Consultation news

Ahead of Tuesday's (30th August) Overview & Scrutiny meeting at TDC's Cecil Street HQ, those diligent public servants have released the lawyers' letter that quashed discussion of night flights in Council in mid-July. This three-pager from solicitors firm Bevan Brittan (full text available here) sheds some welcome light on the consultation process, and explains why they think the motion crossed the fine line between predisposition and predetermination.

This is creeping into angels-on-pinheads territory, and the best thing to be said for the absurd and revolting predetermination rule is that it is about to be swept away and binned as an abject failure and an afront to democracy. However, until that happy day arrives, it's still the law of the land and the majority party on the Council happily took the lawyers' advice.

More interestingly, in the middle of this letter is a brief description of the consultation process. I must admit, I'm rather peeved that the most we've been told about the crucial consultation process regarding a decision that will affect the lives of tens of thousands of people has come by a circuitous route from a bunch of lawyers based in London, Birmingham and Bristol. When will TDC have the sense and decency to speak to us directly? It says:

"I also understand that a lengthy further consultation is planned around this which will include the issue of night flying and which consultation will go outside the boundaries of Thanet District Council to ensure that those who may be affected outside the District Council's boundaries have an opportunity to give their views, and that this consultation process has been partly funded by contributions from other Authorities in the area and from Kent County Council."

The two eye-catching bits of news in that are:

1. "other Authorities" is plural, and
2. the inclusion of KCC.

Click it to big itAs you will see from the map, there are many District Councils ("Authorities") in KCC's area, but the two most directly affected by Manston's plans are Thanet and Canterbury. So who, other than Canterbury, has chipped in for the consultation process? Concievably Dover (as they are represented on the airport Consultative Committee), but I don't think any of the others can lay claim to a legitimiate interest.

Kent County Council's involvement is entirely consistent with its eagerness to bulldoze ahead with any and all developments at Manston, as part of its over-arching strategy of making south Thanet into Kent's industrial park.

bit.ly/mWCPRz

Straight from the horse's orifice...

In the interests of even-handedness and fair play, I thought I would publish Manston's statement on the importance of night flights, despite it being crap. Large chunks of this have been regurgitated by the local press.

If you can bring yourself to plough through this litany of self-serving distortions and special pleadings, do please bear a few things in mind:

• The "independent" report was produced by York Aviation, who describe themselves thus: "A specialist firm of air transport consultants providing a complete consultancy service for the airports business, including aviation policy advice, economic impact assessment, air traffic forecasting, and specialist advice on airport capacity assessment and planning."
• The airport already had a ban on regular (i.e. scheduled) night flights when Infratil bought it. The long-standing S106 agreement with Thanet District Council allows for unavoidable and unscheduled late arrivals.
• I repeat: this is what they bought. It said "No Night Flights" on the tin when they picked it off the shelf.
• The thousands of jobs referred to throughout this blurb only exist in the forecasts made in Manston's Master Plan.
• Passenger airlines don't decide which airports to use on the basis of what times of day they can fly. They decide on the basis of whether their planes will be full or not.
• Infratil want to make Manston a 24-hour freight hub, and then sell it.

---

---

Imposing stringent restrictions on night flights at Manston could cost the Thanet airport an estimated 1.3 million passengers and 67,000 tonnes of freight a year by 2018, according to the final part of independent research into its future economic impact and even call into question the ongoing viability of the airport.

The airport has already tabled a proposal that would control and limit the amount of flying permitted at night. This business will be lost to the airport and the area if the more onerous restrictions, being suggested by the Labour Group on Thanet District Council, were to be imposed.

The final conclusion of the report suggests restrictions on night flights would increase the airport's financial losses, making it untenable for any owner. According to the report, the ability to attract and retain a full mix of passenger and freight services will be dependent upon the ability to schedule flights during the night, both now and in the future.

As a result of the loss of trade due to restricting night flights, the report estimates that the airport's potential to create jobs will be cut by almost half, from over 2,000 people directly employed in airport activities to just 1,102 jobs by 2018. The report, carried out by York Aviation, leading experts in this field, also concludes that the airport would support 484 fewer indirect jobs in the local economy over the same period.

