Riveroak and Academy FM

 

Interview: Academy FM Monday 22 November 2021

TF

Tony Freudmann

0:00

Thank you for the opportunity to explain where we are and what's going on with the airport.

AF

Academy FM

0:03

Well Tony, it's a pleasure to have you here. Now, Tony, can you tell us a little bit about RiverOak and what the company actually does?

TF

Tony Freudmann

0:12

Well, RiverOak is what we call in the, in the jargon, a SPV, a single purpose vehicle. In other words, it's a company which was set up to acquire and develop Manston Airport. It's a company with wealthy backers who've supported us so far. And as you know, we've spent roughly 40 million pounds on the project so far, with more to come. So it is a single purpose vehicle. It's a bit like the company that owns Heathrow, you know, all airports are owned by single purpose vehicles. That's who we are. And of course the investors are committed to the project. They don't invest their money lightly these are large sums of money. And you know, you, you, you carry out very robust and thorough forecasts before you could decide to commit your money. So for anyone who thinks that this is a huge gamble, and people don't know what they're doing well it's really not the case.

Editor's Note: What isn't asked nor elucidated is the true nature of the several companies that were formed during 2017. Nor indeed where the beneficial ownership resides.

In the middle of this spider web is Riveroak Strategic Partners Ltd where in 2019 80% of the shares were owned by HLX Nominees registered in the Tax Haven of the British Virgin Islands

AF

Academy FM

1:14

And in 2018, RiverOak submitted a Development Consent Order, a DCO, to reopen and develop the airport into a freight facility. Why did you choose Manston airport?

TF

Tony Freudmann

1:27

Well, the truth is there isn't anywhere else. We and our investors wanted an airport which would be a major freight airport with some passenger traffic. For that you need a runway, a long runway of nearly 3000 metres. There isn't another one anywhere in the South East of England and we identified that there was a shortage of capacity in the south east of England. So Manston was perfect. And the final point is, there is a planning policy which is still a planning policy which is called MBU, Make Best Use and what that means is rather than digging up greenfield sites and putting down new runways, if there's a runway there, you should use it. And that's why we chose Manston.

Editor's note: Both Lakenheath and Mildenhall are better geographically. Both are surplus to requirements for the RAF and USAF yet Tony wants to create a Cargo Hub in East Kent 50 miles from the M25. BTW Manston is 9029 feet / 2752 metres. To some that may seem petty but  not if you are trying to take off with a fully laden cargo plane.

AF

Academy FM

2:10

Right. And you submitted as I said, the Development Consent Order. What then happened?

TF

Tony Freudmann

2:16

Well, we were accepted as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project as it's called you. You have to be accepted is that before you can go forward to examination. There was six months of examination, public examination for the first six months of 2019. And the DCO process is strictly timetabled, the inspectors then completed their examination in July 2019. They submitted the report within three months. That's how it goes, to the Secretary of State October 2019. And the Secretary of State is supposed to deliver his decision within three months so it should have been January 2020. Well, he didn't do it. We didn't get the decision until July 2020. And there was then a judicial review against the decision. And the Secretary of State conceded that he hadn't explained the reasons for his decision. in enough detail. So it was it was taken back for the reasons to be rewritten. And that's where we stand currently. So we are actually two years behind schedule now.

Editor's note: "Well, we were accepted as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project as it's called you. You have to be accepted is that before you can go forward to examination." Now to most people that may sound logical however what you may not realise is that to be accepted for examination RO had to convince the planning inspectorate that Manston was capable of achieving 10000 Cargo air transport movements (CATMs) in a 12 month period. Dr. Sally Dixon managed that by the simple expedient of reducing the cargo in each movement to 20 tonnes. When Manston was operative each load arriving averaged 95tonnes and each aircraft left empty.

Editor's note 2: Tony forgot to mention that after 6 months of examining his plan the planning inspectorate declared there was no NEED for Manston. I wonder why?

EXA: Given all the above evidence, the ExA concludes that the levels of freight that the Proposed Development could expect to handle are modest and could be catered for at existing airports (Heathrow, Stansted, EMA, and others if the demand existed). The ExA considers that Manston appears to offer no obvious advantages to outweigh the strong competition that such airports offer. The ExA therefore concludes that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient need for the Proposed Development, additional to (or different from) the need which is met by the provision of existing airports.

AF

Academy FM

3:28

Right. And as Manston Airport, as I said, has been in existence since 1916. Obviously you know, you have to apply for planning permission, new various licences etcetera, but I was surprised that has actually taken so long.

TF

Tony Freudmann

3:44

We're very surprised. I mean, we're not the only ones who are having the same problems. You know, people will be following the London Resort project which used to be the Paramount Studios project, that's got bogged down in bureaucracy and red tape, the Lower Thames crossing the same thing. It's a problem with major infrastructure projects in this country. We are impatient with the DfT. We think it's taken far too long. And the irony is, we've got investors who want to invest, who want to create jobs, who want to create a successful airport and we're on hold while we await the decision.

AF

Academy FM

4:21

Yes. And last year, we saw because of a lockdown that the post Brexit lorry Park was introduced. Was this the government coming to RiverOak saying, we want to use your land for a lorry park or did you have any saying in it?

