Manston Airport

The list below includes a record of advice we have provided for this project. For a list of all advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate, including non-project related advice, please go to the Register of advice page.

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application, including the name of the person who requested the advice, and to make this publicly available.

Preview
Enquiry received via email
I have had very little time to examine the 11,000 pages of the DCO application since it was submitted. My old school, Lord Mayor Treloar College for the Disabled, is implicated in the current infected blood public enquiry and such spare time I have has been focused on this. I guess if I had read all of it that would have been over 600 pages a week from the publication date to now.

I have focused on the main area that I have been asking the applicant about since the first consolation, which is the particulate air pollution as this seems to have potential for a disturbingly high mortality rate.

As far as I can see the applicant has made an error in the dispersion rate for pm2.5 particulates, it may be they have used the dispersion figure, i.e. the distance from the point of aviation fuel burn to the point the level of airborne particulates return to the existing background level, for pm10 particulates or it may be they haven't counted the pm2.5s at all.

This is a fairly technical issue so I wonder if you could be kind enough to put me in touch with the right person to discuss it with.
If you are seeking clarification about the content of the environmental assessment, please contact the Applicant.

Otherwise, there will be various opportunities for you to make representations to the Examining Authority in the course of the six month examination.

We will write to you in due course with your invitation to the Preliminary Meeting which will include a draft Examination Timetable.

16 November 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
What action has or will be taken to ensure that representations (from both sides) are above board and genuine? I sincerely have no problem with genuine representations opposed to the Airport – we live in a democracy and people are entitled to their opinion – provided it is genuine!
What constitutes a Relevant Representation is defined in s102 of the Planning Act 2008:

(4) A representation is a relevant representation for the purposes of subsection (1) to the extent that—
(a) it is a representation about the application,
(b) it is made to the [ Secretary of State ] in the prescribed form and manner,
(c) it is received by the [ Secretary of State ] no later than the deadline that applies under section 56 to the person making it,
(d) it contains material of a prescribed description, and
(e) it does not contain—
(i) material about compensation for compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land,
(ii) material about the merits of policy set out in a national policy statement, or
(iii) material that is vexatious or frivolous.

It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to investigate the source of representations made. The inquisitorial nature of the Planning Act 2008 process means that Examining Authorities examine evidence through questioning. In the examination process, it is the relevance and importance of the issues which carry weight – not the volume of submissions received. On that basis duplicated representations (in support or objection to a Proposed Development) cannot serve to manipulate the decision-making process.

25 October 2018
Michael Grantham
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On your web page for this project it states that "The Applicant (RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd) must certify to the Planning Inspectorate that it has complied with its application notification requirements." Can you please detail exactly what this requirement refers to, what the applicant has to do in order to certify, how long the applicant has to certify, whether he has yet done so and any other information you think would be relevant to the process.
The certificates are published on the project webpage: [attachment 1]

The certificates themselves set out what the Applicant is certifying.

Applicants must provide these certificates within ten working days following the close of the registration (Relevant Representations) period. The registration period closed on 8 October 2018 and the applicant certified two days later on 10 October 2018.

16 October 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
The National Planning Guidance states that section 106 agreements should be used to mitigate the effects of otherwise unacceptable developments.
I know that RSP have argued against a 106 agreement for Manston but this is not unusual from developers. 106 agreements are often imposed upon them
What I don’t understand is at what point PINS would consider such an approach in this case, and what input interested parties would have into any potential 106 agreement.
Under the Planning Act 2008, agreements/ undertakings pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are known as Development Consent Obligations.

In this case, a Development Consent Obligation does not form part of the application documentation. If a Development Consent Obligation were subsequently submitted to the examination, it would have the same status as all other Examination Documents insofar as Interested Parties would be able to make representations about its content to the Examining Authority.

12 October 2018
David Green
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have a question regarding whether pins can limit a sponsors project plans when granting a DCO.
All interested parties whether for or against the airport, SMA, SMAA, SUMA, NNF, Craig Mackinlay MP and Sir Roger Gale MP have all stated they are against night flights with both Mr Gale and Mr Mackinlay (in recent letters to his constituents), confirming that RSP do not require night flights. However in their application RSP have specified they would like night flights. Given this wholesale objection, that national policy is considering banning night flights (as they will be at Heathrow), does the inspector have the legal powers to ban them, even though RSP have specified they want them, as a condition of the DCO should they be convinced they would be detrimental to the local community or for any other reason ?
Section 120 of the Planning Act 2008 explains that Development Consent Orders (DCO) may impose Requirements (analogous to ‘conditions’ in conventional planning decisions). The draft Requirements provided in Schedule 2 of the draft Manston Airport DCO are available to view here: [attachment 1];stage=app&filter1=Draft+Development+Consent+Orders

The Examining Authority (ExA) will examine the draft DCO submitted with the application and consider any relevant and important matters raised in representations made about its content. This process can lead to changes being made to a draft DCO (including the Requirements) in the course of an Examination by the Applicant itself or as recommended by the ExA.

In all cases, the Secretary of State (SoS) will take the final decision about whether or not development consent should be granted and finalise the form of the DCO, if it is made. Whether or not an ExA recommends to the SoS that development consent should be granted, its Recommendation Report to the SoS must be accompanied by a final draft DCO. The final draft DCO will include any changes made to the draft DCO in the course of the Examination, and may also include further recommended changes applied by the ExA in the process of reporting. In turn, in consideration of the Recommendation Report and the final draft DCO accompanying it, the SoS may decide to delete or amend certain provisions or make any other changes in order to make the Proposed Development acceptable in planning terms.

12 October 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
From the information in the public domain it is not clear what has changed with regard to RSP's submission that allowed this change of stance where the previous advice, regarding RSP's withdrawn Application of May 2018, was clearly that in PINS view there was insufficient evidence provided by RSP to base any such assessment on. Can this omission be clarified?

On the JR point I understand that an acceptance decision could not actually be JR'd until the examination is concluded. Is this not correct?
In its resubmitted application, RSP provided additional evidence (for example in its updated NSIP Justification Document (Doc 2.3)) which enabled the Planning Inspectorate to reach the conclusion expressed in Box 3 of the Acceptance of Applications Checklist.

Section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out the statutory periods associated with legal challenges. If you require further assistance in respect of this matter, please contact the Administrative Court Office on 0207 947 6655 or follow this link: [attachment 1]

26 September 2018
S Alvers
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
However, you have failed to address the two points I raised, these being :

1. Whether the Planning Inspectorate is concerned about DCO applicants lying about their applications, apparently with the deliberate intention of misleading local residents with regards to the potential impacts of their proposals; and
2. Whether the Planning Inspectorate consider the statement made by Tony Freudmann on KMTV to constitute a "misrepresentation of the Planning Act 2008 process"
The purpose of the forthcoming examination is to investigate the potential impacts of the Proposed Development. If you feel any statements made by the Applicant, either within the application documents or elsewhere, do not accurately represent the potential impacts of the Proposed Development, please articulate your concern and provide supporting evidence in the form of a Relevant Representation: [attachment 1]

26 September 2018
Jon Fowler
Enquiry received via phone
The enquirer requested information on how a group of persons could register and make representations.
• The Planning Inspectorate encourages individuals with shared interests to form groups, and to register and make representations in the name of the group
• On that basis, it necessary for a group name to be provided and for a named individual to be identified as the leader/ spokesperson for the group
• Only the name of the group leader/ spokesperson needs to be provided on the registration form – all correspondence for the attention of the group in the course of the examination will be sent to the group leader/ spokesperson
• The naming of a group leader/ spokesperson will not preclude other group members from making representations on behalf of the group in the course of the examination
• The above advice is enshrined in the principle that it is the quality of the issues/ evidence put before an examination that will carry weight – not the amount of times the same issue is repeated

26 September 2018
Alan Welcome
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Now that the Manston DCO is entering the examination stage can you tell me if PINS will be calling on experts in the various fields needed to test RSP’s application claims, i.e. their business plan, noise & pollution levels, ATMs, impact on local residents & ecology etc. or is it entirely up to interested parties to do so. It also seems to me that their proposal does not qualify as an NSIP until at least year 2 looking at ATM forecasts. There is a lot of very technical claims that the man on the street will not understand. From what I have been able to understand a lot of RSPs claims seem to have been pulled out of the air with very little evidence to back them up. In many cases there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. There also seems to be information in their application that was not presented to the public.
The application will be examined by an Examining Authority (ExA): either a single appointed person or a Panel of 2, 3, 4 or 5 Examining Inspectors, dependent on the particular circumstances of each the case in question. The ExA for the examination of RSP’s application is yet to be appointed. When the appointment is made by the Secretary of State, notice will published on the project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

The way in which the application will be examined will be discussed at the Preliminary Meeting. For more information please read Advice Note 8.3: Influencing how an application is examined – the Preliminary Meeting: [attachment 1]

Section 100 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out the circumstances in which an assessor(s) with specific expertise may be appointed to assist an ExA. Paragraphs 66 to 69 of ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent’ provide more information: [attachment 2]

In respect your comments about ATMs, please consider making these in a Relevant Representation, which will be read by the ExA once appointed: [attachment 3]

26 September 2018
Ian Scott
Enquiry received via email
I would like to register as an interested party in the Manston Airport Application for a national infrastructure project and note on your guidance that all contact details that you receive as part of the registration process will be made publicly available, in particular the element in bold below:

In particular, please be aware that we are required by law to make the information that you provide publicly available. Details published on our website will be restricted to your name and the text of your representation. However, any copies made available for inspection at public locations will contain your contact details.

I would like to know how this relates to the new General Data Protection Regulation and your policy?
I write to confirm that none of our current processes would result in your contact information entering the public domain. We will only publish (i) your name and (ii) the text of your representation on the National Infrastructure Planning website. Copies of the Relevant Representations made available for inspection at public locations will be made available via the National Infrastructure Planning website and will therefore contain the same information. If any Relevant Representations are for any reason reproduced in hard copy, that hard copy would comprise a printout from the website.

Our GDPR officer is in the process of updating the wording on the Relevant Representation Form, the latter part of which (bold below) I understand reflects how hard copy Relevant Representations were handled historically.

“In particular, please be aware that we are required by law to make the information that you provide publicly available. Details published on our website will be restricted to your name and the text of your representation. However, any copies made available for inspection at public locations will contain your contact details.” [my emphasis]

24 September 2018
Cathy Rogers
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My questions are as follows:

1. Which of the 4 elements that Riveroak claim limit the existing capability of Manston to zero did you rely on in arriving at you conclusion that its has zero inherent capacity and thus RSP's proposals qualify as a NSIP ?
2. Did the Planning Inspectorate visit the site to verify the claims made by Riveroak and form their own view ? I would think not as you would have likely identified that the Fire station building does appear to have a roof.
3. What implications would there be for Riveroak if the claims they have made in this NSIP justification document are verfiably wrong and you have relied on them in reaching your conlcusions ?
4. What external aviation advice did the Inspectorate take to validate Riveroak's statments?
5. If, ignoring the other 3 elements, the Fire Station did actually have no roof would the sites exisiting owners then need to go through a DCO process to enable them to put the roof back on the building as the capability would then be well beyond 10,000 cargo ATMs needed?
6. Similary, could a third party, akin to Riveroak, launch a second DCO process to simply put a roof back on the Fire Station, release the existing capability of the airport at much lower cost, and obtain compulsory purchase powers over all the land at the airport.
The matters that you raise are now for the examination. On that basis, please consider making your comments about the Proposed Development in a Relevant Representation*.

The process set out in the Planning Act 2008 is inquisitorial, meaning the appointed Examining Authority will ask questions to the Applicant and other Interested Parties based on, amongst other things, the evidence provided in the application documents and any relevant and important matters raised by Interested Parties in any representations received.

Please note that the Relevant Representations period for this project closes at 11.59pm on 8 October 2018.

The decision to accept the application for examination has been made. If you disagree with the way in which the Secretary of State’s decision in this case was taken, the decision may be challenged in the High Court through the process of Judicial Review (JR). For more information about the JR process you will need to seek your own legal advice.

*See Advice Note 8.2 - How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1]

19 September 2018
S Alvers
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
i have just read the explanation given on page 120 of the applicant's Planning Statement regarding his astonishing disregard of the extensive representations made by the host local authority in relation to the final part of the statutory consultation. (I have also read the similar account given on p318 of the Consultation Report).

I am wondering if PINS was aware of this when it took a view on the adequacy of the consultation and the overall compliance of the application with applicable norms and standards?

I ask the question because it seems to me that the applicant's actions were improper: it ought not to have disregarded an important part of the statutory process on the basis of an email from a local politician who very plainly had no authority to issue the instruction he did.

I would like to know why PINS has allowed this abuse to pass.
Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out what the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to in reaching a decision about whether an applicant has complied with its Pre-application duties, namely:

• The Consultation Report received;
• any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received from local authority consultees; and
• the extent to which an applicant has had regard to statutory guidance.

The decision to accept the application by RiverOak Strategic Partners for examination has been made, and the conclusions reached by the Inspectorate in that respect are expressed in the published Section 55 Acceptance of Application Checklist*. If you disagree with the way in which the Secretary of State’s decision in this case was taken, the decision may be challenged in the High Court through the process of Judicial Review (JR). For more information about the JR process you will need to seek your own legal advice.

* [attachment 1]

19 September 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am currently reading the Environmental Statement, to ensure that any representations engage directly with what the application.

I find that the problems created by the length and complexity of the Statement are greatly exacerbated by the following:
1. the parts are out of order: your/the Developer's listing of the 45 documents does not appear to be arranged logically - or at least not by any method I have been able to discern - why is this?
2. the titles of many of the individual document listings give no indication of the nature and significance of their contents - why not?
3. problem 2 is compounded because the Developer has in many cases bundled together unrelated documents, so that e.g. a significant appraisal of noise effects is found under scores of historical maps - who does that help?
4. problem 2 is further compounded because the Developer has in some instances used identical titles for different documents - why has that been allowed? (I can see that your listing attempts to overcome that by adding detail but the underlying situation remains unsatisfactory)
5. there are other irritating inconsistencies in the Developer's titling which, though relatively minor, tend to add to an impression of disregard for public accessibility.
In short, the documentation is difficult to access and navigate. The presentation is so opaque that it gives rise to the suspicion that the applicant has got something to hide.

Be that as it may, the problems seem likely to rebound on the relevance of the representations coming to the Examining Authority and ultimately on the purpose of the process.

Mindful that the UK arrangements must comply with European norms and standards governing planning applications of this kind, can you please ask the Developer to sort this out?
The manner in which application documents appear on the National Infrastructure Planning website is an ongoing issue which arises from the way in which our internal databases 'talk' to the website. At present there is not a practical solution.

However, to resolve the issue in principle, for each project we produce an Examination Library which arranges the application documents and all representations etc made to an examination in a logical order. An Examination Library for the Manston Airport application/ examination has been published and can be accessed by clicking the large blue button under the Documents tab: [attachment 1]

You may also be assisted by the Applicant’s Navigation Document (Doc 1.4) available here: [attachment 2];stage=app&filter1=Application+Form

19 September 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
The first question asked what weight, if any, PINS gave to the detailed and substantial factual evidence submitted to it regarding the misrepresentation by the applicant of his proposals during the statutory consultation.

The second question was not about laws of the Council of Europe (i.e. the Convention to which the Human Rights Act 1998 gives further effect), rather it is about the laws of the European Union. I read that the UK Regulations under which you are working seek to give effect to superior EU law and that this Union law is intended to confer rights on the individual citizen. If that is the case, the UK government agencies implementing these laws are obliged to make the public aware of the relevant rights. This question is simply about trying to establish how you see your accountability in relation to EU law regarding the public consultation and if there are rights affecting the ordinary citizen which you could tell us about - as the implementer of those rights.
The s55 Acceptance of Applications Checklist* (the Checklist) records that in reaching its conclusion under s55 of PA2008, the Planning Inspectorate had regard to correspondence received from various persons relating to the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. The weight attributed to that correspondence was not so great as to outweigh the evidence provided by the Applicant demonstrating that it had acted reasonably in seeking to comply with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure) of the PA2008; as the conclusion in the Checklist states at Box 25.

Under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), the Planning Inspectorate can issue advice about:

• applying for an order granting development consent; and/ or
• making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.

Through this process the Planning Inspectorate exercises its duty to make the public aware of its rights by, amongst other things:

• Publishing and maintaining a suite of advice notes informing applicants, consultees, the public and others about a range of process matters in relation to the PA2008;
• responding to enquiries with s51 advice, where applicable, and recording each item of s51 advice given on the National Infrastructure Planning website; and separately
• making relevant legislation and statutory guidance easily accessible on the website.

*https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR020002/TR020002-002550-TR020002%20Section%2055%20Acceptance%20of%20Applications%20Checklist%20FINAL.pdf

19 September 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you confirm that the Planning Inspectorate is not concerned if a DCO applicant makes public statements containing lies, as long as these lies do not directly involve the processes set out in the Planning Act 2008.

Furthermore, can you clarify whether the Planning Inspectorate consider statements regarding to technical details contained within an application to fall outside of any "misrepresentation of the Planning Act 2008 process", if, as in the example I gave in my earlier email, the misinformation is provided during the pre-examination period.
Our previous response to you comprises the Planning Inspectorate’s definitive response in respect of the matter raised [[attachment 1]].

Please consider making these and any further comments about the Proposed Development to the appointed Examining Authority by making a Relevant Representation: [attachment 2].

