Showing posts with label Night Flights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Night Flights. Show all posts

Tuesday, 7 December 2021

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







Saturday, 3 October 2020

Airfreight and Covid

 Airfreight in the UK is divided into 2 separate and distinct types. The 1st is aircraft totally given over to bringing in and taking out airfreight, and the two main airports in the UK for freighters are East Midlands (built at the top of the "Golden Triangle") and Stanstead (built at the right hand point of the triangle).

The Golden Triangle
Spanning from Northamptonshire up the M1 to East Midlands Airport, and West as far as Tamworth area, the Golden Triangle is busting with logistics names. As well as being in proximity to the huge distribution centres of supermarkets and high street stores, Midlands-based supply chain companies enjoy access to over 90% of the UK population within 4 hours drive. And with the building of the inland port nearby to EMA this will only grow the sector.
Golden Triangle Advantages
As well as the giants of UK haulage, smaller independent logistics companies are also numerous in this area; typically based in logistics centres. Proximity to major motorways, notably the M1 and M6, means that major cities such as London and Manchester are not difficult to reach from the Golden Triangle.
The other advantage of being based in the Midlands is that it’s not London! The capital city may be the epicentre for arts, finance and the legal profession; but it isn’t necessarily somewhere you’d chose as base for a logistical operation. Aside from being less accessible to the North and Scotland, London’s huge demand and scarcity of property means rental for a typical premises is much more expensive than in the heart of England.
There is no official precise measurement of exactly what constitutes the Golden Triangle, but it pretty much covers Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, plus parts of Staffordshire and Derbyshire. Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) contains 1 million square feet of Tesco warehousing space, and rivals Asda have several units less than 20 miles away in Magna Park.
It’s no surprise, therefore, that the Midlands has close to 150 million square feet of warehouse space: more than twice the combined warehousing activity of London, Scotland, and Wales.
Thanks David Green
You will see why this is important when the figures for the 8 months of 2020 are examined.


The 2nd is what is known as bellyhold (This is where long haul passenger aircraft offset the cost of freight carried in the hold with the price passengers pay for their seat). In previous years this meant that airfreight costs were up to 4X cheaper than if carried in a freighter aircraft and has been instrumental it the rise of Heathrow (and Gatwick to a lesser extent) because Heathrow has (up to 2019) carried 2/3rds of all the UK's airfreight.
Covid-19
With the collapse of passenger traffic in 2020 due to the rise of the Covid-19 pandemic it will be interesting to see just what affect the loss of bellyhold has had on the overall amount of freight carried in aircraft.
Firstly a starting point using Government figures and to put airfreight into perspective, by weight only 1/2 of 1% of all freight carried in the UK is carried by air.
Of that figure 2/3rds goes through Heathrow the biggest passenger terminal in the UK and 5% is carried in dedicated freighters leaving 95% as bellyhold and by far this is the most popular way of flying in airfreight.

So to the figures

What you can see from the CAA figures is total freight carried, from all UK reporting airports, is tonnage is down by 25% with Gatwick (-68%), Heathrow (-31%), Luton (-16%) and outside London Manchester is down by 55%.
Most notably these are bellyhold dependent airports whilst East Midlands (up 1%) and Stanstead (up 7%) have bucked the trend because they have (mainly) night services dealing with air freighters.
Looking at reasons for this drop one has to ask is the 25% reduction in airfreight due to lower numbers of passenger flights or due to the recession brought on by Covid.
The answer is most likely the recession as the % of freight carried at the London Centric airports has remained fairly stable. In 2009 this was 77.22%, in 2019 this was 76.36% and in the 8 months of 2020 it has been 73.77%.

The two airports that have benefitted have been East Midlands and Stanstead where the overall % of the airfreight carried has increased by 5% and 4% to 18% and 13% respectively.
Heathrow has seen its share drop by 4% to 58% and Gatwick has seen its share drop by half to just 1.85%.

Conclusion
The main driver for the 25% reduction in airfreight carried to UK airports in 2020 has not been the lack of passenger aircraft flying long haul rather it is the reduced demand for goods because of the worldwide recession. there has been a drift away from bellyhold but this has only meant a small increase in freighter only aircraft landing at EMA and Stanstead and as passenger numbers start to recover the cost of flying freight in the belly of passenger aircraft will mean the use of freighter only cargo will drop back to pre-covid levels due to the cost savings to be made.

