KCC tells it like it is

The recent statement from Kent County Council is an accurate summary and a welcome clarification. Its arguments and conclusions match those of No Night Flights and Manston Pickle, for the simple reason that they too are based on facts and evidence. 

It’s refreshing to see the important distinction being drawn between the nostalgia and sentimentality that has characterised much of the “pro-CPO” campaign, and the vision and hard-headed realism that must guide the future use of the site.  

Aviation Minister Robert Goodwill has emphasised that the commercial realities of a competitive market must over-ride any desires to intervene. You can’t buck the market, and Manston has proved a failure in the aviation market. 

For years Manston was seen as key to local regeneration, and was given every assistance. Kent County Council fully backed the airport at Manston in principle and in practice, in words and deeds. So did Thanet District Council. Despite this, Manston failed as an airport. Kent County Council has correctly moved from bending over backwards to help Manston Airport to throwing its weight behind “Plan B”. This is to be applauded. 

The CPO proposal is a blind alley, a red herring. The shameless electioneering by those calling for a CPO is damaging East Kent's economy by holding back the owners’ development and job creation plans for the site. Our elected representatives, at all levels, must work with the legal owners of the site to produce the best outcome for East Kent. 

---

Select Committee Report

Manston: one last diversion

One of the few pieces of advice I’ve ever paid attention to is: ask yourself “What’s really going on here?” So… what was the Select Committee about, and why did it spend so much time looking at Manston?

The publicly stated remit for the Committee was to inquire on the “role of smaller airports, and the steps the Government and EU are taking to support them”. In practice, there was little exploration of their role, and much more emphasis on how to support them. In aviation, support usually means tax breaks - in this case the tax is Air Passenger Duty (APD).

The aviation industry has complained about APD ever since it was invented, and regional devolution has made things worse. Northern Ireland’s Belfast airport clearly illustrates the disadvantage of APD in the business it loses to neighbouring Dublin airport. Scotland has the power to drop APD, which would jeopardize Newcastle airport. If Wales does likewise, Bristol airport would be threatened. All the smaller airports in England are getting twitchy, complaining it’s not a level playing field.

The Select Committee provided the aviation industry with a forum to air its grievances about APD. The Committee’s report provides the Department for Transport and the (English) smaller airports with a stick with which to beat the Treasury. In that respect, it’s served its purpose.

So what about Manston?

Manston airport had already closed before the inquiry started. The Select Committee considered Manston as a case study "both to inform our wider recommendations and because the Kent public are concerned". In fact, the amount of "concern" in Kent had been exaggerated by aviation lobby groups, and then magnified by Sir Roger Gale’s access to Ministers and media. Manston turned out to be little more than a diversion.

Inexplicably, the Select Committee failed to take the opportunity to be “informed” by the people they questioned. Alastair Welch had been General Manager at Stansted, and then bucked the national trend in making Southend Airport a success. In contrast, Tony Freudmann (part of the team that wants to grab the site) has been closely involved with more aviation failures than anyone else I know.

It was a perfect opportunity for the Select Committee to find out what makes a small airport succeed, what makes it fail, and what role APD might play. And they fluffed it. Instead, they spent a large portion of their precious time delving into the share-holdings and ownership of the companies that own the ex-airport site.

I got the impression that the Committee Chair, Louise Ellman, didn’t fully understand the questions she was asking on this subject, let alone the answers. I suspect she had been fed the questions by Sir Roger, who in turn had been fed by the “pro-Manston” groups. The Select Committee learnt nothing from their case study of Manston that could usefully be applied to other smaller airports, or to their consideration of the impact of APD.

The Committee’s remit covered 40 or so airports across the country - open, active airports. Why did they spend so much time asking Sir Roger’s questions about a closed airport? For the same reason Minister Hayes came to Kent to re-announce a DfT inquiry while standing next to a parliamentary candidate - electioneering.

Anyway, on with the report…

* * * SPOILER ALERT * *  *

There’s a lengthy rehash of the time wasted on the 2nd and 23rd Feb - Manston’s history and irrelevant questions about ownership. Ann Gloag is invited to publish her commercial arrangements, TDC is dissed for being small fry, KCC and DfT are rebuked for not having been more helpful, DfT is encouraged to play the sensible grown-up, and the Government confirms it has no interest in buying Manston.

