Planning permission for Manston

Manston airport sale "a chance to introduce proper planning"

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

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

The Campaign to Protect Rural England says the sale is an ideal chance for Thanet council to put into force planning regulations protecting the interests of residents

Click to read more ...

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.

Click to read more ...

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.

Click to read more ...

Laura Sandys gets political

Updated on Jan 30, 2012 at 23:42 by HBM

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.)

Click to read more ...

Council Report Pans Night Flights Proposal

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

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

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

TDC’s brief to PB was:

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

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

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

Some key findings from the PB report:

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

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

---

Next installment: It’s all about freight

---

Planning Problems

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

Click to read more ...

Support from CPRE Protect Kent

Thanet District Committee

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

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

Click to read more ...

Planning permission needed for Manston

Cllr Clive Hart - Leader of Thanet Labour Group:

I'm pleased to see that the Conservative group at TDC agree with us that the current night flying application is unacceptable. I wish to make it absolutely clear that our Labour Group is supportive...

Click to read more ...

Political Posturing on Night Flights

'Dr' Simon Moores started things this morning with the question "Thanet Labour Disqualified from Taking Part in Manston Night Flight Decision?" Playing on the total confusion around the subject of predetermination rules, our Simes suggests that the airport night flight decision is a "planning-related matter". Labour councillors, by rejecting the "current" application just as Bob Bayford did yesterday, seem to have pre-judged a planning matter publicly.

Click to read more ...