Permission granted for appeal against Manston airport scheme

Manston airport site Image RSP

A request to appeal against a government order granting permission for the development of Manston airport has been granted.

A bid for a Judicial Review into the decision to give the Manston airport project the go ahead was dismissed last September but claimant, Ramsgate resident Jenny Dawes, then appealed that judgement.

Ms Dawes and supporters want the airport project approval to be quashed citing reasons including harm to tourism, climate and health and lack of need for airport services at Manston.

Airport owners RiverOak Strategic Partners want to create aviation at the site with a cargo freight 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.

The airport closed in 2014 with the loss of 144 jobs.

In October last year, the appeal application by Ms Dawes was refused but she then lodged an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

This has now been granted by The Rt Hon Lord Justice Warby on  “need” grounds but refused permission to appeal on “climate change” grounds.

Sharing the news with supporters, Ms Dawes said the “need” grounds consist of:

  • Ground 1(a)which is that it (1) was procedurally unfair to rely upon the Azimuth Report without having the underlying evidence or submitting that evidence to scrutiny by Interested Parties (2) the reliance on the IBA* report which the IPs were not afforded the opportunity to comment on.
  • Ground 1(c) irrationality – i.e. that in determining whether there is a need for the development, the Defendant irrationally relied on qualitative, rather than quantitative evidence, despite having asked for quantitative need to be demonstrated in his Statement of Matters.
  • Ground 1(d) which is there was an error of law as to treatment of potential growth at other airports; the minister erred in law because he was unlawfully advised in the briefing that the potential for growth at other airports was not a material consideration.

It is understood the application will be heard in March.

The Development Consent Order application was submitted by RSP in April 2018, withdrawn and then resubmitted in July 2018. At that time Stone Hill Park planned to develop housing and leisure for the site.

The Planning Inspectorate examination for the DCO began in January 2019 and ran through to July 2019. In that July RSP bought 742 acres of the 770 acre site from Stone Hill Park for £16.5 million. Stone Hill Park withdrew its masterplan application for the site.

The Planning Inspectorate Examining Authority panel recommended that development consent should not be granted.

The Secretary of State disagreed and the DCO for the airport scheme was initially granted in July 2020 when the Department of Transport approved the application to create an air freight hub at the site.

It was quashed in the High Court in February 2021 following a legal challenge launched by Ms Dawes and supporters which resulted in the Secretary of State conceding the decision approval letter issued from the Minister of State did not contain enough detail.

The DCO was granted for a second time in August 2022 by then Transport Minister Karl McCartney.

In response Ms Dawes launched a second Judicial Review application in a bid to halt the airport plans and crowdfunded £75,000 in pledges to pay for the action.

The judicial review application was initially dismissed by Mr Justice Lane in January 2023 but then allowed on partial grounds in a review by Mrs Justice Lieven in March.

At a hearing before Honourable Mr Justice Ian Dove in July 2023 the focus was on the process for two areas -whether need for the airport was correctly assessed and  whether due consideration was given to what impact the scheme might have on the Government’s ability to meet its future carbon reduction targets.

Mr Justice Dove issued a lengthy judgement dismissing the application in October.

Ms Dawes then applied for permission to appeal against the judgement but this was also denied.

The application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was then lodged and has now been granted on the one ground of need.

RiverOak Strategic Partners have confirmed the permission has been granted.

A spokesperson said: “We have been advised that permission to appeal has been granted to Ms Dawes, on one ground, which means there will now be a hearing in the Court of Appeal.

“We remain concerned that this is simply a delaying tactic – frustrating the shared desire of RSP and the Government, together with a myriad of local organisations, businesses, and communities, to see Manston return to operational use as an international freight hub for London and the Southeast, creating employment opportunities for the people and organisations of East Kent and beyond.”

Reaction

North Thanet MP Sir Roger Gale

North Thanet MP Sir Roger Gale said: “It appears to me utterly perverse that a Judge who is a member of an expert panel set up by the Government to determine planning matters should have decreed that there are no grounds, on ‘need’, environmental or any other matters, for appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to grant a Development Consent Order on Manston Airport only to have that decision reversed and a right to yet a further appeal granted by another Judge whose expertise is not in planning.

