Manston DCO: Topic of compulsory acquisition scheduled for resumed hearings

The Manston airport site Photo Swift Aerial Photography

The public examination into the development consent order application for the Manston airport site reopens next week.

Hearings resume on Monday (June 3) at Discovery Park with the hot topic of compulsory acquisition -as well as funding and funders –being heard on June 4.

The DCO bid is being made by firm RiverOak Strategic Partners with the aim of acquiring the site and creating a cargo hub and associated aviation business.

However, the land is owned by Stone Hill Park which has submitted a planning application to create up to 3,700 homes, business and leisure and associated infrastructure.


One of the major questions posed has been how the project, which RSP say will cost in the region of £306 million, will be funded and by whom.

RSP says the airport project has “attracted significant interest from a wide range of further institutional investors based in the UK, the Far East and North America.”

The company has not named the investors, saying this is due to: “unavoidable constraints of commercial confidentiality, particularly in the context where private individuals are involved in funding the project and investing in major infrastructure.”

RSP says it will provide examiners with a statement identifying the individuals who have invested and are committed to further investment, together with a version where the confidential information is redacted. They want a redacted version to be made available to the public.

SHP, who would be forced to relinquish the site if the DCO is granted, has accused RSP of a ‘Wild West’ approach to the examination.

The SHP response says: “The applicant has consistently failed to provide the examination with the requested information. In its answer, the applicant appears to be advocating for a “Wild West” approach, whereby any legitimate concerns and the ExA’s commitments to openness, transparency and impartiality should be put to one side so as not to risk investment in the UK from anonymous “non-dom” investors. These “investors” are seeking to deprive another party of its land.”

RSP say: “Business Investment Relief is an HMRC-approved scheme introduced to encourage non-domiciled UK residents to invest in the UK and does not require those using it to be disclosed. For the ExA to insist on full disclosure of those individual investors has the potential to undermine this type of investment in the UK.”

RSP suggests that if examiners do not wish to take information into account that is not openly available “then it leaves the issue to the Secretary of State to decide.”

SHP has branded that suggestion as “ludicrous” and demonstrating “arrogance.”

Revised costs

A revised funding statement submitted by RSP is an updated version of the original made in July 2018.

Changes have been made to the costs, with the submission now stating:

Noise mitigation costs have been reassessed as £3.85m rather than £5.6m;

Construction costs have been reassessed as £306m rather than £300m;

The first phase of construction has been reassessed as £180m rather than £100m.

Capital funding

On the question of capital funding the RSP statement says “RiverOak Investments (UK) M.I.O Investments Limited (“RIUMIO”) is a UK registered company whose ultimate beneficial owners are resident in Switzerland and the United Kingdom. RIUMIO is managed and administered by Helix Fiduciary AG, a Swiss registered and regulated fiduciary company on behalf of the beneficial owners.

“Helix also manages and controls all the investors’ funds that provide the funding for the Manston DCO.”

It adds that a revised joint venture agreement has “access to committed and unencumbered funds to fund compulsory acquisition and noise mitigation required by the DCO (totalling £11.35m, but in fact £15 million has been committed).”

The statement says: “Full cost of the project will be met by private sector investors once the DCO is granted, “ but adds “such details cannot yet be finalised.”

RSP says: “It is important to note that the funding of the project is not dependent on any public funding, government subsidy or guarantee, or any access to borrowing or grants from UK or European funds.

“Should the project receive development consent, RiverOak can immediately draw down the land acquisition and noise mitigation costs from its current funders under the terms of its joint venture agreement. To meet the capital costs of construction, RiverOak will select one or more funders from amongst those who have already expressed interest and others that are likely to come forward, to secure the best deal for constructing and operating the project.”

An explanatory letter has been provided by Helix about its role in the funding of the project, together with a confirmatory letter from PwC, dated July 2018, although the Helix letter is not currently visible on the published document.

Revised costs for the initial phase of the project are £186 million; developing the remaining phases of the project over a 15-year period £120 million,  making a total of £306 million.

