RSP and the Redetermination process

 

The full extent of RAF Manston before Freudmann sold 300 acres in 2001/2

On the 9th December 2021 Riveroak Strategic Partners posted on their website an attack on, not just the Secretary of State (SoS) for Transport, but the entire redetermination process which I have set out here.

I have added various editors remarks in BOLD as this response seems somewhat biased which seems to be Freudmann's Rottweiler attack dog methods. I believe it is aimed at the supporters rather than any serious attempt to negotiate with the SoS 

"In a covering letter to its response to the Arup Assessor’s report, as part of the redetermination process for the Manston Airport DCO, RiverOak Strategic Partners has set out concerns over not only the content of the Arup Report, but also the “untimetabled and protracted” process of redetermination that the Secretary of State for Transport has presided over – signalling that, had RSP known earlier how poorly the process would be run, it would not have consented to the Secretary of State’s decision to concede.   (Editor's comment, It is past time for RSP to pay up what the judge awarded)

In the letter, submitted on behalf of RSP by its lawyers BDB Pitmans, RSP also expresses its concern that, having withheld the basis on which Arup was commissioned, (Editor's comment, No one was told what the brief was so RSP wasn't disadvantaged however the letter set out the following which is as much as anyone had and to which RSP actually responded

"the Government only revealed the terms of reference under which Arup worked when forced to do so – following a Member of Parliament making a Freedom of Information request. (Editor's note, which was never shared with anyone else)

In the main body of the response, RSP sets out its concerns that, instead of addressing the issue of ‘need,’ Arup produced a narrowly focused demand study, which only considers changes to demand in relation to Covid-19, Brexit and other factors. The unknown authors of the report have focused on issues entirely unconnected to the Judicial Review and redetermination – such as e-commerce, changes to aircraft design, impacts on GDP and national resilience – and have also attempted to consider the issue of ‘viability’ which, in addition to not being an appropriate consideration in this redetermination would have required interrogating RSP’s  business model (editors note, which would have been difficult as RSP have never published it) to do so effectively, which was not done.

The RSP submission argues – and provides evidence to substantiate these arguments – that the Arup report should be given little weight due to a number of other concerning factors too, including:

• ·         The report’s authors and their qualifications not being identified
• ·         the inclusion of unsupported assertions and disproven data
• ·         the report prejudicially dismissing the Applicant’s expert evidence
• ·         where they agree with RSP, the authors gives the relevant issue little weight
• ·         the authors unquestioningly accepting opponents’ unevidenced submissions
• ·         the authors bemoaning a lack of forecasts but then concluding against RSP
• Editors note, strange that RSP have never published their experts credentials nor who is advising them bar Dr Sally Dixon's initial report which of course she admitted never looked at the viability of her forecasts
• Inclusion of unsupported assertions is a staple of RSP's reports
• OVE Arup couldn't had prejudicially dismissed the Applicants expert evidence as Ove had no idea who had provided this evidence
• All the Aviation expertise provided by their opponents has been evidenced especially ASA and York Aviation. All my submissions have been evidenced in full
• This is a travesty of a response as the only forecasting has been done by RSP and where a forecast has been provided by the opposition it has been based on extrapolated past factual evidence. RSP have relied almost totally on top down forecasts especially average loads per Cargo ATM which were artificially lowered to ensure 10000 CATMs were achieved 

"Tony Freudmann, Director of RSP, said: “Something about this report and this redetermination process simply isn’t right. Our growing concern is that someone, somewhere is throwing up delays and obstacles while they scratch around for evidence as to why this fully-funded (Editors note, Never have RSP stated who is providing their funds) evidence-based economic regeneration project should not proceed.

“We consented to the Secretary of State’s decision  to concede on the basis that the redetermination process would be efficient and focused on the factors set out in the Secretary of State’s letter. However, the process has taken far too long, has gone far beyond the terms set out in statute and has not been directed to the conceded  issue. Had we known this would happen, we would not have consented to Secretary of State’s decision to concede.

“The re-opening of Manston Airport relies on no public funding (Editors note, Never have RSP stated who is providing their funds) and will represent considerable private, inward investment in existing UK  infrastructure, consistent with the vision of an independent Global Britain. We’ve already invested more than £40 million in this project and the entire risk relating to its  success is borne by RSP and our investors (Editors note, Never have RSP stated who is providing their funds) .

