Call for Thanet council leader Chris Wells to resign issued by UKIP ‘Local Plan’ group

A statement issued by 14 UKIP members says Chris Wells has been asked to resign

Fourteen Thanet UKIP councillors have demanded party and council leader Chris Wells resigns with immediate effect, according to a statement issued by Cabinet member Stuart Piper on behalf of the group.

The call comes after a vote on Thanet’s draft local plan last week split the party.

Cllr Wells suffered defeat when 12 of his own UKIP members aligned with the Conservative Party and three Independents to vote down taking the Local Plan to the publication stage.

A change of status in the plan for Manston axing aviation-only status in favour of a mixed-use designation to include 2,500 homes proved the downfall of the plan, which is a blueprint for housing, business and infrastructure until 2031. The result was a vote of 35 councillors rejecting the proposal to put it forward for publication. Of those 20 were Conservative, 3 Independents and 12 were UKIP councillors. Just 20 voted in favour and one Conservative councillor was absent.

An amendment to defer for two years the mixed-use designation pending the resolution of the DCO process was not enough to persuade the majority of councillors.


Following the vote Cllr Wells slammed the “stupidity” of the outcome, adding that he saw no reason to allow councillors who “refused to take proper legal, advice free rein to wreak havoc on the council.”

But members of his party are now calling for him to go. Two more councillors have joined the ‘rebel 12’ although it has not yet been revealed who they are.

This leaves just 10 UKIP councillors backing Cllr Wells – not enough to keep him in power.


Cabinet member for housing Cllr Stuart Piper, who voted against the plan, said: “Cllr Wells has been asked by UKIP councillors to call a meeting of his group and has so far refused to meet before the end of the month.

“He has therefore been asked to resign with immediate effect. He has been advised that he cannot count on enough members of the group to stay as leader.

“Fourteen councillors have supported the request for him to resign. UKIP councillors need to reassure Thanet residents that we put serving our communities with integrity, at the very heart of our decision making.

“This was demonstrated clearly last Thursday when we put local communities first by rejecting what we believed to be an undeliverable and unsustainable Local Plan.”

Party numbers

Suggestions that the split could see the UKIP group ditch the party to become Independents have not been confirmed.

However, if that did happen it would mean the Conservatives becoming the largest group in the administration with 21 members, followed by 16 Independent Councillors plus 2 Independent Group councillors, 11 UKIP and then 6 Labour.

Conservative leader Bob Bayford has confirmed there are discussions regarding a vote of no confidence but would be dependent on the fall out within the UKIP ranks.

The voting down of the plan may result in government intervention.

In November Secretary of State Sajid Javid said the failure of Thanet and 14 other authorities to meet deadlines to put a local plan in place meant the government serving notice of its intention to intervene.

In his letter Sajid Javid said Thanet, and the other authorities, had until January 31 to justify to Government the failure to produce a Local Plan.

A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)  spokesman said: “We’ve made clear that the housing market in this country is broken, and for too long, we haven’t built enough homes.

“We have written to 15 planning authorities, including Thanet, and started the formal process of intervention for failing to produce a local plan.

“They were given until January 31 to respond and we will consider next steps after that.”

Cllr Wells has been asked for comment.

The UKIP vote against the plan

Bertie Braidwood

John Buckley

John Dennis

Robin Edwards

Edward Jaye-Jones

Lynda Piper

Stuart Piper

Linda Potts

Roy Potts

George Rusiecki

Trevor Shonk

Gary Taylor


  1. Effectively this means that Wells in not now in a position to lead his rump group or be the main Opposition Party. He and his diehard supporters would hold no committee chairs or deputy chairs, and the number of seats that they hold on committees would be sharply reduced to the point that those loyal to him would have little or no influence in Thanet District Council.

  2. This is the same thing that ended the political career of Labour’s former Leader at Thanet District Council, Cllr. Clive Hart, again largely over issues involving Manston Airport.

  3. This should serve notice to Chief Executive Madeline Homer too. Nobody will back what she wants and she may as well leave when Chris Wells is forced out. Stone Hill Park is dead in the ground and is exactly what local people wanted all along!