RSP say so far, £15.92 million has been expended on the DCO process.

‘No assets, no intrinsic value’

Landowners SHP say the revised Funding Statement “is wholly underwhelming and adds nothing of any substance that would allow the applicant’s application to be fairly and adequately tested.”

The firm says there are no assets in RiverOak Operations Ltd and the shares have no intrinsic value. It adds: “It is important to note that all the funding has been provided by the Belize based MIO Investments Ltd on which no relevant information has been provided. The applicant intends that MIO will continue to provide funding but provides no evidence to support its assertion.”

SHP has also questioned the status of RSP holding companies as to whether they are dormant or trading, saying they appear to be put forward as both. They have also raised questions about the separation of liabilities and assets in RSP’s subsidiary companies -one of which holds the title for the Jentex site which RSP acquired for £2,418,185 in September 2018.

RSP says the companies are not dormant. The firm says RiverOak Investments (UK) Limited and RiverOak Manston Limited are holding companies that own  RSP Limited which holds 100% interest in four subsidiary companies; RiverOak AL Limited, RiverOak Operations Limited, RiverOak Fuels Limited and RiverOak MSE Limited.


M.I.O Investments Limited was the funding vehicle for the airport project. It held 90% of shares in the company but was registered in Belize.

RSP has since restructured to ditch the Belize connection with RiverOak Investments (UK) Ltd showing 400 shares in UK ownership. However, 600 shares are registered under HLX Nominees Ltd in the British Virgin Islands (BVI).

SHP has criticised the move to a BVI, saying it provides no more transparency than the previous arrangement.

The restructure will be one of the areas examined during the June 4 hearing.

The hearing will also help examiners establish whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be acquired compulsorily, whether there are reasonable alternatives and whether agreement has been reached over plots of land that belong to the Crown.

Hearings for the Development Consent Order resume on June 3 at Laurence Suite, Building 500, Discovery Park, Sandwich.

Hearing 4

Landscape, design, archaeology and heritage

3 June, 2.00pm (seating available from 1.30pm)

Hearing 5

Socio-economic issues

5 June, 10.00am (seating available from 9.30am)

Hearing 6

Habitats Regulations Assessment, biodiversity and other environmental issues

5 June 2.00pm (seating available from 1.30pm)

Hearing 7

Traffic and transport

6 June, 10.00am (seating available from 9.30am)

Hearing 8

Draft Development Consent Order

7 June,10.00am (seating available from 9.30am)

Compulsory Acquisition Hearing 2

To include funding

4 June, 10.00am (seating available from 9.30am)

Documents can be found on the Planning Inspectorate website here


  1. So Riveroak Investments Ltd are owned by HLX Nominees Ltd (60% is a controlling Interest) so we are back to the beneficial ownership moving from Belize to Tortola (BVI) So who owns HLX Nominees Ltd?
    Does anyone know?
    RSP says Helix but provide no proof of this. Is HLX yet another shell company?
    No one seems to care.
    It’s a puppet yet another sock puppet. Do airport supporters care? LOL

  2. Yet more RSP insults to the residents of Ramsgate by a reduction in noise mitigation spend. I’d like to see how the Georgian and other period properties in our town will be insulated to the noise of a cargo jumbo over the harbour at 500 metres every 10 minutes. That aside, we can’t mitigate for outside noise and the harbour will be ruined. Along with our health, wellbeing and sleep. Say no to the DCO, we are no longer an easy target for this shambolic application with zero evidence of need, viability or funding.

    • They have drawn noise contours which leaves Ramsgate outside the compensation. 6 schools under the fightpath will also have to beg. Way to go RSP

    • So you would rather be intoxicated by 4000 +, extra cars on the roads, cannot see your argument, rather have a few planes landing each, than being polluted by diesel cars.