Thursday, 11 July 2019

lest we forget

With the sale of 742 acres of brownfield to a tax haven based in Tortola in the British Virgin Islands (HLX Nominees) we see the end of an era that started in 1915 with the transfer of a turnip field to the Royal Navy Air Service during WW1
It was, of course, 1100 acres until Tony Freudmann sold off 300 acres to finance the change from Wiggins to Planestation which so spectacularly failed in 2005 taking with it millions of pounds of investment much of it from locals sweet talked into parting with their cash by buying shares in their local airport.
Late in 2005 the Trustee in Bankruptcy sold the site to a New Zealand company Infratil and that is where this timeline starts
2009
"In 2009, following the potential start of dedicated cargo operations by British Airways World Cargo, Thanet District Council (TDC) requested Manston Airport (MSE) to develop and submit to the council a Night-time Flying Policy (NTFP) pursuant to clauses 1.2 and 1.3 of the Second Schedule to the Section 106 agreement dated 26 September 2000 between TDC and MSE. An initial outline was presented on 17 August 2009, which was subsequently further developed, with a full submission being made on 28 September 2010."
"The report also commented on the impact that this limit on night-time operations would have on the financial viability of the airport. It noted that
“if the Airport cannot be made profitable with the restricted operations, then its long term future may be put in jeopardy, along with all the jobs and GVA created by it locally.” from the report to Cabinet 2011

So to assess what the residents felt about a maximum of 659 night time movements (as per report by Thanet Council) in 2011 TDC asked for peoples opinion and of the 3000 replies the majority (over 70%) were AGAINST night flights.
Thanet Council voted against allowing Night Flights and Infratil retaliated by putting Manston up for sale in December 2011
22 months later it was finally offloaded to Ann Gloag having failed to find a new operator

October 2013: Infratil announce the sale of Manston airport to Stagecoach tycoon Ann Gloag for a nominal £1, plus accrued debts of around £17M.
November 2013:  Ann Gloag’s Manston Skyport takes over the airport. At the same time it seems Annax Aviation approached TDC's planning department enquiring whether there was scope to build 1000 (some say 2000) homes on the Northern Grass's pre ww2 grass runway to the North of the runway. Who was Annax Aviation?
So where was "our Tone" going to find the money to finance buying Manston?
It is understood that he did approach the new owner but was rebuffed and it soon became obvious that the £10000 losses a day were focussing the new owner's mind and 
March 2014: Ann Gloag announces plans to close the airport and so Tony tried again this time using the company run by Steven DeNardo Riveroak LLP based in Delaware, USA whom, it is said, he met at a business meeting in Canary Wharf.
May 15, 2014:  The airport closes with the loss of 144 jobs. An offer of the full £7million asking price for the site by US firm RiverOak Corporation is refused. The payment was offered in a deal where Ann Gloag was asked to leave Skyport’s £2million in the bank account making a net £5million offer.
August 2014: TDC issue a formal notice and the process of finding an indemnity partner for the Manston CPO begins
September 2014: The site has new owners – Chris Musgrave and Trevor Cartner of Discovery Park. 
December 2014: The Labour controlled council decide not to proceed with a CPO stating there was not a suitable indemnity partner. Even though Riveroak LLP was the only indemnity Partner left in the running and, the then leader of TDC, was fully in favour of the CPO. Riveroak failed to convince TDC they had sufficient money to fully protect the council. Oddly ROLLP were a property development company with no track record in airports but they had in "buying distressed property and adding value"
So what did they send TDC which scared off the Labour administration?
Their business spreadsheet showed their various funds has potential spare equity of $20M and then there was the line of credit amounting to $400K
It is hardly surprising then that TDC got cold feet
February and March 2015: Transport Select Committee looks at the Manston airport issue as part of its examination of smaller UK airports. The result was that Manston was considered and rejected.
May 2015 the local elections led to an overwhelming vote for the UKIP party winning 33 seats and overall control of TDC. Chris Wells stated that in was about time Thanet was taken in a new direction and because one element of their manifesto was to try again and find an Indemnity Partner to take back the airport.
As soon as he took control Chris instigated the process to find this Partner and again Riveroak took part. Chris promised to look again so he kept the manifesto promise. Yet did Riveroak do the same?
October 2015: The planning application for change of use of airport buildings is refused.
The same month TDC Cabinet agree to take no further CPO action on Manston saying RiverOak do not meet the indemnity requirements.
So what went wrong? All the stars were aligned yet once again Riveroak failed dismally. It seems the same problem that had gone wrong in December 2014 had happened once again with Riveroak failing to convince TDC that they had the money required.
November 2015: Thanet council again announces a further soft marketing exercise for Manston airport
December 2015: It was announced that RiverOak would undertake a Development Consent Order (DCO) process to acquire permission from central government to reopen the airport
February 2016: Thanet District Council announced a total of five expressions of interest had been received, with three being carried forward to the next stage of the CPO process
8 July 2016 Riveroak Strategic Partners (and associated companies) were incorporated at Companies House. However Riveroak LLP (based in Delaware) was used as the vehicle for the DCO (Development Consent Order)
October 2016: AviaSolutions publishes its report, commissioned by Thanet council at a cost of £50,000, into the viability of Manston’s future. The conclusion of the report was ‘airport operations at Manston are very unlikely to be financially viable in the longer term and almost certainly not possible in the period to 2031’.
Thanet council say the report means  the authority does not have sufficient evidence to continue to designate the site ‘for aviation use only’ within its Local Plan.
MP Sir Roger Gale says he will quit politics if Manston does not reopen as an airport
June 2016: A report to Thanet council Cabinet members on the latest round of soft market testing concludes: “Cabinet note the results of the soft market testing assessment and take no further action in respect of the interested parties.” This just leaves Riveroak and Tony Freudmann the sole hope for the airport to be resurrected with their DCO.
February 2017 An application was made to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for an aerodrome licence

