With the news that the DCO will be quashed because the DoT have withdrawn one can't but feel that there is a common thread running through this sorry saga.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.
