The decision on a development consent order for the Manston airport site is due, barring no more delays, on July 10.
RiverOak Strategic Partners submitted a DCO application in July 2018 in a bid to gain compulsory buy-out powers over the Manston airport site. This part of the application was later negated by a £16.5 million purchase of the majority of the site. The firm wants to revive aviation at the site with a cargo hub and associated business.
The DCO seeks development consent and compulsory buy-out powers over the land. It is the means of obtaining permission for developments categorised as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP).
Here Ramsgate Town councillor David Green talks about his view of the application
On July 10, many in Ramsgate are braced yet again for a possible decision regarding RSP’s application for a DCO giving them permission to develop a nationally significant freight hub at Manston. With the Secretary of State for Transport recusing himself, it is not clear who will make the decision. What is certain though is that, if it is not deferred again, it will be a Conservative minister in the DoT that will put their name to it.
The decision will hopefully be informed by the detailed analysis conducted by the Planning Inspectorate which will be published alongside it. This analysis will have been with the DoT since 18 October 2019. The DCO regulations require a decision within three months unless an announcement to postpone is placed in the Commons. This was done in January 2020 for four months to May 18, and again the day before the May 18 decision date, until July 4. The reason given “was to enable further work to be carried out before determination of the application”.
Many of the more than 2,000 individuals, groups and organisations that contributed to the DCO examination are concerned that they are being offered no opportunity to contribute to “the further work being carried out”. This in sharp contrast to the openness of the DCO examination itself.
We all know what happens when Conservative DoT ministers are left to make decisions without proper scrutiny such as Grayling’s £13.8M fiasco over Seaborne Freight. More recently, and equally worrying is the Jenrick/Desmond case that appears to show that who you know in the Tories is more important than planning conditions.
We know that both Thanet’s MP’s have lobbied on behalf of RSP, indeed Sir Roger Gale has threatened to quit if the DCO is turned down, Craig Mackinlay owns a defunct aviation business and both are members of the HoC aviation group of MP’s. RSP has hosted receptions in the HoC and contributed financially to the aviation group.
The examination closed with several the questions regarding RSP’s bid unanswered, and several concerns unaddressed due to deficiencies in the DCO process. These include the opaque offshore sources of RSP’s finances and an apparent lack of compliance with money laundering regulations. The major deficiency is that the examiners could commission no independent research to cross check RSP’s many claims.
Several things have occurred since October 2019 when the DCO examination finished:
- The Government’s pledge to be carbon neutral by 2040 and the increasingly significance of aviation to our carbon debt as that deadline approaches.
- Increased awareness of the effects of noise and air pollution on health outcomes
- The serious impact of COVID pandemic on the aviation industry meaning that the already surplus capacity in the air freight industry will increase considerably for many years to come
- In parallel with the DCO application, RSP have applied to the Civil Aviation Authority to be allowed to use airspace above the airport for their preferred flightpaths. They have reached the second stage of this process where they are asked to put forward possible flight paths for comment. The next stage will be a formal consultation with the public. This process is useful because it means that RSP cannot obfuscate any longer concerning their intended flight paths and thus the impact on surrounding residences. Ramsgate Town Council, Thanet District Council, Canterbury City Council, Kent County Council have all raised serious concerns regarding the noise and health impacts of the proposed flight paths.
To justify a DCO decision, RSP have had to argue that the country needs another aviation freight hub of nationally significant size, and many of us believe they have exaggerated the economic benefits locally. At the same time, they have tried to minimise the likely impact the freight hub on the local built and natural environment. I believe that during the examination, they failed on both counts. Developments since the examination have all been detrimental to their case.
I hope on July 10 or before we will get a decision, the blight of threatened night flights has hung of Ramsgate for too long. Justice would dictate a decision against RSP’s DCO, but who knows with the current government?
This is a competent response to the DCO. People keep saying they want the airport back but they don’t realise that the intention is to have flight movements on a much larger scale than ever before and unless you are travelling in a crate there is no holidays. Don’t be fooled by the ‘green airport’ spin of RSP, there is no such thing and those who think logically will see this.
Looking at the CAA scoping it shows on RSP’s own documentation that planes will be less than 500ft over Nethercourt and only 750 ft over the centre of Ramsgate. RSP denied this during the consultation. Now the truth is coming out and they can’t hide it. They have lied to the people of Thanet and Ramsgate in particular.
