Campaigners hold events to raise funds for legal challenge against Manston airport plans

Margate mayor and former windfarm worker Cllr Rob Yates has organised one of the events

Campaigners against the plan for a cargo hub at the Manston Airport site are raising funds for the upcoming Judicial Review by hosting a series of events across Thanet.

The legal hearing, which aims to quash the development consent issued by government last year, will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice on July 5-6.

Those backing the legal challenge need to reach a £75,000 fundraising target with £54,540 of that pledged to date.

Fundraising events taking place over the next 6 weeks range from a quiz night, through to an art history talk, piano recitals, an evening of jazz, workshops for young people, and a dinner to celebrate the summer solstice – and more.

Labour town councillor Jane Hetherington, one of the organisers, said the recent election result bringing a Labour majority at council despite opposition to the plans being used “as a strategy to persuade voters not to vote Labour”… “reflects a growing desire for other, greener uses for the Manston site.”

She added: “We need to be thinking of a more environmentally friendly use for Manston as part of a mixed economy providing sustainable employment.”

Cllr Rob Yates, a former windfarm worker who is organising a Nintendo 64 Mario Kart event in Margate, said: “As someone who’s worked in the renewables industry for 12 years, it’s my fundamental belief, and the science backs this up, that we need to be reducing our CO2 emissions. No airport can be truly carbon neutral, there is no possible way that you can do it.

“We’re running events across Thanet in support of the fundraiser to show that w are rightly worried about our future and about our physical and mental health. We believe that planes flying directly overhead at very regular intervals cannot be good for the people, the local economy, or for our precious natural environment.”

Manston airport Photo Frank Leppard

The site is in ownership of RSP after a £16million buy out from previous owners Stone Hill Park

RSP wants to create aviation at the site with a cargo hub and associated business.  Construction is planned to be phased over 15 years and include 19 freight stands and four passenger stands for aircraft as well as warehousing and fuel storage.

An RSP spokesperson said: “As an island nation we can’t simply turn our back on aviation and all the things it provides that each of us counts upon, from fresh fruit to medicines and other just-in-time goods. As with everything in life there must be a balanced equation and RSP’s plans for Manston deliver just that – much needed jobs and economic prosperity through a modern aviation hub, offset by a detailed commitment to be a responsible airport operator, working closely with the local community – and achieving Carbon Net Zero on the ground within 10 years of re-opening.”

The Thanet Conservative Group has issued a statement in response to the fundraising announcement to “ condemn the Mayor of Margate and other Labour councillors for campaigning against the re-opening of Manston Airport.”

The group says it believes some Labour members are “undermining one of the biggest projects that would see Thanet prosper.”

Development consent and Judicial Reviews

The first decision to grant permission for the Manston airport proposals was announced by government on July 9 2020 after delays in January and May.

The Department of Transport approved the application to create an air freight hub at the site. A Planning Inspectorate Examining Authority panel of Martin Broderick, Jonathan Hockley, Kelvin MacDonald and Jonathan Manning  had recommended that development consent should not be granted.

The first Judicial Review bid was then launched by Ramsgate resident Jenny Dawes.

In December 2020 the Department of Transport acknowledged that the decision approval letter issued from the Minister of State did not contain enough detail and in February 2021 the DCO approval was quashed.

The development approval was again issued last August by then Transport Minister Karl McCartney.

Ms Dawes then launched a second Judicial Review application in a bid to halt the airport plans and crowdfunded for pledges to pay for the action.

The first JR application was refused in January by the Honourable Mr Justice Lane. The new application was granted for a ‘reduced grounds’ review by Justice Lieven and this will be heard in July. The hearing is scheduled for one and a half days.