    • If SHP are not allowed to build housing on the former airport site, that amount of housing will have to be built on greenfield sites in order to attain the quota imposed on Thanet. However, this still does not mean that a commercial airport is a viable option even if RSP are able to buy the land from SHP.

    • Going against the local residents wishes will get councillors nowhere. Stone Hill Farce is now admittedly dead in the ground.

  4. SHP offer the best choice for Thanet with open spaces land for schools business units and housing – the alternative airport wont happen.

  5. It is completely wrong that this man and his deputy continue to make decisions and dictate direction on behalf of residents when they have no mandate to do so. His intransigence especially is actually causing harm to this area on many projects not just Manston. Time to stand down.

  6. A Conspiracy led by the Tory MP SRG to get rid of the UKIP control of Thanet, and unbelievably 12 UKIP Councillors went for it ! They have now shot themselves in the foot and will have to go also, but will they just go back to being Tories too I wonder.
    This nonsense that Manston is going to bring thousands of jobs to Thanet is being spread by fools who should resign. Wells should stay and continue to lead with the remaining UKIP cllrs and join with the Labour cllrs.

  7. When a councillor starts acting in the interests of himself rather than the local people in which they serve, then its time for them to go. Houses can go elsewhere, aviation cannot. We need to create more jobs!!

    • Commercial aviation doesn’t seem to do well at Manston. Perhaps RSP should buy land in a more central position and forget about trying to buy SHP’s land.

  8. If 14 kippers really want Wells to go, they can get rid of him by mounting a leadership challenge. The fact that they have not done so would suggest that they don’t really have the level of support they are claiming, and that those who may want Wells to step down are none too-enamoured by the prospect of Stuart Piper, Sir Roger Gale’s choice of leader, replacing him. Surely Mr. Piper has to explain why he was fired from Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS before he can be considered for a leadership position? I would have thought that UKIP had learned their lesson about appointing people who have skeletons in their closet.

    • They have to give him the chance to stand down of his own free will before they push him! If that does not happen they will force the issue and if neccessary go Independent UKIP. UKIP can consider/ignore what they want in their new leader so long as they oppose the current local plan and Mixed Use stance on Manston Airport. Stone Hill Park is dead – its over – it won’t happen – nobody wants it!

  9. Stone Hill Park’s planning application will be tabled for decision in the next month. If the council turn it down it will go to appeal and, if necessary, from there to the courts. Who is or is not leading UKIP is irrelevant to the process. In fact, UKIP is now irrelevant. As for the local plan, there is no way of amending it to resite the 2500 houses in the available timeframe. It will take more than 12 months to prepare a new plan. The government will intervene long before then; maybe within weeks.

    • Cheggers you’ve been brainwashed by Wells and his talk of “evidenced based” submissions. Evidence is what you make it! In his case he got it made up by Avia and Azimuth Associates! Lol The new LP will have to be reworked but Manston should never have been incorporated into that plan. The Govt seem pretty relaxed about it from what we have heard in the last week so its no catastrophy – no drama. The very worst that can happen would be a £75k fine and I suspect that won’t even happen!

      • Facts are evidence, opinion isn’t .

        Can you prove that Chris Wells got evidence “made up by Avia and Azimuth Associates”?

        Roger Gale, for some reason is proud to call himself MP for Riveroak -why isn’t he campaigning against RSP’s plans, which would cause huge amounts of damage and ill-health locally if they ever succeeded?

        • The so called evidence (which stated it should NOT be relied upon) was relied upon to make a decision by TDC! It did not thoroughly invesitgate Cargo, MRO, ancillary operations and the combined multiplier effect of this. Further to this the reports where commissioned by TDC and cannot be regarded as independent. RiverOak SP where unable to divulge its business strategy because Avia would not offer confidentiality. TDC had the opportunity to see the evidence directly from RSP but chose not to see or hear it. It is very clear that Homer, Wells, Homer etal created a false dialogue to push through the LP with Mixed Use. That is why they have failed and why SHP will never happen. The Independent Inspector will examine all the available evidence and with Manston retained for Aviation use only in the LP and a suitably qualified owner in RSP we can expect a return to flight at manston in 2021!