It’s not just night flights which are a threat. It’s all flights.
Plane spotting madness.
The coronavirus pandemic has made what was a marginal case at best for Manston opening as a cargo hub completely untenable. There is already more than enough freight capacity at better located and connected airports such as Stansted, East Midlands and Heathrow for the foreseeable future. In addition the Government’s commitment to net zero will require a huge investment in renewable technologies and there will be no room for airport expansion of any kind anywhere in the UK.
One can only hope the decision to refuse this DCO is made next week by the Government , but even if it should be given the green light there is little likelihood of it ever succeeding given the dismal track record of RSP principal and struck off solicitor Tony Freudmann. Every aviation venture and most other businesses he has been involved in have failed. The time has come to free Ramsgate and the rest of Thanet from the threat of a polluting cargo hub and enable sustainable development of tourism and leisure to continue.
Good report, not seen one from this side of the fence before.
Nice that RSP have been holding parties and giving money for the aviation group of which both Thanet’s Mp’s are a part of! Isn’t that another Tory speciality that is against the rules? Even if it isn’t it should be as that looks like back handers taking place. With SOSfT Grant Shapps excusing himself of giving his decision because of a conflict of interest, as SOSfT he will have made the decision in any case, that looks a bit dodgy. Surely not another postponement now, how many times can they legally defer this decision anyway?
Just get the planes flying it been too long , all that space doing nothing we definitely need an airport hub in Thanet.
No we don’t, Richard. We need sustainable industries, a lot more council housing, and much better public transport,not some polluting backward- looking monstrosity.
I think instead of a polluting freight hub Manston airport could be transformed into the best Olympic venue in GB with sandwich bay the best spectator viewing venue ever . Think hard Thanet what an opportunity to put us back at the forefront of the place to live and be proud of .
Just get the airport up and running, Ramsgate needs it
Ramsgate really doesn’t need an airport.
What a pity some reports have to get personal rather than concentrating on the issue.
I support the airport reopening 100%. Thanet is one of the poorest districts in the UK and desperately needs jobs. The airport will bring much needed prosperity to Thanet, including business rates to TDC. There is no other sizeable industry locally, apart from Pfizer, where jobs are limited and money goes to Dover DC (who incidentally, wholeheartedly support the reopening of Manston Airport). Apart from its closure of the last few years, we’ve lived with the airport for 100 years, including the noise of fighter jets roaring overhead, so we can tolerate improved cargo and passenger planes too, which are now much quieter. Bring it on!
Thanet has, for decades, been held back by a minority of people, some slum landlords who do not want their tenants to better themselves as they would lose them as tenants and find it difficult to replace them as their properties are in some instances not fit for purpose, due to lack of investment in the buildings.
Some business men and women who see Thanet residents as cheap labour, they can manipulate and get rid of at the drop of a hat and replace with many more desperate people who want to work.
Manston Airport and a successful DCO is a problem for these individuals, as it proposes good rates of pay and a chance to get out of the black hole they find themselves in and these individuals would wish to keep them in.
A re-opened Manston Airport also gives Thanet residents families a bright future for their children to look forward to and have good jobs and careers rather than seasonal work at minimum wages for a few months of the year.
There is also a minority of new residents who moved to Thanet as properties here are cheaper to buy up than in the rest of the southern part of the country, and I understand that when they purchased the properties they now live in, they did not have a fully functioning airport on their doorstep. but they must have known the chance the airport would re-open at some point, if it was not RiverOak then some other organisation would be looking at opening the site at Manston Airport due to its proximaty, so I have no sympathy for these people.
Let’s all embrace this chance, opportunity, this Isle has never had, Thanet has never had a company wanting to invest millions of pounds in it, RiverOak are offering Thanet residents job opportunities only on offer, if they moved away from Thanet.
There are also opportunities for all local authorities, with tax revenues they have never had, with associated companies moving in to Thanet to take up empty warehouse spaces that have sat empty all over Thanet for years, decades even, not providing any tax revenue or income for Thanet District Council and the smaller town councils that serve Manston.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for all of the residents of Thanet, lets for once not allow the few people stop this for their own self-interest.