The programme of events includes:

“Ramsgate in the Age of Dickens” Jacqui Ansell
7.00pm on Thursday 25 May at the Queens Head, Harbour Parade, Ramsgate
Ticket price: £15.00.  For further information contact: Christabel Smith

“Why Manston Doesn’t Fly” with live music from Starfish Men and Nintendo 64 Mario Kart Racing
4.00-6.30pm on Saturday 27 May at Elsewhere, 21-22 The Centre, Margate
Ticket price £5.00 at the door or online

Jazz concert; Lynn Wallis and Frances Knight
7.00pm on Saturday 27 May at the Small Boat Owners Association, 20 Guildford Lawn, Ramsgate
Ticket price £15.00. For further information contact: Anne-Marie Nixey

Marie-Louise, Salon Piano Concert
7.00pm on Saturday 10 June, Devonshire Gardens, Cliftonville
Ticket price £25.00, including refreshments: [email protected]
Please note – numbers are strictly limited.

Summer Solstice Gala Dinner
7.00pm on Wednesday 21 June at Royal Harbour Brasserie, Ramsgate
Ticket price £40.00 per person. For further information contact Christabel Smith

Vale Square Quiz
7.00pm on Saturday 24 June in Vale Square, Ramsgate
Ticket price £10.00 per person. For further information contact Kim Edgington

And for Dr Who fans – Tea with Tegan
Saturday 1 July at the Walpole Bay Hotel
Ticket price £30.00 per person

The fundraiser is at:


  1. “RSP says Manston will be built to be Carbon Net Zero”

    Yes, if you exclude the planes which will be using it..and they are excluding these in their “calculations”

    It’s like saying the M25 is a carbon net zero motorway…….if you exclude the cars, lorries, coaches etc which use it.

    Fantasy land peddled by someone with the worst track record in airport business cases ever.

    I truly can’t believe people are still falling for it.


      • Well Boo Boo, at least 4 attempts to use Manston as an airport have failed, why is that do you think? And why didn’t cargo planes use it, Oh thats right it was because of the lack of demand! Duurh!

  2. Airport is never going to happen !

    RSP will see the encroaching housing from all sides and see that as instant profits. An airport will take 20/30/40+ years to become profitable even with their totally unrealistic predictions of demand….

  3. Just playing devils advocate ,here ,I for one would like to see it turned into a mini forest,so local people can go and feel what a vast wooded area is like, But all these antis,(\their choice),never state ,what they want instead, house ,think of 1000s more cars as residents move in ,public transport would be and is a joke service, ,and the lorries in the building phase, just stating green whatever does not help,green what,,if factories are built ,what about ,getting raw materials in ,and the finished product out,more lorries ,and more card ,as staff ,have to get ,to and from work,all these people please state ,what you want there ,instead of shouting off ,about no airport,medium to large companies,will not move to ,Thanet,because of the cost of transporting stuff ,around the coun

    • Hi Ray we never chose the word “Anti” that was chosen by the media and planespotters.

      As for the rest of your rant you NEVER do your research do you
      The houses are already in the Local Plan the only issue is the fact that the Tories chose to place them on farmland

      • Yes I have read items,my query was ,what do you want there,no one has said,,houses could only have gone there ,if the owners sold the site or it was compulsory purchased,until that happens,nothing can happen ,and as I said I played devil’s advocate,do you know what means

        • no apology for ” But all these antis,(\their choice),” then?
          We has a choice but the planespotters drove that choice away
          Advanced engineering sounds better than pollution and noise

    • Ray, another person that confuses anti-RSP with anti-airport !!

      If a company that successfully run airports, headed by someone that has been successful at running airports, was proposing this VERY MANY would back them. Instead you have anonymous investors, funding a developer, headed by a serial airport failure who has mishandled clients money !!!!!!!!

  4. £140pp should you choose to visit all events. £20, 00 plus still required as long as all pledges are honoured. All for a wish to not help provide employment for Thanet People and people who choose to move to the area. Proposed dwelling development by 2031 = 17,000 plus by 2036 this will increase by another 5,000 dwellings. Where will the employment come from. ?

    • Non of these people ,who answered, my ,effort ,still state ,what they to there ,just no airport,come on ,someone say ,what you actually want ,instead of having a go at me ,for asking a question

      • Ray, you need to read people’s responses more carefully. There have been many suggestions, ranging from nature park to green industries. Houses are being built anyway. Where do you think they should be built?