“Fortunately the investors waiting to pour hundreds of millions of pounds into job-creating aviation facilities at Manston are staunch and will stand by the project but I am determined to ensure that the legal absurdities of this case are brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.

“It is a nonsense that an organisation like National Grid appears able to ride roughshod over the environment while a significant investment in the national interest can be frustrated by a handful of people with a bit of money behind them. This has to be addressed-fast.”

County Councillor Karen Constantine said: ““Good news for anyone concerned with preserving and improving the health of the residents of Ramsgate.

“Despite several requests, I have never seen any evidence from RSP of actions to remediate the negative impact on the health of those living under the flight path of the proposed air cargo hub, nor evidence about the supposed employment benefits.

“Whatever the eventual outcome of the latest appeal It has always seemed an unlikely prospect that an air cargo hub is needed. There are many obstacles that RSP still have to overcome in order to make this a viable proposition, not least of all the funding required. Again, there is no sign of the investment that is required for take off.

“It is time to move forward and think creatively of other uses that the Manston site could be considered for, which would hopefully preserve the heritage and create employment.”

114 Comments

    • How many more times is this lady going to be given an opportunity to thwart this project! This is becoming rediculous and just goes to show how broken our legal system is, how many times has she been told NO now, 6?, but she is just given another opportunity to throw a spanner in the works.

      • David Jenny Dawes is backed by hundreds, if not thousands of Ramsgate/Thanet people who have donated tens of thousands of pounds to stop this idiotic project! The 2 chocolate tea pot MP’s for Thanet have been encouraging the re-opening of Manston, because they think it will encourage enough gullible people who will vote for them at the next General Election! The last thing Thanet needs is dozens of 4 engine cargo jets flying in over Ramsgate Harbour at less than 300 meters high, flying up the High Street at 250 meters, over Ellington Park, and Nethercourt at 150 meters, destroying property values, and businesses in the process!

        This appeal was unnecessary, because in order for a DCO to be granted it has to be demonstrated that there is a “National Need” for it, which there isn’t! There are plenty of other airports north of London better located, and which have spare cargo capacity! Incidentally, both MP’s do not live in Thanet, so don’t be gulled by them!

        • A big thanks to Jenny from Thanet Green Party who strongly oppose Manston becoming an airport. Although most of the housing development around the Manston runway is irresponsible and does not meet the needs of local people we can at least be reassured that no developer would build a housing estate next to a runway they believed would become operational again. Steve Roberts, Green Party Parliamentary candidate for East Thanet.

          • Those of you who oppose Manston becoming an airport again should actually stop and think. If the airport doesn’t go ahead,and a big housing development is built there, what about the pollution hundreds of houses would cause. Every home would have 1to 2 cars, there would be increased services needed to accommodate the properties, increased traffic through Manston village, increased needs on already stretched amenities, overcrowding in schools and hospital needs, and who is going to live in these new homes. There is already so many new developments going up in Thanet, do we really need more. But who knows, there will never be a happy ever after will there.

  1. My numbers didn’t come up on the lottery so I might have to appeal it because I didn’t get my way.
    Sounds familiar doesn’t it.

  2. The judge has agreed that “Need” is a ground to be considered.
    Interesting, given that the SoS’s own expert (OveArup) backed up the opinion of a dozen other experts.
    Ie, there was no need for a cargo hub at Manston.

    • With what ?

      The 500million will probably be more like 750million with inflation. And we have no idea who these investors are !

      • There are no investors.
        During the Examination by the Planning Inspectorate, RSP made it clear that, were the DCO to be approved, invitations would be made to carefully selected investors and banks to stump up the £500M+ for the development.
        It’s not too difficult to work out how much a month it would cost to service such investments and loans.

  3. This is fantastic news! It is clear there is more than enough capacity at other UK airports rather than open a new hub at Manston. It has failed numerous times and is a serious threat to tourism and hospitality especially in Ramsgate. We cannot afford new airports given the climate crisis. Fingers crossed the sensible decision to quash the DCO is made.

