled out and the airports commission excluded it, it became obvious that failure as an airport was most likely and she decided not to continue subsidising it.    

     
I guess my own feeling are that if we get an airport on the site it has to be a reasonably useful airport that people can fly from, if we get housing on the site then it has to be reasonably good housing that will attract people who will benefit the area.

Whatever happens on the site the various environmental constraints, particularly the problem of it being on top of the aquifer, will make industrial activity more expensive and difficult.

There are limits to how much of the land there can become drained elsewhere, roofs, gardens and farmland can drain into the ground there, roads, car parks, lorry parks, runways, aircraft and industrial hardstanding cannot. This means that not only is it expensive to drain but water replenishment becomes a serious issue if enough of the area isn't draining into the ground.

65 comments:

  1. Also, today TG Aviation are back in court in their attempt to take legal action against their eviction. Not sure whether they expect an outcome today though.

    Certainly good to know that public pressure on cllrs seems to be swaying them in the right direction, whether they like it or not. People Power at it's best!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly I read that TG Aviation have lost their case.

      Delete
  2. I really enjoyed this ramble Michael. Many good points. The staffing issues are getting ridiculous. There are a number of key roles that are simply not filled at the moment - lets hope we dont have a shock election at any time soon and they get all this sorted by next May!

    The CPO. There is a massive problem here that has snowballed within the SMA group insomuch that TDC undertaking a CPO is really not going to happen (it's not their place and they simply couldnt afford it) and due to the lack of the Local Plan, Ms Gloag would be able to put in a planning application for the construction of Gloagsville that they would not be able to stop. Therefore, the potential price of a CPO could be £150M - way out of TDC's price range and too much for KCC. As far as I am aware, these are facts (with a a guestimation of the price but it will be expensive).

    There will be many that will see this as a massive conspiracy with various people receiving brown envelopes when the inevitable building begins. They will say the Manston Parkway station is part of the plans. In my view, the expansion of Thanet has been agreed for a number of years and the current administration committed to 12,000 or so homes over the next twenty years and a station to serve that community would only help the appeal of the development. Expansion can be a good thing, but I think many are worried about it turning into a huge London overspill for everyone on benefits. Anyway - great post delicately illustrating some very important points.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm more worried about Thanet being concreted over than who lives here (and yes I know Manston is concrete, but it's still open space). If these big housing plans go ahead then we can effectively see the end of Cliffsend, Manson, Minster and Acol (and possibly Monkton and St. Nicholas too)... basically we'll just have Thanet City, and I'm sure none of us want that, do we?

    I also have to ask (as no-one else is), why are we forever building on farmland and public play areas when the 3 (or is it 4?) Thanet golf courses remain untouched?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Golf courses are far greener and a lot less disturbing than airports

      Delete
    2. I was comparing them to parks and farms, or are you against those too?

      Delete
    3. Over the past 100 years, all the towns and villages around the Thanet coast have pretty much merged into one (I defy anyone to tell me where exactly are the boundaries with Westgate-Garlinge-Westbrook-Margate). Having an airport in the midle of Thanet has stopped the same thing happening with all the inland villages.

      Delete
    4. I have said all along that manstons development could be a good thing for Thanet if the right sort of houses are built there Large detached houses with big plots they are more profitable and easier to sell. Thats what we need some money here.

      Delete
  4. I am just thinking of all the militant SMA supporters sitting in the meeting when a official stands up and says we have no chance of obtaining a CPO on manston airport. I can see the police being called and all the stupid Cllrs that lead them up the garden path regretting they did not tell them right from the out set that they had no chance. Where Sir Rodger is laughing his pants off after putting the mostly labour council deep in the sh*t. I am a labour voter but they should know better to be fooled like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Little bit harsh with the 'militant' comment dude. But I take your point. Which is why I feel that that is precisely what no-one will actually say. They will never say that a CPO can't happen. I suspect they have a very well thought through plan as to what they will say - that they strongly support the airport, they will do everything they can to return it to an airport, they will investigate the CPO but they think that - if a CPO is due to take place - it should be down to KCC as this is a large asset for all of East Kent, not just Thanet. In other words, they will say a CPO is never going to happen without actually saying it. Any one that goes against this will be harshly judged by the Manston faithful. The question is, will they see through the rouse?

      Delete
    2. Everyone's coming out with all these figures, but who exactly decides how much the land is worth??? Presumably not Gloag?