        • There will never be a nature park there. This has never been mentioned. There will be housing which is being driven by greedy developers. These greedy developers and all those who will benefit financially from it, are also funding this bazar judicial review, which has already been refused. This is also repeatedly using tax payers money given by the labour government who have no permission from the tax payers to use their tax for the judicial review instead of funding other local improvements which are much needed in the Thanet area. Labour has no interest in creating employment, as do not the people funding or supporting this judicial review (they have only ever pushed the benefit system to breaking point, as they just want an easy giving system with no income).
          As already said they have no plans, no alternative and definitely no indication of a green or employment plan for the area. Shame on you, greedy people who only feed your own self interests and definitely not the needs of the wider community, to whom you never give any mention to except when you use the phrase “for the benefit of the community”.

      • OK Ray, I would like to see a solar farm to stop prime agricultural land being given over. If there was enough space as well how about an outdoors concert venue?

  5. So, the alternative would be a massive housing development. Can Thanet accommodate this? 1000s more vehicles, more energy use, increase demand on our overstretched services. No benefits to local employment, no increase in financial benefits. Consider the booming economies around airports. This opposition represents a minority viewpoint.Lets get approval and get our airport back.

    • How about building housing areas with AMENITIES instead of just characterless houses and driveways? If new communities had surgeries, schools, shops and pubs within walking distance then those 1,000s of vehicles would become redundant. Car dependency is as bad for our wellbeing as dirty noisy cargo planes.

      • If that were the case, then why have so many village shops and pubs (as well as bus services) disappeared through lack of use? Just building amenities doesn’t mean people want to use them.

    • again the same old tropes “So, the alternative would be a massive housing development” again for the umpteenth time all the houses that are in the local plan have sites already, oh and unless you are RSP it ain’t your airport

    • The housing is coming regardless of the outcome of Manston so use Manston site instead of our farm fields lets keep them for growing crops, I certainly don’t want noisy polluting planes flying feet above our heads and neither to the children of Thanet need them flying over all the schools disrupting lessons. I would rather not see houses I would love the Manston site developed into something environmentally friendly for visitors and locals which will create jobs.

  6. The quicker the airport at Manston is up and running the better the youth of Thanet can get well paid jobs, this article just goes to prove how out of touch this political party is out of touch with the local community sitting in their ivory towers, sipping their darjeeling cups of tea, flicking through their arts farts magazines, while the youth struggle to find well paid work to pay for over priced rents.

    • Hi Z the airport has been so since 1989 could you explain how this airport benefitted anyone since it developed cargo facilities?

  7. When will people do their research. Houses that could have gone on Manston have been relocated elsewhere mostly on greenfield sites. Plus another extra 5,000+ because TDC councillors in an effort to help RSP by suppressing the land value delayed the local plan, in the meantime HMG increased housing targets. It was never airport or houses. Thanks to all the people who supported RSP’s 24/7 cargo hub we now have over 8,000 houses going on agricultural land that didn’t need to. I’m sure at some point RSP’s investors will cash in on a money making certainty and build houses at Manston too which will be classed as windfall so be in top of those already planned.

    • Houses could only built at mantel a few years ago ,if the owners sold up or was compulsory purchased,

    • For the first JR, 2000 people raised almost £120000. This second JR fundraiser is well on the way.
      But thanks for reminding me: this week end is payday – I’ll make a donation.

      • Yes, by using people’s council tax, provided by the labour government without their permission (which is effectively stealing). In addition, funds raised were also from some annanomous donors, which if they have no self interest to gain (personally and financially) from the outcome of the judicial review, they woukd not need to be anonymous.

      • Well on the way, not even half way after moving the end date twice. Maybe because the majority actually want a business that would create jobs and not just more houses.
        Even if RSP pull out after getting fed up with the time wasting minority, what the hell are you going to do, it’s a giant concrete pan, surrounded by contaminated soil.

  8. Hasn’t the MARGATE mayor noticed that MARGATE’s theatres, shelters and toilets (to name but three) could do with fundraising events instead? Whatever ones thoughts on Manston, he should get his priorities right!

