Night Flights vote - press coverage

Vote against Manston Airport night flights plan

BBC 25th May 2012

Plans for night flights from Manston Airport in Kent have been opposed by Thanet District Council. At a meeting on Thursday, the Labour-controlled council voted against all night flights to or from the airport. Charles Buchanan, the airport's chief executive, said:

"We are disappointed the council is not supporting the airport as much as it could."

In March, owners Infratil announced plans to sell Manston and Glasgow's Prestwick Airport. Mr Buchanan said the airport wanted to run "a small number" of scheduled night flights. He said the owners had received legal advice that two flights per night, on average, did not constitute "an increase in activity over and above that which is already permitted", and they could go ahead without needing extra planning permission. Mr Buchanan said a number of companies were interested in taking up the opportunity.

"They would also bring the rest of their daytime schedule to the airport as well. Without that they'll go to airports where they have that flexibility."

Council research showed that 73% of some 2,000 residents questioned were against the proposal, citing potential noise levels and disturbance to sleep as their primary reasons for objecting. The airport currently deals with passenger and commercial aircraft with a runway capable of taking Boeing 747s and Airbus A380s. Its refurbished terminal is capable of handling up to 700,000 passengers a year.

---

Thanet Council says "no" to night flights

Thanet Gazette 25th May 2012

MANSTON airport's plans to run as many as eight flights a night failed to get the support of Thanet District Council last night after a final crunch vote. Opinions divided along party lines at the extraordinary council meeting as the Labour administration motioned a rejection of the airport's proposals.

Council leader Clive Hart said the council's consultation response was based on the results of an independent review of the airport's proposals and the council's own consultation with residents. Conservatives argued that a vote against night flights was a vote against jobs for the area. Conservative group leader Bob Bayford said that a ban on all aircraft movements between 11pm and 7am was a "straight jacket" for the airport:

"At best it will delay the development of the airport, a worst it will kill the airport."

Mr Bayford added that it was "dangerous" for the council to base its response on a "seriously flawed" in-house consultation in which 73 percent of respondents opposed night time flying. Laughter came from the packed public gallery when Mr Bayford pointed out the Manston Airport's own consultation of residents showed 79 per cent being in support of night flights.

Mr Hart defended the in-house consultation saying it had the greatest response of any to date:

"The results have been extremely conclusive and it wasn't at all close."

The response stated the council's support of the day-time operation of Manston airport but said the council would not support night-time flying on the basis of its own consultation and the council-commissioned Parsons-Brinckerhoff report. Listing the objections, the report said the noise and environmental impacts had been underestimated by airport, the economic benefits of night flights were overestimated and that the impact on Thanet's tourism would be detrimental.

It also pointed to concerns raised in the World Health Organisation's assessment of the impacts of disturbed sleep and added that the night flight proposals had not considered Article 8 of the Human rights Act- the right to respect for private and family life.

The motion to adopt the response was won after Labour got the support of the council's two independent groups. The Conservatives voted unanimously not to support the response but were out-numbered. Phil Rose of the No Night Flights campaign and Charles Buchanan, chief executive of Manston Airport, watched the meeting from the public gallery. Mr Rose said:

"It is a good result and I am very, very pleased that the council came out following the recommendations of the independent reports. They have listened to the views of the people."

Mr Buchanan said the airport will take the vote into consideration and formulate its response:

"All we have ever asked for a limited number of night flights with mitigation measures. The result is disappointing but entirely predictable."

The council's response will not be binding as the council is only a consultee in Manston's own consultation of its night-time flying policy. A separate residents' petition against night flights, presented to the council last week, was also noted. It had collected 2682 signatures but only 777 were valid as the others did not include an address.

---

Manston chiefs attack council over night flight decision

kentnews May 25, 2012

Manston Airport chiefs say they are “very disappointed” after Thanet District Council last night voted to oppose night flights from the Thanet airfield. As part of the consultation process, the council saw a heated debate over its position. The Conservatives on the council were open to the suggestion, while the ruling Labour group were opposed.

Speaking this morning, chief executive of Manston, Charles Buchanan, said:

We are clearly very disappointed by this stance as it is completely inconsistent with the council’s stated policy to support the airport’s success as a creator of thousands of much needed jobs. The position the council adopted last night is also in sharp contrast to its leader Clive Hart’s stated assertion of ‘the council’s recognition of Manston Airport as an economic asset to Thanet’.