19 September 2018
Jon Fowler
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As an "Interested party" living within half a mile of the flight path of any proposed cargo aircraft landing at Manston, which they will have to do in my case at a height of some 200meters, at least 32 during any day and night, can you let me know what email address I can use to make my submission, which contains 3 PDF's?
To be deemed valid, Relevant Representations (RRs) must be submitted on a fully completed Planning Inspectorate Registration and Relevant Representation form, which can be completed online here: [attachment 1]

We request that supporting documents are not submitted alongside RRs. The Inspectorate recommends that RRs remain under 500 words and focus on the issues the Examining Authority (ExA) should take account of in its examination of the application. Once the Examination formally begins, there will be further opportunities to provide more detailed written representations, as well as oral representations, that expand on the issues identified at the RR stage.

Please note that once you have registered in the prescribed manner set out above, you will become an Interested Party and will legally be able to participate in the Examination. The deadline to register is 8 October 2018.

If you wish to complete a paper copy of the Registration and Relevant Representation form, please provide your address and we will post one to you.

03 September 2018
Dennis Franklin
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Following the submission for a DCO made by Riveroak I would like to ask about compulsory acquisition.

I believe, as part of their submission Riveroak are asking for a compulsory acquisition of the land currently owned by Stonewall Park and others. If the DCO is successful is the compulsory acquisition also granted as part of that application or are both issues decided separately.

Is it possible that the DCO be granted and the Compulsory acquisition of land be refused, or visa versa?

Are both issues considered together or do objectors need to address each issue separately?
In summary, proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers are subject to discrete tests in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) - see sections 122 to 134: [attachment 1]. The Secretary of State will therefore necessarily reach discrete conclusions about (i) the case for the development and (ii) the case for Compulsory Acquisition.

If in any applicable case the Secretary of State is not satisfied that it is appropriate to grant some or all of the Compulsory Acquisition powers sought in a Development Consent Order (DCO), the DCO can be made in modified form with some or all of the proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers deleted. Conversely however, a DCO cannot be made if it does not include development for which development consent is required ie a DCO cannot grant Compulsory Acquisition powers alone.

In respect of making a Relevant Representation* about a Proposed Development, it will assist the appointed Examining Authority if comments relating to the potential impacts of proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers are made clear in the Relevant Representation eg under a separate heading. It is not however necessary or encouraged to submit separate Relevant Representations about (i) the case for the development and (ii) the case for Compulsory Acquisition.

* See Advice Note 8.2: [attachment 2]

Please see 'Planning Act 2008: guidance related to procedures for the Compulsory Acquisition of land' for more information: [attachment 3]

03 September 2018
James Hose
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The following persons attempted to make comments to the Inspectorate on the merits of the Proposed Development between 17 and 31 August 2018:
Tony and June Bate; Marc Flint; Margaret and Ken Bolwell; Neil & Sarah Wyllie; John Buttle; hench 595; David Dunkerley; Roger Latchford; Jean Lavington; Ken Richardson; Clive Langley; Raymond Rogers; Pat Griffiths; Stephanie Crow; Richard Brown; Susan Still; Dean Spinks; Gareth Harwood
David Garrod; Guy Topping; Josephine Renton; Terry Cutts; Derek Williams; Anthony Hodges; Ivan Pullen; Peter Szewcuzk; Dr C A Eastman and Mr D RidgwayAlan Martin; Steven East; Richard Eastland; Jane Holden; Sylvie Richardson; Roger Richardson; Julie Older; Tobias Brackett; Roger Kelly; Graham Higgs; Rod Giddins; Marguerite Wilkinson; MG & TJ Houghton; Peter Tye; Joe Bradley; Richard Josey; Margaret Symonds; RL Symonds; Dudley and Patricia Cloake; Paul Whiteside; Judi and Ken Kimble; John Reid; Stephen Samuels; Juliette Baker; Mr and Mrs Andrew Smith; Mr and Mrs Toby Smith; Mr and Mrs Darren Wilson; Peter Harbor; Alwyn and Carole Williams; Laurie Dunn; Paul Smith; Mr and Mrs Haill; Chris Turner; Don Shaw-Case; Paul Machin; Paul Reid; Phill Cavalli.
We cannot consider your comments about the merits of the Proposed Development at this time.

Please read the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination' for details about how and when you can make a Relevant Representation to the appointed Examining Authority: [attachment 1]

31 August 2018
Various enquiries - anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
About a week ago, the website said that interest could be registered from September 3, but that date has now been removed from the website. Is there a reason for this?
Please see our response to a similar query here: [attachment 1]

We have now published the Applicant’s s56 notice, formally notifying that the application has been accepted for Examination. This notice also confirms when the registration period will open:
[attachment 2]

31 August 2018
Poppy Jeffrey
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I didn't think this would be such a bureaucratic process. I have given my thoughts and there will be nothing more from me.
As previously advised, the comments you have provided will not be considered by the appointed Examining Authority until they are submitted at the correct time in the prescribed manner, as set out in the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination': [attachment 1]

Once the registration period opens, please complete the Relevant Representation form, either online or on a paper copy by request, to ensure your comments are accepted and included in the Examination of the Manston Airport application.

31 August 2018
Paul Whiteside
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Perhaps there is some way of making RSP put the documents online, on an ordinary, navigable and searchable website.

Online as a serried of pdfs where you can’t really tell what information they contain, I can only say it probably ticks the boxes but isn’t really usable
As my colleague has already advised, the functionality you have described is not available on the National Infrastructure Planning website at the moment. Additionally, there is no prescribed manner in which applicants must display the application documents on their website.

You may have noticed that we have now published the Applicant’s s56 notice, formally notifying that the application has been accepted for Examination. This notice also sets out where members of the public can inspect hard copies of the application, which may be an easier way to navigate it, as well as how copies can be requested directly from the Applicant.

[attachment 1]

31 August 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Several people have expressed concerns that, should they register as interested parties for the Manston Airport DCO, their names and possibly addresses will be made public on the Planning Inspectorate website. This concern arises because the individuals are worried that they will receive abuse on social media from people who support the reopening of the airport, something which has been prevalent from certain groups/individuals since the closure of the airport.

Can the Planning Inspectorate please advise whether the personal details of interested parties will be kept confidential if they choose to register.
The Planning Inspectorate is required to make Relevant Representations available for public inspection as soon as practicably possible after the close of the registration period. This includes publishing the Interested Party’s name alongside their representation; however, all other information provided on the Relevant Representation form will remain confidential.

The Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1] advises groups of people who share similar views to submit combined representations/ communications to assist the process. Those persons you refer to in your email may be comforted to know that only the organisation name, and not the persons represented, will appear on the website if they participate in a group representation. Persons names provided in the representation itself can be redacted on request.

We offer this advice based on the principle that it is the relevance and importance of the issues raised that will attract weight in an Examining Authority's deliberations at the Examination stage, not the quantity of responses. Therefore persons shall not be prejudice by not submitting individual representations. The Inspectorate recommends that one person from the group is elected to speak if the group wishes to attend and give oral representations at public hearings once the Examination stage formally commences.

30 August 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Does PINS routinely accept for examination plans for developments where the money will be raised at a later date?
Did PINS consider how the project would be funded before accepting this application for examination?
Is PINS satisfied that the sources of funding for this project have been made sufficiently clear and that the sources are legitimate sources of funding?
What will happen to the DCO if it emerges that the compensation bill is likely to be far higher than the £7.5 million which RSP have allowed for? Will the examination be stopped or will you allow a hiatus in the process whilst they go off to try to raise further funds?
If the DCO were completed and RSP were able to fund acquisition of the site, what would happen if they were then unable to raise the money to deliver the development they have proposed? At that point, would PINS accept a modified proposal which was not the same in nature or scale to the original proposal?
“Does PINS routinely accept for examination plans for developments where the money will be raised at a later date?”

The test in The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 requires that, where a proposed order would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition of land or an interest in or right over land, applicants provide “a statement to indicate how an order that contains the authorisation of compulsory acquisition is proposed to be funded”. RiverOak Strategic Partners provided a Funding Statement setting out how it proposes to fund the order. The content of the Funding Statement can be interrogated by the Examining Authority in the course of the examination.

“Did PINS consider how the project would be funded before accepting this application for examination?”

The Planning Inspectorate issued advice about the content of draft funding statements at the following meetings:

• [attachment 1];ipcadvice=70d0cc5690
• [attachment 1];ipcadvice=11d13371d4

“Is PINS satisfied that the sources of funding for this project have been made sufficiently clear and that the sources are legitimate sources of funding?”

The Planning Inspectorate has not reached any conclusion in this respect. The evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

“What will happen to the DCO if it emerges that the compensation bill is likely to be far higher than the £7.5 million which RSP have allowed for? Will the examination be stopped or will you allow a hiatus in the process whilst they go off to try to raise further funds?”

The six month Examination stage is statutory. It has never been extended. If in any case an Examining Authority is not, by the end of the examination, satisfied in respect of one or more of the tests associated with the Compulsory Acquisition of land and rights, a positive recommendation may not be made to the relevant Secretary of State in respect of the Compulsory Acquisition powers sought.

Please see ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ for more information: [attachment 3]

“If the DCO were completed and RSP were able to fund acquisition of the site, what would happen if they were then unable to raise the money to deliver the development they have proposed? At that point, would PINS accept a modified proposal which was not the same in nature or scale to the original proposal?”

There is a formal process for requesting changes to Development Consent Orders post-consent. The principles are explained in ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance on changes to Development Consent Orders’: [attachment 4]

24 August 2018
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
Up until yesterday, the PINS website showed a date for the opening of registration of interested parties. Today, the website shows that you will publish the date for registration, implying that the original window for registration is no longer available. I am aware that The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 prescribe the publication of information regarding accepted DCO applications but am not aware that RSP have met the provisions of these regulations.

Can you please confirm the reason for the suspension of the registration period (and specifically whether this is in relation to the above referenced regulations).

In addition, can you confirm when the registration window is likely to be reopened.
Changes to the Planning Inspectorate’s website were temporary and reflected testing in preparation for the forthcoming registration period.

For definitive information about the dates associated with this period you should await the Applicant’s formal notice of the accepted application under s56 of the Planning Act 2008.

24 August 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Enquiry received via email
1. You have decided that the project is a NISP ?
2. That RSP have addressed to your satisfaction on the issues you raised with them regarding their initial submission which they withdrew ?
3. You have decided that the various consultations were of an adequate standing ?
1. On the basis of the information provided in the application documents dated 17 July 2018, the Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the Draft Development Consent Order includes development for which development consent is required (ie that it is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project within the meaning of the Planning Act 2008).
2. The Applicant addressed the concerns set out by the Inspectorate to the extent that the application accepted for examination on 14 August 2018 was considered to be of a satisfactory standard.
3. The Planning Inspectorate is satisfied that the Applicant acted reasonably in seeking to comply with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure) of the PA2008, including in carrying out its statutory consultation duties.

24 August 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I write further to the statement issued by Tony Freudmann to KMTV, which was published yesterday and which is at approximately 19 minutes into the broadcast which can be found at the following link :
[attachment 1]

In this broadcast, Tony Freudmann is quoted as saying, "Some of the people in Ramsgate are just about having no night flights, some just don't want an airport at all and some worried about noise.

If you look at the Planning Inspectorate you will find the impact assessment which concludes there will be no impact, or if there is it will be negligible."

This statement directly contradicts the information regarding noise which is presented in RSP's application, which, for example, includes the following statements :

"During the daytime:
? Moderate adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate;
? A moderate adverse impact is predicted at Pegwell Bay; and
? Minor adverse impacts are predicted in Manston."

"Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within the communities are subject to minor to moderate adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate, Pegwell Bay and Manston as a result of the Proposed Development. The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of
shared open spaces within these communities during the daytime."

"During the night-time:
? Moderate adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate;
? Minor adverse impacts are predicted in Manston;
? A minor adverse impact is predicted in Wade; and
? A minor adverse impact is predicted in West Stourmouth;"

"Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within the communities are subject to minor to moderate adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate, Manston, Wade and West Stourmouth as a result of the Proposed Development. The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of shared open spaces within these communities during the night-time."

(taken from the Environmental Statement volume which can be found here : [attachment 2])

The impacts listed above are, specifically, identified as not being negligible, and this is made clear in the impact assessment.

Can the Planning Inspectorate please advise whether they consider that it is acceptable for an applicant to publish lies or disinformation, about their proposed development, especially when such lies appear to be designed to downplay the likely impacts of the proposals.

If there is another explanation as to why Mr Freudmann has given such a quote containing incorrect information, then I am more than happy to be informed as to what the explanation is.

I'm sure that RSP and BDB will be more than happy to publish a retraction of Tony Freudmann's statement on their own website. Could BDB, on behalf of RSP, confirm whether this will be done.

This email should be considered as a S. 51 request and should therefore be published in full on the relevant section of the Planning Inspectorate website.
We cannot comment on statements made by applicants, or anybody else, which relate to the impacts of a Proposed Development. In this case, the evidence provided in the application documents dated 17 July 2018 is the definitive evidence provided by the Applicant upon which the appointed Examining Authority will commence its examination.

The Planning Inspectorate may consider seeking to clarify comments made by an applicant in the media if they relate to a misrepresentation of the Planning Act 2008 process.

Helpfully your email is copied to RSP/ BDB.

23 August 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that it is now time for the applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd to publicise the fact that its application has been accepted for examination and invite people who are interested in the proposal to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party by making a relevant representation.

Where has this happened it was accepted for examination a week ago on 14 August 2018.?
There is no statutory time limit associated with the Pre-examination stage of the process. On that basis the Applicant can discharge its notification/ publication duties in respect of the accepted application at any time.

That said, the Pre-examination stage usually lasts for around three months (from the date the application is accepted until the Preliminary Meeting*). The aforementioned notification/ publication then is necessarily usually discharged in close proximity to the date of the Acceptance decision.

If you have signed up for updates about the project on the National Infrastructure Planning website, you will be notified when the Relevant Representation form becomes available.

* [attachment 1]

21 August 2018
Samara Jones-Hall
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am looking for guidance on what role if any the applicant/developer has during the Examination stage of a DCO. For example are they present at all hearings and do they have a right to cross examine those giving evidence against the project?

Your guidance is silent on these matters and those of us opposing the Manston Airport DCO would welcome your advice please as we prepare for the Examination Stage.
The Applicant is an Interested Party. It is therefore afforded the same rights in the examination as anybody else who chooses to register an interest in the examination (by making a Relevant Representation) or who otherwise fall within the definitions in s102 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Interested Parties can attend and provide oral evidence at any hearings and provide written evidence to the appointed Examining Authority (ExA). Generally the Applicant will be in attendance at any hearings, but may not always choose to make oral representations.

The PA2008 sets out an inquisitorial approach to the examination of applications, both in writing and at hearings. At hearings in most cases it will be the appointed ExA that will ask questions of persons making oral representations. In certain circumstances the ExA may allow an Interested Party, or his/ her representative, to question a person making oral representations at a hearing (ie allow cross-examination). The ExA may do so where it considers that this is necessary to ensure the adequate testing of any representations, or where it considers that it is necessary to allow an Interested Party a fair chance to put their case.

For further information please see ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent’: [attachment 1] and Advice note 8.4 and 8.5: [attachment 2]

20 August 2018
Nigel Phethean
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from RSPs submission that they seem to be claiming that with the number of stands they are providing they could support over 83,000 movements, way in excess of the additional 10,000 over whatever the existing capacity of the previous airport was. However their very ambitious and somewhat discredited business plan indicates a maximum number of around 30000 movements. On this basis they should be able to achieve their business plan with about a third of the stands they propose and on that basis do not need the entire site. This seems to be in breach of the requirement for them to modify and moderate their plans such that they only need to compulsorily purchase land required to deliver their business plan. Will this be something you will consider prior to deciding whether to accept the submission for examination or will it only be considered during the examination should the submission be accepted ? Likewise the applicant does not appear to have considered purchasing one of the airfields currently being sold openly in the market, again will this be something you will consider prior to deciding whether to accept the submission for examination or will it only be considered during the examination should the submission be accepted ?
These questions, which deal with the merits of the Proposed Development, are for the examination. To the extent that the Secretary of State has not already drawn conclusions under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) (ie against the Acceptance tests in s55 of the PA2008, and as expressed in the s55 Checklist), the evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

The Applicant is now required to publicise and give notice of the accepted application, providing the dates within which anybody can registered as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. See Advice Note 8.2 for further information: [attachment 1]

If you choose to make a Relevant Representation about the Manston Airport proposals, it will assist the appointed Examining Authority (and all other interested persons) significantly if you refer only to the application documents that are under examination ie those submitted 17 July 2018 and accepted for examination on 14 August 2018, rather than the documents associated with the application withdrawn by letter dated 4 May 2018, which are superseded.

17 August 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have now disgested much of the RSP application docs for their withdrawn application.

Unfortunately I still have some very significiant gaps in my understanding of how this could ever be made to work. The aviation analysis that has been provided still seems a very flimsy basis on which to proceed given the breadth of unaddressed and conflicting evidence that is available on the matter, the conflicting government forecasts and the acknowledged lack of any material funding that has actually been committed to deliver the project. Simply put there does not seem to be any commercial evidence within RSP's submission that supports a reasonable conclusion that the necessary funding for the project could ever be raised from investors.