  4. Most people on this site act like immature children ,and should be treated as .The fores and anti s come up with the same old statements,and also should be treated the same ,until they can come up with something original

  5. This is fantastic news. So many people object to this monstrous cargo hub plan, destined to ruin our health and quiet lives, our tourism and housing economy.

    RSP has never, ever, been able to demonstrate need. It is quite right we continue to challenge this preposterous plan, supported by a vocal minority and Roger Gale.

    As we have also seen, support for a cargo hub won’t stop house building. In fact, support has seen TDC fudge the local plan to put more houses on prime land instead of Manston, the largest brownfield site in Kent.

    Go Jenny. We’re grateful to you.

    • Let’s face it it is needed and RAF Manston as it was know before. This land layout has now been there for 100 years now and.played a huge part in history. It was there before 99% of us were born

    • You seem to be still having a problem with your HRT medicine Ms Pink, your menopause problems can be managed, get help!

  6. Excellent news, the airport is not needed and would be a disaster for Ramsgate and Thanet as a whole.

    For those going on about jobs, read the article, it states the loss of 144 jobs the last time it was open. This time round it would be a automated cargo hub with minimal staff on minimum wage zero hour contacts, so more than likely would employ less than 144.

    Can this joke of an idea be put to bed and something that actually would benefit the area be put there.

    The lot behind RSP are the same as the conmen that promised you the greener grasses of Brexit, look how that turned out! The all walked away into the sunset after making billions shorting the pound and you were left worse off and footing the bill for the rest of your life.

    It’s not about DFL’s etc, it’s about common sense. Why the hell would anyone want to wreck there own town with a 24hr cargo hub which will destroy there health, but then again enough fools voted for Brexit and thought it would be a good idea to leave of largest trading partner.

    Learn from past mistakes and stop believing the lies RSP say, they don’t care for you, they only care about lining there pockets. No to the airport there is no need and no benefit to anyone expect a few rich boys involved with RSP.

    • We need to get our meat and two veg from somewhere, now that all our farms are being built on or turned into traveller sites.

  7. Admin on We love Ramsgate seems to have hit the nail on the head
    Some history
    After failing to gain the support of Thanet Council Freudmann decided to apply for a Development Consent Order which led to a 6 month examination before 4 experienced experts. The final result of which was published in October 2019
    conclusions
    “The ExA concludes that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient need for the Proposed Development, additional to (or different from) the need which is met by the provision of existing airports, and this weighs against making the proposed Order”
    further
    “For all of the above reasons and in the light of its findings and conclusions on important and relevant matters set out in this report, the ExA, under the procedures set down in the PA2008, recommend that the SoS should not grant development consent.”
    The DfT on instruction from their political masters ignored these findings and granted the DCO which led to the 1st appeal. After gaining permission to appeal the DfT decision a date was set to conduct a hearing.
    Ultimately the DfT failed to produce a case and the learned judge had no option but to quash the order.
    The DfT then paid £150K of public money to Ove Arup (an independent expert) to produce a report to bolster the need case for Manston. Ove Arup wrote their report and the DfT then ignored it because it agreed with the original inspectors. (their decision is attached as a picture file)
    The DfT granted a new, updated, DCO which the campaigners then decided to challenge and where we are today with the Court of Appeal allowing the protesters the right to have the need case examined at the Courts of Justice.
    What is clear is that independent experts paid by the DfT are unanimously clear there is no need for a cargo hub at Manston and only reports paid for by Freudmann are in favour. Even the main report by RSP’s expert was shown to have been manipulated to get the DCO examined at at the hearing the author was question by a barrister and she was forced to confirm she was never asked to show that the cargo hub would be profitable.