TF

Tony Freudmann

4:36

Well, we could have refused I suppose. But what happened was that when we purchased the airport, the Department for Transport already had a short-term lease on the airport. So they came to us when we bought it and said, will you extend our time until July of 2019 because we think we may need it because of problems post-Brexit. And we agreed to that we thought, well, if we don't agree to it, and there are problems and of course, many of your listeners will remember the problems that occurred last Christmas and beyond, if we hadn't agreed to it, there would probably been gridlock on Kent roads everywhere. At one point there were 4000 lorries parked on the airport, you know, unbelievable. So that was why we agreed to it, but they left in July and since then, we've had no further requests from the DfT.

Editor's note: a nice piece of "sleight of hand", the truth is the Department of Transport had a contractual obligation with the previous owners of Manston, Stone Hill Park, and not only that when the DfT took over the runway they paid Stone Hill Park for the privilege. Must of been really annoying. Also not mentioned is RSP being paid £8.5M for holding up their plans. You know the ones that were quashed in February 2021 when the JR succeeded. Nice money for doing naff all.

 

AF

Academy FM

3:34

But there are rumours certainly flying around Thanet at the moment that the government may be considering Manston Airport to house perhaps immigrants or maybe having an immigration centre. Is there any truth in the rumour as well?

TF

Tony Freudmann

5:31

Well, like everyone else, we hear things and we're aware of how urgent the situation has become. Here you have, Manston a 800 acre site which is secure, it's fenced and so on. I would not be surprised if it wasn't one of the places that people would be looking at you know, because they seem to be looking at everywhere and somewhere that's so close to the Channel, it would be a logical place. That would be a tragedy and as long as the airport remains unused, the temptation for government to look at the airport will be there.

 

 AF

Academy FM

6:23

Yes, yes. But that was not that would be a long-term project wouldn't it? It wouldn't be something like the lorry park?

TF

Tony Freudmann

6:29

Well, exactly. You know, I mean, the problem with the migrant thing is who knows, you know, you look at migrant camps in other parts of the world, some of them have been there for 20 years. So absolutely.

AF

Academy FM

6:39

Yes, yes. And an independent assessor appointed by the Secretary of State, Grant Shapps last month concluded that the case for a freight hub was not proven. Was this a surprise to you?

TF

Tony Freudmann

6:52

It was it was a total surprise at a number of levels. I need to take a little bit of time to explain this. First of all, we thought that the assessor appointed by the Secretary of State was going to be there to explain the reasons for the Secretary of State's decision, his consent in July of, in July 2020, but he didn't. And what they did was they carried out a demand study. Now we say that is wrong in law. Because this doesn't require a demand study. I know this gets a bit complicated, but there was a point at which we were asking the Secretary of State for a compulsory purchase order of the Manston. If you're asking for compulsory purchase the test is a higher test, the need test. We don't need a compulsory purchase order we own the airport, we bought it we paid for it. So the need test, as it's called, is actually the balance of public interest. In other words, what is the what are the pluses on what are the minuses? So to carry out a demand study, we disagree with the conclusions anyway, it just makes no sense. I mean, for you, those of your listeners who are familiar with the London Resort, no one's done a demand study on the London Resort. The, the promoters of that project either own the land or have the options over it so it's just a public interest test, which is what we say we satisfy and but by the way, we also say that the Arup report is fundamentally flawed, they fail to understand the changes that have taken place in the market because of Brexit and because of COVID in the changes with e-commerce and Amazon and all the rest of it. So you know, we say it is a really badly flawed report and reflects very bad on the Arup organisation.

Editors Note: what the assessor said was quite succinct, they certainly weren't their to provide excuses for the rather controversial decision by Stephenson to overturn the ExA's decision to turn down the DCO.

AF

Academy FM

8:53

Yes, yes. And the Secretary of State asked a RiverOak and Interested Parties for their comments by the 19th of November, has RiverOak produced and submitted evidence to prove that there is a need for a freight service at Manston Airport?

TF

Tony Freudmann

9:08

Well, the 19th of November date was subsequently extended to the third of December because the original Arup report which they released, had mistakes in it. There was a chapter missing. There were footnotes that were redacted. They had to correct the mistakes which meant that they had to start the consultation clock all over again. So it's now 'til the third of December. We will be putting in a major response to it on the third of December, maybe a few days before, and we'll be publishing it so that everyone can see what we've said.

AF

Academy FM

9:45

Right. And when are you then likely to get a response from the Secretary of State?

TF

Tony Freudmann

9:50

We don't know. We will be pressing very hard for a timetable. The whole point about Development Consent Orders is that they're meant to be strictly timetabled, and the original parts of it were six months for the examination, three months for the report, three months of the decision. We have no timetable at the moment. So we'll be pressing very hard, very hard for a timetable.

AF

Academy FM

10:12

We're gonna play a piece of music and we'll be coming back with to find out more about Manston airport and the plans for Manston Airport.

