|
M-A-G MACC INFO WIGGINS TDC MP's LINKS NEW OOP's
If you want to make comments or find out more
about the Manston Airport Group, email on |
|
Isle of Thanet Gazette 28th Jan 2000 DEVELOPMENT at London Manston Airport will be strangled by Wiggins' "bizarre behaviour", South Thanet MP Steve Ladyman claimed yesterday (Thursday). He said the airport developers had promised him, Thanet Council and the people of Thanet that they would agree a Section 106 Agreement by February. "First they start negotiations, then they unilaterally and without warning declare they won't go on with it, then they issue a statement they are fully committed again" he added. "In light of this bizarre behavior, Thanet Council have no choice now but to insist on a formal planning review and environmental impact assessment for every development that Wiggins proposes at Manston Airport until a Section 106 has been agreed "This will strangle development and will damage Wiggins, but they have no one to blame but themselves." Dr. Ladyman said the Section 106 would give the airport its best chance of success while safeguarding the environment and local people. "For Wiggins to put it in jeopardy and undermine their already weak credibility on a whim is utterly beyond my comprehension. "The council were right to make sure that the public knows what is going on, but must not close the door on the Section 106. Until Wiggins win back their trust, the council must play hardball with every proposal they receive." The MP said he would be contacting the Government Office of the South East and the minister to ensure they are aware of what is going on and to get the backing for the council. THANET people are "in danger of having the worst of all possible worlds", according to MP Roger Gale. He said while Manston had been granted an existing use certificate there were no environmental safeguards in place. He believed the only option now open to the council would be to seek an Environmental Impact Assessment, which may give the authority the power to exercise normal planning controls over developments related to the airfield. The North Thanet MP said he had consistently held the view that while the civilian development of the airfield was desirable, this was not at any price. "We must continue to seek to enforce the controls over hours of flying that were applied to the original air terminal development, together with controls over types of aircraft and the number of movements," he said. "It will not, though, escape the notice of all those now seeking to exercise 'damage limitation' over this project that we are dealing with what has been, predominantly, a property company. "I think yesterday's development emphasizes yet again the need for the draught document to be made public and for discussions to take place openly and honestly." ============================== Controls at airport are given away GALES VIEW. By North Thanet MP Roger Gale Isle of Thanet Gazette 24th Mar. IT IS, I think, time to shed the light of a little reality and truth upon the future of the former RAF Manston and the environmental controls -or lack of them -that may be applied to the commercial development of that airfield. It was already apparent in the mid-80s that the Royal Air Force would wish to vacate Manston. With that in mind, and looking to the future, Thanet Council, the then Thanet South MP Jonathan Aitken and I sought to facilitate the construction of a new passenger terminal to open the potential for civilian aviation and the creation of a regional airport. A long lease for the necessary land was acquired from the Ministry of Defence property services and with that lease went a guarantee that the RAF would continue to provide air traffic control. The planning consent for the new buildings carried with it a clear restriction, enforceable by Thanet Council, over the hours of civilian use of the airfield. (It was not, of course, possible or desirable to impose controls over the hours of military flying.) These restrictions -now discussed as "the Section 52 agreement" -were designed very precisely to regulate not only the passenger terminal and apron, but as the relevant documents very clearly show the hours of civilian flying to and from Manston. That agreement was reached to put Manston on an equal footing with other regional airports such as Bournemouth, Southampton, Bristol and Plymouth- all of which exercise controls over night flying and to strike a balance between the successful development of the airfield and protection of the environment. Thanet Council, having failed to reach a voluntary Section 106 agreement with the new developers, Wiggins, before granting an existing use licence, has sought belatedly to negotiate new terms for the operation of Manston. The first proposal brought forward by the council, a draft Section 106 agreement, that has been negotiated behind closed doors is, after the preamble, the release of the operators from their obligations under the old Section 52 controls! The council recommends in its "consultation" document the replacement of such controls as currently exist over night flying with a night flying noise control policy" put forward by the airport operator -a bit like asking the wolf to see Little Red Riding Hood home safely! Dr Ladyman, at present the MP for Thanet South, in his own support of this miserable document suggests that "the existing controls on aircraft movements, inherited from earlier councils, are of no use whatsoever". While that would be true if those responsible for the enforcement of the controls were to neglect their responsibility, better legal brains than mine and, dare I suggest, Dr Ladyman's, do not share his view. "The developer," we are told, "will decide who is to get help with noise insulation for their homes". The map that accompanies the "draft" Section 106 agreement. not published with the council's advertisement in the loc4t pre8$, describes the "footprint" of noise within which some householders may qualify for noise insulation. That footprint is so tightly drawn around the airport runway as to be of benefit to virtually none of my North Thanet constituents and to very few in South Thanet either. It is interesting to note that those who, like me, believe that this "draft" Section 106 is a shoddy proposal cobbled together after the event, are accused of creating "an excuse to make party-political points" and of expressing