I guess some people know that Paul Carter is the leader of
KCC and that he was interviewed on the BBC Inside Out program which was
broadcast yesterday.
Here is the link and Thanet bit starts about 19 mins into
the program http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04knnb5/inside-out-south-east-06102014
to be honest there may be other Thanet bits in the program, I haven’t had time
to watch all of it yet.
OK who is the council leader? What does KCC do?
The council leader Paul Carter is the chosen elected head of
the council, not a council employee but normally a councillor from the party
that got the most votes, in this case conservative. The elected members of the
council meet once a month and for the most part do what they can to ensure the council
leans to the political direction of the majority party.
What the council does is very complex indeed and is summarised
on their website homepage http://www.kent.gov.uk/
obviously a lot of their responsibilities don’t have any political edge to
them. drains for instance, you can’t drain a county in Left or Right political
way, for the most part you just drain it. A reasonable example of the
difference you get politically is our grammar schools, Kent has had Conservative
leadership for years, so we have selective schools and the 11 plus while other
counties don’t.
The whole council thing is very complex with
District Councils like TDC doing some things, like collecting the rubbish and
county councils like KCC being responsible for the rubbish tips. Or district
councils like TDC being responsible for cleaning the streets while county
councils like KCC are responsible for maintaining them.
The Save Manston Airport facebook group certainly didn’t
like what Paul Carter had to say about Manston Airport, so yesterday they set
up a petition to remove Paul Carter, this has been removed today because it had inappropriate content.
With the internet the whole business of petitioning councils
seems to have gone a bit bonkers, with some preconceived ideas about what you
can and what you can’t do that are frankly off the wall.
What Paul Carter actually said that has caused such consternation among some of the airport supporters is: "I have been working closely with TDC. I have not seen a viable business plan from TDC's request for partners to operate Manston as an airport - the market has decided it there is not a demand for an airport in East Kent"
It is also pretty important to sort out the difference
between the non elected council officers, who get paid a salary and are responsible
for the day to day running of the council and the elected councillors who are
mainly there to represent us the voters who pay the council tax, these people don’t
get a salary but get an allowance, which is fairly hefty if you are a council
leader.
Just what one would hope for with a petition to remove an
elected politician for saying something you disagreed with defies imagination. I
guess apart from not voting Conservative at the next KCC elections there really
isn’t a way of achieving this objective, as far as I can see there are only
really two things you can petition a council or any level of government to do,
one is to discuss something and the other is to hold a public consultation.
What Paul Carter actually said that has caused such consternation among some of the airport supporters is: "I have been working closely with TDC. I have not seen a viable business plan from TDC's request for partners to operate Manston as an airport - the market has decided it there is not a demand for an airport in East Kent"
The real snag here is that any saving of Manston as an
airport is only ever going to happen with KCC involvement and support, the
whole TDC cpo being a bit of a political smokescreen that is highly unlikely to
succeed as any indemnity partner is going to be commercial and is pretty much
bound to come up with a scheme that is unlikely to be different enough from the
existing owners scheme to tip the public interest balance.
The core of what cpos are all about is government taking
land away from private individuals or companies to do something that is in the
public interest. In the simplest terms we wouldn’t have any motorways if the
government couldn’t force farmers to sell the government farmland so they could
build motorways.
Frankly there is just no way whosoever that farmer Giles can
look at farmer Zac’s farm growing potatoes and get the council use a cpo to
force the farmer Zac to sell his farm to farmer Giles so he can grow wheat
there, based on the public interest that people eat bread.
There are ways of petitioning a council to do something it
doesn’t want to do, the only time I ever had any involvement in this was when
the people of Ramsgate petitioned TDC to hold a referendum for a town council.
This required a minimum of 5% of the electorate petitioning the council, in the
case of KCC I think 5% would be about 50,000 signatures confirmed by the
electoral roll.
As I have said all along were this to be something based
around historic aircraft with heritage funding channelled through KCC, so there
was some way of ensuring that aviation use of the sight was guaranteed then
this could possibly have been a runner.