TF

Tony Freudmann

10:24

Well, they're ambitious plans, we've set them out in a, in a detailed master plan. It's basically to create a very, very large cargo hangar slash warehouse with supporting buildings, both airside and on the Northern Grass, as local people will know it, and to build 19 or 20 parking stands in other words, places where cargo planes can park. And this, by the way, is the answer to those people who say, well, it never worked in the past so why will it work now? The problem with Manston in the past was it only ever had two parking stands. And you've heard me say this before, it's like having a beautiful hotel and complaining that there are no guests because you've only got three bedrooms. And that was the problem. So you have to spend money on that and we're projecting three or 400 million pounds for that level of development. The other good thing about Manston is that it will be carbon neutral, because unlike other airports that have legacy issues like diesel powered vehicles and inefficient buildings, we will be able to have all electric, all hydrogen, all the buildings with solar panels and meeting the highest environmental standards, which will be a major plus for us. So building brand new with brand new equipment, brand new everything, big advantage. It's easy to use that awful phrase, it means you're future proofing the airport from day one.

Editor's note: Manston never made a profit simply because geographically it is in the wrong place. Talk to people who worked there and they will tell you it took 2-3 days to unload the aircraft but as they only had an average of 2 aircraft a week that was never a problem. You have to remember Tony Freudmann ran the airport from 1999-2005. So he never noticed it had 2 stands, that is extremely remiss of him

AF

Academy FM

11:56

Yes, yes. And the land surrounding the airport, will that be used for commercial or residential development?.

TF

Tony Freudmann

12:03

No, our land will only be used for aviation related so it will be for, primarily for offices, hangars, workshops to support aviation services, catering for aviation, that kind of thing. And I know you mentioned to me off air, we will also for the record, bring back TG Aviation, the flying school. Yes, they've been away and they want to come back and that will be one of the first things we do

AF

Academy FM

12:34

And at the moment we're seeing that Thanet Parkway Station is being constructed. Is that going to have a direct link to the airport?

 

 

TF

Tony Freudmann

12:45

No, it's not, it's not going to have a physical link to the airport. You know we, we wish the project well but to be perfectly honest with you the county council didn't liaise with us at all over the design and construction of Parkway Station. So we don't know what it will do for us. As far as we're concerned, we'll be looking at Ramsgate Station for people coming to Manston by rail and we'll be running an electrical hydrogen powered bus, a shuttle bus, to and from the station. And Ramsgate Station has facilities for travellers to the Parkway Station won't have. The other beauty for us of Ramsgate Station is that it has the potential to become a handling hub for rail freight, there is land behind the station which can be developed. Ramsgate Station is on the, an arm of the HS1 line and you can you can get with overnight rail journeys from Ramsgate up to Willesden in northwest London in 45 minutes. So, you know, all those things are big pluses for us.

Editor's note: Remember this is the 1st time in 7 years talk about using Ramsgate station has been mooted. 1. "The other beauty for us of Ramsgate Station is that it has the potential to become a handling hub for rail freight, there is land behind the station which can be developed." 

So what land is that RSP surely not Warre Recreation ground which looks like the only undeveloped site. Then there is the small matter of Newington road with a Fire Station and two schools.

AF

Academy FM

13:55

Yes, yes, definitely. And what will the airport do for the local economy?

 

TF

Tony Freudmann

14:00

Well, it will it will create jobs basically, you know it will create jobs, it will give opportunities to youngsters who often have to leave the area when they leave school because there are no jobs for them locally. We think it will transform the local economy down here. We've, we've recently been working with Ramsgate Football Club, we helped on a small project, school dinners at half term, and supported that to some extent and it was, a you know, we knew but it was an eye opener to us as to the levels of deprivation: youngsters coming from homes where there's no work, parents who can't find work. And these are all human resources that are available for us to use, use you know and the beauty of airports is it has a range of employed employment, you know, from the you know, the firefighters right down to the security guy who checks she was the gate, you know, so, all of those things, umm, we can we can contribute we're and again, you know, we've had a lot of criticism about the projections. What I suggest, people who are sceptical about this is, they look at the number of jobs there are at similar airports East Midlands Airport is a good comparative Well there are several jobs. But the other thing with airports, and Stansted do this, is you have to train people, you have to train school leavers. You're offering them, them, them a career path which doesn't exist otherwise. We've started that process as well, because it's all essential to support an airport. You can't just say we want 1000 people tomorrow, please turn up at the gate because they're not there.

Editor's note: As has been said on a number of occasions by expert opinion there maybe construction jobs (even that is unlikely to benefit locals as RSP anticipates employment for up to 90miles away). These jobs however will be short term but the affects of a Cargo hub over Ramsgate will mean the loss of many Leisure jobs as Ramsgate becomes the sacrifice, that is assuming the Cargo Hub doesn't become a white elephant.

AF

Academy FM

15:51

No, no, no. And if when you're given the go ahead to proceed with the development, how long will it actually take to complete?

TF

Tony Freudmann

14:00

Well, it will take, let's be optimistic, supposing we get a final go ahead next spring, we've then got probably 9 to 12 months of detailed design work, survey work, off site road planning, road improvements and that kind of thing. And what I also haven't mentioned is putting in designs for the transport of goods from Ramsgate, from, sorry, from Manston Airport to the port of Ramsgate and then up the River Thames on hydrogen powered vessels, so all of that stuff will take some planning. So we think in that scenario, if we get consent, spring, building work will start perhaps the following January, 2023. And then, with a fair wind, we could be open by the summer of 2024. That's the current projection.

