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.

Sparks fly over AWP fiasco

The unutterable shambles of the AWP meeting has given cause for complaint. A fully-fledged formal foot-stamping has landed with a thump at TDC Towers and should give a few people there pause for thought - a few snippets are reproduced below for your enlightenment.

Firstly, there is the problem of Mr Buchanan being given the opportunity to offically heckle the Council's draft report.

If simply by applying to address the working party results in one party with vested interests being able to speak in chambers, then this should be widely known. In this specific instance, I wish to know why officers did not think to invite other interested parties.

Then Cllr Gideon, the AWP Chair, and Cllrs Marson and Wiltshire come in for some stick over apparently partisan harrying of a TDC officer.

NB a couple of important snippets went missing during my cutting and pasting - shown in [square brackets] - my apologies to the three councillors, and particularly Cllr Marson for incorrectly ascribing Cllr Gideon's actions to her.

[Cllr Gideon, Cllr Wiltshire and] Cllr Marson repeatedly called into question the validity of the exercise. [However, Cllr Gideon’s line of questioning to Hannah Thorpe, the officer in charge of the consultation, should be called into question.] She posed a series of questions, leading questions, that included phrases such as "do you think it was fair", "was it more difficult for you to interpret", "was it not as good as" - going on at length to suggest that the process was somehow lacking. Hannah Thorpe was concise and clear in her response and said that the process was as robust and democratic as any, that this type of open consultation was one used by many councils and, indeed, was a type frequently used by TDC.

This should have been the end of that but Cllrs Gideon, Wiltshire and Marson repeatedly came back to this line of questioning. Hannah Thorpe finally advised that this consultation had resulted in the largest response in numbers of any council consultation and that continued undermining and questioning of this process was potentially "dangerous" as it could call into question all the many previous (and presumably future) consultations undertaken by TDC.

I consider the Chair's behaviour went way beyond that required/expected of a Chair. Clarification and further information was sought and obtained from Hannah Thorpe and that should have been sufficient. My view is that she brought her own opinion of the consultation into the discussion thus acting beyond her role as Chair.

Next up - Cllr Gideon's selective acceptance of numbers. Infratil's wishful forecasts are fine, but the World Health Organisation is regarded as questionable.

Cllr Green had asked that an amendment/addition of his be discussed and had supplied a paper. His paper contained detailed statistical evidence from the World Health Organisation, from the House of Commons and from Visit Kent as his points pertained to health, the impact of night flights on the local tourist economy and to serious concerns about quota count systems. The group were asked if they wished this paper to be added to the draft response. This was agreed.

At this point, Cllr Gideon said she was not sure where all these figures had come from, that they might be questionable, that they didn't need to be included and would Cllr Green be happy if the amended draft included the "spirit" of his comments. I consider this to be an outrageous intervention given that the presentation from Manston was unchallenged, that figures supplied by Manston seem, somehow, to be true and reliable yet figures researched by Cllr Green and all properly referenced to independent and nationally and internationally recognised bodies should be called into question and required to be removed from a subsequent document that will be presented to the scrutiny committee.

During the meeting, and subsequently in the press, Mr Buchanan has tried to merge the results of his own consultation (of unknown and unknowable impartiality) with the results of TDC's consultation. Any statistician worth their salt would puke with rage at the very suggestion.

Mr Buchanan does not seem to understand that you cannot simply add the two "surveys" together. Who knows whether his claimed 962 people in favour of night flights are the same people as wrote to TDC expressing their night flight support? The potential for double-counting here is enormous. In the interests of balance, the results from No Night Flights (and we understand and accept that there may be double-counting here too) must also be put in front of members.

All in all, it paints a very unflattering picture.

The way in which TDC conducts itself goes to the very heart of our democracy. If we, as residents/electors, can not have faith in the way the council and its officers conduct matters then we can have little or no faith in the democratic process. Most of council business is conducted out of the public gaze and, having attended this meeting, I despair as I contemplate how much must go unremarked upon and how little accountability there seems to be.