As far as the TDC cpo goes, well the first stage of this
which would be an independent valuation of the site, hasn’t even been arranged
yet. Obviously if farmer Giles is going to buy farmer Zac’s land then the
first the value of the farm has to be assessed.
It certainly wouldn’t start with an invalid petition
to remove the leader of KCC, but then there are limits to what can be achieved with
petitions, even valid ones.
I would say now that the chance of actually saving the
airport for aviation use is getting very thin, however if there is any chance
at all it would need to start with a proper petition with valid and confirmable
signatures to KCC.
On the blog front, I am sorry that I haven’t posted much
this week, frankly my bookshop has been busier than one would expect at this
time of year which means that I have less time. The other factor is the
wretched comments, comment from people interested in local issues is one thing,
but frankly comment mostly aimed at some sort of personal insult or vendetta is
very trying.
So if you are genuinely interested in the issues that post
is about then yeas do comment, but frankly some boring argument aimed mostly at
someone who you don’t like just won’t be allowed.
I will ramble on with this one if and when I get the time.
Michael, a few weeks back Chris Wells commented on your blog, telling us all why we should NOT vot UKIP! Unfortunately I can't find it, do you know what thread it was on? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAnon I don't remember him doing so and if he did i can't find the comment either
DeleteA few months back on the 26 may eu election result post you can find a few comments he made on the 27th but he wasn't too derogatory!
DeleteYou just need to google "thanelonline blog ukip"
Chris seems desperate to simply retain his seat although is waiting for the next election. Too many are switching around. Why do we not before the election insist all candidates if they switch party allegiance are required to have a byelection? The same with doublehatters. Chris is at TDC and KCC?
DeleteMichael, if 50,000 is 5%, then the electoral roll would have to be 1,000,000. The population of Thanet is 136,000. Guess you mean 5,000?
ReplyDeleteThe Inside Out programme was recorded before the announcement that 80% of Manston had been sold. If Paul Carter new about it he wasn't letting on in the interview in the Cup Cake Café.
I felt uncomfortable watching the interview. Paul Carter didn't come across as somebody in full control of the situation in East Kent, perhaps he isn't.
Sorry about thatSEMBOB it should have read KCC and I have now corrected it. Watching politicians being interviewed usually makes one wince an I think the last one to be in full control of the situation was Margaret Thatcher.
DeleteInteresting points Michael although drains can be fixed in a Right or Left way eg the Right not spending the money to fix them in the Left areas and vice versa....
DeleteSEMBOB is still wittering on about Manston but,like SMA, has provided no credible basis for the CPO or aviation at the now derelict airport other than he likes planes and thinks an airport would be nice.Your summary of the CPO issue is a good one.
While with Leader Carter there is a long-standing problem of Thanet being ruled by the West Kent clique and an emphasis on construction.
The 'Save Manston' lot are just making a laughing stock of themselves, throwing together petition after petition with no real basis or evidence around what they are petitioning for or against. No wonder the latest one was blocked !
ReplyDeleteGood estimate for KCC Michael, the actual verification number as it is known was set at 54399 earlier this year.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 5:32 pm. Manston is part of the theme to this post. Are you saying that my comments are not a legitimate response?
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the CPO, I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant so am not qualified to pass judgement.
As to thinking than an airport would be nice, yes it would. Better than we have at the moment. The only thing happening at the moment is that the grass is being cut and somebody is taking down the ribbons from the fences almost as fast as they are put up. Meanwhile, multi millionaires play monopoly with Manston while TDC look on.
Sorry SEMBOB the comment got that through the net, it is exactly what I am talking about anons with very little useful to contribute looking for confrontation on the internet. I will endeavour not to let any more of this type of comment directed at you get through.
