Thursday, 6 November 2014

Manston decision another delay, book buying in Margate and a ramble.

First Manston and this is what the council leader has to say:

"I know a lot of people will be very disappointed that Manston back to back investor follow up is not in the agenda. A decision had to be made yesterday.

Following meetings between RiverOak and our 151 officer Mr Cook last Thursday I understand further information has been submitted which must be thoroughly sifted through.

This must be done properly hence the acting Chief Executives decision to remove Manston from the 13th November agenda.

This is essential so that we can ensure every effort is given to RiverOak to answer the questions we originally put to them last summer.

We will probably need an extraordinary Cabinet once all the new information is examined and the 151 officer makes his report."

I am afraid my patience is wearing a bit thin over the council’s attitude to the former Manston site and their hostility towards the new owners £1bn investment, with the aim of providing 4,000 jobs.

Anyway in the real world here is how the new owners are progressing the site http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Urban-planners-hired-regenerate-Manston-airport/story-24316991-detail/story.html here is the link to the firm that is planning the regeneration of the Manston Airport site http://www.planit-ie.com/


The picture of the concrete arrow was taken looking out of the window by the loos at Turner Contemporary, I think it’s a sort of inadvertent art exhibit.


The gallery also has an “Interesting Thing Tree” possibly something to with Adrian Mole, I didn’t measure it but it seemed quite big to me.


It was pretty cold walking from the car to the Turner today, and I though the “Pole of Cold” exhibition fitted with my frame of mind.



What the gallery lacks at the moment is a major work of art of international significance.


Here are the books I bought in Margate today, I was particularly pleased to get some jewellery books and a decent motoring book, the mistake was probably the Mentmore as they probably won’t sell but I am fascinated by large country house auctions so will enjoy looking at them and probably afterwards sell them at a loss.


A few more books for the part of the shop I am expanding at the moment which falls under the category of art and crafts, although actually includes, architecture industrial archaeology, anyway books on woodturning and marquetry along with the jewellery.   

The council have published the agenda for next weeks cabinet meeting as mentioned with respect to Manston, see http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=151&MId=3451 one interesting document relates to closing Pier Yard car park in Ramsgate, see http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/documents/s39562/Pier%20Yard%20Ramsgate.html?CT=2 I guess we are all aware of the two problems with cars in the vicinity of Thanet’s two main piers. Roughly the majority of traffic entering Harbour Parade in Ramsgate or Turner Contemporary vehicle entrance fails to park and comes out again 

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

Do you really believe that 4000 jobs can be created from a mixed developement site? If so you're even more naive than the SMA mob Michael!

Michael Child said...

I guess anon that if I could predict how many people which companies will be employing in the future I would be a billionaire and I guess if you could you wouldn’t be an anon.

Anonymous said...

How can Riveroak guarantee more than twice as many jobs than before the airport closed?

Michael Child said...

There you have the nub of the problem anon, neither RiverOak nor Discovery Parks can guarantee success, both are offering commercial use for the site and both predicting jobs. The main difference being that Discovery Parks own the site and RiverOak does not.

Anonymous said...

Michael, will you consider voting for Ruth? A local woman who knows the area well could be good for everyone in Ramsgate, not just SMA supporters.

Anonymous said...

Sandwich Discovery Park are struggling to get enough businesses interested, and are planning houses and a large supermarket, also the planned business park nearer to Manston will now be mostly housing. So please can someone tell me how they plan to attract businesses that no-one else in Thanet can.

Michael Child said...

Anon 21.48 I live in Thanet South constituency, the airport is located in Thanet North constituency. I can’t find Ruth registered as a candidate for either constituency, but would assume that if she is standing mainly on the airport issue she would be standing in Thanet North, I don’t think she would be able to put up much of a case in parliament for saving an airport in someone else’s constituency.

Michael Child said...

Anon 21.51 the old arguments are how would an airport attract more passengers and cargo than previous operators and how would discovery parks attract new business, neither have easy answers, but it is Discovery Parks who are the owners and to argue a case for a cpo you have to tip the public interest balance which your argument doesn’t.