The council’s response contradicts the conclusions of the report from its own consultant Parson Brinckerhoff, which identifies that a ban on night time flying, in relation to passenger services, would: ‘almost certainly prohibit a large number of potential carriers’. Its consultant also recognises that with respect to freight operations, the absence of night flights ‘would undoubtedly hinder the ability of Manston to attract either regular flights or a based operator’.

It is this ability to attract passenger and freight services that will fundamentally determine whether the airport is an economic asset for Thanet, as well as providing the travel advantages for local people using their local airport. Importantly, the council which has sought to question Manston’s own economic impact report, has once again contradicted the conclusions of its consultants own report into the impact of the airport, which stated that: ‘…we are satisfied with the approach and values used for the economic assessment’.

Given that Parson Brinckerhoff acknowledges that they themselves only have ‘some relatively minor queries’, we are very surprised that the council has adopted such a negative approach towards the airport and its economic impact assessment. We will now obviously consider the council’s response before providing them, as a consultee on night-flights, with a reasoned reply in due course.

---

Manston night flights formally opposed by Thanet District Council

kentonline May 25 2012

Plans for night flights at Manston airport have suffered a big setback after councillors voted against the idea. Cabinet members of Thanet District Council had already said they would not support the bid by Kent International Airport. However, a full council meeting last night formally opposed the idea of night flights.

Manston wants some planes taking off and landing between 11pm and 7am. Scheduled night flights were suggested at the airport to help increase air capacity. But councillors decided the proposed scheduled flights would be too noisy and have too great an environmental impact. A consultation found three quarters of people living nearby also did not want night flights.

Charles Buchanan, chief executive of Manston Airport, said:

We are clearly very disappointed by this stance as it is completely inconsistent with the council’s stated policy to support the airport’s success as a creator of thousands of much needed jobs. The position the council adopted last night is also in sharp contrast to its leader Clive Hart’s stated assertion of ‘the council’s recognition of Manston Airport as an economic asset to Thanet’. Ironically at a time when the government is recognising the role that Manston could play a part in supporting the south east, by making use of existing under-utilised runway capacity, Thanet is apparently rejecting the opportunity to build its economy and create thousands of jobs.

The immediate conclusion is that despite the council’s stated support for the airport, the leadership has refused to recognise the operational flexibility that its own expert identifies as being necessary for that success. One can only guess why they have chosen such a course and put at risk one of the engines for the long term prosperity of Thanet. We will now obviously consider the council’s response before providing them, as a consultee on night-flights, with a reasoned reply in due course.

---

Night Flights vote

TDC listened, and said "No" - will Mr Buchanan get the message?

On the face of it, it looks like a straightforward example of democracy at its best.

If only.

A local council is faced with a difficult decision that involves complex technical issues. Quite correctly it takes advice from technical experts - in this case, two separate firms of experts.

The first firm of experts (Bureau Veritas) said that the costs outweighed the benefits. So that's a "No".

The second firm of experts (Parsons Brinkerhoff) said that the costs had been understated and that the benefits had been overstated. So that's very "No".

The local council then asks the local people who will be affected by the outcome of their decision what they think. Three-quarters of them say "No".

So the local council says "No".

As I said, on the face of it, that's fine. However, there were a few patches of turbulence en route to this fairytale ending.

First of all, the leader of the Blue Squadron, Cllr Bayford, moved an amendment to the motion which was more of a reverse thrust than a touch on the rudder. Red Squadron Leader Hart wanted to vote on:

The Council confirms that Thanet District Council fully supports the day time operation of the airport but further recommend that as a consultee the Council cannot support the introduction of scheduled night time flying operations between 2300 hours and 0700 hours.

Whereas Blue Squadron wanted to vote on:

The Council confirms that Thanet District Council fully supports the airport and recognises that it needs some flexibility in its night time flying policy in order to realise its full potential and deliver the jobs that Thanet so desperately needs.

Can you spot the difference? Cllr David Green thoughtful this amendment so completely changed the meaning of the motion that it should be disallowed. Legal eagle Harvey Patterson disagreed – I do wonder about legal minds sometimes. We then had an hour and a half of debate and discussion, of very mixed quality.