Additionally, in an effort to understand the capacity point, which RSP attempt to address in their NSIP justification paper I have researched the historic levels of aircraft movements at Manston which are recorded with the CAA. These indicate that in each year between 2007 and 2011 that Manston catered for between 16,000 and 22,000 movements. Now, it is not clear from the statistics what type of planes that these movement represented - but it seems self evident from these numbers that Manston has signiciant inherent capcacity in its existing infrastructure.

Can you confirm what external advice you have taken in relation to assessing Manston's capacity and RSP's market analysis?
To the extent that the Secretary of State has not already drawn conclusions under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (ie against the Acceptance tests, and as expressed in the s55 Checklist), the evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

The Applicant is now required to publicise and give notice of the accepted application, providing the dates within which anybody can registered as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. See Advice Note 8.2 for further information: [attachment 1]

If you choose to make a Relevant Representation about the Manston Airport proposals, it will assist the appointed Examining Authority (and all other interested persons) significantly if you refer only to the application documents that are under examination ie those submitted 17 July 2018 and accepted for examination on 14 August 2018, rather than the documents associated with the application withdrawn by letter dated 4 May 2018, which are superseded.

17 August 2018
S Alvers
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that the application has been accepted for examination and that you decided, overall, that the statutory consultation could be accepted also.

I have looked at what your "application check list" says about the consultation but it is not clear to me if you reached a view about the accuracy of the picture of the proposal, as it was presented, directly to the public.

This concerns me because of the weight of unequivocal evidence that the proposals were not accurately described by the applicant. Can you kindly clarify your view in relation to this issue?
To the extent that the Secretary of State has not already drawn conclusions under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (ie against the Acceptance tests, and as expressed in the s55 Checklist), the evidence provided by the Applicant in the application documents will be tested by the appointed Examining Authority, at its own discretion, in a manner that seeks to be fair to all parties and thorough in its examination.

The Applicant is now required to publicise and give notice of the accepted application, providing the dates within which anybody can registered as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. See Advice Note 8.2 for further information: [attachment 1]

17 August 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
Please consider the attached detailed comments regarding the adequacy of the applicant's statutory consultation.

Could you also kindly clarify if you regard the statutory consultation processes as satisfying any requirement of Union law regarding local consultation on national infrastructure projects?
Thank you for your comments which were treated in the same way as all previous submissions made to the Planning Inspectorate about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation.

In respect of the question “Could you also kindly clarify if you regard the statutory consultation processes as satisfying any requirement of Union law regarding local consultation on national infrastructure projects?”, can you please provide further details/ explanation about what this means? If you refer to the statutory consultation processes as set out in the Planning Act 2008, they have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny and brought into force by royal assent. In that respect you would need to take your own legal advice on which you can rely.

17 August 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just looked on the Companies House website and note that Riveroak Strategic Partners Limited filed accounts for a dormant company in 11 April 2018. How can a dormant company apply for a DCO?

Also, the statutory reporting for persons with significant control statement states that 'the company knows or has reasonable cause to believe there is no registrable person or registrable person or relevant legal entity in relation to this company'. How can a company which has 'no warm body' apply for a DCO?

Further, on the Register of Person(s) with Significant Control it states that the information is not on the public register since 19 April 2018.

Further on the Register of Members it states that the information is not on the public register since 19 April 2018.

How can a company without a register of members apply for a DCO?
Dormant companies are companies that are not trading or do not have investments. See the following link for more information: [attachment 1]. They remain registered as companies and therefore exist as legal entities and can make applications for Development Consent Orders in the same way as any other legal entity.

Please see the following link for information about persons with significant control, in particular paragraph 2.2: [attachment 2]. Making a statement such as “the company knows or has reasonable cause to believe there is no registrable person or registrable person or relevant legal entity in relation to this company” does not affect the legal status of the registered company. A registered company may choose whether or not to keep information about persons with significant control or members on the register: [attachment 3]. None of these choices affect the legal status of the registered company which can make applications for Development Consent Orders in the usual way.

When an application is submitted, the Applicant is required to submit a Funding Statement setting out how the project is proposed to be funded. The appointed Examining Authority (ExA) can examine the content of the Funding Statement to its satisfaction in the examination process. The ExA needs to be satisfied that, amongst other things, adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.

16 August 2018
Samara Jones-Hall
Enquiry received via email
Could you please advise where and when a hard copy of the Manston DCO Environmental Statement may be viewed.
The Applicant is now required to publicise and provide notice of the accepted application, which must include details about where and when the application and accompaniments (including the Environmental Statement) can be viewed.

Please contact the applicant directly for more information: [email protected]

16 August 2018
Steve Harding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please confirm whether your decision to accept means that:

1. You have decided that the project is a NISP?
2. That RSP have addressed to your satisfaction on the issues you raised with them regarding their initial submission which they withdrew?
3. You have decided that the various consultations were of an adequate standing?
Please refer to the published Section 55 Acceptance of Applications Checklist for the conclusions drawn by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State: [attachment 1];stage=2&filter1=Procedural+Decision

15 August 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am sure you always aim to act in the best interests of all but i plead with you to pay serious consideration to rejecting the DCO at Manston Airport.

Commercially it has never been a success, mainly due to its locality, being 80 Miles from London and the roads are not geared up for hundreds of freight lorry movements.

RSP through their several unofficial fan clubs and associations are claiming the airport will bring 30,000 local jobs. If this is in anyway true the jobs taken at the airport would need to be backfilled and I don’t believe many would be, and in a largely unskilled population it’s unrealistic to think that the jobs can all be filled from local people which would mean that people moving to the area would need to find housing, schools etc which are already under strain.

On the subject of housing the Local Plan that is offered as an alternative would mean mass housing being built in unsuitable locations with unsuitable infrastructure to support rather than a modern, built for purpose Garden Village on the Manston site.

Finally, RSP have showed themselves to be nothing but amateur throughout the entire process so I cannot even begin to imagine how they could fund and manage a project to the time of half a billion pounds.
We cannot consider your comments about the merits of the Proposed Development at this time.

Please read the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination' for details about how and when you can make a Relevant Representation to the appointed Examining Authority: [attachment 1]

15 August 2018
Andy Hodder
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please grant the DCO for the reopening of Manston airport.

It is a national asset which can serve the country as a whole for years to come.

I am currently involved in a project which may also reap the benefits of having Manston available as a strategic asset if correctly implemented into our projects long term goals.

Wouldn’t it also be fantastic to give skills and transferable knowledge to the local residence and to also aid the younger generation in having aims and aspirations they can fulfil in following their dreams.

I would also like to add that once strategic assets such as these are built on there is no going back, they are lost forever. We, the nation, can’t allow that to happen to Manston it’s just too important a place with far too much to offer.

So, please save Manston Airport, the gateway to our nation for over 2000 years.
We cannot consider your comments about the merits of the Proposed Development at this time.

Please read the Planning Inspectorate's 'Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination' for details about how and when you can make a Relevant Representation to the appointed Examining Authority: [attachment 1]

15 August 2018
Adam Satchwell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you clarify the situation re advice from pins to rsp. Dco was withdrawn last time so you could advise rsp further. It now seems again that pins are now actively supporting rsp in coaching and gaining extra information that has not been supplied as part of the dco application. To me and others it looks like planning inspectorate are doing all they can to help rsp succeed on the application. Please advise me if this is or is not the case as rsp are boasting via there supporters that pins are bending over backwards in helping rsp. This should not be happenning.
The Planning Inspectorate offered the same Pre-application service to RiverOak Strategic Partners as it does to all potential applicants. The service is set out in our Prospectus for Applicants: [attachment 1]

15 August 2018
Ken Wraight
Enquiry received via email
My understanding is that the applicant must go through scoping and then conduct impact inquiry taking account of precautionary principle and cumulative effect assessment. This must form part of the PINS application ?

Is it the case that govt toxic legacy tests are scheduled for Manston ? Possibly firefighting foams testing but I am not sure
There is no mandatory requirement to undertake scoping but an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping opinion was sought for the proposed Manston Airport development in 2016. The Proposed Development is classed as EIA development and is therefore required to submit an Environmental Statement and Non-Technical Summary providing the information required in Schedule 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The EIA should be prepared taking into account both the precautionary principle and cumulative effects.

The Applicant will be required to consider ground contamination issues as part of its EIA.

10 August 2018
Richard Card
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Like many others I am concerned about the planed resurrection of Manston as a cargo hub . Please can you tell me if ( should the dco be granted ) there is an opportunity for people like myself to voice our objections regarding air and noise pollution . I’m sure you will understand the need for debate with something on such a massive scale .
The Manston Airport application is currently in the Acceptance stage following resubmission on 17 July 2018. The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is in the process of considering whether to accept the application, in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, and will issue a decision on or before 14 August 2018. Please note this decision is whether the application is accepted for examination by the Inspectorate.

If the application is accepted for examination, the Relevant Representation period will be the first time during which comments on an application can be submitted to the Inspectorate for consideration by the Examining Authority. It is the Applicant’s duty to advertise the Relevant Representation period and provide details about how to register to become an Interested Party.

You may wish to sign up to the Inspectorate's email update service to receive updates on the application, which will include when the Relevant Representation period will open. This feature is located on the right-hand side of the project overview page:
[attachment 1]

Please see the following link for information on registering to participate in the Examination:
[attachment 2]

There is also a short video setting out how to participate in the process here:
[attachment 3]

07 August 2018
Allan Tudor
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
At RSP's latest consultation the public was told that RSP planned to have 17000+ ATMs a year. That number has risen to 83000. Will there be another consultation?
The Manston Airport application is currently in the Acceptance stage following resubmission on 17 July 2018. The Planning Inspectorate is in the process of considering whether to accept the application, in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, and will issue a decision on or before 14 August 2018.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time. Please see the advice note below for more information:

Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination
[attachment 1]

It will be for the Applicant to take a view about whether any further consultation is required if the application is withdrawn or not accepted for examination.

03 August 2018
Marva Rees
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation.
The Planning Inspectorate can consider your comments in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the case.

Please note the comments received by the Inspectorate in respect of RSP's first submission dated 10 April 2018, which relate to the Applicant's formal statutory consultation under s42, 47 and/ or 48 of the Planning Act 2008, will be treated as if they had been provided in relation to the second submission dated 17 July 2018.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.

02 August 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
I'm concerned about RSP's unwillingness to correspond with me about the number of ATM's they propose. The Meeting Notes of the 11 May meeting between the PI and RSP show all sorts of figures for the anticipated ATM's, including one of 83,000. This latter is so much bigger than anything RSP had previously mentioned that I emailed them to try to find out more.

RSP make promise and excuse after promise and excuse. I don't think that it is acceptable for RSP to Consult on one set of ATM's, and then introduce numbers almost an order of magnitude larger without at the very least some cogent explanation to those likely to be affected.
We note the comments made.

The Planning Inspectorate can consider your comments in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the case.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.

02 August 2018
James Chappell
Enquiry received via email
I have noticed that RSP have reapplied for a DCO on the Manston site. I have being regularly checking your site but there was no notice of this . In your minutes of the meeting of 22 June RSP agreed to give you notice. I see Paul Messenger announced it to a KCC meeting last week and Roger Gale on Radio Kent the week before so as you can understand it has left me confused . Did RSP not inform you with a timetable, as agreed, or did you not update your website. I also notice there is no list of attendees with the minutes of the 22 June please could you supply this and who the various people represent.

I have also seen a copy of their previous DCO submission even the most cursory scan shows important information that was not available to residents and interested parties during the consultation period on such matters as night flights and aircraft types. I would go as far as to say I was lied to by RSP when I asked questions. How can anyone come to an informed decision when important information is withheld or you are told lies. I have also seen TDC response to the consultation where they quote RSP in saying that where someone notified them that they never received notice of the consultation they re-distributed to the whole street. This simply isn't true we never got a card neither did anyone on our street in spite of me contacting RSP several time. It seems doubtful anyone on Nethercourt estate got notice of the consultation as I made a point of asking anyone I see and only people who contacted RSP got one sent directly to their home.

I hope PINS will take on board the very poor quality of RSP’s consultation into consideration when making a decision to accept the application
Whilst RiverOak’s representatives had given the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) an indication that submission of the application could be in July 2018, the date of Tuesday 17 July was not confirmed until Thursday 12 July (by telephone). The Planning Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Manston Airport application dated 17 July 2018 in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

The Inspectorate can consider your comments in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in your comments based on the individual facts of the case.

Please note the comments received by the Inspectorate in respect of RSP's first submission dated 10 April 2018, which relate to the Applicant's formal statutory consultation under s42, 47 and/ or 48 of the Planning Act 2008, will be treated as if they had been provided in relation to the second submission dated 17 July 2018.

02 August 2018
Ian Scott
Enquiry received via email
I note from social media postings that an email was yesterday leaked, from Bircham Dyson Bell to PINs regarding RSP's withdrawn DCO application - indicating that they were seeking to optimise the timing of the publication and facts of their withdrawal letter to suit their own PR purposes and were requesting specific guideance from PINS as to when they should send their withdrawal letter to PINS so it did not get publised before their preferrered date - thus avoiding any difficult questions from the public over the bank holiday weekend.

Is it normal that PINS would accomdate such flexibility on behalf of an applicant that is withdrawing and why would you do so in this case? and how does that square with PINS obligations to be transparent on the DCO processs and to keep the public informed. This again goes to previously expressed concerns by other correspondents regarding the time being taken to actually post meeting notes meaning that the public, who are most impacted, are consistently behind the curve and suggests RSP are being granted high levels of flexibility at the cost of public transparency.

Another example was RSP's revised application that appreared out of left field with no prior notice on the PINs website or futher consultation with the public.
An email from Bircham Dyson Bell (BDB) to The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) dated 3 May 2018 was released as part of a Freedom of Information request. No email response was issued from the Inspectorate in respect of that email. BDB then sent the formal ‘withdrawal’ email to the Inspectorate outside of working hours on Friday 4 May 2018. The Inspectorate did not receive or action that email until the next working day which was Tuesday 8 May 2018 due to the Bank Holiday. Normal working practices were followed in this case.

01 August 2018
S Alvers
Enquiry received via email
In the June 22 meeting note that has just been loaded it says it was agreed Riveroak would tell you the anticipated submission date once known. As many are saying that it is an attempt to influence the local plan vote this week can you please confirm when Riveroak first told you it was going to submit its application on at the start of this week?
Whilst RiverOak’s representatives had given the Inspectorate an indication that submission of the application could be in July 2018, the date of Tuesday 17 July was not confirmed until Thursday 12 July (by telephone).

24 July 2018
Ackers Johnson
Enquiry received via email
Can you please advise when the Planning Inspectorate became aware of RiverOak's intention to submit their application on this date, as nothing was noted on your website.
Whilst RiverOak’s representatives had given the Inspectorate an indication that submission of the application could be in July 2018, the date of Tuesday 17 July was not confirmed until Thursday 12 July (by telephone).

24 July 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Enquiry received via email
Having reviewed the submission documents which you kindly sent me it seems clear that there is significant information disclosed in these documents that was not available to the general public for them to comment on during the consultations, in particular on the very important issue of night flights. At the consultation we were constantly told by RSP representatives and their promoter Sir Roger Gale MP that night flights were not required other than for humanitarian reasons and emergency flights. This is clearly not the basis upon which their submission was made to you and therefore further evidence that the consultations were not adequate. I hope you will be directing RSP to hold further consultations so the general public can comment on these new plans in an informed way.

One further question if I may. It would seem RSP are proposing to site their house receptor 6.5km from the airport. This locates it in the sea where there are no houses or population base which seems pointless. It also means that noise over the densely populated town of Ramsgate with its many schools, community buildings, businesses and residential buildings will not be monitored at all, I suspect because at these locations the noise levels specified for fines to be levied will be breached by each and every flight. Surely this cannot be the right way to measure and monitor noise over such a densely populated area directly under a flightpath with planes at around 300/500ft above buildings ?

Lastly there is reference to a report which RSP are using which asserts that as long as someone's sleep is not disturbed more than 18 times during the night this is acceptable from a noise disturbance perspective. I have tried but failed to secure a copy of this report from any source including RSP. Will you please confirm that you have seen this report and had it examined by an appropriate expert in order to determine its validity.
We note the comments made. The Planning Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the Manston Airport application dated 17 July 2018 in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

If the application is accepted for examination you will have the opportunity to make representations about the merits of the application to an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.

24 July 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
What duty is there on an applicant to disclose facts which may be adverse to their cause ?

Has RSP disclosed that there are as yet unresolved police, public health and environment agency inquiries ?

These have been notified to BDB solicitors to RSP and also notified to Roger Gale MP when he was sent a draft of a Commons Petition of complaint against his Commons history due for submission after Public Health and Environment Agency replies.
Where a Proposed Development is EIA development, Applicants must identify the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the environment. The description of those likely significant effects should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short-term, medium-term and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects [my emphasis added] of the development.

If the application is accepted for examination, you will be able to make representations about the content of the Applicant’s Environmental Statement to an appointed Examining Authority, as described previously.

23 July 2018
Richard Card
Enquiry received via email
Does that mean that the DCO compensation, probably many millions, could be paid via the planning inspectorate thus avoiding legitimate money sourcing legislation?
The payment of compensation manifests as direct transactions between the Undertaker and those whose interests are affected. Any dispute in respect of the compensation payable is determined by the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal. The Planning Inspectorate is not involved in this process.

