Sandy sure is guilty

​A unanimous verdict on all counts. Cue lots of tutting, head-shaking and eye-rolling across Thanet and east Kent. Cue many changes of underwear at TDC, as the police widen their enquiries...

---

Former Conservative Thanet council leader Sandy Ezekiel has been found guilty of four counts of misconduct in public office.

Ezekiel, 59, has been on trial at Maidstone Crown Court to answer charges of using confidential information to buy a property for himself , trying to force the owner of a neighbouring building to sell up by instigating enforcement proceedings against him, failing to disclose his interest in two Margate properties to Thanet council and misconduct in public office.

A jury brought back a unanimous verdict of guilty on all charges this afternoon.Co-accused Philip Emanual, 64,of Margate has also been found guilty of aiding and abetting Ezekiel by acting as a proxy buyer for 12a King Street.

The offences took place between September 2009 and February 2011. Ezekiel used inside council information on bids for a12B King Street, Margate, to secure the property for himself.

He then got pal Emanuel, who was best man at his wedding, to act as a proxy buyer for the property, and used his  position to ask for enforcement proceedings be brought against Alan Douglas , owner of 12A King Street, to persuade him to sell that property.

He failed to disclose his interest in 12B  to the council or Mr Douglas until after the sale had been agreed.

It is thought to be one of the first cases of a councillor being convicted of such a charge. Misconduct in public office is a rare offence but sentencing guidelines usually involve a custodial term.

Judge Andrew Nicol has retired to consider pre-sentence reports for the pair with sentencing due later this afternoon [1st March 2013].

thisiskent 1st March 2013

---

Thanet councillors and officials are under investigation in the wake of the trial of former leader Sandy Ezekiel.

Property deals and personal interests of politicians and public servants, past and present, are being probed by police after extensive research and interviews with figures past and present. Several former elected members could face further questioning for undeclared business connections to developers and council contracts.

A Kent Police detective confirmed that officers are gathering evidence on several cases of major planning applications where councillors or officers may have had an undeclared personal interest in a scheme. The council is under increasing pressure to disclose more information about high-profile developments and the expenditure of European Regional Development Fund money.

Separately, the independent Information Commissioner, responsible for openness in public life and data privacy, is investigating claims of a Thanet council cover-up, after the authority has repeatedly refused to comply with requests under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Most senior councillors conduct official business on personal e-mail accounts and therefore communication on matters in the public interest may have remained hidden from view.

A council spokesman said:

"Councillors carry out both TDC public duties, which are subject to FOI, and constituency business and surgeries, which may often be referred to as council business, but as private individuals they are not subject to FOI where any council inspection of these e-mails would be tantamount to hacking."

FOI legislation is clear: information commissioner Christopher Graham said in his 2011 guidance to councils:

"It should not come as a surprise to public authorities to have the clarification that information in private e-mail can be subject to Freedom of Information law if it relates to official business. This has always been the case – the act covers all recorded information in any form."

thisiskent 1st March 2013

AWP postponement explained

Some TDC Members aren't happy with some TDC Officers. Well, an Officer.

---

Subject: CANCELLATION OF AIRPORT WORKING PARTY MEETING

Dear Members of the Airport Working Party,

I am cancelling the Airport Working Party meeting which is scheduled for tomorrow [19th Feb] for the following reasons:

1.    The paperwork was circulated too late for any useful discussion with officers as to its contents (or lack thereof).

2.    My recollection from the original meeting was that the report should focus on what we as a council can do to support economic growth using the airport - and this question has not been addressed in the report.

I am sorry that Members (and indeed others who may have planned to attend from the press and public) may have been inconvenienced. I myself only had sight of the report this Saturday morning (16th February).

As well as asking Democratic Services to circulate AWP members and any others who usually attend, I will ask for Members to be phoned to ensure you receive the notification in time, however as Charles Hungwe is on leave this week, I am also writing to you directly. Could you please advise any substitute member you may have selected about the cancellation, and anyone from the public you are aware of who planned to attend.