Re: “slum landlords” slur
Worth pointing out that your fellow RSP cheerleader, Craig Mackinlay, is one of 72 MPs who are registered as deriving income from property of over £10,000 per year who voted AGAINST requiring landlords to make their homes fit for human habitation. Let’s let that one sink in a while, shall we?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-vote-down-law-requiring-landlords-make-their-homes-fit-for-human-habitation-a6809691.html
Re: Jobs / Good Rates of Pay
Let’s leave aside for a moment the long history of failure and Tony Freudmann’s last attempt at converting a very similar regional, ex-military base airfield into a cargo airport at Black Forest Airport Lahr – immediately before he joined RSP – which resulted in employees going 3 months without pay, (good rates?), before the airport went bust. Lots of reports about lousy pay/conditions working in air cargo sector. Don’t suppose you’ll want to read the big EU-funded study on this, so take a look at the Indeed site, which – globally – rates this type of work at no more than 3 stars with “Pay and Benefits” given a lowly 2.8 star rating.
https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Cargo-Airport-Services/reviews?fcountry=ALL
As for the future, that’s essentially waiting to be replaced by an automated robot. Or joining one of the 10s of 1000s currently being made redundant in this sector, with any hope for recovery a long, long way off.
Re: “Fully functioning airport”
(Is it just me who can’t hear this phrase without thinking of that line in Star Wars where Peter Cushing talks about the “power of this fully functioning Death Star”? Pretty apt). No-one in the history of Thanet has ever lived with a fully-functioning commercial airport on their doorstep. That’s why it has consistently failed and why anyone with the remotest grasp of .. y’know .. geography would look at a map, (maybe even Google Maps, which lists Manston Airport as “permanently closed”), and not think for one moment that anyone would be foolhardy enough to try to reopen it again.
Re: Investing millions of pounds
According to latest published accounts – freely available on Companies House – Riveroak and its associated companies is currently sitting on debts of c.£30m with no sign of anything like enough assets or any viable business model to service these debts, let alone any evidence of £300m. They have been asked multiple times to provide evidence of this and consistently refused to do so – 2 CPOs with TDC failed because of it – and yet you, SMAa and others keep churning out this figure as if it were fact. It’s not. If I’m wrong please .. PLEASE … point me to any evidence anywhere that RSP has this kind of money available to invest. You say “Thanet never had a company wanting to invest millions of pounds in it”. Not true. I happen to have a company in Thanet and would love to invest millions of pounds in the area. I don’t have millions of pounds, granted, but then neither does RSP. SO what’s your point, exactly?
Re: Tax Revenues
This means having a viable business, generating profits which do not disappear in loan repayments to service that whopping debt to an unknown offshore owner. According to latest filed accounts, RSP’s ultimate beneficial owners, Helix Nominees, has now shifted jurisdiction YET AGAIN … from Belize in 2017 to BVI in 2019 and now, it appears, in Panama. Why?
Re: Once in a lifetime
God, I wish that were true. Unfortunately, this dead duck keeps resurfacing like some sort of crap zombie, shuffling round, a-moaning-and-a-groaning “jobsssssss” at us every 3-5 years and putting off any actual real viable sustainable and positively beneficial inward investment from coming within 50 yards of Thanet. Raising hopes and expectations that you cannot hope to ever fulfil is not in any way helpful to the local community.
And no, this is most definitely not self-interest. As everyone now surely knows, the majority of locals really do want to move on and – funnily enough – really do NOT want cargo planes flying over their heads, town and beaches 50 times a day at altitudes of 500ft. And why would they? What part of that is so difficult to understand?
I think had yo and your wife had lived in Thanet long enough you would be aware of the slum landlords of the past and present, Thanet has never had an opportunity like this level of investment ever.
Not only will the residents prosper with a successful Manston Airport, also the local authorities will by means of taxes from companies moving in to the many empty industrial units blighting Thanet.
The inward investment potential is immense, a once in a lifetime opportunity, I am not sure what inward investment and jobs you and your wife has brought from the West Midlands with you, but the area and the residents of Thanet cannot survive on seasonal leisure employment.
The local plan has the area at Manston Airport designated as for aviation so if it is not River Oak then it will be some other organisation who will develop the site for aviation, so lets give it a go this around and hey you never know you and your wife may make a few pounds out of it as well.
