Manston DCO: Hearing session results in wrangles over night flight ban

Manston airport site Photo Paul Wells

A wrangle over whether a night flight ban would  be an absolute ban took place during the latest hearing for a development consent order application for the Manston airport site.

The session held at Discovery Park on Friday (March 22) was to look specifically at noise and vibration associated with plans by RiverOak Strategic Partners to acquire the site through the DCO and create a cargo hub and aviation-related businesses.

The land belongs to Stone Hill Park which has lodged a masterplan application for housing, leisure, business and infrastructure on the site.

The examination process, which includes hearings and site visits, is due for completion in July. A decision on the application will then be made by the Secretary of State,

One issued raised was whether the night time ban on flights actually constituted a full ban.

According to the latest noise mitigation plan submitted by RSP there will be a total annual air transport movement limit of 26,468 with a General Aviation movement limit of 38,000. The proposal is for an annual quota during the Night Time Period (11pm-7am) of 3028 movements.

The site would have an overall operating capability of 83,220 movements per annum.

Night flights

RSP data predicts 33 Air Transport Movements (ATMs) and approximately 16 non ATMs on a typical busy day in all years. In Year 20 there is predicted to be 72 ATMs during a typical busy day and 7.6 ATMs on a typical busy night.

However, RSP Lead Counsel, Isabella Tafur said: “There will be no flights, programmed charted or scheduled” between 11pm and 6am. She then added that delayed flights might land within those hours but there would be no take offs.

Tony Freudmann, of RSP, said delayed flights would be primarily passenger ones that could be scheduled to be back by 10pm but would gain an hour UK time. He used Luton and Stansted as examples.

However, Louise Congdon, of York Aviation LLP and on behalf of SHP, said his timings were wrong and Luton would allow flights to land as late as 11pm until 1am – saying that meant there would be a need for Manston to offer the same service.

Isabella Tafur also admitted inbound freighter flights, with a noisier quota count of 4, could also run late to schedule although no quota 8 and 16 flights – making the most noise – would be allowed to take off or land during the night time period. Flights would be able to operate between 6am-7am – still technically night time hours.

She said: “The will be no flights programmed although there may be some late arrivals that would be accepted at the airport. There will be n departures under any circumstances.

The explanation did not satisfy examining committee lead member who said: “To sum up, there is no ban on night flights, is there?”

Isabella Tafur again reiterated the ‘programmed’ ban on flights between 11pm and 6am.


Thanet council questioned the 3,028 night flight quota and whether late freight arrivals would include 747 craft – with a 4QC.

Isabella Tafur, told the committee: “Restrictions on night flights are a recent addition to the deadline 4 environmental assessment.” She added that a forecast of how many 747s might arrive late could not be made although the RSP team said it would take away proposals for recording late flights..

During the 6am to 7am period the committee was told any take offs recording over 82 decibels would be subject to fines starting at £750.

Measuring noise disturbance

Measurements in the RSP report say a significant adverse noise level is measured at 63db (decibels) during the day flying period, 55db at night or 80db for more than 18 nightly events.

Anything 69db and over is labelled as an unacceptable level. Aircraft noise is measured by a quota count of Effective perceived noise in decibels (EPNdB).

Lowest is 84 – 86.9 EPNdB with a 0.25 quota count whilst the top end is 96 – 98.9 EPNdB with a quota count of 4;  99 – 101.9 EPNdB quota 8 and anything greater than 101.9 EPNdB equalling a count of 16.

Questions were raised about how potential noise impacts had been measured with RSP basing data on a 16 hour daytime period with Thanet council suggesting 30 minute periods would give a clearer overall picture.

Thanet council said there should be a lower noise threshold as isle residents would be unused to aircraft noise after almost five years of closure.

RSP’s panel responded by saying the measurements were made using the appropriate model.

Thanet council or the Secretary of State?

The issue also led to a dispute over who should be the approving body for agreed noise restrictions. Iain Livingston of Thanet council insisted the local authority should be at the reins whilst RSP said, based on previous actions by TDC, its performance at the House of Commons transport committee in 2014/15 and the current status of the draft Local Plan, the deciding body should be the Secretary of State.

This was questioned by the examining panel who asked whether the the democratic process should be representation of local people by a local authority.

Isabella Tafur said the RSP position was unchanged and TDC could represent local people as a consultee. She added: “Our preference is that the Secretary of State be the discharging body.”