Charles Buchanan, Chief Executive Officer of Manston Airport, said:

"The implications on the local and wider East Kent economy of restricting our operating hours beyond the proposal we previously submitted is estimated to be in the region of £30m a year, and even brings the airport's financial viability into question. This may not just be a question of the scale of benefits that the airport can bring to the area, but whether there is a viable business at all under these restrictions. What we are trying to do is build a regional airport here in Kent which requires an ability to be able to compete on a level playing field with the likes of Stansted, Luton and Gatwick, as well as airports on the continent. Restricting our operating hours will fundamentally affect the economic viability of the airport. It will reduce our ability to attract passenger and freight services and secure based airlines, which would offer a greater range and frequency of scheduled passenger services."

Low cost passenger airlines require flexibility of scheduling to maximise aircraft utilisation to be able to offer the more popular destinations such as Spanish sunshine resorts. Based airlines also provide a wider range of employment opportunities from flight deck and cabin crew to aircraft engineers to support the operation. Charles Buchanan added:

"An excellent example of what can be achieved with the correct conditions is the recent announcement by easyJet of their new base at Southend Airport. The airline is to operate three based aircraft at Southend and is able to offer low cost services to Alicante, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Belfast, Faro, Ibiza, Mallorca and Malaga. Unless Manston can receive a level of night flights consistent with our proposal, this kind of development will be denied to us; it seems to me that such services would prove extremely popular with the local community. Successful regional airports are also an important factor in attracting businesses into an area. A thriving Manston will have a positive impact on the ability to secure new companies not just for Manston Business Park, but also for Discovery Park, the former Pfizer site."

The report concludes that the ability to handle some aircraft movements between 23.00hrs and 07.00hrs would be necessary for Manston to attract airlines, such as low-cost operators, with planes based at the airport, as well as handle greater levels of freight from around the world. Charles Buchanan continued:

"Persuading airlines to base planes at the airport is fundamental to our ability to maximise the benefit that the airport can bring to the Thanet economy. By doing so we will be able to develop a range of destination opportunities for local people, while bringing increased numbers of visitors to the area. Despite the on-going poor economic situation we remain confident that airlines will choose Manston and build upon our Flybe services and charter services."

The report highlights the impact on the airport's ability to secure freight traffic. Stringent restriction of flights between 23.00 and 07.00 GMT would effectively put the vast majority of countries, which export fresh produce into the UK, beyond the reach of Manston's freight handling team. Charles Buchanan added:

"World fresh produce markets operate on narrow margins. Growers need to pick, pack and despatch within a day to extend the shelf life for supermarkets and customers. Regularly this means most flights depart for the UK in the evening even allowing for the time differences around the world, stringent restrictions would effectively close the door to many freight customers who want to use Manston. Our produce handling speeds are better than any other airport in the UK, where fresh produce often has to be unloaded, moved to a warehouse, before being loaded onto a truck. We take the produce from the plane straight to the truck with no double handling and delay. This means that loads are on the roads within minutes of landing giving a further day on the shelves and making us more attractive to freight operators."

The first part of the Economic Impact Report, produced by York Aviation and published in May, suggested that the airport would directly employ 2,070 people and support a further 1,035 indirect jobs by 2018, if a level of night flights were allowed. It was also estimated that the Kent airport would deliver nearly £65 million GVA a year to the local economy by 2018 if its Master Plan development is realised.

The findings of the York Aviation study are consistent with the airport's Master Plan and the owner's commitment to developing a South East regional airport offering scheduled passenger services, chartered flights and handling international freight. Charles Buchanan concluded:

"We recognise that the issue of the airport's operating hours is a high profile one within the District. We will be submitting further detailed proposals in the coming months and then Thanet District Council can present them to the public for consultation."

Source: Manston's website

bit.ly/nQAZlW

A reader writes (to Bob)

I thought my email of today may be of interest and stimulate other residents to convey their views to our councillors:

---

August 21st 2011

Dear Councillor Bayford,

Re Manston Airport – Proposed Night Flights

As a regular listener to BBC Radio Kent, I heard your response rebuttal to Councillor Clive Hart’s interview at 08.15 on Thursday 18th August on the Manston Night Flying issue.

I was appalled by your callous disregard for Thanet Council Tax Payer’s quality of life, plus the environmental issues; with your unreserved support and endorsement for Infratil’s proposal to impose regular scheduled night flights on the local community. 