“Despite all of this, we are still here and we remain confident that the reopening of Manston will succeed and will be of measurable benefit to the nation – and, importantly, to the deprived East Kent region.” (Editors note, the issue is one of NEED) 

In the letter, BDB Pitmans also points out the real world implications of the Government’s protracted handling of the process, stating:

“This delay is not taking place in a vacuum, it has real world effects and is prejudicial to the Applicant and the UK economy. It is deterring and confusing investors, particularly from overseas, who had embarked upon their proposal to invest in the UK because of the certainty of timings of the DCO regime but can no longer rely upon it. In general, further, delays mean that responses have to be updated to take into account changes in policy in this field. With every passing day evidence and commentary are published, especially within the trade press for the aviation industry, which further strengthens the Applicant’s position. In addition, even the Department for Transport can be seen to be promoting the UK aviation industry in the trade press.

“Given the current economic uncertainty, the government is surely keener than ever for inward investment into the UK, but through its own actions is making this less likely to happen. The delay also causes an unnecessary harmful local impact (Editors note, Forgetting the decision has to be decided on a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project basis not just an East Kent basis which would likely damage the East Kent tourist industry, a point conceded by RSP in their original submission. There is no point in robbing Peter to pay Paul) . Employment is more precarious than ever, and has been exacerbated by the end of the furlough scheme, and yet there is undue delay to this development which would bring thousands of high quality construction jobs and more permanent jobs.

“Through no fault of the Applicant, almost two years have passed since the decision was initially due to be taken on 9 January 2020 (Editors note, I would also remind RSP that the DfT paid them £8.5m as compensation for "delaying" their plans) . The application is now in an indefinite decision stage with the prospect of many months more before the decision is retaken. The above points should be given serious consideration and responded to accordingly so as to maintain confidence in this regime, particularly among private inward investors into the UK such as RSP. The supposed certainty of timing of the Planning Act 2008 regime is one of its main strengths for investors and this should not be undermined.”

RSP is now calling on the Secretary of State for Transport to publish a timetable for the redetermination process, as this will at least provide some certainty that a decision will be made shortly. It is assumed that this will be welcomed by both supporters and opponents of the proposals as it will provide much needed certainty for a deprived part of England in desperate need of economic and employment opportunity one way or another.

(Editors note, I would also remind RSP that the DfT paid them £8.5m as compensation for "delaying" their plans) 

Further the following notes have been emailed to me

• Why is an MP submitting FoI’s on behalf of RSP? 
•  RSP has sought to interpret ‘need ‘ as ‘benefit’ 
•  Submissions were invited on ‘changes to need’.  RSP and it’s supporters introduced changes to aircraft design etc etc so no surprise they were picked up by Arup
•  Submissions by RSP and it’s supporters are littered with ‘unsupported assertions and disproven data’
•  ‘Little weight’ to what RSP says?  I wonder why?
•  And the paragraph beginning ‘Tony Freudmann …’ just makes me laugh!
•  The redetermination programme process Would seem to be focused on the factors set out in the Secretary of States letter rather than RSP’s interpretation of what those letters should be
•  As for deterring and confusing investors…

NEED part 2

 York Aviation have had a intimate relationship with Manston Airport since they wrote a report for Infratil, a previous owner, in August 2010. Their Brief was to determine if Manston could survive if Night Flights were refused.

Their conclusion back then was "It is likely therefore that the full catalytic benefits of MSE (Manston Airport) will only be achieved if a full programme of flying can be provided, which will require night time operations in line with the plan proposed by the Airport."

Move forward through time to the present day and Riveroak's application for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure project and yet again York have been asked to respond to the Ove Arup response for the Department of Transport.

Is Manston Needed and Government policy

Need

 

This will be my 4^th submission to the consultation and will concentrate on NEED and need alone. Notwithstanding the pandemic Cargo air transport movements (CATM) has hardly changed in nature for nigh on 20 years. It is a niche market in the market that moves goods from point A to point B simply because of the cost.