    • Conclusions on the Need Case for Development
      The ExA Report recommended that there was no need case for the Proposed Development, summarised in their Report of Findings and Conclusions:
      “Given all the above evidence, the ExA concludes that the levels of freight that
      the Proposed Development could expect to handle are modest and could be
      catered for at existing airports (Heathrow, Stansted, EMA, and others if the
      demand existed). The ExA considers that Manston appears to offer no obvious
      advantages to outweigh the strong competition that such airports offer. The ExA
      therefore concludes that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient need
      for the Proposed Development, additional to (or different from) the need which is
      met by the provision of existing airports.” (E.R 5.7.28)
      Overall, the Independent Assessor Ove Arup)concludes that there have not been any
      significant or material changes to policy or the quantitative need case for the
      Proposed Development since July 2019 that would lead to different conclusions
      being reached (compared with the previous ExA conclusions) with respect to the
      need for the Manston development.

  8. These lazy no good for nothing judges are are part of the same judiciary who have taken more than 25 years to pardon and free sub postmasters and allowed miscarriage of justice to be carried out in their courts Jailing innocent postmasters. This objection to the reopening of an existing airport is the builders who are responsible for the farmland being destroyed on Haine Road acting like Fujitsu. I would suggest that River Oak withdraw the cargo hub for now but open the airport to all other activities for the time being. To frustrate Dawes obligations.

  9. I can imagine the tumbleweed blowing across the derelict island , when all the young people have moved out in search of employment , leaving just the old waiting to die.

    • The opening of the Royal Victoria Pavilion in Ramsgate created more job than were lost hn Manston last closed.
      The claims for job creation at a re-opened Manston Airport have been absurd. Even if it does reopen, the number employed at a highly automated cargo hub will be measured in their hundreds at the most. And jobs created there will ve off set by job losses in hospitality and tourism, particularly in Ramsgate.
      But all that’s academic.
      If RSP have to demonstrate “need” there’s no chance, because there is none.

    • The tumbleweed is currently blowing across the runway at Manston.
      It could, years ago, have been a thriving mixed use site, but the then UKIP council put paid to that scheme.

  10. John E, yes that makes Labour happy to see others living in squalor and poverty unemployed. It gives labour, reason to blame everyone else for what has happened when in reality it’s Labour who caused it.

    • Think you have got confused with the Tories there Bill, as that is what they have systemically done over there time in parliament, at the same time making sure they and there mates stuff there pockets with as much tax payers money as possible

  11. Your not bitter bill are you, it’s not a labour government that’s Brough this country to it’s knees, 15 years of Tory rule have done that pal. That airfield is an albatross across thanet neck, it’s a non starter that’s an environmental and economic disaster. That land has far more economic uses with far more employment prospects than the airfield will ever provide. There’s a good reason why it’s failed multiple times under multiple owners and non of the big operators and owners have never shown interest in it.

  12. I must admit to be puzzled why some of those commenting you want such a thing as a large cargo hub. I guess the answer I hear most is ‘jobs’ which is understandable. However, the number of jobs forecast means Manston would employ more people than Southend, East Midlands or Southampton. How they expect to compete with established airports with a larger wage bill is a mystery to me. One must also factor in the jobs that would be lost as a result of opening the airport.

  13. Well, the saga continues, I’m sure the DfT and RSP will respond to the Appeal..
    Now that it’s been reduced to just the question of Need…
    It’s a commercial enterprise using private funding, so if the company and its investors believe there is a Need, that they can fulfill, profitably why should anyone, including the Courts prevent them ?
    Appeal Courts are notoriously expensive.Now that the Environmental question has been quashed/ removed from the case , again, how does that leave the Aarhus Convention protection re costs, for Ms Dawes…..
    This could get very expensive….Will the Crowd Funding be sufficient to cover the escalating costs ?

    • Its not just a business proposition though. It is an application to be considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). RSP claimed that they would meet the threshold to be a NSIP at 10000 flights a year using some fanciful methodology. The Examining Authority and the DfT’s own commissioned report stated that this figure wouldn’t be reached. The appeal is against the reasoning used by the DfT. Remember it was RSP who chose to go for a DCO.

    • If, as you suggest, Manston is “a commercial enterprise using private funding”, then once SHP had sold the land to RSP there was nothing to stop RSP from moving ahead.
      The Locl Authority was at that time UKIP under Chris Wells, and positively in favour of the airport. The subsequent administration, Tory, lead by SMAa bbq attending Ashe Ashby, equally so.
      But for years RSP has sat on its hands.
      I wonder why.