I wish it to go on record that I am truly shocked that a report which was requested in October for a January meeting – and which was then delayed several weeks as it was not complete, has not been available until two (working) days before the meeting. This shows a complete lack of respect for Scrutiny and for the members of the working party. That the report only amounted to four pages really added insult to injury!

The report, “The role of Manston International Airport in a new regeneration strategy and overall economic strategy for Thanet” should be a key strategic document. Therefore I can only surmise that either there is no work being done on this vital topic (despite the request from Scrutiny), or we are not being allowed access to the council’s emerging regeneration and economic development policies, which is equally disturbing.

Either way, it makes a mockery of Scrutiny.

Since the main Scrutiny Panel agreed just last week to recommend that the remit and number of Scrutiny committees be widened, we need to seriously reflect on the purpose of the recommendation and its likely effectiveness if not supported by the administration.

Jo Gideon, Chairman, Airport Working Party

Airport Working Party meeting Tuesday 19th Feb

NEWSFLASH: This meeting has now been postponed. No new date has yet been set.

Oh joy of joys - another opportunity to see Thanet's finest in action (inaction?). The greybeards and hotheads will be getting together to apply their minds to the knotty problem of whether and how Manston might contribute to Thanet's glowing future.

Venue: Austen Room, Council Offices, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent. Click HERE for the Agenda etc.

The main topic of conversation promises to be a report from Rob Hetherington, TDC's Economic & Regeneration Manager (see below for an annotated version).

The Role of Manston International Airport in a New Regeneration Strategy by NoNightFlights

Agenda for Public KIACC meeting

KENT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

MEETING IN PUBLIC - in the Airport Departure Lounge

Friday 30th November 2012 6.30pm

AGENDA

1. Chairman's welcome & opening
2. Minutes of last meeting
3. Matters Arising
4. Short introduction to the public part of the Meeting by P Twyman, Chair of KIACC
5. Short presentations from Community Fund recipients
6. Report from the Airport Management - a presentation on the airport and its future (Charles Buchanan, CEO Manston Airport)
7. Thanet District Council – an update on the Council's position on the airport and its development; the work of the Airport Working Party; and views on the future (Cllr Hart, Leader of the Council has been invited to speak)
8. Questions from the public and discussion

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.

Night Flights vote - press coverage

Vote against Manston Airport night flights plan

BBC 25th May 2012

Plans for night flights from Manston Airport in Kent have been opposed by Thanet District Council. At a meeting on Thursday, the Labour-controlled council voted against all night flights to or from the airport. Charles Buchanan, the airport's chief executive, said:

"We are disappointed the council is not supporting the airport as much as it could."

In March, owners Infratil announced plans to sell Manston and Glasgow's Prestwick Airport. Mr Buchanan said the airport wanted to run "a small number" of scheduled night flights. He said the owners had received legal advice that two flights per night, on average, did not constitute "an increase in activity over and above that which is already permitted", and they could go ahead without needing extra planning permission. Mr Buchanan said a number of companies were interested in taking up the opportunity.

"They would also bring the rest of their daytime schedule to the airport as well. Without that they'll go to airports where they have that flexibility."

Council research showed that 73% of some 2,000 residents questioned were against the proposal, citing potential noise levels and disturbance to sleep as their primary reasons for objecting. The airport currently deals with passenger and commercial aircraft with a runway capable of taking Boeing 747s and Airbus A380s. Its refurbished terminal is capable of handling up to 700,000 passengers a year.

---

Thanet Council says "no" to night flights

Thanet Gazette 25th May 2012

MANSTON airport's plans to run as many as eight flights a night failed to get the support of Thanet District Council last night after a final crunch vote. Opinions divided along party lines at the extraordinary council meeting as the Labour administration motioned a rejection of the airport's proposals.

Council leader Clive Hart said the council's consultation response was based on the results of an independent review of the airport's proposals and the council's own consultation with residents. Conservatives argued that a vote against night flights was a vote against jobs for the area. Conservative group leader Bob Bayford said that a ban on all aircraft movements between 11pm and 7am was a "straight jacket" for the airport:

"At best it will delay the development of the airport, a worst it will kill the airport."

