Thursday, 1 June 2017

Cry — Freight for Manston! England and Saint George!

Interesting response on Facebook to yesterdays post about election candidates views on the future of Manston from Stuart Piper the UKIP candidate I have copied it from the Friends of Ramsgate Seafront Page.





Thanet South Labour and Conservative hopefuls on Manston. , plus out and about photos in Ramsgate.
This photo is of the restoration of St George’s Church tower Ramsgate in 1907, which when they put the letters around the top. I...
THANETONLINE.BLOGSPOT.COM

LikeShow more reactions
Comment
Comments
Stuart Piper Whendid the boundary change come in then?

LikeShow more reactions
Reply22 hrs
Michael Child Mornin Stuart what do you think about Manston having an airfreight hub in the light of the recent discoveries related to particulates? Here is the answer to your question http://thanetonline.blogspot.co.uk/.../north-and-south...



North and South Thanet constituency boundary changes
The map above shows the constituency boundaries at…
THANETONLINE.BLOGSPOT.COM

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview14 hrs
Stuart Piper Indeed they were in 2010. The new boundary changes are not due until next year I thought you were referring to those changes.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply12 hrs
Michael Child Nope only the only the one that affects this election, the 2018 changes are the big ones, putting Manston in the same constituency as Whitstable. Any chance of an answer on the Manston particulates issue?

LikeShow more reactions
Reply12 hrs
Stuart Piper Big Issue Manston. The Council has a duty to achieve the best outcome it can for the people of Thanet. The particulates will form part of that discussionif and when flying resumes. There is more than one option on the table at the moment. My position as it stands at the moment is as I wrote for the press...There is still a very high level of interest in the future of the Manston Airport site.
The Job of the District Council is to use all the experience and resources at its disposal, to act within the law to bring about the best solution for the people of Thanet.
My view is that the best outcome would be to have a mixed aviation use airport that included some freight, passenger flights, training flights, light aircraft and helicopters; vintage military aircraft and maybe even micro-lites. 
The airfield has that kind of potential with the right investment and development. Such an airport would create hundreds of jobs for local people and engineering apprenticeships working with our local colleges and universities.
I have seen first-hand how hard the leadership have tried to fulfil our election pledge and am also aware that our two former MP’s celebrated in the local press having cut all ties with the Council which has meant we have had no help from them at all. One claimed to have solved the issue with his hugely successful 5 point plan. That and other 5 point plans came to nothing.
We proceed with cautious optimism, determined to do our best and not to leave Thanet bereft of investment and job creation and definitely not with a huge debt to pay because we acted foolishly.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply12 hrs
Michael Child My own take is that the fear of aircraft noise pollution has resulted in very little criticism of the environmental impact of the DP plans for light industry on the aquifer from the usual suspects. This seems to be resulting in the DP plans being likely to be turned down by a pro airport council the passed by the planning inspectorate, which would probably mean no tough s106.

I don’t think there is any serious issue with planes that run on avgas, but experiments on running jets on something that doesn’t pump out particulates are not going well at the moment.

RO plans for burning 10,000 tonnes of jet fuel on ground movements pa seem to equate to killing around 2,000 people in Ramsgate and particularly Broadstairs and giving about 700 dementia. It’s a lot of constituents to wipe out.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply11 hrs
Stuart Piper RO is just one option. Their figures have yet to be properly assessed and so most of the speculation is as it says on the tin. I believe there is a sensible option to retain flying but it depends on the investors and the owners.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply11 hrs
Stuart Piper Ramsgate people must certainly not be excluded form the impact assessments that's for sure. I did not like the effort in the consultation from RO. It needs to be more encompassing.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply11 hrs
Carole Copeland As there are 7 more consultations coming up Stuart you can ask those questions can't you.

Like
Reply
2
3 hrs
Stuart Piper Absolutely we can.