Mr Livingstone retaliated with: “We made our position clear, TDC is more than able to discharge the requirements put forward.”

The next stage of the examination process is deadline 5, on March 29, for submission of documents including written summaries of the most recent hearings.

Public hearings resume in June.


  1. RSP’s attempt to assess noise by using 16hour average is really slight of hand. Anybody experiencing Manston before it closed nearly 5 years ago knows that aircraft noise is composed of single isolated events. The noise monitor at Clarendon School measured events at 95 – 100 db. It is the number of these events that matters, not averaging them over a 16 hour period. 80 of these a day with 8 of these at night would devastate Ramsgate. PINS want to hear from anyone experiencing overflying from Manston, let them know.

    • I live in Westgate and can see the ru way area from our bedroom window. We were never disturbed by flights at any time of day or night. Planes have been flying to and from Manston since 1916 far longer than anyone living in Ramsgate now in living memory

  2. There should be a total ban on all flights between 2200hrs and 0700hrs unless for emergencies. All the fancy numbers for aircraft noise mean nothing if it wakes you up it should not be allowed to fly over our homes it is our human right to sleep at night and no one has a right to take that away (HRA Strasbourg court of Human rights)

  3. Both nature reserves either side of the river stour into pegwell bay are now restricted areas. Any disturbance to nesting and feeding birds is liable to a hefty fine. Given the distance to manston has this been considered.

  4. It is fact that since the closure of manston more wildlife has settled in the nature reserve areas.

  5. Someone once said that if you averaged out the sound of an alarm clock over 8 hours, it wouldn’t wake you. But in fact an alarm does wake you, because it’s a one-off instantaneous event.
    In the same way, if you measure aircraft noise by averaging out several ATMs over 8 hours, it isn’t half so drastic as several individual events.
    Just as an alarm wakes you, so an aircraft flying low overhead will wake you.

    Nice report, Kathy!

  6. It is a disgrace that over 100,000 people are looking to the Examining Authority to protect our right to sleep rather than our elected councillors or elected MPs. The leader of the Council, Bob Bayford, should step down on this matter alone. It is sickening that we are looking to the Examining Authority to protect our children, our elderly, our vulnerable. RSP have not considered at least 7 schools and still not provided details of actual streets impacted. Despite this they felt confident to say no listed builldings are under the flight path. Speak out if you do not want cargo flights over Thanet day and night and vote out any councillor that has given RSP a free pass on our rights and allowed them to ride rough shod over our community.

  7. This process is utterly ridiculous. If someone wants to open an airport they need to do a proper environmental impact report in which they detail the noise levels which people living under the flights paths are likely to experience. Then everybody can decide for themselves whether they want to endure these noise levels, whether they are sitting in their garden on a sunny day, or are just visiting Ramsgate to take advantage of the sandy beach. When the airport was open previously people living in the centre of Ramsgate were regularly exposed to noise levels in excess of 90 decibels and, sometimes, over 100 decibels. Sometimes, the aircraft generating these noise levels were rated at QC4 or even QC2 on landing. It is preposterous and dishonest to pretend that aircraft with a quote count of 4 are quiet.

    • Has anybody actually messured the noise of a modern aircraft over Ramsgate since the closure of Manston?

      • You don’t actually need to measure the No use over Ramsgate to draw conclusions. The noise produced by commercial aircraft are well known, and listed.
        RSP has helpfully provided some details about its intended operations at night.
        It will allow aircraft with a quota count noisier than the quota count permitted at Heathrow.
        Although there will be no *scheduled* take-offs during the night, there is no restriction on *unscheduled* landings. RSP expect there to be 7 to 8 such events every night. That’s 7-8 events louder than those allowed (or aloud) at Heathrow.
        These flights will have a serious and negative effect on the people of Ramsgate.
        Who says so?
        RSP in their Non Technical Summary.

  8. Don’t believe the RSP fake headlines, these people are trying to hoodwink Ramsgate into abject destruction by flying knackered noisy old jumbos over our heads day and night. The ‘commitment’ in respect of night flights is spin. Pure spin. Programmed, scheduled, chartered, call it what you want RSP, we know what you are trying to do. For RSP not to think Clarendon School is under a flight path, and yet former noise monitoring to record 100 decibel noise at the school is a clear indication this nonsense has gone far enough. Stop the DCO now. Fine RSP for their lies on jobs. 30,000 was the number they were trumpeting at the façade of a public consultation and yet when it last went bust it employed less than 200. Don’t believe the lies Ramsgate.

