MANSTON -3
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kent
Age: 76
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manston Airport - Airside building Change of Use Enquiry.
Inspector sides with RiverOak Strategic Partners(RSP) on all four counts,
Dismisses Stone Hill Park Appeals.
This Enquiry concerned the possible change of use of four key airside buildings - if they had been converted to non airport use, this would have seriously compromised the ability to handle cargo on the airport.
However these appeals were rejected, and all Manston Airport remains designated as an airport.
Planning Inspectorate :
Overall Conclusions and Planning Balance
47. The relevant legislation requires that the appeal be determined in accordance with the statutory development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework states that proposals should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is defined by the economic, social, and environmental dimensions and the interrelated roles they perform.
48. I have carefully considered the various arguments made by the appellant in support of these appeals. The re-use of the buildings would generate certain economic benefits, although as the appellant notes, they would be relatively modest. The proposals could be seen as making efficient use of existing underused buildings, and as a pragmatic response to the fact that the airport has not been operational since 2014. I have also weighed in the balance that the Council has changed its original stance, and is no longer resisting these appeals.
49. Balanced against these factors is the conflict with the adopted development plan, which recognises the economic importance of the airport and safeguards the appeal site for aviation uses. Such an approach is in accordance with the Framework and with national aviation policy. In these respects, I consider Policy EC4 continues to carry significant weight in the overall planning balance.
I make no judgement on the merits or otherwise of RSP’s plans, or their future success. However, given a DCO application is currently being prepared, the possibility of the site being used as an airport in the future cannot be ruled out.
This being so, and until a new policy framework exists at the airport, I see little justification for departing from adopted development plan policy which identifies the appeal site as falling within the ‘Airside Development Area’ where aviation uses are appropriate.
50. I have taken account of the appellant’s contention that the resumption of airport use by RSP would not be prejudiced or compromised if these appeals were allowed because any future DCO would likely include compulsory purchase powers to secure vacant possession of the airport. However, I am not persuaded that granting permission for development that does not accord with the development plan can be justified on the basis that compulsory purchase powers can be used to reverse it in the future.
51. I have taken into consideration the latest emerging local planning policy which proposes to re-designate the airport for mixed use development. However, the consultation process has only recently occurred and the emerging Plan is subject to various outstanding objections and its policies may change. In accordance with Paragraph 216 of the Framework, I find little weight can be given to the emerging policy.
52. Overall, I conclude that the appeal schemes would conflict with Policy EC4 of the Local Plan, as well as its wider economic development and regeneration objectives. The proposals would conflict with the Council’s current approach to the location of new development within the airport, which is consistent with national policy. The benefits of the scheme put forward by the appellants do not justify departure from Policy EC4 of the Local Plan. Hence I find there are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would warrant a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeals should be dismissed.
Inspector sides with RiverOak Strategic Partners(RSP) on all four counts,
Dismisses Stone Hill Park Appeals.
This Enquiry concerned the possible change of use of four key airside buildings - if they had been converted to non airport use, this would have seriously compromised the ability to handle cargo on the airport.
However these appeals were rejected, and all Manston Airport remains designated as an airport.
- SHP and TDC Plans in Tatters
- Following the decision by the Planning Inspector to dismiss the Change of Use Appeal, a number of things become clear:
- The Avia report is now totally discredited.
- The saved Policy EC4 stands so aviation only at Manston.
- The 2017 Revised SP05 Local plan for Manston must be scrapped.
- 2500 houses must be reallocated so SP11 will also have to be changed.
- SHP Planning Application must be put on hold for the foreseeable future.
Planning Inspectorate :
Overall Conclusions and Planning Balance
47. The relevant legislation requires that the appeal be determined in accordance with the statutory development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework states that proposals should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is defined by the economic, social, and environmental dimensions and the interrelated roles they perform.
48. I have carefully considered the various arguments made by the appellant in support of these appeals. The re-use of the buildings would generate certain economic benefits, although as the appellant notes, they would be relatively modest. The proposals could be seen as making efficient use of existing underused buildings, and as a pragmatic response to the fact that the airport has not been operational since 2014. I have also weighed in the balance that the Council has changed its original stance, and is no longer resisting these appeals.
49. Balanced against these factors is the conflict with the adopted development plan, which recognises the economic importance of the airport and safeguards the appeal site for aviation uses. Such an approach is in accordance with the Framework and with national aviation policy. In these respects, I consider Policy EC4 continues to carry significant weight in the overall planning balance.
I make no judgement on the merits or otherwise of RSP’s plans, or their future success. However, given a DCO application is currently being prepared, the possibility of the site being used as an airport in the future cannot be ruled out.
