Planning permission for Manston

Manston airport sale "a chance to introduce proper planning"

News that Manston airport is up for sale is confirmation that the local infrastructure is not sufficient to sustain an airport, according to one of the most respected campaign group in the country.

Manston’s New Zealand owner, lnfratil, announced it was selling the site because it wanted to “refocus its investment profile" and concentrate on retail, production and supplying gas and electricity. The move puts 123 jobs at risk.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England says the sale is an ideal chance for Thanet council to put into force planning regulations protecting the interests of residents, particularly in the issue of night flights, which lnfratil wanted to introduce amid fierce local opposition. A CPRE spokesman said:

“Of course we are saddened to think that existing jobs at Manston might be put at risk, but it confirms our long-standing concerns that Manston has been unable to become a commercial success for many reasons, not least its lack of infrastructure. Manston airport has consistently struggled to attract passengers and airline operators despite the massive amount of  investment into it.

If a fresh start means new operators are able to breathe new life into Manston, we sincerely hope Thanet  District Council will take this as an opportunity to bring the operation under the proper control of a robust planning agreement to protect the interests of all of Thanet's residents. The prospect of intensification of night flights, while Manston airport has been unable to exploit its daytime capacity, has hung over the county for far too long."

Malcolm Kirkaldie was a member of the former watchdog Manston Airport Group. He said:

“The former owners of the airport never fully addressed local complaints or issues. Developers who come into Thanet need to be accountable to the local community and put something back.”

kentnews.co.uk 19th Mar 2012

Reality hits home, Infratil leave town

Delusion has finally been swept away by the onslaught of reality and Infratil are throwing in the towel. This has been a long time coming, and Nostrildamus predicted it in November 2010.

---

Manston Airport has been put up for sale. Bosses at Kent International Airport told staff at 10.30am yesterday (Friday) morning. The shock decision was made by owners Infratil. The New Zealand-based company also plans to sell its airport at Prestwick near Glasgow.

IoT Gazette 8th March 2012

---

This is obviously bad news for all those employed at the airport. Manston was clearly one of Infratil's rare bad investments, and the workforce at the airport did their best to make a silk purse out of a flying pig's ear, but to no avail. After having been strung along for so long, I hope that they get decent redundancy packages from Infratil. Except Charles Buchanan, and whoever runs their complaints department, obviously.

One excellent aspect of this is that TDC now have an unmissable opportunity to start with a clean slate. If Manston is sold as an airport, the Council can enter into fresh negotiations with the new owners and arrive at a planning permission that satisfies the owner's need for a stable long-term framework within which to develop their business plans, and the Council can write a new S106 agreement that is effective in protecting the interests of the residents of north-east Kent.

Have a look at these posts for a positive take on how we could get a win-win result.

The nasty niceties of planning

Manston is nowhere near as simple in planning terms as other airports.

The absence of an overall planning consent and environmental impact assessment mean that there are unique circumstances which significantly change the legal landscape. Manston cannot apply for planning permission for night-flights on their own. They have to apply for planning permission for the whole airport.

The whole planning status of the airport was left in limbo after the Appeal Court hearing, pending a major change in activity at the airport. Clearly, this is the major change - the time when the whole planning issue of the airport must be sorted out properly.

This is not a situation where pre-existing planning permission is being stretched beyond breaking point. Manston has never had planning permission and the court made it absolutely clear that it was the Council's responsibility to ensure that expansion of the airport was dealt with through the planning system. The question becomes - "if not now, when?".

TDC cannot choose whether or not to decide that this requires planning permission.

It is not a judgement call for them to make - it is clear that planning permission is required for the airport (and has been for some time, as a result of cumulative development).

Nor is this something that TDC can choose, or not, to recognise - if they fail to act, they will face legal action leading to a judicial review, and will be compelled to act.

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."

Council Report Pans Night Flights Proposal

It's grim reading for Manston, but it could be good news for East Kent - depending on Thanet District Council’s priorities. Yes folks, the Parsons Brinckerhoff report has finally arrived, and you can read, print and download your copy HERE. 

This summary is in handy bite-sized chunks - just click on the "next installment" at the end of each post to work your way through...

Shortly after Manston submitted their most recent night flying proposal last autumn, TDC commissioned independent experts Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) to look at all the paperwork. Manston’s application was supported by a noise impact report from Bickerdike Allen Partners (BAP), and an economic assessment from York Aviation.