  14. A thrice-bankrupt airport being developed by Tony Freudmann, a director who has failed in ten previous attempts to develop airports (including Manston) who only needs to borrow £600million to build something that’s not needed. What could possibly go wrong?

  15. oh here we go again.Where were all these people when permission was granted to build all the houses on farm land why werent you protesting about the loss of wildlife, with all the people moving here it will be just one long dole queue and all the pollution from cars standing still emitting fumes into the new houses on the gridlock roads, as all the farms will soon be gone where is our food coming from???

    • Calm down you will get an aneurism
      cars and aircraft if you get your way
      Land was offered to TDC by the landowners who sold said land to developers. Why not ask them why they sold up perhaps?
      The UK import 50% of food and has done for 100 years
      oh and have you tried buying a house without being employed?

      • “God help us” – Landowners sold land to TDC who sold it to developers??!! Where did you make this up from ?!!!!!!!

        • Egon you misunderstand
          TDC asked landowners to put forward land for housebuilding
          TDC include that land into the local plan
          Landowners use that to hype the price to developers and then sell it to developers
          developers then apply for PP knowing it will be granted as it is land designated for housing
          Is that better

    • Well if common sense was used the houses would have been built on the brownfield site that is Manston, could have been called ‘Manston Garden Village’ it is near the dual carriageway so no traffic issues and the farmland would have been left to grow crops.

      The problem is, is that the rich Tory boys thought they know best and now you are going to suffer for it.

  16. Only in thanet, any other county council, local authority, MPs and Cllrs would even consider the disaster this airfield is, aren’t they supposed to make sound decisions, every independent report ever written states it is not a sustainable airport under every level of consideration. So who is on the take here.

  17. I used to enjoy watching the planes take off and land. Bought a tear to my eye to think that planes were using the same location to help us win the war. I almost felt like saluting, I was that proud!

  18. RL, no I’m not confused I hate the Tories with passion and have always voted Labour but no more will I be voting for ANY party thanks to the local Labour Party backing Dawes and taking farmland in Garlinge for a so called “ travellers “ if they are “ travellers” what they need a site for???

  19. All the minority anti at it again I note being the aggressor as usual such a shame less employment for Thanet but don’t worry tourism and McDonald’s will pay minimum wage so the young might be able to afford a box to live in while we build houses

  20. Ms Dawes, labour party and a few others all in favour of stopping manston returning to a fully operational airport. All of these are not local Thanet people and couldn’t care about Thanet. Is Ramsgate council going to use tax payers money again without asking locals first. As for houses being built you need to understand that the cost of such will price locals completely out of being able to buy. More importantly you need to understand the history of manston something ms Dawes, her lawyers and the labour party have no idea what they are talking about. There’s so much more underground that they are unaware of and are not taking in consideration. If manston gets refused again then it should be turned into a woodland for nature so we can bury all those against the airport. As for Ramsgate health, tourism that went years ago by the same idiots moaning about the airport

    • Did you give permission for the Tories to give £8.5MILLION to RSP to assist them in their court case Chris?

    • The people objecting to RSP’s plans run into the tens of thousands, at the least. Indeed, several thousand people actually contributed to the JR funding.
      Neither you nor I know where the people on either side of the debate live.
      The history of Manston Airport is well understood by Ms Dawes, her lawyers, the Labour Party and anyone else who cares to read these columns: it has never made a profit as a commercial airport. When it last failed, it owed millions.
      Neither Ms Dawes, her lawyers, the Labour Party nor anyone else needs to know what’s underground. With the exception, perhaps, of RSP, who might be concerned bout 100 tonne aircraft trundling about on dubious infrastructure.

  21. Bill, I share your concerns and sentiments I fully understand why you will not be voting at the next general election. I’m also ex labour member.

