Manston RiverOak Consultation Update.

I have been attempting to engage with RiverOak with respect to the DCO consultation process, and so according to the planning inspectorate have other people, however RiverOak don’t appear to be engaging in the process, either because they don’t want to or because their email server is broken, there really is no way of knowing.

Here is the correspondence so far:-

From: michaelchild@aol.com [mailto:michaelchild@aol.com]
Sent: 01 June 2016 12:15
To: info@riveroakic.com
Cc: NI Enquiries
Subject: The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport

To whom it may concern.

I am writing to you as I have heard that you intend to hold a consultation this month (pre statutory consultation) relating to building an airfreight cargo hub at the former Manson Airport site.

My primary concern at this point is to ensure that there will be consultations, drop in sessions and meetings held in the towns most affected.

Ramsgate – most affected by noise pollution, particularly with respect to the number of listed buildings and the conservation area, which I assume, would make sound insulation of many of the buildings difficult and expensive.

Herne Bay – on the takeoff flight path.

Margate and Broadstairs – particularly with respect to particulate air pollution and the associated reduction in life expectancy (which is already high due to the prevailing wind direction and the air flow across southern England) as both towns would be upwind of cargo plane movements.

Could you kindly confirm that you have received this email as my previous attempt to communicate with you via your website, which was over a month ago now, hasn’t yet elicited any response from you. 

Best regards Michael Child

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-----Original Message-----
From: michaelchild
To: info
CC: NIEnquiries
Sent: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 21:21
Subject: Re: The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport

Hi at all at RiveOak I sent the email below more than 24 hours ago asking that you confirm that you have received it. I haven't had this confirmation so I am sending this follow up as a reminder.

Please can you confirm you have received my email.

Best regards Michael

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-----Original Message-----
From: Susannah Guest
To: michaelchild <michaelchild@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 9:10
Subject: RE: The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport

Dear Mr Child

Thank you for your email correspondence of 1 June 2016.  In your email you raise some questions in respect of the proposals by RiverOak for Manston Airport. From my reading of your email, I think it is a copy of an email that you had, in the first instance, directed to RiverOak. 

You are right to have directed your correspondence to RiverOak at an early stage.  As you note, the activity that RiverOak are proposing to undertake over the summer period will be a non-statutory consultation.  This activity will not therefore have to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 – the legislation that governs this type of airport-related development.  RiverOak will however need to undertake a stage of statutory consultation before an application can be formally submitted.  In preparation for that, RiverOak will have to produce a draft Statement of Community Consultation that sets out how they will undertake the consultation activity.  They are required to consult with Thanet District Council and Kent County Council on the content of that document.  If you feel that RiverOak are not sufficiently considering your views on this specific matter, you may wish to inform the relevant authorities of your comments in respect of the way in which consultation is planned to be carried out.

The Planning Inspectorate met with RiverOak earlier this week on Wednesday 1 June 2016.  As part of that meeting The Planning Inspectorate reported receiving correspondence in which it was noted that RiverOak had not responded to submissions made via their website.  There is no statutory requirement for a developer to respond directly to individual correspondence, but RiverOak are aware of the frustrations this has created. 

Once any statutory consultation has been completed, the Planning Act 2008 requires that RiverOak will need to demonstrate that they have had regard to any representations received during that stage of consultation activity.  Upon submission of an application, RiverOak would need to produce a Consultation Report to explain how they had regard to the relevant representations received, whether any changes were made to the proposals and, if no changes were made, provide an explanation as to why.

There is more information about the process on our website:

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/

Information in respect of this specific scheme (Manston Airport) can be found through the search function.  Information in respect of the process in general, and requirements on developers, can be found through navigating to the “Application Process” or “Legislation and Advice” tabs at the top of the webpage. 

