Minutes published by the Planning Inspectorate (PINs) of advice given to Riveroak Strategic Partners over its Development Consent Order application for the Manston airport site are “an accurate reflection of the meeting,” say RSP.
The documents outline the concerns raised by PINs about the DCO submission made in April but withdrawn in May.
A DCO is the means of obtaining permission for developments categorised as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). This includes energy, transport, water and waste projects.
RSP sent 63 documents, containing almost 11,000 pages of proposals, to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol in April.
The firm aims to bring aviation back to the site with an air freight hub including cargo, passenger services and business aviation.
But on May 8 the Planning Inspectorate website displayed a letter from RSP lawyers Bircham Dyson Bell which stated the application has been withdrawn.
On May 11 RSP and PINs had a meeting to discuss the submission.
The minutes state: “The Inspectorate and the applicant convened this meeting in order for the Inspectorate to provide detailed advice in respect of three principal concerns identified:
- There was considered to be an absence of sufficient information within the application documents upon which to base a decision about whether the Proposed Development constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) within the meaning in s23 of the PA2008.
- There were gaps in the ecological, archaeological and ground investigation survey data presented within the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the application, which create uncertainty in the assessment of likely significant 2 effects. There were also inconsistencies in the noise and vibration assessment, and issues were identified in the Transport Assessment accompanying the ES.
- It was considered that the Funding Statement did not fulfil the requirements of Regulations and statutory guidance .”
An annexe to the document details the reasons for the concerns and include a potential underestimate of mitigation requirements when looking at the distribution of day and night flights. PINs also require clarification on how the proposals impact the museums; more detailed definition of proposed aircraft types and clarity on the number of cargo and passenger stands as well as raising questions about how widely consultation events were advertised.
PINs also requires more funding information.
In the minutes it states DCO documents say: “RiverOak anticipates that it will raise further equity and debt finance following the making of the DCO in order to develop the authorised development to completion” and “[RiverOak] have drawn down £500,000 from their investors.”
But PINs says it still requires information about RSP’s investors, including proof of their assets and details of the RSP’s directors, staff, auditors etc.
An RSP spokesman said: “We’re comfortable that the minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. We’re working through responding to all the points raised, but both RSP and its advisors believe that many of them can be resolved in the examination stage, rather than the acceptance stage.
“The dialogue with PINS is ongoing and there’s a meeting in the diary with PINS later this month.”
RSP proposals
The RSP proposals are for a project to create an air freight hub with passenger services and business aviation.
RSP has a four phase plan across 15 years to create 19 new air cargo stands, update the runway, four new passenger aircraft stands and updated passenger terminal, refurbished fire station and new fire training area, aircraft recycling facility, flight training school, hangars for aircraft related business, highway improvements and the creation of a museum quarter.
The cost of putting the infrastructure for Manston in place is now said to be in the region of £479 million, with other expenses, such as for a CPO, to be in addition to that sum.
Stone Hill Park
Site owners Stone Hill Park (SHP) have submitted an enhanced application for homes, business and leisure to be developed at the airport site.
The documents, published on the Thanet council website, outline plans for 46,000 sq m of advanced/hi-tech employment space which SHP say will provide up to 2,000 direct jobs with 9,000 further jobs created over the course of the project, including construction and jobs in the supply chain for the wider area.
Plans include a heritage airport with an operational runway; public parks an East Kent Sports Village with facilities including Kent’s first 50m Olympic sized swimming pool and a WaveGarden surf lake; schools, a food store, cafes/restaurants, a 120-bed hotel and a health centre.
The period for lodging support or objection to the proposal is now closed. There have been some 400 public objections and some 100 public support documents lodged. Several neutral comments have also been submitted.
Southern Water has raised an objection concerning the design layout, saying there needs to be the required stand off distance from the public water mains and sewers. Dover District Council said its objection was based on support for reviving the airport.
Kent Highways lodged a ‘holding objection’ until further clarification could be made on a number of road and pedestrian issues. Canterbury City Council remained neutral saying councillors were happy with the employment offer but would like more details concerning transport and air quality.
The Environment Agency has also raised an objection saying the application has failed to provide assurance that the risks of pollution to controlled waters are acceptable or can be appropriately managed. Acol Parish Council also submitted an objection as did the Ministry of Defence based on the developments proximity to the main runway and the High Resolution Direction Finder which is used to locate transmissions from aircraft and particularly emergency transponder beacons.
Ramsgate councillor Susan Kennedy submitted her support for the proposal, saying: ” This huge site in the middle of Thanet has been blighted for too long and these plans offer real potential for sustainable development of the site and the ability to attract inward investment.”
The Ramsgate branch of the Laboyur Party also supports the development, saying it ‘safeguards’ Ramsgate residents.
Thanet council is yet to make a decision on the application.
Stone Hill Park has been approached for comment.