          • If Manston were a successful cargo airport would airport supporters then be happy, knowing what life under the flight path would be like for thousands of Thanet residents? And if so, why?

            The airport supporters’ apparent indifference to other people’s living-conditions is one of the most depressing things about this whole affair.

  10. Stone Hill, are allegedly drawing up yet another Mixed Use scheme…..It will have to go yet again to Publuc Consultations, More time passing…..Then it has to be submitted to TDC for consideration…..
    Yet more time….
    In the interim RiverOak will have their DCO at the Planning Inspectorate….
    The DCO, As agreed by all concerned , trumps all other Planning Applications, ..
    So, can we really see Stone Hill doing any further spending on their “Exciting Plans” ?..
    I doubt that….TDC last week raised the drawbridge on Stone Hill….
    Effectively keeping the Aviation Use Only ….
    Cllr Wells, was fully in favour of Mixed Use., and the Stone Hill Plans…
    That was part of the problem….He upset his fellow Councillors prior to the vote. Then afterwards , with his public outbursts, has totally alienated himself from his former colleagues..
    If he had any integrity and honour , he would accept the obvious, and stand down as leader..
    But of course ….That Too is a problem for him….His arrogance forbids him ….

  11. Do you ever read what you have written? Last week, TDC rejected publication of the draft local plan which has been in preparation for several years. A new plan will now have to be drawn up but it will still have to be evidence-based and cannot, lawfully, reserve the site for aviation because there is no evidence that a reopened airport could be viable. The council now finds itself in a difficult situation and the most likely outcome is that the government intervenes. What categorically did not happen last week was TDC keeping the site for aviation use only. That’s just desperate, wishful thinking on your part. As for RSP submitting their DCO, they are still light years away from having anything which even resembles a plan which could be submitted. The most common phrase uttered by their “experts” today was “I don’t know” and they are all at sea when asked to explain where the numbers they have published came from. I tend to agree with Michael Child that they are just going through the motions of an application and don’t have a proper grasp of what is required to hold a meaningful or valid consultation. When they have no idea whatsoever of the number of flights their new airport will be handling or the numbers of night flights, they aren’t ready to submit anything.

  12. Cheggers, you really do pass round misinformation, but whether wilfully, negligently or ignorantly is hard to fathom. Corrections to the Draft Local Plan can be done relatively quickly, and if extra time is required then under the circumstances when sought it is likely to be granted.

    Yes, it is likely that the Government will intervene, but to support the new Leader and Cabinet, not to maintain those who have been discredited and have disgraced themselves.

    Through the actions taken on Thursday of last week the saved elements of the 2006 Local Plan have been preserved at the present time, as was indicated clearly by Inspector Nunn in his judgment following the Stone Hill Park Appeals. The time when that judgment might have been challenged has passed, and the decision taken on the 18th leaves the reasoning of that judgment intact unless or until either the DCO Application founders (which is highly unlikely, as visitors to the current Statutory Consultation should be in a position to confirm) or a further iteration of the draft Local Plan is agreed by the Cabinet and confirmed by the Council. Even in that latter case, the DCO, if granted, will trump any elements in the draft Local Plan that may be in conflict with the DCO at that time.

    The DCO is not ‘still light years away’. If the comments by anti-RiverOak or anti-airport critics of the DCO are anything to go for, most of the reasons given will not be considered valid objections that need to trouble RiverOak or will lead the Planning Inspectorate to decide not to accept the Application for Examination.