You make a seemingly generous proposal for “widespread public consultation” on this highly contentious night flying issue; on the premise that “a regional airport is of interest to everyone in the South East”. Hence your obvious “confidence” that the public (who outside Thanet, will be unaffected by Manston’s night flight issues) will vote for night flights. By this one clever act, you have assured Infratil that they will get their way and inflict sleepless nights on local council tax payers. 

As your colleague said, a poll result is entirely dependent on who you ask and how you phrase the question. In my view, the only justification for seeking the views on anyone who is not affected by Manston’s take-off, landing and low circuit noise, would be if the question was “Do you think that an International Airport at Manston is a good idea to for holiday and business flights?” The answer to this (as you very well know) is a foregone conclusion. 

This however is not the issue – the airport unfortunately already exists and the only issue is “Should we allow night flights which will totally disrupt Thanet residents quality of life?” Thus, if the vote is to be a fair one, the only people who should be consulted are those who will be affected by the noise of night flights. Unfortunately, these days, the association of the word “fair”, with “conservative” appears dubious at best.

All this of course is not new, for we have prior experience of so called “consultations” and have reasons for skepticism. A previous council undertook these and following a resounding “No!” to night flights, they completely ignored their council tax-payers wishes and allowed the airport to extend its operating hours. Even the February 2010 Manston Airport Development survey by Stephen Ladyman concluded that 62% of Ramsgate respondents opposed night flights. So how many more times must we say that we are opposed to any form of night flying from Manston? The problem is of course, rather like the peoples referendum on the EU. If the authorities want a “Yes” and they keep getting a “No” - they continue to ask the question in different ways until they can concoct a “Yes”. So I look forward to wasting my breath giving my “No Way” views on night flying at this forthcoming round of “Public Consultations” 

Let us hope at least that unlike the last round of “consultations” this time you publicise these meeting properly through the Thanet media and also drop leaflets outlining the issue, giving venues, times and dates, through every Thanet letterbox.

Finally I would just like to say that in my view, the only reason we now have a “hung Council” is the local fear of night flights being imposed on Thanet voters, together with the knowledge that the Tory Councillors would back this idea to the hilt. The point is that many Labour Councillors (and all of the Independents) owe their seats to local Council Tax payers who voted them in because they trusted Labour rather than Conservatives to do what is right for the ordinary Thanet resident, who deserves a decent night’s sleep. 

Our only hope is that Labour continue to vote for what is right for the people that elected them (and who pay all your salaries) and that at least some Conservatives will actually start listening to their constituents. 

Yours sincerely

Mr R Fawcett

(Who has voted Conservative all his adult life)

bit.ly/nV88K1

---

---

Needle and threat

Charles Buchanan, CEO of Manston Tumbleweed Airport, has launched the next round of his campaign to make the airport more sellable. By his own admission, the airport is losing £5m a year, and the Kiwi overlords (Infratil) are desperate to rid themselves of this continual drain on resources.

Infratil are up-market barrow boys, buying companies to asset-strip or invest in, and then selling them on or milking them for all they're worth. Manston was one of their rare bad calls and is, quite frankly, an embarrassment - it always gets the very last (single) paragraph in their lengthy monthly reports to investors.

They have decided that the only way to get anyone else to swallow this bitter pill is to sweeten it with a sprinkling of night flights, making Manston the only 24 hour freight airport in the south east. Of course, this isn't how they're selling the night flights bid to Thanet District Council, far from it.

The yarn they're spinning for TDC is that their fairy tale Master Plan requires "based" airlines and aircraft, i.e. Manston is their "home" airport. And that based airlines and aircraft require longer flying days. And that means night flights.

This dubious logical chain leads Mr Buchanan to tell the world at large, and TDC in particular, that if he doesn't get his way over night flights, Manston will shut. Clearly the hope is that TDC will buckle under this shameless blackmail, grant the night flights, and Infratil will then stand a slightly better chance of finding a buyer for their least successful investment.

See how the threat to shut this basket case of an airport has been covered: Open & Shut Basket Case 1; and Open & Shut Basket Case 2.

Open and Shut Basket Case 1

Night-fly row Manston airport 'may shut'

Manston airport could shut down if it is not allowed to operate more night flights, its chief executive has said. Kent International Airport boss Charles Buchanan said commercial airlines would only use the site if they could fly early in the morning or late at night.