  22. Perhaps everyone that wants to see a new future of prosperity for thanet and the surrounding area and not the same old tried and multiple time failed airfield, should speak up loudly and tell lies like the supporting few did years ago. All they and many Cllrs spouted were severe fabrications as to how it was an asset, oh my how have we live without it for close to a decade. Makes you wonder if some of the judges hearing the appeals are crooked and in RSPs and MPs pockets, they certainly are not listening, reading the history, previous reports over the years or have any common sense, kind of reaks of the post office scandal doesn’t it.

  23. The people wanting an airport were the same ones who never used it when it went bust before!

    Plus most are the ones who wanted it shut then too, BUT the proposal off houses soon makes them want a airport again.

    Please please build it and watch again as it goes tits up, then they’ll blame everyone except the real reason.

    That reason… no one wants to fly into here and commute to London, no one wants to flay cargo into the deep south east to then transport it hundreds of miles!

    Get the rose tinted glasses off and start to see the area is doomed.

    The only growth economy here is immigration and unless they use Manston to fly to Rawanda then leave it shut and build something that could be of use in the long term.

  24. I’m looking forward to clarifications by Beau Webber and Dr R. John Prichard.
    It would be good to get an expert opinion.

  25. According to the KM, they now say they intend to invest £800million in the airport – the airport has never seen a profit, how are the investors going to get a return on nearly a BILLION pounds of spend, even more by the time anything happens?

  26. This is another example of the travesty of justice, ask yourself why?

    County Councillor Karen Constantine, [“It is time to move forward and think creatively of other uses that the Manston site could be considered for, which would hopefully preserve the heritage and create employment.”] sic

    Really!

    Wokery at work here, self-righteous, pernicious, insincere.

    More housing, for who exactly? Gridlocked partisan rancour clearly, to leave Thanet an unemployment black hole

  27. Why are they building houses along side the landing lights ? Who would want to live there ?

    As for thanet being gridlocked it is already. If manston open the thanet way and M2 will be gridlocked as well

  28. Just imagine if these oddball judges were doctors first Doctor “ yes you have cancer” second Doctor “ No you do not have cancer “ third Doctor “ yes you have cancer”

    • Judges are not doctors, and interpretation of the law is not the same as medical diagnosis.
      I’m sure that you’re aware that even with doctors people can seek a second opinion.

  29. I bet you wish you had not reopened this HYS Kathy.The same old arguments are being picked over again.The same old mysogny displayed by angry old farts wanting to relive their youth.
    Let’s leave it to the court to end it one way or another.
    One thing I am not happy about is dissing the judiciary.
    When the court hands down a ruling that you agree with, the judge is seen as sagacious and wise, and we should all obey the law.When the court ruling goes against your opinion, they were what was it ‘lazy good for nothing’.Fortunately,the world does not run according to the barrack room Bill’s and Anne’s, we have the rule of law.The rule of law is what keeps us from being misruled by a Putin, Trump, Or an, Meloni, or any of the new German Nazis.
    Clearly Labour is not for you.Reform and all it’s madness is your natural home,along with Lily the Pink.
    Just to put a small point right, I know what an AHA tenancy is and there is no natural right to succession as my family found out.
    I thought farmer Tapp had sold his land to the council and rented it back, but clearly this was not so.
    If the land that Farmer Tapp is complaining about was bought by Margate BC or TDC, it would have been a strategic purchase Councils do not buy land normally as an investment.This strategic purpose would have been clear from the start, but I suspect that Farmer Tapp was hoping that day would never come.
    I was around when Dover built it’s traveller site and the deal was the Govt paid for it and any travellers that did turn up would be sent elsewhere, and that is still true what ever Fedup or whatever he is called says, because I saw just such a removal in 2022 with my own eyes.
    So let’s zip it, see what the court says and watch the outcome.
    Mind you if there is an incoming Labour or at least non Tory govt, I don’t give much chances for RSP in a future where green policies will have a priority.
    By the way Bill, the Govt owns the post office not the judges and they are to blame for Horizon,and Labour have been out of office for 14 years so Broken Britain is a Tory problem.

