Conflict of Interest

 A brief history of the South Thanet MP, Craig Mackinlay

Craig was born in North Kent on the 7th of October 1966 and stood for Parliament 1st in 1992 as an Independent and failed. He then joined the United Kingdon Independent Party (UKIP) and stood as Parliamentary candidate in 1997, 2001 and 2005 losing each time.

He then defected to the Tories in 2007 finally standing and winning in a hard-fought battle with Nigel Farage (then leader of UKIP) in 2015. He has kept the seat twice since in 2017 and 2019.

So why do we have a conflict of Interest.

To summarise: -

The rules on the registration of shareholdings require Members to register a shareholding if the Member's shares exceed 15% of the total shares issued or have a value of more than £70,000. Although the company had never traded and the shares were of only nominal value, the Member held in excess of 15% of the total and he was therefore required to include this interest in the Register of Members' Interests within one month of his election in 2015.

Why we have this rule in Parliament

“To provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her action, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament”.

His excuse was: -

I am conversant with the rules for the registration of interests. I note under Threshold for Registration, paragraph 51(i) and (ii), clarified under paragraph 54 that these are not (i) and (ii) requirements, but are (i) or (ii) requirements. On the face of it, my shareholding - amount to 2 shares of 1 penny, being the entire issued share capital of the company would suggest a requirement to register under 51(i), however this would be a construction of the absurd in this instance. The company was formed on 4 April 2001 when I was pursuing, with outer, the potential for a low-cost airline operation. The idea progressed to a moderately advanced stage but literally fell apart, never to be resurrected again following the events of 9/11 in 2001, whereby for obvious reasons, interest in a new airline literally ceased in its tracks.

In the event Craig apologised for inadvertently misleading the house on 3 separate occasions. The 1st during his maiden speech to Parliament on the 28/5/2015 when he said

The 2nd was on 11/6/2015 when he responded as follows

That meeting then went ahead with the North Thanet MP Roger Gale

The 3rd took place on the 7/2/2018 as follows: -

As an aside to this support of Manston which takes the form of lobbying for Riveroak Strategic Partners (RSP), ostensibly on behalf of the people living in South Thanet, it does seem from a statement made during a fundraising BBQ for the Save Manston Airport Association (SMAa)

"We all remember that the DCO would have trumped whatever happened on that local plan, but the fear would have been that it had been re-designated away from aviation, it would have instantly inflated the value possibly to unacceptable standards in the future. That was my great worry, and we're out of that, so as Tony said, the EC4 designation of the airport (the old designation), while we have no local plan, still stays the same and is very powerful."

In other words, as the land at that stage was owned by Stone Hill Park, should RSP be in a position at a later stage to buy the 720 acres it may have cost RSP far more to purchase had it been designated mixed use.

The apology to the house took this form on the 20/6/2018

Craig's apology statement to his colleagues includes the words "It was an idea of its day (incorporated April 2001) and, following the tragedy of 9/11, it never came to anything, and plans ceased"

On the face of it one might wonder why a qualified accountant would keep a dormant company (4193829) on the books of Companies House for 17 years (now 21 years) with all the associated costs involved.

The company was set up in April 2001 with the following designations

51101: Scheduled air passenger transport

51102: Non-scheduled air passenger transport

51210: Freight air transport

In other words, mimicking the, at that time, the business plans of Wiggins, the owners of Manston under the control of Anthony Freudmann CEO.

Imagine my surprise when an archive Google search brought up the following link

This clearly indicates that far from "plans ceased" after September 2001 flights to Malaga were still being discussed. Further this comment includes a link to a website advertising MAMA Airlines which no longer exists however using "wayback" it shows the website still being active until December 2002

Clearly it states the following "London's newest airline will put the quality back into air travel with flights from the Southeast to Europe starting Spring 2003"

Maybe Craig just forgot however there could be an alternate reason. Manston as has been pointed out was run by Antony Freudmann on behalf of Wiggins. His CV is here 

He states that "Tony Freudmann also had the following to say regarding personal accusations thrown at him “I was responsible for Manston’s conversion to a civilian airport, building it up as a cargo airport and then being ‘let go’ when I protested that the EUJet plan made no economic sense.”

He ran Kent International from 1999-2005 during the time Craig intended to run MAMA Airlines Ltd so it isn't beyond the wit of man to think they worked together and of course despite the terrorist attack on the 11th of September 2001 Kent International didn't stop running flights.

What is clear is that there is a longstanding business link between Freudmann and Mackinlay dating back to at least 2001 and this Craig confirms during another fundraiser for SMAa on the 21st of July 2019 when during a speech he made the following statement,

"Well I’m sorry this is going to be the start of the regeneration and the renaissance of East Kent, particularly Thanet and that is why I’m so excited. I’ve been working with Tony (Freudmann) for many years, known him ……We go back quite a long way, even before this odyssey and I’m really pleased that this has come to pass, so we can turn the page, reassure the community that is going to work together for Thanet."

So, it is a legitimate question the electorate can ask: -

"Does Craig Mackinlay the MP for South Thanet have an ulterior motive in promoting RSP (Antony Freudmann)?"

This week (7th September 2022) the South Thanet MP has been promoting a petition as follows; -

"We note the previous spending of £10,000 of local Council taxpayer precept by Ramsgate Town Council to attach themselves to a prior judicial review action to prevent aviation activities at the Manston site. The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport has granted the Manston site development consent (a DCO) so that a new cargo hub and associated businesses can be advanced. The project is promoted by RiverOak Strategic Partners Limited and has long enjoyed the support of both Thanet MPs. Thanet perpetually has unemployment rates and average salaries behind South-East norms. A re-opened airport is expected to bring huge investment of hundreds of millions of pounds. This means new opportunities and a huge number of new jobs. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Ramsgate Town Council to accept the decision of the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, work constructively with the Government, RSP, Thanet’s MPs and other local authorities and elected representatives towards the re-opening of the airport, and to refrain from spending more public money on further legal challenges"

Clearly the statement in bold is politically motivated as Craig is a Conservative MP and the Ramsgate Town Council is a majority Labour Town Council however the statement is factually incorrect as the truth is there was a motion in Council which was debated, and a vote taken to give the judicial Review by Jenny Dawes £10000 towards appealing the decision of the SoS of the Department of Transport to grant a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the rebuilding of Manston for the following reason "I see Mackinlay doesn't explain the reason why the government did not defend the case & conceded. It was because they knew they would lose because the SoS acted unlawfully ..................The Defendant accepts that his decision letter dated 9 July 2020 (the “Decision Letter”) did not give adequate and intelligible reasons 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.

The lack of adequate reasons in the Decision Letter rendered the Secretary of State’s decision dated 9 July 2020 to make the Manston Airport Development Consent Order 2020 (the “Manston DCO”) unlawful.

However, it is perfectly legal for Local Councils to utilise their funds in protecting the electorate as an example several councils put their money together to appeal the decision on Heathrow's third runway. This use of funds comes under Section 137 of theLocal Authorities Act 1972 applied and that the payments had been declared in the annual return and signed off without question by the relevant authority.

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