MANSTON -3
BBC reporting that UKIP have lost control of Thanet Council due to differences over Manston:
UKIP loses control of Thanet council over Manston issue - BBC News
UKIP loses control of Thanet council over Manston issue - BBC News
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be negative, but seriously what need is there for this airport? It has never succeeded in supporting any for of base for any airline and is in the arse end of nowhere. Move on, there is a housing shortage in this country and these are the kind of pointless brownfield sites that should be built on.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Thanet
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is no longer about aviation. This is all about UKIP. After UKIP were handed the poisoned chalice of a CPO at Manston, all the other parties had to do was sit back and watch them implode. Given the political nature of Thanet it is fairly certain UKIP would have been elected regardless of their stance on Manston so the rest of the local party must be kicking themselves for giving such a rash undertaking on the CPO. There will be a few bottles of champagne being drunk in Tory, Lib Dem and Labour households tonight.
Pilot of the Airwaves
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 74
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another post from deedave, making it his 250th on PPruNe, all on this thread, all negative, all aggressive to whoever dare to post/offer support for reopening the airfield, most ill-informed.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Thanet
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IB4138. Do you have a comment to make about the former Manston Airport or are you simply here to make personal comments? I notice that you, too contribute almost exclusively to one thread. Most of your 750- odd comments are on something called "The really boring and totally pointless snippets thread". (sic)
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deedave
After wading through a river of rubbish all posted by you I would humbly suggest that you are not equipped
to try and comment about where others post. Indeed I would further suggest that you stop posting full stop.
After wading through a river of rubbish all posted by you I would humbly suggest that you are not equipped
to try and comment about where others post. Indeed I would further suggest that you stop posting full stop.
Pilot of the Airwaves
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 74
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice that you, too contribute almost exclusively to one thread. Most of your 750- odd comments are on something called "The really boring and totally pointless snippets thread"
If you knew anything at all about post numbers and threads, then you would know that posts on the TRABB thread are not counted. So my 750+ posts are on other threads that do count.
Do us all a favour and take Nervous SLF's advice to you.It is well meant.
Pilot of the Airwaves
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 74
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You looking for something else to rubbish?
Are you actually Lord Haw Haw of Thanet?
Explain yourself and your deep seated wish to see Manston raised to the ground.
Are you actually Lord Haw Haw of Thanet?
Explain yourself and your deep seated wish to see Manston raised to the ground.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The glasshouse, a stone's throw from you
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rivet Joint
Sorry to be negative, but seriously what need is there for this airport? It has never succeeded in supporting any for of base for any airline and is in the arse end of nowhere. Move on, there is a housing shortage in this country and these are the kind of pointless brownfield sites that should be built on.
For once I agree with Rivet joint. Housing and an interim option for operation stack.
It is a sad situation.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RSW & Europe
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest from Thanet Council can be fond here, http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/docum...abinet.pdf?T=9
Does not look good for Riveroak or the airport.
Does not look good for Riveroak or the airport.
Last edited by blackbeard1; 27th Oct 2015 at 15:27.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kent
Age: 76
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanet District Council officers write a report on the Manston CPO that completely ignores this Whitepaper from RiverOak.
Whitepaper from RiverOak solicitors Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
2015-10-24 – Manston White Paper – 23 October 2015
http://www.savemanstonairport.org.uk...tober-2015.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wragge..._Graham_%26_Co
Whitepaper from RiverOak solicitors Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
2015-10-24 – Manston White Paper – 23 October 2015
http://www.savemanstonairport.org.uk...tober-2015.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wragge..._Graham_%26_Co
Interesting to see the respective dates, but looks like the Thanet District Council officers wrote their report before the RiverOak paper was published. Did they have an advance copy?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: london
Age: 58
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest reports from local press seems local ukip councillors are jumping ship to avoid total embarrassment on a policy which they stated they totally supported shame on them get the RAf to run the airport again what a total shambles with a area with so high employment the fake promises from present owners that manston will be a 21 st century marvel well just look at the poor people who lost there jobs at fizers which is a21st century company I say shame on ukip
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kent
Age: 76
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see the respective dates, but looks like the Thanet District Council officers wrote their report before the RiverOak paper was published. Did they have an advance copy?