Mr Bayford added that it was "dangerous" for the council to base its response on a "seriously flawed" in-house consultation in which 73 percent of respondents opposed night time flying. Laughter came from the packed public gallery when Mr Bayford pointed out the Manston Airport's own consultation of residents showed 79 per cent being in support of night flights.

Mr Hart defended the in-house consultation saying it had the greatest response of any to date:

"The results have been extremely conclusive and it wasn't at all close."

The response stated the council's support of the day-time operation of Manston airport but said the council would not support night-time flying on the basis of its own consultation and the council-commissioned Parsons-Brinckerhoff report. Listing the objections, the report said the noise and environmental impacts had been underestimated by airport, the economic benefits of night flights were overestimated and that the impact on Thanet's tourism would be detrimental.

It also pointed to concerns raised in the World Health Organisation's assessment of the impacts of disturbed sleep and added that the night flight proposals had not considered Article 8 of the Human rights Act- the right to respect for private and family life.

The motion to adopt the response was won after Labour got the support of the council's two independent groups. The Conservatives voted unanimously not to support the response but were out-numbered. Phil Rose of the No Night Flights campaign and Charles Buchanan, chief executive of Manston Airport, watched the meeting from the public gallery. Mr Rose said:

"It is a good result and I am very, very pleased that the council came out following the recommendations of the independent reports. They have listened to the views of the people."

Mr Buchanan said the airport will take the vote into consideration and formulate its response:

"All we have ever asked for a limited number of night flights with mitigation measures. The result is disappointing but entirely predictable."

The council's response will not be binding as the council is only a consultee in Manston's own consultation of its night-time flying policy. A separate residents' petition against night flights, presented to the council last week, was also noted. It had collected 2682 signatures but only 777 were valid as the others did not include an address.

---

Manston chiefs attack council over night flight decision

kentnews May 25, 2012

Manston Airport chiefs say they are “very disappointed” after Thanet District Council last night voted to oppose night flights from the Thanet airfield. As part of the consultation process, the council saw a heated debate over its position. The Conservatives on the council were open to the suggestion, while the ruling Labour group were opposed.

Speaking this morning, chief executive of Manston, Charles Buchanan, said:

We are clearly very disappointed by this stance as it is completely inconsistent with the council’s stated policy to support the airport’s success as a creator of thousands of much needed jobs. The position the council adopted last night is also in sharp contrast to its leader Clive Hart’s stated assertion of ‘the council’s recognition of Manston Airport as an economic asset to Thanet’.

The council’s response contradicts the conclusions of the report from its own consultant Parson Brinckerhoff, which identifies that a ban on night time flying, in relation to passenger services, would: ‘almost certainly prohibit a large number of potential carriers’. Its consultant also recognises that with respect to freight operations, the absence of night flights ‘would undoubtedly hinder the ability of Manston to attract either regular flights or a based operator’.

It is this ability to attract passenger and freight services that will fundamentally determine whether the airport is an economic asset for Thanet, as well as providing the travel advantages for local people using their local airport. Importantly, the council which has sought to question Manston’s own economic impact report, has once again contradicted the conclusions of its consultants own report into the impact of the airport, which stated that: ‘…we are satisfied with the approach and values used for the economic assessment’.

Given that Parson Brinckerhoff acknowledges that they themselves only have ‘some relatively minor queries’, we are very surprised that the council has adopted such a negative approach towards the airport and its economic impact assessment. We will now obviously consider the council’s response before providing them, as a consultee on night-flights, with a reasoned reply in due course.

---

Manston night flights formally opposed by Thanet District Council

kentonline May 25 2012

Plans for night flights at Manston airport have suffered a big setback after councillors voted against the idea. Cabinet members of Thanet District Council had already said they would not support the bid by Kent International Airport. However, a full council meeting last night formally opposed the idea of night flights.