the views of "people who would rather the airfield failed". Might we not have the interests of our environment and of those who live on the flight-path and that we represent at heart? As one who was instrumental in securing the preservation of Manston as an airfield, I heed no lessons from latecomers to this saga. Those who really want to see the airport's development should put rather more effort, as I have done, into securing good, fast rail access to a Thanet Parkway station while recognizing there is a balance to be struck between Commercial development and quality of life. "London Manston Airport" does not exist except as a slogan. The original concept of Kent International as a good regional airport playing a significant role within the network of European aviation can, I believe, succeed. It is my view that the Section 106 agreement as proposed has no serious part to play in this potential success. It is a scrap of cloth designed to cover up the naked weakness of a council that has been out-maneuvered. The original Section 52 agreement offers the people of Thanet a better deal. We should stick with it and require our council's members and officers to see that it is, when necessary, enforced. We should also seek to ensure that all future developments at Manston that are of any significance or environmental impact should be the subject of proper scrutiny and planning consent. =============================== Why Labour can't cope with dissent Roger Gale. North Thanet MP I MAY not subscribe entirely to the gospel according to the Manston Airport Group and nor do I share the politics of some of its members, but I defend their right both to express their view and if necessary to have challenged Thanet Council in court. Others, it seems, do not. Ranting on local radio, Labour's elected representatives bemoaned the fact that their council's decisions were open to legal challenge. That they have been proved right on a point of law - though not, of course, right in the eyes and interests of many of the people that they were elected to represent -is neither here nor there. The fact remains that it is the challenge to their authority that they resent. In this they are at one with the present Government. It should surprise nobody that a Prime Minister who has reduced his appearances at question time from twice a week to once a week, without even a courtesy consultation with the Speaker, and who rarely appears in the House of Commons, should seek by "modernization" to gerrymander the business of the House. That this Government's legislative programme is in a state of administrative chaos is entirely the Government's fault. Blair has sought in this session to use his majority to force through too hastily too much legislation. That in itself has meant long hours in committee (I, alone, spent 87 hours chairing the Transport Bill), followed by further late sittings as legislation reaches its report stage -the sessions during which ordinary back- benchers have the right to table amendments to a Bill - and on Third Reading. There is a backlog of legislation that will keep the newly-created "New Labour" peers, with which Blair has stuffed the House of Lords, sitting for much of the recess. A further "spill-over" period, as those Bills return to the Commons, seems inevitable. To this will be added, apparently; a Home Office Bill that will give the police powers to remove passports and detain those whom they suspect of being football hooligans. Those are Draconian powers and will not, as the con- trol-freaks in Downing Street would wish, simply be nodded through (Parliament may not have many rights over this executive left, but the people of this country who, it is alleged, live in a democracy, do). So small wonder that Blair now seeks to pander to his backbenchers by reducing the hours that Parliament will sit through a manipulation of the voting process. This Prime Minister has shown a total disdain for Parliament. His ministers make major announcements, first to the media; his MPs have leaked select committee reports, the property of the House, to Government and then sought to deny it when exposed. It is now proposed that all Government legislation should be "timetabled" so that debate of controversial issues is curtailed. Worse, for votes taken after 10 o'clock it is suggested that members may vote by writing their name in a book at any time between 3.30pm and 5pm on a Wednesday - enabling the Prime Minister to register his own votes during his customary weekly visit to the House of Commons! With this kind of example emanating from the top, it is scarcely surprising that local politicians should follow the lead and seek to curtail dissent. Be warned. The very heart and soul of our democracy is under threat. ============================ Manston - let's keep to the facts South Thanet Labour MP Steve Ladyman THE HIGH Court has thrown out the Manston Airport Group's action against the council. The argument for MAG's officers was that the granting of a judicial review indicated that there was a case for the council to answer and that the council had breached the public's trust and could no longer be relied on to act objectively in respect of the airport. It followed, according to their distorted logic, that the council's views on environmental controls must also be flawed and that every exaggerated claim or accusation made against the council must be true. MAG Comment:- It is curious how everybody is taking the case result for granted, especially as the judge had not has not published his summation yet. Do not overlook isle's vital needs. Ladyman's Thanet. Isle of Thanet Gazette
UNEMPLOYMENT in Thanet has been cut by nearly 40 per cent since the general election, but it remains much higher than else where in Kent and among the highest in the country. Inroads
The scale of the problem is huge and we need to create around 10,000 jobs to begin to make real inroads into solving it. Safeguards To overlook their needs would be irresponsible. That is why the council is negotiating the safeguards that those who will be most affected are demanding. But to mislead these people by telling them that the law gives Thanet Council powers that it does not have, or by scaring them with exaggerated assessments of air traffic, does not help anyone. And to overlook the vital needs of the wider community of Thanet for jobs and new investment would be a real betrayal.