DeleteOn the subject of Manston my main concerns relate to the environmental problems caused by an industrial use for the site, I am pretty certain that the airfreight hub was a non starter and have strong reservations about the industrial side of a discovery park working there. Up to a point we have been there with China Gateway, I do wonder whether it is a case of looking at the problem of the Manston site the wrong way up, perhaps we should first be working out what is environmentally and economically sustainable there and what isn’t and then deciding what to do with it.
Obviously there wasn’t much TDC could do about this one however I think there was some potential in trying to get KCC to take over the site, I think both Infratil and Ann Gloag would have seen KCC s the right type of purchaser.
.............................Purple OM
ReplyDeleteThe calls for the head of Kent's county council leader Paul Carter to resign by SMA is just another reminder of their desperation and bullying tactics against anybody who dare try and tell the truth about Manston airport. There has been many such victims including Cllrs MP's and public, when will the main offenders be held to account?
I think now it is obvious to anybody other than Iris and her merry band of SMA supporters that Manston airport will never be granted a CPO by anybody and its time for TDC to announce it. This delay in announcing the end of proceedings against the owner is doing terrible damage to any investment in Thanet and especially in Ramsgate with a lot of planned regeneration for our seafront. Speaking of which the new anti-stance of the pleasurrama site is, Thant the beach in front of the site will become private for the owners of the flats and the toilet block will be knocked down because it spoils the view. In my opinion these new rumours are no more far fetched than the others like the site is the public's or the sites flood defenses or the wall behind the site or the shadow the new building will throw.
When will people understand that this development is vital for Ramsgate without it Ramsgate may very well find itself being left behind as who will want to invest on a seafront with a building site for the foreseeable future?
The response from SMA to Paul Carter is typical of their thuggish campaign. When anybody says something they disagree with, they set about trying to bully and intimidate them. I don't carry a torch for Paul Carter, but I will defend his right to comment on matters in Kent. And whilst I don't agree with his views about many things, I know that he has been involved with the Manston issue for far longer than most of the SMA campaigners have shown an interest. In my view, the difficulties which the SMA campaigners have are two-fold. Firstly, they lack education to put their case clearly and concisely without resorting to rhetoric and abuse. Secondly, and far more seriously, they don't have any credible argument for why there should be a CPO. If the current owners are proposing a development which could create thousands of jobs, there can be no economic argument for attempting to resuscitate an airport which, at its peak, supported no more than 140 jobs; many of them part-time or zero-hours. I have heard the argument about indirect employment but this argument applies to any development. If the new owners create 6000 direct jobs, many more indirect jobs will be supported. It is a sad fact, but when the airport closed unemployment in Thanet did not increase at all. It went down. Shockingly, the conclusion we have to draw is that, when it was open, the airport was actually having a negative economic impact on the area and that, since it closed, things have improved, particularly in Ramsgate. I know that SMA campaigners don't want to deal with this but it is important to deal in facts rather than emotional hyperbole.
ReplyDeleteA shocking conclusion indeed Anon @ 9:06 pm. But is the only one we can draw from the figures? Sure, 140 people were dismissed when the airport closed, but how many actually signed on in Thanet? They may well have come from outside Thanet and signed on in their home town. This figure will add to the unemployment figures of for example Dover, Herne Bay or Canterbury, or even further afield. Add to that the start of the Summer season in Thanet as Manston was closing, which even in these days still exists, and people being taken on to cover seasonal jobs, who should now be coming back onto the unemployed register. So the fact that unemployment in Thanet did not increase can be explained in other ways too. Unemotional logic.
DeleteHoist with your own petard SEMBOB. If they were living in other towns then there was no economic benefit to Thanet from Manston....
DeleteThe 140 employment is largely mythical as it was issued by Infratil and they included the old lady volunteers at the museum for example...50 employed at the airport? And there would be less in any aiport startup: 20? 30?
And the seasonal bulge would happen whether or not there was an airport. You're running out of arguments to explain why Manston is - even now - the future of Thanet. It's clearly not as it's failed again and is not even an airport now with the equipment removed....