    The reason that RSP’s experts did frequently say “I don’t know” at the Public Consultation yesterday and today (at least in my hearing) was that the questions put to them were frequently questions that due to the nature of the DCO Application process, could not possibly be clarified until after the DCO is granted. That is because act of granting the DCO (including the use of compulsory purchase powers and putting in place s. 106 obligations that will be for the Secretary of State for Transport to decide) is necessarily a condition precedent that must be performed prior to reaching final agreement with those who will fulfil the elements of the Application. Further and alternatively, everything connected with licensing of the Airport by the CAA will not fall to be determined by the Secretary of State for Transport for a period that may be roughly the same as the time it will take to complete construction of the new facilities that are incorporated in the planned development. This particularly applies to the vectors and fixed points of flight paths within the ILS system (a system that did not previously exist at the airport and which will make a profound difference when it comes to noise levels and any pollution. The precise number of flights at the airport will be down to negotations with airlines and other customers. The numbers of flights forecasts in the plan are based on reasoned assumptions and cannot possibly be completely accurate. If RiverOak, for instance, find that their customers want to make far more daytime use of the airport than RiverOak presently forecasts, it is likely to be even more profitable, employ even more people, and be welcomed accordingly. But the Application, when submitted, is intended to be conservative in nature and is not based upon wishful thinking or guesswork. To regard that as pie in the sky or unacceptable is to misunderstand that the purpose of the DCO process is not to erect unreasonable barriers but to facilitate the examination and approval of nationally significant infrastructure projects. It was anticipated that projects that do meet the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and other rules and regulations will pass. RiverOak and their Consultants know exactly what is required and how the system work. It was perfectly obvious that the preparation of the DCO Application has been hugely expensive but that little remains before it can be submitted during the Spring of this year.

  13. Correction: my previous posting should say “Further and alternatively, everything connected with licensing of the Airport by the CAA is expected to be determined by by the CAA in a period that may be roughly the same as the time it will take to complete construction of the new facilities that are incorporated in the planned development.”

    The CAA licensing is being undertaken concurrently but separately from the granting of planning consent through the DCO process.

  14. The great John Pritchard, a man who has such impeccable intelligence and understanding, who supported known
    liar and fantasist Konnor Collins because airport. He may perhaps forgive the people of Thanet if we ignore his self important comfirmation bias skreed of nonsense. Yet he and many others continue to find fertile ground to plant fantasy seeds in the empty spaces between Stuart Piper and Trevor Shonk’s heads. Truth be told, Chris Wells was the only
    UKIP candidate with any experience or knowledge, once the woefully unprepared Piper faction move in Thanet will pay a heavy price as the slow witted among us finally realise Wells was never the stumbling block, reality is.

  15. “The Inspectorate requested information regarding RiverOak’s proposed timetable. RiverOak informed the Inspectorate that they intended to conduct non-statutory consultation in June 2016, with a stage of statutory consultation towards Q3 2016 and with formal submission at the end of 2016.”
    This little gem is buried away in the minutes of a meeting between RiverOak and the Planning Inspectorate which was held on 22nd April 2016. Here we are, nearly two years later, and the DCO application has STILL not been submitted. The projected timescales for submission have been hopelessly optimistic throughout and we can have no confidence that submission will take place this year, if at all. RSP’s judgement and competence are called into question by their repeated failure to stick to the timetable they set for themselves. Does anybody believe that a company which finds it this hard to post a few bits of paper will be capable of running an airport?

  16. Wondering why someone living in Wales would have any interest in the far east end of Kent. Cheggers – aka Peter Binding – has a lot to say for someone totally unaffected by whatever happens here.

  17. Most of the pro-airport campaigners don’t live in Thanet. It’s a campaign orchestrated by people who would not be affected by the noise and pollution which would be caused. They’ve thrown their loud and yobbish voices behind all sorts of individuals who don’t live anywhere near Thanet, and have nothing do do with the area other than having a desire to make money by acquiring the land. Throughout the campaign the pro-airport campaigners have sought to silence opposition by attacking individuals, rather than justifying their support for a highly polluting cargo-depot which will create few jobs and will create massive noise and air pollution. It remains a fact that RSP have been hopelessly over-optimistic when talking about timescales for submission of their DCO and it remains a distinct possibility that it will never happen. The legal questions have not been answered.

  18. For example, Henry Bolton, UKIP’s new leader does not live in Thanet. But prior to his election he was heading a campaign group called “Why not Manston?” Did anybody hear the pro-airport campaigners complaining that Henry Bolton does not live in the area and so he should not have anything to say on the subject? Of course not. They only try to silence those who do not agree with them.

    • I assume your questions are rhetorical, Cheggers, for you are unlikely to get direct answers however politely you ask, as I’ve found out on this very thread.

  19. Cheggers (and Marva Rees ), Clairms that airport supporters don’t live in Thanet is untrue. Many do as do anti-Airport people, some of whom don’t live here either. If you are going to make statements please back them up with reliable facts.