This being so, and until a new policy framework exists at the airport, I see little justification for departing from adopted development plan policy which identifies the appeal site as falling within the ‘Airside Development Area’ where aviation uses are appropriate.
50. I have taken account of the appellant’s contention that the resumption of airport use by RSP would not be prejudiced or compromised if these appeals were allowed because any future DCO would likely include compulsory purchase powers to secure vacant possession of the airport. However, I am not persuaded that granting permission for development that does not accord with the development plan can be justified on the basis that compulsory purchase powers can be used to reverse it in the future.
51. I have taken into consideration the latest emerging local planning policy which proposes to re-designate the airport for mixed use development. However, the consultation process has only recently occurred and the emerging Plan is subject to various outstanding objections and its policies may change. In accordance with Paragraph 216 of the Framework, I find little weight can be given to the emerging policy.
52. Overall, I conclude that the appeal schemes would conflict with Policy EC4 of the Local Plan, as well as its wider economic development and regeneration objectives. The proposals would conflict with the Council’s current approach to the location of new development within the airport, which is consistent with national policy. The benefits of the scheme put forward by the appellants do not justify departure from Policy EC4 of the Local Plan. Hence I find there are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would warrant a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeals should be dismissed.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remain in admiration of your commitment to the cause, but also confusion and bewilderment at your commitment to the cause.
However this doesn't mean that it's acceptable to mislead, which you have started to do first gently and more recently increasingly less so.
I would therefore politely point out that your bullet points bare only the vaguest connection to the rest of what you posted. In particular a and c do not follow, d follows only temporarily, and e and f do not follow. g is correct, though. I find it disappointing that a man of your skills, and who is undoubtedly capable of communicating clearly and accurately, would use his communication skills they way that recently you have started to do :-(
However this doesn't mean that it's acceptable to mislead, which you have started to do first gently and more recently increasingly less so.
I would therefore politely point out that your bullet points bare only the vaguest connection to the rest of what you posted. In particular a and c do not follow, d follows only temporarily, and e and f do not follow. g is correct, though. I find it disappointing that a man of your skills, and who is undoubtedly capable of communicating clearly and accurately, would use his communication skills they way that recently you have started to do :-(
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Thanet
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01475 is entirely correct. Dr Beau Webber your "bullet points" are pure fiction. We need to see the inspector's report in full but it would appear from his initial statement that he takes the view that the new local plan has not yet been implemented (mixed use development for the former airfield) so the old plan remains until the new one is adopted.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line is when Oliver Iny tried to develop Manston with TF by his side all the dreams were wild ones... we all remember the EU Jet operation! It might survive as a small regional airport offering a double daily to AMS with an ATR along with a few charters to the sun for SAGA / Cruise operators for fly cruise type stuff, but you'd actually be better using all that space and building massive hangars for MRO & Biz Jets with a heli-shuttle to town.
No matter what the dreams, to get that airfield back to licensed state with all of the fixed costs involved you can kiss goodbye to at least £10 mill and then you will be looking at a min of £3.5m + per annum in operating costs.
I somehow doubt TF has backers to the tune of £15 Mill+ in liquid cash for an airport surrounded by water on 3 sides!
No matter what the dreams, to get that airfield back to licensed state with all of the fixed costs involved you can kiss goodbye to at least £10 mill and then you will be looking at a min of £3.5m + per annum in operating costs.
I somehow doubt TF has backers to the tune of £15 Mill+ in liquid cash for an airport surrounded by water on 3 sides!
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Kent
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line is when Oliver Iny tried to develop Manston with TF by his side all the dreams were wild ones... we all remember the EU Jet operation! It might survive as a small regional airport offering a double daily to AMS with an ATR along with a few charters to the sun for SAGA / Cruise operators for fly cruise type stuff, but you'd actually be better using all that space and building massive hangars for MRO & Biz Jets with a heli-shuttle to town.
No matter what the dreams, to get that airfield back to licensed state with all of the fixed costs involved you can kiss goodbye to at least £10 mill and then you will be looking at a min of £3.5m + per annum in operating costs.
I somehow doubt TF has backers to the tune of £15 Mill+ in liquid cash for an airport surrounded by water on 3 sides!
No matter what the dreams, to get that airfield back to licensed state with all of the fixed costs involved you can kiss goodbye to at least £10 mill and then you will be looking at a min of £3.5m + per annum in operating costs.
I somehow doubt TF has backers to the tune of £15 Mill+ in liquid cash for an airport surrounded by water on 3 sides!