The most accessible document would be The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8 which can be found at the following link:

http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/

Kind regards

Susannah

Susannah Guest MRTPI
Infrastructure Planning Lead

Major Applications and Plans
The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN

Helpline: 0303 444 5000
Email:

Web: infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk (National Infrastructure Planning)

Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate)

Twitter: @PINSgov

This communication does not constitute legal advice.
Please view our Information Charter before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Sent just now

Dear Ms Guest

Thank you for you prompt and informative reply. 

As you correctly surmised my correspondence was directed at RiverOak and the cc to the planning inspectorate intended primarily as an added reference.

My difficulty at the moment is as RiverOak still haven’t confirmed that they have received my emails, so I have no way of being certain that I am directing my correspondence to them, inasmuch as either they aren’t replying to me or there is a fault with their email system so they aren’t receiving them.

I did try to contact RiverOak via their website 27^th Feb 2016 mainly asking them whether the comment forms on their news items formed part of their consultation, but received no response, nor was the comment I left published.

In this instance I tried contacting them via email using the email address they ask you to use on their website http://www.riveroakinvestments.co.uk/contact-us/which is based on their American real estate brokerage website http://riveroakic.com/ which earlier this week when I sent the email hadn’t been updated in terms of press releases for about two years. Now all of the press releases there have been deleted and a new page has appeared this week http://riveroakic.com/riveroak-nyc-I-llc.html which seems to show some recent commercial activity, none of which seems to be confirmed elsewhere on the internet. If I were trying communicate with this company in an ordinary business sense I would assume it was inactive.

Best regards Michael


Update 12.55 03.06.2016

Dear Mr Child

Thank you for your email – its contents are read and noted.  We will be producing a minute of the meeting that we had with RiverOak earlier this week.  That Meeting Note will make reference to the correspondence we have received that have highlighted the concerns you reiterate below.  That note will be published on our website in due course.

Kind regards

Susannah


Update 17.10 03.06.2016

From: George Yerrall 
To: michaelchild <michaelchild@aol.com>
CC: Niall Lawlor; Tony Freudmann
Sent: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:33
Subject: Your email has been received.

Thank you for your patience.

George Yerrall

RiverOak Investment Corp., LLC

1 Atlantic Street – Suite 703

Stamford, CT 06901-2402

office – 203.325.8009

fax – 203.325.8588

cell – 203.912.7006

www.riveroakic.com

Hi George, Many thanks for your confirmation of the receipt of my emails, I look forward to your timely reply. 

Update 17.09 03.06.2016

03.06.2016

Mr Child

Thank you for the up-date on your correspondence from RiverOak in respect of emails submitted to their website.

Kind regards

Susannah

Best Michael

Ed. Sorry about the lack blog posts over the last few days as you can see I’ve been busy http://michaelsbookshop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/aliens-and-woodwork-in-bookshop.html

Manston Airport cpo, the fat lady has started to sing and the tune is oh so Thanet.

As I guess most people know the two main protagonists in this one Thanet Council and RiverOak have just come to the end of the 30 day period of calm negotiations where they both promised regular updates would be published jointly on both their websites.

In the last 24 hours the fat lady has sung two songs.

In one song RiverOak who hoped to be chosen as the council’s indemnity partner, putting up the millions to finance the cpo (the main aspect of this being could the council trust them.) have published the confidential correspondence between them and the council leader Chris Wells on their website.

Here is what they have published:

From: cllr-Chris Wells [mailto:cllr-Chris.Wells@THANET.GOV.UK]

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:34 PM

To: George Yerrall

Subject: Liabilities outline as discussed

Hi George

I have tried to lay out the risks we feel we are likely to carry under your current proposals.  Hope it makes sense and you can explain how and where we can be sure you can cover these risks.

In parallel with the CPO process the Council has to seek to acquire the land by negotiation, and if the owners agree to sell before confirmation, the Council need to be assured that the money will be available if required to buy the land before the confirmation of the CPO.