Note this includes Night Flights and for Cargo (ultimately this application fails in 2018 due to non-payment of the requisite fee)
In December 2016 it becomes apparent that Riveroak LLP and Stephen DeNardo have been removed from the DCO process as three new directors Nicholas Rothwell, Rico Seitz and Gerhard Huesler are added. (These are partners in Helix Fiduciary based in Switzerland and who are mentioned in the Panama Papers). 
Why Stephen DeNardo and RO LLP are removed in unknown to this time.
April 2017: RSP threatens legal action over an email which RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd (RSP) say Cllr Wells sent to 35 members of the authority and which, they say, contained defamatory allegations against RSP and  M.I.O Investments. 
"I understand Belize is one of 14 Caribbean nations named by the US as “major money laundering” countries in the 2016 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) released by the US State Department.

According to the report, a major money laundering country is defined as one “whose financial institutions engage in currency transactions involving significant amounts of proceeds from international narcotics trafficking”.
The report notes that Belize is not a major regional financial center but has a substantial offshore financial sector. It also notes that Belize is a transshipment point for marijuana and cocaine, and states that human trafficking is also a concern for the country.”

What else would you like us to note?

Regards

Chris Wells
"
This email, based on reports available from the US, confirmed Belize as a money laundering centre and advising not to deal with companies registered in that jurisdiction. To date RSP have NOT sued either Chris Wells or TDC simply because it is so noted as an ML state. 
Belize offers a high degree of privacy. Belize will not disclose its banking or fiscal information to any foreign party.
No tax at all
No reporting requirements.

The same month RSP publishes three parts of a four part report outlining its future proposals and criticising a previous airport viability study commissioned by Thanet council.
The study on behalf of Riveroak Strategic Partners forms part of the DCO process that the firm is following through Central Government to allow for a cargo and aviation business to be installed at Manston.
During late 2017 and early 2018 3 consultations were held and were characterised by the lack of meaningful information on Night Flights and how the local residents would be affected (something that is still ongoing)
April 2018 Riveroak submit their DCO
8th May 2018 The DCO is withdrawn (some say before it was rejected)
17th July 2018 Riveroak resubmit the DCO
14th August 2018 DCO accepted for examination
9th January 2019 (after a registration period) the Public Examination starts 
8th July 2019 RSP confirm they will be buying the Manston site for £16.5M ( on top of this will be the continuing income from Operation Brock circa another £4.5M)
9th July 2019 RSP confirm sale has been completed and the DCO The Examination closed at 23:59
There will now be 3 month period to write up the report and then 3 months for the Secretary of State to make a decision.









