The planning inspectorate have published two new documents
Which says:-
“Enquiry received via email
Manston Airport
30 August 2016
Various
Enquiry
“
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:
https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR020002/TR020002-Advice-00024-1-160719_Manston%20Airport%20Project%20Update%20Meeting_Final.pdf
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 (https://ico.org.uk/).
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
Meeting
objectives
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
request.
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
landowner.
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 http://michaelsbookshop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/railway-mania-in-bookshop.html
so no time to write anything about the new documents.
Most interesting part of that is near the very end
ReplyDelete"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?
I must say that imho, the most interesting part was looking at the postcard and then reading the message on it.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
ReplyDelete