      • “A few planes” = up to 83,000 p.a.
        + approximately 300-400 additional HGVs on local roads PER DAY (since there is no rail freight interchange to handle the cargo)
        + fuel tankers since there is no dedicated fuel pipeline
        + all those cars you mention, but minus the car parking or infrastructure to support them if there was a dedicated housing development rather than slotting the houses into whatever patches of greenbelt land TDC can find in the area to accommodate them (as they have done)

      • Oh dear, dreary, goodness me.
        For the 94,000,000th time:
        We get the houses (and the cars, and surgery queues etc) anyway. What we *don’t* want is the additional pollution of a 24×7 cargo hub.
        Do try to keep up.

      • Car are being phased out but polluting noisy jet engines and houses are coming anyway. Thanks to airport supporters they will now go in Greenfield site and because of the delay in TDC agreeing a local plan over Mansion the number has gone up from 12,000 to 17,000 so well done airport supporters !!

      • How do you think workers, passengers, air-cargo and fuel will get to the Manston site; on the backs of unicorns? There is no strategic rail freight interchange, no fuel pipeline and no passenger railway. For these reasons there’s pretty huge car, fuel tanker and HGV parking areas in RSP plans which I assume they intend to fill with HGVs, fuel tankers and…near to all the alleged dedicated freighters. This proposal is not sustainable or viable.

      • If it were a “few planes” I would not be against it. As it is they have applied for more flights than Heathrow! Their night flights limits don’t appeal to me much either – I sleep much longer than between 11pm and 6am – so do children. Not fun.

  3. It’s ironic that the meetings are being held at the discovery park. Has the meeting room been swept each time for bugging devices.

    • The hearings are openly and transparently recorded by the UK Planning Inspectorate and published openly and publicly on its website. So not sure why anyone would need to ‘bug’ the hearings?

    • Why would the meeting room need to be swept for bugs? It’s an open, public meeting.
      Anyone can go.
      Anyone can film it.
      The audio recording will be released on the PINS site in due course.
      Unlike SMAa’s BBQs, which are private, furtive, closed and clandestine events, accessible only by invitation and only to the Faithful.

  4. In an earlier incarnation of its funding statement, RSP (or whoever they were then) made it clear that, although they had access to some funding (to the tune of £10Ms) to pay the costs of the DCO/CA, the bulk of the money for the actual development (the £300M ish) would be sought from bank loans and investors’ capital using the CA as inducement.
    RSP itself does not have the £300,000,000.00.
    It does not have access to £300,000,000.00.
    It does not have a promise of £300,000,000.00.
    But it has hopes, perhaps of a Money Tree in the British Virgin Islands.

  5. Yet again, this hugely important local issue is being presented as nothing more than a commercial fight between RSP and SHP. Where are the people of Ramsgate and Thanet in all of this? It seems we don’t even get a mention.

    We need to wake up to the fact that this is actually about RSP -vs- Ramsgate/Thanet.

    SHP will look after their own interests and whatever they may wish to do with the site is a separate matter. They have their own planning application in progress and that will be judged separately. Why is this being reported purely in terms of what SHP say and all about the Compulsory Acquisition? This frames the story as being about whether or not RSP can afford to buy the site if they get the CPO, not whether or not they can afford to build or run the proposed air cargo hub, (which they can’t).

    Since the pro-airport campaigners are largely campaigning on the basis of jobs, the question of whether or not RSPs plans are viable and/or if they can afford to do what they promise – including employ people – is the key one for locals that is really up to challenge and question here. This is the biggest issue for locals in this particular hearing.

    There is a responsibility here to actually look at the evidence and give locals some proper evidence and information that is not coming through the filter of RSP or SHP, who both only care about their own interests. The result is a report that is riddled with inaccuracies, half-truths and spin. It’s like the old adage … if one person tells you it’s raining outside and another person tells you it’s sunny, it’s not your responsibility to give both people the opportunity to state their views. It’s your responsibility to stick your head out the window and report what the weather actually is.

    For the record – and based on documents that are completely open to the public – RSP has not submitted ANY evidence of ….