Manston wants some planes taking off and landing between 11pm and 7am. Scheduled night flights were suggested at the airport to help increase air capacity. But councillors decided the proposed scheduled flights would be too noisy and have too great an environmental impact. A consultation found three quarters of people living nearby also did not want night flights.

Charles Buchanan, chief executive of Manston Airport, said:

We are clearly very disappointed by this stance as it is completely inconsistent with the council’s stated policy to support the airport’s success as a creator of thousands of much needed jobs. The position the council adopted last night is also in sharp contrast to its leader Clive Hart’s stated assertion of ‘the council’s recognition of Manston Airport as an economic asset to Thanet’. Ironically at a time when the government is recognising the role that Manston could play a part in supporting the south east, by making use of existing under-utilised runway capacity, Thanet is apparently rejecting the opportunity to build its economy and create thousands of jobs.

The immediate conclusion is that despite the council’s stated support for the airport, the leadership has refused to recognise the operational flexibility that its own expert identifies as being necessary for that success. One can only guess why they have chosen such a course and put at risk one of the engines for the long term prosperity of Thanet. We will now obviously consider the council’s response before providing them, as a consultee on night-flights, with a reasoned reply in due course.

---

Thursday 24th May

TDC have drawn up a draft response to Manston's proposal for night flights. Their response is informed by advice from independent experts, and guided by the result of the recent public consultation.

The answer is "No", and on Thursday they'll be voting to confirm that as their official position.

This may be your chance to let them know how you would like them to vote.

Costs and Benefits

The current TDC administration, like all the previous administrations, is keen for the airport to succeed. The question of scheduled night flights at Manston has been discussed and debated, researched and reported. Councillors have travelled the country to see what happens at other airports. Boffins have churned out graphs, maps and tables. Legal eagles have had their say.

The upshot is that the costs of scheduled night flights outweigh the benefits - it's that simple.

Thanet District Council is a hung council - roughly equal number of Labour and Conservative, with a relatively small number of Independents holding the balance.

• Labour stood on a manifesto pledge to oppose scheduled night flights, so there will be a lot of pressure from the Labour leadership on all Labour councillors to toe the party line and vote in support of the draft response.
• The Conservatives have promised their members a free vote on the issue. With my cynical head on, though, I can never be certain just how "free" party members really are when it comes to a free vote - I guess we'll see on the night.
• The Independents are in the happy position of being able to punch well above their weight. On any issue that is split cleanly on party political lines, they are able to decide the outcome (if they vote as a block, that is).

Influence

So... what can you do to make a difference? The answer is literally at your fingertips - a quick email to some councillors.

The obvious place to start (if you live in Thanet) is with your own local ward councillors - click HERE to find out who they are, by typing in your post code.

Or you can click HERE to track down councillors by their party political persuasion.

They may be getting a lot of emails on the subject, so it might be worth keeping it short and sweet - just say how you would like them to vote, with a brief explanation.

Be there

Thanet District Council will be discussing their response to Manston's night flights proposal at 7pm in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Cecil Street, Margate. It's a public meeting (of course), so you're free to come along and see how your own local councillors vote.

Be warned though - for no good reason I can think of, there are no public loos available in the TDC Offices after office hours... so go before you go!

Documents

• TDC's response
• The Agenda item, and background, for Thursday
• Independent expert report, commissioned by TDC, looking at the most recent (2011) night flights proposal - from Parsons Brinckerhoff
• Independent expert report, commissioned by TDC, looking at the previous (2010) night flights proposal - from Bureau Veritas

Crunch vote on Manston night flights coming soon

A crunch vote on night flights will take place this month as Thanet council prepares to give its final views. Councillors have to choose whether to support plans for up to eight flights a night between 11pm and 7am.

Last week, the Labour cabinet was accused of being "anti-airport" when it agreed that, in response to the airport's consultation, it would not support night flights.

Former cabinet member for finance, Martin Wise, heckled council leader Clive Hart three times as he read out the council's draft response based on its own consultation. After the meeting, Mr Wise said:

"Following this sham consultation, it is clear the Labour group is totally against night flights and the airport, which needs to secure business for it to grow. The consultation has only attracted comments from those against the airport but it should have considered everybody. There is high unemployment in Thanet and people need jobs the airport will create."