Red Squadron Leader Hart surprised everyone in the room by revealing Charles Buchanan is "a lovely man". However, this was not going to stop him refusing the request for scheduled night flights.

Blue Squadron Leader Bayford criticised the council's public consultation exercise, but was happy to treat the airport's own (unaudited, unverified) consultation as being valid.

Cllr Wise showed his mastery of understatement when he said that Manston "needs more time". The airport's future depended on attracting night freight he said. He was "astounded and staggered" that anyone would want to deny the area the benefits of night flights between 11pm and 7am, particularly "for the sake of a few votes in Ramsgate".

Cllr Harrison pointed out that the economic downturn that had caused the unemployment that so concerned Cllr Wise would also mean that there would be less demand to use the airport, day or night, passenger or freight.

Cllr Fenner was the first of many to point out the disastrous effect night flights would have on the growing tourism industry in Thanet and Ramsgate. (This is a rock-solid argument that should be presented louder, clearer and more often. East Kent tourism already employs tens of thousands of people, and is growing. It's a diverse sector with a multitude of employers, making it more resilient than a Pfizer-style arrangement where there are so many eggs in a single basket.) She pointed out that a green light for night flights would simply increase the sale price, benefiting only Infratil.

Cllr Ezekiel tried to score points by pinning the blame for the S106 on the Red Squadron, but this backfired when it was pointed out that the Blue Squadron had failed to do anything about the S106 year in, year out. Things went from bad to worse when he managed to corner himself into having to withdraw sweeping statements about Red Squadron's voting record. A bit of a tizzy ensued, when he called the long-suffering general public in the cheap seats "a rabble", and accused us of intimidating him with "hissing and sissing". I was there - nobody hissed. I'm not even sure what "sissing" is, but I expect I would have noticed it. Anyway, Cllr Ezekiel easily won the evening's prize for over-sensitive petulance, but I understand he has a lot on his mind at the moment so perhaps we should cut him some slack.

Cllr Liz Green pointed out that many of the proposed night flights of freight would be coming from third world countries that themselves had the sense to ban night flights.

Cllr Scobie drew our attention to the rather puzzling fact that the Blue Squadron's amendment had been tabled by the very same people who had voted for the motion in earlier committees... so why were they now wanting to vote against it?

[I'll add some more details here later, if I can face the trauma of re-living the dreary horror of it. There were some refeshingly good performances from the Independents, and a quite brilliant shooting-self-in-foot from Cllr Gideon.]

Anyway, the Amendment was voted on, and was voted down. All the Conservatives, plus Cllr Ezekiel, were for; all the rest were against.

The main vote was split into three, and the pattern of voting was identical in each case. Blue vote was the Conservatives plus Cllr Ezekiel, the Red vote was Labour plus all the Independents except Cllr Ezekiel.

1. not supporting night flights between 2300 and 0700: Red all for, Blue all abstained.
2. agree the draft response as the Council's official position: Red all for, Blue all against.
3. authorise Madeline Homer to write to Manston confirming the above: Red all for, Blue all abstained.

The Conservative party had long ago said that it would be a free vote. It is simply coincidence that they all voted exactly the same way, four times in one evening.

---

See the Press coverage.

See the political posturing.

Click to contact ​Cllr Wise

“Cllr Wise showed his mastery of understatement when he said that Manston “needs more time”. The airport’s future depended on attracting night freight he said. He was “astounded and staggered” that anyone would want to deny the area the benefits of night flights between 11pm and 7am, particularly “for the sake of a few votes in Ramsgate”.”

Mixed reaction to consultation

Thanet council's public consultation on Manston airport's night flight proposals has attracted 700 responses. The views given will help the council form its response to plans by airport operators Infratil to host an average of eight flights a night at Manston.

The authority's consultation was scaled back from plans to engage market research experts MORI and ask for views from other districts when Thanet council took legal advice that it was only a "consultee" on the plans and had no legally binding say in the matter.

Thanet council advertised the consultation on its website and in the press, wrote directly to 500 organisations and e-mailed its own database of contacts. The response represents less than one per cent of the population of Thanet. Leader of the council, Clive Hart, who took the decision to run a smaller consultation, said:

"It's encouraging to see that so many people have taken the time to tell us what they think. Before we draft our own response, it's vital that we clearly understand how our residents feel about these proposals."