Anon @ 10:49? Your argue that unemployment in Thanet did not increase in Thanet when Manston closed and you use this fact to explain that Manston was therefore of no economic benefit to Thanet. We will have to wait and see what happens when the seasonal bulge reduces. Do you have similar facts about Blackpool Airport which will close on October 15th with 110 jobs going? Perhaps it won't have the same impact at Blackpool because Blackpool seems to be rather more successful as a holiday destination than Thanet.
DeleteThere may still be one or two petards buried at Manston. The most heavily bombed airfield in WW2.
If there are a few petards buried at Manston then its no more fit to be an airport as it is to be an housing estate,
DeleteIn the year to the end of August there has been a 27% drop in the number of unemployed in Thanet with a drop of 222 in August. Difficult to judge the effects the airport closure has had because many of the people working there worked part time and not all of them lived in Thanet.
The point being SEMBOB your arguments about Manston have been completely shot down again. A 140 jobs (if there were that many and all in Thanet) would be a minor blip in the overall total with or without a seasonal bulge. Far more jobs were lost at Pfizer etc. There seems little point to you now beyond sentiment for Manston in WW2 or planespotting.
DeleteYes 3:46 there were various pipe bombs to blow up the runway not found - if the Germans had landed.
DeleteMost staff at Manston were casual ie called in to unload a cargo plane when it arrived or the fire staff did it. Why they and the management were allowing banned flights and out of hours flights to land is incredible.
I think we will have to agree to disagree anon @ 4:06 pm. However, any loss of jobs is to be regretted, and I'm sure those who worked at Manston do not share your views.
DeleteI don't know if there is any FIDO left but the pollution from this must have been enormous?
What a complete load of old tosh! We seem to be back to the same ridiculous discussion about affects on unemployment figures as has been discussed on this blog before, when we all know you just can't see that level of detail. Quoting the 140 employees as being a fictional number and not really understanding that that never included volunteer numbers at the museums which are still open, makes me wonder if any of these other Anon's actually think they know what they are talking about. If they do, then they seem to have already shown their lack of credibility or mischievousness. Yet again this attempt to focus on figures has no mention of all the other businesses affected or with employment at them that could have been lost, which would never be included in any headline figures quoted about employees. This figure were employees of Kent Facilities Limited, i.e. those made redundant by the owners and do not include all the people who actually rely on the airport for employment - there is a difference!
DeleteNot sure what we agree to disagree on SEMBOB you've no argument at all now for jobs/aviation at Manston.
DeleteOf course the SMA characters didn't want to lose their job, any more than say Pfizer, but so what - the jobs were not profitable and neither is a CPO funded by the rest of us.
Is anybody now supporting the £20m Parkway station either for Manston CPO or ManstonDP? Has it just been quietly dropped?
DeleteLook I think we are getting diverted from the real issue here, which boils down to can the airport be saved, so put on one side for a moment whether or not you want to save the airport because whether or not you want to save it isn’t the issue here.
DeletePaul Carter says there is no viable offer on the table for supporting a TDC cpo. I guess everyone has tried to find some verifiable connection between RiverOak and aviation and unless someone has something useful to say about this then I think it pretty fair to say that it is unlikely that there is a viable offer on the table.
So some questions:
1 If there was a viable offer on the table from a back to back funder, is there any way that this offer could pass the public interest test explained by the two farmers analogy? My take here is that it would always have to be commercially viable so it probably wouldn’t. I guess we have all looked at the cpo rules and understand that anything that passed the public interest test would have to radically different to what the discovery park is planning. What I am saying here is that a difference in the numbers of people employed or when the jobs start in the next 20 years isn’t going to pass the public interest test, so that any cpo legal dispute is going to find in favour of the current owner.
2 Is there any way that a cpo could ensure future use of the site as an airport without considerable public sector investment? TDC have already made it clear that they don’t have any money to invest in the project.
Now unless you can come up with some satisfactory answers then a TDC lead cpo just isn’t going to work.