In TDC’s place, I would be peeved - central Government has no “right of oversight”, the Council has followed due process, and that should be the end of it. The Committee haven’t considered the possibility that it didn’t take long, and didn’t cost much, for TDC to reach their decision simply because it was so obvious. (Is this 6 month old company, based in a foreign tax haven, with no accounts, and no up-front cash a prudent choice? No.)

In KCC’s place, I would be peeved - yes, KCC did change their minds… because the facts changed. For years assorted owners had been telling KCC that the airport was a sure-fire winner. Then the owner tells them it’s a dead duck. And it’s not central Government’s place to tell KCC how to spend its budget, just as it's not KCC's place to prop up a failed business. KCC's job is to focus on what's best for Kent, and KCC has clearly decided that regeneration is the best available option.

In Ann Gloag’s place, I would tell them to take a running jump.

---

Click on the little boxy symbol next to the magnifying glasses to make it go full screen. Click on any item in the Contents list to jump to that page.

SC Report by NoNightFlights

Why throw good money at bad airport?

In the hope of finding why KCC are peeing our money away, we've asked Sharon Dawson (top banana at Visit Kent) some simple and obvious questions. We'll let you know what, if anything, comes of them.

---

Dear Ms Dawson,

I understand that Visit Kent has been given £100,000 of public money in order to 'market' KLM flights at Manston.  My understanding is that you believe that this money is to enable you to bring visitors into the county as tourists to the county in order to spend money in the county.

I would be grateful if you could answer some questions.

1. What research have KCC or Visit Kent done in terms of revenue brought specifically into a county that has a regional airport? The research I have undertaken shows that regional airports are exporters of tourists to a very significant degree and that even those visitors they do attract  tend to head straight for major tourist centres, most notably London, Edinburgh, Glasgow etc. could you provide me with some concrete evidence that you have that shows significant revenue streams from incoming tourists at comparable regional airports?  I am assuming that such research must be available or such a significant sum of money would not have been committed to a privately owned operation?

2. Exactly how is this money to be spent and where? Given the aim is to attract foreign visitors - which countries/cities/areas are to be targeted and on what basis? I would like confirmation that no money is to be spent advertising outward bound routes given that simply takes money OUT the county. The UK's tourism deficit is already greater than in any other country so it hardly benefits our ailing economy, both local and national to spend public money on persuading people to spend their money abroad.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Council throws good money at bad airport

KCC + KLM + KIA = WTF

Getting a straight answer out of KCC is hard at the best of times - even with the legal leverage of the Freedom of Information Act it can take months. But it's usually worth the wait, and the dogged persistence is rewarded. And let's not forget, anything that's released under the FoI Act is stuff that they should have told you in the first place. By definition.

A man of Kent, showing the finest British bulldog determination and tenacity set about finding out if there are any hidden deals behind the recently announced KLM-Manston story. Eventually, he managed to prise these three sentences out of them:

I can confirm Kent County Council has not been asked for any contributions from KLM nor have we been asked to fund KLM.

We were however, asked by the owners of Manston airport if we would contribute to a marketing package to market both the route and the opportunities in Kent.

We have agreed a contribution of up to £100,000 subject to approval of a marketing plan and for the monies to be managed by Visit Kent.

Regular readers will remember that KCC and Infratil colluded in a bid to central Government which included a generous £600k sweetener for KLM - effectively "we'll pay you to use this airport". They were turned down, quite rightly.

We'll probably never know whether KLM had put pressure on them to cross their palm with silver, or whether KCC and Infratil are simply very generous (with other people's money), but it's depressingly unsurprising to find that they're at it again.

Everyone knows Infratil is selling Manston airport. More accurately, Infratil is trying to sell Manston airport - it's been on the market since March 2012, and the asking price seems to be sinking to the same level as airport-free agricultural land. Despite this, they have the balls to ask KCC for money to market and promote the highest profile route they've got (even though it isn't even running yet). KCC, unspeakable idiots that they are, agreed!