Although having seen the place recently, stripped down and decaying, I think the money would be nearer £40 million, all those skilled stuff have been scattered in the wind
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: london
Age: 58
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to costs of running manston always atopic I wonder if the rate payers of Kent are going to get a shock with the news that 16000 yes possible new houses are to be built around Canterbury as reported in local media and the proposed 5000 new houses on the manston site who will have to pay for new hospitals and services ? I know what I would go for let them carry on with the airport
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Thanet
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lotus- 2500 new houses on the former airfield not 5000. Housing on 1/3 of the site, 1/3 business use, 1/3 open green space. The housing allocation for Thanet has been made by central government. If it doesn't go on the former airfield it goes on greenfield or is added to existing residential areas
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: london
Age: 58
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter if it's 2500 houses do you think ramsgate Margate or even Canterbury health trusts are going to cope with these new houses can you imagine if reported in the local Kent news today that the green light has been given for the new development in Canterbury 16000 new houses in the area some one is going to have to pay for the services its logic?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Thanet
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Population growth is a reality of human existence and always has been. Facilities are provided by society as required. However this is an aviation forum so this discussion belongs elsewhere.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Each time the Doc may resurrect this thread with the latest Manston non-event, whether it be access being granted or a sparrow farting, it brings out the same old, or similar, responses to the effect that the Doc is dreaming or similar yet he conbnues posting here in belief that it helps Manston's cause, why give him the satisfaction!
Going back as far as the 1970's, perhaps earlier, all RAF Manston had based there were two yellow helicopters, since going commercial what movements has Manston had ... EU Jet would have had a maximum of 6 whispering Fokkers, KLM similarly a whispering Fokker twice a day, but neither of these operations lasted for very long, the occasional heavy freighter in for maintenance, for shooting a James Bond movie and occasionally one with a revenue load on it, occasionally an IT charter, a diversion, some circuits and bumps for crew training ... I mean that the number of movements at Manston has hardly been disturbing the 'Garden of England' existence.
Now what occurs to me that normally when there is a proposal for something noisy, particularly one that will involve noisy transports and pollution, the protesters will be out in their droves like when they proposed that Filton become a commercial airport, who remembers Swampy and the Newbury by-pass, additional runway(s) at STN, the farmer at Carlisle, the SEN expansion being another one but at Manston ... Nothing!
So my guess would be that the locals around Manston are relieved that it has closed and they've got better things to do than protest because they realise that the Doc and his misfits haven't got a hope in hell of getting it re-opened.
Going back as far as the 1970's, perhaps earlier, all RAF Manston had based there were two yellow helicopters, since going commercial what movements has Manston had ... EU Jet would have had a maximum of 6 whispering Fokkers, KLM similarly a whispering Fokker twice a day, but neither of these operations lasted for very long, the occasional heavy freighter in for maintenance, for shooting a James Bond movie and occasionally one with a revenue load on it, occasionally an IT charter, a diversion, some circuits and bumps for crew training ... I mean that the number of movements at Manston has hardly been disturbing the 'Garden of England' existence.
Now what occurs to me that normally when there is a proposal for something noisy, particularly one that will involve noisy transports and pollution, the protesters will be out in their droves like when they proposed that Filton become a commercial airport, who remembers Swampy and the Newbury by-pass, additional runway(s) at STN, the farmer at Carlisle, the SEN expansion being another one but at Manston ... Nothing!
So my guess would be that the locals around Manston are relieved that it has closed and they've got better things to do than protest because they realise that the Doc and his misfits haven't got a hope in hell of getting it re-opened.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the issue of the airport is causing political problems again...
Beverly Martin defection: UKIP loses control of its only council - BBC News
They must all know it's a dead duck. I suspect that once a party thinks they can still win the council while admitting this the majority of their non-delusional representatives will start saying it...
Beverly Martin defection: UKIP loses control of its only council - BBC News
In October 2015 five councillors defected from the UK's first UKIP authority due to concerns over the council's lack of action over Manston Airport.
...
"The first one when I became an independent was specifically on the issue of Manston.
...
"The first one when I became an independent was specifically on the issue of Manston.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Thanet
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The person highlighted in the news item in the above post pretty much illustrates the profile of the average person campaigning to open the former airfield. Aviation expert? Draw your own conclusions!
Last edited by deedave; 24th Jul 2017 at 03:09.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right ...
I might be half a world away but I have some guests staying with me at present, he now lives in Margate but he grew up in Ramsgate, we got on to discussing what the locals think that Manston may re-open..
He explained that a new town has sprung up between Margate and Ramsgate, I think called Weston Cross, it has been specifically populated by people from the London Borough of Lewisham and there is significant local animosity regarding.
As they have been informed there are two choices for the Manston airfield site, another new town housing even more people from the London Borough of Lewisham or an airport and given the two choices they'd prefer an airport.