    – Its cost base. There is no breakdown whatsoever to support how much they think any of this will cost or what it will be spent on.
    – Its funding. The Examining Authority noted in the previous hearings, (recordings of which are all in the public domain), that the PwC letter does NOT confirm any commitment of any amount of money available to RSP, £15m or otherwise, and that it does not even count as a letter of comfort
    – Its spend. There is no evidence whatsoever that RSP has spent £15.92m to date and there is no evidence of anything like this amount going through its accounts
    – Its business model. Which means it has been unable to provide ….
    – Its employment plans. There is no breakdown at all of what job roles they intend to provide, how many, any training requirement or needs or anything approaching a realistic, viable proposition for locals. All they have done is throw some ridiculously jobs figures out that have been largely discredited and which the author of their Azimuth Report admits have no regard to viability. The figures have literally been plucked from thin air in an effort to sound impressive and garner local support. They have no basis in fact or reality.

    This whole fiasco makes Seaborne Freight look like a really safe bet and needs to be put under the most intense scrutiny. Thankfully, this appears to be exactly what the Examining Authority is doing, although this also does not appear to be getting reported on to the extent that it should be. There have been more than 500 pages of searing questions from them made publicly available and 4 days of hearings already, very little of which has been reported upon and there were no press present at any of the Issue Specific Hearings so far, to the best of my knowledge.

    The people of Thanet are being badly let down by its local politicians and local media. We have been lied to repeatedly and now that we have actual concrete evidence out in the public domain that might help to clear up this sorry mess, it is not being reported. This whole story has been – and is – an epic scandal that needs to be outed as such. National press know this is a complete fiasco but won’t report it unless Grayling approves the DCO – at which time they will leap all over it as his latest calamity, because it will be an utter farce. Until then, there is no national interest, so there is an opportunity for our local press – or even blogs like IoTN – to own this and do it more justice. Yes, IoTN has written about it more than the local press, but the actual story and its impact is getting lost in all this tit-for-tat tussle between RSP and SHP.

    We are not just pawns in this corporate squabble and land-rights issue between RSP and SHP. We deserve better.

    • This is one issue being covered. There are articles for other issues. A look at the number of documents on PINs shows you that putting every issue in one article is clearly not possible. The report is of the submitted documents for the firm that wants the land and other firm that owns it. The views of residents will be written about when they speak at the hearings.

      • No, the report is of the spin put on those submitted documents by both RSP and SHP. The more relevant submitted documents in question is the Funding Statement itself – minus the spin – which is here:

        The PwC letter is on page 13 and it is largely meaningless. It confirms only that there are two accounts held by someone somewhere that – on two different days – each had £15m in them. (So possibly the same £15m moved from one account to the other over the 9 day period between checking both accounts). That is all it says. It does not confirm that these funds are committed to RSP or that they are currently available or that they can draw them down whenever they like.

        The Helix letter that precedes it on pages 10-11, dated July 2018, confirms only that at that time, financial support to “complete the DCO application and the purchase of the Airport and any legitimate blight claims and land compensation, currently estimated as up to a total of £15m, should the DCO application be accepted and ultimately approved by the Government”.

        From this we can see …
        It does not specify what qualifies as “legitimate blight claims and land compensation”
        It sets its own arbitrary limits on funding as £15m, which is currently under much dispute
        It is 100% conditional on “the DCO application being accepted and ultimately approved by the Government”, which is a problem since the funds have to be available BEFORE DCO approval
        It is not in any way legally binding

        • To take your point Kathy about locals just when did there appear in any local rag either online or in paper and statement from interested locals?

          • The issue for many of those who distrust the lying from RSP is your need to play fair and balanced.
            That only works when those liars in RSP actually tell the truth like who makes up the beneficial ownership of HLX Nominees ltd based in a Tax haven of Tortola, especially when they stated that they would restructure to be open and transparent. They haven’t and someone needs to call out their weasel words when the press doesn’t

          • And yet I do need to be fair and balanced while there is a government process of examination taking place. Rather like a court case when you cannot say the accused is a murderer unless/until the court declares guilt

          • But you can question why they promise to be open and transparent but then use a Nominee account in Tortola (a known tax haven) to hide the beneficial ownership. I know from the questions that RSP have refused to answer by deadline 7 the ExA were less than impressed

  6. There are 7 schools, 1000s of homes if not 10,000s, GPs, a great number of places of community use, Wards that are homes to some of Thanet’s most deprived children under the proposed flight paths, and RSP have actually REDUCED the amount of noise mitigation costs in this Examination. If the DCO is granted this is truly shocking and scandalous.

