So here are some of them
TDC Thanet District Council
Text version
NNF No Night Flights
Text version
SHP Stone Hill Park
Text version
RTC Ramsgate Town Council
http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/v82017/id10.htm
CPRE Campaign for Rural England
https://cprekent.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Manston-Statutory-Consultation-July-2017-CPRE-Kent-response.pdf
Text version
http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/v82017/id13.htm
Ramsgate Society
http://www.ramsgate-society.org.uk/ramsgatematters/index.php/component/jdownloads/send/1-root/22-rsp-consultation-response
Text version
http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/v82017/id12.htm
CPRE Campaign for Rural England
https://cprekent.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Manston-Statutory-Consultation-July-2017-CPRE-Kent-response.pdf
Text version
http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/v82017/id13.htm
Ramsgate Society
http://www.ramsgate-society.org.uk/ramsgatematters/index.php/component/jdownloads/send/1-root/22-rsp-consultation-response
Text version
http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/v82017/id12.htm
If you send me your response or a link to where an
organisations response is published online I will add it. In a general sense I
prefer not to add the response of private individuals without their consent
although will publish those that are on publicly available websites. My email
address is michaelchild@aol.com
My own response is at
and my blog posts about the consultation at
At the beginning of the week I thought I would do a post
summarising the main responses to the rsp/Riveroak statutory consultation, this
was altogether a strange business as when I tried to find responses supporting
the consultation I just couldn’t find any published anywhere online.
After various fails with websearch I posted on the Save
Manston Airport and Manston Airport Loud Hailer Facebook groups asking where
the responses were, no one on either group managed to find any response
supporting the DCO.
My intention was to try to find the various responses and
link them to this post which is tagged and link to my other posts about the
consultation, the main reason for this is so I can find them later for the next
stage in the DCO process.
Technically an issue is Facebook, which is where most of the
individuals responses can be found online but Facebook isn’t searchable in the
way a conventional website is, another aspect with Facebook is that much of
what is published there is visible to some peole but not others.
There are also issues where responses are published on the
internet as downloadable pdf files instead of as text and images within a
conventional html webpage.
In the cases where the response isn’t presented as a
conventional webpage open to anyone using the internet and free of advertising
I have also published the text only part of the response. This should be
particularly useful if you are trying to read the thing on you mobile with a
weak signal or trying to search for words in the document by press Ctrl and F
then putting the word in the box that comes up.
The snag is that the pictures and diagrams won’t show
properly.
In terms of the consultation itself there is a fairly largeconsensus of opinion that aspects of it were flawed, something that appears to
have stretched the pins resources because if trying to deal with the
correspondence about this.
My take at the moment is that there are several
possibilities.
1 is that rsp will submit the DCO
Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning
Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to
determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination.
a If the application progresses to Examination, the process
then asks people to register as an ‘Interested Party’ with the Planning Inspectorate
by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This
Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during
the Examination period.
I think this is what people are talking about when they say
another consultation period.
b if pins reject it I think that is essentially the end of
it.
2 is that rsp withdraw the application, I think this would
leave them in a postion to resubmit it at a later date.
I am mentioning 2 as it doesn’t look as though aspects of
the consultation, especially the way the documentation was presented digitally conformed to the application rules.
Michael, You claim that "In terms of the consultation itself there is a fairly large consensus of opinion that aspects of it were flawed". Do you have evidence to support your claim. I could just as easily say that there is a fairly large consensus of opinion that Micheal Child is spinning this story on behalf of a vested venal interest.
ReplyDeleteWho is feeding you this stuff. It is not all your own work.
Thanks for pointing out that I hadn’t provided any citation for “fairly large consensus of opinion” John. I have made the phrase, where it appears in the post, work as a link to the part of the pins website I based this on. There is several pages of it and I have only linked to the first one.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if you attended any of the consultations, I went to the Canterbury one and frankly the environmental reps didn’t have a reasonable grasp of what was written in their own document. I also went to the Ramsgate one as I thought there could be different reps there who could answer some of the questions but it was just completely overcrowded, so I gave up and went away.