23 July 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
My understanding was that for pins to accept the application fee, which they have, they would have to be reasonably sure that the money was legitimately sourced.

I thought this would apply to any UK organisation accepting money.

so three questions.

Are pins exempted from The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017?

If not do they have a maximum amount they can receive without compliance and if so how much is it?

At what point in a DCO would pins have to check that money paid to pins was legitimately sourced?
The Planning Inspectorate is not subject to The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. Those affected are listed in Regulation 8 and Regulation 103 of those Regulations.

20 July 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
RiverOak-RSP announced on 16th July 2018 that they have resubmitted their DCO application, see [attachment 1]

Can you please confirm that the application has been resubmitted.

I assumed that there would be some dialogue in terms of questions from the applicant and advice from pins that would have to be published somewhere on the pins website as part of the statutory DCO legislation, but I can’t find it, can you send me the links?

In terms of payments, fees etc, that RiverOak can pay to pins, is there an amount at which money laundering legislation becomes applicable? I think the latest legislation would be Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
The application was submitted on 17 July 2018.

You asked: “I assumed that there would be some dialogue in terms of questions from the applicant and advice from pins that would have to be published somewhere on the pins website as part of the statutory DCO legislation, but I can’t find it, can you send me the links?”

The Planning Inspectorate can issue advice under s51 of the Planning Act 2008 about:

• Applying for an order granting development consent; or
• making representations about an application for such an order.

The last s51 advice issued to the Applicant was at the 22 June 2017 project update meeting:
[attachment 2]

20 July 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from media coverage regarding the recently resubmitted DCO application for the former Manston Airport that part of the site could be used for Operation Stack. The following excerpt is taken from a KentOnline article which can be found at the following link :

[attachment 1]

"Thanet Conservative county councillor Paul Messenger first revealed the news that there was to be a second application at a full council meeting.

And he revealed there was the possibility the company - RiverOak Strategic Partners - could offer part of the site for holding lorries during Operation Stack.
In remarks that pre-empted any official announcement from the company, Cllr Messenger said Manston would help build the county’s resilience in the event that Brexit threatened to cause gridlock."
Could the Planning Inspectorate please clarify whether a proposal for use as the site as a lorry park is compatible with a DCO, ie. can a lorry park be considered as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project? Or can it be included as part of a separate DCO application which may be an NSIP, even though it is not itself an NSIP, and where it is not an activity which is directly associated with the NSIP.
Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) defines what ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project’ means ie it sets out the types of projects that require development consent in the form of a Development Consent Order (DCO). Section 115 of the PA2008 sets out what development may be included in a DCO.

Government has issued guidance about ‘associated development’, which is available here: [attachment 2]

20 July 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Enquiry received via email
I understand RSP may have submitted their DCO application again this week. Can you please confirm that all comments previously received by you when the first application was made and subsequently withdrawn will be considered by Pins with respect to this new application, in particular those comments regarding the adequacy of the consultation.

In addition given the information provided when the first application was made was significantly greater than that provided during the consultation and that further information has now been provided over and above that, in particular with reference to the number of aircraft movements, it would seem that further consultations should be required so those affected by the project can properly evaluate it and comment on it appropriately, in particular the statutory bodies, some of which were omitted initial or provide with the documents at a very late stage with little time to comment adequately.
Where they relate to the Applicant's formal statutory consultation under s42, 47 and/ or 48 of the Planning Act 2008, the comments received by the Inspectorate in respect of RSP's first submission dated 10 April 2018 will be treated as if they had been provided in relation to the second submission dated 17 July 2018.

20 July 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
As you seem to be back in the pre-application stage I wonder if you have ever answered these two questions;

1. You have made it quite clear that the application has to follow the procedure as laid out in PA 2008 and that states that before being involved in a DCO the applicant must make a recognised offer to buy the land from the legal owners. As the legal entity was only created in 2016 I can find no attempt to buy the land from the legal owners after this date. Have PINS been provided proof that they have made such an offer?
2. Also included in PA2008 is the acknowledgement that the applicant has to provide assurances that they have considered alternate airports were they could buy and create a Cargo Hub such as RAF Mildenhall or USAAF Lakenheath both surplus to requirements and available to purchase and of course more centrally located for a Cargo Hub. There are of course other airfields but have RSP provided assurances they have looked to purchase alternative airfields in the UK?
Amongst other things, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that all reasonable alternatives to Compulsory Acquisition (including modifications to the scheme) have been explored by an applicant. The Inspectorate would expect to find evidence in this regard in the Statement of Reasons submitted with an application. This will be tested at the Examination stage if the 17 July 2018 application is accepted.

A description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the Applicant and an indication of the main reason for the option chosen must be provided in the Environmental Statement, which will be subject to examination if the 17 July 2018 application is accepted.

19 July 2018
Barry
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
RSP are saying that they have resubmitted their DCO application to you but as yet it’s not showing on your website and I haven’t received an email. Could you confirm if RSP have resubmitted and if so why is it not on the website.
The Manston Airport application was resubmitted on 17 July 2018; the project website now reflects this:

[attachment 1]

18 July 2018
Sophie Fowler
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a further development, I note that RiverOak Strategic Partners have today announced that they have resubmitted their application. Can you please confirm whether this is actually the case.
The Manston Airport application was resubmitted on 17 July 2018; the project website now reflects this:

[attachment 1]

18 July 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It is almost three weeks since you recorded that a project update meeting was held on 22 June 2018 with representatives of RSP.

In the interests of transparency can you please indicate how much longer before a note of the matters discussed is published on your website?
Please follow the link below to view the recently published note of the meeting with RiverOak Strategic Partners Limited (RSP) held on 22 June 2018.

[attachment 1]

16 July 2018
Nigel Phethean
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The question in my original email was, if you have to agree minutes from meetings with RSP is this is what is delaying publication ?

You had a meeting in January which had relevant details that were not published until after RSP’s consultations so people who were aware of it were unable to raise it with RSP. We have a right to be involved but when important information is not published in a timely way for whatever reason this is not possible

I have to say the whole DCO process seems secretive, flawed and very biased in favour of the applicant. Taxpayers seem to be paying for you to give free advice to the applicants while residents, who will be the ones to live with the consequences', get no support. Do you ever consider meeting groups who are opposed to these proposals and inform them of their legal position ?
As explained in the advice signposted in our previous response to you ([attachment 1], the internal and external review process takes time. For the meeting note in question, no particular party was responsible for the exceptional delay in publication.

In respect of your enquiry about advice to the local community about its legal position, section 51 of the Planning Act5 2008 establishes what the Inspectorate can issue advice about:

• Applying for an order granting development consent; or
• Making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.

Any advice given under section 51 does not constitute legal advice upon which enquirers can rely. Legal advice must be sought independently.

The volume of enquiries fielded in this case (and recorded on the project webpage) demonstrates the support the Inspectorate has endeavoured to provide to the local community in terms of understanding the process. We can and do meet with interest groups to provide advice within the scope summarised above in order to facilitate the process. Requests for meetings of this type are considered on a case by case basis.

Otherwise, if an application is resubmitted and accepted for examination, as previously advised you will have opportunities to make representations about the merits of the Proposed Development to the appointed Examining Authority. Please see Advice Note Eight, here: [attachment 2]

06 July 2018
Ian Scott
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I notice since RSP withdrew their application for a DCO your web page shows that “the applicant has set no timetable for this application” Is there any indication of when they will.

Given the problems with their submission and they submitted more than double the pages of information to PINS that was available to residents will there have to be another consultation period. We live on Nethercourt estate and could not be closer to Manston yet RSP failed to inform the majority of the residents of their consultation as it seems they did many areas affected. Before the pre-application was withdrawn was any decision made as to the validity of consultation for DCO purposes ?

I also understand you had a meeting with RSP on June 22. When is a record of this meeting to be published by PINS. I have to say there seems to be a long delay in publishing the minutes from these meetings. Is it because they have to be agreed by yourselves & RSP. I do think an effort should be made to produce these quicker.

Can you also tell me are BDB still representing RSP in discussions with PINS regarding this DCO.
“I notice since RSP withdrew their application for a DCO your web page shows that “the applicant has set no timetable for this application” Is there any indication of when they will.”

In respect of resubmission, the Planning Inspectorate understands that the position established in RSP’s letter dated 4 May 2018 is currently maintained: [attachment 1]

“Before the pre-application was withdrawn was any decision made as to the validity of consultation for DCO purposes ?”

A decision was not taken about whether the application could be accepted for examination. By association therefore a decision was not taken about the adequacy of the applicant’s Pre-application consultation. A record of the Planning Inspectorate’s principle concerns in respect of the withdrawn application is summarised in the note of the meeting held on 11 May 2018: [attachment 2]

“I also understand you had a meeting with RSP on June 22. When is a record of this meeting to be published by PINS. I have to say there seems to be a long delay in publishing the minutes from these meetings. Is it because they have to be agreed by yourselves & RSP. I do think an effort should be made to produce these quicker.”

The note of the meeting held on 22 June 2018 is currently in the process of being prepared and will be published on the project webpage as soon as practicable. All attendees (other than the Inspectorate) are given an opportunity to fact-check prior to publication.

Please see the following advice with regards likely timescales for the publication of meeting notes: [attachment 3]

Can you also tell me are BDB still representing RSP in discussions with PINS regarding this DCO.

BDB are acting as RSP’s legal representation for the Manston Airport application resubmission.

“Would you tell me if RSP have to give PINS notice of their intention to re-submit their DCO application or can they do it at any time without informing PINS first?”

There is no statutory requirement for applicants to notify the Planning Inspectorate of their intention to submit a DCO application. The Planning Inspectorate request that applicants provide anticipated submission dates in advance and regular dialogue on the run up to submission to enable the Planning Inspectorate to resource appropriately for Acceptance.

05 July 2018
Ian Scott
Enquiry received via email
You have indicated a preference for combined communications (most recently on 2018-06-26) :
“We encourage and advise all stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications to us because this assists the process.”
However on 2017-07-21 a 286 signatory letter, and on 2018-06-26 an 1,850 signatory letter, being combined communications from Save Manston Airport association (SMAa), have been published by PINS without the signatures of the additional signees, the second communication only listed as anon. This we consider to be an unfair treatment of all the people who have gone to the trouble of signing the communications.

Why we feel this matter needs a resolution, is that shortly we believe RSP will be re-submitting the DCO application. And a little later SMAa hope the DCO process will be in the Examination phase. Now we would be pleased to submit at least some of the comments our members wish to make as joint communications. However there is clearly no point in doing this if PINS will again just be treating them all as a single communication from “anon”. Thus it would become necessary to ask all those that wished to sign a letter, to instead write or email their own views personally and individually.
The Planning Inspectorate encourages groups of people who share similar views to submit combined representations/ communications because this assists the process. We offer this advice based on the principle that it is the relevance and importance of the issues raised that will attract weight in an Examining Authority's deliberations at the Examination stage, not the quantity of responses.

In respect of the SMAa petition submitted on 19 June 2018, there is no mechanism by which its content can be considered by the Inspectorate at the Pre-application or Acceptance stages of the process. Only correspondence received at the Pre-application stage regarding an applicant’s formal statutory consultation under s42, s47 and/ or s48 can be considered at the Acceptance stage.

The petition signatories have been anonymised under the General Data Protection Regulation.

05 July 2018
Save Manston Airport association (SMAa) - anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Have RiverOak Strategic Partners resubmitted their application or given you any indication when they will be resubmitting?
RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) has yet to resubmit the Manston Airport application.

In respect of resubmission, the Planning Inspectorate understands that the position established in RSP’s letter dated 4 May 2018 is maintained: [attachment 1]

03 July 2018
Sophie Fowler
Enquiry received via email
it was pins saying 'In terms of payment of fees, there is no due diligence that the Planning Inspectorate is required to undertake. It is the payment and clearing of a fee in respect of a named case that triggers the required actions to be undertaken by The Inspectorate, for example on submission of the application and the application fee, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to determine whether an application will be accepted to progress to the next stage'

I thought that pins made it pretty clear in saying that, that submitting the application and paying the fee triggered money laundering checks.

Are you saying this meant something else and if so what?
In the context of the 2016 response (which I did not author), reference to the triggering of ‘required actions’ can only relate to the commencement of the Planning Inspectorate’s deliberations at the Acceptance stage. The Acceptance tests applied at the Acceptance stage are a matter of fact, and do not include investigations into the source of Acceptance fees.

03 July 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
It seems to me that the powers granted under the 2008 planning act were really supposed to speed up the planning process for major infrastructure designated by government as essential to the future of the country. These powers are extremely developer friendly and should therefore only be used by developers of significant size with relevant experience of delivering projects of the type designated. Looking at the usual applicants for a DCO they generally meet these conditions, but it seems the legislation allows anyone, even me, to apply for a DCO even though they might have no balance sheet assets or experience of operating successfully within the respective area. I don't believe this can have been the objective of the legislation and wondered therefore how the current legislation could be challenged and changed so it is used more appropriately as I believe was intended.
You would need to take your own legal advice is respect of this matter.

The Planning Inspectorate can issue advice about:

• Apply for an order granting development consent; or
• Making representations about an application for development consent.

28 June 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
Near the beginning of the pre application stage I asked pins about the position regarding money paid to pins by RiverOak RSP in terms of how pins would ensure that the money, from what is basically a foreign company that in it's various forms has operated out of at least two locations considered as tax havens.

Back when I asked RiverOak appeared to be located in Connecticut but registered as a Delaware LLC (perhaps for tax avoidance purposes) but my understanding is that this would have made pretty much impossible to ensure that funds from them were legitimately sourced and compliant with UK money laundering legislation.

At that time pins made me assurances that compliance was deemed to start at the point where RiverOak paid the acceptance fee to pins, which you say they now have.

My understanding is that RiverOak is still funded partly or wholly from outside the UK.

Can you please provide me with details of how pins ensured the payment was legitimately sourced?
Relevant legislation does not place a requirement on the Planning Inspectorate to investigate or test the source of Acceptance fees.

28 June 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
You were asked why you were writing to the pro-airport organisation, asking them to write to you, whilst simultaneously telling them that only comments relating to the applicants consultation can accepted at the pre-examination stage. You have made no attempt whatsoever to explain your, apparently, contradictory behaviour.

You were also asked to comment on the allegation that you have considered things which should rightly have been considered at a later stage of the process. You have stated that the application was subjected to the relevant acceptance tests. You have not commented on the allegation which has been made and you have not denied the allegation.
The Inspectorate has not written to SMAa in the context implied. The advice issued to SMAa in respect of ‘collated responses’ was issued in September 2017 and was provided in response to an enquiry concerned explicitly with the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation. I had intended to provide a link to the record of this enquiry in my previous response to you – apologies for that omission: [attachment 1]

By way of clarification, my advice to SMAa on 26 June 2018 was that “only correspondence regarding an applicant’s formal statutory consultation under s42, s47 and/ or s48 can be considered at the Acceptance stage [emphasis added]. All other aspects of the Acceptance decision are deliberated and taken by the Secretary of State on the basis of the application documents alone.”

The Inspectorate considered the application submitted on 10 April 2018 against the Acceptance tests, which are a matter of fact. On that basis nothing within the application documentation as submitted was considered prematurely.

27 June 2018
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The SMAa Committee submitted a letter to the Planning Inspectorate, supporting the Manston Airport DCO, and requesting that the process move forwards faster, so that thousands of pro Manston Airport supporters can register their support and comments in the pre-Examination and Examination stages.

The letter was signed by the SMAa Committee on behalf of 3,500 members and endorsed by 1,850 signatures, collected specifically for the letter, from both SMAa members and national and international signatories who actively wish for Manston to re-open for jobs and travel.

“Dear Planning Inspectorate,

You have requested that the Save Manston Airport association (SMAa) members send multi-signature letters rather than lots of separate ones.

We have generally respected the ruling that Pre-application Stage 1 is not the correct time to write to PINS but this may now be working to our disadvantage because it is clear that it is being ignored by several vociferous opponents of Manston as an Airport - we have been waiting in anticipation of Stages 3 and 4 for a long time.

Notwithstanding the above we now feel we should object most strongly to the apparent inclusion of items into the Acceptance stage (as discussed in the minutes of the recent meeting with RSP, on the PINS web site) that properly belong in the Examination stage.

SMAa just wish to remind PINS that we are here and urgently waiting for the DCO to move to the Pre-examination and Examination stages, these being the correct times for us to express our views to you. This delay is effectively preventing our members and other pro-aviation people from expressing their viewpoints; viewpoints that will certainly be presented at the Pre-examination and Examination stages.

There is presently a live SHP planning application (OL/TH/18/0660) on the Thanet District Council web-site regarding a major housing development on the Manston Airport site; on reading the representations the vast majority are Objections and are pro-airport. The latest figures at close of play Tuesday 6th June 2018 stands at: Grand total percentages: Supports Housing: 20.46%; Objections: 78.01%; Neutral:1.53%.

So SMAa would claim an effective level of support for the airport and for the DCO process from local residents and businesses to keep Manston for aviation; this stands at least at 78%, well in line with the results of the two previous SHP planning applications to TDC, and many other polls, elections, petitions, etc.

The population of Thanet and East Kent are waiting for these jobs, and they are getting concerned at the continual delays, they wish to express their views!"
When an application is withdrawn, and where the Applicant states a clear intention to resubmit at some point in the future, the stage of the process reverts from Acceptance to Pre-application. The meeting held on 11 May 2018 took place at the Pre-application stage and its content included advice to the Applicant in respect of the Planning Inspectorate’s three principal concerns with the application documents submitted on 10 April 2018. All three concerns directly related the Acceptance tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, including s55(3)(f) which states that application must be of standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory.