Conservative group leader Bob Bayford said:

"I don't think 700 represents a good response at all. The problem with this consultation is that the respondents are self-selected.If we had used a private market-research company we would have had a reliable random sample but with this consultation we have the No Night Flights lobby encouraging people to write in and, to my mind, that means the results will be skewed."

[What about all those 4-page leaflets that the airport sent out, Cllr Bayford - won't those also "skew" the result?]

The feedback received from this consultation will be used, alongside the findings of the Parson Brinkerhoff environmental and economic impact report, to draft the council's response to Infratil. Mr Hart said:

"I think it should give us a good cross section. For people actually putting pen to paper, I think it is a good response. I don't know what percentage of the population it is, I couldn't comment on that, the main thing is we have a very good cross section. The decision to hold an in-house consultation is based on what is reasonable and what is practical."

Mr Hart said respondents' comments will be categorised based on their postcode, adding that greater consideration would given to the comments of those living under the flight path but would stop short of a formal "weighting" of responses. He said:

"It is not quantative data, it is qualitative data. You can't weight words. I think that is more useful. The bottom line is that we get people's opinions."

Phil Rose from the No Night Flights campaign said:

"It is a shame the consultation has been so short. It would have been better if it had been a more informed consultation.This is where TDC missed a trick and possibly missed out. However, there has been a strong reaction against night flights, which is not surprising."

Airport chief executive, Charles Buchanan, said the consultation was hindered by a misinterpretation of Parson Brinkerhoff report, which he feels was supportive of the airport's own impact assessment regarding night flights. He said:

"The independent report overall recognised that what we have said is, overall, satisfactory and that message isn't getting through. The legal position is that what we are doing at the moment does not require a planning application. The view that this might require a planning application in the future is to be debated. The key thing here is allowing the airport to compete on an equal basis with other airports so it can attract business to the area and generate economic activity so badly needed in Thanet and east Kent. It seems perverse we should be trying to stop the development of one of the biggest facilities in east Kent that could be capable of creating local jobs."

Mr Bayford said:

"My impression is that Infratil would not be asking for a relaxation in night time flying restrictions unless they believed it was necessary for the airport to survive in the short term and thrive in the long term."

He said the issue of night flights was a matter of balancing the needs of the many with the needs of the few, adding:

"I understand people are concerned about losing sleep at night but what about the guy who can't get a job, how much does he sleep at night?"

The consultation will close on Friday, March 2. To view the proposals and independent assessment go to thanet.gov.uk or visit Thanet's Gateway Plus in Margate or the council's district office in York Street, Ramsgate. To take part, residents must submit their comments in writing to Consultation, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Margate CT9 1XZ or by e-mail to consultation@thanet.gov.uk

Responses must include a full name and address, clearly stating a postcode.

Tit for tat at TDC

Manston is now a political football, and will be kicked around until Infratil take their ball home.

Cllr Bayford, who was Leader of the Council when both of Manston's night flying proposals were received, is now indulging in the time-honoured political tradition of finger-pointing, name-calling and blame-shifting.

The Conservative group at Thanet District Council have long been percieved as friends of the airport, but even they balked at the truly awful proposal submitted in 2010. When the 2011 proposal came in, they commissioned yet another consultancy to analyse and report on it - this is the recently released Parsons Brinckerhoff report.

The oversight and monitoring of Manston by TDC has been pitiful. TDC's non-renewal of the S106 through the years has been a woeful dereliction of duty. This has been happening under both Red and Blue administrations.

There are no heroes in this story - blame can be splashed in every direction. Conservative and Labour members (AND Officers, let us not forget) are all culpable. I'm not interested in who is to blame. I don't even want them to say sorry. I want them to DO sorry - clean up the mess, do it right, and do it now.

---

Manston Airport - Open Letter from Bob Bayford

Leader Clive Hart's latest press release concerning consultation on Infratil's night-time flying policy is simply breathtaking in its distance from the truth.

He claims that I had created 'a monster of a process', clearly ignoring the fact that the approach to consultation was determined by an in-house group of officers together with myself and (Labour) Councillor Mike Harrison, the then chair of the Airport Working Party. A draft process was then taken to that working party, where members made their contribution before final agreement. Hardly my process!