    Sir Roger Gale and Craig Mackinlay, every single member of the Council who voted in support of RSP and in particular Bob Bayford should be outraged, leaping up and down and demanding more protection for Ramsgate’s residents.

    They are not.

    One can only think the reason is for the same reason talked openly about in relation to their intervention in our draft local plan – to keep costs down for RSP.

    This is deeply troubling and an insult to the people of Thanet that they were elected to represent.

    It is not too late for these demands to be made.

    I ask Sir Roger Gale and Craig Mackinlay, every single member of the Council and in particular Bob Bayford to demand the residents of Ramsgate – particularly our children and elderly – receive proper noise mitigation compensation.

  7. I hear Richard Styles is getting abusive emails from airport supporters after last week’s RTC meeting. Anonymously of course, probably from the same people who complained about the meeting on the IOTN article.

    • That is awful to hear really awful. I hope he is ok. Each and every councillor of Ramsgate Town Council need to come out and demand for this sort of behaviour to stop.

  8. It’s not what is being discussed in public that matters it’s what is being discussed behind the scenes.

  9. Cannot wait for Manston Airport to return quicker we get through these public examination into the development consent order application for the Manston airport site, and get the sit up and running.
    The plans RiverOak have, look good for the whole of East Kent.
    Bring it on.

    • You seem singularly ill informed.
      For RSP to get a DCO and Compulsory Aquisition they have to demonstrate a number of things, not least that their project is of National importance, and is of significantly more use than the lawful owner’s plans.
      It isn’t.
      There is no need for additional cargo capacity in the UK. But there is a need for houses.
      But let’s assume that RSP’s application were to be successful. Where would the jobs be? RSP’s plan is for a state-of-the-art, highly automated cargo facility. There would be very few jobs – not even an air traffic control tower (It would be done remotely)
      Were the application to be successful, the number of jobs created would be of the order and nature of those that existed when last Manston functioned.
      In return, Ramsgate would be subjected to noise and pollution day and night.
      Open another Wetherspoons (Or similar venture) and create more jobs than the airport ever did.

    • RSP sounds thoroughly dodgy.Far from benefitting local residents, the cargo airport they propose would cause huge amounts of environmental damage, affecting our physical and mental health.

      Let’s not hope for its success but rather for the complete rejection of this plan.

  10. Kathy Bailes is biased. Always has been always will be. Ready to trash Ramsgate residents. Shameful

    • I live in Ramsgate so that is absolute rubbish. You talk about how disgusting it is for Richard Styles to receive abuse for submitting his view of the Ramsgate meeting in one breath and then give personal abuse in another?

  11. think about it how can a newly set up company have millions of pounds of money when TF was given the one chance with planestation and wiggins and sold to whom via whom TDC auditors who have been in the news for dodgy workmanships and Infratil was Brian Souter and his sister Anne Gloag so she bought the airport back never made a go of it had no intensions of and thought we are going into a partnership to build houses which we are in desperate need of but I blame the council and officers of TDC for poorly handling this story right from the word go. I do not trust them and how can the MP vouch for offshore company because he is remember with TF right from the start …but the story will thicken because the residents of thanet know a lot more than what is being said but it is waiting to be heard and I am sworn to say nothing

  12. to put flight or fight into this…heaven help us if we are attacked because houses will stop that but airport will mean we still have a defence as anyone could bomb us a defunct airport easy target …houses we do need but they tdc failed to build ramsgate sea front with yet again offshore accounts the council and the officers need to be sacked for the handling of all of it. If we had one good leader who could see what we see it would never be like this in the first place …world war 3 commenced when it was sold to the same people back wards and forwards TF to BS BS to AG AG to SHP…nice culture and they fight on and no one is flying with or without wings! My ancestors are turning in their graves to see the fight of flight going on when they fought the war and served at Manston…

  13. If Rebecca Hooper knows things about this saga which other local residents should know, she should tell us.


  14. This is a story of national and local outrage and yet it is reported almost as a low key neutral set of pros and cons on both sides. There are no benefits to a cargo hub run by secret investors.

