Decision awaited on judicial review appeal application over Manston airport scheme

Manston airport Photo Frank Leppard

A decision is now awaited following a Court of Appeal hearing on Wednesday (April 24) over the decision to dismiss an application for judicial review of the Development Consent Order for the reopening and redevelopment of Manston Airport

Lord Justice Jackson, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Warby are now considering whether to allow the appeal to go ahead.

Concluding proceedings, Lord Justice Jackson said: ‘We will give the decision as soon as we reasonably can.’ Judgements will be ‘handed out’ electronically in due course.

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 a 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.

In February this year, Ms Dawes was granted permission to appeal against the dismissal of her application for Judicial Review.

The Development Consent Order application was submitted by RSP in April 2018, withdrawn and then resubmitted in July 2018.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.

Following the quashing, the Secretary of State issued a Statement of Matters in June 2021 inviting further representations from interested parties and announcing that he had commissioned an independent aviation assessor, Ove Arup, to advise him on matters relating to the need for the Development and to produce a report summarising those findings.

The DCO was granted for a second time in August 2022 by then Transport Minister Karl McCartney who disagreed with the findings of the Examining Authority report and the conclusions of the independent aviation assessor.

Ms Dawes then launched a second Judicial Review application. Since the first application for judicial review some £200,000 has been raised to pay for action through around 2000 donations.

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 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 was granted on the ground of need.

The Court of Appeal hearing took place on Wednesday but a decision is not expected to be issued for several weeks.

Following the hearing a spokesperson for RSP said: ““We feel very confident in the case we presented and now await the decision so that the development of the airport can finally move forward.”

Ms Dawes said: “In three weeks’ time, on 15 May 2024, it will be 10 years since Manston airport closed. Along with the thousands of people who have supported my campaign, I hope the judges will recognise the flawed basis on which the Secretary of State disagreed with the advice of the Examining Authority and its Independent Aviation Assessor in approving the scheme.

“There is no economic or environmental case for reopening an airport that has never succeeded and I hope that the judges’ decision will ensure this environmental blight can stay closed for good.”

101 Comments

  1. Jenny Dawes, we salute you. For representing thousands and thousands of deeply concerned people, especially Ramsgate residents. We are the silent majority. People seem to think this is you alone, but it isn’t, nor ever has been. We’re a huge group in our thousands and we’re deeply grateful to you.

    And to anyone who has, or continues to, support the airport, the housing encroachment onto farmland is what we warned would happen. Supporting a cargo hub won’t stop housing. In fact, it has made it worse and instead of going on the largest brownfield site in Kent up at Manston, the houses are now all over our farmland and town.

    This absurd saga needs quashing once and for all.

    • Don’t you care about how difficult it is for the local elderly and infirm to travel to and from the London airports?

      I do.

      If you’re lucky, you’ll be old yourself one day Emmeline – and if you’re unlucky, you’ll be disabled!

      • When they get to there holiday destination, if they are that frail, are they staying at a hotel in the airport and then flying back after a week? What a stupid comment from you Pink, even though I know full well you are here to troll

      • I think you’ll find that the custom drummed up by elderly people choosing to fly from Manston rather than, say, Gatwick, won’t warrant the investing of £800,000,000.

        And no matter how enthusiastic a potential passenger is, I doubt they’d relish flying in a packing crate.

      • Nope, and you by your own admittance are 61, which is not elderly.Look Pink, if there was a need to open an airport for the elderly, SAGA would be doing it and not RSP. In any case RSP have clearly stated that they intend to build a cargo hub, so unless you are intending to containerise granny and grand dad,it will not benefit them.You really are becoming more daffy by the day.

        • I’m still an O.A.P. (got my Senior Railcard to prove it!)… and I hope to, eventually, get much, much older.

          How old are you? Judging by your posts, I’m guessing about 12.

          • Oh dear we are getting spiteful again.Being 60 does not make you an OAP, even a pink one.Think about it, what does OAP mean? Are you receiving a state pension, yes or no? If it is no, then you are by definition not an OAP.
            I am an OAP, I would like to be 12 again,but alas that ship sailed decades ago.
            If were 12 again, I would endeavour to right those things I did badly in the past.Unlike you Pink, I hold no claim to be omniscient in all things.