In respect of the content of your 13 June 2018 email, please note that only correspondence regarding an applicant’s formal statutory consultation under s42, s47 and/ or s48 can be considered at the Acceptance stage. All other aspects of the Acceptance decision are deliberated and taken by the Secretary of State on the basis of the application documents alone.

If an application is resubmitted, and subsequently accepted for examination, SMAa (and anybody else) will be able to make submissions about the merits of the Proposed Development in a Relevant Representation: [attachment 1]

26 June 2018
Save Manston Airport association Committee - anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please would you indicate: how many meetings (face-to-face or teleconference) have occurred between RSP and the PI since May 3rd; and when the next meeting or teleconference between RSP and the PI is scheduled.
Two meetings have taken place with RSP and its representatives since 3 May 2018.

The first of these project update meetings took place on 11 May 2018. The note of that meeting is available here: [attachment 1]

The second project update meeting took place on 22 June 2018. The note of the meeting is being prepared and will be published on the project webpage as soon as practicable.

26 June 2018
James Chappell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
According to this petition, you have specifically asked the pro-airport Manston campaign groups to submit multi-signature letters rather than writing to you individually. Is this true? My understanding was that you couldn't accept lobbying on behalf of the plan for an airport until the DCO was accepted. If this is the case, what's the point of telling them to write to you?

The petition also claims that you have not dealt with the DCO application correctly. It is said that, in considering the application you have considered items which should belong in the Acceptance stage. I believe one of the local MP's has made this remark too. It isn't obvious whether the MP got it from the petition or whether the petition got it from the MP.

Personally, I don't see the problem. If you have to find out whether they've got the money to pursue this project you might as well find out before you spend even more public money subjecting to examination. However, for the record, could you explain whether the petition is correct in claiming that you have not dealt with the DCO correctly?
Please see our previous advice to SMAa, which included the following:

“We encourage and advise all stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications to us because this assists the process.”

We have today responded to the SMAa petition. Our advice will be published to the project webpage tomorrow. [[attachment 1]]

The application submitted on 10 April 2018 was subjected to the Acceptance tests set out in s55 of the Planning Act 2008, including s55(3)(f) which states that an application must be of standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory.

26 June 2018
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In your note of meeting of 11 May 2018 with representatives of RSP it was stated that a further meeting would be held once matters raised by the Inspectorate had been addressed by the applicant. Has a date been agreed for that further meeting and if not what does the Inspectorate understand is the position is with respect to a further application for a DCO ?
A project update meeting was held on 22 June 2018. The note of that meeting is being prepared and will be published on the project webpage as soon as practicable.

In respect of resubmission, the Planning Inspectorate understands that the position established in RSP’s letter dated 4 May 2018 is maintained: [attachment 1]

26 June 2018
Nigel Phethean
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

22 June 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached Meeting note

22 June 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your response and for directing me to the RSP PIER.

From my reading of these documents while there are extensive they in no way give me any sense of what the potential impact on health, traffic, noise and the environment of an airport operating at its potential capacity would be.

Why was this information not included in any of the consultation processes? and given its absence from the consulation process how could the community realisitically have properly informed input into the project during the consulattoion phase.
The Planning Inspectorate does not comment on the content or quality of an applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). The likely significant environmental effects of a Proposed Development need to be assessed by an applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment, and presented in the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with its application. If an application is accepted, the appointed Examining Authority will undertake the examination of environmental information having regard to the information in the Applicant’s ES.

FAQ5 in the following document provides further information about PEI: [attachment 1]

19 June 2018
S Alvers
Enquiry received via email
Please can you confirm that you have asked SMAa for a petition in support of the dco application?
Have you asked the legal owners if they would like to submit a counter petition.
It has seemed to be quite confusing at the moment with NO application in play yet you seem to want rsp supporters to contack you. Can you please clarify the currunt status.
The Planning Inspectorate did not ask SMAa to submit a petition. We routinely advise all stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications because this assists the process.

18 June 2018
Ken Wraight
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have received the folllowing request to sign a petition/letter to you:

([attachment 1])

This seems to have been sent to me in error, as I do not believe that the application is capable of meeting the tests for acceptance which have been laid down by Parliament.

I am concerned at the suggestion that the Secretary of State may defer until the Examination stage any of the matters on which he is required to reach a conclusion prior to acceptance of the application. Those include, of course, not just the standard of the application (and accompaniments) but also if the scheme is, or forms part of, a nationally significant infrastructure project, requiring development consent.

If the Secretary of State has not reached a conclusion on these matters how can he lawfully accept the application for examination?

Could you kindly clarify if PINS has included items into the Acceptance stage that properly belong in the Examination stage, and if so which?

Does the wish of the applicant's supporters to give their views have any bearing on any decision that is required at this stage, please?
The Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) cannot ‘defer’ any of the tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008 until the Examination stage. What constitutes the Acceptance tests is a matter of fact, and it is those tests alone that were applied to the RSP’s 10 April 2018 submission.

Regarding correspondence from supporters of RSP’s proposals; the same principle applies to any comments made to the Inspectorate before an Acceptance decision is taken:

If you have sent comments about RSP’s Pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case.

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 2]

11 June 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Whereas I have concentrated on Thanet District Council failure to comply with law of precautionary principle and spirit of laws of duty to promote well being re public health , the fact is the Environment Agency states that cyclohexanone contamination in ground from Sericol will be a problem for foreseeable future. My understanding is the chemical increases toxicity of agricultural chemicals. There are solvents under remediation at nearby Thor and the ground mercury contamination has not yet began to be subject of remediation.

The applicant knows too that in 2009 the expert authority stated that public health epidemiology inquiry is required. It means the initial scientific appraisal should have triggered the laws of precautionary principle. These should be foundational to the applicant impact studies. The fact is the applicant and the councils have dodged this.
As previously explained, the functions of the Planning Inspectorate are controlled by the provisions in the Planning Act 2008. We can only issue advice about the process as prescribed ie where a request seeks advice about:

• applying for an order granting development consent; or
• making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.

I refer you back to our previous advice to you which explains how and when you can engage with the process: [attachment 1]

11 June 2018
Richard Card
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly clarify the situation with some aspects of the RSP DCO for me, or failing that tell me who I should be asking?

Now the application has been withdrawn does this mean that it should be seen as at the pre application stage again?

If so does this mean that as a person who would be affected by the development I should be maintaining a diaogue with both pins and with the applicant, or should I view the application as over until such time as the applicant starts the application again with a revised PEIR and consultation?

Did pins receive an application fee as part of the application process that stopped just before the deadline?

I have read the pins advice note Meeting Update TR020002 and although I would doubt I properly understood it all and I am having considerable difficulty the ATM figures in it.

My understanding both from the application as described on the pins website “The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport, with some passenger services, with a capacity of at least 12,000 air cargo movements per year.” and from attending the three RSP consultations, communicating with the applicant and with pins by email I formed the impression that is that something in the 12,000 ATMs ball park is what the project intended and not an expansion of the previous capacity. Am I mistaken in this assumption?

The largest figure mentioned in the advice note is 83,222 ATMs, is this meant to be an annual figure? If it is it would mean 228 ATMs a day and wouldn’t seem viable given the infrastructure, history or the environmental implications.

I can see that pins main concern at this point would be the legal aspects of acceptance, but having the general impression of around 12,000 ATMs, which seems to be the sort of ballpark area that everyone I have discussed the project with assumed up until now. I am a bit concerned that the consultation process thus far was less informative than I had assumed.

There is a sense in all of this that while pins can’t respond to questions about the project, you may consider commenting about what the project actually is. In terms of is it an intersection joining 2 major roads or 16?

There is also a sense in which pins seem to be instead of saying the project isn’t NSIP compliant, possibly by a factor of 8 times the project size, instead of rejecting the project pins appear to be trying unreasonably hard to help the applicant above and beyond the interested and affected parties.

With the existing freight capabilities of the airport I am assuming that a baseline of the previous CAA licence which I think was in 23,000 ATMs ballpark would be a significant factor, could you please confirm that this figure is approximately right?

Please appreciate in this instance I am not so much trying to ask pins if the figures arranged in some way make the project a NSIP but to gather the information to enable me to ask either pins or the applicant the right questions. One of which is is the project still seen as ongoing and front loaded?
“Now the application has been withdrawn does this mean that it should be seen as at the pre application stage again?”

If an application is withdrawn at the Acceptance stage, and the Applicant clearly states its intention to resubmit at some time in the future, the project stage is moved back to ‘Pre-application’. This is indicated on the project status bar located on the top right of the Manston Airport project webpage.

“If so does this mean that as a person who would be affected by the development I should be maintaining a dialogue with both pins and with the applicant, or should I view the application as over until such time as the applicant starts the application again with a revised PEIR and consultation?”

Until an application is resubmitted, the Applicant should be your first point of contact. It will be for the Applicant to take a view about whether any further consultation and/ or revised documentation will be required before the application is resubmitted.

“Did pins receive an application fee as part of the application process that stopped just before the deadline?”

The Acceptance fee (£6,939) was paid by the Applicant, and is non-refundable. Any resubmitted application will be a new application for the purposes of the Regulations, and will attract a second Acceptance fee.

“The largest figure mentioned in the advice note is 83,222 ATMs, is this meant to be an annual figure? If it is it would mean 228 ATMs a day and wouldn’t seem viable given the infrastructure, history or the environmental implications.”

83,222 ATMs is an annual figure. Please contact the Applicant directly for more information on matters relating to the design and operational capability of its Proposed Development. The Planning Inspectorate cannot prejudge what any future resubmission may comprise.

“With the existing freight capabilities of the airport I am assuming that a baseline of the previous CAA licence which I think was in 23,000 ATMs ballpark would be a significant factor, could you please confirm that this figure is approximately right?”

The Planning Inspectorate does not hold this information. Please contact the former licence holder.

08 June 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
I've read the minutes of the meeting held between yourselves and RSP in which you raise a number of inconsistencies in their documentation in a variety of areas including basic and essential information like the number of plane movements each year. Based on your concerns, however, you seem to have concluded that the consultations held with the public were satisfactory. Can you please explain on what basis you feel the consultations were adequate given that the information provided to the public was what you reviewed and found to be inconsistent in many areas.
A decision about whether or not to accept the application submitted on 10 April 2018 was not taken. The application was withdrawn before a decision was made. Coincidentally, any decision in respect of whether the Applicant had complied with its duties under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Planning Act 2008 (including s47 - Duty to consult local community) was not taken.

Any future application made by RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) will be treated as a new application and will be subject to the acceptance tests in s55 of the Planning Act 2008.

07 June 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
I am a bit puzzled as I can't see how RiverOak can acquire the whole airport if they claim they are only altering it. Thee environmental info said that the runway is only been resurfaced, not lengthened or changed (so no planning needed). The runway isn't incidental - it's fundamental - so not sure how main parts that are not being changed can be included under clause 6.

I could see how they could try to acquire the runway if they were claiming that whole thing is a new airport but they're not. Does this not mean that only existing airports can do DCOs for alterations, and if not, does that not mean every airport in the country could be at risk of hostile takeover by someone else with a plan to increase the size?
“I could see how they could try to acquire the runway if they were claiming that whole thing is a new airport but they're not.”

Any airport would be unable to engage the thresholds in s23(5) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) without an operational runway.

“Does this not mean that only existing airports can do DCOs for alterations…”

Only an existing airport, in land use terms, could engage s23(4) of the PA2008.

“…and if not, does that not mean every airport in the country could be at risk of hostile takeover by someone else with a plan to increase the size?”

It does not have to be the airport owner/operator that applies to alter an airport under s23 of the PA2008.

07 June 2018
Ackers Johnson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from your recently published records of meetings with RSP that you make reference to their project having a cabability in excess of 82,000 flights. I have not seen that number in any of the consultation documents that were issued by RSP either this year or last - or heard it at their meetings. Can you point me at the souce documentation for this and where the attendant environmental and transport effects of aviation such scale on the community are explained?
Firstly, the source documentation that alludes to the proposed Manston Airport project having a theoretical maximum capability in excess of 82,000 flights was included in the withdrawn application that has not been published in the public domain. Therefore I am currently unable to signpost you to it.

If the Applicant re-submits the Manston Airport application, and it meets the Acceptance tests to be accepted for examination, the full application suite of documents will be published on the Manston Airport project page.

Secondly, with regards to your request for signposting to information in respect of community impacts, please follow the link to the Applicant’s documents page where the Applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) can be viewed:

[attachment 1]

07 June 2018
S Alvers
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Unfortunately I did not find that your reply dealt with the question, which was:

"could you kindly clarify if PINS have in place any targets regarding the publication of notes of meetings with DCO applicants and, if not, what the public may reasonably expect in terms of your performance in this area.?"
• There is not an established target in place regarding the publication meeting notes. Our commitment is to publish as soon as practicable.
• The three months elapsed in this case was exceptional, but not unprecedented. The average time it takes to prepare, review, finalise and publish a meeting note is around a month.
• Because we understand that the content of our meeting notes is relied upon by individuals and organisations, they are subject to a rigorous internal review process, which takes time. Meeting attendees (other than the Inspectorate) are also given an opportunity to fact-check prior to publication.
• In some circumstances, for specific reasons, the publication of a meeting note can be delayed by up to six months (see our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 1].

05 June 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly clarify if PINS have in place any targets regarding the publication of notes of meetings with DCO applicants and, if not, what the public may reasonably expect in terms of your performance in this area. I note that the note of the meeting with the Applicant last February was only very recently published: is 3 months at all normal?
The three months that elapsed before the note in question was published is undesirable; but the delay is not unprecedented.

We understand that the content of our meeting notes is important to persons with an interest in particular applications. However, whilst we endeavour to publish meeting notes as soon as practicable, the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for meeting statutory deadlines in other areas of its work under the Planning Act 2008, which must be prioritised.

04 June 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
In reply to an enquiry by Nigel Phethean (24 May 2018) you said:
“Any delay in the publishing of the note from the meeting with RSP on 11 May 2018 is a result of the drafting and finalisation process.
The note will be published to the Manston Airport project webpage as soon as practicable after finalisation.”

In reply to an enquiry by me (James Chappell 18 May 2018) you said:
“There was no particular reason why there was a delay in publishing it [Feb 23 Meeting Note].
We aim to publish the note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 11 May 2018 asap”

My I observe that the statement “There was no particular reason why there was a delay...” is facile in the extreme. Given that expressions such as “asap” and “as soon as practicable” are meaningless, will the Inspectorate commit to publishing Meeting Notes and other s51 advice within a definite time scale? For an example, an upper bound of 10 working days?

If, for some operational reason, it is quite impossible for the PI to undertake the publishing of key documents to a timetable, then will the PI adopt some sort of process to alert interested parties to the fact that a historical document has been published? This would take away the need for readers having to trawl up and down through 30 pages and 300+ entries, trying to see if something new (or, indeed, old) had been published.
We understand that the content of our meeting notes is important to persons with an interest in particular applications. However, whilst we endeavour to publish meeting notes as soon as practicable, the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for meeting statutory deadlines in other areas of its work under the Planning Act 2008, which must be prioritised.

There is currently no functionality for users of the website to be updated in respect of the publication of meeting notes (or other s51 advice) in the manner suggested. We will however consider this suggestion as we continue to improve the website in future.

04 June 2018
James Chappell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What part of the DCO process will enable PINS to say “enough is enough”?

Which begs the question “why not?”

Surely the draftees of PA2008 wouldn’t have drafted legislation that could be misused in this way?

Has any legal owner of land ever applied for a Judicial Review upon an acceptance of a DCO application for examination?
We are not aware of a Judicial Review that has been lodged by an affected landowner in respect of an Acceptance decision.

The Planning Inspectorate’s role at the Pre-application stage includes, amongst other things, advising potential applicants about applying for orders granting development consent. On that basis, provided the advice that the Inspectorate issues is timely, accurate and robust, and provided applicants are responsive to the advice that the Inspectorate issues, the likelihood of multiple application submissions should be minimised. Note previous advice which establishes that only five applications have been withdrawn and resubmitted since the Planning Act 2008 came into force: [attachment 1]

For further information, our role at the Pre-application stage of the process is explained in detail in our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 2]

31 May 2018
Barry
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
RSP have said previously that they think they are a NSIP as they are altering the airport. If so, surely compaulsory acquisition powers should only be for the bits that are being altered and need planning to be altered. Therefore, how can they get powers to acquire the existing runway.

If this is allowed, has anyone thought of this as this would open up a Pandora's box where any "investors" could try to use the DCO route to compulsory acquire other airports against the will of the owners. All they would need to show is that they have plans to increase the infrastructure a little to be able to handle another 10,000 cargo flights, and could include compulsory acquisition powers for the rest of the airport under DCO powers. Would a DCO seeking these powers be able to be accepted for examination?
Please read government’s ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to the procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ which explains the tests that must be satisfied in order for Compulsory Acquisition powers to be granted: [attachment 1]

31 May 2018
Ackers Johnson
Enquiry received via email
Could you please tell me if RiverOak Strategic Partners have resubmitted their DCO application. If they have could you tell me why it has not been published on your website. If not have they set a date for resubmission and will you be publishing it?
RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) has yet to resubmit its application. We are currently awaiting information from RSP when the application is likely to submitted.