Ah, OK. So, I post a purely factual and evidence-based response – including links to support the argument, (all perfectly reasonable, and you are perfectly entitled to disagree). And, as usual, the response is personal attacks and slurs.
According to RSP, they have so far spent over £40m on this ruse to date. Assuming that is true, can you name a single person they have employed in Thanet with that amount of spend to date?
As usual an evidenced response is met with a personal attack and slurs and dragging the wife in too. Classic bullying tactics from someone who won’t even put their name to a comment.
If you are attacking the tourism industry remember that CURRENTLY tourism is worth £320 million per year to the local economy and supports, directly and indirectly 7,950 jobs. (source – https://theisleofthanetnews.com/2020/04/14/five-year-plan-aimed-at-boosting-tourism-to-thanet/)
The proposed cargo airport development will as you can see from the diagram of flight paths at the top of this page impact tourism in the WHOLE area.
So you are suggesting swapping an industry that currently brings in £320 million revenue PER YEAR and employs 1 in 5 of Thanet for an alleged capex
and one off spend of £300 million.
Not only that when (and if) the cargo airport shows any profits those monies will be used to pay back the loan and the anonymous shareholders in Panama.
Please do tell me how this will help Thanet?
There was no more a personal attack as much as the slur you inferred that MP Craig Mackinlay was a slum landlord as he has property in the area, lots of MP’s use property as a means of income.
You need to come to the heart of Thanet, come down from your ivory tower as the income Thanets gets from tourism is seasonal,
This opportunity comes around just this once, and you think a couple of people who have recently moved to the area, as the property they now live in, bought no doubt cheaply next to an airport should say nay not in my back yard.
Come to the slums of Thanet and witness kids playing in the streets with no shoes on their feet, hungry, outside in all weathers as there parent (I say parent as the vast majority are single parents living in a room with two to three children) is coping with the benefit system.
You say to these people why they should not benefit from this opportunity that could benefit them by way of a job, that could pull them out of the slum they find themselves in at no fault of their own. all because two people who are well off do not want it open as they were able to buy a nice property on the cheap next to an airport.
This is an open invitation to you both to educate you both on why it is so important to the area, to lift a lot of people out of poverty that Thanet has, to give the Isle youth ambition, something to achieve the grades at school, not to serve people tea and crumpets 4 months of the year, but to gain a career.
Are you will to take up this invitation or are you going to kick back in your ivory tower.?
Are there really barefoot children in the slums of Thanet? Where? I did not see any barefooted children in the streets of Newham where I lived for over 20 years. If what “Manston Airport etc” says is true then things really have got a lot worse recently.
I can’t see why it matters how long people have lived here or where they lived before. The evidence that airports are bad for people’s health and for the environment does not alter according to where a person lives or used to live.
Marva Rees open your eyes there are many streets with kids playing in bare feet, you must live in a blinkered view, I see it almost daily, go ask social services to give you a tour of the dark places of Thanet, where open drug deals are done in the street, Hoses that were once grand building now house multiple families in single rooms with poor hygiene.
Families struggling on to live (survive) on Universal Credit, going without food so their children get one meal a day, or queuing to get in to a food bank to supplement their benefit.
There are many of these families and they do not live on housing estates who would to better themselves, even if it was a manual job, enough to pay the rent and not be relying on the state to do so, to pay for fresh healthy food for their children, take their children to the cinema, lead a normal family life.
So in answer to your question, yes this is really happening here in Thanet, not just one part of Thanet but all over Thanet.
Ramsgate Gal, what jobs are you referring to? Last time it went bust it employed less than 150.
Flight traffic would be off site and cargo is mainly automated.
Nowhere in the DCO content does it actually outline employment specifics, backed up by sensible evidence. All RSP do is make up fake job numbers. 30 thousand I do believe? Or rather, don’t.
Stone Hill Park would have created thousands of jobs.
Emmeline, the only jobs SHP were offering were temporary construction jobs. Knowing what happened at Westwood Cross, the builders came from the Midlands, not Thanet or anywhere else in Kent! !
My eyes are open but perhaps I don’t live where you live. However if you care so much about people why are keen to have an airport at Manston?