  9. I didn’t think this fundraising needs to happen, I thought it was funded by land developers! Manston will be an airport again, so get used to it you Snowflakes & Arty Farty Coffee drinkers.

    • Hi have you attended one of the local fundraisers if so this is nothing to do with you. That is assuming you are even local

      • I think you’re right in that the JR doesn’t need to happen. Over a dozen international aviation experts have said that a)there is no need, b) even if there was, Manston is in the wrong place.

  10. so what do they really want ? thousands more houses in this place , the media has reported that over 50% of new housing is required because of immigration. i bet they are elated over in france.

    • Only in the Daily Mail. And just remember, most immigrants don’t come in small boats from France (and 90% of these are actually granted refugee status). Please can people check their facts: Total long-term immigration was estimated at around 1.2 million in 2022… most people arriving to the UK in 2022 were non-EU nationals (925,000), followed by EU (151,000) and British (88,000). Around 85,000 is attributed to the inclusion of asylum applicants and resettlement schemes. So migrants account for less than 1% of immigration. Stop moaning about the boats. (figures from the Government, see

  11. I suspect most Manston support is anti housing sentiment. The land was up for sale for years nobody wanted it until Stone Hill Park and their mixed use plans. Sadly when TDC made it nigh on impossible to realise those plans, due to their obsessive support for RSP then here we all are.

    The comments about job provision for young people need to be couched in reality.

    1. When it last went bust it employed 140 people. Mainly on precarious contracts.
    2. Unemployment has fallen since it last went bust.
    3. Thanet Earth struggles to find staff and so do many local employers.
    4. A cargo hub is mainly automated. Putting any vacancies in the manual handling, fork lift space. Jobs that are broadly similar in pay and conditions to those in retail, tourism and other sectors in Thanet.
    5. You can’t employ just the young or the local. That would be illegal.
    6. RSPs definition of local is a 90 minute commute.

    Besides this, their plans are full of green washing nonsense.

    And, the original letter wasn’t short on detail, it was short on evidence based fact. Just like the 2nd one, clearly written by a junior minister who skim read the Azimuth report and ignored the 17 others that refute commercial aviation success up there.

    Great article. Thank you

    • Thank you Emmeline for presenting the facts so clearly. A welcome change from the hysterical claims about the only alternative to a cargo hub being a monstrous estate for 63,000 displaced Londoners.
      It is sad that when the airport failed, no-one at local or county level had the vision to recognise the opportunity provided by such an enormous brownfield site.
      With a properly planned and enforced mixed development, we could have avoided much of the house-building now going on greenfield sites, as well as providing much-needed infrastructure and real jobs as opposed to fanciful promises.
      When the Stone Hill Park plan offered a realisable opportunity, one of our MPs shamefully refused to even talk to the company and it was cold-shouldered by the council.
      Now we have the worst of all worlds. A derelict site and the only plan being an environmentally-disastrous menacing cargo hub, denounced by the Government’s inspectors who examined it forensically.

  12. What is wrong with the doubters surely Ramsgate town council should put it to a vote about the £10.000 being donated to the anti brigade i and many people I have spoken to are all for the airport we need jobs as for the mayor’s both Margate and Ramsgate you would think that would be right behind the opening of Manston all you doubters get a life support our airport let’s get it open stop being negative

      • No public were asked if RTC should use up to £10,000 of our public money against the airport, instead of improving the town, which is filthy and scruffy! I hate going down there these days. Councillors said they were voted in to represent the Ramsgate residents, but they certainly weren’t voted in on a Manston ticket! They were voted in on a National issue to try and save QEQM Stroke Unit. Nor were they voted in this time on a Manston ticket, as not one Labour candidate would admit being anti-airport. Not one! At least the Greens, when asked, admitted they were against it.

    • The tax payers were not consulted or asked if they would like this money donated. It was taken without permission. The few who voted for this and donated this do not represent the interests or views of the tax payers whose money is being used without their permission.

  13. The election of a Labour council does not mean people are against an airport locally. It reflects national opinion. Local councillors should not express personal opinions on local matters, they are there to carry out the wishes of the majority of local people.I can only imagine that the monies collected so far have been donated by property developers who do not have local people’s best interest in mind.