25 May 2018
Sophie Fowler
Enquiry received via email
It is now nearly two weeks since the meeting the Inspectorate held with RSP to explain its concerns about the documentation submitted leading to the withdrawal of the DCO application.
Given the growing concern that the Inspectorate is being lent on by the local MP to ease the path of this disastrous application can you explain the delay in its publication please
Any delay in the publishing of the note from the meeting with RSP on 11 May 2018 is a result of the drafting and finalisation process.

The note will be published to the Manston Airport project webpage as soon as practicable after finalisation.

24 May 2018
Nigel Phethean
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Would you please explain just how this process allows a legitimate landowner to have the value of their investment permanently blighted as it seems to many that RSP could, if minded, continuously apply to PINS for a DCO. Although it will cost them in excess of £6000 each time this apparently has no deterrence factor and as I said in a previous response RSP have said if they fail they will regroup and reapply.

What part of the DCO process will enable PINS to say “enough is enough”? and

Will RSP have to pay compensation to the legal owners for their vexatious applications?
Provided that the statutory procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) are satisfied, there is no limit placed on the number of times an applicant could theoretically submit an application for development consent for the same Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). On that basis, the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State (SoS)) must exercise its delegated powers in testing each submitted application against the relevant provisions in the PA2008, and produce a decision (unless the application is withdrawn). Ultimately, following a recommendation made by the Planning Inspectorate, in each case it is the SoS who will take the final decision about whether or not development consent is granted or refused. For more information about the process, please see our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

The PA2008 recognises that an NSIP may create blight reducing land values. Section 175 of the PA2008 amends Schedule 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable owner occupiers to serve a blight notice on the SoS requiring the SoS to purchase their property in certain circumstances. These are where a National Policy Statement (NPS) identifies a particular location as a potentially suitable location for an NSIP (there is no NPS in this case) or if land is blighted by an application being made for a Development Consent Order authorising the Compulsory Acquisition of the owner occupier’s land or from such authorisation being given.

Separately, any interference with private interests may give rise to a right to make a relevant claim. For further information see FAQ14 in our Community Consultation FAQs and government guidance relating to Compulsory Acquisition procedures:

• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]

There is no mechanism through which a landowner could claim for compensation for time/cost at the Pre-application stage of the process. For details of the applicable costs regime after an application has been accepted for examination, I refer you to government’s ‘Awards of costs: examinations of applications for development consent orders’: [attachment 4]

21 May 2018
Barry
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Is there any special reason why the meeting note in respect of the Feb 23rd meeting has taken almost 3 months to finalise?

How long do you anticipate the preparation and publication of the meeting note of the May 11th meeting will take?
The note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 23 February 2018 has now been published. Please follow the link below to view it:
[attachment 1]

There was no particular reason why there was a delay in publishing it.

We aim to publish the note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 11 May 2018 asap.

18 May 2018
James Chappell
Enquiry received via email
You have issued a clear exposition of some major concerns. Those concerns appear, on the face if it, to be incompatible with acceptance of the application as it the stood. Is that inference correct?

Could you also please clarify if the absence of a topic on your list means that the applicant is entitled to conclude that PINS has no major concerns about it? I ask because the applicant's supporters are claiming that your announcement means that you are e.g. satisfied on the adequacy of consultation, which would be surprising.
In respect of both points, the Planning Inspectorate did not reach (or ultimately issue) a decision in respect of whether or not the application could be accepted for examination.

Other omissions/ discrepancies in the application documents were discussed with the Applicant at a meeting on 11 May. A note of that meeting is being prepared and will be published to the Manston Airport project webpage as soon as practicable after finalisation.

18 May 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Recent correspondence between PINS and interested parties have included the following statement however in view of the feedback issued to RSP on the 4/5/2018 which precipitated their withdrawal your department gave a list of issues found within the 10000+ pages of their application.

“Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.”

Reason number 1 was as follows “• An absence of sufficient information within the application documents upon which to the Planning Inspectorate could base a decision about whether the Proposed Development constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) within the meaning in s23 of the Planning Act 2008.”

Surely the logic of your statements are that if you have perused the 10000+ pages and cannot determine whether their application meets the criteria for an NSIP then it would be rejected and therefore “Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision” is a nonsense.

In fact it is clear that had you said nothing to RSP and rejected the application because it wasn’t an NSIP you would then have had a discussion as to whether they continue or shut shop. It does therefore seem to many that the system you follow is designed to achieve 100% acceptance for examination. Many members of the public are now thinking this is about coaching rather than a true examination of the application.
By way of clarification, an ‘Acceptance decision’ in the context of my recent responses is ‘a decision about whether or not to accept the application’ – not a ‘decision to accept the application’.

The Inspectorate’s concerns were summarised in the following advice: [attachment 1]

To reiterate, there was not sufficient information in the application documents upon which the Inspectorate could not take a decision about whether or not the proposed development is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.

17 May 2018
Barry
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our question as to whether this could be viewed in practice as a consultation period between PINS & RSP was really not answered. To an observer this does seem to be the case borne out by conferences you have had with RPS during the 28 day period. Is it normal to liaise with applicants during this period? Also the reply you did give we found confusing.

"Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision."

This does seem to infer that in spite of the inadequacies that there was a possibility that you would allow this application to proceed to examination. Surely given these gaps in information it should be declined. If it had of been accepted(or the possibility it would) what is the the point of the a pre-application. Given the eleventh hour of the withdrawal by RSP PINS must have come to a decision whether to accept the pre-application or not. There is a general feeling in Thanet that you are giving RSP a lot of support and leeway as it is being viewed as an exercise prior to a DCO application from Heathrow.
First, by way of clarification an ‘Acceptance decision’ in the context of the statement copied in to your enquiry is ‘a decision about whether or not to accept the application’ – not a ‘decision to accept the application for examination’.

Second, in analogous circumstances the Planning Inspectorate has contacted other applicants to establish concerns. In that respect, the following applications have also been withdrawn by the respective applicants at the Acceptance stage:

• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 1]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 3]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 4]

17 May 2018
Ian and Hilary Scott
Enquiry received via email
Are you able to comment as to whether the applicant at this point has complied with their Schedule 4 obligations ?
The application has now reverted to the Pre-application stage of the process. We cannot comment on or prejudge any material that may form part of a resubmitted application.

17 May 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development during the Pre-application stage.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the
Proposed Development during the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008
process.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the
Planning Inspectorate, please find enclosed the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note
8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination.

17 May 2018
John Davison
Enquiry received via email
I have seen various comments suggesting that an applicant for a DCO must consider other ways in which they can deliver the stated aim of the NISP they are seeking to define. In the case of RSP the aim would appear to be to increase the freight capacity of the UK which of course could be achieved in a variety of ways. If RSP felt certain that another airport was required they could for instance consider buying another facility, I understand Mildenhall, Lakeneath and other UK airfields are currently up for sale by willing sellers.

Can you please confirm whether a DCO applicant is obliged to consider other alternatives as I've described above in order to fulfill their stated objective and confirm whether RSP have indeed considered such alternatives ?
The Applicant is required under Schedule 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 to undertake:

“2. A description of the reasonable alternatives (for example in terms of development design, technology, location, size and scale) studied by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects.”

National Planning Practice Guidance for EIA states that "Where alternative approaches to development have been considered, the Environmental Statement should include a description of the reasonable alternatives studied which are relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics and provide an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, including a comparison of the environmental effects".

16 May 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As there seems to be a lot of missing information in RSPs application that will have to be provided to PINS can you tell us whether these shortcomings will require another public consultation before RSP can re-apply.
The advice provided here answers your query below with regards to additional consultation:
[attachment 1]

16 May 2018
Ian and Hilary Scott
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Do you now take down your Manston page S51 advice etc and await a complete new application from RSP ?
The same project page will be used for any resubmitted application. All published advice will remain available on the Manston Airport project page and on the Register of advice, here: [attachment 1]

15 May 2018
Richard Card
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are told that RiverOak Strategic Partners has withdrawn its application for a Development Consent Order to reopen Manston Airport.

Further information has only come from one of the local MP's, Sir Roger Gale, who has revealed that the Planning Inspectorate has been in touch with the company and has expressed dissatisfaction with some aspects of the application documentation. According to Sir Roger the matters are minor and involve dotting some i's and crossing some t's. He says that the application has been withdrawn so that the applicant and PINS can have "more detailed conversations about what the Planning Inspectorate requires."

This is an interesting turn of phrase. It seems to imply that the Planning Inspectorate will be acting as some kind of unpaid consultancy to ensure that the application is successful.

I'm sure you can see the problem here. The Planning Inspectorate is charged with making a decision about the DCO on behalf of the Secretary of State. How then can the Planning Inspectorate be advising the applicants on what they need to do in order to be successful? There is a clear conflict of interest. I am not the only person to have commented on this.

The failure to make a decision on the application which was submitted does call into question the Planning Inspectorate's impartiality. The scenario set out by the MP seems to suggest that the Planning Inspectorate has leaked news of their intention to reject the application, giving the applicant opportunity to withdraw it shortly before the decision was announced.

What is the point of an application process if you are going to do this? If you did this for everybody, no application would ever fail. They would all be withdrawn before the decision was announced. As some applications to get rejected it seems pretty clear that you don't do this for all applicants.

Could you explain how you can be viewed as an impartial party in this process when you are so intricately involved with the applicant whilst having little to do with or say to the legal owners of the site?
We cannot comment on the assertions of local politicians.

The Planning Inspectorate must record and publish any advice that it gives in respect of making an application for development consent, or making a representation such an application.

The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.

15 May 2018
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
According to the PI's web site, the Manston application has been withdrawn. Yet when I go to the home page and select the filter to show only withdrawn status applications, no records are returned.
So is the Manston application withdrawn or not?
An application would only appear with ‘Withdrawn’ as the project stage if:
• it was withdrawn by the Applicant after it had been accepted for examination; or
• it was withdrawn at the Acceptance stage with the Applicant expressing a clearly that it did not intend to resubmit.

Applications that are withdrawn in the above ways are displayed for a period of time before they are removed from the website. For more information see: [attachment 1]

In the case of the Manston Airport application, and for any other application that is withdrawn at the Acceptance stage with the Applicant stating clearly its intention to resubmit at some time in the future, the project stage is moved back to ‘Pre-application’.

15 May 2018
Andrew
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that RSP declares on its website that it has "temporarily" withdrawn its application for a DCO. It claims that "this is not uncommon with DCOs and RSP is in dialogue with the Planning Inspectorate in order that the application can be resubmitted as soon as possible."

An advice note issued by local airport enthusiasts adds that "there is no reason to believe that the renewed Acceptance phase will need the full 28 days to complete."

The general impression being given by the developers is of a cosy ongoing dialogue with the Planning Inspectorate, aimed at ensuring acceptance of the application as soon as possible. I find it difficult to equate this with the statutory procedures, as explained on your website, nor your repeated assurances that PINS has no view on the merits of the DCO until is is accepted for examination.

It would be good to have some renewal of confidence in the transparency and accountability to which PINS is committed.

Can you please clarify:

a) whether PINS had reached any view on the merits of the application prior to its withdrawal
b) whether any such view had been communicated to the applicants
c) if there is any truth in the suggestion that you are colluding with the applicant so as to assist him achieve his objectives
d) if it is indeed common for DCO applications too be withdrawn on the eve of decision notification day (and where examples of this can be seen, please)
e) if there is indeed "no reason to believe that the renewed Acceptance phase will need the full 28 days too complete"?
a), b) and c) – please see the advice provided in response the enquiry recorded at the following link: [attachment 1]
Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.
d) Five applications have been withdrawn during the Acceptance stage:
• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 3]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 4]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 5]
• Manston Airport: [attachment 6]

e) Any resubmission by the Applicant will be treated as a new application for the purposes of the Acceptance tests. The Planning Inspectorate would have up to 28 days to take its decision about whether the application could be accepted for examination.
In respect of your follow-up email dated 9 May 2018, we cannot comment on the assertions of local politicians. The advice provided at the link above explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage.

15 May 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please tell me how common it is to withdraw an application on the day a decision to go ahead or not to is made thank you.
Roughly how many times before has this happened and it it expected by pins.
Five applications have been withdrawn during the Acceptance stage:
• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 1]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 3]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 4]
• Manston Airport: [attachment 5]

15 May 2018
Ken Wraight
Enquiry received via email
If RSP are going to submit further details about the environmental impact to PINS should they not be required to show this information to the people who are likely to be worst affected?
It will be for the Applicant to take a view about whether any further consultation will be required before the application is resubmitted.

15 May 2018
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please could you tell me how many times you will allow RSP to withdraw and resubmit their application? Is there a limit, or is this going to pause any sensible development of the site and of other local developers investing into the area?
Developers are in limbo all because of the threat of a disastrous cargo airport.
If SHP get permission to develop how will this affect them, could they loose everything? I thought housing was of significant need from government directive.
It seems very unfair to me, RSP should have been told no and not allowed to resubmit over and over again which I am sure they will do as they are like a stupid dog with bone. I do not see any loops on the graph you provide about process.

Could this debacle go on for even more years looming over this beautiful area? Is there any safety net that the locals could implement to stop this. Once the new housing development has started, new houses being built, can RSP still apply?
There is no limit on the number of times an applicant can submit an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO).

Where planning permission is extant on a site in relation to which a DCO is sought, there are a number of statutory tests that must be met in respect of the rights of the owner(s) of the land and anybody else with an interest in it. Those persons would have the opportunity to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority during the examination of the DCO application.

For further information please see our previous advice to Thanet District Council:
[attachment 1]

15 May 2018
Stephanie Flower
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I would be grateful if you would respond by return to confirm the following;
• whether any s51 advice has been provided to RSP in relation to the submitted (and now withdrawn) proposed DCO Application;
• whether any other s51 advice has been provided to RSP in the period since 22 November 2017;
• that all s51 advice will be published expeditiously to provide clarity and transparency on the process; and
• whether any unpublished s51 advice has been provided to Thanet MPs, Sir Roger Gale and Craig Mackinlay, or their representatives.
• The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]
• A meeting was held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant on 23 February 2018. The note of the meeting is being finalised and will be published on the website imminently.
• The note of the meeting held with the Applicant on 11 May 2018 is being prepared and will be published on the website as soon as practicable.
• The Planning Inspectorate has not issued any s51 advice to Thanet MPs, Sir Roger Gale and Craig Mackinlay, or, to our knowledge, their representatives.

15 May 2018
Stone Hill Park Ltd - Jamie Macnamara
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am concerned that this DCO application which was vigorously supported by both Thanet's Conservative MPs may have been intended to cause what it has actually achieved. Namely the dropping of the proposed local plan, which is likely to result in a less regulated environment for developers seeking planning consents and the change of our district council administration from a UKIP to Conservative administration.

I am also interested in the compensation situation at this point as I have attended all three consultation sessions, engaged in lengthy research on the environmental implications of an airfreight facility a Manston and responded to the consultations and emails related to this issue.

I am concerned that the applicant appears to have very limited assets, (based on their accounts recently submitted to Companies House) and that they may intend to go into administration without fulfilling their obligations.
In respect of compensation, I am unable to advise you beyond the content of my previous responses:
[attachment 1]
[attachment 2]

15 May 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you advise me that a new application will be looked on with fresh eyes and take as long as needed to make a decision.

please advise any new application will be treated at face value without all the prompting from pins.
The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.

Any resubmission of the application will be treated as a new application for the purposes of the Acceptance tests.

15 May 2018
Ken Wraight
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our understanding was this was an pre-application not a consultation period with PINS so we are wondering why this was discussed with them while the 28 day period was running, especially as there was a lot of coaching by PINS prior to the application. Should you not have let this run then either accept or decline the application & present them with your conclusions ?

Did they pay a fee (if so what is the fee ?) and will this now be refunded as the application was withdrawn. Will there be a fee if they re-present ?
The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.

The Acceptance fee (£6,939) was paid by the Applicant, and is non-refundable. Any resubmitted application will be a new application for the purposes of the Regulations, and will attract a second Acceptance fee.

A full record of the Planning Inspectorate’s concerns in respect of the application documentation will be summarised in the note of the meeting which was held on 11 May 2018. That note is being prepared and will be published as soon as practicable.

15 May 2018
Ian and Hilary Scott
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our understanding was this was an pre-application not a consultation period with PINS so we are wondering why this was discussed with them while the 28 day period was running, especially as there was a lot of coaching by PINS prior to the application. Should you not have let this run then either accept or decline the application & present them with your conclusions ?

Did they pay a fee (if so what is the fee ?) and will this now be refunded as the application was withdrawn. Will there be a fee if they re-present ?
The advice provided here explains how the Planning Inspectorate advised the Applicant during the Acceptance stage: [attachment 1]

Advice reflecting the same concerns would have been issued to the Applicant if it had not decided to withdraw the application and the Planning Inspectorate had proceeded to issue an Acceptance decision.

The Acceptance fee (£6,939) was paid by the Applicant, and is non-refundable. Any resubmitted application will be a new application for the purposes of the Regulations, and will attract a second Acceptance fee.

A full record of the Planning Inspectorate’s concerns in respect of the application documentation will be summarised in the note of the meeting which was held on 11 May 2018. That note is being prepared and will be published as soon as practicable.