    Ramsgate is being badly let down and the residents deserve better. What they don’t deserve are the years of threat from CPO to DCO and the spin and lies of RSP. Failed deadline anyone? Mystery offshore funding anyone? Shellfish and racehorse imports anyone? Wildly exaggerated made up flight numbers anyone? 10,000 jobs anyone?

    The DCO shouldn’t have got this far and given the majority of Ramagate oppose the DCO this news outlet should represent the majority view.

    The news is this – Ramsgate doesn’t want a cargo hub.

    That is the real headline.

  15. There are several reasons why local people do not have a bigger say in this development proposal. The primary reason is that the developer has elected to apply for a Development Consent Order (DCO). This process bypasses the local council and, unless you apply to join the inquiry, nobody bothers to ask you what you think. Even if you do join the inquiry, the planning inspectorate doesn’t respond to anything you say. It’s like talking to a brick wall. A second reason why local people have had little input is that the developer doesn’t want to give them the opportunity to object. A series of thoroughly inadequate consultations was held some considerable time ago but they were poorly advertised and many people were unaware that they were taking place. If the council were administering a planning application every person who is likely to be affected would receive a letter about it. You’d be lucky to find a person who received a letter about this proposal. If the DCO is approved there are going to be a lot of angry people; hopefull enough to fund a class action.

  16. There are some very good Estate Agents in Thanet that can help you all sell up and go, the place would be better for it. moaning old whinge bags the lot of you. we want jobs to be able to afford to buy your homes off you, those moving in to Thanet buying your home, will have done their research, seen an active airport was on its way and make a judgement on that. bye bye

    • “The Youth want jobs in East Kent” is again insulting those he or she disagrees with. I don’t think anyone can see “an active airport…on its way” at present. Or, I hope, ever.

  17. Houses will certainly be very cheap if the DCO gets the go ahead. However, you still won’t be able to buy one because the jobs you talk about won’t be created by the freight depot they are planning. The depot will be heavily automated and the few skilled jobs will be taken by people transferring from other airports. If you read the DCO documentation you can see some excellent submissions which demolish the claims which have been made about job creation. Ultimately, the Sainsbury’s at Westwood will probably employ more than a reopened airport.

  18. “Houses will certainly be very cheap if the DCO gets the go ahead”. Yay! if the airport does supply less jobs than that at Sainsbury WWX, it will be better than the 3700 homes SHP plan and then based on 2 adults and 2 children thats a further 8140 people (probably DFL’s) shortening even more chance of a decent job here in Thanet, so quick get on the phone to the Estate Agent of your choice. the Airport at Manston is coming.

    • ” it will be better than the 3700 homes SHP plan and then based on 2 adults and 2 children thats a further 8140 people (probably DFL’s) shortening even more chance of a decent job here in Thanet,”
      I would be surprised if someone with the intelligence shown in this quote id actually employed in any meaningful way. I suspect employed at her majesties pleasure might be more accurate.
      Are you a recently unemployed councillor perhaps?

  19. The lack of joined up thinking is certainly typical of many councillors. If you want affordable housing you have to build enough of it. The 3700 homes proposed by SHP would certainly be a welcome contribution.

