RiverOak have announced that the statutory consultation
which is the 2nd stage of the pre application process of a DCO will
now be delayed.
It was to have been held in the last quarter of 2016 they
now say they expect it to be held in the first quarter of 2017.
Here is the link to the news release on their website http://www.riveroakinvestments.co.uk/consultation-feedback-shows-overwhelming-support-manston-airport-dco-proposals/
The initial stages of a DCO are:
1 Informing the planning inspectorate that the developer
intends to summit a DCO – this RiverOak have done.
2 Statutory public consultation – this RiverOak haven’t
done.
3 Submitting the application – obviously they haven’t done
this either.
What they did do was to inform the planning inspectorate
they intended to submit an application and then engage in an informal
unregulated non-statutory consultation which isn’t a normal part of the
application process.
As you see from the press release they also say that the
informal unregulated non-statutory consultation was successful.
Nothing new has appered on the planning inspectorate website
since last month. see
The latest document to appear there is this one https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR020002/TR020002-Advice-00024-1-160719_Manston%20Airport%20Project%20Update%20Meeting_Final.pdf
The site owners are still working towards their mixed use
(housing and Jobs) development, here is their website http://www.stonehillpark.co.uk/
Looking at the various websites here and the Facebook groups
of those for and against building an airfreight hub at Manston it’s fairly
difficult to tell what the support for this project is really like locally.
The night flights issue is a good example of the problem,
RiverOak seem to be saying that there would be less than 18 night flights a
night under their proposals, but don’t seem to be giving either an expected or
maximum number.
Anyway the do now seem to be saying that they will start the
statutory and regulated consultation by the end of March 2017 and that they
will eventually respond to people like me who endeavoured to engage in their
informal unregulated non-statutory consultation.
On to the local pictures, once again nothing very unusual
but where there is something written on the back I have included it.
The bookshop here in Ramsgate is still steaming away, here
is the link to the books we put out today http://michaelsbookshop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/breezing-down-to-broadstairs-in-bookshop.html
the normal lull after the school holidays doesn’t seem to have happened.
I am coming to the conclusion that this is mostly down to
the internet having shot itself in the foot to some extent, from my own point
of view, several of the important publications that I used to use online have vanished
or become so hard to find that I can’t and have given up and bought them.
This is an excerpt from an email from BDB when they were asked to confirm receipt of a feedback form submitted at one of the events.
ReplyDelete"Many thanks for your continued interest in the project and for coming along to the informal consultation we held in Broadstairs in July. We received over 800 responses and now that the consultation has closed we are considering this feedback as part of the development of our proposals. We are very appreciative of the time and effort that people have taken to get involved.
Unfortunately, after reviewing all the response forms and visitors books we can find no record of your submission"
So to make it plain feedback was given yet BDB say the form wasn't included in the 800 forms they received from the pre-consultations.
Now oddly the consultations were manned by Pro-Manston stalwarts who handled all the forms.
Funny that someone against the airport's form goes missing but then it should have been manned by neutrals and not those with a vested interest in the outcome of the consultation.
Barry, You are dissembling. You omitted a key part of the RO statement concerning this alleged missing submission. The complainant received the following reply, " We are aware of one resident who informed Bircham Dyson Bell that a response was submitted following attendance at an informal consultation event. However, as has been explained to them directly, Bircham Dyson Bell cannot trace this submission. To ensure this resident’s views are included, we offered to accept a further response from them and treat it as if it was submitted during the consultation period, and we await this."
DeleteBarry, Why did you leave this bit out?
ah but what happened to it and possibly others seems to be a mystery. Strange that SMA members collected them at the consultations. I wonder how many other feedback forms against their plans went missing?
DeleteIts like putting Robin Hood in charge of the transporting takings to the bank
Ah Barry, You are a mischief maker are you not. Let's see your evidence, Barry. Of course you have none. For you just making it up as you go along. Trouble is Barry that you judge others by your own standard. But you are right, they are all out to get you.
DeleteInteresting points from a retired diplomat. You think it appropriate that SMA handle the meet and greet at an alleged consultation? I have noticed you insult without providing any input of your own. This is called an "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" Now if only you learnt alternate ways to debate you might find people engaging with you
DeleteBut, Barry, you always engage with me.
DeleteBarry, I simply asked you to produce evidence of any wrongdoing. You have not done so. Instead you bluster.
You are obsessed with my former occupation. I find that odd.
SMA providing meeters and greeters at a consultation is morally wrong. Consultations by their very nature should be managed by unconnected media companies. Obsessed what a strange use of the English language.
DeleteI see. So now, Barry, you are posing as the guardian of our morals.
DeleteI chose the word 'obsessed' because in this context it described you perfectly. It still does.
My you are funny.
DeleteMorals are learnt whereas the behaviour of SMA supporters is well documented. I am surprised you are on their side rather than condemning their actions.
A very strange way to engender support for the cause
Barry, I'm sorry to say that your post is nebulous and as such does not warrant a reply.
Delete