  9. What a precious bunch those commenting are. I don’t suppose you would have complained about the sound of aircraft taking and landing off at night to protect your freedom years ago. I don’t suppose you have all moved in to your houses since the airport ceased flights and were not fully aware of the noise when you purchased your houses. What I think is that you are probably under advice to get 10 hours a night beauty sleep and you are worried that the preservation of history, creation of trade and the site returning of the airport to it’s original use would keep you as ugly on the outside as you are on the inside. I’m on the flightpath… bring it back!!!

    • Actually you won’t be getting an hours undisturbed sleep according to RSPs proposals if you care to read their DCO application !

    • Do you have any valid argument supporting a return of aviation to Mansion, or is slagging off people who care about Ramsgate your only contribution?

    • There’s no apostrophe in “its” in this case. No doubt the roar of aircraft interrupted your grammar lessons.

    • The airfild was initially for wartime use before it became an unviable commercial enterprise. But, if you had read the history of the airfield you would know that the US Airforce left Manston post war after many complaints from neighbours about their noisy airplanes landing and taking off. A few planespotters moving in shouldn’t mean a whole town, surrounding population and wildlife should have disturbed sleep and pollution.

    • LOL another keyboard warrior posting zero facts. The USAF left Manston in 1958 because of noise complaints where were you? From the 1970’s to the 1980’s the RAF mostly used just 3 aircraft at Manston so much for noise!!.
      Simply put RSP are trying to hoodwink PINS over Noise, Funding, Public Safety Zones yet there are gullible fools who want to see planes so why don’t you move to Hatton Cross?

      • Most fruit and veg is carried as belly freight or as sea freight. If I recall correctly Dr Sally Dixon’s example of what type of product she thought Manston would be used for inport/export. Her answer was over the summer period (July and August) visitng Arabs need their luxury cars brought in to London. This is hardly a nationally significant need not is it a sustainably business model.

        • Apologies for typing on phone! Should read – Most fruit and veg is carried as belly freight or as sea freight. If I recall correctly Dr Sally Dixon’s example of what type of product she thought Manston would be used for import/export. Her answer was over the summer period (July and August) visiting Arabs need their luxury cars brought in to London. This is hardly a nationally significant need nor is it a sustainable business model.

        • I can’t imagine how this DCO application will ever get passed by the planning inspectorate given the widely reported issues over noise pollution, lack of transparency over the funding and investors, let alone the fact that there is little if no actual evidence of any need now or in the future for this type of air cargo operation in the far south east of England. Better alternatives already exist elsewhere.
          However should RSP be given permission, which I suspect is highly unlikely, the project may never get going if they can’t fund it, and then even if it does, financial failure and closure (again) is the most likely outcome. If you think it will ever provide thousands of jobs you will sadly be disappointed.

          • What have we got to lose, none of the money is coming from TDC or the Government, so let’s give them a chance, put a time scale on it, say 10 years, after the Airport is open, if it is not viable after that, thenso be it, I live on the flight path, so let’s give our children some hope.

    • In my case at least, Anon Moaner thinks wrong. For although I don’t mind being rather ugly, I would certainly mind not being able to sleep because a bunch of chancers has somehow managed to build a successful cargo hub airport a couple of miles from my home.

      • I’m replying to Tripod’s 9.05 posting. I assume he (or she) doesn’t live in Ramsgate, and hasn’t read RSP’s plans. And what does she (or he!) mean by “Let’s give them a chance”? RSP has been given chance after chance to justify their hideous bid to take legally-owned brownfield site into their possession and, so they say, turn it into an unbearably noisy and polluting cargo hub airport. It is not local residents, nor even local councillors, who are in control of this application now.

        • Well Marva Rees, firstly can I ask what is rude about, pointing out to the supporters of Stone Hill Park, how they are going to get around Thanet, after these 4000 + houses are built on Manston, not forgetting, that with the houses, comes at least 6000 polluting cars. And yes I do live right on the flight path, in Ramsgate, obviously from your statement, you don’t give a second thought about the young people of Thanet, I think you are forgetting that the Airport was here long before you and I were ever thought of, why did you move here, knowing there was an Airport nearby. As for supporting RiverOak, yes I do, because, as I have said, we must give the youngsters of Thanet HOPE, I do not think Roger Gale MP, would back RiverOak, if the financial backing wasn’t there, I await your next reply, I am always up for a laugh.