In the original examination report from 2019 (before the pandemic struck) the ExA concluded:

“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.” (E.R 5.7.28)

Very little has changed and what has changed is debated within the Ove Arup’s report which concludes:

Overall, the Independent Assessor concludes that there have not been any significant or material changes to policy or the quantitative need case for the Proposed Development since July 2019 that would lead to different conclusions being reached (compared with the previous ExA conclusions) with respect to the need for the Manston development. In particular:

1.      The changes to policy, notably the withdrawal and reinstatement of the ANPS and adoption of the Thanet Local Plan, do not significantly change the policy context that was in place at the time of the Examination;

2.      The recent growth in e-commerce sales is not driving a demand for additional runway capacity for dedicated air freighters in the South East;

3.      Although there have been short term changes in the balance between bellyhold freight and dedicated freighter activity during the Covid-19 pandemic, these changes are not expected to be permanent, notwithstanding growth in ecommerce and changes to the UK’s trading patterns post-Brexit;

4.      There is unlikely to be a significant reduction in bellyhold freight capacity (once the passenger market recovers) due to the introduction of narrow-bodied twin-engine aircraft;

5.      Despite the uncertainty concerning the timescale for the Heathrow Airport Third Runway, changes since July 2019 as described do not lead the Independent Assessor to reach a different conclusion on the need case for Manston Airport. East Midlands Airport has sufficient capacity to handle additional dedicated freighter services should the market demand them, while the planning determination at Stansted confirms that significant freight capacity remains available; and

6.      There is no new evidence to suggest a different conclusion should be drawn in respect of the locational performance of Manston compared to East Midlands Airport, and to a lesser extent Stansted, to that of the ExA Report.

What the applicant forgets (sic) is that there is a marked difference between worldwide projections for CATM and those that are UK specific and conflating the two is disingenuous and naïve.

Using forecasts is akin to crystal ball gazing and this seems to be the favourite behaviour of the applicant. To ignore prior statistics in favour of cherry picking forecasts that are not UK specific can lead to erroneous conclusions.

Take the case of a recent report in the Telegraph:

Rocketing shipping costs force businesses to avoid container ships and head to the skies in efforts to avoid freight delays

By Louis Ashworth (Telegraph) 20 November 2021

The headline is misleading because although worldwide shipping costs have “rocketed” in 2020 the volume of CATM in the UK reduced by 21%, a fact that was overlooked in the report that followed.

There were some gems included within the report however:

“However, it comes with a price tag. Estimates by the World Bank suggest air freight is usually four to five times more expensive than road transport, and up to 16 times more than sea. This has typically meant only some products earn a plane ticket: certain fresh foods, time-sensitive documents, pharmaceuticals and cut flowers, for example.”

““There's not a one-size-fits-all response to the current climate,” says Niall van der Wouw, managing director of Clive, an Amsterdam-based air freight data provider. It’s been a boom period for air freight, but sky-high pricing and favourable comparisons with nautical alternatives may not last forever.

“I think there is quite a risk that this big surge in demand that we've seen over the past year could just disappear as quickly as it started,” says James Hookham from the Global Shippers’ Forum, a trade association for cargo owners.

Industry insiders accept that what goes up must come down, although fate may briefly be in the freight firms’ favour. As air passenger levels begin to normalize, cargo space will shrivel.”

What is true is that airfreight is a small niche market which according to Ove Arup has hardly changed in the last 10 years

“Combining these airfreight volumes with data from DfT Port Statistics for unit load cargo passing via sea ports in the same years (cargo in maritime containers, accompanied Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGVs) and unaccompanied trailers) shows that air freight’s market share has effectively remained unchanged over the period 2009 to 2019, at around 1.5%. As illustrated by table 2 below. Overall, sea freight is by far the dominant mode. These modes of shipping are effectively air freight’s ‘competitor’ in the movement of finished consumer cargoes.” (Page 19 OVE Arup)

The essential reason for this is cost airfreight being 16X more expensive that goods shipped by sea. The Steer report clearly understood these facts in their 2018 report as they graphed volume growth which clearly showed a flat line for Freighter only carriage and only a slight rise in bellyhold cargo. Most of the bellyhold is carried in and out of Heathrow which up to the end of 2019 carried 2/3rds of all UK airfreight.

