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

 

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