          • Can you explain, Ms Tripod, how reopening a noisy, dirty, 24×7 cargo hub can be of any benefit to our children and young people? It’s been well established that aircraft noise at night upsets the sleep of everyone, including young people. Not enough sleep= poor performance at school.
            There’s plenty of evidence that aircraft noise during the day disrupts lessons. How’s that good for our children?
            Around 40,000 people a year die prematurely from air pollution, and many many more suffer respiratory illness. Low flying jets, taking off and landing over our town, spew out pollution.
            Why inflict that on our young people?
            You bang on about additional houses, cars, and the pollution they will bring.FOR THE N MILLIONTH TIME WE GET THE HOUSES ETC WITH ÒR WITHOUT THE AIRPORT!
            In an earlier post, you said that RSP should be given a chance, over 10 years, to see if they can make it viable.
            Firstly, there is no evidence to show that Manston was, is or could be viable. If you know otherwise, post it on here and let Sally Dixon of Azimuth know.
            Secondly, RSP don’t own the land. It’s someone else’s property. Why on Earth should this Belize based bunch of cowboys be given someone else’s land?

          • Financial backing: Don’t you read anything about this DCO, Tripod? In August last year, the Planning Inspector asked RSP to show where the money for the project was; where the funding was coming from. They’re still asking, because RSP can’t (or won’t) tell the ExA.
            If you’re up for a laugh, have a giggle over that.

          • When I moved here Manston Airport was hardly operational, and it was clearly not going to get much busier, seeing what a poor position it was in.

            I do not understand why, when there is so much local anxiety about traffic numbers, there has not, over the past years, been a large amount of pressure on our local councils and MPS to radically improve public transport.

            By the way, I don’t think that Tripod’s telling me that he/she expects my next posting to amuse him/her is the sort of comment which encourages discussion.

          • Forgot to say, not wanting a busy airport doesn’t mean wanting thousands of new houses. Clearly, the area needs some, and this government won’t be giving councils money to help them CPO and repair the hundreds of empty homes in Thanet.

  10. How does 8 flights a night between 11.00pm & 6.00am and the possibility of many many more using a massive quota count constitute no night flights??

  11. Let’s not forget Louise Condon’s explanation to the examening authority that the night time flights that have now been removed from the 11pm-6am slot are now neatly in the day time schedule. Yet rsp have not changed their environment data to account for this. That either means their day time data is wrong, or they’re lying. Something has to give.

  12. There are very few people left that still want RSP to take Manston. Most have realised by now how devastating it would be for the area. RSP are bluffing their way through the PINS procedure, not coming up with the requested information. There is also a lot of arrogance in the not sures and don’t knows in reply to questions, as has been the last few years. They seem like a cowboy outfit, and going on previous records of RSP director Tony Freudmann’s career with failed aviation projects he cannot be fit to be employed in the business. A search on Google will tell you he has chanced it many times before, each time walking away leaving debt in his wake. It’s surprising a Government MP such as Mr Gale walks along side him, giving him more support than his Thanet constituents. Is another scandal like Secretary of State Chris Grayling’s Seaborne at Ramsgate Port coming soon? or both?
    It’s about time PINS called a halt on this crazy idea that has none of the necessary Nationaly Significant Infrastructure Project about it to bring a DCO application, no, nothing but harmful effects in every manner for all who live in this South-East corner of Kent. It’s as clear as day this scheme is just a con with the aura of some scheming fraudsters after the land.
    Some may say better freight planes than more cars, but I would scotch that with, it doesn’t stop with just the planes coming and going through the day and night because with those planes you need thousands of trucks belching out diesel fumes day and night, blocking up the roads that are not adequate.

  13. Anon moaner. Let’s not use WW2 to justify your desire to stop house building in Thanet on the failed airport site and please don’t pretend you’re that interested in fruit and veg rumbling 200 metres over your house every 10 minutes. Manston has always been a failure as a commercial airport and what RSP proposes simply stinks. Perhaps if more people had supported it when it was open it wouldn’t have gone bust 4 times. I also don’t recall anyone offering to buy it in the years it was up for sale. Funny how RSP only want it now they can’t have it isn’t it?