    • Has anyone said that no airport supporters live in Thanet? Cheggers did not say that. He said that most supporters don’t.

      It is certainly difficult to believe the claim that most residents of Thanet support Riveroak’s plans for a cargo hub, considering that both Ramsgate and Herne Bay are under the proposed flight path.

      • It is wrong to say that most residents of Thanet don’t support RiverOak’s plans. Survey after survey has shown that many thousands of people proactively support the re reopening of the airport in whatever shape or form. Just because you surround yourselves with a dozen anti’s does not support your assumption! SMAa actively analyse the location of supporters and the vast majority are in Thanet, the rest come from East Kent and beyond. Also many of those who do not live in Thanet have an interest in a regional airport for various reasons be it passenger flights, flight training, job opportunities or the cargo side of things. You should not be so dismissive of the needs of others. No resident of Thanet or beyond wants their sleep disturbed by overflying aircraft and that is why RiverOak is taking such great care in assessing the needs of local residends and examining what can be done to mitigate potential noise. New aircraft are much quieter with the various New Engine Options available and it is likely that few will aircraft take off over Ramsgate at night (if at all) GPS and intelligent flightpaths will minimise the risks. The housing will not now happen as it isn’t wanted (or needed in the volumes that Chris Wells tried to scare people with) The airport has been there for 100 years and has the potential to unlock real wealth in a way that housing never could!

          • The first excellent question I have heard – “What are intelligent flightpaths?” They are ones that use best of the airspace available but are used in conjunction with the known populations on the ground – the demographics. Using GPS to accurately plot courses away from populated areas noise pollution can be better controlled. The other consideration when it comes to Manston is that in the past due to the lack of investment it was only possible to have an Instrument Landing System at one end (East to West). This meant that Ramsgate got a bad deal because all arriving aircraft who required an “ILS” landing had to come in over Ramsgate. With a new ILS system at the Ramsgate end of the runway it will be possible for aircraft to approach from the west (heading east) and avoid Ramsgate completely! This does not even neccessarily mean that Herne Bay will be affected either as new approaches can be developed that avoid built up populations. Profiling the approaches and recognising sensitive areas (populated ones) means more can be done to help local people. I honestly believe that things will be better than when the airport was open before for a multitude of reasons. The new ILS, intelligent flight paths, much newer quieter aircraft, switching runways for noise abaitment and a open and honest approach with local people along with mitigation such as soundproofing will make life a lot easier for people at both ends of the runway.

  20. Another person who leads one of the pro-airport factions is Beau Webber. He does not live in Thanet. He lives in a quiet little village on the outskirts of Canterbury and would not be overflown by the menace he is trying to dump on others. Coincidentally, he lives just round the corner from another campaigner, Roger Gale, who does not live in the District of Thanet and would not be overflown. I believe these are reliable facts and I can provide many more.

    • Congratulations you have cited two people who live a mile or two outside the administrative boundry of Thanet yet you are happy to dismiss their views solely for this reason. You have shown an utter contempt for people who care deeply about what happens in Thanet. Just because you live underneath a flightpath does not give you a god given right to deny others the use of airspace above you! In fact when the airport reopens there will be less movements above Thanet than there is now as it will disrupt the current air traffic in and out of London City, Southend and Gatwick which will have to be re-routed again!

      • I don’t see how Cheggers’ statements about Beau Webber can be construed as dismissing the latter’s views “solely for this reason”. Nor do I see that he has “shown an utter contempt” for anybody.

  21. A bit rich don’t you think. As I recall it is the pro-airport campaigners who show total contempt for those who will be subjected to the noise: “You’ll get used to the noise” “The airport was here before you” “If you don’t like it move.” You don’t care deeply about about Thanet if you don’t care what happens to the people.

  22. The real pity is that you do not listen to reason or consider matters beyond “I don’t want planes flying over my house”! Maybe if you spoke with some logic or reason people would be more empethetic. Its a shame that you chose to lose the argument in this way. As they say “empty vessels make the most noise”!

  23. Cheggers has not lost any argument. There is no need to be so insulting to a person who has done nothing except disagree with your point of view and given good reasons for doing so.

