The
Planning Inspectorate have just published the account of their meeting with RiverOak
about the Development Consent Order (DCO)
I
have copied the whole thing below, in blue.
“File reference Status
Final Author Rachel Gaffney Date 05/01/2016 Meeting with RiverOak and Bircham
Dyson Bell Venue Temple Quay House, Bristol Attendees RiverOak: Tony Freudmann,
Niall Lawlor
Bircham Dyson Bell:
Angus Walker, Tom Henderson
The Planning
Inspectorate: Susannah Guest (Infrastructure Planning Lead), David Price (EIA
Manager), Richard Price (Case Manager), Rachel Gaffney (Assistant Case
Officer), Nicola Mathiason (Lawyer) Meeting objectives
Project inception
meeting
Circulation All
Attendees
Summary of key points
discussed and advice given: The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate)
explained its openness policy and its statutory duty to publish any advice
issued under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) to its website. Any
advice issued under s51 would not constitute legal advice upon which the attendees,
or others, could rely.
RiverOak
provided a brief introduction and background to the scheme. Manston Airport was
fully operational up until 15 May 2014, until this date the airport’s operation
was covered by the relevant Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) licence. RiverOak
indicated that in November 2013, the airport had been purchased by Ann Gloag
(co- founder of Stagecoach) and subsequently closed. There had been no
operation on site since May 2014.
RiverOak
noted that it was their intention to reopen the airfield and redevelop elements
that are in a current state of disrepair. RiverOak stated that the revised
business strategy for Manston Airport would primarily focus on increased cargo
capacity. RiverOak also suggested that there may be potential for alternative
aeronautical operations including some passenger capacity at a later stage.
RiverOak stated their assertion that the proposals for Manston Airport would
constitute a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) in accordance
with the Planning Act 2008. RiverOak provided a brief overview of their
indicative development proposals which could include: increased parking for
aircraft; altering taxiways; construction of a new control tower; facilities
for handling cargo and the inspection of the goods coming
in
and out; construction of office space; runway lighting; radar; and fencing.
RiverOak suggested there would be enough physical space on site for these
alterations as the site is 680 acres. RiverOak confirmed that the one fixed
feature of the site is the 2,750m long runway.
The
Inspectorate explored how the indicative development proposal relates to s23
PA2008. In particular the discussion focussed on the provisions of s23(1) and
whether the proposal would be considered a construction or alteration project
and from what starting point the developer would consider the proposals were
having the effect of increasing air transport movements of cargo. RiverOak
indicated that the previous capacity of Manston Airport was in the region of
2,000 air transport movements of cargo aircraft per year (approximate 3 planes
in and out per day). RiverOak outlined their current calculations whereby
proposed air transport movements of cargo would satisfy the threshold
requirements outlined in PA2008 (for example in s23(5)(b)).
The reference to
‘capable’ in, for example, PA2008 s23(5) was noted and discussed. The
provisions of PA2008 s35 were also noted.
RiverOak
discussed the current state of the site and the assets that had been removed
since its closure as an operational airport in May 2014, noting for example,
runway lighting, instrument landing system and the fire station. RiverOak
provided a brief overview of the discussions undertaken with the current owner
of the site and subsequently with Thanet District Council with a view to the
authority acquiring the site via a Compulsory Purchase Order.
The
Inspectorate enquired about the planning history of the site and RiverOak noted
some planning applications for change of use by the current owners. RiverOak
anticipated that an application for the Stone Hill Park development would be
submitted later in 2016.
The
Inspectorate enquired about the relevant policy background for such a scheme.
RiverOak outlined that whilst the Thanet Local Plan refers to Manston Airport,
it recently expired. The Government’s announcement in respect of the drafting
of an Aviation National Policy Statement was noted, and its relative timing in
respect of an anticipated submission date for this proposal was subsequently
discussed.