For reasons best known to KCC - but I suspect connected to EU competition regulations - they will be "laundering" the money through Visit Kent. So Kent County Council is happy to use public money to market a French/Dutch airline flying from a New Zealand-owned airport. And, yes, this is the same KCC that's cutting funding to things that people care about.

What makes KCC think this will be money well spent? And what exactly are Visit Kent going to be doing? Good questions, which we have asked on your behalf.

KCC's contribution, for what it's worth

Boldly Stepping...

KCC are happily throttling themselves with management speak and business jargon, which is why some of their worst ideas are dressed up as "Bold Steps". The latest in the series is "Bold Steps for Aviation" which is described as

"a discussion paper which suggests how the UK's aviation capacity needs could be met without the need to develop a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary.  It is intended to contribute to the national debate and is published in response to the recent proposals from Lord Foster and the Mayor of London."

Like it or not, KCC's voice will carry some weight in the interminable debate about future flight capacity in the south-east, and this document is what they're thinking of saying on our behalf. If you would like to make any comments on the document (which you can download HERE), please email them to aviation@kent.gov.uk.

Here's an excerpt that gives KCC's (i.e. Paul Carter's) take on the future role of Manston [with comments]:

4.2.1 Increased use of Manston Airport

In Kent, Manston Airport has the potential to make a significant contribution, providing excellent connections to Europe destinations and reduced flight times. Manston has one of the longest runways in Europe (at 2,752 metres) and is therefore able to cater for all modern jet aircraft. The airport operates in Class G airspace, outside of the London Control Zone, and has sufficient capacity for the 4.7 mppa and 400,000 tonnes of freight anticipated by the Airport Master Plan by 2033 (Manston Airport Master Plan, 2009). Its local environmental impacts are greatly reduced by its location on the Thanet Peninsula, with much of its uncrowded flight path located over water to the east of Ramsgate. There is a fully-equipped passenger terminal facility with a capacity of around 1 mppa subject to the aircraft used and scheduling arrangements.

[Manston has the 14th longest runway in the UK. Modern jet aircraft don't need runways this long - efficient design means they can take of and land on shorter runways. The massive old freighters like the Antonovs do need long runways. The 2009 Master Plan also forecast 206,000 passengers a year by 2012 - it's less than 30,000. So how do the planes get from the runway to the "uncrowded flight path" east of Ramsgate? By flying straight over Ramsgate of course.]

Manston enjoys good strategic road links to London and the wider South East via the A299 dual carriageway, which joins the M2 motorway approximately 19 miles west of the airport. There are also three primary rail routes to Ramsgate, located 3 miles east of Manston, which serve the London termini of St Pancras International via domestic high speed services on High Speed One (HS1), Charing Cross and Victoria, therefore offering a total of five trains per hour during off-peak periods.

However these connections will need to be improved if Manston is to truly succeed as a regional airport. Research commissioned by KCC (through an EU funded project seeking to improve sustainable surface access to regional airports) reveals evidence that with a fixed rail link passenger numbers increase as it enables a wider catchment of people to use the airport. Newcastle Airport’s passenger numbers increased by 27% after the first full operational year of the Metro link to the airport and passenger numbers have continued to grow year on year. A station near to Manston Airport served by high speed rail services to London will increase the attractiveness of the airport to airlines and passengers.

[The potential passengers who live in and around London will STILL have excellent transport links to other airports, even if a Manston Parkway station is built.]

Line speed enhancements have been secured through a successful Regional Growth Fund bid and should be operational by 2015; and work is underway to take forward the provision of the proposed Thanet Parkway rail station, which subject to funding could also be operational by the end of 2015. KCC is also pushing for improved rail connection (using existing lines) between Ashford and Gatwick, which would link Manston to both Gatwick and Heathrow.

[The line speed enhancements save a couple of minutes. This time saving will be lost if trains stop at a Parkway station.]

Manston would strongly complement Heathrow and Gatwick as they increasingly focus on accommodating long-haul flights at the expense of domestic and near-European services. Development of Manston as a regional airport would create employment opportunities in one of England’s most disadvantaged areas; the airport’s Master Plan forecast for 2033 would see up to 6,000 additional direct and indirect jobs within the area, development for which is generally supported by the local community.

[Paul Carter is still obediently trotting out Manston's pie-in-the-sky job forecasts, despite them being rubbished by TDC's two independent consultant's reports.]