Monday, 17 June 2019

Noise and why it matters

Noise tolerance is different for everybody, even different dependant on the situation (fire alarm Vs Alarm Clock) however much of it is tolerated as necessary. When it comes to aviation noise things are different.
It is different because it is far more difficult to mitigate noise from planes as you cannot build structures to deflect it as you can with motorways as the plane flies above your head. Noise from the same height sound different in an open park than it does when in a town surrounded by buildings.

It is also different as aircraft noise has many ways to measure the noise as there is no single method leaving people to wonder just why you cannot find one single way to measure the noise nuisance.

Current thinking from the Government is to use a standard that doesn't measure the impact of one single event but a measurement that averages the impact dependant on the mix of aircraft using the airport and frequency of the air transport movements then averaged over a 16 hour day (LAeq, 16hr). (in plain language that means how many 747's and how many Lear jets and then averaging the noise and then averaging again over a 16 hour day)

For most airports working out the contours is relatively easy because they have annual data to use in their modelling. Why this is important is that Manston is closed (and has been for 5 years) and the modelling RSP used was based on the Fleet mix within the discredited Azimuth Report which is turn was based on Dr Sally Dixon's unviable forecasts.

RSP's current proposal is to pay compensation at the 63Db contour which is based on an untested fleet mix and understates the individual impact of each event by about half.

This is the actual Data from Infratil (the last owners of an operational airport) showing the 85, 90, 95 db contour of a Boeing 747 landing over Ramsgate
This clearly shows that a 747 will impact a large area of Ramsgate now look at the new averaged Fleet mix and then averaged over a 16 hour day at 57, 60 and 63Db LAeq, 16hr
These contours were calculated by CAA's Environmental Research and Consultancy Department, (ERCD) on behalf of a local business and not by RSP who used an untried and untested company (stated at the local hearing on noise when Woods confirmed their expertise was in road transport and not aircraft)  to produce their contours which at 63Db looked like this
Using this 63Db contour RSP decided that only 232 houses might be eligible for soundproofing (which would have costed RSP £3.85M.
Compare this with the number of properties that occur within the 85Db contour for a single 747 landing over Ramsgate.
This is important because Noise Blight compensation must be secured BEFORE the DCO is granted and evidence of funds must be verified and to date that has still to be done.

Current Government thinking is that developers should move to the 60Db contour which is clearly marked on the locally funded contour map but not so easy to find within the application however today the examining authority sent the following map
This still differs markedly from the ERCD contours but does show many more people should be entitled to compensation.
This is what the ExA is proposing as new wording in the Statutory Instrument:


New R9b

Residential properties with habitable rooms within the 60dB LAeq (16 hour) day time contour will be eligible for noise insulation and ventilation detailed in Noise Mitigation Plan.”

Reasoning

The ExA is proposing this revised daytime threshold in order to align the daytime noise threshold with current and emerging policy including the Government’s proposed changes currently the subject of consultation. The Aviation Policy Framework (2013) paragraph 3.17 states that: “We will continue to treat the 57dB LAeq 16 hour contour as the average level of daytime aircraft noise marking the approximate onset of significant community annoyance.” The Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) recent findings on Aircraft Noise and Annoyance (February 2018) refers to UK policy in relation to an ‘annoyance threshold’ and highlights 57dB LAeq (16 hour) as marking the approximate onset of significant community annoyance. The third 3 paragraph page 6 states that: “The government published their Response to their Airspace Consultation in 2017 and acknowledged the evidence from the SoNA study, which showed that sensitivity to aircraft noise has increased, with the same percentage of people reporting to be highly annoyed at a level of 54 dB LAeq, 16hr as occurred at 57 dB LAeq, 16hr in the past.” Paragraph 3.122 of Aviation 2050

The future of UK aviation (December 2018) Cm 9714 states that: “The government therefore proposes the following noise insulation measures: to extend the noise insulation policy threshold beyond the current 63dB LAeq 16hr contour to 60dB LAeq 16hr.”
Clearly the level of annoyance to locals with an operational airport will be many times bigger than has ever been seen before at Manston
The highest number of air transport movements (Cargo) was 2003 at 1081 movements or 540 planes or 3 movements a day. The last 10 years before closure saw an average of 439 movements per year or 220 planes or just 4 planes a week.
Riveroak are planning for 17170 movements a year or 8585 planes or 23 planes  per day.
This bears no comparison with the past history of Manston and the noise this will generate will never have been felt by any current or past resident of the town.