A chance to make up your own mind RUNNING the council and the country are the easiest jobs in the world- if you have not been elected and you don't have to do it. No one holds pressure groups accountable for their views and protesters never have to answer for the consequences of their actions. And the bar stool politicians never get reminded that their views can change from one minute to the next and that today they are arguing for the opposite of what they asked for yesterday: The Manston Airport Group told everyone the council had got the legal position wrong over the development of the airport. When the judge threw its case out with a humiliating rebuff, members could just shrug it off. When the Gazette published a story saying the council and the airport developer had reached agreement over the final version of the Section 100, MAG could announce in the same article that "it was not worth the paper it is written on". Two weeks later it could complain at the Manston Airport Consultative Committee members had only three days to study the new draft. No one points out members condemned it out of hand, a week earlier, when they hadn't read it and would not even get a copy for at least another week, When controversy over the airport first arose, MAG's big battle cry was to call for the airport to be designated under a disused and soon to be repealed part of the Civil Aviation Act. Now, in part thanks to my lobbying, the Government has announced there will be new legislation to give local authorities power over airports, but from MAG there is not a word of congratulation or support. Then MAG's campaign was for an environmental impact assessment. The council had no powers to order one, but the new Section 106 agreement will deliver not only an environmental impact statement but a firm statement of the airport operators' intentions. But MAG now claims it doesn't see what an environmental impact assessment will achieve, but no one challenges its inconsistency: Now members have told local people the council should keep the existing Section 52 agreement because it bans night flights. It does nothing of the sort, as anyone who reads it will see. It provides no environmental protection what so ever and even the measures it does contain have to be monitored by the RAF who are no longer based at Manston. The vast majority of local people want to see the airport being given .a chance to succeed arid the council has a democratic duty to see it gets the chance. Most MAG officers do not want an airport at Manston and, since MAG does not answer to the electorate, it is free to pursue its campaign against it, free to lose its members' money in the courts, tree to be inconsistent and perverse and free to mislead the public. On the other hand, my council colleagues and I do have to answer to :the electorate, but unlike MAG we respect their judgment. That is why I am sending to all my constituents who have written to me on the subject a copy of the old Section 52 agreement, the key parts of the Section 106 agreement and a detailed statement of my own views. The same information is on my website at www.souththanetlp.freeserve.co.uk/ Now people can make up their own minds, Which won't suit MAG at all. MAG Comment: Which is why it's on this web-site, and that MAG's view is not on his. One wonders when it will dawn on our political 'leaders' that the root of the problem is that there is no public forum (apart from the newspapers) for discussing local issues. ??????????
SO WE now have a "Section 100 Agreement" for Manston! Gales View. Isle of Thanet Gazette 6th Oct In a grown-up and logical world, the operators of Kent International Airport (or "London Manston" as they now like to be known) would have published a development plan. There would then have been an independently conducted environmental impact
assessment to determine the likely effects of the proposed developments,
followed by public consultation. To date, there is no development plan and no environmental impact assessment and it remains to be seen whether the operators will now deliver either. Does this matter? Yes. It matters a very great deal. Next, the plan matters because the development
will impact upon the much-need- ed and long-overdue improvements to east Kent's
road infrastructure. We have heard much of "new jobs" and
"investment in tourism and infrastructure". Then we can begin to take the wider plan forward with a sense of real vision.
|