    • Where on earth did you come up with thousands and thousands , when under 2000 donated to JD fund , and most of those made multiple payments ! If you are not happy with the airport opening , may I suggest move elsewhere.

      • Hi Nick. From a business perspective it would be much more beneficial to everyone if the airport moved elsewhere. Say 60 miles closer to London. That way it wouldnt be in the middle of nowhere and it wouldn’t keep going bust.

      • Nick the money to Crowd justice has been rolling in for over 5 years and to date is nearly a quarter of a million

          • I’m sure you could run a crowd funding page to deal with that.
            BTW RSP could eradicate rough sleeping with the £8.5M they were given from taxpayers funds in 2022

    • 100% Absolutely, an airfield on that site is ridiculous, it’s never been a commercial success, it’s an environmental disaster and the last time it was useful and even then only on occasions was in ww2. Quash it now for the good of the area.

    • Emmeline – thousands and thousands concerned people? Where an earth do you get such figures. All along, a district referendum would have settled the issue. Not a small group of people with agendas!

      • According to RSP it is an NSIP
        Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project

        It would need to be a National referendum

  2. I truly can’t believe the Facebook posts blaming Jenny Dawes for all the housing developments. It’s entirely down to HMG. You can however blame pro airport councillors on TDC for 8,000+ houses going on greenfield sites that didn’t need to. Against planning officers advice the 2,500 that were allocated to go on Manston were moved to greenfield sites all over Thanet. Plus another 5,500+ were added after pro airport councillors delayed the local plan to help RSP by suppressing the land value and HMG increased housing targets in the interim. So well done to them !!

  3. So all us under the flight path have to put up with noise and pollution with all the poor health implications that brings so you don’t have to travel ?? I suspect you are the selfish one there Ms Pink

    • Yet you’re OK with “noise and pollution with all the poor health implications that brings” in Gatwick, Heathrow and Stanstead?? I suspect you are the NIMBY there RR.

      Fact is, it will be less harmful for people here than in those locations, as much of it will disperse over the sea.

      • Fact is, Ms Pink, your comment is wrong.

        No airport in the country has a runway directly over a town of 40,000 at less than 1,000 feet. The flight paths of Manston go directly over Ramsgate, including many schools, care homes and tourist industries never mind residents, so low that 1000Db noise levels were previously recorded. In a school playground. A giant cargo plane every 15 minutes will render the back garden unusable. Screeching engines make hearing anyone impossible. Fuel particles scattered down.

        By the time the gigantic cargo planes get to Nethercourt they’re less than 300 feet. Neither Gatwick residents nor Stansted residents face the same challenges.

        Manston was purposed due to proximity to Europe for military purposes. Remove those requirements and it is entirely in the wrong place. This plan is aggressive, unnecessary and not needed.

        These are the facts.

      • Just because there is noise and pollution associated with Gatwick , Heathrow etc (the hypocrit Roger Gale has expressed concern for his grandchildren who live under the Heathrow flightpath) is no argument for inflicting it on other people.
        Better to work towards stopping that pollution.

  4. But the airport had been operational for many years, and the Hoverport at Pegwell, not to foeget the noise and pollution that the cars bring, which is much more of a health concern, so, Ramsgate Resident, I dont quite understand your noise, health and pollution implications regarding the airport alone.

    • Really Paul Link ?? I think you should actually do some research about how noise, noxious fumes and particulates from jet engine engines detrimentally affects health. Pegwell shut 30+ years ago and what RSP are planning is nothing like Manston was. Read the DCO and CAA application it’s to be a 24/7 cargo hub

      • Scandalous and anyone with their finger prints in supporting this and the decision making should be investigated as it stinks.

  5. Local referendum needed then the thousands and thousands can put their own mark to the issue rather than one voice speaking on behalf of her thousands and thousands so called followers.