During the formative stages, a number of principles were established, with Cllr Harrison's full agreement. Amongst these were:-

1. That the substantive consultation had to be carried out by an independent, well-respected organisation. This was to remove any suggestion of TDC bias in the results.
2. That any reports produced by the airport in support of their proposals would be subjected to a rigorous 'peer review' to establish their veracity.
3. That the consultation should be 'zoned' to ensure that weighting was afforded to those most affected by night-time flying but that opinion had to be sought from not only the rest of Thanet but also those other residents and businesses in Kent who had an interest in Manston's expansion. To facilitate this wider consultation, KCC were contributing £40,000 towards the cost and Canterbury City Council £5000.
4. That getting the consultation right was more important than rushing to a conclusion.

As far as I am aware, these principles were all endorsed by the working party.

The timing of the consultation was always going to be determined by when the airport submitted its policy proposal and the subsequent submission of noise impact and economic impact reports. The peer review of the latter was published on 23^rd of January, which clears the way for public consultation.

The only money spent by TDC to date is the cost of the peer reviews. In my opinion, whatever the future may hold with regard to Manston, it was vital that any reports produced for the airport should have been subjected to expert, independent scrutiny, to inform the Council's stance on the airport's activities.

I am frankly surprised by the present leader's stance on this issue. On the one hand, he suggests that there is no need for the Council to consult but then proposes a half-baked consultation, guaranteed to produce a biased outcome.

Whether the Council can, at this stage, make any binding decisions on the airport is irrelevant. TDC has a civic leadership responsibility to have a view on the airport's expansion and operational ambitions. It is a topic that elicits strong opinions on both sides of the argument. The eventual fate of the airport will have economic and environmental consequences for many. TDC must give a lead, having considered the public's views and Infratil's proposals.

Bob Bayford

Leader, TDC Conservative Group

Manston in damage limitation mode

Charles Buchanan doesn't think that the independent report into the effect of development at Manston "challenged" his claims over economic benefit and noise pollution. No, it rubbished them.

Click it to big itCharles Buchanan says "we employ a lot of people in Margate". According to the proposal, 17.1% of the "about 110" staff... 19 people.

Bob Bayford says "the people most motivated to respond are those who have a negative view".  Oh dear, Bob, what's happened to your faith in human nature? Surely you don't believe that people with a positive view (i.e. have fallen for the sales pitch) are all going to be apathetic?

Cllr Bayford continues: "there will be activists going around encouraging people to respond negatively"... Hmmm, I expect there will be airport executives (and maybe councillors?) going round encouraging people to respond positively, too... but that doesn't seem to bother Bob.

I wonder if Bob has tripped into the pre-determination trap.

---

Gloves are off in row over night flights

The gloves are off in the row between Thanet District Council and airport management over night flights at Thanet's Manston Kent International Airport. The chief executive of Manston's Kent International Airport has hit out at Thanet District Council's assessment of night flying.

Charles Buchanan told a meeting of business leaders that plans to weight assessment of a consultation in favour of those living under the flight path was unfair to the rest of Thanet.

He also criticised a statement by the authority that said an independent report into the effect of development at the airport "challenged" claims by Infratil, which owns the airport, over economic benefit and noise pollution.

Last week, Thanet council announced it will carry out a 28-day in-house consultation on Manston night-flying policy. The council says the consultation would preserve "the key principle" of giving more weight to the views of people living under the flight paths. Mr Buchanan said the views of all Thanet residents should be treated equally, adding:

"It is quite clear that there are people from across Thanet who will benefit from the job opportunities created by the night flights and we employ a lot of people in Margate. To weigh it in favour of those who just live under the flight path is not fair. All people should have their equal say."

But Labour council leader Clive Hart said that those who are affected by the environmental impact, as well as the economic impact, should have more of a say. He said:

"It was always going to be that way. Other people are affected, but the argument goes both ways. Both people under the flight path and elsewhere in the isle are affected by employment issues. But only people under the flight path are affected by environmental issues as well, so their comments should be given more weight."

Conservative former council leader Bob Bayford accepted that people living under the flight path should be given more say but that only a consultation carried out by a private company could give an accurate picture of people's views. He said

"If you ask people to respond in an in-house consultation, the people most motivated to respond are those who have a negative view. The people who are not against the airport basically won't bother. If you use a proper market-research company, that is skilled in gauging opinion, they will get the views of the whole population. That is what they are skilled at doing. The other problem is that there will be activists going around encouraging people to respond negatively. Everyone is affected, so they should all have a say."