I think you can take it that I have read the documents on the rsp and pins websites so it is Riveroak Strategic Partners and The Planning Inspectorate feeding me this stuff.
Michael,
DeleteYou are spinning your figures in the mischievous belief that this will advance your purpose to bring down RSP. Your case against RSP is thin. You must surely know this. So what are you up to.
Is it then truly case that the evidence alone leads you to conclude that RSP is not the right solution for Manston. Or is it that you are against RSP for some arcane purpose, and that you are scratching around desperately searching for evidence to support your endeavour. I am convinced it has to be the latter. In which case what is the real reason why you are so against the RSP plan for Manston. Who knows. Though I cannot overlook the possibility that you are in thrall to some venal interest that is seeking to grab Manston for themselves. Perhaps they intend to build houses, thousands of them. This will increase traffic pollution. Though this can be set aside bearing in mind that people in houses buy books.
Michael, there are many of us who agree that the evidence alone suggests RSP is not the right solution for Manston. And no, I have no "arcane purpose" or "venal interest" - nor do I own a bookshop.
ReplyDeleteJimmy Beaumont, And there are many of us who disagree with you.
DeleteUntil RSP can provide evidence that they have the funds or the means to raise the funds then their case is not just thin its non existent. Obviously they must have details of just how much the purchase of the land will cost, the investment needed, the compensation costs and from whom they they are to raise these sums. Until they do this nobody is going to believe that they are in a position to run an airport and are not just trying a land grab.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest puzzle in all this is why Riveroak Investment Inc pulled out if it is such a good opportunity?
cranforduk, You are ill informed. You have done nothing more than accuse RSP of being a bunch of crooks. Presumably, you are judging them by your own standards.
Deletecranforduk. With your comment you have done nothing more than accuse RSP of being a bunch of crooks. Presumably you are judging RSP by your own standards.
ReplyDeleteSo tell me John, where I can read information about RSP financial standing just like I can find out that for example that the Manchester Airport Group have total assets of £3.3 billion.
ReplyDeleteCranforduk,
DeleteI have discovered the information by the simple process of talking and listening to RSP. Might I suggest that you do the same. RSP are unlikely to consult you at their every turn. Whatever you choose to do all will be revealed by the Inspector during the DCO process. You will understand when I say that I will trust the Inspector's informed judgement rather than your supposition.
I suggest you read section 1 of the SHP submission of which there is a link above. RSP have not addressed the funding issue let alone the compensation issue.
DeleteAt this stage RSP do not have to disclose whom their investors are. As long as they can prove that they have the backers as time proceeds through the DCO progress this will be fine. RSP DO NOT and did not have to disclose this information to TDC or the general public. Further: Might I ask, have SHP disclosed if they personally can afford to build the 2500 homes or will they be using backers. If using backers whom are they and what financial standing do they have. ?
DeleteTrouble Maker, Precisely, as you say. Thank you.
DeleteJimmy Beaumont,
ReplyDeleteAre you able to say why you appear so set against a Manston airport; and if not an airport then what?
Are you able to say on what you base your conclusion that I am set set against a Manston airport?
DeleteI am against RSP's proposals, for largely the same reasons as Michael.
I am also against unpleasant belittling of the enormous amount of research he has put in.
Jimmy Beaumont,
DeleteI am correct in inferring that your sole objection is to RSP acquiring the airport.
In my view if someone posts an opinion on here then they become fair game. I am sure the poster will expect some people to disagree with them and challenge their opinion. You call this belittling. I find that a curious stance. You have presumed to take offence on behalf of another. Why is that, I wonder. You have adopted the tone of a snowflake; acting as a commissar of emotional correctness.