During 2020 with the onset of Covid and the decimation of passenger flights airfreight reduced by 1/5^th and with most freight being carried on pure freighters however it is clear from the events in 2021 and the reopening of passenger flights in the UK and worldwide in July that CATM’s are reverting back to their previous pre 2020 configurations.

The 3 main airports for freight in the UK are Heathrow, East Midlands and Stanstead and the respective volumes are in the 2^nd pie chart below

So looking at the post Covid figures from the 3 main cargo airports it is clear that from July 2021 the market is reverting back to pre-covid volumes perhaps quicker than even Ove Arup believed in their report

Although Heathrow is still running 6% behind 2019 it is clear that bellyhold is now well ahead of pure freighters with the clear winners being East Midlands and Stanstead with growth of 27% and 22% respectively.

Clearly the number of CATM’s has only markedly changed at Heathrow with pure freighters rising with the fall in bellyhold however 2021 will show that change moving back to a more normal configuration. It is also clear that the applicant hasn’t understood the volume of airfreight has actually reduced by 21% in 2020 despite the growth in E-Commerce. Their assumption is an increase in E-Commerce will lead to an increase in airfreight. Ove Arup’s report states

“Contrary to the propositions above, York Aviation on behalf of Jennifer Dawes seeks to cast doubt on the link between e-commerce and air freight:

“Increases in e-commerce activity, however, do not necessarily lead to an increase in the volumes of air freight carried to or from UK airports. Consumers have long purchased goods made in China for example, which are transported to the UK by both air and surface modes. Even if some goods that were previously bought in physical stores are now bought online, these goods generally share the same journey from China to the UK, but rather than being shipped directly to the retailer’s distribution centre for onward travel to the physical store, they are being shipped to an online retailer’s distribution centre for last-mile dispatch direct to consumers. Therefore, whilst increased e-commerce activity has resulted in an increase in demand for last-mile logistics between distribution centres and consumers, there has so far been a negligible net impact in the volumes of air freight carried to and from UK airports." (paragraph 4.36)

And

When airfreight volumes are compared to the increase in e-commerce there does not appear to be any correlation. Figure 1 below illustrates the percentage change in internet retail sales (£ millions, all sectors) between 2009 and 2020, alongside the percentage change in air freight volumes (total tonnes from all reporting UK airports) over the same time period (page 19 Ove Arup report)

Also within the applicants submission is the rather naïve belief that much of the airfreight is lost to HGVs which take goods to and from airports abroad, this was highlighted in the Steer report as follows

In fact during the period back to 2009-2014 Manston was trading as a Cargo airport yet despite the assertion that London Centric airports were at capacity Manston never grew as a cargo airport. You have to wonder where this naïve belief has come from. In fact most of this trucked cargo could have gone to East Midlands which would have been a quicker and more convenient airport but that never happened either.

East Midlands, Stanstead and Heathrow have combined achieved between 80-90% of all aircargo during the last 10 or so years yet growth has been slow as the graph below shows

Between 2010 and 2019 growth was just 9% with belly hold growing by 17% and pure freighters just 7% and that only with a very big increase in 2017.

Where the applicant finds their figures from isn’t hard to find as they spurn actual figures and would prefer people to view their crystal ball forecasts through rose tinted spectacles.

It is clear from Ove Arup’s report they aren’t convinced the applicant knows what they are talking about however the pro-airport supporters want aviation back at Manston. Many of these supporters will not be affected by the low flying aircraft. They are confused however between the words “Want” and “Need”.

I’d like to quote from the esteemed Ramsgate Society which is made up of people that only wish the best for Ramsgate and the wider East Kent area. They said:

“There is a world of difference between “want” and “need”. Want is about desire and aspiration, Need is something required, where a deficiency causes a clear adverse outcome. There are those in Thanet and beyond, including politicians, whether consciously or otherwise, are content to conflate the two. A “wish” is based on feeling and emotion, “need” is tangible, measureable and evidence based.

The key factor in this (debate) is “Need”

If the DCO is approved and the development goes ahead it will inevitably be a business failure because fundamentally there is no market need, however much sections of the population may wish for airport jobs and cheap convenient continental air travel that will not trump stark commercial realities. The project is being touted on a false prospectus”

There are plenty of White Elephant Airports in Europe, China, and Africa that were built on “Want”.

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