TDC have never referred to this Whitepaper, or its contents.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kent
Age: 76
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
• RiverOak - Draft Indemnity Agreement - no longer privileged
2015-10-28 – CPO INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (AS IT STANDS 27 OCTOBER)
http://www.savemanstonairport.org.uk...27-OCTOBER.pdf
• Broadside One - from RiverOak to TDC Councillors :
2015-10-28 – RiverOak Letter to TDC Cllrs 10-28-15
http://www.savemanstonairport.org.uk...s-10-28-15.pdf
• Broadside Two - RiverOak -Wragge, Lawrence Graham response to TDC Cabinet report :
2015-10-29 - RiverOak response WLG 10-28-15
http://www.savemanstonairport.org.uk...G-10-28-15.pdf
This legal response pulls the TDC Officers' Report apart, paragraph by paragraph.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wragge..._Graham_%26_Co
2015-10-28 – CPO INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (AS IT STANDS 27 OCTOBER)
http://www.savemanstonairport.org.uk...27-OCTOBER.pdf
• Broadside One - from RiverOak to TDC Councillors :
2015-10-28 – RiverOak Letter to TDC Cllrs 10-28-15
http://www.savemanstonairport.org.uk...s-10-28-15.pdf
• Broadside Two - RiverOak -Wragge, Lawrence Graham response to TDC Cabinet report :
2015-10-29 - RiverOak response WLG 10-28-15
http://www.savemanstonairport.org.uk...G-10-28-15.pdf
This legal response pulls the TDC Officers' Report apart, paragraph by paragraph.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wragge..._Graham_%26_Co
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Thanet
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some observations from Thanet residents-
Paragraph 3.29 of the Officers' report to TDC's Cabinet says it all:
"With respect to the need to acquire the land within a set period after confirmation of the CPO, RiverOak said that they would need time after confirmation of the CPO to secure and document the funding for the project. Given that the CPO process might take up to two years before the CPO is confirmed by the Secretary of State, RiverOak could then take up to 3 years to obtain the funding, this could see the airport lying dormant for potentially five years if there is no obligation on RiverOak to secure its funding within a set period of the confirmation."
What does this mean? It means:
1. RiverOak do not have the money to pay the compensation bill to the owners; pay any blight costs; and pay for the necessary development of Stone Hill park to set it up as an airport. That's fact. Yes, Sir Roger; yes, Dr Webber - that's a plain old fact.
2. RiverOak has had since August 2104 to start raising a fund but have chosen to do nothing. It might take them years to raise a fund (which suggests strongly to us that people aren't exactly turning up and chucking money at them now, desperate to invest in the fourth filed attempt to make a cargo airport out of a sow's ear).
3. Even if TDC thought that they could win on the "compelling case in the public interest" test, that site will be undeveloped for years if TDC pursues a CPO with RiverOak as their partner. That's years of TDC not getting millions every year in business rates and council tax. Years of not having new jobs in the area. No Council in its right mind can afford to take this kind of financial hit for such an uncertain outcome.
And, yes, we have read the latest document sent by RiverOak's lawyers straight to their tame pressure group, SMA. And, no, it doesn't change these facts.
A CPO with RiverOak is a risk. There is no certainty about the funding. There is no certainty that they can develop a successful airport on that site where so many before them have failed. The alternative use for the site carries no CPO risk and has investors and employers already keen to move in. It's a no brainer.
(Quoted from internet source)
Paragraph 3.29 of the Officers' report to TDC's Cabinet says it all:
"With respect to the need to acquire the land within a set period after confirmation of the CPO, RiverOak said that they would need time after confirmation of the CPO to secure and document the funding for the project. Given that the CPO process might take up to two years before the CPO is confirmed by the Secretary of State, RiverOak could then take up to 3 years to obtain the funding, this could see the airport lying dormant for potentially five years if there is no obligation on RiverOak to secure its funding within a set period of the confirmation."
What does this mean? It means:
1. RiverOak do not have the money to pay the compensation bill to the owners; pay any blight costs; and pay for the necessary development of Stone Hill park to set it up as an airport. That's fact. Yes, Sir Roger; yes, Dr Webber - that's a plain old fact.
2. RiverOak has had since August 2104 to start raising a fund but have chosen to do nothing. It might take them years to raise a fund (which suggests strongly to us that people aren't exactly turning up and chucking money at them now, desperate to invest in the fourth filed attempt to make a cargo airport out of a sow's ear).
3. Even if TDC thought that they could win on the "compelling case in the public interest" test, that site will be undeveloped for years if TDC pursues a CPO with RiverOak as their partner. That's years of TDC not getting millions every year in business rates and council tax. Years of not having new jobs in the area. No Council in its right mind can afford to take this kind of financial hit for such an uncertain outcome.
And, yes, we have read the latest document sent by RiverOak's lawyers straight to their tame pressure group, SMA. And, no, it doesn't change these facts.
A CPO with RiverOak is a risk. There is no certainty about the funding. There is no certainty that they can develop a successful airport on that site where so many before them have failed. The alternative use for the site carries no CPO risk and has investors and employers already keen to move in. It's a no brainer.
(Quoted from internet source)