But ... They have been bullsh1tted that a re-opened Manston would be an alternative to a 3rd runway at LHR, my guest I was talking with imagines jetting off to wherever from a re-opened Manston whilst all we hear here are plans for it to re-open as a, pretty much, dedicated freight airport ... even though the runway isn't long enough!
So somebody is bullsh1tting both locally in Thanet and here on PPRuNe and I think we all know who ... My guest questioned "Have you heard of the American investment group behind it?", I jokingly replied "Have you heard of who the t0sser is behind that American investment group?"
Keep up the good work Doc!
I might be half a world away but I have some guests staying with me at present, he now lives in Margate but he grew up in Ramsgate, we got on to discussing what the locals think that Manston may re-open..
He explained that a new town has sprung up between Margate and Ramsgate, I think called Weston Cross, it has been specifically populated by people from the London Borough of Lewisham and there is significant local animosity regarding.
As they have been informed there are two choices for the Manston airfield site, another new town housing even more people from the London Borough of Lewisham or an airport and given the two choices they'd prefer an airport.
But ... They have been bullsh1tted that a re-opened Manston would be an alternative to a 3rd runway at LHR, my guest I was talking with imagines jetting off to wherever from a re-opened Manston whilst all we hear here are plans for it to re-open as a, pretty much, dedicated freight airport ... even though the runway isn't long enough!
So somebody is bullsh1tting both locally in Thanet and here on PPRuNe and I think we all know who ... My guest questioned "Have you heard of the American investment group behind it?", I jokingly replied "Have you heard of who the t0sser is behind that American investment group?"
Keep up the good work Doc!
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Kent
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right ...
I might be half a world away but I have some guests staying with me at present, he now lives in Margate but he grew up in Ramsgate, we got on to discussing what the locals think that Manston may re-open..
He explained that a new town has sprung up between Margate and Ramsgate, I think called Weston Cross, it has been specifically populated by people from the London Borough of Lewisham and there is significant local animosity regarding.
As they have been informed there are two choices for the Manston airfield site, another new town housing even more people from the London Borough of Lewisham or an airport and given the two choices they'd prefer an airport.
But ... They have been bullsh1tted that a re-opened Manston would be an alternative to a 3rd runway at LHR, my guest I was talking with imagines jetting off to wherever from a re-opened Manston whilst all we hear here are plans for it to re-open as a, pretty much, dedicated freight airport ... even though the runway isn't long enough!
So somebody is bullsh1tting both locally in Thanet and here on PPRuNe and I think we all know who ... My guest questioned "Have you heard of the American investment group behind it?", I jokingly replied "Have you heard of who the t0sser is behind that American investment group?"
Keep up the good work Doc!
I might be half a world away but I have some guests staying with me at present, he now lives in Margate but he grew up in Ramsgate, we got on to discussing what the locals think that Manston may re-open..
He explained that a new town has sprung up between Margate and Ramsgate, I think called Weston Cross, it has been specifically populated by people from the London Borough of Lewisham and there is significant local animosity regarding.
As they have been informed there are two choices for the Manston airfield site, another new town housing even more people from the London Borough of Lewisham or an airport and given the two choices they'd prefer an airport.
But ... They have been bullsh1tted that a re-opened Manston would be an alternative to a 3rd runway at LHR, my guest I was talking with imagines jetting off to wherever from a re-opened Manston whilst all we hear here are plans for it to re-open as a, pretty much, dedicated freight airport ... even though the runway isn't long enough!
So somebody is bullsh1tting both locally in Thanet and here on PPRuNe and I think we all know who ... My guest questioned "Have you heard of the American investment group behind it?", I jokingly replied "Have you heard of who the t0sser is behind that American investment group?"
Keep up the good work Doc!
As far as people coming from Lewisham??? The whole of Thanet is populated with people from the London area, with the seaside draw being bigger than ever with the reinvention of Margate. There are only probably a few dozen houses built so far and the planned site of the school is now a supermarket. From the site you can see one of the many areas designated a business park, lying empty, but the space here is nothing compared to the large areas planned for business and industrial use next to Manston, with the first new buildings there in over 10 years.
Riveroaks plans have been well advertised in the local press, with the links we have on this forum. There have been no lies. I don't want to disrespect your guests, but they have obviously heard what they want to.
The owners plans for Manston have been little more than a map coloured in, freight has always been the main earner for Manston, with other potential following, passenger flights are planned on the same scale as ever, with the increasingly affluent, growing local population wanting the choice to connect to the world or take their holiday charter without enduring the misery of the M25 and the chaotic, in personal experience of the London airports.