Now there was and as TDC hasn’t even commissioned a site valuation so the basic time frame wouldn’t be affected, the alternative which is pressuring KCC into funding something aviation related at Manston based on historic aviation and heritage grant funding.
What surprises me is that with apparently so many airport supporters none of them seems to be pursuing this route.
Michael,
DeleteYou claim yet again, " I guess everyone has tried to find some verifiable connection between RiverOak and aviation..."
In this, Michael, you are begging the question [in its proper sense of assuming the conclusion of your argument from a false premise]. You do this often. It is a favourite technique of yours that is rarely spotted.
Never mind, you have demonstrated once again that your punters have no interest in art. So you stick up a post about Manston.
John, the premise is based on a prior understanding of the American media, so I am assuming that it wouldn’t be possible to be a significant financial player in major American airfreight hub without the media finding out and producing the inevitable internet trail.
DeleteBut then my motives are to try and point out pitfalls that may cause future financial difficulties for the council, and remember here that I am a council taxpayer and the potential for compensation claims related to any cpo would hang over the council for the next decade. So personal an pecuniary rather than aesthetic.
Anyway more to the point John, assuming like me you think the cpo is a dead duck, what about pursuing some alternate strategy for saving the aviation heritage aspects of Manston that could possibly work?
The aviation heritage etc is something of your own making that I for one have no idea what you're talking about. Nor if it would provide jobs. There is a heritage Spitfire museum there and it works through volunteers and grants and is unaffected anyway.
DeleteClearly a CPO has little chance of success and your farmers analogy explains it well. More so given it's not even an airport now - and was ignored by the Davies Commission on SE Aviation etc. While the DP plans are vague to say the least. And the real issue glossed over for any valuation/development at Manston is the existing contamination and aquifer....
Michael, [your 8:57 pm]
DeleteThere you go again begging the question. You have no cause to assume my opinion on a CPO. Though in fair fairness to you I must take into account that your silly assumption was an attempt at wit.
Michael, in fairness to yourself, I think you should ban comments like the above, which add nothing to the debate but personal abuse.
DeleteAnon,
DeleteMichael has the strength of character to allow comments that are critical of himself. This is something beyond your comprehension and explains why you hide your identity.
This has nothing to do with strength of character, but with gratuitous abuse, such as you display yet again with your "beyond your comprehension" jibe and your bizarre explanation for why I "hide" my identity. I have no wish to become a blog "celebrity", but believe comments are far more enjoyable without the put-downs.
DeleteAnon 2:07 pm,
DeleteOn the contrary it has everything to do with a strength of a character. However, I accept that you could never understand this.
You should also know that the circumstances of my postings are not dependent upon your approval.
I bow to your superiority.
Deletethe report for Cabinet will be here Friday http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=151&MId=3873&Ver=4
Deletemaybe save comments for tomorrow.
Apologies here John just got to the comments I approved with my mobile phone, which is a bit like trying to review my days senior moments fighting with technology designed for a different species.
DeletePerhaps I will do better with the semantics inherent in the comment you addressed to me, where you seem to be saying I am begging the question, What question? Was it my question? What do you think about the TDC cpo John? Or your question? Though I suppose if I was begging it you wouldn’t have asked it.
Then there is this business of me being funny. Thinking I am being funny when I am not actually being funny. Embarrassing or what?
Anyway as I said up this thread in the comment you first responded to: “put on one side for a moment whether or not you want to save the airport because whether or not you want to save it isn’t the issue here.” “The issue is can the airport be saved.”
Now John I am making the assumption that you would like to save the airport, correct me on this if I am wrong, then I am asking you to put this to one side and then I am asking you to consider if you think there is a viable way that aviation use of the airport could be attained and then maintained?
Of course you have experience in the public sector and may know something about the way cpo legislation works that I don’t and if this is the case then I don’t know it. Everything I can find out about it, from the information that the government has published, says that the TDC cpo is a dead duck, if it isn’t and you think it worth supporting, could you tell me why?