AF

Academy FM

14:00

Wow! Yes, yes.

TF

Tony Freudmann

14:00

And I should also say we, we estimate that the construction work will involve the employment of between six and 800 people. So the jobs on the airport once construction starts will be significant.

Editor's note: Presuming he means between 600-800 short term construction jobs from mostly large employers who will bring their own workforce.

AF

Academy FM

14:00

Yes, yes. And if people want to find out more about the projects and more about Riveroak, is there a website they can go

TF

Tony Freudmann

14:00

There is a website is it's rsp.co.uk - it's all on there. We put a news feed on there, we publish material there... There's an awful lot there if they want to find out more.

AF

Academy FM

17:32

What's it thank you very much for coming in and speaking to us today. Good luck with your projects, and we will keep updated.

TF

Tony Freudmann

17:40

Thank you. It's been a pleasure. Thank you very much

AF

Academy FM

17:43

Thank you very much, that's Tony Freeman, Director of RiverOak

 

Should the DfT make the decision about the DCO?

 With all the current press about sleaze in the Conservative Party it is worth remembering that Grant Schapps is alleged to have recused himself from the original DCO decision because he appeared in front of the cameras with the "Save Manston Airport Association" in the past.

MP offers 'moral support' to Manston Airport campaigners - BBC News

So the original decision was made by Andrew Stephenson however   Many people were concerned that the decision to grant the DCO was somewhat perverted because the Examination Report recommended refusal.

One wonders whether the Department for Transport made the decision simply because they wished to please the Minister (Grant Schapps) as he has a love of general aviation.

Now with the revelations being posted in the media one wonders if there is more to it than a love of general aviation.

The accusation by the Secretary of State of malpractice has been denied however if true it does seem the reason for the granting of the DCO was made, not on the facts, but on the whim of a love of aviation which is hardly the way to run a State Office. (extract of letter, original at the end)

There is a precedent for stopping disused airfields from being built on and in this case caused the loss of 6000 jobs. 

Further in an article published in the Times of 13/11/2021 reproduced below and available here

"Between 2012 and 2018, he submitted a series of objections, often on parliamentary headed notepaper, to proposed development at Panshanger, describing it as a community asset which could “never be replaced”. Homes England is now selling the site and the lease to the local flying club has been terminated.

Forced to migrate to a makeshift runway on a field near his home, he joined campaigns to prevent other airfields being built on elsewhere.

 He returned to the cabinet in July 2019, when Johnson became prime minister. Despite voting Remain, he campaigned for Johnson and was rewarded with a plum post overseeing transport.

 In a letter to Deirdre Hutton, then chairwoman of the CAA, he said his “key priorities” included “supporting the success of the aviation industry ... including by protecting the network of general aviation airfields” and “proactively advising aerodromes faced with possible changes of use [planning applications] which could constrain future flying”.

 Asking a regulator to protect airfields from planning applications was unusual and Hutton told him as much. Shapps disagreed, telling her he wanted Britain to become the “best place in the world for aviation”.

 Shapps has since redoubled his campaigning. He has set up and diverted public money to a new team housed within the CAA: the Airfield Advisory Team, which, official documents state, was designed with one goal in mind: helping private airfields lobby against, or “engage with”, the planning system. Shapps has described its work as “crucial”."

Whilst having an interest in aviation itself is not an issue, if true, this pervasive taint of "saving" brownfield sites (contrary to the wished of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove) instead of using them for building instead of land to grow crops would seem to fly in the face of Government edicts.

One wonders also whether the Westminster breakfast meetings organized and paid for by Riveroak Strategic Partners (RSP) has added to the pressure on the Secretary of State and whether RSP have made promises to the DfT which may have lead to the payment of £8.5M to RSP for "delaying" their plans for the ex-airport. This payment does seem somewhat perverse seeing as the DfT knew the DCO was about to be quashed.

You will note payment made just 6 days before the DfT concedes and payment was made on the say so of just one unknown person.

Whatever is going on and how much is Grant Schapp's influence over decisions that should be based on facts not wishes is unknown however those elected should live by higher standards (Nolan Principles) in their Public Lives than they currently seem to be lately.

Letter from Angela Rayner to Boris Johnson

Reproduced full article from Times 13/11/2021

In the final days of the parliamentary recess in September, Grant Shapps made an unorthodox journey for a cabinet minister. The transport secretary flew solo in his personal plane from a farm near his Hertfordshire home to Sywell, an aerodrome in Northamptonshire.

Shapps, 53, was there for the rally of the Light Aircraft Association: an annual jamboree for aviation enthusiasts from across Europe. Having obtained a licence in his twenties, he remains a flying fanatic and the proud owner of a £100,000 Piper Saratoga.

 Shortly after arriving, he went to chat with the editor of his favourite magazine, Flyer, which represents the interests of amateur pilots, including campaigning to block development on Britain’s private airfields.

 Shapps told him: “Because I was reading your last month’s edition, I had sent a message to my office at DfT and asked them to invite you in so you can challenge on some of these things ... to see what else we should be doing.” The minister joked: “We’ll even have coffee!”

Perhaps it is not a surprise he has brought his boyish enthusiasm for flying into government. It may even appear an advantage, giving him knowledge of a niche and technical area within his remit.