  20. Be careful what you wish for.
    There will never be an opportunity to build from scratch a new airport of this size, but Housing is being built on greenbelt all over this country and will continue to be.
    However the good old days have gone, and the developers do the absolute minimum to mitigate the impact and often renege on promises of improved infrastructure. It’s only about the money. If they don’t build it before the houses, it won’t be built! It wilk be left for the local authorities to sort. Who pays for that?
    If they build these houses, where will these people work? Are there school places? Are there hospital beds?
    The roads at the weekend will be car parks. Isn’t north east thanet congested enough?
    The very best solution is to turn it into a country park but that won’t happen.
    The Airport wouldn’t be 10,000 jobs but will provide not insignificant numbers of opportunities for a wide range of jobs, despite automation.

  21. All your comments about houses is ok, but has nothing at all to do with the DCO at Manston. Because we get the houses anyway.
    The choices are ;
    houses (with some built at Manston rather than green belt)
    houses and an airport, with all the houses built on green belt
    Why do people keep on conflating the two issues?
    And if the worst happens, and an airport opened, there would be very few jobs of any description, and a vanishingly small number of “propèr” jobs.

  22. Andrew You may be correct.
    However I genuinely believe that the airport would be good for Thanet and the wider area of kent. Plus if there was a viable airport, not totally dependent on low cost airlines, and vice versa, low cost could successfully return.
    That would bring more prosperity, in many ways.
    The impact of low cost from Southend has been very positive except for the small few who live on the climb out path.
    I personally wouldn’t choose to live on the runway centreline anywhere but if it worked out to do so I Wouldn’t then start campaigning against it.

    There is a delay in the reaction time between the calls for more housing, the building happening as a response, and the actual need.
    Currently there are thousands of houses being built all over the country. Many villages are being decimated by over development in the south east alone. It’s good for builders at the moment.

    I cannot belive they are all needed at the levels the developers and their allies promote. It’s not in their interest to consider anything else.
    If you build them they will come.

    With close scrutiny of the local authority, candidate policies, and local support, building on greenbelt can be kept in check, but most people don’t bother until it’s too late.

    If you support the housing only option, be prepared to fight strongly for the required infrastructure.
    I live with the failings of that where I am, and believe me, some very capable and knowledgeable people (much much better than me) tried and failed.
    You say-
    “And if the worst happens, and an airport opened, there would be very few jobs of any description, and a vanishingly small number of “propèr” jobs.”

    The impact of the airport locally and operationally is going to be directly/proportionally related to jobs.
    The idea that automation means no work is complete nonsense.
    Every job except hard manual labour will still exist.
    You are correct though, not too many check-out-till or tins-of-beans shelf stacking jobs.
    If the site is big and busy so will be the required workforce. But there is less labour requirements per Sqm than for supermarkets, that’s true.If it’s not busy then no real cause for concern then.
    I hope you get what you wish for.

  23. The problem with “genuinely believing” that the airport would be good for Thanet is that this rose-tinted view takes no account of reality. The airport was open between 1999 and 2014 and was useless. It created fewer jobs than almost any other use of the site would have done. It lost money year on year because it isn’t in the right place. It caused a lot of disruption with noise and night flights. Since the airport closed, unemployment in Thanet has fallen and Ramsgate has started to rebuild its reputation as a seaside resort. There are many ways of creating or attracting employment without wrecking the existing economy.

    • None of it was your money last time and non of it will be yours this time. That argument has no bearing.
      How will it wreck the economy?
      Passionate pleas must have some sense attached to hold respect.
      Southend,cardiff, Southampton, Bournemouth, Exeter, Doncaster, Shoreham, Norwich. Are they damaging their local economy too?
      Perhaps everything in life should arrive by boat or horse and cart?
      But to Dover perhaps? So as to not make waves in the harbour?
      You obviously just don’t want Aeroplanes above your house. Andrew has openly admitted that, and is entitled to hope for it. He’ll probably get it, but won’t enjoy the 3 cars per house when people from London areas move there, just like we have. Some of them will pay cash from the profitable sale of their studio or 1 bed flat.
      I do get it, but if you live near an airport you get planes. You’ve just been lucky for a few years.

      • I am from London and have no cars at all. Neither does my husband. In London, we lived in a housing co-operative flat for decades. We did not own it. The co-op as an organization did, and members did not have a right to buy.

