Advisory

I have just been reading the TDC "advisory" document on "Manston Airport-Environmental Safeguards", late, excellent reading, but fails to explain how the figure of 55,000 aircraft movements was established in order to "pass as a civilian airport with some 55,000 aircraft movements per year". I have lived on Thanet for 31 years, and I am damned if I can get the picture of an average of 75 aircraft take-off and landings happening per day, unless radar counted the pigeons, or someone towed a aircraft up and down the runway.

In April '99 (when the relief flights were in operation) there where 679 movements, 116 jets (mainly DC8 and B707's), 14 large prop, 30 helicopter, 519 small prop'/training aircraft.
According to TDC figures of 55,000, there should have been 4684 movements that month, in order to make the average. If one can assume they counted the light aircraft and glider flights, how does that relate to "wide bodied" passenger/freight aircraft? Can we also assume on that basis, that because X rowing boats use the Stour, that Sea-link will be running ferries to Canterbury? As it would appear that there is "no change of use", there will be no limit to the amount of expansion permitted, except that "the owners will undertake a further study when movements exceed 150,000 per annum". 205 takeoff and landings per day?.

I am also puzzled over the Wiggins statement that Thomson-CFS were "retained to convert London-Manston from a military base to a civilian airfield", yet TDC persist in maintaining "no change of use". What is "convert" if it does not change? Perhaps St Nicholas should be renamed Bedlam, and Ramsgate to Bedlamtoo, because it will be unless they can make aeroplanes take-off and land with the wind.

Has anyone one done/doing an Environmental Impact Assessment on the prospect of 55,000, let alone 150,000?, and don't forget the logistics' of cars/buses/lorries going to/from such a complex.

All this prompted me to dig another interesting document out the files, a TDC one called "TAKING LOCAL DEMOCRACY into 2000, cutting out the red tape", which "red tape" have they cut out of London-Manston? some thing like Public enquiry? EIA? restrictions of use? there are periods of time between the introduction of phases of this project that look distinctly like they were engineered to make objections improbable, if not impossible.

The further I dig into the saga of London-Manston Airport, the more intriguing it becomes.

The much-promoted benefits of increased employment to the tune of 7000 jobs and £14 M income over 3 years, warrant a little looking into.

1:- Jobs. According to Wiggins there are only 100 employed at the airport plus 200 on the associated industries on the airfield), Cardiff Airport employs 138 staff for 1.5 M passengers, so will there really be 7000 jobs at Manston?

2:- Revenue. If the target of 3 million passengers is achieved (at the cost of 15000 take-off's and landings), how many are going to pop into Ramsgate or Margate to do a bit of shopping, or even St Nicholas, Acol or Minster?

So what proportion of the £14 M is going to finish up in the pockets of the population of Thanet?

I can see it starting a property boom which will put the overheads up with no increase in revenue to pay it, and the benefits can only be realized when the property is sold, that is assuming someone will want to buy it.

The main reason that the airport is wanted, is to improve wages and employment. Yet how will it? The countries biggest employer is the small business who is buried under legislation and overheads, yet the minute a multi-national knocks on the door, Planning permission? Environmental Impact Assessment? Regulations? Forget it.

Money? well we can give you grants for THIS, THAT and the OTHER, yet most of these companies could buy out Thanet with their petty-cash. and you want to put a porch on your house????

The despair in Thanet, so often mentioned in the letters, is not the fault of 'the people who did not vote', as one writer put it. It is the fault of the ones that DID vote.

Who elected the council that 'imported' the un-employed, to boost their own profit, and the figures to qualify for Assisted Area Status?

Who voted in the councils that encouraged the development of the 'dead-duck' schemes that another 'old whinger' mentioned?

Another mentioned claiming against the council for 'Compensation for injurious affection'. The unfortunate consequence is that A:- the ones who permitted it to happen, do not have to pay. B:- the public have fork out yet again.

The same can be said for government, we had one lot that setup a record number of quango's (jobs for the boys), and a load of sleaze, we now have one that has increased the quango's that they was going to dismantle, and beaten the previous ones record on the sleaze front in less than four years.

Another letter mentioned the 'delivery of fresh fruit and vegetables when our own produce is not available', at the rate that successive governments are dismantling the farming (it was Thanet's biggest employer) in this country, Manston is going to be very busy indeed.