Alternatively, in order to test the resourcing of this CPO, the landowners might tactically offer to sell the land (with no intention of selling it) and if we had no resources at that stage, then the objectors/landowners could use this as evidence in support of an argument that the CPO process was not properly financially resourced and cast doubt on the financial viability of the Scheme as a whole.

There may be persons with an interest in the land who can serve a blight notice requiring the Council to buy their interests in the land before the confirmation of the CPO, again, funding needs to be in place for this.

The identity of the contracting party who will be signing the Indemnity Agreement has yet to be confirmed. If that (yet to be confirmed) indemnity partner were to fold prior to the confirmation of the CPO, the Council would be left with the funding shortfall.

RiverOak are not themselves funding the scheme but are instead relying on  external private  investors to fund the scheme after the confirmation of the CPO. Given the lack of certainty over the funding then a bond/surety is a sensible way to proceed.

The potential private investors are not known to the Council and they have themselves not provided any contractual commitment to funding the land acquisition and delivery of the scheme. A willingness by Riveroak/its investors to provide monies to put in place a Bond provides a further level of reassurance to the Council that Riveroak and its investors are committed to the Scheme.

The confirmation of the CPO may be up to two years away and the potential investors and the appetite for investment may have changed by then.

The CPO Circular says that the Council in justifying its proposals must show that all necessary resources are likely to be available to achieve the end use. Where details on resources cannot be finalised, the Council must identify how any shortfalls might be met. The Council require a bond/surety to cover any such shortfalls.

Regards,

Chris

RiverOak responds to Cllr Chris Wells

Oct 10, 2015 | Media statement

Dear Chris,

I have received your emails of October 7th.

I am disappointed and distressed because your response leaves me with the clear message that you have no interest in doing a CPO with RiverOak in your role as the Leader of TDC.

I find your list of eight issues to be completely without merit and nothing more than another attempt to inexplicably throw one road block after another in front of us in order for you to carry out whatever your real agenda might be.  Whatever it is, that agenda does not appear to recognize the will of your constituents, which is that Manston Airport be opened and operating at the earliest possible moment.  I need not remind you that the Airport has been closed for a year and half, during which time the community, whom you represent, has seen an asset (and national treasure) produce absolutely nothing of value and, in fact, it has been systematically disassembled and stripped.  As to your specific eight points, I have spoken to my solicitor and have written my point-by-point responses below.

Point 1)  That in parallel with the CPO process the Council has to seek to acquire the land by negotiation and the Council needs to be assured the money is available.

As you are aware this statement is nonsense. You have been made aware that repeated attempts were made by RiverOak to acquire that Airport from its multiple owners.  Theses attempts were unconditionally refused and since that time the Airport has been stripped of assets.

Point 2) That the owners would now offer to sell the Airport (without as you say “not really intending to sell it”) to test whether the CPO process was properly resourced.

This point is also nonsense.  If the current owners wish to sell the Airport at appropriate value we are happy to entertain that offer, but the theory that they will offer to sell but “not really sell it” as some type of strategy is a statement that requires no further elaboration by me.

Point 3) That there may be someone that can serve a Blight notice on the Airport requiring immediate capital.

Given that the Airport is completely uninhabited and closed the whole “blight” concern (which I would point out has never been raised before) is completely specious and irrelevant.

Point 4) You query as to who the contracting party would be for the CPO.

We have repeatedly and exhaustively answered this question.  We will not yet again pretend that this issue has not be examined and satisfied.

Point 5 – 6 and 8)  You are concerned that there may be 3rd party investors participating with RiverOak and therefore feel the need to have a bond in place.

The Airport is an exciting investment and the concept that we have numerous outside parties expressing interest should make you feel more confident, not less, about the ultimate success of the project.  One would think that the community would welcome all sorts of investors many of whom will bring capital and jobs. When you and I spoke of my partners recent trip to Paris to further progress our joint venture discussions on a major portion of our business plan, your dismissive tone to me on the phone about this was telling.  You don’t seem to be even remotely focused on inward capital expenditure and the chance to generate 400+ jobs associated with this singular facet of our business plan.