      Delete
    3. Are you really telling us that you dont know how much roughly brownfield (you can build a house on it) land is? well its about half the cost of any building here, far more in london and less in the USA so think about where you live and the cost of the building then think about the land it sits on then think about how many houses you could fit on the Manston site.

      Delete
    4. Militant was kind, rude and ignorant would have been my other words

      Delete
    5. Any CPO compensation is based on the market value of the land and on the basis of that value not being compromised or inflated by the proposed use of the land following CPO. So Ann Gloag is sitting on a brownfield site with development potential (given that the value has to be based on what it is rather than what it was or what some would have it be) and therefore it is worth millions.

      Delete
  5. My point is, someone has to decide this figure (and I don't just mean anonymous bloggers). So WHO decides? The government? The council(s)? Perhaps someone sensible can answer this question for me... Michael??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Use the internet Peter and you can find land for sale for development and for farming etc. Not a million miles from where you live and right by the sea take a look at land for sale in Kent.

      Delete
    2. That doesn't really answer my question Dave (though Gerald answered it elsewhere). Of course, if Ann is refused planning permission for housing then the site is virtually worthless as it wouldn't even make good farming land without a lot of money spent beforehand.

      Meanwhile, the campaign has made BBC news yet again:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-28247632

      Delete
    3. Peter I just wondered reading your comment if you had grasped my point in the post that this is a fundamental reason why TDC shouldn’t be the council making the cpo, because if planning consent were to be turned down it would be TDC acting as the planning authority that had turned it down.

      On the land value front the Manston site is 700 acres so around £7m as farmland and anything up to £700m as building land, the main factor being that farmland is to a greater or lesser extent protected from becoming building land, whereas land that has been used as an airport doesn’t seem to be protected from becoming building land.

      So let us say that Ann Gloag was refused planning permission, which would change the value of the site from around £7m to around £400m by TDC who were pursuing a cpo to buy the land for say £7m, do you not think this would strengthen her case for a higher value?

      Delete
  6. There's a long series of procedures for determining the value of land acquired during a cpo, see:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/compulsory-purchase-system-guidance

    The 'Land Tribunal' can adjudicate if the two parties aren't able to come to an agreement over the purchase price.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So we have Sir Roger Gale pushing to snatch back Manston and hand it to River Oak a company he has pulled from his magicians hat and who is backing that company Tony Freudman is this the same Tony F who fifteen years ago stood up on the very spot where a meeting is being held on the 19th of this month and promised 1,000 jobs 300,000 passengers and 40,000 tons of freight in four years,then yet another operator with Matt Clark chief ex of Kent International Airport promising in Jan 2009 500,000 to 6 million passengers 65,000 to 300,000 tons of freight with a plane flying over every fifteen minutes he added as they are 747 they are quiet ones.
    Roger Gale told Ros McIntyre he had never supported night flights and did not propose to do so he later changed his mind, typical politician,Wiggins said our traffic conrollers only work 8am to 10 pm so there will be no night flights,all we have had from this failed airport is false promises, deceit, and aircraft noise night and day, when is the penny going to drop and people wake up to the facts it has failed three times lets get a better use for it something that will benefit the whole of Thanet and not be taken in by these chancer business men.
    Stargazer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to be worried when the first statement that came from TDC was the truth. All the rest have been to try and win votes but they never intend to see a CPO though. But please Peter I would love you to point out where Michael is wrong in this post (above) and tell us all the reasons that this will be possible conflicting Michael's views?

      Delete
  8. Same as Ramsgate Port what is plan B?

    ReplyDelete
  9. seen this. looks like KCC are looking into it after all "KCC will be debating possible support for a TDC CPO the the KCC council meeting next week. Here's the motion that will be discussed: Mr G Cowan will propose, Mr R Truelove will second,

    "Kent County Council supports the actions taken so far by Thanet
    District Council to retain Manston as a regional airport. We
    recognise the value that a regional airport brings to East Kent and
    are disappointed at its closure. Kent County Council further
    recognises that Thanet District Council is unlikely to have the
    resources to go through with a Compulsory Purchase Order, with
    all of the linked legal cost, by itself. Therefore as the Upper Tier
    Authority we agree to support Thanet District Council's
    investigations into the viability of a Compulsory Purchase Order
    with financial contributions and support from our legal team. Should
    Thanet District Council proceed with a Compulsory Purchase
    Order, we agree to support them further with financial and legal
    support."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that is more of a worry but they are only helping with legal costs so TDC still need to find a backer that will pay for the land and compensate Gloag for the the loss in profit and are also willing to do this without a grantee of getting planning permission for the airport not forgetting the environmental permit and buying all of whats been sold by that time and find new business and start to make a profit with the interest on a £600,000,000 investment. Also there are restrictions on night flights and how many passengers they can have a year (6m) also there is the matter of all the independent reports saying that Manston is not in the running for being a major airport.
      You know what I'm not that worried now.