  14. I heard a car drive past my home at midnight last night, please ban all motor vehicle movements between 23.00 and 7.00 🙂 Also stop building new housing estates, the wildlife doesn’t like it, thanks.

  15. All these alleged experts saying how bad the DCO is and making much ado about nothing. The re-opening of the airport is an economical godsend to Thanet and the South East region. Personally I can’t wait for the airport to be operational again.

    • Alleged experts such as the Davies Commission, Falcon Aviation, York Aviation, Avia Solutions and Altitude Aviation?
      But, just a sec, RSP commissioned material from Dr Sally Dixon of Azimuth Aviation, and she based her work on earlier research by … York Aviation! And subsequently, YA tore Sally Dixon and Azimuth’s case to shreds.
      So would you like to make an ado about something, and point us towards an independent, expert and authoritative report that supports RSP’s case?
      I thought not. Because there aren’t any.

  16. According to Sir Roger, and now Riveroak’s own lead counsel, Riveroak want no night flights at Manston, just the flexibility to handle emergency, disaster relief, and delayed aircraft. Who could disagree with that?

    Well, actually, Riveroak do. Their DCO application states that night flights are a desirable attribute in the Manston offering, and asks for lots of them.

    Flights described as carrying “time sensitive cargo with a very specific delivery window” in the application, suddenly seem to require:

    no bans or agreements on operating hours;

    no cap on the number of night flights;

    a noise quota which could accommodate hundreds of night flights each year.

    One wonders if Sir Roger has actually read the application?

    I have been in local politics continuously since 2003. Served as County Cabinet Member, District Cabinet Member and Council Leader. I have never seen such acts of conscious self delusion as Local Councillors entertain on this subject.

    Opinion replaces fact as a matter of course. Some local councillors tell the world they oppose the government imposed housing numbers, but have voted for more greenfield land for building to keep Manston empty. The case for Manston does not stack up, and there is no independent evidence to support the proposals for the freight hub. Indeed Riveroaks own forecasts to support their case has been derided by those on whose work it is based.

    Time for a little common sense. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it’s probably a duck. And in this case a dead or closed one to boot.

    Yet there remains the risk this lunatic proposal will get some traction because of that wilful self delusion of supporters and local politicians. For too long the voice of evidence and reason has been shouted down by those who hide from the truth, and promote a dangerous proposal for our area with a huge cost…in sleep, pollution, green fields and more.

    I ceased to be a Council Leader because I would not pursue what I knew to be a poor deal for our area. It was, and remains, a price I was willing to pay in pursuit of the truth. Do not let those who would promote0 shoddy untruth have their way, when it is the local residents and households across a Ramsgate who will pay the price for their self delusion,

  17. i lived and worked near gatwick for many years the reason being there was planty of work open manston and watch thanets recovery and as for noise are you joking you dont even notice it after a while close it and watch thanet disappear under untold housing and poverty

  18. I think you are all missing the point here, RiverOak will be bringing full time jobs to Thanet, so our young people have a future, these will be full time jobs,not jobs that will only last until the building the thousands of house has finished, on the Manston site,which Stone Hill Park propose, yes your going to tell us all about the jobs Stone Hill Park will create, well looking at Discovery Park, I would not hold my breath.

      • Did you know that those so called new jobs on Discovery Park were all re-locations from other areas, in fact hardly any NEW JOBS were created at Discovery Park, just companies re-locating for cheaper rents, as I understand only about 30ish jobs were created, namely cleaners for the larger offices

        • Your source is wrong. Many of the companies were spin outs from Pfizer, many of which have grown in size. Relocations as you put it include the UK\European HQ of a global based research company. It has also given a place for smaller and start up companies to grow as well as more established regional and U.K. general and science companies The owners of SHP sold on the site some time ago but had the experience to get it going after the uncertainty when Pfizer downsized their presence on site (they’re now reinvesting again) 5 to 150 companies in five years wasn’t a bad legacy. It’s given the present owners a great foundation on which to continue the site’s success.

        • Hi John: Please will you publish the facts that support your claim that very few new jobs have been created at Discovery Park?
          Not that it’s got anything at all to do with night flights at Manston.