However, it has had far-reaching effects in Whitehall, secretly pitting him against the prime minister and frustrating efforts to build more homes and tackle climate change.

 His department is quietly spending public money funding lobbying against the government’s own housing plans where development would take place on private runways — including some he has personally used.

As a result, Homes England, the housing agency overseen by Michael Gove, has already withdrawn plans for a new town with thousands of homes in one of the most housing-stressed areas in the country.

 The lobbyists are also battling against plans to build a battery gigafactory on Coventry airport. Boris Johnson has praised the development and it is supposed to deliver thousands of jobs while helping Britain to achieve its net-zero ambitions. According to flight traffic data, Shapps recently flew his plane on to the airfield.

He has set up a scheme that lets private pilots claim public money for new equipment, and allegedly lobbied against a looming ban on a kind of toxic fuel used by his aeroplane.

 His love of aviation has taken up valuable time in a department with a budget of £3 billion whose recent responsibilities have included dealing with post-Brexit trade disruption, delivering protective personal equipment from abroad, overseeing HS2 and building roads and rail infrastructure.

 It is even said to have undermined the government’s response during crises such as the collapse of Thomas Cook, which heralded the biggest repatriation since Dunkirk.

At the time of the holiday firm collapse, in September 2019, the then chairwoman of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the aviation regulator which belongs to his department, was forced to ask Shapps to stop demanding staff time to discuss amateur aviation. Shapps allegedly “backed off”, and let the CAA grapple with its biggest peacetime crisis.

Tension persisted during the early days of the pandemic, when Shapps was regarded by some civil servants as going awol and dedicating more time to his hobby than the imminent peril facing airlines. It is even claimed the chief executive of one airline considered writing a public letter demanding he focus on the task at hand.

 A civil service source said bluntly that he remained “obsessed” with general aviation. The obsession began in 1995 when Shapps, then a photocopier salesman in his early twenties, obtained his pilot licence. He married, bought a printing business, and endured cancer, but remained a devotee of the world of general aviation or “GA”, the recreational use of aircraft.

 Since 2005, he has lived in and represented Welwyn Hatfield, a London green-belt Conservative seat with a majority greater than 10,000. For years he lived a 15-minute drive from Panshanger airfield, a former RAF training site.

Under David Cameron, Shapps grew in stature: having seized his seat from Labour, he was appointed to a housing role in the shadow cabinet. In 2010 he became a minister and, in due course, Conservative Party co-chairman.

 He found himself in the wilderness once Theresa May became prime minister and turned his political focus to his longstanding love. In 2017, he was appointed chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on aviation, and campaigned relentlessly against the scourge of recreational pilots: planning applications to build on private airfields.

 He argued the hobby had reached a “critical point” as “more of our airfields disappear under housing developments and more of our common airspace is closed off”.

 Between 2012 and 2018, he submitted a series of objections, often on parliamentary headed notepaper, to proposed development at Panshanger, describing it as a community asset which could “never be replaced”. Homes England is now selling the site and the lease to the local flying club has been terminated.

Forced to migrate to a makeshift runway on a field near his home, he joined campaigns to prevent other airfields being built on elsewhere.

He returned to the cabinet in July 2019, when Johnson became prime minister. Despite voting Remain, he campaigned for Johnson and was rewarded with a plum post overseeing transport.

 In a letter to Deirdre Hutton, then chairwoman of the CAA, he said his “key priorities” included “supporting the success of the aviation industry ... including by protecting the network of general aviation airfields” and “proactively advising aerodromes faced with possible changes of use [planning applications] which could constrain future flying”.

 Asking a regulator to protect airfields from planning applications was unusual and Hutton told him as much. Shapps disagreed, telling her he wanted Britain to become the “best place in the world for aviation”.

Shapps has since redoubled his campaigning. He has set up and diverted public money to a new team housed within the CAA: the Airfield Advisory Team, which, official documents state, was designed with one goal in mind: helping private airfields lobby against, or “engage with”, the planning system. Shapps has described its work as “crucial”.

The team leaders are private consultants brought in from outside government and given civil service salaries.

Around the same time, Shapps created a £2 million fund allowing pilots and airfield operators to get free management consultancy from a Texas-based international lobbying firm, ICF Consultancy Services, on how to, among other things, successfully object to planning applications. He has called it the Airfield Development Fund

Documents show the new team has lobbied against plans to build homes over private runways and plans put forward by the government. Private lobbyists employed by the government are now lobbying against the government.

 In some instances, the lobbying frustrated Johnson’s central objective of building homes outside of London. On May 25, 2021, Homes England withdrew plans for 3,000 homes at Chalgrove, an airfield in South Oxfordshire, to “take account [of] comments from the . . . airfield advisory team”.

 The team had lodged formal objections to the plans, declaring “protection of airfields is a priority for [the] DfT”. Last night, Homes England accepted they had pulled the plans while emphasising the urgency of building homes in that area.

 Homes are not the only instance in which Shapps’s decisions conflict directly with the priorities of the government he represents.