We nor our counsel are aware of other CPO’s where bonds were provided in circumstances analogous to this one.   We want to be perfectly clear, as we have in the past, we will not provide a bond.  It is neither economically nor commercially viable to do so and is absolutely not required by the governing law.  We know your counsel is well aware of this.  As a result I can only suggest to you that this issue is one you have drawn from thin air in an attempt to thwart the CPO process.

Point 7) You have a concern that given the potential length of the CPO process investors may lose interest.

The CPO process is a well-traveled and regulated path and both we and our investors are quite familiar and understand them.  Every single CPO carries those risks.  Given that we will be expending considerable sums during the CPO process we would not embark on this path and spend our own capital if we were not fully prepared for it. The point is a total red herring.

In addition, as you are well aware, the analysis you sent to me from KCC Legal (whom you originally intended on using as counsel) outlined their fundamental agreement of our original Indemnity Agreement.  You had expressed to us that KCC had excellent experience in this field and that you were very comfortable with KCC Legal being counsel on this matter.  Needless to say, when Sharpe Pritchard were introduced as your counsel, we were surprised.

In your email exchange with from Wednesday night you stated “…and let’s get one thing straight. However many cllrs jump up and down about it, if any decision goes forward against legal and officer advice any CPO is fatally doomed before it starts.”  The explicit threat in that statement is clear. I am no longer willing to jump through hoops based on “advice” from officers who are clearly inexperienced in CPO practice.

What I don’t understand is this.  You were elected on an extremely strong mandate to launch a CPO with RiverOak and you claimed before you were elected that you had reviewed the Indemnity Agreement and had no basic issues with it.  Here we are, six months later and you send me what amounts to a legal opinion, under your own signature, that is filled with factual inaccuracies and irrelevancies that attempt to rewind the process back to zero in the name of “progress”.  What I had asked you on the phone earlier this week was for you to explain to me, in plain English, what the financial risk to TDC was, if for some reason, after putting up all the money and winning the CPO, RiverOak were to walk away.  You never answered that question because the answer is that there isn’t any.

I’ve told you on numerous occasions that all I wanted was to get a deal done with you that would indemnify you against the costs of the CPO.  I hired an excellent firm and a specialist within that firm to advise me and have produced an agreement, the guts of which have been successfully used time and again in partnering CPO agreements in the UK.  Everything we have received from TDC since you decided not to use KCC Legal as your counsel attempts to obscure and confuse that fact.  And that is why I am convinced that you have no interest in partnering with RiverOak as an Indemnity Partner on a CPO.

Your public response to this email will undoubtedly be some form of “the great care being taken to ensure that Thanet has no risk” and/or that “RiverOak has not been able meet the strict requirements that you have set forth on Thanet’s behalf”.  You are, of course, entitled to try to influence the voters in any way that you choose.  If we weren’t sure of the legal ground we stand on and sure of our ability to be successful in a CPO then we would not be here.

We’re still here and we are ready to execute our Indemnity Agreement, immediately.  We hope to move forward in a more open and transparent process.

Thirty days have come and gone. The only “progress” we have made is that we are now certain that you have no interest in a CPO.

We will be posting this email thread on our web site by day’s end.

Sincerely,

George Yerrall”

Here is the link to it on their website http://www.riveroakinvestments.co.uk/riveroak-responds-to-cllr-chris-wells/ 

The other song relates to the Managing Director of RiverOak Tony Freudmann, I have copied this next bit from The Manston Pickle facebook page although it’s all over the internet today in different shapes and forms.

"It would seem that a story is doing the rounds to the effect that Anthony Freudmann's striking from the 'roll of solicitors' was the result of having 'fallen on his sword' having covered for his colleagues. 