Addressing the chamber, Mr Hart said the council consultation had shown 73 per cent of responses were against night-time flying while 26 per cent were in favour. One per cent did not express a clear opinion either way. He said:

"This clearly demonstrates that a large number of residents, and particularly those living under the flight path, were against the introduction of night-time flying."

He went on to say that the council-commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff report found that noise thresholds suggested by the airport's owners Infratil were likely to understate the actual noise impact on residents. He also included amendments to the original draft from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee drawing attention to World Health Organisation's assessment of the impacts of disturbed sleep, the effect of night flights on the tourism industry and Section 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Director of Manston airport Charles Buchanan said:

"The text of the response is fundamentally the same. It doesn't recognise the significant element of the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report which says a ban on night time flying would almost certainly prohibit a large number of potential carriers. A total ban on night flights sends the wrong message to business. We have proposed limits and a mitigation programme which the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report says goes further than that required by current Government guidance."

The council will vote on whether to support proposals for night flights at an extraordinary meeting on Thursday, May 24th.

thisiskent 15th May 2012

Location matters more than night flights

Night flights are not "make or break" for Manston airport, it will struggle regardless - that's the claim from Phil Rose of the No Night Flights group, which is campaigning against proposals to introduce scheduled flights between 11pm and 7am from Manston airport.

Mr Rose poured scorn on claims by the district's Conservative group that ending restrictions would improve the airport's fortunes. He said:

"It is not make or break. What is make or break for Manston is its location. The reason a series of carriers have pulled out, and the reason Infratil is selling the airport, is because of its location – surrounded on three sides by sea with a much smaller catchment area than other airports."

Mr Rose points out that not only does the successful London City Airport have no night flights but Prestwick Airport, also owned by Infratil and also up for sale, does. Norwich and Southampton Airports do not have night flights, except in exceptional circumstances. Other regional airports that have night flights include Southend which, despite seeing passenger numbers soar with the arrival of EasyJet this year, runs on average just over 400 night flights a year – 1.5 flights a night - far from the eight which Infratil's proposals would make possible.

On Thursday Thanet council will vote on whether to support Manston airport's night-flight policy. The submission was made to the authority last November. The council's draft response, was brought before the cabinet only last week after it was agreed with amendments by the authority's Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

It does not support night flights.

The report, written by the council's community services manager Madeline Homer, is based on the council-commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff report. It also includes the results of a 28-day consultation in which residents were asked for their views. Shadow cabinet member, Tory Councillor Martin Wise has accused Labour of being "anti-airport" for supporting a total ban on night flights.

Both sides have accused the other of cherry-picking information from the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report.

Labour claim the council's report supports the consultants' view that the airport had underestimated the potential negative impacts of night flying and overestimated the economic benefit. Airport chief executive Charles Buchanan strongly disagrees. Mr Buchanan said the draft response did not recognise a significant element of the Parsons Brinckerhoff report which said "A ban on night time flying would almost certainly prohibit a large number of potential carriers". He added that the draft response ignored the fact the independent report said the airport's mitigation programme "goes further than that required by current Government guidance." The Conservatives agree with Mr Buchanan: the points made in the draft response were not borne out by the consultants' report.

No Night Flights, unsurprisingly, do not agree. Mr Rose said:

"Mr Buchanan is cherry-picking a few bits that are complimentary and it ignoring the vast majority of the report. The report pointed out that if Manston does not have night flights it does not prevent it from attracting new business. It said that not having night flights would deny it having just three per cent of its freight market. This alone will not decide the airport's fate."

Thursday's vote looks likely to be drawn down party lines, with Labour committed in its election manifesto to opposing night flights. The Conservatives have promised its members a free vote. With Labour holding the leadership of the council only by the support of one of the authority's two Independent groups, the decision of councillors Ian Driver, John Worrow, Jack Cohen, Tom King and Bob Grove would appear to be crucial.

thisiskent 18th May 2012