 As part of its commitment to tackling climate change, the government have long sought to phase out a highly toxic and dangerous substance, tetraethyllead, which forms part of the fuel used in planes similar to Shapps’s. Last April, however, Martin Robinson, head of the biggest group representing aircraft owners and pilots, contracted Shapps asking if the government could extend a transition period before an eventual ban. He says the transport secretary responded: “On it.”

Last month, British regulators confirmed they would not place the substance on a list of substances of “very high concern”, marking one of the most significant cases of divergence from the EU rules since Brexit.

Shapps has also funded a scheme allowing pilots to claim money for 50 per cent of the cost of buying specialist kit for their planes. Since last year, the DfT, and, in turn, the taxpayer have covered half the cost of purchases of “electronic conspicuity” equipment, which allows planes to see each other in mid-air.

 Around the time Shapps started his post, a senior civil servant is said to have asked him what his main priority was. Shapps responded: “Protecting general aviation.”

 Homes England said the planning application at Chalgrove airfield “has been withdrawn to allow an amended application to be submitted to take account of comments from the Civil Aviation Authority’s Airfield Advisory Team”.

 It emphasised its intention to resubmit plans in light of the “considerable housing shortfall”.

 A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “It is right that the transport secretary works to promote all aspects of the department’s brief including the general aviation sector.”

 Sources said the Airfield Advisory Team was an “advisory team”, not a lobbying body, that helps to liaise with organisations to ensure “informed decisions can be made by local planning authorities”.

 They said Shapps responded to a lobbyist’s requests by emailing his office reminding them he wanted to see “action” on removing lead from fuel. Doing so, the sources suggested, would facilitate a future ban on the dangerous chemical.

The government provided a statement from John Holland-Kaye, the chief executive of Heathrow airport. He said: “The biggest thing aviation has needed in the last 18 months is to get borders open safely again and Grant Shapps has worked tirelessly to deliver this.”

Response from Grants Schapps

Heathrow decision and how it relates to Manston

 What follows is a tweetroll from Jason written after the Supreme Court overturned the Govt decision to quash the permission for the 3rd Runway at Heathrow. The conclusion is that this benefits the decision to stop the DCO for Manston airport.

What next for #Heathrow?

A #thread based on our experience with the UK's first (and only) airport DCO, #Manston, and @slmjh51012's recent presentation for the @The_AEF's  AGM.

Today's Supreme Court Judgment confirms what we knew ... an airport development's impact on ability of Govt to meet its Paris Agreement (PA) obligations will be examined and determined at DCO stage

All eyes now on Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008, which sets out what the Secretary of State must consider in determining a DCO where a National Policy Statement - in this case the ANPS - has effect

Worth noting that if Supreme Court had reached a different decision and ANPS was ruled unlawful, Heathrow could still apply for DCO and Section 105 of Planning Act would come into play in determining the DCO. Here it is

So was the airport development's impact on Govt Paris Agreement commitments taken into account for Manston DCO? Kind of. @PINSgov and @grantshapps accepted it would put UK in breach - of even older targets - and this should carry "moderate weight"

Climate Change was one of many grounds why @PINSgov recommended refusal of this airport DCO - others included issues around need, heritage impact, noise, poor surface access, devastation caused to historic town of Ramsgate, negative tourism impact etc.

So @grantshapps original decision was to overrule @PINSgov  and grant DCO anyway. Why? Well ... Not quite sure. Successful JR forced Govt to concede it had not given clear reasons to grant DCO, so decision will soon be quashed

Manston DCO decision will now be re-determined. This matters for Heathrow - and others. If we are to have any confidence whatsoever in DCO process, as LHR Supreme Court decision suggests, #Manston DCO must surely now be refused

Local campaigners are prepared to take this further with continued JR if needs be. Not sure @grantshapps wants this going to court as risks creating case law that may impact on future airport DCOs

What follows is the conclusion by No 3rd Runway Coalition

The common denominator

With the news that the DCO will be quashed because the DoT have withdrawn one can't but feel that there is a common thread running through this sorry saga. This thread has one main person who has instigated most of the failures, That is Anthony (Tony) Freudmann. In short this is the timeline to the current fiasco

2013 - Tony approaches TDC to see if they would entertain 1000 on the Northern Grass.

2014 - Tony ropes in Sir Roger Gale to make an 11th hour bid for the airport. This is rejected

2014/15 - Tony makes 3 approaches to TDC to partner for a CPO (Compulsory Purchase Order) which all fail mainly because he cannot prove he can safeguard the council. (He has no money)

2016/17 -Tony regroups, dumps Steve DeNardo and the original Riveroak, gains new backers and tries again with a Development Consent Order (DCO)

2018 - First try of a DCO submitted January 2018

2018 - RSP withdraw the DCO because it failed to pass muster

2018 - RSP resubmit a revised DCO in July. This time it is accepted for examination

2019 - National Planning conclude their report in October forwarding it to the Department of Transport for the Secretary of State's verdict. The 1097 pages of the report conclude it should be rejected

2020 - The deputy to the SoS Grant Schapps overturns the decision and issues a letter setting out his reasons. You can read the letter here 

The objectors join forces and ask for a Judicial Review.

