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”.

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

Heathrow decision and how it relates to Manston

 What follows is a tweetroll from Jason written after the Supreme Court overturned the Govt decision to quash the permission for the 3rd Runway at Heathrow. The conclusion is that this benefits the decision to stop the DCO for Manston airport.

What next for #Heathrow?

A #thread based on our experience with the UK's first (and only) airport DCO, #Manston, and @slmjh51012's recent presentation for the @The_AEF's  AGM.

Today's Supreme Court Judgment confirms what we knew ... an airport development's impact on ability of Govt to meet its Paris Agreement (PA) obligations will be examined and determined at DCO stage

All eyes now on Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008, which sets out what the Secretary of State must consider in determining a DCO where a National Policy Statement - in this case the ANPS - has effect

Worth noting that if Supreme Court had reached a different decision and ANPS was ruled unlawful, Heathrow could still apply for DCO and Section 105 of Planning Act would come into play in determining the DCO. Here it is

So was the airport development's impact on Govt Paris Agreement commitments taken into account for Manston DCO? Kind of. @PINSgov and @grantshapps accepted it would put UK in breach - of even older targets - and this should carry "moderate weight"

Climate Change was one of many grounds why @PINSgov recommended refusal of this airport DCO - others included issues around need, heritage impact, noise, poor surface access, devastation caused to historic town of Ramsgate, negative tourism impact etc.

So @grantshapps original decision was to overrule @PINSgov  and grant DCO anyway. Why? Well ... Not quite sure. Successful JR forced Govt to concede it had not given clear reasons to grant DCO, so decision will soon be quashed

Manston DCO decision will now be re-determined. This matters for Heathrow - and others. If we are to have any confidence whatsoever in DCO process, as LHR Supreme Court decision suggests, #Manston DCO must surely now be refused

Local campaigners are prepared to take this further with continued JR if needs be. Not sure @grantshapps wants this going to court as risks creating case law that may impact on future airport DCOs

What follows is the conclusion by No 3rd Runway Coalition