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."
HBM
RESPONSE from Cllr Clive Hart: Thanet Labour decision is reasonable, proportionate & appropriate
Let me be absolutely clear.
My decision to change the public consultation on night flights proposals at Manston follows legal advice given to the council which explains that at this stage, the proposals DO NOT require a planning application. Just as importantly, the advice goes on to state that the council’s role is one of CONSULTEE ONLY and as such the council will not be in a position to make a binding decision on night time flying at this stage.
My Conservative predecessor Cllr Bob Bayford had already spent several months and tens of thousands of pounds on this process before Labour took control of the council. His plans would have seen the council spend around a further £50,000 of public money on consultants to run the consultation process his way. Cllr Bayford may have been content to use ratepayers hard earned cash in this way and apparently Laura Sandys would like us do the same, but Labour will do precisely what is reasonable, proportionate and appropriate.
As for Laura Sandys' accusation that I am in some way 'watering down' the process, nothing could be further from the truth. The new TDC consultation process approach will now be focused here in Thanet with a strong weighting for the opinions of those directly affected by the proposals. I firmly believe this to be reasonable, proportionate and appropriate.
It is clear my Conservative predecessor was struggling with this issue. He had created a monster of a process that had got completely out of control. It would have left the council in the ridiculous position of spending enormous amounts of time and effort and a small fortune of public money on a consultation process that was only ever going to be used to form the council's 'opinion'.
Thanet residents, the airport consultative committee and the airports Chief Executive all complained to me about the long drawn out process we had inherited from the previous Conservative administration that was getting us nowhere. I therefore acted swiftly and did exactly what was reasonable, proportionate and appropriate.
Last but not least, I am pleased to see that on the serious issue of the environmental impact of the proposals, Laura Sandys shares exactly the same concerns as Thanet Labour and is firmly against night flights!
Cllr Clive Hart - TDC Leader.
Bob Bayford, Consultation, Laura Sandys MP, Planning, S106 Manston, Night flights, TDC
Reader Comments (9)
The problem comes when defining whether there is a "material change of use"
The best course for "NoNightFlights" is to convince TDC through the consultation process that a "material change of use" is taking place.
http://in2thanet.blogspot.com/2012/01/night-flight-consultation-response.html
A planning application is no guarantee that the night flights will be stopped but at least all the pros and cons can be adequately examined, rather than swept under the carpet.
It is therefore very important to recognise the truth if you wish to mount a legal challenge.
And as far as there being no night flights, where do all the fines come from, and what are those noisy things going over my house at night.
As I have said before don't get on to me I am on your side, but to fight this intelligently we must recognise the true situation under planning law.
After making several enquiries it would appear that this particular consultation does not have clear pre-determined strategies for:-
1. communicating the issues to be considered by the public and catering for diversity
2. giving the public sufficient time to consider the issues
3. being clear about how the public should respond so that their views are clear and facilitating the easy return of responses
4. letting the public know how their views will help the council make it's decision if any
5. identifying all those with an interest, so that all those affected are encouraged to participate
6. letting the public know how their views will be weighted when there has as yet been no clarification of affected postcodes
This list is not exhaustive.........
Is that Exhaustive or exhausted, as I am in a spin about this consultation.
There is no excuse for the incompetance that has been shown in this apology for a consultation. I don't care if the councillors say they know what there doing on the quiet and we should trust them in this. It's not a fucking school debating society. The outcome of this consultation is only a part of what the council should be doing to ensure that this community and their electorate are treated fairly and lawfully.
http://thanetpress.blogspot.com/2012/02/thanet-gets-its-own-private-eye.html