Michael,
DeleteI apologise for not making my point clearer and for having left you confused as a consequence. Let me try again. This is about my use of the term 'begging the question'. I was not using this term in its sometimes popular modern sense of 'prompting the question'. Rather I was using it in its traditional and more useful sense of:
Begging the question, or assuming the answer, is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion wasn't already assumed to be true.
I was applying this definition to your statements, “anyway more to the point John, assuming like me you think the cpo is a dead duck” and “I guess everyone has tried to find some verifiable connection between River Oak and aviation...". You have no definitive evidence to support either of these statements upon which you base your argument. You are therefore in my view begging the question.
You ask my for my thoughts on the use of a CPO. My thoughts are this. I know that the protagonists have taken and are guided by expert legal advice and have yet to reach a conclusion. I am not privy to this advice. Neither are you. Consequently, when you state unequivocally, as you have, that the TDC CPO is a dead duck and then go on to base your argument on this premise you are begging the question.
I do not overlook the possibility that the occasional wandering Councillor has strolled into your shop to tell you that the CPO is a dead duck. You subsequently repeat this opinion and if right it will make you look good, popularise your blog and help you sell more books. You are the very epitome of the small business man. As such I know that you vote Conservative, and that you will vigorously support them come the election. Furthermore, you believe that Will Scobie and Nigel Farage must be stopped at all costs if the small business man is to thrive. Or maybe I'm begging the question.
Or maybe you're lifting the definition, word for word, from RationalWiki!
DeleteJohn I guess confusion is my default state, however as you have now told me where I get my opinions from and how I vote I can feel the confused void opening up into a state of mental clarity which may be some sort of nirvana, at least blown away.
DeletePerhaps gone with the wind, anyway ‘fraid for me begging the question, remains just that and the question remains; do you think there is a viable way that aviation use of the airport could be attained and then maintained?
Obviously there are loads of clever people out there with opinions and obviously TDC will do what it will do, but the problem remains that I have made the assumption that you are a coherent airport supporter, therefore you must have some idea how the airport could be made to re open and made to stay open, so what is your own opionion on this?
Anon 10:26,
DeleteI was taught the meaning at school and later used it at work. I admit that on this occasion I lifted the definition from elsewhere in the knowledge that some others could explain it simpler than me. However, this has bearing no on the truth of the definition as I used it. I suspect that your vacuous comment is meant as an insult; but it is in truth you are saying nothing more that I learn from reading books. Which is an occupation that I commend to you.
Michael, Michael,
DeleteThere you go again, wriggling. You have made the assumption that I am an airport supporter, when all you know for certain is that I will not tell you.
You rightly say there there are loads of clever people out there. I will be guided by them.
There you go again, wriggling. You have made the assumption that I am an airport supporter, when all you know for certain is that I will not tell you.
DeleteYou rightly say there there are loads of clever people out there. I will be guided by them.
There you go again, wriggling. You have made the assumption that I am an airport supporter, when all you know for certain is that I will not tell you.
DeleteYou rightly say there there are loads of clever people out there. I will be guided by them.
Michael could it be that you are encountering John Holyer's tendency to ad hominem fallacy and Strawman argument ?
DeleteI wonder what central govt public strategic interest is in Manston's future ?
John one of those funny old things here, I thought you were for saving the airport because of all those comments you had made saying you were.
DeleteLTP just wondering if you really use phrases like ad hominem fallacy in ordinary conversation...
No Michael it is blog language mainly. Blogs like Slugger O'Toole moderate against ad hominem fallacy and also against "Whataboutery". And I don't think he is too keen on Strawman arguments. He seems very tolerant of comments drawing leads and testing the knowledge of other bloggers.
DeleteDo you stock Richard Cottrell (ex tory MEP) book "Gladio NATOs dagger at the heart of Europe". Reviewers say it is a bit light on evidence. It is already on order for us with Amazon I am afraid. But if it looks informative, re Thanet, I dare say it will be mentioned in one of your update emails.