    • Is there one spread of evidence anywhere to say that property developers have and are contributing to the JR?
      They don’t need to.
      When the airport (if ut gets its DCO) inevitably fails, what do you think RSP will do with the site?

    • Most definitely. They have no interest in improving the area at all!! They will not be improving road, or providing venues or entertainment for local people (young and old). They will not provide Doctors, Dentists or put money into local hospitals. They are not providing local employment. So where is the benefit to the general pubic?

  14. Wrong! Labour town councillor Jane Hetherington, one of the organisers, said the recent election result bringing a Labour majority at council “reflects a growing desire for other, greener uses for the Manston site.” The airport didn’t feature on Labour’s canvassing leaflets at all. Many Tories didn’t vote this time due to National political issues, NOT because they’re against Manston Airport. Many Labour voters are FOR the airport. I’m fed up with antis comparing it’s previous failures with the future plans for £500Million invested and 23 stands. I hope it’s clear on all the tickets for these events they’re for funding the JR against the airport. Does it say so on the tickets, I wonder?
    Ironic also that the Labour Margate Mayor, Cllr Rob Yates is anti-airport, yet Iris Johnson, former TDC Labour Leader, was very pro-airport. I’ve seen photos of her wearing a Save Manston t-shirt.

    • This is the funniest comment yet
      Labour it seems discussed this on the doorstep during the local elections and their leaflets were read by many however the South Thanet MP stated on his leaflet that a vote for Labour or the Greens would lead to the loss of the airport and guess what Labour won in a landslide

  15. Save your money people you are only giving it to those who will make a big profit if they can build houses and make big profits.
    Manston Airport will get permission and the judicial review will be denied. Why because there is no legal right to stop it. The campaign against the airport is vexatious and the court will rule it out. Therefore the airport will get the go-ahead.
    Now go and find something else to complain about, reading the comments on here it is obvious that none of you understand the law of an “established” business that “for whatever reason closed” even planning lawyers have often overlooked this interpretation of planning law to their cost.
    I also think it right that the full cost of the hearing is made against the campaigners who have been given enough court time already.

    • Ann, clearly the JR is not vexatious as a high court judge has looked at the grounds for the appeal and allowed it.

      • Once it has been ruled tge JR cannot go ahead or has failed, that should be it. Multiple reviews should not be allowed from the same group. Once decided that should be that.
        As it is this woman is not having any personal loss, just repeatedly using your money to fund her own interests, thousands of pounds. In addition,paying herself a huge salary and expenses from it, with no consequence. She is not decaring what all this donated money and tax payers money is being spent on, or mentioning if any money was left in the pot. The money just dissapears and she starts all over again. Is this not stealing and deceitful?

    • Ann, how many times, stop taking drugs and sucking on plane fumes! They have rotted your brain out.

  16. Its a free country or it was until Braverman became Home Secretary ( I notice she was not in the commons to respond to questions on net migration. She left that to Jolly Jenrick, who bailed her out when she cocked up the asylum seekers centre at Manston. I suspect she was doing a one to one speed awareness course, or perhaps she was having a surgical procedure to give her a conscience).
    What’s it matter if a group wants to raise some cash for their cause.
    If they win their case this time, it ought to be game over and the DFT should stop wasting tax payers money, and our time.
    Things to do with Manston: Yes, some woodland, or perhaps aviation engineering facilities, or perhaps a bakery, so that Ray can buy his Bread.
    It does seem all the legions of airport supporters were not enough to keep the pro airport Tories in office. Perhaps the people have spoken, but no doubt, that slimy little toad Pritchard, will come up with some obscure poll, that will say that everyone in East Kent would love an airport, run by the daily Dirge or some such brain dead publication.

    • I think with such a low turnout, between 19 and 43 percent, I would suggest that the people of Thanet are totally fed up of all the parties making promises, and not keeping them. Yes, it’s a free country, but with these turnout figures, no party can say the majority of people support them.
      (The maximum majority of votes you needed was 22 percent of the people who voted). It just shows what the people of Thanet think of the candidates.