Postscript:
Heathrow today announce their new compensation offering which will use the 57Db contour. Read their plan here. link to Heathrow plan

Sunday, 19 May 2019

Why the Manston DCO is being examined

When the application by Riveroak was originally made it was clear that the DCO had some serious shortcomings which were going to come under some serious examination during the process.
It was also clear that National Planning at Bristol were going to use this period to fine tune the system when the application for the 3rd runway was submitted, what they failed to grasp was that a privately run organisation wasn't going to be honest and open.

When asked the ExA (examining authority) state that
" The Planning Act 2008 process is inquisitorial – the Examining Authority (ExA) asks questions in order to gather the evidence it needs to make its report and recommendations to the Secretary of State. It does not unilaterally answer questions included in the evidence it receives.



If any evidence provided by an Interested Party includes matters that the ExA feels needs to be clarified by another Interested Party, it will direct a question or questions to them."

What they don't do is respond to people when they are frustrated by RiverOak's insistence on not telling the entire truth when asked questions. Stone Hill Park (the legal owners of the land in question) have identified this as a tactic which applies layers of deception to the process of getting to the truth.
So where are we today, the 6 months are nearly up and there are several areas that RSP have to provide evidence to support their application. These are:

Funding
At each stage RSP have failed to answer the questions on both ownership and funding. At stage 3 they stated they understood they weren't being honest and open and that was causing problems so they promised to put this right as soon as.
So referring back to SHP's comments above you begin to see what they mean when you realise the change in company structure changes the beneficial ownership from Belize to HLX Nominees Ltd based on the island of Tortola in the British Virgin Islands (another tax haven where ownership can be hidden)
So coupled with this dubious behaviour it is also clear there is no way the source of funding could ever be identified and as a reminder it is up to RSP to provide evidence they have funding at all.
It is also clear that the ExA will not accept redacted letters proving the finance so how RSP will prove they have funding will be interesting to say the least.

Night flights
From the start of this process RSP has tried to pull the wool over Night Flights even telling people at the consultations there will be none. However their application still states they want a Quota Count of 3028. They say this is for unavoidable delays and emergencies.
None of these excuses are credible because a delayed flight may be delayed or not it is the management that decides its landing slot. 
Emergency flights come under the HEMA (Humanitarian, Emergency, Military) and not one count towards the night quota count.

Is this application an NSIP
Again not proven as yet RSP's Dr. Sally Dixon was only asked to provide figures to ensure 10000 ATMs a year was possible however she was never asked to provide evidence that these ATM's were even possible as no viability study was done therefore this is purely an exercise in forecasting not an exercise in reality. This figure was produced from thin air such is the evidence produced even the average load on each plane was manipulated to achieve the 10000 figure.

 Alternatives to compulsory purchase
To ensure the CPO (Compulsory Purchase Order) is necessary Riveroak have to show in evidence they have negotiated with the legal owners to achieve ownership without such powers.. It now transpires that Stone Hill Park made an offer to RSP which would have allowed RSP to create their Cargo Hub over 12 months ago
Riveroak refused this offer and failed to tell the ExA, I wonder why?

Noise
From allowing passive noise monitoring in supporters gardens to using a noise measuring tool (averaging) RSP has attempted to apply further levels of deception to a very emotive subject. Those that lived under the flightpath came in two groups. There are those that get used to the infrequent noisy aircraft (some measured in excess of 90 Db) and there are those it became so bad they moved. What none of these groups have ever suffered is the noise and the higher frequency as proposed by RSP. The issue with RSP are they are fully aware of the effect 
Yet they offer derisory compensation and in the case of schools they offer nothing at all.