      Delete
    2. They really don't have much choice Barry. I'm sure that even Michael will admit that there's never been a previous campaign by the public in Thanet that has forced all politicians to "support it", even though some are lying or jumping on bandwagons to save their political lives.

      You never did tell us what side "John Hamilton" is on (unless I missed it?).

      Delete
    3. So Purple Om, as per your posts on FB groups, you seem to be speculating that compensation for development that hasn't even been applied for is required again, and your figures that I can only imagine are plucked out of the sky seem to be increasing each time you write them? Alternatively, please let us know your expertise in the area? Perhaps it is worth reading up about the financial side of CPO compensation, and the requirement for "equivalence" as none of that seems to support what you are saying in my opinion.

      "Large detached houses" again? TDC don't need to find backers - they are already there, and have been in talks with them over the last few weeks. Perhaps that will come to public light tonight, who knows.

      Delete
    4. surprised Peter after you twitter remarks you were interested. As you know JH is only on one side his own.

      Delete
    5. Remarks on twitter? Can't recall mentioning JH on there. Anyway glad he supports the airport too. Will be very handy flying to and from Arizona.

      Delete
    6. Neil Jordan why not read though what this web site has on Manston airport you will see what your great MP's Cllr's and SMA are telling you is a load of crap and the real facts have been posted on here for quite some time. Then after you have educated yourself on the out come of your silly flag waving and insulting anyone from Ramsgate you will perhaps feel a little silly and maybe a little apoplectic after learning that Ramsgate people had nothing to do with the airports demise it was all to do with it never being viable but knowing most Manston supporters you wont feel at all remorseful you will go back to reading the Sun and voting UKIP.
      Oh and by the way you dont know who I am. Many stupid people on here try and predict who is who

      Delete
    7. Purple Om, please try and use some full stops and commas. I get quite out of breath reading your rant. And it would help if you were to answer Neil Jordan's question on your expertise in CPOs. As to who you are, I personally don't give a fig.

      Delete
    8. Again why E.M.B.O.B dont you try a little to find out the facts on your own even though you read this blog you should know the facts. I wonder if you have to be an expert to understand what you have read, I don't

      Delete
    9. Oh dear Purple Om, you really sound like you are having a bit of a rant! I don't read the Sun, or vote UKIP, nor have I blamed Ramsgate people for the demise of the airport. In fact I have lived in Ramsgate for around 30 years, on and off. Nor do I believe that everyone that was against night flights wanted the airport to shut, although I know there are some. You see, I deal in facts and where there are opinions, I say they are opinions. The Manston issue has made a lot of people voice their opinions, and I choose to consider them for myself, thank you. There are far too many "armchair experts" about.

      This "web site" is actually a blog site, where people can voice their opinions, including the author, whether they put their names against them, or remain anonymous. Some of Michael's, I choose not to agree with, but that doesn't stop me reading them, and considering them, and I expect that he doesn't expect everyone to agree with him. You quote this blog as being all about the facts. Sorry, you need to read elsewhere and seek the advice of experts or be an expert yourself to know that. You repeat the same words as someone else on FB, but we are not about "outing" anonymous people on here, merely that you should be careful to explain that your "facts" are actually your "opinion" based on someone else's, wherever you post it.

      I am not here to try and make you change your mind, but you have to understand if you put wild figures and statements in anywhere, others will comment about them, especially if they can't be substantiated.

      Delete
    10. Purple Om, I am perfectly capable of finding out facts for myself, thank you. I generally understand what I read and can decide what is fact, what is fiction, and what is wishful thinking. But most importantly I know what is left wing rhetoric written by a Grauniad reader. And the best thing is that you probably won't understand my little joke.

      Delete
  10. Neil : how about you fill us in on your expertise re CPO's ? you appear to be a web site designer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris. No, I am not a web site developer. Didn't realise I was voicing any expertise on CPO's, only the fact that there is far more information out on the web on official sites, which doesn't tally up with some opinions on here.