15 May 2018
Anthony Fuller
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can the Planning Inspectorate please advise the number of applications to date which have been withdrawn by the applicant, along with the name or other reference for such withdrawn applications. An indication of the total number of DCO applications and preapplications to date would also be welcome.
Five applications have been withdrawn during the Acceptance stage:

• Rampion Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 1]
• Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm: [attachment 2]
• York Potash Harbour Facility: [attachment 3]
• Tees CCPP: [attachment 4]
• Manston Airport: [attachment 5]

Five applications have been withdrawn after they were accepted for examination:

• Electric line connection to Maesgwyn Wind Farm
• Brig y Cwym Energy from Waste Generating Station
• Roosecote (Barrow) Biomass Power Station
• Fieldes Lock – Rail linked power station
• Atlantic Array Offshore Wind Farm

The project pages for these five applications have been removed from the website. For further information see the following: [attachment 6]

There are 147 applications that are either at the Pre-application, Acceptance, Pre-examination, Examination or Recommendation and Decision stages, or have been decided: [attachment 7]

A list of the applications that are at the Acceptance stage or have previously been accepted for examination is available here: [attachment 8]

15 May 2018
Jonathan Fowler
Enquiry received via email
I understand that shortly before the deadine of 28 days consideration of their application, RSP have withdrawn such. Their plan appears to be to resubmit an application. I would be grateful if you would answer some questions.

1. This will, in effect, mean that their application will recieve considerably longer than the 28 days allocated to such locations given that you will have been examining this application for almost 28 days and will then give a further 28 days on resubmission. Does this not contravene the process or, at least, contradict the spirit of the process?

2. Was their withdrawal as a consequence of any meetings, discussions, comments or feedback with or from yourselves during the period since they submitted their application? Have you provided them with any preliminary feedback that may have suggested a resubmission might be needed?
1. Any resubmission by the Applicant will be treated as a new application for the purposes of the process. The Planning Inspectorate would have up to 28 days to take its decision about whether the application could be accepted for examination.

2. The Planning Inspectorate called the Applicant’s legal representatives (BDB Law) on 1 May 2018, setting out its principal concerns in respect of the application documents. Those concerns included:

• An absence of sufficient information within the application documents upon which to the Planning Inspectorate could base a decision about whether the Proposed Development constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) within the meaning in s23 of the Planning Act 2008.
• Gaps in the ecological, archaeological and ground investigation survey data presented within the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the application, which create uncertainty in the assessment of likely significant effects.
• Inconsistencies/ omissions in the noise and vibration assessment.
• The adequacy of the Transport Assessment accompanying the ES.
• The adequacy of the Funding Statement.

On 3 May 2018 a teleconference was held between the Planning Inspectorate, BDB Law and RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP). During this teleconference the Planning Inspectorate repeated its principal concerns (above) in the presence of RSP, who confirmed their intention to withdraw the application. Subsequently the application was formally withdrawn by letter dated 4 May 2018.

Today (11 May 2018) a meeting took place between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant at which the Inspectorate provided more detailed s51 advice in respect of the concerns noted within the documents associated with the withdrawn application. A note of the meeting is being prepared and will be published in the usual way in due course.

11 May 2018
Susan Kennedy
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
Please see the attached meeting note, which should be read in conjunction with the detailed record of the Inspectorate’s observations and advice.

11 May 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd
Enquiry received via email
We note that PINS’ website has now been updated to confirm that RSP’s application has been submitted and that the Applicant has not agreed to the application documents being made public. We are extremely disappointed by this lack of transparency, when we have had no definitive response from RSP to the points that we have put to them regarding:

1. the current capability of Manston;
2. that the proposal does not qualify as a NSIP; and
3. why the EIA does not assess the proposed development (RSP, as far as we have been made aware, has not assessed the effect of constructing 19 new stands and the number of ATMs that could produce).

Whilst our legal adviser wrote to you on 10 April 2018 seeking confirmation that these and other matters raised in both its, and SHP’s, correspondence will be fully considered as part of any acceptance process, if the application documents raise arguments over these points, then SHP should be able to respond. This is an unusual case and SHP, as the owner of substantially all of the land to which the application relates, should be afforded that courtesy when RSP has not provided answers to these points in (1) its consultation materials, (2) in any responses to the consultation (despite the 2015 Guidance stating that it is good practice for applicants to inform consultees of how issues will be addressed before any application is submitted, RSP has not provided any such response or update), or (3) in private correspondence over the continuing s53 application.

Given our substantial interest, it is SHP who would be put to a very significant amount of trouble, delay and expense if the application is accepted notwithstanding our objections and our deep concerns over a lack of transparency. RSP’s failure to publish the application or agree to PINS publishing the application, is another example of RSP deliberately trying to get the application accepted without it being subject to scrutiny by the one party, the owner of substantially all of the land to which the application relates, who is in a position to expose the inconsistent and possibly misleading basis upon which they have so far been proceeding.
The need for PINS to get agreement from applicants to publicise their application prior to acceptance is not a statutory requirement. Whilst we appreciate it is referred to in the 2015 Guidance at paragraph 119 and in Advice Note 6 (which does not have statutory status), this is a case where the application should be publicised given the unusual set of circumstances and the failure of the consultation materials to answer the fundamental questions over why the proposed development is an NSIP at all.

We therefore ask that the application is made public now (or at the very least in the form of s51 advice the information set out above made available, to enable SHP to understand if the application is potentially an NSIP and if it is a substantially different application scheme than that consulted on) in the interests of transparency, fairness and the fact that SHP (as owner of substantially all of the land) is being disadvantaged and being put to considerable trouble and expense which is also causing delay to its own plans for the Site.
We note the comments set out in your email dated 13 April 2018 and in previous correspondence. The Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the proposed Manston Airport application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

As you have correctly stated, the need for PINS to get agreement from applicants to publicise their application prior to acceptance is not a statutory requirement and the Applicant has not agreed to publication during the acceptance period. Therefore we are unable to make the application material available at this time. Should the application be accepted, you will be able to make a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time.

Please note that the appropriate contact for any future correspondence relating to the DCO application is Richard Price (using the Manston inbox email address), whilst I will remain the primary contact for any correspondence relating to the s53 application.

20 April 2018
Stone Hill Park Ltd - Jamie Macnamara
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attachment.
We note the comments set out in your letter dated 10 April 2018 and in previous correspondence. The Inspectorate will consider whether to accept the proposed Manston Airport application in accordance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

Please note that the appropriate contact for any future correspondence relating to the DCO application is Richard Price, whilst I will remain the primary contact for any correspondence relating to the s53 application.

20 April 2018
Pinsent Masons LLP for Stone Hill Park Ltd - Richard Griffiths
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Re the Manston DCO 2018 consultation, could you kindly send me details relating to the 2018 consultation notifications. I discussed this with Sam at the 2018 Comfort Inn consultation event, but then I was mostly concerned with what had gone wrong with the notification postcard distribution. One of the places that I asked if anyone had had a postcard was Ramsgate Custom House and I explained to Sam the people there, Town Council, RNLI shop and Ramsgate information centre, hadn’t had notifications and didn’t know about the Comfort Inn event until I told them about it.

Having been to your website to see if more documents had been published I noticed the news item [attachment 1] which seems to infer that Canterbury City Council were not notified about the 2018 consultation, ether the consultation events, the consultation content, with revised documents or both.

This lead me to check with Ramsgate Town Council town clerk who told me that Ramsgate town council hadn’t been notified.

The details I would like you to send me are which organisations councils, statutory consultees etc you did actually notify both of the 2018 consolation and the consultation events?
The Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from relevant local authorities will be published on our website if the application is accepted for examination. The Acceptance decision must be made on or before 8 May 2018.

16 April 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
On 19th April the sponsor posted this on their website see this link [attachment 1] The release was not widely publicised. In this release they claim that they will review further their night flight requirements and quota counts and also suggest that planes will not fly over densely populated areas. Again I think this highlights the inadequacy of the consultation and the way in which it has been undertaken in a very piecemeal manner with little regard to the local community who will be massively affected by the plans particularly those in Ramsgate and Herne Bay. As I said in previous communications there has been no detail of flight paths produced and yet in their latest brief above they say planes will not fly over densely populated areas which seems to indicate that flight paths have been planned but not disclosed during the consultation. How we are to assess the project without knowing the flight paths is difficult to understand especially without an environmental impact assessment or health impact assessment. It may be that some residents didn't bother going to the consultations having assumed that planes will not fly over their houses which may not be the case.

I also note new proposals have been recommended nationally for how noise is assessed, see this link below of a summary by Hacan [attachment 2]. I assume the sponsors plans will need to be revisited to assure they comply with these new arrangements.

Lastly the sponsors posted the following on their website in an attempt to suggest they consulted widely enough having realised at the last minute that Canterbury County Council had not responded to the consultation because they hadn't received the necessary documentation. Here is a link to their post [attachment 3]. You will no doubt have heard from many Herne Bay as well as Ramsgate residents who were not aware of the consultations taking place. The use of a website, Facebook and twitter reaches very limited people in Thanet and should be discouraged as a medium for planning consultations in these cases. The sponsor could quite easily have mailed a detailed summary of their plans to each and every household in Thanet, this is what is done by other sponsors as a matter of course in order to ensure that all residents are aware of the scope and depth of the proposed plans. A summary could quite easily have been prepared detailing the type of airport being planned, the number of planes proposed each day, the number of planes proposed each night, how many days per week operations would function and detailed flight paths as a minimum so residents could see exactly how they were likely to be affected and could then decide if they needed to go and get further information at a consultation briefing. The consultations should have been briefings with a formal presentation with questions and answers rather than people just milling around looking at pictures and queuing up to ask questions.

Lastly as a general point regarding the planning legislation enacting the Development Consent Order process I find it hard to believe that it was meant for company's such as RSP, who have little or no substance or experience and with investors in Belize, to utilise. Other projects on your website are sponsored by entities such as The Highways Agency, power generation companies and other quasi government institutions providing national services. Perhaps the legislation needs to be revisited to ensure it is not used inappropriately by companies and in particular by those who have already failed to meet the criteria to qualify as an indemnity party within the local authority CPO regime.
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 4]

If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage:

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities.
• The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist.

The Acceptance tests

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

a) The Consultation Report received with the application.
b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee.
c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance.

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 5]

If you have sent comments about RSP’s Pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case.

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 6]

11 April 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Yesterday RSP announced that they had submitted their Manston DCO application to pins.
I understand that this triggers the 28 day period during which pins will decide if the can accept the application.
I note that RSP say the application runs 11,000 pages, however RSP don’t appear to have published the application documents on their website.
My main interest in the application documents is the full environmental statement that wasn’t available at the consultation stage, this interest was focused by aspects of the RSP preliminary environmental report (PEIR) and most particularly that the PEIR stated that the project would impact on physical health, mental health and life expectancy, to be quantified in the full environmental statement.
Can you kindly tell me where the documentation will be accessible, when it will be accessible and if it will published online in a manageable, accessible, searchable and indexed form.
Obviously 11,000 pages isn’t particularly large for a searchable website that has an index of labelled links, is organised with images that expand when clicked on and has related documents grouped together. On the other hand as happened with the two previously published consultation document sets, a series of unlabelled and unindexed pdf files, often mainly unmanageable because the contain many very large image files would be very difficult to use given the fairly short period of time available.
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage:

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities.
• The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist.

The Acceptance tests

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

a) The Consultation Report received with the application.
b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee.
c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance.

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 2]

If you have sent comments about RSP’s Pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case.

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3]

11 April 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Local press reported on Monday that RSP has submitted its DCO application. The applicants are quoted as having provided some 10,500 pages, a figure also voiced by the local MP.

I note that the claimed total volume is nearly three times that provided for public consultation just a couple of months ago.

Whilst I appreciate that the application must include additional material (such as the report on the pre-application consultations and the draft Order paperwork) I am concerned that the applicants may have included information which was in fact reasonably required during the statutory pre-application consultation period to allow the public and consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed development and of the associated developments, as is demanded by law.

I have in mind, for example, information that was missing from the PEIR about major accidents management, the missing light pollution analysis (and link up with Thanet Earth), the missing analysis of impact on Ramsgate's heritage assets, the missing plans for the major recycling centre, the non compliant health impact analysis, and that is to say nothing of the gaps in the business analysis and the absence of a clear and consistent position on night flights.

It would be unfortunate if such material was available earlier this year but denied to the public. On the other hand, if it was not available this does seem to raise a question mark about the adequacy of the consultation.
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage:

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities.
• The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist.

The Acceptance tests

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

a) The Consultation Report received with the application.
b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee.
c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance.

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 2]

If you have sent comments about RSP’s Pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case.

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3]

11 April 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could you confirm that the DCO application for Manston has been submitted by RiverOak Strategic Partners and if it has when will the documents be published on your website?
The Acceptance stage

The application was submitted on 10 April 2018. Beginning on the day after it was submitted the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) has 28 calendar days to decide whether the application can be accepted for examination.

The Acceptance decision must therefore be taken on or before 8 May 2018. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1]

If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage:

• The application documents submitted by RSP.
• Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities.
• The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist.

The Acceptance tests

Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states what the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to when taking its decision about whether to accept an application:

a) The Consultation Report received with the application.
b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee.
c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance.

The Planning Act 2008 is available in full via our website, here: [attachment 2]

If you have sent comments about RSP’s Pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case.

If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3]

11 April 2018
Sophie Fowler
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Is there a summary dismissal procedure for application to minister or do I still have to wait for interested party submission stage. I am anxious to avoid applying for judicial review of Chief constable at same time as River Oak application on same issues is under your jurisdiction.
The application by RiverOak Strategic Partners is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in the first half of this month.

As previously explained, the functions of the Planning Inspectorate are controlled by the provisions in the Planning Act 2008. We can only issue advice about the process as prescribed ie where a request seeks advice about:

• applying for an order granting development consent; or
• making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order.

I refer you back to our previous advice to you which explains how and when you can engage with the process: [attachment 1]

06 April 2018
Richard Card
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand the DCO application will be submitted to you next week. You've received a great deal of communication from members of the public on a wide range of issues in particular the adequacy of the consultations. Can I ask whether during your consideration of the application all the comments you've previously received will be reviewed and considered by you automatically when coming to your decision as to whether or not to accept the application for examination or whether all those that commented will need to register as interested partys and make their comments again ?
The comments received by the Planning Inspectorate concerning the Applicants Pre-application consultation can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. It will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed in those comments based on the individual facts of the case.

The adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation is not a subject that can be revisited in the examination; if the application is accepted. The examination of the application will deal with the merits of the Proposed Development. Representations made to the examination concerning the Applicant’s consultation will not be considered by the appointed Examining Authority (ExA).

Members of the local community who have made comments to the Planning Inspectorate about the merits of the Proposed Development at the Pre-application stage will need to repeat those comments in a Relevant Representation, at the appropriate time. The ExA will not be able to consider comments made about the merits of the Proposed Development that were submitted to the Planning Inspectorate at the Pre-application stage. For more information about making a Relevant Representation see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1]

04 April 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
Do you routinely accept submissions from people using fake identities and, if not why have you done so on this occasion?

Do you believe that accepting and publishing submissions from people using fake names is consistent with your claims about the transparency of the DCO process?

Is your decision to publish notice of Appolonius's submission tacit recognition that the entire DCO process is a joke; this is just your way of joining in with the "fun."
For the record, the advice given to Appolonius Claudius was provided in response to a consultation response objecting to the Proposed Development at the Manston Airport site in the strongest terms.

Section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) is not prescriptive about who the Planning Inspectorate can issue advice to. There is no prescribed form for the submission of a request for Pre-application advice, but the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other things, make a record of who requested the advice and the matters in respect of which the advice was requested.

At the Pre-examination stage of the process, Relevant Representations must be made in the prescribed form, providing details of the name, address and telephone number of the person making the representation. Representations that are vexatious or frivolous or concerned with matters of national policy or compensation for Compulsory Acquisition may be disregarded by an Examining Authority (ExA).

The inquisitorial nature of the PA2008 process means that ExAs examine evidence through questioning. In the examination process, it is the relevance and importance of the issues which carry weight – not the volume of submissions received. On that basis duplicated representations (in support or objection to a Proposed Development) cannot serve to manipulate the decision-making process.

27 March 2018
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you note the report from mps over noise and night flights over London re Heathrow expansion. Please can you advise if these restrictions will apply to all new dco applications ie manston.

The new airports national policy statement ie is national so must include manston .please can you advise whether this will be the case also it mentions it will prempt any dco requests..
The revised draft of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) is available to read here: [attachment 1]

The proposed scope of the ANPS is set out on pages 7 and 8. The author of the draft ANPS is the Department for Transport.

The Planning Inspectorate can issue advice about applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO), or about making representations about an application for a DCO. It cannot issue advice about the content of draft national policy.

26 March 2018
Ken Wraight
Enquiry received via email
What additional due diligence will PINS carry out with respect to the Manston DCO taking into account the issues I raise in the paragraph above which apply to the sponsor Riveroak Strategic Partners Ltd?

What assurances will PINS demand in order to ensure that the project is actually delivered in accordance with the proposals detailed in the DCO application?

Will PINS monitor the progress of the project should the application be successful?

What action will PINS take if the project is not delivered to the scale and timescale specified in the application?

If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted is this acceptable or will PINS take action and if so what action will PINS take?

If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted, what action can the previous owners of the site, which were the subject of a CPO, take?