Thanet District Council is considering whether to grant permission for the airport to operate more night flights. Tory councillors said Thanet needed the jobs but Labour members said the airport was holding people to ransom. The hung council is made up of 27 Tory members, 26 Labour members and three Independent councillors.

A study commissioned by the airport has claimed night flying could see more than 3,000 jobs created at the airport. Campaigners opposed to the move have set up an online petition claiming such flights would reduce the quality of life for everyone within earshot of the flight path. Mr Buchanan said:

"Modern airlines have to fly from the earliest part of the day to the latest part of the night to make sure they make money. Without them making money, they don't come to our airport."

He said the airport was currently losing in the region of £5m a year, adding that not being able to operate night flights "could mean shutting the airport".

Thanet Council's Conservative leader, Councillor Bob Bayford, said:

"That's the very stark choice that we may be facing, that there's more flexibility in operating hours, or no airport. Obviously, the real crunch for Thanet is the prospect of 3,000 jobs disappearing."

Councillor Clive Hart, Labour group leader said Labour members took the view that the council should stick to its existing policy of no night flights.

"These jobs are theoretical jobs, but the environmental hazards that are going to be caused through night flying are very real. I'm very surprised to hear the council leader softening his stance on that and sending a signal to the airport that they can hold us to ransom."

BBC online 18th Aug 2011

For more, see Needle & Threat

Open and Shut Basket Case 2

Night flight ban could crush Manston

Airport chiefs at Manston say restricting night flights at Manston could strike a huge blow to the recovery of the local economy - and put the site’s very existance in doubt. According to the final part of independent research into its future economic impact, imposing stringest restriction could cost an estimated 1.3 million passengers and 67,000 tonnes of freight by the 2018.

The airport wants to expand its flight times as it seeks to grow - but opponents say such a move would create more noise for residents. Thanet District Council has been split by the proposals - with the Tory group backing them and Labour opposing. The Conservatives hold a one-seat majority at the local authority.

The airport has already tabled a proposal that would control and limit the amount of flying permitted at night. This business will be lost to the airport and the area if the more onerous restrictions, being suggested by the Labour group on Thanet District Council, were to be imposed.

The final conclusion of the report suggests restrictions on night flights would increase the airport’s financial losses, making it untenable for any owner. According to the report, the ability to attract and retain a full mix of passenger and freight services will be dependent upon the ability to schedule flights during the night, both now and in the future.

As a result of the loss of trade due to restricting night flights, the report estimates that the airport’s potential to create jobs will be cut by almost half, from over 2,000 people directly employed in airport activities to just 1,102 jobs by 2018. The report, carried out by York Aviation, leading experts in this field, also concludes that the airport would support 484 fewer indirect jobs in the local economy over thesame period.

Charles Buchanan, chief executive officer of Manston Airport, said:

“The implications on the local and wider east Kent economy of restricting our operating hours beyond the proposal we previously submitted is estimated to be in the region of £30m a year, and even brings the airport’s financial viability into question. This may not just be a question of the scale of benefits that the airport can bring to the area, but whether there is a viable business at all under these restrictions. What we are trying to do is build a regional airport here in Kent which requires an ability to be able to compete on a level playing field with the likes of Stansted, Luton and Gatwick, as well as airports on the continent. Restricting our operating hours will fundamentally affect the economic viability of the airport. It will reduce our ability to attract passenger and freight services and secure based airlines, which would offer a greater range and frequency of scheduled passenger services.”

Low cost passenger airlines require flexibility of scheduling to offer the more popular destinations such as Spanish sunshine resorts. Based airlines also provide a wider range of employment opportunities from flight deck and cabin crew to aircraft engineers to support the operation.

The first part of the Economic Impact Report, produced by York Aviation and published in May, suggested that the airport would directly employ 2,070 people and support a further 1,035 indirect jobs by 2018, if a level of night flights were allowed.

kentnews 18th Aug 2011

For more, see Needle & Threat

Sticky numbers

It's been a long time coming, but the wait is nearly over. York Aviation will be publishing the second half of their report, supporting Manston's hare-brained notion that night flights will be the saving of the airport, and Thanet, and probably most of Kent.

The first part of York Aviation's report (supposedly) dealt with the economic and employment benefits of Manston getting busy - that was the carrot. The second part will cover the threat to Manston if it doesn't get the go-ahead for night flights - this is the stick.