Today by the way has seen already besieged PCC Ann Barnes subjected to a further complaint of Misconduct in Public Office.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteMichael,
DeleteI repeat: all you can know for certain is that I will not tell you.
Oh no cue months of Gladio and Thanet gun range conspiracies once Lyndon has read his book. Can the IRA and generators be worked into it maybe the Deal bombing too.
DeleteOm sorry you have been having difficulty commenting with your nom de blog.
ReplyDeleteOn the Manston front I think the council are committed to the stage that they are at and will have at least to go to either saying they have selected a preferred cpo funder or they haven’t. As far as I have been able to tell the first expensive stage, best part of 100k would be the independent site valuation, I don’t think this is something the council really want to do unless someone else has promised to fund it. There is also the issue that the valuation may have to be done anyway as part of completing their local plan. Either way until the valuation happens then I don’t really think the cpo process can be seen as underway and I don’t think the decision to select a funding partner is scheduled until December anyway.
My guess is that cabinet will send any decision on to full council in December, mainly so that it takes party politics out of the issue, supporting the Manston cpo against the discovery park proposals is moving from being a vote winner to a vote loser and when they aren’t sure then they tend to spread the load.
On the Pleasurama front, I would say that we are moving into a period where both the potential developer and the senior council officers are realising that the safety issues, particularly the cliff, have to be resolved before anything can go forward.
You don’t really need to be a civil engineer to see that no one is going to want to live under the portal part of the cliff façade, at the moment it has, visible damp patches on it, a considerable amount of cracks with vegetation including small bushes growing from them and worst of all a bulge that is getting bigger.
...............Purple Om
ReplyDeleteMichael these issues are very small to sort out it will take no more than a week in time and a few thousand pounds at most to rectify, a mere drop in the ocean compared to the tens of millions it will take to build.
Can anyone explain how it can cost tens of thousands of pounds to do a valuation?
ReplyDeleteI cant explain where the cash goes in doing a valuation but if the Dreamland CPO is anything to go by then its a time consuming and secretive process. Dreamland CPO started in 2011 and it was a year ago almost to the day that the final appeal was dismissed. In the meanwhile TDC has set monies aside based on their expert advice but they are still negotiating with the current owners. No doubt the current owners plans to develop the site and provide over 400 dwellings as well ad leisure and retail facilities has something to do with it. A lesson here for how long a Manston CPO would take and once Dreamland is settled how much it would cost.
Delete............... Purple Om
DeleteEven after a CPO by TDC and it would be by TDC it maybe funded by a partner but it will be sort by TDC making them liable for compensation for the next ten years if Gloag and Co are seen to be put out of pocket by any future development.
It sounds like the CPO process is a gravy train funded by the taxpayer. Surely the taxpayer should have a say?
DeletePurple Om is having trouble commenting because other bloggers have flagged his comments as spam!
ReplyDelete..........Purple Om
DeleteSeems a bit harsh to flag me as a ham product
I don't live in a tin.
Anyone know whats happening with Vista and Ramsgate Boulevard and the Port?
ReplyDeleteManston is on the agenda for Cabinet on the 16th October with the agenda already published on Thanet.gov.uk. The strange thing is the report on Manston seems to have been delayed as it normally gets published 7 days ahead of the meeting.
ReplyDeleteThey hope to get the report up today anon and if they do I will put up a post linking to it, the word on the street is that the officers are having problems putting together anything that would be something they could put forward as a credible reason for a cpo.
DeleteIt looks like the council have backed themselves into a corner on this one, the first stage ought to be a public consultation to show that they have a public mandate to proceed.
Obviously there can’t be any progressing a cpo without a valuation which would cost about 75 grand which the council don’t have and of course the discovery park has moved the goalposts
Stick with the two farmers analogy and you won’t be far off the problems the council face, if the say yes to a cpo, then they will be accused of turning down 4,000 jobs and if the say no to a cpo then there will be a lot of flack from sma, as I said no win.
They don’t actually have to have the report published 5 working days before the meeting as long as they say why it wasn’t published on time at the meeting.