Correction-are you keen
Manston Airport offers full time careers and jobs, not the seasonal poor paid jobs we have in Thanet at the moment, but long term well paying jobs, even if it is hauling off parcels and other imported exported stock which is manual work, it will be well paid better than minimum paid employment.
Kids see when they get older there is no point doing well in exams as what is there out here in Thanet to aspire to, working four months doing dead end jobs.
Engineering firms will be needed, transport companies will be needed, all sorts of business that supply an airport, the incoming employment is not just the airport itself.
So answer to your question is jobs and I mean well paying jobs get people out of poverty and out of these slums, even if they are manual jobs, engineering jobs,catering joba, any form of employment linked to a fully running airport.
It is the people who own these slums and employ people on minimum wages that do not want Manston Airport to be a success.
I know a lot of people who don’t want an airport at Manston and none of them, as far as I know, is a slum landlord and/or employing people to whom they pay minimum wages.
Marva Rees there are a few in the Anti Manston group, they know who they are, maybe do some homework, it does not take much digging to see who they are, there is so much bad press about them out there, the squalid accommodation they provide to Thanets most vulnerable people in our community, there are many employers too in the Ant airport group again they know who they are, again a little digging goes a far way to expose these so called pillars of our community.
Emmeline face facts, Stonehill directors took the money and ran as fast as they could, they could not finance their huge housing estate or what someone has put earlier more slums for Thanet residents, there were never any jobs directly linked to their pipe dreams, RiverOak have had to show they have the finances to make good on the airport, Stonehill Park could never make their mind up how their plans were going to be, changing them every month, wave parks, tv studios heritage airfield to name just a few crackpot back of fag packet ideas they came up with.
I have never seen the figure of 30 thousand jobs mentioned except by anti airport people who constantly make things up on the hoof. get a grip back Manston Airport or just go simples.
Nothing to do with astute SHP spotting the United Nations toxicity upgrade for PFOA and cleverly offloading a negative value site for 16.5 million on RSP then ?
What is it with airport supporters? They’re very fond of telling people who for some strange reason don’t fancy living near a 24/7 cargo hub to move.
Didn’t RSP’s public consultation (the one with Freudmann’s minders) at the San Clu mention the “30,000 jobs” somewhere?
The figure of 30,000 jobs was on a large banner draped across a room for one of the “consultations”. Ms Sally Dixon, RSP’s expert, was challenged. She agreed that the 30,000 were not direct jobs, but included the man who repaired the forklift truck used to load the pallets of daffs; his wife’s hairdresser; his children’s teachers; etc etc.
The actual number of jobs created, were Manston ever to work again, would be fewer than last time, and fewer than those created by the opening of the ‘Spoons in Ramsgate.
Thanks Andrew. I knew I’d seen that “30,000 jobs” claim somewhere.
As you have done the digging,”Manston Airport” , why don’t you tell us who they are?
Please give links to your sources.
“RiverOak have had to show they have the finances to make good on the airport,”
Something they have consistently and singularly failed to do at every opportunity.
RSP’s own supporting documentation makes it clear that RSP intends to raise the vast proportion of moneys necessary to complete the project by bank loans and investment.
They don’t have the money. But they hope that the struck off embezzling solicitor Tony Freudmann will be able to come up with the goods.
David Green presents what, to the undiscerning, appears to be a competent and comprehensive response.
BUT He fails to mention Drinking Water Inspectorate called in by me last year securing ban on use of Manston aquifer as Thanet Public Water supply source.
He fails to mention DWI warnings 2007 re highly toxic highly persistent residue of firefighting foam and his own TDC indifference to such warnings.
He fails to mention the Public Health England warnings re firefighting foam residue. 2009. Also met with indifference by his TDC
He fails to mention 2019 toxicity classification to maximum hazard to health of residual fire fighting foam “PFOA” at United Nations Stockholm Convention.
He fails to mention That Environment Agency enforcement of UN Stockholm Convention PFOA upgrade is due to kick in coincident with RSP construction phase.
He fails to mention the cumulative impact and precautionary principle implications of my 2008 FOI which revealed facts of Sericol contamination of water supply his TDC had theretofore kept secret from public.