  17. Labour town councillor Jane Hetherington, one of the organisers, said the recent election result bringing a Labour majority at council “reflects a growing desire for other, greener uses for the Manston site.” I then take it councillor, the site WIILL NOT be used for housing which will obviously result in a “greener use of Manston”, or involve car transport to the area, which will produce pollution, what do you, and you other councillors think the site should be used for, making sure there is no pollution around the area. I also ask this question to ALL the councillors on the town council, irrespective of their aligence to the party they have been elected for.

  18. I really do hope that all funds that are needed are raised & when the process is over everybody will accept the discison, whichever way it goes. If it’s not to be an airport. Then that is the time to argue what should be done with the site. Either way, some people are going to be very unhappy. Let’s just hope that they can be adult enough to admit defeat gracefully.

    • Paul, did it not get permission to go ahead? and that decision wasn’t accepted,it would seem that the only decision people will accept is for it not to go ahead, each and everytime it gets the go ahead, someone doesnt like it and challenges it. if not an airport, should be a solar and wind farm. theres no green answer for this place, whatever wind , solar housing, airport, theres a carbon footprint. something has to be done with it, and surely jobs will be good for the area. houses in my opnion not so much

      • Indeed it did. That’s why I hope that this & any further legal challenges can be funded by whatever means. If in the end the final decision remains the same that decision needs to be respected.

  19. Christ they are getting desperate. Keep throwing your money away because that’s all you are doing and have been doing for years. RSP have the money to sink you Antis. Struggling to raise 75 grand tells you it’s wearing very thin now. Give it up and stop wasting your energy.

    • RSP don’t have the £500,000,000 (and rising) to develop the airport. They do have £8M (of taxpayers money) curtesy of Operation Brock, so they really ought to pay Jenny Dawes the money they owe her.

  20. Some clarification here maybe helpful. It would be pointless to be ‘against’ an airport (after all RSP acquired the site three years ago). I and many others are against the use of a DCO which takes all decision making powers out of local hands. The DCO, if granted, allows the operators (who wont be RSP) a great deal of latitude on future planning and operational matters. The local population will not any statutory say on anything to do with the running of the airport no matter how it pans out. The state of affairs that allows local democratic involvement in their local airport applies to all other UK airports who seem to manage quite well.

  21. Many good comments from for’s and against. But there is complete ignorance on the health threat from particulates the tiny particles that all fossil fuels produce when burnt and an aircraft burns a gallon a second of kerosene,so frequent flying low over our town always on the same route will be a severe health threat from the tiny killer particles. Now the HRA says if our lives are threatened the government must take action, end of story stop the freight hub and invite Stone Hill Park back their plans would not harm our town or its residents.The UK Government could have avoided thousands of deaths in 2019 had it acted to reduce air pollution to within global guidelines set by health experts, new figures from the European Environment Agency (EEA) have revealed. According to the analysis, in 2019 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) was responsible for more than 33,000 deaths annually in the UK, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) for 5,750. Half of the UK’s deaths from PM2.5 could have been avoided if the UK had followed the latest recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO). The UK was in the top five European countries with the most premature deaths resulting from both PM2.5 pollution and NO2 pollution. The country’s new Environment Act has just been passed but the government missed an opportunity to follow WHO guideline for PM2.5 in the Act as it stands. The environmental law charity ClientEarth says

    • Gryspeerdt Where the ‘40,000’ comes from The number itself was rather easy to find: it comes from a 2016 report Every Breath We Take: the Lifelong Impact of Air Pollution by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), in which they state Each year, inhaling particulates causes around 29,000 deaths in the UK, which, on recent evidence, may rise to around 40,000 deaths when also considering nitrogen dioxide exposure This

    • If people were so worried about their health and living longer , 60% of the population wouldn’t be fat and unfit, so perhaps we should concentrate of being economically productive enough to provide for the legions of lardies in terms of support for those that can’t work and the health needs they bring upon themselves.
      Air quality is still way better than it was 40 years ago, never let perfection be the enemy of the good.