Estuary Airport - hot potato, fig leaf, or white elephant?

NEWSFLASH: the real reasons Flybe quit Manston - click HERE

---

Wise words from Paul Francis on the awful consequences of realpolitik and the persistence of dumb ideas. The sudden (re)launch of the estuary airport idea has more to do with Boris' mayoral election bid and recent unemployment figures than strategic infrastructure planning. And then there is the blind faith that an airport automatically translates into employment and regeneration. These apparently impulsive pronouncements from politicians rarely mention the downsides of aviation, and never touch on the fact that aviation itself does not have a long-term future - when the oil runs out, what use is an airport?

---

There will be considerable dismay in some quarters that the Prime Minister appears to have agreed that the idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary should be fully investigated. But there ought not to be surprise - even if opponents will throw back at him his declaration more than a year ago that the government had 'no plans' to build such an airport. A similar commitment was given to the Rochester and Strood MP Mark Reckless by new transport secretary Justine Greening in precisely the same terms.

But it was George Osborne who paved the way for the idea of examining the scheme in November when he announced the government would 'explore all the options' for tackling the problems around aviation capacity. Even so, today's news will be seen as a U-turn and a politically awkward one given the deep hostility among his own MPs in Kent.

It is worth pointing out that there has never been any likelihood the government itself would 'build' an airport - that would be for private investment consortiums.

Some will see it as a shot in the arm for Boris Johnson's campaign to be re-elected as London Mayor although I've never been persuaded that aviation capacity is something that preoccupies London voters as much as issues like tube fares or crime. Politically, Mr Cameron will have to confront the fact that among the county's Conservative MPs, there is universal opposition. The Conservative controlled Medway Council remains wholly unconvinced - although there have been recent hints that Kent County Council may not be quite as implacably opposed as it once might have been. 

He may also be seen as having performed an about-turn and of betraying those who took him at his word that the government was not interested in the idea. Never an ideal position for a PM or for backbenchers who, in some cases, have marginal seats to defend in 2015.

What has changed? Underlying the news appears to be the feeling that aside from addressing the problem of capacity, a new airport would deliver a huge jobs boost and regenerate a part of the south east in a way no other project could conceivably get close to. Perhaps it is no coincidence the news has come out on the day that unemployment figures have shown another rise in both Kent and Medway.

Those arguments will inevitably have to be balanced against the fact that an airport would have huge environmental consequences. One thing is clear from today's news. Whatever one thinks of the idea, it can no longer be dismissed as 'pie in the sky.'

Paul on Politics, by political editor Paul Francis Wednesday, January 18 2012

Paul Carter: Emperor of Kent

Katherine Kerswell "Group MD" of KCC has left her £197k post. [Oh, no she hasn't! Oh, yes she has! Oh, let's see what KCC's press release says. Oh, let's not bother.] Initial rumours had Paul Carter as Leader and MD - probably not legal, and certainly not advisable. Later rumours had it that the post may simply be left vacant, as a money saving option. Either way, Cllr Carter will be the biggest fish in the pond for a while yet.

It appears that Ms Kerswell was doomed as a result of ruffling too many feathers in her reorganisation of KCC, so the Tory back-benchers conspired to oust her. Her pay-off is too large for anyone to talk about.

Another interesting idea being put about is that the recent KCC Tory leadership contest was decided on the basis of which candidate looked most likely to return Ms Kerswell to the strawberry fields of Northamptonshire. Looks like that's one pledge Paul Carter has delivered on... [rolling updates on this story...]

Here's what they said when they were all friends:

Later...

The plot thickens:

and then...

A public statement put together too hastily to have time to think of a page title:

Hmmm... What do you think happened?

Why Steer Davies Gleave?

This is from the internal KCC document that describes how the contract (to produce the supporting report for the £10m RGF bid) was awarded.

---

Outline of Project

Although KCC has previously carried out some outline feasibility work for the proposed Thanet Parkway station (most recently in July 2009), this requires significant updating and development; including more comprehensive passenger demand forecasting and a full feasibility design of the station and car park, if a robust and credible RGF bid is to be prepared. The Government is particularly interested in the job creation potential (both direct and indirect) of proposed schemes, which has not previously been a requirement of traditional transport appraisals. For these reasons, and in light of the challenging timescale for the submission of a first-round RGF bid, it was agreed with the Director of Integrated Strategy and Planning that KCC should invite three technical consultants to tender for this work. [You can read the Invitation to Tender below.]