There are some that will accept anything to achieve their aim of aviation at Manston to the extent they don't care where the money comes from and in one case they make it clear that anyone who offers aviation they will support unquestionably.

It is clear from the number of questions that the ExA have asked they frequently do not get the answers they have expected. Question F2.20 is a prime example
The current series of questions are 122 pages long and it is doubtful if the questions will be answered in their entirety as RSP have a poor track record of disclosure.

Remember it is up to Riveroak to provide the evidence for their submission and not up to the public to prove otherwise.



Tuesday, 12 March 2019

Why is Tony Freudman reinventing himself

Over the last few weeks we have seen renewed activity by the man leading the Manston DCO, Anthony Freudmann. I last wrote about him in this blog.
However this reinvention seems to have taken a strange turn with an American lawyer getting involved.


Apologies for the redacting however National Planning decided it was necessary. The letter from the lawyer was as follows
And the response from the recipient as follows
 What follows is the potted history written to explain the striking off and the full transcript of the case is on my original blog. which is found here

Why is this important? It seems the investors who may potentially put their money into the Manston DCO may be put off by "adverse" stories found on the internet.

He does seem to have a difficult time retaining Ltd Companies as the following list shows



Quoted from submission TR020002-003586-Five10Twelve - Comments on Responses to ExA WQs - Appendices on Funding and Resources
"1. Events ‘alluded to’ and relevance to this application
Regardless of the Applicant’s own concerns as to the relevance, or otherwise, of Tony
Freudmann’s (“TF”) chequered past, it is surely for the ExA to decide whether or not the
“events alluded to” concerning TF’s history as having been struck off from the solicitor’s roll for
27 counts of misappropriation of client’s funds in 1993 are indeed “relevant to this
application ”
.
1.1. With respect to the ExA, we will herewith present statements, fully backed by evidence, to
support our contention that a determining factor in whether or not the events of 25 years
ago are still relevant is the continued history of TF’s financial and organisational
mismanagement and possible involvement in financial impropriety since those events.

1.2. Contrary to the Applicant’s dismissive remarks in response to the ExAs’ question at F.1.1,
TF’s career history indicates disturbing patterns of behaviour with very specific
similarities and absolute relevance to the issues at hand. As such, it is no surprise
whatsoever that the Applicant might wish to portray “the events alluded to” in 1993 as an
isolated and historical aberration before swiftly moving on.

1.3. In the intervening 25 years since being struck off the solicitors’ roll for misappropriation of
client funds, TF has been a serving director of no less than 26 dissolved companies, primarily in the travel and/or aviation industries, many as founder and principle shareholder.

1.4. These include businesses dissolved in 1992/93, 1994, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016 and as recently as 2017, when his previous failed airport ventures, Annax Aviation Limited and Annax Aviation Airports Limited were both voluntarily dissolved, less than 12 months after a prior compulsory strike-off action had been discontinued for both companies.

1.5. Prior to TF’s own failed travel, aviation and airport businesses, TF was Vice President at
Wiggins Group PLC for 11 years from 1994 until “he was “let go” by Wiggins in February 2005”.

1.6. A supplementary memorandum submitted by the CAA for a House of Commons (“HofC”) Transport hearing regarding Wiggins financial irregularities, mismanagement and failure of its subsidiary business, EUjet, during TF’s tenure reveals that in March 2001, Wiggins Group PLC “ received censure from the Financial Reporting Review Panel and the Financial Services Authority for overestimating its results between 1995/2000 , which on their restatement resulted in significant losses” .

1.7. Wiggins Group PLC subsequently changed its name to Planestation Group in 2004/5,
following a suspension of shares trading, asset write-down, and corporate restructure to repay mezzanine debts and attempt to turn the business around and address pre-tax losses of £12.8m, (down from losses of £27.5m in the previous year), and Group operating losses of £4.2m, (down from losses of £19.4m the previous year).

1.8. During his tenure as Managing Director of Wiggins PLC and latterly as Senior Vice President of Planestation PLC , TF held directorships of associated businesses, Kent International Business Park Ltd, Kent International Airport (Holdings) Ltd, Kent International Travel Ltd and London Manston Airport PLC, prior to these businesses being dissolved in 2005/7 .