        I am fed up with people being so ignorant (in all senses) about London and its inhabitants.

        I too “openly admit” that I don’t want aeroplanes flying over my house, my street, my town. Although I don’t feel this is an admission, a word which implies, perhaps, some shame, embarrassment or even guilt.

      • Some of it WAS our money – and not just that of the many Thanet people who lost large investments when the airport failed. Kent County Council made futile six-figure contributions trying to promote Manston flights. The current application is also costing us, through months of officers’ time, civil servants’ time etc. That’s before we take into account the loss of revenue through the site being blighted for years. And what of the cost to people’s well-being, through the fear of a cargo hub?

  24. How will it wreck the economy? Hmmmmm

    Thanet experiences huge increase in tourist revenue in the last 5 years driven in part by the airport closure and those pesky DFLs with 3 cars each. RSP apply to fly a cargo plane over the harbour every 10 minutes at 500 feet.

    Economic regeneration = ruined.

    The airports you list are incomparible, they’re also not cargo hubs.

    I think former incarnations of Manston have relied on luck but alas, commercial ineptitude, lack of demand and ongoing lack of viability delivered successive failure to them. Quite why they think they’d be better at something they were singularly dreadful at previously is somewhat unusual unless of course the only way they could force it to pay is by bringing in those oft sought after shortages of shellfish, racehorses and luxury cars. I recall that being their suggestion at the last hearing. Unicorns will probably follow on by road.

    This application is an incompetent, absurd insult. Say no to the DCO.

  25. It continues to baffle and bewilder me as to why folk still conflate housing and air cargo.
    They are two different issues. This piece is about Riveroak’s attempt to get a DCO and Compulsory Aquisition to run a cargo hub.
    The arguments against a cargo hub are myriad, evidence based and logically presented.
    The case for the DCO/CA is non existent, predicated as it is on a national need to meet a shortfall in dedicated air freight.
    There is no such shortfall. Even if there were, R3 at Heathrow would completely meet that demand, and even if R3 didn’t happen and there were an unmet demand, Manston isn’t the place for it.

  26. Just face up to it, the Airport at Manston is coming back bigger and better than before.
    If you don’t like it move simple as that, the vast majority of Thanet and elsewhere want it back.
    Lets face it your in the minority, same people on these forums arguing the toss with facts and figures plucked out of the sky, one quote, which makes me laugh was that the noise was similar to 5 nuclear bombs going off.
    Local Estate Agents are waiting for your custom eagerly.

    • Erm, no.
      There is no shortage of air freight capacity in the UK.
      Erm, no. The only properly conducted survey revealed that the vast majority of respondents didn’t want night flights.
      There is no evidence to suggest that the vast majority want aviation back.
      Erm no. The facts and figures are exactly that, drawn from reports by Davies, Falcon, Avia, Altitude. Not plucked out of the sky: they are the ones produced by Sally Dixon of Azimuth on behalf of RSP.
      Erm yes, local estate agents are waiting for your custom, eagerly.

    • TYwJiEK:

      Please provide reliable statistics to prove that “the vast majority of Thanet and elsewhere” want an airport at Manston. I really can’t believe that that statement is correct. Actually I can’t believe that all that many people outside Kent have even heard of Manston Airport. How many people in Kent are familiar with Swansea Airport, I wonder.

      • Whether people had heard about it or not, when it was open most people chose not to fly from it. That’s why it failed.

  27. The reality is most pro support is actually dressed up anti housing anti outsider feeling. Pretending to speak on behalf of people actually looking for a job is patronising and misleading.

    Suggesting people move is insular and Medieval . This Isn’t a totalitarian regime and you don’t get to silence the majority. Sorry about this inconveniently democratic public examination and the emphasis on the facts, not on your bullish overtones.

    When you say bigger and better that wouldn’t be difficult given it failed, over and over. A pigeon carrying a packet of cigarettes could do better than RSP.

Comments are closed.