  19. Tripod and thanet resident: how is the airport to be reopened? The land belongs to someone else, and they don’t include an airport in their plans.
    In order for RSP to effect a DCO and a CA, they have to prove that, amongst other things, their proposal is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (it isn’t) and they’ve got the money to carry out the project (They haven’t).
    Putting that aside: if RSP did get its highly automated cargo hub up and running, the number of direct jobs would be fewer than the old airport (~140) and certainly fewer than the ‘Spoons. (Direct jobs doesn’t include the knock-on jobs that Sally Dixon includes. Things like the cab driver who brings the pilots to work, the man who fixes the cab of the driver, the woman who runs the nursery where the cab driver’s children go whilst the driver is … etc etc etc)
    So there you go.
    RSP don’t have an airport, nor a case for a DCO/CA nor the money. And even if they had, the number of jobs would be very small.
    As for houses: the houses the govt says we must have will now be built (they’ll be built anyway, airport or not) on more greenfield sites round the villages.

    • Well Andrew, you better get yourself a bike, with 10,000 extra cars on the road, that is the only way you are going to get around Thanet, you might even want to purchase a basket for it, so you can put your shopping in it.

      • You rather rude comment applies equally well to everyone in Thanet. However, your advice is excellent: if far more people travelled by bike rather than car (panniers are better than basket, btw) the roads would be far better places, as would the wider environment.

  20. Time we stopped churning out the tired “airport -vs- houses” argument. This is NOT about that. It is about RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) -vs- The People of Thanet.

    RSP and “the airport” are not one and the same thing. This is a commercial company, led by a guy (Tony Freudmann), with a 25yr career history that starts with being barred from being a solicitor for 27 counts of misappropriation of client funds, continues with serving as a director of 26 dissolved companies and includes many failed airport operations – including at Odense in 2005, where the town of Odense was left with a £2m bill following the failure, and Lahr, where it closed after 9 months and with employees not being paid for 3 months.

    Manston is next on the list and – for some bizarre reason – our local MPs and councillors are queuing up to say “gimme some of that”. Apparently, failures with Pleasurama and Seaborne aren’t enough … they’ve obviously got a taste for it.

    I may not agree with those who want the airport back, but I do respect their opinion and totally understand the heritage/history argument. But it is possible to show your love of the former airport and still oppose RSP – or, at the very least, demand better from them … better noise mitigation, a better application, better evidence of need and funding a better community trust fund to compensate Thanet for the incredible blight this will cause.

    The community fund they have currently offered is £50k per year. That’s about 35p for every resident.

    The noise mitigation they have offered only applies to a maximum of 225 houses in the whole of Thanet and won’t come close to covering the likely costs of noise and ventilation protection for even those few houses
    Even worse, RSP has offered NO mitigation or compensation AT ALL for the 7 Ramsgate schools that lie directly under the flight path, with air CARGO planes flying overhead every 10-15 minutes at altitudes of less than 600ft. If you have kids in any of these schools, I suggest you write to the schools – and to the Planning Inspectorate Examiners – to tell them how you feel about that. I’d be deeply concerned.

    Clearly no amount of evidence, facts or reasoned argument is going to change the minds of those who support RSP, but for anyone who is on the fence or doesn’t know what to believe, here’s a few things you might want to bear in mind …

    ON JOBS ….
    1) The author of the (Azimuth) report who predicted all the jobs that the airport will apparently create admitted in the Planning Inspectorate hearings last week that there is absolutely no evidence of any viability for any of her forecasts – which includes those job forecasts. In reality, only 144 people worked at the Airport just before it closed.
    2) RSP love to make out these are going to be high paid, high-tech jobs. The reality is far from that. I would be happy to point anyone who wants to read up on this to all sorts of official reports about actual working conditions and low pay/zero hours contracts that are the norm in airports – particularly cargo airports – but here’s a consumer-friendly place to start:
    3) How many jobs are going to be lost when businesses close down due to negative impact on our tourism economy? Tourism currently employs more than 7,000 people in Thanet. You think anyone is going to want to visit Ramsgate when there are cargo planes flying over the Royal Harbour at 500ft?
    4) If you want to employ people, it helps to have money to be able to pay them. RSP admitted in hearings last week that they have no evidence of this. Take a look at the last regional airport RSP founding director tried to pull this number on, just one year before starting up with RSP … Black Forest Airport Lahr in Germany went bust in 2013, 9 months after he took it over, after employees had gone 3 months without getting paid. Still want one of those jobs he’s offering …? (do a Google translate on that one).