York Aviation is an aviation lobbying group, and makes a living by coming up with numbers that make airlines and airports happy. It appears that they came up with the "thousand jobs per million passengers" nonsense that is unquestioningly trotted out to the press by Paul Carter and Charles Buchanan. When they're asking the Government for handouts, however, the numbers are suddenly very different (because they know their claims would be critically scrutinised). When they were asking for their £10m handout earlier this year, they stated categorically that Manston could handle 750,000 passengers a year, and twice the tonnage of freight it currently handles, with just 23 extra staff. Yes, that's right: twenty-three.

Here's a forecast of my own: tomorrow's offering from York Aviation will be another shining example of Alice Through The Looking Glass maths. The Yorkies have said that adding a million passengers would create a thousand jobs. Given that Manston currently carries about 30,000 passengers a year, how many jobs would be subtracted if they didn't carry any? Using dull, old-fashioned, calculator maths the answer is about 33 jobs. Using Yorkie maths, I expect the number will be much larger. Alarmingly larger.

I expect the Yorkies will present night flights as being a deal-breaker, the critical element that will allow Manston to deliver its (literally) fantastic Master Plan, with its projected millions of passengers and supposedly inevitable thousands of jobs. (In fact, the Master Plan makes no mention of any need for scheduled night flights - it only mentions the need for a mechanism to deal with the occasional delayed late arrival, which is already catered for in the S106 agreement.)

Setting this against the backdrop of the employment disaster of Pfizer's closure, York Aviation (doubtless aided and abetted by Manston's PR agency, Maxim) will seek to present Thanet District Council with the "choice" of granting night flights, or destroying Kent's economy for years to come. Of course, this is not a corner that TDC wants to be painted into. The reason TDC marked Manton's last application "return to sender", and cancelled the public consultation on the very day it was due to start, was that the application was simply too vague and opaque for anyone to make any sense of. As Cllr Bayford said at the time:

I believe that, before residents have their say, they need to know more detail and have a full understanding of exactly how many aircraft movements are being discussed. That information is difficult to gauge from the proposals that have been put to us, partly because of its technical nature and this needs further work. 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. I am pleased to say that the airport has agreed to review these issues.

That was 1st November 2010. Since then, Manston has conspicuously failed to produce any clarification of its numbers, or to "reconsider" them. If night flights really are that important to the airport's future, surely Manston would have put every effort into striking a workable compromise at the earliest opportunity.

A reader writes

I have recently moved to Ramsgate, after visiting a friend for five years I fell in love with it and so moved with my whole family. I heard the odd plane when visiting BUT if there were to be night flights I would without a doubt move. These aren't just planes but huge loud cargo carriers sounding like they are going to actually land on your house.

A taxi driver said to my sister "why move here if you knew there was an airport". Sorry, but is it not good for the area for people to relocate and renovate the dilapidated houses and spend money in the shops and bars, invite friends down who do the same?! Moving near an airport where planes fly in the day time is acceptable but not during the night when you work!

Of course, I forgot about the "extremely high" unemployment rate in Thanet, maybe it's the people who don't work that don't mind this going ahead. They promise more jobs, utterly ridiculous, How many more? I've heard from the meetings, it's just a CEO's promises, total lies to get very few ignorant people on board. It's obvious they would be minimal, night flights would NOT outweigh people moving from the area and losing much needed sleep when you work 10 hour days.

I'm amazed!

Regards,

SB

Woken in the small hours, 10th July

Thanet District Council's Penny Button Penny.Button@thanet.gov.uk has special responsibility for Manston Airport. Here's what she had to say to one of the many unhappy residents who contacted her:

---

Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding an aircraft movement associated with Kent International Airport. The statutory powers available to Thanet District Council to deal with noise exclude aircraft noise, however, we do have a voluntary Town & Country Planning Act S106 agreement with the airport operator which contains some sanctions with regard to aircraft movements.

This agreement allows for departures to European destinations or arrivals from North America by solely passenger carrying aircraft scheduled to occur between 0600 and 0700 hours on any day where the aircraft involved in the operation have a noise classification of Quota Count 4 or less. A Quota Count is the degree of noise created by the aircraft both at take off and landing and is based on the certified noise levels of the aircraft.

The agreement also allows for humanitarian mercy or emergency flights by relief organisations during the night on not more than 12 occasions during any calendar year.