  24. Re:
    Local Support for Aviation
    I’ve carried out a detailed analysis in Ramsgate. I’ve looked at the posters displayed in residents’ windows. And the incontrovertible conclusion is SHP:RSP::5:1
    Five times as many people don’t want an airport as do

    • Sorry – your cohort in Ramsgate does not represent the whole of Ramsgate and certainly not the whole of Thanet, let alone East Kent. Its a specious argument like so many put forward by the anti groups that is both inward looking and wrong.

    • The incontrovertible conclusion is that nearly 40,000 Ramsgate inhabitants don’t have a poster about an airport in their window. The question is, why don’t they?

      Ian Connor: thanks for the info. But I still don’t want an airport.

      • The incontrovertible fact is that nearly 40,000 Ramsgate inhabitants don’t have a poster about stopping night flights in their window either! The question is, why don’t they?

        Because they aren’t bothered by it or in fact welcome the airport!

  25. Re: detailed analysis.
    I was ever so slightly taking the mickey. It is not possible to extrapolate the findings if my survey to the whole of Thanet.
    In the same way, the claims of support made by the pro-airport camp have no demonstrable foundation in reality.
    I would be interested to know of the specious arguments put forward by the “antis”. Would you include the observation that Ramsgate’s residents will suffer if a cargo hub opens at Manston amongst those specious arguments?

    • Not true. We take postcode areas for members and have done many surveys over the last few years and the figures are consistent that 85% plus of the Thanet population support the airport and its reopening. The figures are demonstratable in reality because they have been done in reality. All surveys are extrapolated otherwise it would be a census! Lol

  26. I’d be interested to see the demonstrable reality of tge raw data. One such survey had notables such as B.Iggles and Nick D Radar signing up.
    BTW you didn’t reply to my query that “Ramsgate’s residents will suffer if a cargo hub opens at Manston”. What is your opinion on this?

  27. What exactly does “85% plus” mean? 85% plus some other random number?
    I understood that one survey showed that 98% supported an airport.
    Which one’s right? 85%, 85% + something, 98%, or something else quite different?
    Not that it matters. It’s not a voting issue.

    • Well it was a voting issue when people voted UKIP to get the airport re-opened! That is why the vast majority of TDC Councillors are up im arms about what Chris Wells did! Thats why he will be out of office very soon and why the DLP has failed! It has been very much a voting issue!

  28. How many votes will it take to make Aviation at Manston profitable? 85% ?
    How many to encourage passengers to eschew Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and trundle across the southeast to Manston instead? 85+% ?
    How many to persude FedEx, DHL, Royal Mail, Stobart and so on to abandon their tried and trusted facilities at East Midlands anf relocate to Kent, where trucks can queue up to load cargo delivered to Manston to drive to, err, East Midlands? 98%?
    BTW you still haven’t given us your views on the dreadful consequences that will fall on Ramsgate should the cargo hub ever open.

    • Well you have just shown how little you have understand about Manston amd its potential market!

      1. Manston is not trying to take any business away from any other airport. There is more than enough business to go around.

      2. Passenger flights will represent a relatively small part of what the airport does.

      3. Manston does not need to attract any of the operators you talk about because they largely deal with different types of freight and as you righly point out have established bases elsewhere. Manston’s speciality has been handling non time critical cargo that needs to go via air. Hence the lack of need for nighflights! Its a different segment of the market. Also you neglected to mention a major aspect of Manston’s plan and that is MRO: Maintainence, Repair and Overhaul. (All of which create skilled jobs by the way!)

      What is a shame is that you catastrophise airport activity when actually it is quite clean and much less intrusive than it ever has been in the years running up to its forced closure by Ann Gloag. Also if you had read my previous comments you would have read what I said about a new ILS system and intelligent airspace and how that would benefit all residents in Ramsgate, Herne Bay and elsewhere around Thanet.