    I could go on. But this is such a mess that I really would be here all day.

    Bottom line is RSP does NOT have Thanet’s best interests at heart … not by a long shot. You want an airport? I may not agree with you, but I understand. But if you’re going to inflict that on the rest of us, you’d better make damn sure we get the very best deal possible… and also make sure they can actually deliver. Otherwise this is just going to be Pleasurama all over again.

    If these guys have access to all the money that their supporters claim they have, (despite ZERO evidence of this), then the least they can do is make sure Thanet is properly compensated for what we will all lose.

    • Well said Jason. Ramsgate and Thanet deserve so much more. We need to support inward investment that will make Ramsgate a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit. RSP are not fit for that job.

  21. Chris Wells has a cheek, promised 4 years ago he would re-open Manston Airport just to get him and his cohorts elcted to Thanet District Council, he owes that majority of Thanet residents an apology as well as repayments of monies he was paid while he was a Councillor of Thanet District Council as this money was paid fraudulently as he had no intention of opening Manston Airport he just used it as a vehicle to get elected as he knew Manson Airport re-opening is what the vast majority of Thanet residents want to happen. FACT.

    • Well maybe if you’d voted on more important things than a dead airport we all would have done better! No apology needed. At least you’ve woken up to the fact you’ve been had.

    • FICTION.
      Every major political party included Manston in its manifesto. It is impossible to say that UKIP was voted in because of Manston.
      When UKIP was returned to power, CW did everything he could to get aviation going again.
      He entered into fruitless discussions with RiverOak: then, as now, they had no money.
      He instituted a round of Soft Market Testing to see if there were other suitable partners: there was none.
      He commissioned a report from aviation experts Avia Solutions, to look into the viability of Manston as an airport: they concluded not (confirming what Falcon and Davies had said a couple of years earlier).
      CW gave it his best shot. But he’s seen the writing on the wall, and has had a Damascene conversion.
      BTW I am by no means a supporter of UKIP.

  22. Tripod needs to learn better manners. For all he or she knows, Andrew travels everywhere possible by bike.

    How does Tripod travel? In an eco-friendly way or by car? I am really fed up with the personally insulting comments from people who want to live near a cargo hub airport.

    I don’t have a car or a bike but I manage to get around Thanet. If necessary I hire a taxi. It’s been cheaper, so far, than owning a car.

  23. The massive error which all of the banner-waving, pro-airport supporters are making is to assume that RSP will be able to deliver the levels of business they have projected. Similarly ludicrous projections were made throughout the time the airport was operational but successive operators were unable to deliver anything like the numbers of flights they had planned for. For over fifteen years the airport was a colossal failure and lost money every single year. Yet this crucial evidence is being ignored. Pro-airport supporters have been suckered into believing that creating additional stands and apron space will magically transform the airport’s prospects. This is arrant nonsense. If it were that simple one of the three companies which owned the airport in its fifteen year failure would have done it. Creating more stands doesn’t help you if airlines don’t want to use the airport. You’ll note that during the current hearings this is one of the most important omissions; the name of a single airline which has committed to using this Nationally Important (sic) piece of infrastructure. So what will happen if the DCO is approved? What you are likely to see is another 20 years of failure with nobody holding up their hands to admit responsibility. All of these politicians who are currently lobbying for the airport to be reopened will be nowhere to be seen; just like you can’t see any of the ones who lobbied on its behalf last time. Remember 1998 when you were told that it would create thousands of jobs? Where are those people now? I remember the council’s planning director claiming that 10,000 jobs would be created by 2013. In the end it created less than 150 jobs and many of those were zero hours or part-time. If RSP want to reopen the airport they should negotiate its sale directly with the owners. The government should not be involved because it is not the job of government to decide which businesses will be viable.

  24. RSP have from the day they first appeared lied to everyone , somehow they fooled others to believe in them AND EVEN IN THESE HEARINGS THEY ARE LYING , THEY ARE ECONOMICAL EITH FACT AND DETAIL AND CANT EVEN DISCLOSE WHO THE ALLEDGED BACKERS ARE. PINS are the only department that can expose the lies and cease this application now .#savethanet

Comments are closed.