1.9. Whilst at Planestation/Wiggins, in December 2003, TF was at the centre of a legal battle with the County of Funen, Denmark, after refusing to pay contracted lease payments at Odense Airport for more than 2 years, amounting to DKK 16 million, (c. £1.84 million). Planestation/Wiggins lost the case and was ordered to pay, with costs also awarded. Local contemporary news reports in Odense quoted TF as saying:
“we can easily pay the arbitration. But by principle and for the sake of our many shareholders, we will be first allowed to read the 50-page decision … but there must be no doubt that we should pay”

1.10. By January 2004, and with the Funen taxpayer owed DKK 18 million, (£2.08 million), and the City Council facing a DKK 6 million deficit, (£0.7 million) as a direct result , a crisis meeting was called by the municipal Odense Airport representative committee to petition for bankruptcy in order to force payment from the UK parent, Planestation/Wiggins. As for TF, doubts had apparently surfaced after all. Local contemporary media reported under its headline “The hunt for Wiggins entered ” that: “Tony Freudmann, Managing Director of Wiggins Group, did not comment on the bankruptcy petition”

1.11. Nine months later in September 2004 - and with Planestation/Wiggins having since pulled
out of Odense entirely - the bill was still unpaid, leaving the Danish taxpayer with a debt now up to DKK 23.7 million, (£2.73 million), plus NOK 900,000 (£79,000) in unpaid VAT , whilst Planestation/Wiggins remarkably - and “according to the rules” - claimed DKK 3 million, (£345,791) as a VAT refund.

1.12. Less than 12 months later, TF’s tenure as Vice President of Planestation continued with the collapse of EUjet in July 200513, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Planestation PLC , operating from the former Manston Airport .

1.12.1. The collapse of EUjet led to questions raised in the House of Commons, (“HofC”), as detailed in the CAA briefing paper of November 200514, which discussed in some detail the litany of errors leading to the collapse, including: “insufficient funds to support the commencement of scheduled operations in the summer of 2004 as originally intended”, a lack of clarity over a £30m cash injection and “what proportion of this additional funding was required to support EUjet”, passenger numbers that were “lower than expected” and a botched plan to sell “75% of the business park adjacent to Manston Airport” which “broke down and led to an eventual cash crisis ”.

1.13. The CAA briefing paper for HofC into the EUjet failure during TF’s previous Manston
Airport tenure as Senior Vice President of EUJet’s parent company, Planestation PLC, also raises concerns as regards irregular and misleading financial reporting of Planestation PLC , in similar circumstances to those which brought censure from the FSA for its previous incarnation as Wiggins PLC, and misleading information provided to the CAA . This is detailed in the briefing paper in the CAA section as follows: “Press reports and the CAA’s own industry sources suggested that EUjet and its parent Planestation were encountering financial difficulties earlier this year. However the
Regulatory Announcements that Planestation had issued to the City indicated that these problems were being comprehensively addressed. The CAA requires regular financial information to be provided by UK licensed airlines for monitoring purposes, but does not receive, nor is able to require, information from non-UK airlines such as EUjet.
The CAA was therefore unaware of the actual financial position of that carrier and, in any case, had no legal powers to act against it .”

1.14. It appears from these sections of the CAA briefing paper for HofC that Planestation PLC
and EUjet had exploited a loophole in the situs of the business and CAA registration.

1.15. As a result, it further appears from this briefing that consumers were again left out of pocket and without a means to claim compensation or recompense from either Planestation PLC or EUjet and a reported “ 5,400 passengers were stranded abroad ”.

1.16. Whilst these reports further support the relevance of the Planestation/EUjet collapse to this case and TF’s pattern of behaviour, contemporary media reports also show direct relevance with regards to the viability (or otherwise) of the current proposed development at Manston :
“Mr McGoldrick, EUjet chief executive, said in a statement that marketing a new airline operation from Manston, which had no recent history of passenger operations, had been “difficult ””; and “passenger targets had not been hit … the Kent operations had underperformed” ;
and “the group had also failed to develop its cargo business at Manston ”.