It should also be noted, that the countries that food comes from, are the ones that need aid, starve them to feed the pampered over here, so that some can feel good about sending aid to them. Well it makes someone a good profit.

We are NEVER going to break the cycle of hope and despair if the voting for parties (they have their backers to consider) continues, lets face it, if one had a government/council of independent Screaming Lord Sutch's we could hardly be worse off.

Mining, Manufacturing, Fishing, Farming, small business, gone or going, and we HAVE to have these crazy schemes, on THEIR terms, to create employment?
Another 'old whinger' have a go.

DUE TO getting involved with politics over the Manston scenario and relating that to Foreness etc, I started looking at the symptoms in order to find the problem.

The number of letters regarding the opinions of the public and the slanging matches with and between councillors are symptoms of the lack of democracy.

While recognizing "You cannot please all the people all the time", it is apparent that the reasons why the authorities take a particular action are not being explained.

The mechanics of how those decisions are being made are even more questionable. Previously; the course was agreed by the vote of councillors according to which horse (party) they backed. Now the decisions are made by the cabinet on the basis of what they are told by the guru (un-elected officer of the council).

In order for a decision to be made there should be case "for" and "against" (and it should not reflect the horse A, B or C). ie the benefits should be weighed against the risks. Risk analysis should be a pre-requisite of council decisions.

To improve democracy and cut down the rhetoric. would it not be desirable for the council to ask the public for volunteers to serve on "for" and "against" committees to present their case to each other and the cabinet?

The public could send their opinions to one, or both, committees and with the committees publishing meeting summaries, a course of action could be determined without the potentially costly after-effects.

It's like cleaning a piece of rusty metal, the harder you scrape, the more you find.

What was the motive (of the previous TDC) for importing unemployed persons into Thanet? Was it for the income from the housing of them? or was it to boost the unemployment figures in order to gain "Assisted Area Status"?

What is the motive for the current TDC to continue with the policy? The current unemployment figures indicate that the AAS will soon be lost, so are the "refugee's" being imported out of "kindness"? or to maintain the "head in the EU trough"?, either way the community charge is going to rise.

What has this got to do with Manston? The TDC has maintained that L-M is needed to increase the job potential of Thanet, yet if successive administrations increase the unemployed faster than employment can be created, in order to get funding from EU, a "concrete" Thanet, where none us will want to live, has to be the conclusion.

What were the motives of the MoD when they signed an agreement with Kent International Airport for a 125 year lease with maintenance by MoD, which led to Manston being sold 8 years later, for £4.25M in order to get rid of the £100M maintenance agreement? Did they have a myopic crystal-ball? or shares in KIA/Wiggins? What are the authorisor's of that agreement doing now?

Re Wiggins London-Manston Airport

There is a smell, you can't identify What or Where.
Has the cat done something?, or is there a dead rat under the floor?
What was the motive of Wiggins to buy an airport? Where else can you buy 700 acres of "brown field" for £4.25M?, and with a value of £100-140M as development land, that gives you a fair bit for "decoy" costs.
What was the motive (of the previous TDC) for importing unemployed persons into Thanet? Was it for the income from the housing of them? or was it to boost the unemployment figures in order to gain EU "Assisted Area Status"?
What is the motive for the current TDC to continue with the policy? The current unemployment figures indicate that the AAS will soon be lost, so are the "refugee's" being imported out of "kindness"? or to maintain the "head in the EU trough"?, either way the community charge is going to rise.
What has this got to do with Manston? The Thanet DC has maintained that L-M is needed to increase the job potential of Thanet, yet if successive administrations increase the unemployed faster than employment can be created, in order to get funding from EU, a "concrete" Thanet, where none us will want to live, has to be the conclusion.
What were the motives of the MoD when they signed an agreement with Kent International Airport for a 125 year lease with maintenance by MoD?, which led to Manston being sold 8 years later, for £4.25M in order to get rid of the £100M maintenance agreement. Did they have a myopic crystal-ball? or shares in KIA/Wiggins? What are the authoriser's of that agreement doing now?

What IS that smell? is it rats? live rats? or is it Fat-Cats taking the piss?