He fails to mention the reports since 1977 that GEC buried highly persistent highly toxic waste at Pegwell and at Westwood. Again he fails to mention the cumulative impact and precautionary principle implications
He fails to mention that his Leftie attention seeker colleagues SONIK and CONSTANTINE concealed the environmental hazards to health, contrary to law, in their hijacking of stroke unit decision issue.
He fails to mention that the actions of his colleagues SONIK and CONSTANTINE did great harm to Thanet. Not least the difficulty I faced when getting blood serum testing workstreamed for research in the expert inquiry into maternity tragedies. This should have been raised earlier re Thanet stroke risk and highest stroke rate in Kent.
David Green sat on a Standards Board years ago which covered up gun range issues. Issues it is emerging now that have implications re child sexual abuse at Royal School for Deaf
Not impressed with this lad .. at all
Green’s response, to the undiscerning, may appear competent and comprehensive. It is neither.
(1) 2019 toxicity upgrade of PFOA firefighting foam residue by United Nations Stockholm Convention. Environment Agency are due to enforce at same time as RSP would be in construction phase!
(2) His own history with TDC. Indifferent to PFOA warnings from Drinking Water Inspectorate 2007. Indifferent to PFOA warnings from Public Health England 2009
(3) His own history with TDC ignoring cumulative impact and precautionary principle of law that required evaluation re Manston from the outset. This relates to toxic burials by GEC and to massive contamination of water supply by Sericol
(4) He conceals that last year I called in Drinking Water Inspectorate to enforce a ban on use of Manston Aquifer as a drinking water source
(5) He conceals that his leftie colleagues SONIK and CONSTANTINE concealed, contrary to law, the litany of environmental hazards to health from the High Court in their stroke unit judicial reviews thus doing significant harm to Thanet
(6) He conceals the difficulties created by SONIK and CONSTANTINE to now get blood serum testing work streamed for research in expert maternity tragedies inquiry. I have succeeded and it is research work streamed.
(7) Years ago Green sat on Standards when gun range activity was covered up. It is now emerging the issues covered up have significance for another cover up. That of child sexual abuse Royal School for Deaf.
What are you blethering about? Serum? Sex offenders? Gun ranges?
What on Earth have they got to do with RSP’s DCO application?
Tony
Blood serum testing has been accepted for research in the expert inquiry into maternity tragedies. It follows that experts have considered this. So it is not “Blethering” is it ?
The toxic environmental hazards, sustained as unaddressed in RSP PINS application, include highly toxic highly persistent PFOA residue from historic use of firefighting foam. It is a risk for foetal morbidity and pre eclampsia hence relevance to maternity tragedies inquiry.
The UN experts upgraded PFOA on Stockholm Convention last year. Also not blethering eh ?
The laws governing statutory duty in NHS CCG Planning and the law governing judicial review are clear (apparently not to you)
There is a crime complaint recorded re TDC and CCG and breaches of statutory duty meaning concealment of environmental hazars to health. Concealments which aided RSP cause
You seem to have focussed your Thanet wankstain venom on Para 7. It illustrates Green history of concealment and that time can see truth emerge. But there are Manston related questions in 6th Thanet Gun Range history and these, independent of my concern, were reported to Kent Police and are under Economic Crime Unit Inquiry.
Now Tony what part of toddle along don’t you understand ?
I don’t understand what “Thanet wankstain venom” is, for sure.
But no doubt, as an expert, I’m sure you’ll enlighten me.
As to the list if concerns you raised in this Opinion piece, did you raise them with the ExA during the DCO examination? What was their response?
Yes. They scheduled contamination testing for Manston Tony
The DWI secured ban on further use of Manston Aquifer as drinking water source
KCC has scheduled ex landfill tests for Pegwell Nature Reserve hoping to include tests for polychlorinated bi phenyls found surfacing 1992
Expert inquiry Maternity Tragedies I have told you about.
TDC admitted to PINS the unaddressed Manston toxic hazards
Firefighting foams WW2 FIDO Significant Asbestos Radiological materials
It is almost Tony as if you haven’t been following this history
I notified PINS of the United Nations Stockholm Convention development.
David Green doesn’t have to mention everything. A lot of what Richard mentions seems to have no relevance to the planning inspectorate’s task.
And what a coarse vocabulary you have, Richard.