      • nope.After Brexit and Scotland still being attached to the UK, I don’t think many in the UK have much faith in them.In any case why should those who are not going to be affected have any say in the matter. If you want the runway pointing towards Birchington be my guest, but no, I don’t think you would be at all popular with your fellow Birchingtonians if that were to be the case.

        • I’m all for reopening the old Westgate runway instead, though I’m not sure that it’s big enough for these new-fangled post-1916 aircraft.

      • Thanet residents only, registered to vote here with ID to prove residency by way of driving licence and utility bills. Not like how it was opened to fake supporters last time.

    • The piece is factually incorrect, in that the £200,000 was raised from 2000 donations, not 200.
      The outcome of the JR will not be affected by a referendum.
      It is worth noting that in the recent Local Elections, candidates against the airport were more likely to be returned than those supporting the airport. In Ramsgate, where the Town Council voted to contribute to the JR fund, every anti airport candidate was returned. Stuart Piper, an independent Councillor who made a formal complaint (which was dismissed) lost his seat.
      And, of course, the sucess or otherwise of the airport depends on passengers booking flights, or hauliers shipping cargo. And, according to (not least) the OveArup report commissioned by the Secretary of State, that’s not likely to happen.

      • Making the conclusion that people who voted for councilors who are anti airport don’t want to see the airport reopened is a massive leap. The airport isn’t the only issue people vote on. I for one want it reopened and the councilors I voted for are anti airport.

        I’ve lived in ramsgate for over 30 years. The airport was never an issue.

        I drive past it every day to and from work. It’s a complete waste just sitting there with people constantly dragging on a decision. Just get it over with one way or the other.

    • We had local elections last year. Labour stood on a clear anti airport ticket. The Tories stood on a clear pro airport ticket. Labour got in with an overwhelming majority. That shows you how high up the list of priorities the airport reopening is for local residents when it comes to casting votes.

        • When UKIP was voted in in Thanet, they claimed that the fact that they’d mentioned Manston on their manifesto empowered them to screw the Local Plan.
          Despite the fact that there were other issues addressed in their election material, too.
          What’s sauce for the goose ..

    • We had one it was called the council elections in which Labour swept the board, remember the slogan ” Vote Tory To Reopen Manston” that went well did it not. And why was that do you think ? Oh I know, because only local people were allowed to vote and as most of the Manston luvies are all from outside the area, that’s why!!!

  6. I think people forget this is a legal challenge any person is fully entitled to take. The SOS/DFT has already been shown to have acted unlawfully once already in passing the DCO hence it being quashed. He may well be found by the courts to have done again. You cannot have government departments acting unlawfully even if it suits your agenda

  7. A local referendum would be pointless. Manston is not a popularity contest. However, the only competent survey undertaken demonstrated significant concerns by the majority of Ramsgate.

    This DCO is because Tony F believes a cargo hub at Manston is a piece of nationally significant infrastructure needed by the UK.

    Nobody else agrees. Apart from one report written by someone who works for him and an MP who owns an airline. Supported by a Secretary of State at the time who owned an airplane.

    • That’s because you know you’d lose.

      And as for “owned an airplane” (I assume you mean “aeroplane” unless you’re American)… would you be happy for non-drivers to make decisions on roads?

      • A referendum wouldn’t change a single thing about Manston’s future. You could have everyone in East Kent for it and it would change exactly nothing. The real losers in all this would be the people of Thanet. The airport will fail. The supporters will feel like they’ve been conned. The non-supporters will look at the ten years wasted on not having realist investment in the area.

    • They should refer to the historical independent reports written over many years by many auditors at great cost by local government which have all stated in not so many words, it’s an environmental disaster, is not required to meet quotas, it’s of zero significance and will never be a sustainable successful business.

      • Someone who drives a car and never walks/cycles/buses cares about the environment? That’s a new one.

    • Emmeline – you and your like do not like referendums as they are too democratic for you. It should be mandatory to vote and hopefully this would avoid some of these decisive outcomes. Look at Switzerland as an exam0le

  8. PRESS RELEASE FROM JENNY DAWES

    At the close of the hearing in the Court of Appeal today, 24 April 2024, Lord Justice Jackson, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Warby are considering whether to allow the appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Dove in the High Court and therefore to quash the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport to make a Development Consent Order for the reopening and redevelopment of the former Manston airport.

