RiverOak has recently published a Draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC) in connection with its proposals for the former Manston airport site. The draft SoCC, copy attached, raises some particular concerns about which I would welcome your comments.
Firstly, at Section 1.2, the dSoCC implies that the project is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Yet the advice given by the Planning Inspectorate, 10 February 2017, states that is not the case.
Secondly, the dSoCC, unhelpfully, fails to give any dates for its intended consultations.
Thirdly, at Section 5.1, the dSoCC announces it will be "sending our Consultation Leaflet to all residential and business addresses within a consultation boundary that includes those who either live within one kilometre of the airport, or one kilometre of those who may be significantly affected by noise, .....". Further, the document includes a map, at Appendix 2, showing the relevant area for leaflet distribution.
This seems to imply that RiverOak has predetermined the areas which it believes will be affected by noise from its proposed 24/7 air freight hub. In RiverOak's Scoping Report, not only was it trying to avoid addressing matters to do with air quality*, and subsequently counselled otherwise by the Planning Inspectorate's Scoping Opinion**, but it clearly wishes to ignore the potential noise impact on local communities***.
Should RiverOak's plans come to fruition, there is no doubt that the lives of all those people living and working under the flight path will be seriously affected. For example, the map suggests that only residents of the Nethercourt district will be impacted, whereas in reality most people in Ramsgate will suffer serious noise and air pollution from RiverOak's proposals. Accordingly, by its actions from the Scoping Report and from this dSoCC, RiverOak is attempting to avoid its responsibility to fully consult on these matters with the local communities.
Finally, as there are alternative proposals for the site, and in particular from the current owners, during consultations RiverOak should make it clear that these exist. In this way the public can truly make a determination as to the relative impacts and benefits of the alternative schemes. This point is also well made in the Scoping Opinion****.
* RiverOak Scoping Report (30 June 2016) - Sections 5.1.2 to 5.1.5, 5.6.16 and 5.6.19
** Planning Inspectorate Scoping Opinion (August 2016) - Sections 3.31 to 3.33
*** Scoping Report - Sections 11.5 et al
**** Scoping Opinion - Sections 2.22, 2.56 and Appendix 1 (Page 9 - Alternatives).

By way of clarification, section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA2008) places the following duties on applicants in respect of community consultation:
47 Duty to consult local community
(1) The applicant must prepare a statement setting out how the applicant proposes to consult, about the proposed application, people living in the vicinity of the land.
(2) Before preparing the statement, the applicant must consult each local authority that is within section 43(1) about what is to be in the statement.
To that end, the PA2008 does not require for Applicants to consult with any parties other than the local authorities within which a proposed development (‘s43(1) authorities’) about the content of a dSoCC. That does not preclude any other parties from making comments directly to a s43(1) authority about the content of a dSoCC. However, the consideration of any such commentary by a s43(1) in forming a view about the content of a dSoCC would be at its own discretion. If a party were to choose to provide comments to a s43(1) authority in this way, the Planning Inspectorate would advise for those comments to be copied to the Applicant.
Note that upon the submission of an application the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all s43 authorities about whether an Applicant has complied with its duties under ss42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate must then have regard to any ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’ received in taking its decision about whether an application can be accepted for examination.
You have asked for the Planning Inspectorate’s comments in respect of three discreet observations about the dSoCC, and I will respond to those points in order.
1. “[…] at Section 1.2, the dSoCC implies that the project is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Yet the advice given by the Planning Inspectorate, 10 February 2017, states that is not the case.”
The Planning Inspectorate’s advice dated 10 February 2017 explains that the term ‘asset of national significance’ has no status under the PA2008. The term ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project’ (NSIP) is defined by the PA2008, and the corresponding thresholds for airport development are set out in s23. At the Pre-application stage of the process it is for an Applicant to take a judgement-based view about whether the development it is proposing qualifies as an NSIP and would require development consent under the PA2008. On submission of an application, the Planning Inspectorate tests whether the development proposed includes an NSIP. The Planning Inspectorate is not required to apply this test when an Applicant makes a request under s52 or s53 of the PA2008.
2. “[…] the dSoCC, unhelpfully, fails to give any dates for its intended consultations.”
The dates for the consultation events must be included in the final Statement of Community Consultation.
3. “[…] at Section 5.1, the dSoCC announces it will be "sending our Consultation Leaflet to all residential and business addresses within a consultation boundary that includes those who either live within one kilometre of the airport, or one kilometre of those who may be significantly affected by noise, .....". Further, the document includes a map, at Appendix 2, showing the relevant area for leaflet distribution. This seems to imply that RiverOak has predetermined the areas which it believes will be affected by noise from its proposed 24/7 air freight hub. In RiverOak's Scoping Report, not only was it trying to avoid addressing matters to do with air quality*, and subsequently counselled otherwise by the Planning Inspectorate's Scoping Opinion**, but it clearly wishes to ignore the potential noise impact on local communities***. Should RiverOak's plans come to fruition, there is no doubt that the lives of all those people living and working under the flight path will be seriously affected. For example, the map suggests that only residents of the Nethercourt district will be impacted, whereas in reality most people in Ramsgate will suffer serious noise and air pollution from RiverOak's proposals. Accordingly, by its actions from the Scoping Report and from this dSoCC, RiverOak is attempting to avoid its responsibility to fully consult on these matters with the local communities.”
The Planning Inspectorate has considered the Applicant’s Scoping Report, and the responses received from statutory consultees, and provided its Scoping Opinion in August 2016. The extent to which an Applicant’s chosen assessment methodology has informed the scope of any consultation exercise is not a matter about which the Planning Inspectorate can comment at this stage. As set out at the beginning of this email, the extent to which the Applicant has satisfied its Pre-application consultation duties will be tested thoroughly if/ when an Application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and will draw on any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received. You may wish to forward your comments to the s43(1) authorities, who will also make formal comments on the dSoCC.
If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and it is subsequently decided that that application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined, the appointed Examining Authority will take account of all relevant legislation, guidance and policy in its consideration of the accompanying Environmental Statement.
4. “[…] as there are alternative proposals for the site, and in particular from the current owners, during consultations RiverOak should make it clear that these exist. In this way the public can truly make a determination as to the relative impacts and benefits of the alternative schemes. This point is also well made in the Scoping Opinion****.”
The Planning Inspectorate set out the expectations of the Secretary of State in relation to alternatives at paragraph 2.56 of the Scoping Opinion. The Environmental Statement provided with any application for development consent will be examined as described previously.