Like
Reply3 hrs


Michael Child the 10k figure is the minimum criteria for a cpo and therefore not exclusive to RO and of course and cpo by tdc would have to jump through similar hoops

LikeShow more reactions
Reply11 hrs
Michael Child sorry any not and

LikeShow more reactions
Reply11 hrs
Stuart Piper The 10,000 is for DCO via RSP. A CPO has no lower limit . It would be entirely flexible by the investor. CPO poss 2 Years. DCO poss 5 years Direct buy out a few months.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply10 hrs
Michael Child sorry about the delay replying Stuart Whitstable and Canterbury with three of my children so not much time for anything. With a cpo the council would have to make a compelling case in the public interest and I don't think a level of use that didn't kill a substantial number of Broadstairs residents would go through the hoops.

Like
Reply2 hrs
Stuart Piper I understand what you are saying Michael. The main difference for me is that IF there is to be aviation, a CPO has no lower limit for flights thus the environmental impact would be lower than a DCO which does.

Like
Reply20 mins
Michael Child Stuart my preferred option when Manston went on the market was trying to get hlf to achieve a tourist attraction based around expanding the two museums and achieving a major centre for historic aviation. My take being that Infratil would have accepted tdc offering to take on the closure liabilities.

Manston was on the market for several years at an ever decreasing price as its losses became an embarrassment in their accounts. The initial stage of this would have been petitioning the council, using their petitions scheme, on the future of the airport.

I tried to push this sort of approach through the saga until DP bought it, but making a case against much needed jobs and housing seems to be very difficult.
LikeShow more reactions
ReplyJust now
The photos are of St George’s Church crypt Ramsgate 























Click on this link for the latest arrivals in the bookshop
Posted by at
Labels:

4 comments:

  1. John HolyerJune 02, 2017 8:50 am

    Michael you say "Cry — Freight for Manston! England and Saint George!" I'm relieved to see that now at last you support RSP's proposals for Manston Airport. For as you know there is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures. Good to have you on board, Michael.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael ChildJune 02, 2017 10:26 am

    John my support for Manston would be for a regional passenger airport with a strong emphasis on historic aviation focused on the existing museums there. My support for killing local people by ignoring the conclusions of scientific and engineering research related to fuel and aviation that has occurred since the airport closed, suggests an organisation that doesn't understand the basics of transport related engineering. Not something I would want involved in any form of commercial transport.

    Take pity of your town, and of your people,
    Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
    Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
    O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
    Of deadly murder, spoil, and villainy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John HolyerJune 02, 2017 2:38 pm

    Oh dear

    ReplyDelete
  4. CheggersJune 20, 2017 2:48 pm

    Stuart Piper is wrong about there being no lower limit for a DCO. The DCO can only proceed if the airport proposal is deemed to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). The definition of this in respect of airports is a minimum of 10,000 movements per year. That's why RSP has used the figure of 10,000 in its outline plans; not because they have a single operator lined up, nor because this figure would make the airport profitable. They are simply quoting the figure they have to quote to have any chance of the DCO succeeding. I didn't like Mr. Piper's response to the question of particulates, either. He said that the council would deal with this if and when aviation starts up again. Well that's far too late to think about the environmental impact. It's all very well riling the mob up by pronouncing that you support a new airport at Manston, but people in positions of authority should by making sure they fully understand the consequences of decisions they might have to make before they make them.

    ReplyDelete

Comments, since I started writing this blog in 2007 the way the internet works has changed a lot, comments and dialogue here were once viable in an open and anonymous sense. Now if you comment here I will only allow the comment if it seems to make sense and be related to what the post is about. I link the majority of my posts to the main local Facebook groups and to my Facebook account, “Michael Child” I guess the main Ramsgate Facebook group is We Love Ramsgate. For the most part the comments and dialogue related to the posts here goes on there. As for the rest of it, well this blog handles images better than Facebook, which is why I don’t post directly to my Facebook account, although if I take a lot of photos I am so lazy that I paste them directly from my camera card to my bookshop website and put a link on this blog.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)