The agreement contains a scheme of fines for aircraft movements at night. The airport owner is required to pay a fine if an aircraft with a Quota Count in excess of QC4 undertakes a flight movement during the night. If the same plane undertakes another night-time movement in the following 12 months the amount payable will increase by a factor of two for each occasion.

I have investigated the incident you referred to and can confirm that the plane which arrived at 03:33 on 10 July 2011 was a delayed arrival of an Iceland Air plane. This plane movement is not subject to a fine under the agreement as it has a QC classification of QC4 or less.

---

Motionless

Predetermination: valid concern or convenient cover story?

Cock-up or conspiracy? A question that keeps popping into my head whenever I look at the long-standing and slipshod relationship between TDC and Manston. Today's source of wonderment is the aborted motion on night flights at the 14th July TDC Council meeting.

The snippet of Labour press release reproduced below gives one side of the story. Political hot air to one side, it appears that the motion regarding night flights was scotched at the very last minute, rather than at any point in the preceding month or so. Incompetence on the part of officers for accepting an ill-formed or illegal motion? Or what passes for political finesse on the part of the majority party?

I have yet to see the full legal advice (do please send in your copy), but my team of researchers tell me that me that Bevan Brittan's advice was that even debating the motion could be construed as predetermining any possible future application from Manston.

I've long been puzzled by this predetermination thing, so I hunted around and found a very helpful explanation on the Local Government Lawyer website:

The courts recognise two types of predetermination – actual and apparent:

• Actual predetermination is when a person has closed their mind to all considerations other than an already held view.
• Apparent predetermination is where a fair-minded and well-informed observer, looking objectively at all circumstances, considers that there is a real risk that one or more of the decision-makers has refused even to consider a relevant argument or would refuse to consider a new argument.

The courts have accepted that ... the fair-minded and informed observer accepts that:

1. Manifesto commitments and policy statements which are consistent with a preparedness to consider and weigh relevant factors when reaching the final decision, are examples of legitimate predisposition, not predetermination.
2. The fact that the member concerned has received relevant training and has agreed to be bound by a Code of Conduct is a consideration to which some weight can properly be attached when determining an issue of apparent predetermination.
3. Previously expressed views on matters which arise for decision in the ordinary run of events are routine and members and councillors can be trusted, whatever their previously expressed views, to approach decision-making with an open mind.
4. To suspect predetermination because all members of a single political group have voted for it is an unwarranted interference with the democratic process.
5. Members and councillors are likely to have and are entitled to have, a disposition in favour of particular decisions: an open mind is not an empty mind but it is ajar.

What has become evident is that the threshold, in the context of administrative decisions, on the test of apparent predetermination, is an extremely difficult test to satisfy. Unless there is positive evidence that there was indeed a closed mind, prior observations or apparent favouring of a particular decision is unlikely to be sufficient to establish predetermination.

My reading of this is that it would have been perfectly acceptable for TDC to debate what their policy on night flights should be (with or without a proposal on the table), regardless of individual election platforms or manifesto pledges. What do you think?

---

Press release from Thanet Labour:

3) THE LEGAL ADVICE:

The TDC Legal Monitoring Officer advised the Chairman that the motion could not be allowed for complex legal reasons and pointed to a letter of advice from Bevan Brittan LLP (dated 14th July - the very day of the meeting) that had been left on councillors seats just minutes before the start of the meeting.

4) THE OUTRAGE

An intense debate on the extremely late legal advice followed in which Labour councillors explained that the motion had been handed in person by Cllr Hart to the Legal Monitoring Officer more than five weeks before the meeting on the 7th June and that the Monitoring Officer had read it and accepted it as a valid motion. A month later the motion had also been accepted onto and clearly printed in the council agenda as item 8a.

During the debate it also became clear that on the evening before Thursday's council meeting (13th July) Cllr Bayford, the Conservative Council Leader, had raised objections to the motion and that as a direct consequence further legal advice had been requested on the very day of the council meeting.

After the meeting Cllr Clive Hart said:

"TDC had my written motion to council for more than five weeks and the only thing I was aware of during the whole of that period was that it had been accepted onto and printed in the council agenda. The motion was submitted to support the councils own TDC Airport Working Party recommendations that had been 'left off' of the agenda of an Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting in error and the actual wording of the motion simply confirmed the basis of the existing 106 agreement that the Conservative administration had failed to review for the past eight years".

bit.ly/q9a3Xp