Living in Minster I fail to see that the infrastructure of the area can cope with this kind of building plan. It will create chaos on the roads, How will the major services cope..This has been used as an airport for many years and hopefully it will be reestablished as an airport in the future.
SHP’s plans will include infrastructure for the houses being built there. The houses that are planned to be built close to Minister and on many of our green spaces however do not include any infrastructure and you can complain to TDC about that one. The airport that has been there for “many years” has lost ‘many millions in its 15 years of private ownership. In fact, £100 million in losses, never having shown a penny in profit. Time for plan B. Stone Hill Park will provide part of the necessary homes we have been ordered by HMG to build along with the aforementioned infrastructure for these homes including schools, medical centres, dentists, leisure facilities and high-end manufacturing units all of which will produce much-needed skilled jobs and apprenticeships in our area.
SHP’s plans will include infrastructure for the houses being built there. The houses that are planned to be built close to Minister and on many of our green spaces however do not include any infrastructure. The airport that has been there for “many years” has lost ”many’ millions in its 15 years of private ownership. In fact, £100 million in losses, never having shown a penny in profit. Time for plan B, Stone Hill Park providing part of the necessary homes we have been ordered by HMG to build along with the aforementioned infrastructure for these homes including schools, medical centres, dentists, leisure facilities and high-end manufacturing units all of which will produce much-needed skilled jobs and apprenticeships in our area.
Isn’t it great to see how the professionals work and can sometimes get it wrong. It shows that none of us are fallible.
It makes no sense to lodge objections based on support for an airport at Manston at any cost. Nostalgia for aviation from days gone by are holding this area in limbo. Credible plans have been put forward to support this area in Thanet which would help the unemployed get jobs and should be taken seriously by TDC. Decades of blight is not good for Thanet, Let this end now.
The report by the PI into RSP’s Application shows what a bunch of cowboys RSP are. In one breath they say “17000 ATMs” (Air Traffic Movements), in the next they say “83000 ATMs”. Which is it? They’ve managed to baffle the inspectorate, who have yet to be convinced that it is an NSIP at all.
Nor, it seems, do they have the huge amount of money needed to buy the land, pay blight compensation, build the infrastructure and so on. It seems RSP were hoping to raise funds *after* they’d acquired the site. But, without money, how would they do it? Perhaps RSP could turn to Tony Freudmann, one of its directors and a struck off solicitor, for ideas about fundraising?
Gammon.
There you are, Ramsgate voters, your county councillor’s contribution to the debate.
We deserve so much better.
Well, we all know about Paul Messenger.
The Planning Inspectorate requests will ensure that when the Application is resubmitted it will be accepted for examination (rather like an MOT Failure which subsequently passes following a few repairs).
As regards finances, nobody in big infrastructure projects draws down all the money required in one chunk at the start. They draw it down monthly to cover the outgoings on the project from an agreed pot of money. All they have to do is provide evidence of the agreed funding.
I look forward to seeing real planes flying from Manston, real good paying jobs for our young people, and not houses for people from London who have no jobs and put an additional strain on our already buckling resources such as schools,social services, GPs, hospitals and our road network.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
We get the houses, no matter what else happens. Who knows who will live in them? Londoners with no jobs? Ramsgate people with no jobs? Nice middle class people with vocations? Who can tell.
The PI hasn’t made any “requests”. They’ve pointed out to RSP that their submission, presented after 2 1/2 years work by the world’s best experts (costing £4.5M) is a load of rubbish.
As regards finances, the Planning Inspectorate (who really know what they are talking about) raised serious concerns about RSP’s Funding Statement (or lack of it). It seems they (RSP) don’t have any funding. Their plan is to acquire the site for peanuts then try to attract funding afterwards.
I’d be very surprised if London councils could afford any of the new housing in Kent. They’re moving people out so that they can sell off parts of their estates to housing developers. And why are they doing this awful thing? Silly question- it’s because, since Thatcher, they’ve been getting poorer and poorer. Why are libraries closing? Why are schools really feeling the pinch?
I don’t want an airport near my home. If Thanet residents are worried about infrastructure and resources -which they should be- then they need to start organizing public campaigns and put pressure on their local MPs. Why are Gale and Mackinlay supporting RSP and their plans? If people like me know about the effects of aviation on people and their environment, then surely our MPs also know.
They know alright Marva but they just don’t care. Gale MP for North Thanet (also known as the MP for RiverOak as they are old chums) refuses to engage with the owners of Stone Hill Park. The arrogance of the man has no bounds. As for Mackinlay, the man has no morals, he just wanted to be an MP, he didn’t care for which party and stepped in for the tories. The man has an airline company called Mama Airlines which has been dormant for some 10 years and has recently brought it out of mothballs, one has to wonder why? That’s the tories in Thanet for you, only looking out for themselves and overlooking any detrimental facts that impact on their constituents by using loaded questions in petitions and spinning lies and deceit about the real facts.