The SoS withdraws in December clearing the way for the DCO to be quashed. The Legal verdict is as follows:

... yesterday my solicitors received a letter from the Treasury Solicitor, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, which said "my client has agreed to concede this claim on the basis of ground 1(b), namely that the Secretary of State did not give adequate reasons in his decision letter to enable the reader to understand why he disagreed with the Examining Authority Report on the issue of need for the development of Manston Airport".  We subsequently learned that the Interested Party, RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd, will not be defending their claim.

Here is the full text of Ground 1(b): Failure to Give Reasons:

75. S.116 of the 2008 Act and Regulation 30 of the EIA Regulations both impose a duty on the Defendant to give reasons for granting a DCO. In South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter [2004] UKHL 33, the House of Lords confirmed that any such reasons must be adequate and intelligible, and enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the principal important controversial issues.

76. As to the quality of the reasons for disagreeing with the ExA on “need”, given that the Defendant (SoS)asked himself entirely the wrong question, falsely eliding “need” with “benefit”, his reasons  for disagreeing with the ExA on need are, inevitably, inadequate, improper and unintelligible. An informed reader of the DL is wholly unable to discern:

a. Why the Defendant considered that there was a “clear case of need” for the development which existing airports (Heathrow, Stansted and EMA) could not meet.

b. Upon what basis the quantum of anticipated need for freight had been assessed by him.

c. Upon what basis the capacity of existing airports within the south east to accommodate that quantum of need had been assessed by him.

d. Whether, and if so why, he considered those existing airports (Heathrow, Stansted and EMA) not to be preferred locations to meet that quantum of need.

e. To what extent he considered need could not be met in the bellyhold of passenger flights to and from those existing airports.

f. Whether, and if so why, he considered that facilities could not be constructed at those existing airports to meet that quantum of need.

g. Upon what basis the Defendant disagreed with the expert evidence produced by York Aviation, and others, against the need case.

77. These issues were all addressed in detail in the Examining Authority’s report, but were not mentioned, let alone grappled with, in the Defendant’s perfunctory and dismissive Decision Letter.

What happens next

Following the quashing of the Manston Airport Development Consent Order 2020 by the Court, the Secretary of State will write to all interested parties, setting out key issues and inviting further written representations on those issues. (editor's comment, he may of course walk away like happened with the Heathrow decision)

Interested parties include the applicant, the local authority and anyone who previously registered by filling out a Relevant Representation form at the inquiry stage (and had it accepted as valid).

The Secretary of State will make a decision based on the Examining Authority’s Report and the further representations. The Secretary of State has three months to make a decision but this can be extended.

The decision could be either a refusal to make a Manston Airport Development Consent Order or a decision to grant such a Consent Order.

If a DCO is refused, RSP may wish to bring a judicial review. I would be an Interested Party in any such challenge.

If a DCO is granted, another judicial review can be brought on the existing grounds and any further grounds that may arise on review of the decision letter.

 Any money left over from the current Crowd Justice campaign can be held in readiness and used towards a second judicial review. (This comes after costs are paid by the defendants)

Conclusion

At the start of this post I stated there is a common thread of failure and that hasn't changed. Freudmann has been the thread and everything he touches ends in failure. Even when the Tory Chumocracy sides with Tony he still fails.

1st he has no money then he cannot prove there is even a need for a Cargo Hub (he still hasn't shown he has the money to rebuild Manston) yet listening to the Airport supporters everyone else is to blame. Sooner or later they will come to their senses but the hurt will linger for a long, long time.

Manston DCO quashed

Is this the beginning of the end? Or the end of the beginning?  Is the thought that runs through my head as I heard the news that the DoT and RSP had given up their legal case for the reopening of Manston airport today.

The news broke this morning in a flurry of emails from the Judicial Review Legal team representing Jenny Dawes, however Sir Roger Gale issued an ambiguous statement yesterday which I reproduce.

Manston Airport – Decision delay. (Statement by Roger Gale)

The future of Manston Airport has been subjected to further delay in the light of the application for Judicial Review.

The Department of Transport has acknowledged that the Minister of State`s decision letter could have contained more information as to reasons. (In other words the DoT concedes that the grounds for overturning the decision by 4 planning Inspectors was weak and not sustainable)

That being so the Department has conceded these grounds ( yes conceded and what follows is spin) and will no doubt wish to afford all parties the opportunity to make further submissions before re-visiting the DCO (in other words re-submitting yet another application) and issuing a further and more detailed letter of determination in due course.

With the endgame of Brexit fast approaching the need for the airport is stronger not weaker (Spin because aviation has fallen off a cliff): the airfield is contracted for use as a lorry park for twelve months (is that so Roger because the DoT only said until July 2021. What have you heard about Brexit people need to know?)so the effects of the delay, while tiresome ought to be minimal and I remain confident that the right decisions will be taken in the interests of Thanet, Kent and the United Kingdom and that planes will be flying again from Manston in a couple of years time. (wishful thinking seeing as the DoT has conceded then RSP need to make a statement about the land use soonest)

(Editor's comments in Bold and it is also clear that he knew RSP had also withdrawn which he fails to mention)

Today Jenny's legal team also issued a statement

“Yesterday my solicitors received a letter from the Treasury Solicitor, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, which said “my client has agreed to concede this claim on the basis of ground 1(b), namely that the Secretary of State did not give adequate reasons in his decision letter to enable the reader to understand why he disagreed with the Examining Authority Report on the issue of need for the development of Manston Airport”.