      Delete
    2. Neil do you not agree the when a CPO comes into effect the person is compensated, which leaves them in the same financial position that they were before a CPO is issued thats easy for you to look up. then all you need to do is find out how much land that you can build on is worth, well there is some land (4.7 acer's) going in Broadstairs for £6,000,000 now with a more than half of the price being dropped Manstons land is 720 acer's at £417,000 an acer makes it £300,000,000 then you have the cost of building the houses that she can prove that she is in the businesses of doing so with a 0.3 being the land 0.3 being the cost of building 0.3 being profit making £900,000,000 take away the building costs £300,000,000 you are left with £600,000,000 thats how I have worked it out please feel free and tell me where I,m going wrong or if you cant stop telling people that they dont know what their talking about until you have the evidence to back it up

      Delete
    3. Compensation following a compulsory acquisition of land is based on the
      principle of equivalence. This means that you should be no worse off in
      financial terms after the acquisition than you were before. Likewise you
      should not be any better off.
      2.2 Because the effects of the compulsory purchase order on the value of a
      property are ignored when assessing compensation, it is necessary to value
      the land on the basis of its open market value without any increase or
      decrease attributable to the scheme of development which underlies the
      compulsory purchase order.

      Because no houses have been built on Manston, then the potential value of said houses cannot be used in calculating compensation. Otherwise anybody could say they were going to build power stations/mansions/factories, even though they have no intention of doing so.
      https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compulsory-purchase-and-compensation-booklet-2-compensation-to-business-owners-and-occupiers

      Delete
    4. EMBOB you get more silly every minute, So are you telling me she has not put plans in already? or that if TDC refuse those plans she wont have a good case for taking them to court saying that TDC are trying to devalue the land so that they can CPO it?

      Delete
    5. Purple Om - I agree with the first part, but the guidance also states that it is all to do with the open market value of the land/property based on the existing use of the property and may reflect development value provided it can be demonstrated that these would have existed without the CPO. From this, I take it that you would be compensated for development land if planning would be granted or had been granted, but I don't propose to guess if the land is considered to be able to be built on, when it is still stated as being for airport use until 2031, I believe? I think this is the same sort of thing that Michael was discussing above with the issues of who should be dealing with the CPO. At present there is no planning application, so the land can't be built on, nor is there any evidence it would be allowed as yet, but obviously things can change. I, like you am no expert to say how someone impartial would judge that as all the guidance manages to use the word "may" quite a lot!

      I said that you were voicing opinions, as I am. I don't agree with your opinions, and I am sure you won't agree with mine, but you always seem to not be able to handle the fact that people don't always agree with you, so please stop trying to tell me what to do.

      I am sure you will reply to this, but frankly, I am not going to bother any more, as I think both positions are clear, and it would only go round in circles even more, and prove you are really only here for an argument.

      Delete
    6. Neil see above also 2031 is a myth there are no covenants on that land. there has been a plan for the north part already.

      Delete
    7. The readers will decide Neil.
      Yet again a manston supporter that don't want to hear the truth when will the penny drop

      Delete
  11. Does anybody know what happened at the meeting tonight? Were SMA told they dont stand a chance of a CPO? I bet not unless there was a good number of police there

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cllr Driver was ejected from the meeting by police. He tried to film his own arrest. The meeting was suspended for a while.

      Delete
    2. On what grounds was he ejected? and does anybody have any other info?

      Delete
    3. He decided to start filming again once all the Manston parts had been dealt with, and wouldn't stop when asked to. Long running issue, I believe and I am sure Michael will probably post on here what he put on the SMA group tonight about the details about central government guidance.

      Delete
    4. Thanks Neil, I think Michael is in favour of Manston so what ever he put on the SMA site must of been good for them as they dont take kindly to anything bad said about their beloved airport some said on there the other day that the CPO did not stand a chance and explained why (all true) and they threw her out.

      Delete
    5. Om I think it important to understand that because of the prominence of this blog I do my best to be as impartial as possible and to give both sides of any local opinion. In many ways this makes one everyone’s enemy I suppose.

      Delete
    6. Michael, Or by the same token everyone's friend?

      Delete
    7. If someone tell the truth I dont care if its what I want to hear or not I will respect them for their honesty.

      Delete
    8. Purp,

      And what is truth? Is your truth the same as mine?