TDC’s brief to PB was:

[p2]  To assess the suitability of the methodology used in the application; To test the assumptions made; To review the Planning situation

I have no idea why they asked for the third point - this is clearly a matter for planning lawyers. PB spend about a third of their report rehashing the history of planning problems and then throw up their hands in resignation and say “ask a expert”:

[p22] It is recommended that Legal Council [sic] Opinion is sought on the question of intensification of use.

Some key findings from the PB report:

• Manston wants night flights for freight.
• If this was a planning application, it would be rejected.
• Having night flights will not generate passenger growth.
• The noise analysis supporting Manston's application is flawed.
• The economic analysis supporting Manston's application is flawed.
• The S106 agreement and the planning status of the airport is a shambles.

Incidentally, if you found this useful, do feel free to pass it on to friends, neighbours and colleagues - just use the "EMAIL THIS" link below.

---

Next installment: It’s all about freight

---

Planning Problems

As mentioned before, TDC wasted their (our) money in asking Parsons Brinckerhoff’s (PB's) opinion on planning, given that PB conclude “Dunno, ask a pro”. However, they do describe the shambolic background to Manton’s current planning status, and mention in passing some interesting omissions on TDC’s part.

The airfield at Manston does not have “proper” planning permission - it has Certificates of Lawfulness (once known as Lawful Development Certificates or LDCs). These were obtained :

[p13] … by the Ministry of Defence the Ministry of Defence, in anticipation of the transfer of the site from the MoD to new owners who would operate it wholly as a civilian airport. The purpose of the LDCs sought by the MoD was to confirm that the anticipated use of the whole of the land as a civilian airport would be lawful and that it would not require planning permission to undertake the use.

The PB report says that two LDCs were issued in 1998, and another two in 1999, and that all four related to the use of land and buildings, but have no other specified details or conditions/restrictions relating to the operation of the Airport. Mind you, they haven’t actually seen the certificates, so nobody can be sure.

The S106 agreement was negotiated in September 2000, and is what my grandfather would have called “a right royal cock-up”.

It specifies that there will be:

[p14] … no night flying until such time as a night time flying policy has been prepared and lodged with the Council.

Note the wording - “prepared and lodged” - there’s no suggestion that anyone needs to agree to it…

[p14] The schedule sets out that the owners will consult with the Council, who in turn will be allowed time to consult on the proposed policy.  It is important to note that the wording of the S106 makes it clear that whilst the Council will be consulted and their views will be assessed, if the airport decides not to adhere to any views or suggestions as to changes to the policy, they are under no obligation to do so.

The PB report spells out the shocking implications:

[p14] In simple terms if the airport owners issue a policy and consult with the Council on it, they can choose to ignore any views set out by the Council and begin carrying out night time flying in accordance with the policy.  There is nothing in the S106 of itself that would enable the Council to prevent night time flying in this instance.

This is a demonstration of breath-taking stupidity and negligence on the part of the Council’s negotiators.

Another cause for concern is that TDC did not provide PB with several key documents:

[p13] It should be notes [sic] that in preparing this Report we have not seen copies of the original Certificates, although the Court judgements provided did make extensive reference to them. We have also sought clarification of any other planning permissions or Agreements issued post the Certificates by Thanet Council to confirm whether any such permissions or Agreements place any restrictions or conditions on the activities of the Airport.  This clarification is awaited at the time of drafting this Report.

Thus blindfolded by the Council, it is perhaps less surprising that PB couldn’t reach a clear conclusion on the planning status of the airfield and its application for night flights.

Nonetheless, PB do seem to be surprisingly certain about the contents of the LDCs that they haven’t seen:

[p14] The LDCs issued in relation to the airport contain no restrictions on night time flying, so no planning application or variation of condition etc is required to fly at night.  Similarly the S106 is written in such a way that the airport is not required to apply through the planning process to undertake night time flying.

In fact, the LDCs do restrict night-time use of the airport, but all this will come out when this goes to the High Court.

TDC have been seeking legal advice  - hopefully their barrister will be fully informed of the background. If not, TDC lays itself open to accusations of incompetence and worse.