This is were we disagree. Opinions are there to be challenged, but I do not find it acceptable to regard the people who hold them as "fair game". I have no idea what your final sentence means.
Deletecranforduk,
ReplyDeleteAre you able to say why you appear so set against a Manston airport; and if not an airport then what?
John, Noise and air pollution from a cargo hub. Now answer my previous question if you can please..
ReplyDeletecranforduk,
DeleteRSP have answered the past and future funding question to my satisfaction. Though clearly not yours. You have previously labelled RSP as a bunch of crooks.
John so your buddies RSP have told you and possibly nobody else that they have the funds. Their overview document also says this.
DeleteAll I want to know is where can I find documented evidence. I never said they were a bunch of crook so don't put words into my mouth.
Maybe you can tell us what they told you about their finances and how much they have and where it is.
They may be the unacceptable face of business and their number includes a struck off solicitor but I never said they were crooks.
cranforduk:
DeleteWith regard to documentary proof of their finances RSP have told Companies House. They will in due course tell all to the DCO Inspector.
As for the rest of your comment I suggest you tell RSP what you have said or claim not to have said. .
I am trying knocking off comment moderation as the spam is very low at the moment and it should mean that people’s comments appear straight away.
ReplyDeleteFrom the comments here and on places where I put the info on Facebook, it looks to me as though the main issue is between hearsay and what is actually in written on the rsp, dsp, pins and so on websites.
There is a sinking feeling associated with this that I sometimes get in the bookshop, this is associated with discussing a book with someone who hasn’t actually read it, they have:- seen the film, read the review, talked to someone else who has read it, even studied it for an exam. Later the have somehow deceived themselves into thinking this is the same as having read the book.
As the rsp documentation states quite clearly that a freight hub compliant with DCO acceptance would kill an unspecified number of local people, I am inclined to draw historic parallels with individuals that didn’t read the small print relating to any minor genocides that were part of the package to improve employment and raise living standards.
When you register a UK company you do not have to prove its funding.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment if you look at RSP on the companies house website you can see exactly how much the company is worth as they have never published any accounts ------- £1.00
Just gone through the comments and replies, I should add I still haven’t found a single response supporting rsp, I find this rather strange and am benigning to wonder if there are any.
ReplyDeleteI think the point that is generally being missed is that a valid response to the consultation is based on at the very least having some grasp of what is on the table and what isn’t.
There are two possibilities one being that of the site owner shp which is for a mixed use development – housing and light industry, where the jobs and the houses ratio is about the same.
The other is the rsp proposition which is to use the DCO legislation to generate a cpo to force the current owner to sell the land rsp, in this it is important to understand that a DCO requires minimums to qualify as a national infrastructure project and the DCO written statement isn’t for a passenger airport but for an airfreight hub with a minimum of 12,000 freight movements per year.
This means that any response to the consultation is a response to the intention to build a freight hub, so a response supporting the application has to be supporting this.
So far a DCO hasn’t been used for airport expansion and I don’t think has ever been used where the site owner has plans that involve significant employment, so this all a new area, meaning the lawyers will probably make a lot of money.
The housing issue is a bit of a double edged sword as the freight hub plans say they would create significant employment which means extra housing would be needed.
When it comes to money, we know that shp have subastantial funding, but of course as they own the site they don’t need to prove this, on the other hand because the DCO involves a cpo (also called a CA in some of the documents) then rsp need to prove they have the funding for compensation and pins say this isn’t just for the land value compensation, but also for blight compensation. This is basically noise, which would probably be like the Heathrow DCO compensation package a choice of either having your house insulated or the operator buying your house + 25% market value as if the project hadn’t happened + moving costs. The health compensation related to the air pollution is a bit of a grey area, rsp’s own documentation says it will kill some local people and since the research they published in their documentation there has been a new lot published by leading universities and the WHO. This seems to relate mostly to killing people living in Broadstairs and Cliftonville I think would be roughly similar blight compensation to the noise compensation.