    Concluding today’s proceedings, Lord Justice Jackson said: ‘We will give the decision as soon as we reasonably can.’ Judgements will be ‘handed out’ electronically in due course.

    In February 2024, Ramsgate resident Jenny Dawes was granted permission to appeal against the dismissal of her application for Judicial Review.

    Following today’s hearing, Ms Dawes said: ‘In three weeks’ time, on 15 May 2024, it will be 10 years since Manston airport closed. Along with the thousands of people who have supported my campaign, I hope the judges will recognise the flawed basis on which the Secretary of State disagreed with the advice of the Examining Authority and its Independent Aviation Assessor in approving the scheme.

    ‘There is no economic or environmental case for reopening an airport that has never succeeded and I hope that the judges’ decision will ensure this environmental blight can stay closed for good.’

    TIMELINE:

    In July 2020 the Secretary of State for Transport went against the recommendation of the Examining Authority to grant a Development Consent Order for the former Manston airfield site. With huge local support, Ms Dawes submitted an application for judicial review of the decision.

    In December 2020, the Secretary of State conceded that he had not given adequate reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Examining Authority on whether there was a need for Manston airport. The order was subsequently quashed by the High Court in February 2021.

    Following the quashing, the Secretary of State issued a Statement of Matters in June 2021 inviting further representations from interested parties and announcing that he had commissioned an independent aviation assessor, Ove Arup, to advise him on matters relating to the need for the Development and to produce a report summarising those findings.

    On 18 August 2022, the Secretary of State published his redetermined decision to again grant development consent. In so doing, he disagreed not only with the Examining Authority report, but also with the conclusions of the independent aviation assessor, which had found there was no reason to dispute the findings of the Examining Authority.

    Once again, with local support, Ms Dawes applied for a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision. Following a refusal on the papers, in March 2023, at an oral hearing, Mrs Justice Lieven granted permission to proceed. After a two-day hearing in July 2023, Mr Justice Dove dismissed the claim and refused permission to appeal his decision.

    In February 2024, the Court of Appeal took a different approach and Ms Dawes was granted permission to appeal the grounds of need by Lord Justice Warby. In a statement at that time, she said: ‘In today’s climate-constrained world, ploughing ahead with an airport for which there is no need and without taking into account its climate change impacts is nonsensical.

    ‘The government’s decision to press ahead with Manston airport, against the advice of the experts, including the government’s own advisors, risks irreparable harm to the people, economy, environment and heritage of the towns and villages of East Kent.’

    Ms Dawes has been able pursue this case because of generous donations from a large number of private individuals. This is the second time the community has come together to support legal action. The first application for judicial review and subsequent representations in response to the Secretary of State’s decision to reconsider the application were supported by around 2,000 donations amounting to more than £200,000.

  9. In an election, even a local one, there are many issues which might affect the outcome, but often it is the popularity or otherwise of the government.That said those elected to RTC have been remarkably consistent in their objection to reopening the airport and were returned even in years like 2019, that favoured the Tories.
    Why not wait for the outcome of the case, and if the JR is rejected RSP can bash on with the airport, only in view of the current economic climate, a desire by an incoming govt to be seen to be green, and yes, those houses, I think its future is bleak, whatever happens.

    • NO incoming government will have a desire to be green. Those days are – thankfully – over, as it’s a vote-loser.

      • Says who? I mean every time Sunak does his allegedly pro motorist, pro coal mine, anti HS2 jive, it wins him less support, even within his own party.Not all Tories are entirely reactionary, and I thought conservative meant conserve, not destroy.Even the Leaderene when she walked this earth understood climate change, she was a scientist by education after all.
        You really must stop this nonsense, and accept that science has been pointing to this problem for years, and it is only the meddling and misinformation of the fossil fuel lobby that has stopped us making much progress.
        Do you not remember when we had 40c + temperatures,when fields caught fire, agricultural machinery was incinerated, and a whole village in Essex caught alight. Next time out it might be Birchington that receives the fire and brimstone treatment, god forbid!
        If I were you less said soonest mended, when you obviously don’t know what you are talking about.