---

Next installment: back to the Introduction

---

Support from CPRE Protect Kent

Thanet District Committee

Matters have not been all quiet on the eastern front. A number of issues have surfaced — or re-surfaced — within the District. The most significant is the proposal for night-flights from Kent International Airport, Manston.

This is a subject which has featured for some time as a dark storm cloud over Thanet, ominous and threatening but never quite ready to release its anger. It now appears that the storm is about to break.

We have engaged with the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee (KIACC) to challenge Infratil, the airport's owners, and Thanet District Council (Thanet DC) on the need for night-flights, and more importantly how permission for such activities is being determined.

We consider that due process is being circumvented, including full and open consultation with the residents of Thanet. Together with KIACC and other active parties we will be examining the legality of present and past planning decisions relating to Manston, and encouraging frank and open discussion on the planned future of the airport.

We believe we can bring considerable expertise to the scene, based on our experience at the Lydd Inquiry.

Andrew Ogden
Campaigns Manager
CPRE Protect Kent
Newsletter Autumn 2011

---

These people care about the things that you care about, and they have the clout and expertise to make a difference. They have the clout and expertise because they have full-time staff who have built up years of experience successfully doing the things we're trying to do.

These nice people need to eat, and buy clothes, and pay their phone bills. They need money. Your money. My money. Any money will do. This is where membership of Protect Kent comes in. Click HERE, now, to pop over to their website, where you can get whatever kind of membership suits you best - joint, family, concessionary, under 25, whatever.

Take your pick, and then press the magic buttons to make it happen. You'll get automatic membership of the national CPRE, and you'll get half-price entry to lots of nice places, and you'll get occasional magazines and other good stuff, but most importantly you'll get that nice warm feeling that comes from knowing you've done the right thing for the right reason.

Planning permission needed for Manston

Cllr Clive Hart - Leader of Thanet Labour Group:

I'm pleased to see that the Conservative group at TDC agree with us that the current night flying application is unacceptable. I wish to make it absolutely clear that our Labour Group is supportive of the airport and maximising the employment opportunities it will create, but this must not be at any price for Thanet's residents.

We certainly do need to balance the economic benefits against environmental considerations. However the proposed night-time flying policy does not appear to do that and leaves far too many uncertainties, that is why we decided not to support the application.

We have not ruled ourselves out of any future debate because the current application is not being treated as a planning application and therefore the rules on predetermination simply do not apply. Indeed, one of the matters of concern in making our own decision was that we felt that any changes such as the those sought at present may well require planning permission.

Political Posturing on Night Flights

'Dr' Simon Moores started things this morning with the question "Thanet Labour Disqualified from Taking Part in Manston Night Flight Decision?"

Playing on the total confusion around the subject of predetermination rules, our Simes suggests that the airport night flight decision is a "planning-related matter". Labour councillors, by rejecting the "current" application just as Bob Bayford did yesterday, seem to have pre-judged a planning matter publicly.

"Utter b&ll$cks", said our political/legal/planning expert. "The airport has no planning permission, and Bob Bayford keeps reminding us that he is only consulting the public out of the kindness of his own heart."

Uncle Bob Bayford weighs in late on Tuesday with a "open letter" to the Labour leader Clive Hart to ask if his party is now one of ''total opposition to 'any' night time flying activity at Manston Airport".

As much as we would like Conservative or Labour to reject them outright, neither party has. You only have to read Labour's Press Release or the Council Press Release to understand that . May I suggest that all political parties put their dummies back in their mouths, put the teddies back in the pram and read everything again. Carefully.

Just to dwell on Bob Bayford's position - "I also believe that the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered. I am not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved."

May we suggest, Uncle Bob, that this quite clearly states that you will pre-determine an acceptable level of night time flying activity - acceptable to you, that is - before allowing an Infratil night time flying policy to go to public consultation?

Answers on a postcard please as to what rules, laws, bodies Bob is putting himself in contradiction/conflict with.

One final point to all Councillors. No Night Flights is non-party political. Red, Blue, Yellow, Green - not fussed which party you come from. We support the right of a full night's sleep, every night, to East Kent's residents. We support a successful Manston which operates as much business as it can during more sociable hours - as many successful airport across the country do. Oh, and 24,000 people so far have shown an interest in where you live in relation to the flightpath. 

Sleep tight - while you can.