This pickle has spoken to the current senior partner of the firm and can confirm that this is palpable nonsense. In fact so incensed were his co-partners on discovering his deeds, that having called him into the office to confront him, they let the tyres down on his company car, something Freudmann made much of before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal also fell for his charms and dealt with his case with ridiculous leniency. The, then, Solicitors Complaints Bureau were not so gullible and appealed the case to the High Court. Lord Justice Taylor allowed the SCB appeal and on the basis that Mr Freudmann's deeds were so serious that he was not a fit and proper person to practice law and should not be trusted to have access to client funds in the future, struck him from the roll. For the doubters please find attached the original SDT judgement. In fact far from falling on his sword, when he was dismissed from the firm, he tried to continue with his judicial duties as a Deputy District Judge. It was only when the firm advised the Lord Chancellors Department why Freudmann was dismissed and that the matter was in the hands of the Complaints Bureau, that he was suspended by them. Similarly he sought agency work with the Crown Prosecution Service and they were similarly alerted by the firm. At this time Freudmann was also Leader of Shropshire County Council with a budget of £2 million under this control. Again it was not until the County Solicitor got wind of the 'problems' that he resigned from the council. Give this man his due, he tells a good yarn! For those inclined to believe the nonsense spouted by this man, I will happily forward a copy of the original SDT Judgement. As it is in PDF format, I am seemingly unable to post it here."

Here is the link https://www.facebook.com/manstonpickle?fref=ts

The pictures below are of some of the supporting documents, they should expand if clicked on the sequence may be a bit jumbled as it is sunday and I have used my Raspberry phone to publish the post.

Just another blog post, Manston Airport cpo, Thanet Council, Stone Hill Park

First what if anything is happening over Manston?

I do try to check out the situation over Manston at least once a week, I can’t find anything new on the owner's website http://www.stonehillpark.co.uk/ or on RiverOak’s verious websites http://www.riveroakic.com/ http://www.riveroakinvestments.co.uk/

On the council's website there is no mention of Manston in the newly published agenda for the next council meeting http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=141&MId=4084

This is a case where no news isn’t good news as for the past 28 years that I have been in business in Thanet the uncertainty of the future of Manston has been damaging to the local economy.  I would say on balance much more damaging than any economic benefits from the various aviation activities that occurred there during that time.  

It is very unclear as to when TDC and RiverOak are going to release any sort of statement telling us what is going on. They inferred that there would be joint statements during the thirty day period that finishes tomorrow, but actually says is, “for a period of at least the next 30 days” so how long is a piece of string?

On the whole the last week seems to have moved further from the cpo, partly because changes to the way business rates will be apportioned which means that TDC would be even worse off going down the airport road, than they would be going down the business and residential road and partly because of the poor attendance  at the save Manston Airport rally over the weekend.  

I guess some clarification on the TDC income front is required here, if Stone Hill Park is built, under the current arrangements TDC would get the new homes allowance and the council tax. Business rates at the moment all go to central government and are apportioned to councils, the new plans is that they would go to the councils whose patch the property is on.

Living and working here in Ramsgate one could be forgiven for thinking that the new UKIP administration has been completely inactive, issues like the bonkers stuff done under Labour, town centre rubbish collection moved to the middle of market day and converting town centre shops into social housing in otherwise fully let shopping parades that the UKIP candidate I spoke to before the election said he would be straight onto if UKIP got in, well nothing at all.

Anyway here is the link to the books that went out on the shelves in my bookshop today http://michaelsbookshop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/astronomy-astrology-and-alchemy.html

I may ramble on here.      

I am still learning my way around posting from an eight inch tablet, hence the odd strange picture, font and format.

More Manston Airport and the TDC cpo with a bit of a ramble from the bookshop in Ramsgate.

Thanet District Council have started the week by deleting the news item that they put up about RiverOak a couple for weeks ago on their website.

Here is what they have deleted:

"Thanet District Council is currently reviewing its position around whether Riveroak is a suitable indemnity partner for a compulsory purchase order on the Manston Airport site.

This followed a Cabinet decision in July which committed to re-opening discussions with the American firm.