Reasons for appointing this particular Consultant:

Steer Davies Gleave have been appointed to work on this project primarily due to their proposed approach to the calculation of the additional employment created (directly and indirectly) as a result of the construction of the Thanet Parkway station. This is the key criterion against which RGF bids will be appraised by Government and therefore it is crucial that the consultant's approach in this area is thorough and robust.

The approach proposed by MVA and Jacobs was relatively primitive, relying heavily on consultation with a limited number of local employers (specifically Kent International Airport and Pfizer) to establish the likely number of additional jobs arising from the development of the Parkway station. By contrast, Steer Davies Gleave propose to use their Spatial Economic Impact Model (SpECTRa), which takes as inputs the results of Benefit Cost Analyses of the station and models the structural changes these impacts cause on the local economy via productivity gains and increases in attractiveness. The outputs of the model include changes to wages and prices, to jobs by occupation, to productivity and output, as well as to trade with the rest of the UK, by economic sector.

The SpECTRa model has been approved by the DfT in previous transport scheme appraisals and represents a more comprehensive and sophisticated approach to economic analysis than those proposed by MVA and Jacobs.

Benefits Expected of appointing this Consultant:

The principal benefits expected from appointing Steer Davies Gleave to work on this project are those relating to the quantification of the economic benefits of the Parkway station, as described above. Steer Davies Gleave have extensive experience of preparing business cases and funding bids for rail infrastructure projects, including Liverpool South Parkway and the proposed Stratford Parkway.

The fixed fee of £42,723 proposed by Steer Davies Gleave is considered reasonable. The funding will be made up of contributions from KCC's Sustainable Transport and Transport Policy Teams and Thanet District Council.

---

Did you spot any key phrases?

---

Dear Reader, you can download your copy of the once-secret KCC Bid Document below, and if you can deduce (or already know) the identities of the airline, or the European hub airport, that are painstakingly blacked out throughout the document, do let me know. Thank you.

---

Trickle of funding for Manston Parkway

0.13% of a station

On reflection, I think "trickle" may be over-stating it a bit - this is more of a slight dampening.

There is a document called Growth without Gridlock, which is KCC's grandiose plan for turning the Garden of England into a 24 hour blur of traffic. It includes:

• plans for a Third Thames Crossing (that the local councils at either end of the proposed crossing don't want),
• upgrades to the M2 and M20 (to squeeze more lorries through Dover),
• enhancements to Operation Stack (to provide parking for those lorries),
• upgrades to the high speed rail link to Ramsgate (to speed up the trains),
• and a new Manston Parkway station (to slow them down again).

All in all, as fine a display of joined-up thinking as we're likely to see from KCC any time soon, and a bargain at £1.77 billion. Yes, that's £1,770,000,000. KCC have been roaming the streets with their hands outstretched, seeking funds from every quarter. The latest mark to be suckered into coughing up is the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, which:

"reflects the Government’s core objectives of supporting economic growth by improving the links that move goods and people and meeting its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions"

KCC were presumably bidding on the strength of promising to move goods and people, as they would be on shakier ground if they were playing the Green Joker on this round. The emissions saved by a few people driving to a Parkway station (rather than making the whole journey by car) will be outweighed by the extra traffic attracted by the enhanced motorway network and increased road freight.

Anyway... the Local Sustainable Transport Fund has already been criticised for being a well-meaning but poorly targetted drop in the ocean. The (relatively) small Fund is spread across four years, and 300 local authorities. KCC's £1.77bn transport strategy has been awarded £2.3 million from the Fund, and that's all they'll get - as Norman Baker said when introducing the LSTF in December 2010, authorities "will only be able to be successful with one bid".

That £2.3m is just under 0.13% of what KCC need for their plan. If this is divvied out equally across the piece, Manston Parkway would see about £13,000 of the £10m projected cost. To put this in perspective - each of the three "car park enforcement staff" (the only jobs created at the proposed station) cost £22,500 per annum.