1.17. Having been “let go” by Planestation on or around the time of its collapse in 2005, TF spent the next 7 years starting, acquiring and dissolving no less than 13 different travel companies.

1.18. Whilst full details are not available for every single failed TF enterprise, some of those reports that are available from failed travel businesses, include Unpackaged Holidays (“UH”) and Travel Club of Upminster (“TCU”), which were investigated by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) after going into administration in 2010

1.19. Much like the Applicant’s current corporate structure, Unpackaged Holidays was anything but “unpackaged”, nestling within a convoluted structure of parents and subsidiaries for purposes unknown, including - as far as we can tell - UH, TCU, Seligo Travel Ltd23, Alpha Prospects24 and Austria Travel Limited.

1.20. The UH and TCU collapse provides evidence of a disregard for the impact on other individuals and businesses as a result of TF’s failures which is not dissimilar to the disdain show to others in the “events alluded to” of 1992/3.

1.21. These impacts include reports that TF’s collapsed businesses “had failed to pay at least 20 hotels and apartments ” , were “unable to continue trading as a result of an inability to meet guaranteed payments” 27 and that customers with future bookings were left with no guarantees of recovering their funds since “the company was not a member of ABTA and did not hold an ATOL”.

1.22. Current CAA advice regarding ATOL29 states that “U K and European law requires travel businesses to financially protect their packages holidays in the countries in which they are established. Businesses based in the UK provide their protection under the ATOL scheme”.

1.23. TF’s current public-facing biography on his own website is somewhat vague and misleading with regards to the period after the collapse of his numerous nested travel businesses in 2010 until his involvement with the Applicant sometime around 2014, talking only of pursuing ‘ his own venture” and delivering “high level consultancy services in relation to aviation and tourism development in both the public and private sectors throughout the UK, Germany and the U.S.”

1.24. Whilst some online biogs might take a similar vague and broad approach in an effort to appear casual and approachable, it is not unreasonable to assume that in this instance the lack of specificity is an effort to conceal, making it as difficult as possible for the reader to check any facts that might lead to the next round of broken promises, failed businesses and other individuals, companies and - as in Odense - entire towns left picking up the tab .

1.25. Certainly, the names of Integral, a.k.a Integeral, and Lahr Airport, a.k.a. Black Forest Airport Lahr, (“BFAL”), seem strange omissions, given their close similarities and relevance to the current Manston proposals. Although perhaps herein lies the problem and the reason for their omission.
1.26. In June 2012, local German news sites reported that the troubled Lahr airport had been taken over by Integral and relaunched as Black Forest Airport Lahr31, (“BAFL”).
Contemporary local reports at the time of the takeover announced:
“the core idea is the founding of a new airline dedicated solely to the cargo business ; and
“the flying fate of the Black Forest Airport (BFAL) is in the future firmly linked with the name Tony Freudmann”

1.27. In further startling similarities to the current Manston DCO proposal , lurking behind these familiar promises of a bright new dawn,” millions in investment and new jobs” at the former regional military airfield, the same contemporary local report somewhat prophetically continued:
“ Freudmann also remains vague when it comes to investments”

1.28. Less than 8 months later and the local news site was reporting on BFAL’s bankruptcy :
“for months, the airport has seen not a tired cent of its parent company ”; and “the employees have been working for three months without pay” ; and “many of the 25 employees have already filed labour tribunal litigation” ; and “since it is clear that BFAL cannot pay its employees, Müller, (Lahr’s Mayor), no longer relies on the promises from London ” ( i.e. TF / Integral)

1.29. 20 years after “the events alluded to” , the patterns are clear, although those 27 counts of
misappropriation of client’s funds arguably look tame in comparison to the 5,400 people
left stranded by EUjet and the misery inflicted on entire towns at Odense and Lahr .

1.30. As TF embarks on his latest “venture” at Manston, perhaps the most chilling words for the
thousands of concerned locals who have voiced their opposition to the proposed development are those of Lahr’s Mayor, Wolfgang G. Müller as he tried to find a way to hold TF accountable after he had walked away from the BFAL disaster:
“40 minutes ago he talked to Tony Freudmann , Müller reports.
‘What did he say?’, one of the journalists present wants to know.
‘Nothing new’ replies the mayor.”