      Delete
    9. Talking abt filming this is guidance from Local Govt office

      Can I film the meeting?
      Council meetings are public meetings. Elected representatives and council officers acting in the public sphere should expect to be held to account for their comments and votes in such meetings. The rules require councils to provide reasonable facilities for any member of the public to report on meetings. Councils should thus allow the filming of councillors and officers at meetings that are open to the public.
      The Data Protection Act does not prohibit such overt filming of public meetings. Councils may reasonably ask for the filming to be undertaken in such a way that it is not disruptive or distracting to the good order and conduct of the meeting. As a courtesy, attendees should be informed at the start of the meeting that it is being filmed; we recommend that those wanting to film liaise with council staff before the start of the meeting.
      The council should consider adopting a policy on the filming of members of the public speaking at a meeting, such as allowing those who actively object to being filmed not to be filmed, without undermining the broader transparency of the meeting

      https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207528/Your_councils_cabinet_-_going_to_its_meetings_seeing_how_it_works.pdf

      Delete
  12. This is intersting:
    http://thanet.gov.uk/the-thanet-magazine/press-releases/2014/july/manston-discussion-full-council/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    ReplyDelete
  13. The folowing is a clear notice of intent:

    Full notice of motion: “Council affirms its considerable disappointment at the recent closure of Manston as a regional airport. We recognise the public support for its continuation as an airport and endorse the steps taken to date towards that objective. Council urges all available options to that end be explored, including a detailed examination of the legal and financial implications of a Compulsory Purchase Order before a final decision is reached.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its just a continuation of what has been said to date John. Until the options report appears, there's not really more that can be said aside from making a public statement in the Chamber on it as has now been done.Not knocking it as its typical, but its not really that big a deal.

      Delete
    2. James,

      As you please - but I had already rather grasped that point. My only comment was that I found the result interesting. More than that I do not choose to discuss in this place.

      Delete
  14. This looks interesting too: http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/taiwanese_delegation_to_engage_in_manston_airport_talks_1_3683046

    Meanwhile, Ramsgate businesses are all currently booming due to the lack of planes flying overhead... or so they predicted! What's the truth, Michael, etc?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Peter the truth, well mine goes something like this.

      The main problem in terms of Ramsgate’s economy hasn’t been having the airport but uncertainty over what the airport could become.

      Obviously having a busy airport would have an economic upside, but we have never had this, it would also have a downside, mostly noise pollution and it is the threat of this that is and has been damaging to Ramsgate economically.

      At the moment although to a lesser extent the treat, mostly of a cargo hub, remains and while this remains, there will be caution from some people, when it comes to investing in Ramsgate.

      I would say that you would need a major foreign investor that didn’t understand how it is that UK geography and behaviour patterns make Manston unlikely to succeed as an airport.

      Delete
    2. Michael, Have you considered speaking to these 'foreign investors' bearing mind that you perceive them to be rather naive? I'm sure they would welcome you informed opinion and caveats?

      Delete
    3. Frankly John I think the main reason for Infratil’s involvement in UK airports was that they saw the UK in terms of Australia and New Zeeland where the logistics and infrastructure would have meant that Manston would most likely have worked.

      The problem is one of presentation, the southeast is the most prosperous part of the uk; there for Thanet is very prosperous, the airport is within 5 miles of Port Ramsgate; therefore it has a good shipping infrastructure, it is the closest larger runway to Europe; therefore it must be good for connecting with Europe.

      I guess what worries me is that when the airport was up for sale for less than the agricultural land value there were no takers among experienced uk airport operators.

      This all adds to my main point, it is the ongoing uncertainty which is economically damaging, particularly to Ramsgate.

      Delete
    4. The main problem with Thanet is the negativity of many of the residents, not the "poor" location or the naivity of foreign investors.

      Delete
    5. Peter,

      Pecisely - I could not agree more. And this is why I find the educated get up and go of the Save Manston Group so refreshing and reassuring.

      Delete
  15. Peter I can see why you dont like other people to get ahead because you dont have a house of your own nor do you run a shop. But Ramsgate will need a bit spent on it before it starts to boom. Its getting people to invest that bit that is what would never happened if Manston had never closed but now it has and can now see plenty of investment its still early days with this CPO keeping some investors away but it wont be for ever and as soon as SMA realise that they have been sold a pup and it all blows over the better for ramsgate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perp, You see it's like this.......oh never mind.

      Delete

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.