Anonymous said...

Ruth is a Broadstairs primary school teacher with no experience if either politics airports or business.

She just likes an airport and thinks we should all pay for it (again).

Her class of 5 year olds would probably make more sense and have as much chance of reopening the airport.

And they might be more concerned about the air pollution...

Anonymous said...

Looks like Iris has egg on her face with all the delays at Manston and Dreamland and Pleasurama.

She has done nothing.

Anonymous said...

Ruth Bailey, Ann Barnes... what is it that makes schoolteachers of a certain age want to lecture the rest of us? Too long in the classroom, not long enough in the real world?

Anonymous said...

Ruth is one of 6 candidates standing for Thanet SOUTH. Very surprised you don't even know the candidates Michael. Anyway, you didn't answer my question regarding voting for her.

Anonymous said...

According to the Gazette (29 oct) she will be standing in Thanet South. With only a £500 deposit to put up maybe SMA are also fielding in Thanet North but Thanet South will have all the media attention but by May the CPO issue will be over.

Anonymous said...

http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Airport-campaigner-stand-2015-General-Election/story-23745900-detail/story.html

Anonymous said...

It isn't Ruth's support for Manston that will kill her campaign. It is her antagonistic, hectoring manner. She was banned from Manston Pickle for repeating the same thing over and over and over again. Actually, thinking about it, maybe she's born to be a politician.

Michael Child said...

Anon 17.01, sorry I didn’t answer your question about who I will be voting for, the truth here is that it’s too early to say, but I doubt I would vote for a candidate standing on one issue especially an issue relating to an airport in a different constituency.

I am a floating voter, the last election I voted in was the European election and I voted Conservative in that one, the previous one was the county council one, I know one of the candidates I voted for was Liz Green who is Labour and I can’t remember the other one, I probably mentioned it in a post at the time.

In response to the other comments I still haven’t found any confirmation that she is standing, apart from her announcement to the local paper.

Anonymous said...

I heard that Kim Gibson, one of the councillors on Nethercourt who has opposed the appointment of Riveroak, had paint thrown over her car. If the pro-airport groups are resorting to this level of intimidation, it's high time the matter was put to bed. The Labour group which is running the council has now missed two opportunities to make a decision. They have allowed Riveroak to make submissions beyond the deadlines which they set and, currently, there is no timescale for making a final decision. The council is simply encouraging the mindless yobs who have tagged onto the pro-airport campaigns, to become more extreme in their actions.

Anonymous said...

Anyone else see the irony in the Save Manston lot getting excited about a plane being broken up when that is exactly what they want to have there?

Also why might breaking up an old 747 on remembrance sunday be disrespectful ?

Anonymous said...

Surely this is something that should concern us all. Be interested to know your thoughts on this Michael:

https://www.facebook.com/supportmanstonairport/posts/364649193702699

Anonymous said...

8:02, there's absolutely no proof that the two things are related. I have one of my tyes slashed here in Birchington during the summer, should I start blaming the anti-Manston people instead of mindless bored teenagers?

Anonymous said...

Are you sure Kim Gibson didn't just spill some of her hair dye?

Michael Child said...

Anon 20.22, double edged sword this one, all industrial activity aviation related or not on the airport site is theoretically controlled with respect to the aquifer and ultimately is likely to restrict what either RiverOak or Discovery Parks could do there. My take has always been that RiverOak know that a freight hub wouldn’t be allowed to get to the level of operation that would be viable because of the environmental constraints, so that their offer was a ruse to get the site for residential development which would be the easiest site use to make compliant.

The main issue with an airfreight hub would be it tipping the already very high background particulate air pollution over Margate and Broadstairs into the serious life expectancy reduction bracket.

This is related to the five to ten mile dispersion of the particulate pollution related to one 747 movement (landing or takeoff) burning a ton of aviderv and the prevailing wind direction.