  29. I think you are demonstrating how little you understand commercial aviation. Your claim that Manston won’t be competing with other airports is plainly ridiculous. All airports are in vigorous competition and Manston will need to provide some advantage to the operators. Otherwise freight will continue to go to the airports it goes to at present. It’s hard to see what advantage Manston will be able to offer. When it was open, previously, it struggled to attract operators. The only way any level of business was secured was by heavily discounting landing fees and subsidising the advertising. The airport’s lack of success had nothing whatsoever to do with lack of investment; although I understand this spurious argument has been heavily plugged by desperate pro-airport supporters. The airport’s poor location in relation to London and the rest of the country was to blame. Why fly to Manston if you actually want to go to London? If there really were a groundswell of support within the aviation community, Manston would not have had to close in the first place.

    • I thought I was talkimg to “Andrew” not Mr Binding (not of these parts) What a load of twaddle and nonsense! Manston like any regional airport has its own catchment area for both freight and cargo. Lack of investment was the very reason Manston could not expand to make it profitable. Manston only had one stand for aircraft and could never have benefited from economies of scale in that scenario. KLM et al where happy to stay at Manston amd build up their business. It was Ann Gloag who hatched a deal for housing in conjunction with Paul Carter and Mad Homer at KMEP that undermined the airport – mothing else. Gloag could have invested in Manston but thay was never her intention. Frankly I am bored senseless going around in circles with the same old three people who have nothing new to add to the debate. I will not be replying to any nore of this nonsense. Why don’t you just admit you have lost the battle and accept that planes will now once again fly from Manston Airport? We all know the housing numbers where a fabrication to scare people in the same way that the No Flights lobby tried to make out that aircraft would be flying all night! Lol – A lot of old baloney!

      • What battle? There is no battle. There are facts, which strongly indicate that Manston is not a suitable place for a commercial airport, and there are emotions, which seem to be getting in the way of some people’s acceptance of the facts.

        The housing numbers have been fabricated, if that’s the right word, by the government. If people think they’re too high, then they should lobby Thanet’s MPs.

        Again, insulting people doesn’t strengthen your case in any way.

  30. I thought this was a public forum, not a private conversation.
    “Mr Connors” increasingly desperate claims have reached new hights when he claims that the residents of Ramsgate will benefit from a new ILS.
    They benefit from not having a noisy, dirty cargo hub a couple of kilometers away.
    RSP, in its own doccumentation, says that the reinstatement of aviation will be to the detriment of Ramsgate and its residents.

    • Right I’ve changed my mind. I am not playing tag team between you three. Firstly its Mr Connor, if you want to add an S at least use an apostrophe and in the right place and quotation marks when they are actually neccessary! You want the truth – here is the truth. I make no claims I present facts. The new ILS will mean aircraft can land from both directions therefore meaning that aircraft will be able to land from the west but also take off to the west meaning that it will be possible with other noise abatement measures to control potential disturbance to local residents to a much greater degree than before. Both Ramsgate and Herne Bay will benefit from this and smart airspace use. I suspect you did not engage with RSP with an open mind (if at all) and ultimately you may disadvantage yourselves by maintaining such a negative attitude to such a positive prospect. Also in the words of a certain Mr Malon ” You will lose and you will lose badly!” although in reality you have already lost the argument as the Council is agreed that the DLP proposed by Wells will not happen and the airport will remain an airport forever more. Amen.

  31. A council cannot (legally) determine that a plot of land must be reserved for aviation, when there is no credible prospect of aviation returning. It would be like a council refusing to give planning permission to redevelop the site of an old gas works which has long since closed down. Manston was originally farmland. It became a grass airfield for a time and then a runway got constructed. In the grand scheme of things it’s been there for a short time and there is no good, rational reason why it should remain an airfield forever. That, I’m afraid will determine the eventual outcome.

    • Don’t be afraid Mr Binding. The planes ARE coming back to Manston! You make a very poor argument. The airport was forcably closed by a property developer. The Planning Inspector considered SHP’s change of use requests and decided Manston is still in fact an airport. This was a legal decision. The Council, like the people of Thanet decided it wanted to retain the airport and that is what IS happening. Your specious arguments hold no water or “weight” with those who are seriously looking at the matter. It is very much in the national interest (for a variety of reasons) that Manston Airport remains and reopens. The Secretary of State will agree in the next few months so start getting used to it for your own state of mind!

Comments are closed.