  30. The post office scandal and this circus over Manston Airport highlights the need for a full investigation into the judicial proceedings in this country and the babbling judges who as in this case are making judgments on matters that they are not qualified to judge on the two planning judges have turned down a JR on Manston Airport two unqualified ( in planning matters) judges have allowed the JRs on Manston Airport specialist judges should stick to what they are qualified in. Solicitor’s / Doctors / consultants / Judges do NOT know about everything about everything that’s why we have specialist. Judges judging against each other in our courts just goes to show how incompetent judiciary system allowed the worst miscarriage of justice in UK history, as in the post office scandal.

    • No, it doesn’t.
      It shows how robust our Judicial systems are.
      Just because you don’t like what’s happening, doesn’t mean the system is broken.

  31. In the current climate there is no appetite for private investment. At Innovation Park in Rochester they have paused the development as they had no tenants having initially thought tech firms would have been wanting to move there. Now the council will spend 200k reviewing what to do next. Similar looks to be happening in Ashford with Amazon dropping a development. I see Manston will be empty for another ten years even if they get the green light.

  32. Anyway who the hell are judges to decide as to if a business has a need or not surely it’s those who are putting their money where their mouth is are the ones to judge if there is a need or not.
    As you say Bill not unqualified judges whose bread is buttered for them. I agree there should be a full investigation into judges, they seem to make judgments depending on what side of the bed they got out of.

    • It is not judging on a business proposition. RSP chose to go for a DCO so it is the application to be considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). RSP claimed that they would meet the threshold for a NSIP at 10000 flights a year. The Examining Authority and the DfT’s own commissioned report by Ove Arup questioned the basis for this figure. The appeal is against the reasoning used by the DfT not on the business plan. I’m surprised that none of your highly qualified legal ‘freiends’ didnt tell you this.

    • You don’t understand the DCO process.
      If RSP wanted to open an airport. They could have tried, once they owned the land.
      But, if they want to go the DCO route, then there are conditions that must be met.

  33. Air freight is the cornerstone for swift transportation over extensive distances. Manston could and should remain. Less road freight, less congestion.

    • The vast majority of in coming freight goes through national distribution networks. Nearly all the centres are based in the midlands. Using Manston actually increases road freight as everything that lands in this remote corner has to trucked up-country.

    • There speaks a clueless person with no thought put into the statement and a comment not based on fact, which is something you can prove with evidence.

    • I’m afraid that you haven’t grasped the fundamentals.
      In order for a DCO to be granted, RSP has to show that there will be a minimum level of at lease 10,000 landings and takeoffs a year.
      They haven’t done this.

    • Less road freight? How would that work then? The freight that is to be flown in and out of Manston will have to be transported to & from Manston first – more trucks, more congestion & more pollution in this corner of Kent…,

  34. Maybe Ms Dawes, can set up a fund raising page to make the Airport site a Traveller’s site. Then she can be happy that there will be no aircraft taking off, hence no pollution, other than human, and there are no houses build on the site. She perhaps also, can provide a full account of the moneys recieved and expenditure for her fundraising page to stop Manston being an airport, as, I for one have not seen any publicised accounts.

  35. Heard of cognitive dissonance anyone? This is an epidemic of it in the USA,and it appears to be catching , as I can see signs of it here.
    There is no point in making a point based on fact or evidence that can be verified,because the respondents will either ignore the facts and repeat unsubstantiated allegations made on social media or repeated on GB News or some other rant-o-vision TV show. Anger, fury and vented spleens are the order of the day.Anyone not in agreement is woke, a traitor or worse.The list of traitors include judges, any women having the temerity to have an opinion,’liberals, ‘the left wing’, migrants,DFL’s,travellers of course, and TDC. Well the last one might be fair game, but before I start seeing unicorns and having delusions, I will lie in a darkened room for a few minutes, and get my bearings vis TDC.
    Batting for team Unicorn we have the Waldorf and Stadler of rant , in Ann and Bill. The google eyed ‘experts of Fedup,and Mark my word, with the fairy godmother from hell Ms Pink, bringing up the rear. What a team!
    I will miss them (not), when or if the airport is built and becomes the most colossal failure of all time.Please do build it and put your life savings into it, because that is the only way this is going to end.

  36. Always proud of manston as my great grandfather and grandfather served there during the war and long after. It would be a minefield to build on!

