TDC's Airport Working Party ditched

Even their harshest critics would accept that they were better than nothing, but now the AWP has been disbanded and air-brushed from history.

Why now?

I would have thought that this would be a particularly useful time to have a single, dedicated point of contact between the airport and the Council. Consider:

• the, ahem, burgeoning passenger traffic through the airport,
• British Airways pilots circling over Thanet as they get to grips with the some of the largest passenger aircraft in the world,
• Manston branching out into hosting large open-air events like the recent air show,
• the airport is STILL for sale - even if they're not involved in (or informed of) negotiations, surely TDC would want to be ready to welcome the new owners, because of...
• the need to renegotiate the S106 agreement.

How could this have happened?

Well, fingers are being pointed at Cllr John Worrow and Cllr Mike Harrison. Both went to the Overview & Scrutiny committee meeting on 28th May, when the various working parties for the coming year were set up. As Charles Hungwe (the officer in charge of the committee) wrote to me:

At the meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel on 28 May 2013, Members set up 5 task & finish groups/working parties for 2013/14. Unfortunately the Airport Working Party was not one of the five. The five that were set up are as follows:

Community Safety Partnership Working Party; Corporate Improvement Working Party; Electoral Registration Process Review Task & Finish Group; Pleasurama Site Development Review Task & Finish Group; TDC Artefacts Management Review Task & Finish Group.

The AWP wasn't overlooked, far from it. It was considered and rejected, as it says in the minutes:

Some Members of the Panel said that they were still receiving complaints from residents in their wards about noise levels for aircraft landing outside permitted times. They said that the working party should be re-constituted to continue monitoring the activities at the Manston International Airport. Members expressed the view that the Airport Working Party could review the role of the airport in the proposed Thanet Economic Growth and Regeneration Strategy. Other Members however said that the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee (KIACC) had the formal role of monitoring compliance with policies on flight times.

Councillor Gibson proposed, Councillor Huxley seconded that the Airport Working Party be re-constituted.

When put to vote the motion was LOST.

Hang on a minute

The ruling Labour group has a majority (on paper, at least) on the committee, so how could they lose a vote proposed and seconded by Labour councillors?

Cllr John Worrow (multi-Independent) had stamped out of the meeting, disgusted at the company he was expected to keep, so he wasn't there to vote. And Cllr Mike Harrison (Lab) - who has been on the AWP for years, possibly from its inception - apparently did NOT vote to support the reconstitution of the AWP.

This has infuriated the Labour bigwigs, who are now desperately casting around for some means of re-running the vote and resurrecting the AWP. Given that they made manifesto pledges and ran on a platform of making the airport "resident-friendly", or at least "resident-considerate", many people would say this is the least they can do.

So where does all this leave us? As Charles Hungwe wrote to me, copying Madeline Homer:

You may wish to contact your Ward Councillor and/or Madeline Homer, Director of Community Services, if there are any issues of concern relating to the airport activities that you feel are urgent and require the attention of Council.

So I did. I replied to Charles and Madeline: 

View fullsize

but have received no reply.

Over to you

Dear Reader, perhaps you might be luckier. Drop Madeline a line - see if you can find out how TDC is proposing to manage its increasingly complex relationship with the airport during this time of uncertainty and transition.

You may also want to write to Cllr Jo Gideon to ask how she thinks TDC will manage without the committee she so ably chaired.

Cllr John Worrow beside himself

Cllr John Worrow

Thanet councillor John Worrow brands ex-colleague "hate criminal "

Independent Thanet councillor John Worrow disrupted a district council meeting tonight when he demanded to know why Conservative Ken Gregory was allowed to sit on the committee.

Mr Gregory had previously received a police caution for telling Mr Worrow "I hope you get Aids," in a malicious voice message.

Mr Worrow called Mr Gregory "a hate criminal" with "no remorse", berating the committee for allowing him to sit in the chamber.

Chairman Jo Gideon called to adjourn the meeting but Mr Worrow flung his agenda to the floor before branding the committee "'king hypocrites," and Mr Gregory a "disgrace" and marching out of the council offices.

The meeting then resumed. [However, there were unfortunate consequences to Cllr Worrow's action.]

thanetgazette 28th May 2013

Airport Working Party: unprepared

The AWP may be prepared to shoot itself in the foot, but it's not preparing for much else.

In August this year - 5 months after the airport was put up for sale - the Airport Working Party had one of their games of musical chairs, when the membership and chairmanship changes. When the music stopped, Cllr Jo Gideon had become chair of the Group, the rest of the merry crew being Cllrs Alexandrou, Bruce, Gibson, Grove, Harrison, Marson and Worrow.

At that meeting in August, the AWP laid out its action plan and timetable for the foreseeable, starting with a review of the S106 and a good hard look at the results of a number of research trips to airports around Britain over the last few years.

Nothing like being prepared

The only members of the original cast to turn up for yesterday's meeting were Cllrs Alexandrou, Gideon and Marson, with Cllrs Campbell, King and Wise there as understudies, substituting for some of the absentees. It was one of those meetings where I found myself shaking my head in disbelief and growing horror, hoping that I might wake up.

The first stumbling block identified by Cllr Gideon was that none of them had the legal expertise necessary to make specific recommendations for a new S106. Fair enough. Cllr Gideon went on to say that they could instead look at why there had been so many concerns over the adequacy of the document. Good idea - identifying the flaws and short-comings of the current agreement would help when producing the next version.

However, Cllr Marson was concerned that they might just end up with a wish list of things they might like to talk about at some point in the future. Er, yes, that's the point - that "wish list" would be TDC's negotiating position, and that "point in the future" would be the negotiations.

