Wednesday, 31 August 2016

Manston Airport DCO minor update

The planning inspectorate have published two new documents

Which says:-

“Enquiry received via email
Manston Airport

30 August 2016
We have comments, observations and complaints about the recent non-statutory consultation events held by RiverOak.
Advice given
In a previous response to some individuals, the Planning Inspectorate explained that a note of the meeting held with RiverOak on 19 July 2016 was being prepared and would published to our website in due course.

The note of that meeting has now been published and is available to view, here:

In the light of concern expressed by some members of the public in relation to the handling of personal data during recent non-statutory consultation events, the Inspectorate advises that in all cases it is the developer’s responsibility to ensure that the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 are satisfied.

Any concerns in respect of data handling could be brought to the attention of the Information Commissioners Office (

Which says:-

“Meeting note
File reference TR020002
Status Final
Author Callan Burchell
Date 19 July 2016
Meeting with RiverOak and Amec Foster Wheeler
Venue Temple Quay House, Bristol
Attendees Tony Freudmann – RiverOak
George Yerrall – RiverOak
Suzanne Burgoyne – Amec Foster Wheeler
Toby Gibbs – Amec Foster Wheeler
Susannah Guest – The Planning Inspectorate
Richard Hunt – The Planning Inspectorate
Callan Burchell – The Planning Inspectorate
Manston Airport - Project Update Meeting
Circulation All attendees

Summary of key points discussed and advice given:

The developer was reminded of the Planning Inspectorate’s openness policy that any
advice given will be recorded and published on the planning portal website under s51
of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011) (PA 2008) and that
any advice given does not constitute legal advice upon which the developer (or
others) can rely.

Introductions were made by everyone present, and individual roles were explained.
The Planning Inspectorate advised that it would not be possible to comment on the
potential outcome of the ongoing s53 authorisation request relating to site access by
the developer and scoping processes. Any discussions during the meeting would be
undertaken on a without prejudice basis to those ongoing processes. The Scoping
Opinion would be based on information received as part of the Scoping Request and
from statutory consultees only.

Summary of key points discussed and advice given:

Project Update

The developer (RiverOak) provided a general update on the progress of the scheme
since the previous meeting. In summary, the developer noted that they have recently
conducted non-statutory consultation events at six venues in the area and RiverOak
reported a high number of attendees across these events. The developer provided a
broad outline of the matters discussed over the course of these early consultation
events both in the context of expressions of support and issues raised in respect of,
for example, flight paths, night flights, height of hangars, visual impact, local road
impact, noise, pollution and compensation/mitigation. The developer explained that
the consultation period for these consultations would run until the end of 5 September
2016 and noted their intention to publish the results.

The Planning Inspectorate made the developer aware of correspondence it had been
receiving that highlighted some observations and concerns about the recent nonstatutory
consultation events; the Inspectorate provided a sample of correspondence
and confirmed that they would be providing advice to individuals to encourage them
to make RiverOak directly aware of the comments. The Planning Inspectorate asked
what the role of Save Manston Airport (SMA) Group was during such events. The
developer explained that some members of the group had volunteered to assist. The
developer stated that statutory consultations will be co-ordinated by an external
consultant. The meeting discussed and agreed the significance of ensuring that
information/data is clearly managed as part of the statutory consultation process.
The Planning Inspectorate questioned what lessons have been learnt from the recent
non-statutory consultation events. The developer noted that that they have developed
further understanding of how they will draft their Statement of Community
Consultation (SoCC), and additionally noted understanding of how it will be used for
future statutory consultation events.

The Planning Inspectorate queried the progress of engagement for the proposed
project. The developer informed the Inspectorate that there have been additional
meetings with Kent County Council; however, there have been no further meetings
with Thanet District Council. The developer indicated that no further discussions have
been scheduled with environmental bodies and other key stakeholders until the
Scoping Opinion had been issued.
Section 53 and site access

The developer queried the likely timeframe regarding a decision on the Section 53
request. The Planning Inspectorate highlighted that there is no prescribed statutory
timeframe within which the Planning Inspectorate must determine the Section 53

The developer asked whether there are any Section 53 requests that have been
determined based on their timeframe of dialogue with the existing landowner. The
Inspectorate referenced Advice Note series five: Section 53: Rights of Entry, where it
states that the developer must demonstrate why they consider that they have been
unreasonably refused access, given the timeframe to reach an agreement with the

Scoping Report

The Planning Inspectorate requested further information on matters relating to the
Scoping Report. In summary, the Planning Inspectorate requested further information
such as the location of the proposed fuel farm, consultation since submission, noise
measurements and abbreviations list.

he Inspectorate queried the location of the proposed and original infilled fuel farms.

The developer informed the Inspectorate that the proposed fuel farm will replace the
previously used farm when the airport was in full operation. The developer stated that
the original infilled fuel farm was located to the north of the B2050 Manston Road.
The Inspectorate asked the developer whether there has been further consultation
with Southern Water regarding deep pilling since the Scoping Report was submitted.
The developer noted no further discussions have taken place regarding these matters
due to no site access and that it was unclear whether deep piling would be required.
The Inspectorate queried whether the developer had developed their discharge
consent, and whether there is an indication of how much of the existing site can be
used. The developer highlighted that no further information was available on these
matters due to no site access.

The Inspectorate questioned whether there will be residual waste recycling on site and
what method of recycling will be used. The developer noted that they are in
discussions with a German recycling firm who specialize in recycling all materials used
from planes. The Inspectorate queried whether existing buildings would be
demolished. The developer stated that the requirement to demolish buildings would
be dependent on their condition and that this would need to be established once site
access had been achieved.

The Inspectorate asked whether the southern rail access could be used during
construction for the transportation of materials to, and from the site. The developer
noted that a rail siding had previously been used to import fuel to the airport but is
not part of the proposed scheme.
The Planning Inspectorate sought clarification on the following abbreviations:
• FBO – Fixed Base Operations
• NDB – Non-Directional Beacon
• DME – Distance Measuring Equipment
• VDF – Very High Frequency Direction Finder
• ADF – Automatic Direction Finder

The Planning Inspectorate queried whether the developer had given any consideration
to carbon footprinting on the proposed scheme. The developer noted that they will be
conducting studies on carbon footprinting as part of the EIA process. Additionally
they noted that some within the airport industry were currently considering carbon
neutral airports.

The developer highlighted that their Red Line Boundary is likely to change.
Specific decisions / follow up required

• Agree date for next Project Progress Update Meeting.”

The back of the postcard above
A busy day in my bookshop today see so no time to write anything about the new documents.


  1. Most interesting part of that is near the very end

    "The developer highlighted that their Red Line Boundary is likely to change."

    More or less land needed. Or is the red boundary wrong in the first place?

  2. I must say that imho, the most interesting part was looking at the postcard and then reading the message on it.

  3. The writer uses stuffy English for example using 'queried' instead of the simpler 'asked' and 'noted' instead of 'said'. I often find that people do this in the mistaken belief that it will add gravity to their writing. They're wrong. Plain simple English is always best. The entire summary could be reduced to one short paragraph.

  4. The writer uses stuffy English for example using 'queried' instead of the simpler 'asked' and 'noted' instead of 'said'. I often find that people do this in the mistaken belief that it will add gravity to their writing. They're wrong. Plain simple English is always best. The entire summary could be reduced to one short paragraph.


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.