The consultation is due to begin on Friday (February 3) for a period of 28 days and will be open to all residents in Thanet. Responses to the proposals can be submitted in writing to Consultation, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Margate CT9 1XZ or by e-mailing consultation@thanet.gov.uk Full names and addresses must be provided with each response.

thisiskent 31st Jan 2012

Laura Sandys gets political

Politics is the worst thing that ever happened to democracy, and I only realised this since getting involved in local community campaigns like this one.

The downsides of night flights - noise and other pollution, environmental destruction, reduced quality of life, worse health, more stress, harder-to-teach kids, etc. etc. - are all straightforward facts, and as such are strictly non-political.

The advertised upside of night flights - that they will allow the airport to achieve its master plan and the forecast jobs - is more a matter of belief, trust or interpretation, and as such is likely to coloured by the political colour of your mind/heart.

It's disheartening when political spin and point-scoring produce more heat than light, warming the hearts of political supporters without showing a way forward. (This criticism is emphatically not levelled at Laura alone, not by any means - they're all at it, most of the time, usually when there are better things to be doing.)

Laura is right to be concerned about the brevity of the consultation, but it would better to wait for the full details to be published before kicking it. It seems clear that TDC is short of money, full stop. I don't think the kerfuffle over flower beds tipped the balance.

Laura goes on to say that there is "confusion at the heart of the Labour administration whether this night flight policy constitutes an intensification of use or not". It's fair to say there is confusion pretty well everywhere on this vexed subject, which is why it will end up in the High Court. If Laura herself (or anyone she knows) can speak with both certainty and authority to provide clarity on the subject, this would be a good time to speak up.

It is, as far as I know, absolutely accurate to say that a Labour administration signed the S106 agreement with the airport, presumably after having had a hand in drafting it. (For what it's worth, I think it is the most slipshod legal document I've seen.) It is also true that it is supposed to be re-negotiated every three years, and that every administration since 2000, of whatever political complexion, has failed the people of Thanet and East Kent by failing to re-negotiate an agreement that became more obviously inadequate with each passing year.

So, I agree with many of Laura's points, despite the blue bunting that threatens to obscure them. I'm particularly pleased with her declaration that "I have been consistently against Night Flights at Manston and recognise the impact they could have on the town." This would be a good time to briefly suspend party hostilities and work with the TDC leadership on this key issue, perhaps the only one where your written statements are, in parts, indistinguishable.

---

Labour Council Backs Down on Independent Consultation – Confusion Over Whether Night Flights are a Planning Matter or Not

Following Clive Hart’s, Leader of Thanet District Council, announcement to change the whole consultation process surrounding night flights at Manston, Laura Sandys MP said:

"The statement from Councillor Hart both waters down the public consultation on the night flight policy and also throws doubt on whether this very important policy will ever come in front of the planning committee. Both of these issues are fundamental to ensuring that the public voice is appropriately heard and that local democracy is upheld.

"The Council is watering down the consultation process that the Conservative administration put in place. The then Leader, Cllr Bob Bayford, was extremely keen to use an independent and reputable market research company to assess the public response to increased night flights whilst this council leader is happy to do a cheap internal job. In addition, the previous consultation was planned for 12 weeks while the new council is only giving 4 weeks for residents to have their say. Following Labour’s "Floral Budget", there is either not enough money for the planned professional assessment of public opinion or no political will to listen to what the public want.

"There is also confusion at the heart of the Labour administration whether this night flight policy constitutes an intensification of use or not. Those residents who live under the flight path are convinced that this needs proper scrutiny as it will be an intensification of use. The public will be extremely surprised that there is an equivocation by the Council on whether this is a planning issue or merely a proposal.

"Labour councillors are breaking their election promise. Many Ramsgate residents supported Labour candidates because of their opposition to night flights. I have been consistently against Night Flights at Manston and recognise the impact they could have on the town.  

"It is time for the council to be clear with the residents of Thanet. Does this mean that night flying can proceed without scrutiny from the Planning Committee? If this is the case it represents yet another loop hole in the original 106 agreement that Labour signed when it was last running the Council."