Following a final request for financial evidence promised by Riveroak, Thanet District Council’s solicitors have now reviewed the information submitted by the company on Friday 14 August.

An important part of this process is for the council to seek financial assurances from Riveroak given the significant financial risk of pursuing a CPO by a publicly-funded authority.

Two redacted letters were provided which do not identify the names or addresses of the investors who Riveroak suggest could provide the financial security required.

This approach to providing information in a redacted format is for a local authority, highly unusual and prevents it from being able to gather any financial assurance from it.

As a consequence the council has now asked for confirmation of the bond agreement as detailed in the draft indemnity agreement submitted by Riveroak."

As a local historian I get a bit worried when the council start removing the news.

Anyway here is the Newspeak 

"RiverOak Aviation Associates and Thanet District Council anticipate a number of meetings in the coming weeks, in a variety of formats and venues. We jointly acknowledge there are a number of points to be negotiated and settled prior to indemnity partner status and any CPO, and are agreed these confidential negotiations are best conducted in private. Thus, for a period of at least the next 30 days, updates on progress will be made, as with this statement, in a jointly agreed wording, appearing simultaneously on our websites.

Both participants in the negotiations wish to avoid repeating some of the misunderstandings of recent weeks, and feel this is a significant step forward.

George Yerrall, CEO RiverOak Aviation Associates stated: " both parties agree some serious, and confidential, talks will clarify any confusion and help iron out the difficulties to ensure a successful conclusion...."     Chris Wells, Leader of Thanet District Council added...."I have been calling for calm over recent weeks, and, along with George, hope the campaigners will now respect that request."

This initial statement appears at 10 am in the UK, Monday 7 September; in America Tuesday 8 September due to the Labor Day Holiday."

Here in the bookshop the week started well on the home decorating book front

We usually have more on decorative fabrics (this is from a 1908 book we have in stock on fabric printing, samples of fabric being stuck to most of the pages)

Anyway this morning I bought a small collection of modern book about wallpaper, I should stress here that we are not talking bestsellers here, but if it is obscure enough I will probably want to buy it.

Of course we do have other books on the diy and decorating already,

 this is an interesting example from 1879.

Sorry I guess I have drifted off into the world of bookselling and have lost the thread on the Manston issue. 

Still the real Manston issue seems to be that while a lot of local people appear to want a passenger airport, the council's response of pursuing an airfreight hub there that we can't fly from seems a bit strange. Perhaps a public consultation, who knows.  

Thanet District Council Cabinet Agenda Published for Thursday, 18th June but no mention of Manston.

I guess a lot of people have been waiting for this agenda regardless of where they stand on the Manston issue and I guess and for the council to publish the agenda for the meeting with no mention of the issue, is strange to put it mildly.

Here it is http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=151&MId=4046 see what you make of it, perhaps they intend to add more to it later, if so it does beg the question. Why not wait until the whole agenda is ready before publishing?

My own stance on Manston, recoded here over the years, is that while I was supportive of saving a regional passenger airport with a strong historic aircraft centre based around the two museums there, I do not support building an airfreight hub that we can’t fly from at Manston.

During the last few weeks there have been various attempts by those supporting TDC mounting a cpo to build an airfreight hub to discredit major local employers.

One example here is Sir Roger Gale MP for Thanet North saying on the BBC that one of the largest employers in Thanet South may be in financial difficulties, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33025447 another this one from Powermain https://www.facebook.com/powermain.co.uk/posts/759113690869067

Now obviously if people have a financial stake in the company that wants to open the airfreight hub or they are locals with experience working in aviation who hope they would gain employment at an airfreight hub, their enthusiasm for this is understandable, but once this enthusiasm crosses the boundary where it seeks to damage major local employers it becomes untenable.

update 4.55 10.6.2015

I phoned the council this morning and asked if the cpo was going on the agenda for the cabinet meeting a week tomorrow, they said it wasn’t and that the full agenda had been published.  