True thanks
From the start Planning Inspectorate was made aware of Chief constable involvement.
It was a breach of High Court disclosure rules by SONIK and Karen CONSTANTINE, in stroke unit judicial reviews, to conceal police involvement and crime complaint against former Labour leader TDC
You may also be overlooking that the incoming power cables Pegwell was an earlier PINS application in which environmental hazards to health had been concealed.
The National Planners have published a booklet about matters like cumulative impact and a quick read should put you in the picture.
https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Advice-note-17V4.pdf
To emphasise QUOTE
1.6 The NPSs8 variously state that applicants should, amongst other matters, consider mitigation for cumulative effects in consultation with other developers; assess cumulative effects on health; give due consideration to other NSIPs within their region; consider positive and negative effects; and consider environmental limits (e.g. the potential for water quality effects to arise due to incremental changes in water quality). 2
OK ???
I don’t want an airport anyway. But why don’t you, Richard, offer to write an opinion piece in which you could discuss the aspects which you are most interested in, since you are dissatisfied with David Green’s article? And perhaps two individual RSP supporters could do likewise as well as a couple of anti-airport groups. Journalistic balance will then have been achieved.
On second thoughts perhaps we could just forget about it until the day the decision is announced, which may,or may not, be next week.
A developer, pal of local MP, wants to buy an airfield. Sitting 150 feet below the fire school and foam laying runway is the area drinking water supply aquifer. The Water Authority never tested the water for highly toxic PFOA residue from firefighting foam.
Thereby the water supply starting 1963 with Sericol contamination of Rumfields Water abstraction has for 57 years failed to meet “Wholesome Water” requirements of UK Law.
The range of toxic contaminants have risk factors for stroke, foetal morbidity, pre eclampsia, thyroid disease, ADHD, colorectal cancer, testicular cancer and allegedly COPD.
Thanet has highest stroke rate in Kent. And highest COPD levels nationally.
As early as 2007 Drinking Water Inspectorate sounded warnings (One year after a misled TDC approved aviation only use for Manston)
All the time Thanet kept drinking Manston water then PFOA had that as a fourth escape route from Manston site. Airborne, sea outfall, ground water borne, drinking water borne.
The longer this went on the cheaper site remediation would eventually become.
The PFOA that got in drinking water takes up residence in human livers and can be tested for in blood serum.
The PFOA escaping airborne and ground water borne enters human food chain via veggies. The outfall to sea route lets PFOA enter human food chain via fish.
Now, with ban on Manston as a drinking water source, there remains 3 escape routes. Depending on how stringent Environment Agency enforcement of UN standards for site containment .. Manston Developers have a problem. I think they are gambling on construction phase testing reporting the site clear (The contamination having escaped to the wider environment and into the population livers.
The tests scheduled by KCC at Pegwell and the hope expert inquiry at QEQM will test …. cannot provide a definitive answer to these toxic problems.
But tests would inform the situation. The only rational and lawful option.
Unless an expert can be convinced of Tony’s test that since Thanet has not turned bald fings must be OK den.
What is “Tony’s test”?
It is from a comment he made some time ago claiming Thanet has no toxic environmental hazards to health as he hasn’t seen people losing all their hair at same time.
He reminds me of a guy at another airport. He announced that he only sees 3 hearses a week drive past his house to the crematorium. And from that declared the airport operation was not increasing area mortality.
Then someone asked “What if without the airport it would be two hearses per week ?”
I am afraid the ilk of Tony low intellect and high trolling motivation are a pain in the arse.
Tony was clearly being sarcastic.
Doomed to fail yet again, but as long as our tory MPs are lining there pockets and dodgy deals being done behind scenes thats all that matters to Tories. Never mind what is really best for the area, economy, environment, health of residents.
Mps threatening to quit over the possibility of no DCO, my god. What a loss, think not, get lost, most corrupt around.
Some people in Thanet only against this because they do t won’t a job, it would be god for area bringing in money and much needed jobs, it will also help other places if you took 20% of freight traffic from Heathrow and Gatwick they wouldn’t need to build another runway and causing more damage to the environment than Manston ever would. Get you heads out of the sand and go with it be great for the area.
“Great for the area”? Non-stop noise and pollution? You’ve got to be joking.