Thanet the Movie: Welcome to the Casting Couch

The Hollywood moguls are salivating and the sets are being built - "Thanet the Movie" is underway. All that's left is the casting.

We already have a number of front runners, as you can see below, but we would like your help with some more suggestions. You can find more pictures of TDC counsellors here, Kent councillors here and here, you can add suggestions in the comments below, and you can send us pictures (jpegs) of your suggested lookalikes here.

Please don't restrict yourselves to Councillors - every notable character in Thanet and East Kent will have a role in this blockbuster!

Cllr Clive Hart: George Clooney

Cllr Bob Bayford: Timothy Spall

Cllr Chris Wells: Brian Blessed

Cllr Sandy Ezekiel: Bob Hoskins

Cllr Jack Cohen: David Niven

Charles Buchanan: Michael York, Jonathon Meades, Jerry Springer

Being hung might be the best outcome

"May you live in interesting times" ran the old Chinese curse, and it appears that Thanet may be about to overdose on political "interest".

The local election in May left Thanet with a more-or-less hung council: 27 Conservative, 26 Labour and 3 Independents. In exchange for chairmanship of their preferred committees, the Indies backed Cllr Bayford's bid for leadership - oh well, at least it was naked self-interest, rather than anything underhand...

However, it didn't change the maths of the situation, so when John Worrow resigned the Conservative party whip (apparently disgusted by "his" party's treatment of animal export protesters, and their disregard for the plight of Birchington businessmen), the main parties were back at level pegging, and the door was opened to tonight's confidence vote and subsequent leadership vote.

Bob Bayford lost the confidence vote. Inexplicably, the Conservatives then presented him as the candidate for Leader. He lost again. Cllr Clive Hart is now Leader.

So what?

Theoretically, this game of musical chair could be played out at every full Council meeting, with the outcome being decided by the level of attendance, and the whim of the Independents. Clearly, this would be a totally ineffective way to run the Council. Personally, I'm rather taken with Michael Child's assessment:

Essentially the problems revolve around there being no councillor charismatic enough to be a leader who would take all of the councillors with them and sort out some of the serious problems that Thanet has.

I don’t think either the Labour or the Conservative group have grasped the fundamentals of working within a situation where they have no overall majority. I think most councillors see the resolutions in terms of personal gain, handing out posts to independents that carry a good allowance, rather than in terms of actually trying resolve Thanet’s problems.

I think what I would do, if I was in the position of leading either group, would be to start with a list of objectives for the term of the current administration, put those objectives in the public domain, with a challenge to the independents to support them.

Herein lies the key. With the democratic power being so finely balanced, the solution must be found beyond the narrow interests of the representatives. Attention must be focussed on the wider and over-arching purpose of the representatives - to represent and promote the wishes and best interests of those they represent.

If the TDC councillors fail to grasp what is so often irritatingly called the "bigger picture", we're in for a long and dispiriting round of political mud-wrestling, petty squabbling, tit-for-tat point-scoring and venal pork barrel politics.

On the other hand, they could step back and look afresh at their duty to their community. Wherever they stand on the political spectrum, it must be clear to each and every councillor that Thanet has a number of glaringly obvious problems. Typically these require long-term solutions that need to be started immediately (or soon) and then pursued tenaciously - get stuck in, and stick at it.

This is the time for the councillors to concentrate on what matters to the electorate rather then what matters to the elected. Instead of squabbling (or at the very least, before becoming completely engrossed in squabbling) they could easily identify a handful of key objectives, policies or solutions that they largely agree on, and get cracking.

It is widely accepted within the Council that the relationship with Manston (particularly the S106 agreement and its monitoring) has been poorly handled, with the people of Thanet getting the short end of the stick - "if we were starting again, we wouldn't start from here".

Grasp the nettle, Cllr Hart:

• Discard the pretence that Manston is an "airfield" and embrace the fact that is an "airport".
• Acknowledge the potential that a well-managed and thriving local airport would have.
• Accept that the central pillar of that good management must be proper planning consent for the airport and its operations as a whole, to rationalise and replace the piecemeal development of the last decade.
• Order an Environmental Impact Assessment to provide independent guidance for what is acceptable and sustainable.
• Put in place an S106 agreement that puts Kentish lives and quality of life before share-holder interests, and then monitor and enforce it.