  22. Personally I think raising money to fight manston is a waste of time.

    They is so much against the feasibility of manston it will never be a successful.

    Not on the fuel grid, cheaper to fly from manston and refuel at Gatwick than to bring fuel in by tanker.

    No road or rail infrastructure

    In a poor geographical position

    No investor is going to invest 500 million in manston. No investor has even been linked to the airport. No investor is going to invest in a company run by a struck off solicitor who liked clients money.

    • All reasonable arguments, but manston would make a good maintenance and training base, freeing up landing slots elsewhere.

  23. Labour has just lost many local votes by backing anti manston, you all probably fly but childish attitude NOT ON MY DOOR STEP…
    Cleaner technology coming and all you do is moan about noise and pollution..
    What about all these new homes all with cars = even more pollution. Can’t be one sided

    • lost so many votes but won the election. Nice trick if you can do it. I have not flown for years, because it is a dispiriting exercise. Its expensive (parking/hotels etc).You sit around for hours in a shopping mall, and then there is security, where paranoia is on display. Then they shove you into an aluminium tube for hours, crammed up with dozens of drunken idiots, moaning and throwing up.
      Its not exactly like the pre war flying boats is it?
      Is this what Manston is all about? Really!

  24. As I said, yes won the election but with only 19 to 43 percent of the electorate voting. Hardly overwhelming. You could say most of the people dont want a labour, conservative, or any other council, who don’t fulfill their manifesto promises.

    • That’s democracy for you.
      A majority of people voted in Labour and Green candidates, and voted out Tories.
      Interesting that RTC Labour councillors who gave £10,000 to the JR were voted in, and Independent councillors who strenuously against this were vote out.

  25. Councillor Rob Yates is wrong again, there are 10 airports in Sweden alone, operated by Swedavia, that have already achieved net zero carbon emissions – and without any carbon removal. They are Stockholm Arlanda, Göteborg Landvetter, Bromma Stockholm, Malmö, Luleå, Umeå, Åre Östersund, Visby, Ronneby, and Kiruna.
    Why not also shut down the ferry port at Dover and reduce the carbon footprint dramatically of Ferry’s, HGV and cars waiting to board.Diesel fueled vehicles are major sources of harmful pollutants, such as ground-level ozone and particulate matter all produce harmful emissions. Improve the life for residents of Dover,at least commission an emission test for Dover. Mayor of London did one and now has ULEZ is to improve air quality by reducing the number of vehicles in London that don’t meet emissions standards.

    • It does NOT reduce the amount of high emissions vehicles, it merely raises more money. Do your research, Checkers!

    • There’s no such thing as a net zero airport if you include the planes. And if you don’t include the planes you’re an idiot. As for comparing planes and ferries, planes emit more than 100 times the CO2 per kilogram mile flown. The effects of climate change are huge, and they’re here, now, but all you lot want is a bit of nostalgia and a couple of hundred zero hours contracts. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

  26. Another £75,000? Wonder how much shelter that could supply the homeless of Thanet?
    Oh no of course an expensive court argument for an Airport that’s been there before most were even born is far better Mr Mayor.
    Thanet’s priorities are for the privileged and keeping them happy & winning their votes, such a one sided system with everyone in it for themselves.

      • Well, chaps, here’s an opportunity for you to start a crowd funding page to raise money for the homeless of Thanet.
        I look forward to seeing you put the link up later this morning.
        I remember a year or so ago Peter Checksfield criticizing the fund raiser. He was invited to start his own for a suitable charity. But he never did.
        It occurs to me that the 2000 or so people that stumped up cash for the JR are the sort of people who already donate to other charities.

          • Well, it’s 12:00 and so far neither “The Central Scrutinizer”, nor “*” (nor Peter Checksfield) has set up a charity to support the homeless of Thanet.
            I see that Ramsgate’s Advent Doors Christmas Charity is organised by an airport opposer and (in 2021) raised £4000 for Thanet Shelter.
            Come on, chaps. It’s not too difficult to set up a fundraising page. Easier than organising the Advent Doors scheme!

Comments are closed.