Further to my earlier e-mail, I am contacting you in respect to the American Hedge Fund company, Riveroak, who are trying to force the owners of the old Manston airport about 2 miles away from the centre of Ramsgate, which has a history of failure for use as a passenger air carrier, into re-opening it for cargo use only, 24 hours a day via a Compulsory Purchase/Development Consent Order! The present owners want to build much needed affordable housing, Hi and Lo tech facilities (which they have plenty of experience of!) and park and recreation land on it. The two local MP's Craig Mackinlay, and Sir Roger Gale, neither of whom live in Thanet, are promoting Riveroak, mainly because they think its popular with the local population, to garner votes! It is a popular proposition, until people learn that NO passenger aircraft are planned, as all previous passenger carriers have failed! Below is a copy of my submission to the ongoing Riveroak public Consultation, and I would welcome your comments. Best Regards Dennis Franklin.
From: Dennis Franklin, address withheld for security reasons!
Submission for the "Riveroak Strategic Partners" Consultation to re-open Manston Airport, for consideration in their Development Consent Application to the Planning Inspector this year.
INTRODUCTION:
I am retired, and a former member of the Chartered Institute of Building, and was once Assistant Property Manager at Worsfolds Estate Agents & Chartered Surveyors. Worsfolds no longer exists, but they had 15 offices from Herne Bay to Ashford. I was also a Building Surveyor with Smith, Woolly, & Perry, Estate Agents & Chartered Surveyors. I worked mainly in Estate Management, and as a mortgage/building surveyor in South East Kent. I must make it clear I have no business interests inThanet at all!
FINDINGS:
1) It is my understanding a Development Consent Order can only be made providing the application relates to a strategic necessity in the national interest. It is my contention as the RAF found Manston airport surplus to requirements decades ago, it is no longer required for the nations defence. Also, as far as I am aware no aircraft has ever had to make use of the airfield in an emergency since it was relinquished by the RAF. Several commercial air carriers have failed to make the airport viable since the RAF disposed of it, largely due to lack of demand, and poor rail availability to London.
2) I further contend there is no commercial future for the airport, even for cargo carriers, should it re-open for this purpose, as is proposed, and would be doomed to fail on the grounds it is in the wrong location, and the lack of transport infrastructure to support it.
3) In my submission I would like to draw attention to the damaging affect of aircraft noise, and air pollution, that will seriously harm the tourist industry, and the devaluing of property that would occur to the towns of Thanet, and elsewhere that lie under the flight paths.
4) I have an interest in animal welfare, and stood outside the Wilko store in Ramsgate every Saturday morning for two years, from 2012 to 2014, collecting for an animal charity. During this period Manston was once again closed, but was used for cargo planes to practice take off, and landing Saturday mornings. These aircraft would fly low over Ramsgate Harbour, and up Ramsgate High Street as they are directly under the flight path, drowning out any attempt at conversation, and causing much alarm, and distress amongst shoppers, and tourists, many of which come down to Ramsgate from London at weekends.
5) Ramsgate is now a bustling town enjoying a renaissance, and is attracting new businesses mainly for the tourists who visit during the week, and at weekends. The Harbour also attracts tourists with its many Hotels, pubs, and restaurants, and can be said to be thriving.
6) Ramsgate property seems to be attracting people who commute to London to work, and prices, and demand appears to be on the up!
7) Many local residents like myself choose to retire to Thanet, so there is a large elderly population, many of which like myself are not in the best of health!
CONCLUSION:
1) As a former building valuation, and mortgage surveyor, I can say should Manston re-open, especially on the scale proposed, it will have a serious detrimental affect on property values, and health in Ramsgate especially, and in the surrounding areas.
2) It is a well researched medical fact aircraft noise induces early deaths of people due to stress. The airport runway is less than two miles from the centre of Ramsgate town, and the flight paths will cover a large part of the Ramsgate housing area, including St Lawrence. These aircraft as I have seen, and from what is proposed, will approach the runway over the Harbour at virtually chimney pot level, screaming low overhead day and night, perhaps upwards of one every 20 minutes as has been reported!
3) In addition to the harmful affects from low flying aircraft, there is the question of air pollution. These aircraft will be dumping large quantities of air pollution on the people of Thanet, and especially Ramsgate, as they approach over the Harbour, up the High Street, and on towards St Lawrence at almost zero height, before landing!
4) Air pollution according to the Royal College of Physicians in a recent report, causes upwards of 40,000 deaths a year in Britain. Low flying aircraft approaching, and taking off from Manston will obviously pollute the air, and contribute to the early deaths of the local poplulation!
5) Aircraft noise day and night, and dangerously poor air quality will cause a massive devaluation of property prices, and conveyancing solicitors will be professionally bound to make prospective house buyers aware of houses that lay under a flight path, or is otherwise affected by aircraft noise, and pollution.
6) As a mortgage building surveyor in the past, I have seen large areas which had a Red Line drawn through them, indicating the properties in these area were considered un-mortgagable due to detrimental environmental problems. This will occur in Thanet, and especially to property directly under flight paths!
7) The affect of low flying aircraft over densely populated areas such as Ramsgate, and the other towns in Thanet/Herne Bay, day and night will devalue thousands of properties, perhaps by as much 25% to 50%, and make many unsalable in my opinion!
8) Many tourists, and locals enjoy eating/drinking al fresco around Ramsgate Harbour, but low flying aircraft approaching over the Harbour several times an hour, will devastate the tourist industry here! No one will want to stay at a Hotel twice, if they can't get a good nights sleep!
SUMMING UP:
1) A Development Consent Order should fail as Manston airport can never be considered as vital to the National interest, or even as an air cargo hub, when other airports north of London have spare capacity!
2) Manston airport is in the wrong location! It is too close to a large population, and does not have the transport infrastructure to move large quantities of cargo, except by road!
3) Should Manston ever re-open as an airport as proposed, it will cause serious health risks, and early deaths due to air, and noise pollution!
4) The proposed low flying aircraft over Ramsgate Harbour, town, and other populated areas will seriously devalue thousands of properties, and devastate the tourist industry!
5) The proposed development by Stone Hill Park, the owners of Manston must be encouraged, as it will provide much needed low cost housing, Hi & Lo Tech jobs, and recreational space, all of which are preferable to a company who will only pollute Thanet, devalue property, and devastate a flourishing tourist industry!
I look forward to your comments with anticipation.

There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process.
In accordance with the PA2008 process, you have correctly sent your comments about the statutory consultation to the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners.
If you have not already done so, please also provide your comments to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the PA2008 process, which I explain in the content of this advice.
The PA2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation and all applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the PA2008 and must give details of:
a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA2008 in relation to an application;
b) any relevant responses; and
c) the account taken of any relevant responses.
In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all of the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in s55 of the PA2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in s55 of the PA2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.
In reaching the above decision, s55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees. Adequacy of Consultation Representations are defined by s55(5) of the PA2008 as representations about whether the applicant complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48. They are requested from all relevant local authorities on receipt of an application for development consent.
To that end, in providing your comments to your local authority they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about when and how to register as an Interested Party in the Examination (if an application is submitted and the Secretary of State decides that it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined), please see Advice Note Eight here: attachment 1
Please send any future email correspondence about the Proposed Development to [email protected]