Cllr Campbell pointed out that if the Council could come to a position on what it would want from a S106 agreement, then it would be ready to enter into negotiations with a new owner, should the opportunity arise. Thus the Council would be ready for negotiations if there is a quick sale, and it would be remiss of the Council not to have a starting position for negotiations. (EXACTLY!) Cllr Alexandrou agreed, saying that without an opening negotiating position, there is the risk that TDC will be seen as having an "anything goes" attitude, so there is a clear need for some ground rules.

The next stumbling block to be discovered was that the airport is up for sale. Er, we all knew that in August when the AWP's terms of reference were defined and the agenda for this meeting was set. Some of the AWP viewed the fact that airport is up for sale as a reason for not reviewing the S106 at all, but Cllr Alexandrou pointed out that there is currently someone to negotiate with - the current owners.

Nonetheless, Cllr Gideon concluded that the consensus was that this is the wrong time to review the S106 agreement, and that it should be revisited as and when the airport sale goes through, or a planning application is received. It would be marvellous if the AWP adopted the motto used by hundreds of thousands of scouts and guides across Britain - "Be Prepared".

It wouldn't be very difficult or time-consuming or expensive to produce an outline of TDC's ideal S106, with "must have" and "nice to have" elements listed in priority order.

• Right at the top of the list would have to be: the S106 must be attached to a planning permission - this would give TDC the leverage it is so woefully lacking at the moment.
• The new S106 must include an element of compulsion - it is absurd that the airport operator can choose whether or not to discuss the terms of its permission to operate on TDC's patch.
• The new S106 must be completely unambiguous - the current version has no clear definition of what counts as a scheduled night flight.

Do feel free to add your own ideas for what should be included in the new S106 in the comments section below.

Wasted Journeys

Our attention was then turned to the reports produced by earlier AWP outings to airports around the country. The intrepid councillors had been to Prestwick (Glasgow), Southend, Norwich, Bristol, Bournemouth and Luton. Cllr Gideon dismissed the papers as "reading a bit like someone's diary - not an incisive or meaty comparison document the AWP could do something with". Oh dear. Perhaps it was just as well that none of the councillors who spent all those days and nights away from their constituencies were present to see their work being rubbished.

Self-destruct

And things went from bad to worse. Having decided that there was no way they could force Infratil into a root-and-branch review of the S106, the AWP thought it might be a good idea to go to Infratil with the suggestion of making some "minimal amendments - bringing the agreement up to date, data compliance and so on".

This would be a disaster. The S106 stipulates re-negotiation every 3 years (although we all know this has not happened so far). Any negotiation with Infratil to make minor tweaks to the S106 would effectively reset the 3 year clock.

This would mean that the new owner of the airport (and Infratil for as long as they continue to own the airport) would then be completely within their rights to refuse to enter into any further S106 negotiations with TDC for the next 3 years.

---

---

Where the S106 renegotiation is concerned, the only thing worse than doing nothing is not doing enough.

Location matters more than night flights

Night flights are not "make or break" for Manston airport, it will struggle regardless - that's the claim from Phil Rose of the No Night Flights group, which is campaigning against proposals to introduce scheduled flights between 11pm and 7am from Manston airport.

Mr Rose poured scorn on claims by the district's Conservative group that ending restrictions would improve the airport's fortunes. He said:

"It is not make or break. What is make or break for Manston is its location. The reason a series of carriers have pulled out, and the reason Infratil is selling the airport, is because of its location – surrounded on three sides by sea with a much smaller catchment area than other airports."

Mr Rose points out that not only does the successful London City Airport have no night flights but Prestwick Airport, also owned by Infratil and also up for sale, does. Norwich and Southampton Airports do not have night flights, except in exceptional circumstances. Other regional airports that have night flights include Southend which, despite seeing passenger numbers soar with the arrival of EasyJet this year, runs on average just over 400 night flights a year – 1.5 flights a night - far from the eight which Infratil's proposals would make possible.

On Thursday Thanet council will vote on whether to support Manston airport's night-flight policy. The submission was made to the authority last November. The council's draft response, was brought before the cabinet only last week after it was agreed with amendments by the authority's Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

It does not support night flights.

The report, written by the council's community services manager Madeline Homer, is based on the council-commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff report. It also includes the results of a 28-day consultation in which residents were asked for their views. Shadow cabinet member, Tory Councillor Martin Wise has accused Labour of being "anti-airport" for supporting a total ban on night flights.

Both sides have accused the other of cherry-picking information from the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report.

Labour claim the council's report supports the consultants' view that the airport had underestimated the potential negative impacts of night flying and overestimated the economic benefit. Airport chief executive Charles Buchanan strongly disagrees. Mr Buchanan said the draft response did not recognise a significant element of the Parsons Brinckerhoff report which said "A ban on night time flying would almost certainly prohibit a large number of potential carriers". He added that the draft response ignored the fact the independent report said the airport's mitigation programme "goes further than that required by current Government guidance." The Conservatives agree with Mr Buchanan: the points made in the draft response were not borne out by the consultants' report.

No Night Flights, unsurprisingly, do not agree. Mr Rose said:

"Mr Buchanan is cherry-picking a few bits that are complimentary and it ignoring the vast majority of the report. The report pointed out that if Manston does not have night flights it does not prevent it from attracting new business. It said that not having night flights would deny it having just three per cent of its freight market. This alone will not decide the airport's fate."

Thursday's vote looks likely to be drawn down party lines, with Labour committed in its election manifesto to opposing night flights. The Conservatives have promised its members a free vote. With Labour holding the leadership of the council only by the support of one of the authority's two Independent groups, the decision of councillors Ian Driver, John Worrow, Jack Cohen, Tom King and Bob Grove would appear to be crucial.

thisiskent 18th May 2012

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.