A major concern for me would be if TDC refuse Discovery Parks planning consent instead of granting consent with a strict S106 to protect the aquifer. Obviously from the point of view of the planning inspectorate Manston is just a brownfield site without planning consent for an airport and if the council refused consent it is highly likely that a planning appeal to the inspectorate would result in consent without proper environmental protection.

Anonymous said...

Michael, I'm talking about the way this particular plane was demolished (as you well know). Please try to answer a question directly - otherwise become a politician.

Anonymous said...

20:24 Of course not. You can't start casting aspersions about the people you call "anti-Manston" just because you had your car vandalised. The difference in Kim Gibson's case is the Save Manston Airport campaigners published her name address and the registration number of her car on their web-site shortly before this happened.

Anonymous said...

Anon 23:04 According to one poster on the SMA site, the aircraft remaining on site were auctioned off and are owned by the contractor who has a licence for demolishing aircraft; the same one who was demolishing aircraft on the Northern Grass area. I don't recall anybody complaining about those demolition activities. It seems to me that some people who don't really know what they are talking about have got all het up about a perfectly legal dismantling job. Once again, taxpayers' money is being wasted directing officers to chase around checking up on something when there is no real evidence that anything has been done wrong. In my opinion, they should bill Ruth for the time they will waste on this.

Anonymous said...

It now turns out that the plane which was demolished had long been stripped out and was being used for fire training. It contained no fluids of any description. It would seem that, in their desperation to attack the site's owners, the pro-airport campaigners have failed to check their facts before rushing into print (again). What concerns me is the waste of taxpayers' money. We have officers being called out on a Sunday to check what is going on when there is no real evidence of any wrongdoing. God knows how much of our money will get wasted when they start digging up the runway.

Michael Child said...

32.04 not sure what sort of answer you want, obviously I am concerned about any industrial activity on the aquifer being properly regulated, but I haven’t seen anything in the way of evidence that this activity isn’t.

It is looking as though the SMA group have lost their grip on prioritising saving the airport and are targeting the new owners and local politicians who are realistically the only people who could do anything to secure any future aviation use for Manston.

Anonymous said...

4,000 jobs promised. Who knows whether these will materialise but the point is a)these people own the land b)all new ventures are untested and there needs to be a degree of investment and risk taking in order to deliver c)Manston has promised jobs for nearly 20 years and has failed to deliver. Clearly then it is time to move on and look at new plans which seem certain to deliver more jobs than Manston ever did. It is not naive to place more faith in owners with a track record of success (even if they have not yet fully delivered) against a failed airport and a potential 'saviour' who, as a company, have no experience in aviation and whose 'expert' has a considerable track record in failing to deliver promises in aviation. It's an easy choice. With regard to recent posts about the dismantling of the aircraft - we see again the SMA group running around in panic and firing off blatantly inaccurate information in their desperation to highlight their dying cause. As has already been said, the irony in them complaining about the breaking up of planes is astonishing. However, the main cause of complaint here is that they still seem able to make the council jump to their tune, at further cost to ordinary residents.

Anonymous said...

I see the Manston Pickle group have flagged the real reason for the "American Saviours" visit to the UK - it was to do with his part in the attempted £2.2 billion takeover of Canary Wharf.

Makes it sounds like the trip to Manston was something to do before his flight back to the USA !!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Michael Child said...

Anon 19.24 I don't publish potentially libelous comments here.

Anonymous said...

I'm not the anon from 19:24 but I am confused. When I submit a posting it tells me that comment moderation has been enabled. My posting doesn't appear until it has been checked. If the posting at 19:24 was potentially libellous why did you post it in the first place?

Michael Child said...

Look anon 21.45, this blog isn’t some sort of public facility that you have paid for, it’s just me working fairly long days and today trying to moderate it on my day off with my mobile phone. Little buttons, big fingers, reading glasses, get the picture.

Barry James said...

Thought you might be interested Michael http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=572&MId=3889

Local Plan Cabinet Advisory Group
Tuesday, 18th November, 2014 2.00 pm

Michael Child said...

Thanks Barry have had a skim through but frankly just don’t have the time at the moment to read it properly.