RiverOak
explained that there was an extant s106 agreement dating from 2001 that covered
matters such as opening hours and a curfew for aircraft flying from Manston
Airport between 2300 until 0700. Under that s106 it was highlighted by RiverOak
that there are currently no restrictions on numbers of aircraft flying to and
from the airport. The use and relationship of s106 documents with the
Development Consent Order (DCO) process and any appropriate requirements
included within a DCO was noted by the Inspectorate.
The
key highways surrounding the site were discussed, including the A299, the
dualling of the route from the M2 to the Channel Tunnel and local B roads.
RiverOak indicated that once detailed master planning had taken place this
might provide a clearer indication of what road improvements would be
incorporated as part of the airport proposals.
An indicative redline
boundary was discussed. RiverOak consider the land within such an indicative
redline boundary is under single ownership. It was noted that former
RAF housing was located
to the north of the scheme. This housing is still occupied and is located just
outside the indicative red line boundary.
RiverOak
indicated that there was local public support for the proposals and suggested
that there had been support from Members of Parliament for the re-opening of
Manston Airport. CAA licences were discussed and RiverOak explained that
licences are post-holder specific and a formal application would be required.
RiverOak confirmed its intention that the Manston Airport scheme would be
planned and developed to the satisfaction of CAA standards.
Controlling
airspace was discussed. RiverOak noted that Manston Airport is outside of the
London airspace boundary (London TMA) and therefore a different management
process is used compared to that of London airspace. RiverOak indicated that
airspace for Manston Airport is capped by physical slots.
There
was discussion regarding the possibility that a s53 application could be needed
regarding gaining access to the site. The Inspectorate noted their Advice Note
for further information and advice regarding s53 applications.
The
future timetable for the scheme was discussed. RiverOak stated it would
prioritise a review of its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) data; some of
which is available from 2014 when the airport was last open. PINS discussed the
likely timescales for submission of an EIA scoping opinion request and the
approach to establishing the baseline for assessment. RiverOak confirmed that
an EIA would be prepared and that a scoping opinion will be sought. RiverOak
stated that the precise timescales would be agreed at a later date and
following the appointment of appropriate consultants. However, it was indicated
that the request would be made as promptly as possible. PINS did advise careful
consideration of the timing of the request in order for the scoping opinion.
RiverOak
indicated a likely submission date of Q4 2016. The Inspectorate advised that
this was a tight timeframe particularly with regard to environmental survey
information and noted the risk that if sufficient preparatory work wasn’t
completed during the Pre-application stage (including considering the scheme in
sufficient detail) this could impact significantly during both the Acceptance
and Examination proceedings if the application was accepted.
Specific decisions /
follow up required?
-
The Inspectorate to create a project webpage.
-
-
- A further meeting to be arranged for February 2016.
-
-
- Monthly update on
progress of the scheme; face-to-face or via telecon.”
Whichever side of the
Manston issue you are on this is an important document mainly because it gives
us some insight into the future of the Manston site.
The main issue with
Manson as an airport was and will be environmental, when Manston was functioning
as an airport it failed to obtain an environmental permit (EP) from the
environment agency. This was essentially because the various previous airport
operators managed to avoid the expensive work that needed doing.
When the airport was up
and running I didn’t really have any objections to it’s operation apart from
this business of operating without an EP, my take being that airports should
conform to safety standards set by government agencies.
Anyway it looks like the first stage will be an Environmental Impact Assessment and a local consultation, with the results being put to planning inspectorate some time around the end of the year.
Could it also be argued that the C,D,E population demographics resident in Thanet are more likely to smoke and as this contributes to 80% of all cases of COPD then the answer may well lie there and not elsewhere?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kpho.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/44126/COPD.compressed.pdf
Sorry crutchm1962 I delete Richard Card's comments without reading them, so replying to them leaves you with a meaningless comment. Generally they don't relate in any meaningful way to the post and are just spam to promote his own agenda
Delete