I've spoken to a couple of Councillors and they seem somewhat bemused about it
DeleteIf there is a problem justifying the CPO, heads will have to roll. How can you have engaged in a prolonged campaign to identify an indemnity partner if there is no legal basis or rationale for a CPO? It isn't as if this couldn't have been predicted. Campaigners on the Manston Pickle site have been saying exactly this ever since the process started. A simple visit to m'learned friends would have settled the matter very quickly. This process has already cost tens of thousands of pounds of public money. It is difficult to be precise because the council is refusing to give a figure for how much officer time has been consumed. It is hard not to conclude that Ian Driver is right, and that councillors have kept this process running to try to curry favour with the electorate. If they've wasted large amounts of money and the process has to be curtailed anyway, they will incur the wrath of everybody; those for and those against. Those who voted for council to engage in identifying an indemnity partner should now be considering their positions.
DeleteI've spoken to 5 cllrs, 2 MPs and a judge, and they're all fine about it.
DeleteAnyone else find the idea of the Save Manston lot now wanting to cover the site in poppies rather disrespectful, given they only came up with the idea as an alternative to the yellow ribbons that are rightfully being removed ?
ReplyDeleteI think it is utterly disgusting that a campaign group can be allowed to hijack the emotional appeal of the poppy. It is particularly disturbing when you are able to read the abusive and threatening comments being made by these campaigners on their seemingly unregulated Facebook page. If it is true that the British Legion has sanctioned this, they should be ashamed of themselves.
ReplyDeletefunny they would think to do this with Nov 11 fast approaching. but then maybe anything goes nowadays.
ReplyDeletePlease direct me to any site/page by SMA, or others, that suggests that Manston should be covered in poppies. All I want to know is where this information can be found so that I may judge for myself the veracity of the statements made by two anons @ 8:49 pm and 10:02 pm. And a link to the page is required, not a statement that it can be found on "the SMA Facebook page" for example. Google is not being helpful to me in so far as a search for "Manston Poppies", "British Legion sanctions Manston Poppies" and variations on this theme, fail to find any mention of poppies at Manston.
ReplyDeleteOn the theme of poppies, it should be remembered that Manston has a proud history in WWII. I refer particularly to the men who took off in a snowstorm in Fairey Swordfish in February 1942 aircraft to tackle the might of the German navy.The fleet included the Battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and the Cruiser Prinz Eugen, protected by 6 Destroyers, 40 Flak Ships and more than 200 fighter aircraft. All of the Fairey Swordfish were destroyed and only 5 of the aircrew were rescued alive. A posthumous VC was awarded to Lieutenant Commander Eugene Esmonde. So in that respect poppies would be a fitting tribute to them, and others who served in the war years.
Posted on their Facebook page - "Margaret Sole -, we are not hijacking the poppy campaign for our own ends,We are doing it in honour of the brave servicemen & women who gave there lives for us in the wars. We have never done this before,which is very true,but our airport in a Battle of Britain Village has never been closed in 99 years.And apart from us all attending services in there honour, it is our way of showing our gratitude to them." and "Dot Favell - And for their information the poppies and red ribbons will be to honour the brave airmen who flew from Manston during both World wars plus those that lost their lives on the airfield itself. It will be a sign of remembrance and respect that we hope the multiple owners of Manston airport respect and honour"
DeletePut poppies at the Manston museums and memorials yes, but using them as a replacement for the yellow ribbons so that they can call anyone removing them disrespectful NO !
Thank you anon @ 11:47.
DeleteSeems reasonable enough to me, the important thing is that they CARE about a place that meant so much to previous generations in 2 world wars. Manston airport isn't another Pleasurama or Dreamland or Arlington. It saved lives, & many people lost lives while protecting US.
ReplyDeleteOnce the diggers move in to tear up the runway, poppies will grow in abundance on the overturned soil. I for one am supporting covering the airfield in poppies.
ReplyDeleteI agree: dig up the runway and plant poppies
ReplyDelete