Aha! The cat's out of the bag

Way back in February, NNF sent the Airport Working Committee a response to Rob Hetherington's awful strategy document. And we heard nothing, until 17th June, when we were told (by Charles Hungwe, Senior Democratic Services Officer):

"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."

Quick as a flash, the reply went back to Charles Hungwe and Madeline Homer:

"The obvious question is: which part or parts of TDC now deal with the airport and related issues?"

And we heard nothing. So there was the usual annoying series of increasingly exasperated and ever-escalating requests for a reply and an answer.

Ta-dah! Having escalated the question to Leader and Chief Exec level, a reply arrived on 13th August from Madeline Homer:

"In general the airport remains part of the Economic Development and Regeneration portfolio under the Director of Community Services, including the monitoring of the s.106 agreement."

So there you have it. A mere two months after being asked, Ms Homer tells us that airport matters fall under the remit the Director of Community Services.

The Director of Community Services is Madeline Homer. I suggest it would be sensible to include her in all your correspondence regarding the airport - Madeline.Homer@thanet.gov.uk

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.

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.

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

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 breaks its silence

Thanet District Council have created cock-up out of chaos - a half-arsed consultation, then playing put the genie back in the bottle. It would have been so much simpler just to bat Manston's proposals straight back to them, just as the previous administration did, and for exactly the same reasons.

Originally, the consultation was to last 90 days, be carried out by MORI (for example), and cost £50-£80k. Councillors and members alike have been getting twitchy about the cost, and so they've opted to do it in-house, i.e. on the cheap. There's no suggestion that this will produce a better consultation.

Manston have dragged their feet for years over this, to the extent that even the Council has been appeared quite nimble in comparison. Nonetheless, Clive Hart has tried to allay our impatience by acting swiftly. Personally, for an exercise of this importance, I would rather he did it right than did it soon.

Having just realised that the S106 agreement means that Manston can proceed with whatever night flight policy they like, TDC have decided to wait and see what effect the night flights will have. Erm, quite apart from what their native common sense should be telling them, TDC have now commissioned two independent reports, both of which conclude that the costs of night flights outweigh the benefits.

They are also waiting to see if night flights would result in an "intensification or change of operation" at the airport. Hmmm... tricky one. Currently: 16 hours a day, with scheduled night flights forbidden. Proposed: 24 hours a day, with no limit on night flights. You know what - I think there will be a difference.

---

New approach to airport consultation

A new approach is to be taken by the council in response to Infratil’s proposal for regular night-time flying at Manston Airport. 

Leader of Thanet District Council, Cllr Clive Hart, has signed a decision notice, which states the council’s intention to carry out a focused consultation in-house for a period of 28 days for Thanet residents and in particular for those directly affected by the Airport’s proposals.

The decision follows clarification that the proposal submitted by Infratil is for consultation only and the proposal does not require a planning application at this stage.  The council’s role is therefore as a ‘consultee’ and it is not in a position to make a binding decision in respect of the night-time flying policy.

The council is seeking advice as to whether the proposed night flying policy, if implemented, could result in an intensification or change in operation at the airport. This could then require a planning application at some point in the future. However at this time, the council is only being asked to provide a consultation response to the proposals and is seeking the views of local people to inform its response. People can also submit responses direct to the Airport, via its consultation page.

The decision also comes after review of the findings of an independent assessment carried out by Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd. on behalf of the council, which challenges a number of the environmental and economic claims of the airport. Cllr Clive Hart, said:

“Taking a new approach to our consultation is absolutely essential given this advice.  We’re committed to listening to our residents, and will still provide the opportunity for people to comment on the proposals before we draft our response from the council, as well as people being able to provide their views directly to the Airport.  We’ve promised that we will seek residents’ views, and we’re standing by this commitment, but on a more appropriate scale.  This issue needs to be drawn to a conclusion for the sake of the community, the council and the airport.”

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

The proposals, and more information about the public consultation, will be available to view on TDC's website from Thursday 26 January.

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

---

Quick question

A reader writes:

Have recently become more involved in NNF's campaign. Much to digest and eventually understand. Have emailed Manston, MP/councillors about recent flights - as per your website advice.

What I don't quite understand at the moment is - when flights do come over during the restricted hours - who/which organisation has responsibility to decide if they are operating outside of the current agreement/legislation and then who/what organisation then places fines etc onto Infratil?

Thank you for your time.

SM

Hmmm... good questions, which highlight the shortcomings of the current S106 agreement between the Council and the airport.

The agreement explicitly forbids scheduled night flights, using the following definition:

"regular night flying operations" means flight movements which are scheduled or programmed and which occur frequently or regularly to the same or similar pattern for the same operator during night-time.

The problem is that it is down to the airport to decide (or admit) whether a flight is scheduled or not, and self-regulation is a notoriously bad way to run anything.

Flights that are not scheduled, but arrive during the restricted hours, are only fined if they exceed a certain noise threshold. The flight arrived at 3:30 AM on 9 December, for example, was rated as QC2 and will not attract a fine. The next level up is QC4, which would also not attract a fine. The next level above that is QC8, which would attract a fine of £1000 for the first offence – and the fine doubles on each subsequent offence.

The airport is expected to confess to each and every breach of the agreement, and the Council is supposed to be monitoring the airport's performance. The Council has admitted that its monitoring of the airport has fallen short of what is expected and required, so we cannot be certain that the airport is confessing to every misdemeanour.

The result of all this is completely unsatisfactory for everyone who lives within earshot of the flight path. The S106 agreement is supposed to regulate the activity of the airport in order to protect the quality of life of those who live nearby. Clearly, it fails to do this. All too frequently, the residents of Ramsgate, Herne Bay and the Thanet Villages are woken from their sleep and the operators of the offending aircraft go unpunished.

On the bright side, there has been a recent change of leadership at TDC. The local elections in May this year resulted in a finely balanced Council which has recently flipped from Conservative to Labour leadership (the new Leader is Clive Hart). This may result in a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship between the Council and the airport. Until now, the Council seems to have been bending over backwards to give the airport whatever it wants. We may now be entering a phase when the well-being and wishes of the residents are also weighed in the balance. I hope so.