  37. Why have comments been closed on the article about the proposed gypsy and traveller site on farmland? This is now the third article on the subject where discussion has been stifled.

    • It was closed overnight as that seems to be when the most suspect comments are posted. Manston airport will be closed again this evening too, any minute now actually.

  38. Roger Gale recently broadcast on the radio about Manston Airport.
    He made several errors.
    He claimed that goods were trucked into Britain from Europe because there was insufficient air cargo capacity in the UK.
    This is not true.
    As the OveArup report, commissioned by the SoS in response to the first JR says, there is adequate capacity at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and EMA.
    True, some feight is trucked (and railfreighted) from Europe to UK: because it’s quicker and cheaper than by air.
    Secondly, Roger Gale draws parallels between opening an Airport and opening a Toy Factory. He complains that for the latter, no lengthy DCO process is required.
    He fails to point out that it was RSP that chose the DCO route. Generally speaking, a Toy Factory is not a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. And nor need Manston have been, had RSP’s CPO approach to TDC been viable.

    • Good grief!
      I stopped reading at the end of the first paragraph:
      “Once the jewel of the air cargo industry, Manston Airport was closed to air traffic in 2015 to enable the space to be used as an temporary lorry park in times of cross-Channel travel disruption”
      Manston was never, ever, “the jewel in the crown …”.
      It waw a small time operator, and went bust owing millions.
      And it was not closed in 2015 for anything, least of all cross chanel disruption. Brexit didn’t happen until 2020. Manston Airport closed in 2014.
      This piece is so wildly inaccurate that it’s worthless.

  39. Most people moved here or was born here when the airport was in operation so I think it is a great thing and opportunity for more jobs in the area. Be even better if it did short flights to Europe aswell

    • There is no correlation between your observations on the time and place of people living or moving to Ramsgate, nor your aspirations for a passenger airpor6, and reality.

  40. I sit here and read all the comments, regarding Manston Airport, I feel physically sick, to think how selfish, the majority, who have commented on here are, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, for the young people of Ramsgate & Thanet, the people, that have commented on here, I would imagine, are old, or DFL’s, who want a quiet life, why not give it a chance, to give our young people, hope.
    KAREN CONSTANTINE, are you sure you are Labour Councilor, I was brought up knowing, that Labour always supported Jobs, she says we have to look after our Tourism & Hospitality industry, could you please take me on a guided tour of Ramsgate, where this big industry is, the Government gave Ramsgate a leveling fund of around 19 million pounds, only now to be told by the Labour Council, it is not going to happen, Maritime Museum, not going to happen, Smack Boys, not going to happen, The Fish Market, not going to happen, so can KAREN CONSTANTINE, tell us all what is going to happen to the funds that the Government has given, besides, I add, A Pizza Oven for Newington

    • I am appalled to think that there are people who would welcome the noise, pollution and environmental pollution that would come from an airport just for a handful of low paid jobs.
      Just think what £800,000,000 could do, if invested wisely, to bring brilliant employment opportunities to Thanet, without the environmental impact.

    • But its not a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ is it? you see up to 2014 we had a working airport that was petty much focused on freight. Since it operated in the private sector the airport made massive losses every year under four different owners. When it closed it only employed 140 odd people.

  41. Jenny Dawes is doing Thanet a huge favour. The airport died ten years ago. It was sick for two decades before that. Yet MPs talk about this dead donkey of an airport like it was a thoroughbred. It isn’t, wasn’t and it never will be. Only an fool -or a self-serving politician – would back this old nag. Supporters will quote its glorious history, but oddly ignore its many historical business failures and the people behind them. Time to move on Thanet. Get the blinkers off and get some proper business done.

  42. I’ve lived in Ramsgate for 50 years now and am sick and tired of outsiders moving here telling us what we should or shouldn’t be doing with Manston.
    Everyone I know wants the airport open again and this Dawes woman wants to wind her neck in.

  43. “This Dawes woman” is the spokesperson for thousands of other people who don’t want an airport near Ramsgate. The judicial reviews are being funded by this group of people.

Comments are closed.