“We subsequently learned that the Interested Party, RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd, will not be defending their claim."

“My lawyers set out three grounds of challenge to the decision to grant a Development Consent Order for the re-opening and development of Manston Airport:

Ground 1: Need

Ground 2: Breach of Procedural Requirement/Unfairness

Ground 3: Net Zero Duty

“The Treasury Solicitor will now draft an order disposing of the case.  The order will have to be approved by all parties and submitted to the Court to be sealed – this final step may take several weeks.

“This update is couched in very formal language but I’m enormously relieved to have got this far and bowled over by all the support I’ve received.  It’s been a joint effort!”

Further the letter copied onto the crowdfunder webpage states ground 1b is as follows

Here is the full text of Ground 1(b): Failure to Give Reasons:

75. S.116 of the 2008 Act and Regulation 30 of the EIA Regulations both impose a duty on the Defendant to give reasons for granting a DCO. In South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter [2004] UKHL 33, the House of Lords confirmed that any such reasons must be adequate and intelligible, and enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the principal important controversial issues.

76. As to the quality of the reasons for disagreeing with the ExA on “need”, given that the Defendant asked himself entirely the wrong question, falsely eliding “need” with “benefit”, his reasons for disagreeing with the ExA on need are, inevitably, inadequate, improper and unintelligible. An informed reader of the DL is wholly unable to discern:

a. Why the Defendant considered that there was a “clear case of need” for the development which existing airports (Heathrow, Stansted and EMA) could not meet.

b. Upon what basis the quantum of anticipated need for freight had been assessed by him.

c. Upon what basis the capacity of existing airports within the south east to accommodate that quantum of need had been assessed by him.

d. Whether, and if so why, he considered those existing airports (Heathrow, Stansted and EMA) not to be preferred locations to meet that quantum of need.

e. To what extent he considered need could not be met in the bellyhold of passenger flights to and from those existing airports.

f. Whether, and if so why, he considered that facilities could not be constructed at those existing airports to meet that quantum of need.

g. Upon what basis the Defendant disagreed with the expert evidence produced by York Aviation, and others, against the need case.

Now the spin has started and the 3 parties (RSP, Airport supporters and those against the airport reopening) are discussing this on social media have differing opinions on just what this all means. 

RSP put out a statement this afternoon which any reasonable person could drive a bus through but the airport supporters are content to ignore the problems.

RSP Statement

“Naturally the Department for Transport’s decision not to contest the Judicial Review is disappointing (what an understatement), although it may in fact save time (what?). It is a feature of the DCO process that, in order for more information to be provided by the Secretary of State on the reasons for his decision, the decision must be re-taken, and so the project is effectively back to the final decision stage (which was to refuse the DCO in case you forget).

“We faced a similar situation two years ago when we withdrew our DCO application, to provide additional information, before successfully resubmitting it for acceptance. It’s important that this is done correctly, in order that Manston can deliver on its full potential, and we welcome the Government’s decision being put on as robust a basis as possible.

“RSP remains confident in our proposals and of the increasing need for Manston to support the UK’s freight handling capabilities (which for those that research it have been well covered at Heathrow, East Midlands and Stanstead), post-Brexit and to aid the economic recovery from COVID-19. We will make additional representations, when invited to do so, with evidence from across the last 18 months (since the DCO examination stage closed) – and look forward to publication of the Secretary of State’s comprehensive assessment of the basis for granting the DCO, early in 2021, so that we may begin works to restore the airport to operational use.

“In the meantime, we continue the CAA airspace change process to determine the future flightpaths for Manston and we have, this week, also reached agreement for Manston to be used as a temporary Customs outpost, until July 2021.”

Yet this rather "uplifting" statement totally ignores the decision by 4 experienced planning inspectors that the DCO should be refused. I reproduce the reasons and any discerning person will conclude that these reasons tally with the Legal opinion quoted above

Given that RSP believe (in their statement) that "We will make additional representations, when invited to do so, with evidence from across the last 18 months (since the DCO examination stage closed) – and look forward to publication of the Secretary of State’s comprehensive assessment of the basis for granting the DCO, early in 2021" In other words they seem to be giving the impression that the SoS reasons letter issued when the DCO was granted would be rewritten to take account of Ground 1(b). 

This quite frankly is a non-starter especially in view of the original 1097 page take down of RSP's case. published here in full (click on link)

Further the grounds for a need for Manston cannot be made on grounds of need especially when the industry is in freefall. Passenger flights may recover by 2025 but passenger flights isn't the reason why the DCO was requested in the 1st place. The DCO (at the 2nd attempt) process was granted on the basis of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project for a Freight Hub generating at least 10000 movements annually. Even during the last 9 months of a pandemic when passenger flights were decimated Freight was carried in aircraft. In fact as bellyhold freight (mainly into Heathrow) had dropped freight into East Midlands and Stanstead increased. But and it is a big but they still had capacity to take more.

The future of freight carried in aircraft to the UK market will be in flux for sometime to come however the reasons for another freight hub in the geographical SE of England hasn't been made no matter how much spin the two Thanet MP's put forward and when this DCO is quashed in 3 weeks time the roadmap to reopening seems to have run into a roadblock