---

Landmark transport scheme receives cash boost

A landmark transport strategy designed to solve ongoing problems with congestion has been awarded £2.3 million from Government. Growth Without Gridlock, which was launched in December, was selected as one of 39 projects in the UK to receive a share of £155m investment. The Kent County Council plan consists of a wish-list of improvements which transport chiefs say would solve some of the problems stunting economic growth in Kent.

It includes the development of a £40m Thanet parkway station serving Manston airport; a £500m scheme to improve traffic flow on the M2 and M20 corridors; and a Third Thames crossing to ease congestion at Dartford. Council leader Paul Carter admitted at the launch of the strategy that "big funding streams" from government were over and the authority had had to identify new revenue streams to raise the £1.8bn needed for improvements to the transport network.

Government selected 39 projects designed to boost economic growth and reduce carbon emissions to receive a share of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. KCC’s own scheme was chosen as being effective in the two key objectives. Transport minister Norman Baker said he was delighted to be able to fund the strategy:

“It will help build a strong local community while addressing the urgent challenge of climate change. We have empowered local authorities to create packages of sustainable initiatives that are tailored for their local area and this is only the beginning. Even more funding will be announced next summer following a second round of bids.”

An independent panel with expertise in delivering sustainable transport has been appointed to advise ministers on the bids, including the Campaign for Better Transport. Campaigns director at the organisation Richard Hebditch said he was pleased Kent will receive funding.

“We’ve long called for funding for these kinds of programmes, which we know can cut congestion and cut carbon. We’re looking forward to seeing the practical results which I’m sure will make a big difference.”

Other funding sources for Growth Without Gridlock include toll income from the Thames Crossings, port landing charges at Dover and road charges for foreign lorries. Cllr Carter said:

“Together with new freedoms and new local transport powers, these innovative new sources of funding would pay for Kent’s top transport priorities including a Third Thames Crossing and the “bifurcation” of port traffic from Dover along both the M2 and M20 corridors. In difficult economic times, we have no option but to do things differently. All of the schemes identified in Growth without Gridlock will be vital to unlocking new jobs, new business and boosting new economic growth in Kent.”

Medway Council’s Medway Get Active project was refused funding from government under the scheme.

kentnews.co.uk 10 Jul 2011

Council reveals unsuccessful bid to develop Manston services

It's like pulling teeth

Kent County Council has been forced to reveal details of its unsuccessful £10.8 million bid for Government money to develop services for Manston airport.  Campaigners, No Night Flights, challenged KCC's refusal to release details of the Regional Growth Fund (RGF) application.

The county council had to disclose its bid, made with airport owner Infratil, but withheld some commercial details.  KCC and Infratil want £7.7 million towards the cost of building a new "parkway" train station serving the airport and £2 million towards setting up faster rail services between the new station and London.  The second part of the bid is for £600,000 to set up a trial route between Manston and a European "hub" airport - details of which airline and airport were removed from the information published.  The bid also asks for £500,000 to help Infratil turn the first phase of its "master plan" into reality.

In return for the public money Infratil has pledged £7.6 million over 10 years including £100,000 a year to provide a bus service between the airport and new train station.  KCC and Infratil justify the bid, made to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Bis), saying it would help to boost the economy in south east Kent in the wake of Pfizer pulling out.  They claim that it would help Infratil to meet its development aims and increase employment at the airport and in surrounding businesses.  Campaigners say the KCC bid, titled Access to East Kent, demonstrated a poor return on investment.

On the No Night Flights website the group claims that it would equate to £415,384 per job generated by the £10.8 million, adding:

"RGF wants to help make the transition from public sector to private sector jobs. KCC's application was looking for a level of public subsidy that would have embarrassed the British Leyland of old. In the over-crowded sweepstake that is the Grand National economy, the Government decided not to back this particular three-legged donkey."

Campaigner Susan Kennedy, from Ramsgate, said:

"It is unbelievable that in such difficult times KCC has put in for a bid that requires subsidies of millions to create such paltry numbers of jobs."

The bid was turned down in the first phase of applications for the RGF but KCC plans to resubmit it for the second round.

thisiskent.co.uk