        • OK grandpa, calm yourself.

          Meanwhile, in the USA, most car makers are reducing or scrapping their electric car range. So anything this country does or doesn’t do won’t make any difference whatsoever.

  10. I would just like to remind everyone that as you point out in the article; ‘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 due to lack of proven need.

    If not needed why build it? The decision to grant the DCO by then SoS Grant Shapps was a political decision not one based on need or practicality. The reason we have so many houses going up on local farmland is precisely because of the refusal to grant Stone Hill Park permission to develop Manston.

  11. Reason so many houses are being built is that Thanet does not own the land. It’s owned by Cambridge college and they are moving there responsibilities to this area, plus London’s overspill being moved here. Maybe all objectors should hand back there passports and not fly anywhere, it’s just a case of not on my doorstep argument. Housing is more polluting, more road congestion and damaging so no argument. If your not happy with the airport opening then move. Locals want it to be a success and investment not housing

        • There is that, however it goes bust, like Manston has on several occasions, if you approach a bank with the business plan RSP have, you would be laughed out. It’s not a sustainable business and if you need the reasons explaining, business is not for you and you clearly lack basic common sense.

  12. Looking forward to Tony Freudmann adding Manston (again) to his every expanding lists of business failures. It’s quite impressive.

    • I wonder if someone could remind us of his fascinating portfolio of business failures?
      I’ll start off with the Upminster Travel Club (director TF) went bust in 2010.

      • Annax Aviation – dissolved
        ANNAX AVIATION AIRPORTS LIMITED – dissolved
        SDCI LIMITED – dissolved
        FTI 2 LIMITED – dissolved
        SELIGO HOLIDAYS LIMITED – dissolved
        MAJESTIC TRAVEL (HOLDINGS) LIMITED – dissolved
        UPMINSTER TRAVEL LIMITED – dissolved
        TRAVEL CLUB LIMITED(THE) – dissolved
        AUSTRIA TRAVEL LIMITED – dissolved
        ALPHA CONSOLIDATIONS LIMITED – dissolved
        UHN LIMITED – dissolved
        UNPACKAGED HOLIDAYS (HOLDINGS) LIMITED – dissolved
        CAREFREE TRAVEL GROUP LIMITED – dissolved
        CAREFREE TRAVEL (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED – dissolved
        UNPACKAGED HOLIDAYS LIMITED – dissolved
        ACTIVE ENERGY LIMITED – dissolved
        KENT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK LIMITED – dissolved
        LOCATE IN KENT LIMITED – dissolved
        BELLSTONE HALL COMPANY LIMITED – dissolved
        BRITISH GAS HOUSING SERVICES LIMITED – dissolved

        Then we has the small matter of being struck off as a qualified solicitor in 1993
        Missing is the result of driving Planestation into receivership in 2005 due to his business plan of buying foreign defunct airports

    • The trouble is before it goes bust again which it will, it will cause a lot of harm to the detriment of Ramsgate and Thanets residents, the environment and have every flight of the poorest aircraft in the most antisocial hours coming in and out.
      They are all a disgrace. Perhaps if it goes ahead, they should be forced to make every residents under the flight path an offer to purchase their properties with immediate effect for the full going rate. It would happen in every other scenario, or is there more dodgy goings on.

  13. A referendum wouldn’t change a single thing about Manston’s future. You could have everyone in East Kent for it and it would change exactly nothing. The real losers in all this would be the people of Thanet. The airport will fail. The supporters will feel like they’ve been conned. The non-supporters will look at the ten years wasted on not having realist investment in the area.

  14. Does anyone know what Helen Whitehead’s and Polly Billington’s views are on Manston? I’ve searched everywhere, but can’t find any info – though I did see a couple of ladies sitting on the airport fence last time I cycled past, maybe that was them?