I tried some more searching questions, which they wouldn’t answer but asked me to put in an email to them:

"Hi *****, could you kindly let me know what the situation is with the Manston cpo issue, i.e. as much as you can tell me about the issue given the constraints on releasing information about it?

Also a couple of direct questions which hopefully you can answer. 

1 When will the issue go to Cabinet?

2 Is there any reasonable chance of a way forward on this one, has the situation re an indemnity partner changes, if not could councillors move forward in any way without officers producing and acceptable indemnity partner?  "

I have had the following reply:

"Hi Michael

I have forwarded your query to the Chief Exec’s Office for a response. You should get a response directly from her office.

Thank You

Regards

****** ******"

I emailed the leader yesterday asking what is going on over the cpo and still haven't had a reply. 

I have now had a reply from Chris Wells, my email and his reply below.

On 9 Jun 2015, at 21:55, " michaelchild@aol.com" < michaelchild@aol.com> wrote: 

Hi Chris, any idea why the cpo hasn't appeared on the cabinet agenda? 

Best regards Michael 

Websites 

http://michaelsbookshop.blogspot.co.uk/ 

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/

http://www.thanetonline.com/

From: cllr-Chris Wells
To: michaelchild
Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:51
Subject: Re: Manston

Please see statement on tdc website 

Sent from my iPhone

Manston Airport and why the cpo is dead in the water, T.S. Royalist in Ramsgate Harbour and a few sketches.

The issue here is the criteria of cpos, which boils down to taking land away from a private company or individual having to be in the public interest, and this having to be decided not at district council level but at UK national government level.

Always in the case of cpos if the public interest is in the balance then the judgment is made on the side of the existing owners. So at best from the point of view of reopening the airport you can only really have a proposal that may or may not work, and may or may not provide significant economic benefit, I don’t think anyone – particularly given Manston’s history of economic failure as an airport – would or could say that any airport project on the site would be guaranteed to succeed. On the other hand you have the site’s new owner with a track record of succeeding with discovery parks, see http://www.wynyardpark.com/about so there is a no case to say thta thier project would definately fail. 

For a cpo to succeed you would have to go well past the balance of buying the site by cpo for another project by a different owner being more likely to succeed.

The problem here is that sma, quite a few of the TDC councillors and even an MP have managed to deluded themselves into the position where they feel that TDC have some sort of ultimate power to decide whether a cpo can take place, and seem to think that if they manage to put together some reasonable project in a similar risk band to the one the new owner is proposing then a cpo is likely to happen.

All that is happening at the moment is firstly, public money and officer time is being wasted pursuing this and secondly the politicians who haven’t worked out the situation are harming their political futures.

Essentially you have the UK government, KCC on the side of discovery parks with virtually every part of the country trying to get them in their area and then of course Thanet.

Anyway I bunged the above up as a comment yesterday and have now headed this post with it because of some of the conversations I have had with people today, this isn’t anything to do with being for or against the airport but to do with facing reality.

 Two sketches of T. S. Royalist done from the western harbour arm, in both cases the hull came out too short

 I gather she is here until the weekend so I will try to get a morning sketch (when the sun is behind me) from the eastern harbour arm where i should get a clear view of the whole hull and hopefully manage something a bit better.

 A quickie in Turner contemporary as I am working on trying to improve people's faces in sketches and on the whole there is no hassle sketching in art galleries

 A couple of sketches from Cafe G in margate

 I was particularly pleased with the sketch of the person reading a paper which was on the sofa beside her, a difficult angle to capture. Of course there is the Emanuel Kant factor here which is that the artist, me, is trying to do. what? I suppose get the viewer, you, to take the pictures that are already in your head and draw something that is a catalyst to memori, imagio feminas in this instance, sorry about the odd mixture of Latin and obscure english, but I don't think English alone has a tense for expressing the the priori concept of a non existent woman as a direct object.

 here the opposite of the width problem the thing on the top of the custom house came out too tall