      • Does it matter? If they did respond you would call them liars, let alone your appalling attitude towards women, where you constantly diss them or call them witches. I mean 50% of the population are women so life must be a real problem for you, and therefore it makes all rather odd, that you use Ms Pink as a pseudonym.

  15. Chris, houses are going to end up on Manston whatever. Any investors are going to look at it and see an airport that has failed three times already that every expert consulted, including the DFT’s own independent aviation advisors, has said will never be viable and a company led by a man who has never ran a successful business in his life and walk away. Now if they see a quick profit in houses that’s a different matter.

    • Housing at manston will never be, if you know your history the cost to build will be over and above affordable houses. I know what’s underneath and have seen myself many many years ago. If no airport then no houses, return to nature plant trees, shrubs and turn into a parkland.

  16. In my humble opinion, to date the legal people and the crowd funding company Have advantage in this epic game of £ennis.

    Since the initial rsp application, so much has changed in the aviation world…

  17. Only in Thanet would the multiple times failed airfield get anywhere near this far, with its inept Cllrs and definitely suspicious MPs which lack knowledge and ambition to create something special and sustainable for Thanet and the wider area on the old airfield site. Any other area wouldn’t even entertain the thought let alone try to force it through, these people do nothing nor does the legal system in safe guarding the residents. Thank God an election is coming, good bye all Tories and other self serving government clowns.

  18. Please open it just so we can see it fail yet again.

    Where were all the supporters of the airport when it went belly up before?

    They were the ones moaning about the noise!

  19. How Much more hot air and money (mostly public money I suspect) is going to be wasted on this?

    Please, please, please Ms Dawes do the honorable and decent thing and admit defeat when it gets thrown out. You have had 6 chances already, enough is enough. Give it up.

  20. Has anyone found out about Rice production which causes more pollution than all the aviation put together

  21. So, just to be clear, the following are a list of RSP Director, Tony Freudmann’s business failures?

    (Along with the ten – that’s TEN- failed airport projects when he was Senior Vice President of Planestation)

    Annax Aviation – dissolved
    ANNAX AVIATION AIRPORTS LIMITED – dissolved
    SDCI LIMITED – dissolved
    FTI 2 LIMITED – dissolved
    SELIGO HOLIDAYS LIMITED – dissolved
    MAJESTIC TRAVEL (HOLDINGS) LIMITED – dissolved
    UPMINSTER TRAVEL LIMITED – dissolved
    TRAVEL CLUB LIMITED(THE) – dissolved
    AUSTRIA TRAVEL LIMITED – dissolved
    ALPHA CONSOLIDATIONS LIMITED – dissolved
    UHN LIMITED – dissolved
    UNPACKAGED HOLIDAYS (HOLDINGS) LIMITED – dissolved
    CAREFREE TRAVEL GROUP LIMITED – dissolved
    CAREFREE TRAVEL (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED – dissolved
    UNPACKAGED HOLIDAYS LIMITED – dissolved
    ACTIVE ENERGY LIMITED – dissolved
    KENT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK LIMITED – dissolved
    LOCATE IN KENT LIMITED – dissolved
    BELLSTONE HALL COMPANY LIMITED – dissolved
    BRITISH GAS HOUSING SERVICES LIMITED – dissolved

    Then we has the small matter of being struck off as a qualified solicitor in 1993
    Missing is the result of driving Planestation into receivership in 2005 due to his business plan of buying foreign defunct airports

  22. But you can eat rice, but not drink aviation fuel Rice may have a large carbon footprint, but it is a significant human activity whereas we don’t have to fly.
    I assume Joe doesn’t eat then?

  23. Who are these silent majority other than supporters of the reinvestment into Thanet airfield. The only people that benefit from it not opening are the house builders. Every time there is a vote, over 90% back Manston as an airport, Fact. Makes you wonder where the donations are coming from that go to the Crowd funding. She may have an OBE, but I wish she would stop messing with the only worth while investment in Thanet and why does she use her maiden name, is she frightened people will find out more than she wants people to know?

Comments are closed.