If the sponsor develops the site as planned but aviation again fails on the site or is only possible on a small scale will the sponsor then be able to develop the site for other purposes including housing, subject to planning consent, or will the site revert to the original owners either fully or partially in this case.
1. "What additional due diligence will PINS carry out with respect to the Manston DCO taking into account the issues I raise in the paragraph above which apply to the sponsor Riveroak Strategic Partners Ltd?"

The tests are the same for every Applicant/ application. In respect of funding, paragraph 18 of government guidance related to procedures for the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of land states that applicants should be able to demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the CA within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of. An application for a DCO that would authorise CA must be accompanied by a Funding Statement which should demonstrate that the above tests are met.

2. “What assurances will PINS demand in order to ensure that the project is actually delivered in accordance with the proposals detailed in the DCO application?”

The Applicant should be able to demonstrate in its application that the authorised development would be expected to provide for or increase the number of aircraft movements by the legislated amount. The extent of the provision for or increase in aircraft movements should be clear from the description of the works in the draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) and the accompanying plans.

If there is doubt as to whether an Applicant will build out a full Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under s23 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) and if the application is accepted the appointed Examining Authority (ExA), if it considered it necessary or appropriate, would be able to explore with/ suggest to the Applicant the possibility of including wording in the dDCO to specify a minimum number of works that when provided could have the effect of increasing aircraft movements. Alternatively, it would be possible for the ExA to ask the Applicant to include a Requirement in the dDCO to specify that particular parts of the development must not be commenced until other enabling infrastructure is provided (eg a sufficient number of aircraft stands must be provided which would be expected to have the effect of increasing the number of aircraft movements to at least 10,000).

Both of these approaches may enable enforcement action to be taken against the Undertaker if there were to be a breach of the terms of the made DCO or a failure to comply with the terms of the DCO (offences under s161 of the PA2008).

3. “Will PINS monitor the progress of the project should the application be successful?”

No. Under the PA2008 there are no statutory functions for the Planning Inspectorate in respect of monitoring the progress of development. Any mechanisms by which the delivery of an NSIP would monitored, and by whom that monitoring would be undertaken, will need to be secured in the DCO. Requirements scheduled to a DCO routinely establish Discharging Authorities which must agree in writing for before certain plans are finalised or works carried out. Typically the Discharging Authority is either the relevant local authority or the Secretary of State.

4. “What action will PINS take if the project is not delivered to the scale and timescale specified in the application?”

The Planning Inspectorate will not take action. See response to questions 2 and 3, above.

5. “If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted is this acceptable or will PINS take action and if so what action will PINS take?”

The Planning Inspectorate will not take action. See above answers.

6. “If the sponsor partially develops the site and operates an airport at a much smaller scale than the plans submitted, what action can the previous owners of the site, which were the subject of a CPO, take?”

If the terms of a DCO are breached by the Undertaker, enforcement action under Part 8 of the PA2008 may be taken.

7. “If the sponsor develops the site as planned but aviation again fails on the site or is only possible on a small scale will the sponsor then be able to develop the site for other purposes including housing, subject to planning consent, or will the site revert to the original owners either fully or partially in this case.”

If CA powers are granted, and following service of notice to treat (or a general vesting declaration), the ownership of the lands in question will have transferred to the named Undertaker. Failure by the Undertaker to deliver the full NSIP would not necessitate the transfer of the lands back to the original owner.

If CA powers are granted but the associated time limit established in the DCO expires, notice to treat (or a general vesting declaration) can no longer be served ie the lands/ rights cannot transfer to the named Undertaker.

Where a person with an interest in the order lands objects to the CA of their land/ rights, at the Examination stage they are entitled to make representations to the appointed ExA to establish their objection (in consideration of the tests set out in the PA2008 eg s122, s123 etc). Any objections will be considered by the ExA in making its recommendation to the Secretary of State about whether the CA powers sought in the DCO should be granted.

23 March 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Our concern is with the impact that RiverOaks’ proposed development of the currently redundant airport site as a n international air cargo hub would have on the historic character and heritage of the town with its four conservation areas and over 440 listed buildings, including several Grade 1s.

You will see from our response to the last round of consultation we expressed dismay at the ‘scoping out’ of Ramsgate from the assessment of the Historic Environment due to it lying just beyond 1km from the airport boundary. We accordingly get just a one sentence mention in the consultants PEIR (at para 9.6.16).

I am writing to request that you require RSP to extend their assessment of the Historic Environment to take account of the indirect effects of their proposal on Ramsgate, its listed buildings, conservation areas and its rich heritage.
Until an application has been received and accepted for examination, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has no views on the merits or acceptability of any Proposed Development.

The Inspectorate received a Scoping Request in respect of the proposed Manston Airport development in June 2016 and adopted a Scoping Opinion on behalf of the Secretary of State in August 2016. You can view the document here: [attachment 1]. We would draw your attention to paragraphs 3.36 to 3.37 and 3.76 to 3.80 of the report which consider heritage assets.

Scoping is a voluntary process. There is no requirement for RiverOak Strategic Partners to undertake Scoping and the Inspectorate has no authority to compel an applicant to do so.

As part of the Scoping process the Inspectorate consults the ‘Consultation Bodies’ that are defined in Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended). The consultation included Historic England, Kent County Council and Thanet District Council, who are responsible for dealing with heritage matters at a national, regional and district level. The Inspectorate is not required to consult any other bodies and does not do so.

With respect to the adequacy of the consultation process, if you consider that there are issues with the consultation process you should notify your local authority, who would be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation in the event that an application is submitted to the Inspectorate. Should an application be made and accepted for examination, you may also wish to consider registering as an Interested Party to the examination process to raise your specific historic environment concerns. More information about how and when you will be able to have your say is provided in our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

21 March 2018
The Ramsgate Society - Nigel Phethean
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I’m reliably informed that your advice to developers is that: "“For the pre-application consultation process, applicants are advised to include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project… The key issue is that the information presented must provide clarity to all consultees.”

Once again, I must complain that clarity is the very last thing that we, as residents, have been provided with.

My understanding is that RSP is obliged to produce a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sets out what effect their cargo airport is going to have on our health and our life expectancy. They have completely failed to do this. At 1.1.91 of the PEIR, RSP says: “The health-related effects are not (my emphasis) assessed here as the HIA analysis has not been finalised and its results are unavailable."
This means that we are being consulted but that RSP is not giving us the information to help us to assess whether or not we're happy with the health implications of the project. RSP is intending to submit its HIA with its DCO application. This means we won't be allowed to consult on it as we don't get to consult at that stage. This surely represents a failure to comply with the requirements of the consultation process. As residents, our health and wellbeing is vital to us, arguably the most important area on which we should be consulted and renders this latest consultation flawed in this most fundamental aspect.

I have written on other aspects of the flawed nature of RSP’s consultations. I, together with many similarly irate residents, feel that RSP is deliberately avoiding proper consultation, most particularly on those aspects of their plans that would have the most damaging impact on the health and wellbeing of residents.
Until an application has been received and accepted for examination, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has no views on the merits or acceptability of any Proposed Development.

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI)
The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations 2017) refers to PEI as information that:
(a) Has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) Is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).

If you are of the view that this information has not been provided, you should notify your local authority in relation to the adequacy of consultation. Relevant local authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation to the Inspectorate, as set out in our previous advice to you:

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

You may also wish to consider registering as an Interested Party should an application be made and accepted for examination. For information about how and when you can have your say, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 3]

Health impact assessment
We note your comments regarding health impact assessment (HIA). There is no requirement under the EIA Regulations 2017 to prepare a stand-alone HIA. Schedule 4 Section 4 of the Regulations requires “4. A description of the factors specified in regulation 5(2) likely to be significantly affected by the development: population, human health….”. It is for the Applicant to decide how to provide this information, which may be in the form of a separate HIA or integrated into the Applicant’s Environmental Statement (eg as part of noise and vibration and air quality assessments amongst other topics). This information would need to be provided with any application for development consent made to the Inspectorate.

21 March 2018
Cllr. Susan Kennedy
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What would be helpful to all involved in this process and particularly the large number of people who are concerned about the possibility of night flights, would be if you could confirm the following.

The inclusion of night flights is purely at the discretion of the applicant and it is not a requirement that PINS insists is included in the documentation to support a Development Consent Order "DCO". It is for the applicant alone to decide whether or not it's operation of the airport requires the inclusion of night flights or not. If an applicant included in the documentation supporting a DCO application a categoric statement that "Other than in the case of unplanned emergency situations outside of its control there would be no night flights required at Manston Airport" this would be acceptable within the DCO process, would be acceptable to PINS, would not prejudice the acceptance of the application for examination, would not prevent the project being considered to be one of Nationally Strategic Importance and would not predjudice any decision to be made by the Secretary of State.
At present the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has not received an application for a Development Consent Order for the Proposed Development at Manston Airport. In absence of an application, we are unable to comment on any proposed night flights requirements that the Applicant may apply for as part of an application for development consent. Any application including night flights must include an assessment of likely significant effects associated with night flights and that such an assessment should be based on appropriate parameters taking into account relevant uncertainty including any applicable worst case scenario. This advice has been duplicated in response to a several enquiries and is available to read in a number of locations under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the project webpage eg: [attachment 1]

As part of its consideration of any future application the Secretary of State must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representation received from a relevant local authority consultee. If you have concerns regarding the consultation process, if you have not done so already we would advise that you contact your local authority with any representations regarding the adequacy of the consultation process carried out by the Applicant.

21 March 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you tell me what action you will be taking to correct the impression that I believe Sir Roger Gale has created of your departments supportive position regarding aviation at Manston Airport?
The Inspectorate is the government agency responsible for operating the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Our core principles are openness, transparency and impartiality, and the Inspectorate will make its recommendations to the Secretary of State in a fair, open and timely way. The Inspectorate has no view on the acceptability or merits of any Proposed Development prior to submission of an application. Once an application is received it is processed in accordance with the provisions set out in the of the Planning Act 2008. If an application is accepted, the Examination stage affords everybody the opportunity to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority about the merits of a Proposed Development. For information about how and when you can have your say, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

21 March 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
Will there be a requirement on the applicant to notify interested parties of a DCO submission?
There are no provisions in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) which require an applicant (or anybody else) to notify about the submission of an application. The first statutory post-submission notification that is carried out is under s56 of the Planning Act 2008. Section 56 sets out the notification requirements placed on applicants in the event that an application for development consent is accepted for examination.

Notwithstanding the above, upon receipt of an application the relevant project page on the National Infrastructure Planning website will acknowledge the submission and explain that the 28 day Acceptance stage is engaged, giving the deadline by which an acceptance decision must be made.

21 March 2018
Nigel Phethean
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I'm writing to you regarding my concerns over the proposed plans for a Cargo Hub at Manston Airport put forward by Riveroak Strategic Partners (RSP). And more importantly the night flight situation that will see more than 16 flights a night, every night of the year.

I've been made aware that there has been a period of consultation but I believe that process was flawed because as a resident of Ramsgate and directly under the proposed flight path, I've had no formal and written notice of it taking place? Was this information posted through resident's doors? How was it made available? How were people informed of the meetings and how frequent were the meetings? Allowing people who live but work in London, as I do, to attend.

I have seen various pieces of documentation on social media that gave no clear answers to people's very direct and concerning questions.

I believe for any pre-application consultation process applicants are advised to include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project… in that the information presented must provide clarity to all consultees. I don't believe I've seen anything that clearly states what impact the cargo hub and night flights will have on the town of Ramsgate, it's residents and indeed the environment.

As part of this process RSP is obliged to produce a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sets out what effect their cargo airport is going to have on our health and our life expectancy. RSP has failed to do this. At 1.1.91 of the PEIR, RSP says: “The health-related effects are not assessed here as the HIA analysis has not been finalised and its results are unavailable." With insufficient evidence, how are we to make an informed decision?

This means that we are being consulted but that RSP is not giving us the information to help us to assess whether or not we're happy with the health implications of the project. RSP is intending to submit its HIA with its DCO application... which means we won't be allowed to consult on it as we don't get to consult at that stage.

This simply isn't good enough.

Conversely, there is a wealth of evidence that demonstrates that living near an airport is bad for your health.

On another note, there is the issue of how the airport will receive the fuel for the cargo planes. Again I've seen documentation on social media, but not been formally advised of how this will work. What I've seen so far is a very negative response from the Road Haulage Association:

On 31st January 2018, a spokesperson for the Road Haulage Association, talking about Operation Stack, said of the old airport site at Manston:

“It’s a completely unsuitable location as the road network in that part of Kent is not geared up to accommodating hundreds of HGVs.”

In Table 3.8 RSP estimates that the HGV movements associated with a cargo business of 257,000 tonnes will total 38,072 HGVs a year in Year 20. This lacks all credibility. East Midlands Airport, handling 300,000 tonnes of freight p.a., estimates that it has 500 HGVs a day, i.e. 182,500 HGV movements a year. These actuals demonstrate that RSP is misleading the public when it estimates that a similar tonnage can be shifted in and out of Manston with 21% of the HGV traffic. RSP needs to rethink these numbers and tell the public exactly what this could mean for us, the local area and a road network that the Road Haulage Association says is not geared up to hundreds of HGVs."

And finally, in 2012, Thanet District Council conducted a survey which showed that 73% of residents were opposed to night flights. How much weight have you given this finding? Why are we not being listened to? Why are residents having to trawl through social media and Facebook groups for answers? Why are TDC not stepping in to support and help residents understand the impact of such a proposal?

This really is a sorry state of affairs. The handful of jobs that would be created at Manston, and it really would be a handful, bears no comparison to the huge detrimental impact this will have on the town. I cannot see who benefits from this proposal other than Riveroak Strategic Partnership. To allow this to go ahead would be the final nail in the coffin for Thanet.
Adequacy of consultation
We note your comments regarding the consultation process. If an application is submitted, relevant local authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) to the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to any AoCRs received when taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination. For more information please read our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

We would therefore advise that you contact your local authority with any representations regarding the adequacy of the consultation process carried out by the Applicant.

Health impact assessment
We note your comments regarding health impact assessment (HIA). There is no requirement under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations 2017) to prepare a stand-alone HIA. Schedule 4 Section 4 of the Regulations requires “4. A description of the factors specified in regulation 5(2) likely to be significantly affected by the development: population, human health….”. It is for the Applicant to decide how to provide this information, which may be in the form of a separate HIA or integrated into the Applicant’s Environmental Statement.

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI)
The EIA Regulations 2017 refers to PEI as information that:
(a) Has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) Is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).

If you are of the view that this information has not been provided, you should notify your local authority in relation to the adequacy of consultation, as advised above. You may also wish to consider registering as an Interested Party should an application be made and accepted for examination. For information about how and when you can have your say, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

The Applicant will need to provide its assessment of effects on human health as part of any application for development consent made to the Inspectorate.

Weight given to findings
At present the Inspectorate has not received an application for a Development Consent Order from the Applicant, and therefore has no view (positive or negative) on either the acceptability of any application or the merits of any application that may be forthcoming. Should an application be made and accepted for examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns during the examination process, as advised above.

21 March 2018
Julie Anderson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I recently (03.02.18) discovered that there is a request for a 24/7 freight hub at Manston Airport! Not only have I only just been made aware of this, which came from a social conversation (not from, as I now know is RiverOak (RSP)), but I also discover I have the ability to make comment, but BY THE 18th of February!! I live in St Nicholas at Wade, West of the runway, where the approach flight path for runway 10 passes directly overhead.

As there is now insufficient time for me to gain a detailed view from the 3,000+ pages that are online (now I have found them at [attachment 1] ), I have skimmed through it to ensure I can forward my comments in time, so these may not be my full and complete views on the proposal.

I have recently engaged with my Parish Council and can confirm that there has been no pre-application consultation communication with them. I have also spoken to many residents from our near 1,000 strong village, and despite being the last village before the runway to the West in the flight path, this village has had no notification, information or contact regarding this consultation.

My understanding is that Government advice for pre-application consultation is that applicants should “include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project…”. Therefore, RSP is obliged to produce a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that sets out what effect their freight hub is going to have on our health, wellbeing and life expectancy, which they have completely failed to do. At 1.1.91 of the PEIR, RSP says: “The health-related effects are not assessed here as the HIA analysis has not been finalised and its results are unavailable."

In RSP’s own “Pre-consultation document dated July 2016” ([attachment 2] ), it states “
RiverOak takes its responsibility to assess, manage and mitigate any environmental impact from Manston Airport extremely seriously and has commissioned a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment to understand the effects of constructing and operating a redeveloped Manston Airport”.

How can I fully either support or oppose this, if RSP is not giving the information, not only that is required, but also that they committed to do, to help, me or anyone else assess whether or not there may be health implications from this project. If RSP intend to submit its Health Impact Assessment with its DCO application, how is this inclusive and how does this allow affected residents to make an informed judgement.

Surely this is a failure to comply with the requirements of the consultation process. As residents whose health and well-being would be affected, should this be approved! We are arguably one of the most important areas that should be consulted with and therefore renders this latest consultation flawed in this most fundamental aspect.

In Thanet District Councils (TDC) Draft Local Plan (A – Thanet Preferred Options and before the CPO was deemed not possible by TDC- [attachment 3];partid=6053940&sessionid=&voteid=), in Section 16.36 of the Aircraft Noise and Noise Sensitive Development, it states that “There is currently a degree of uncertainty regarding future aircraft noise levels at the airport, therefore the Council will adopt a precautionary approach in relation to aircraft noise and will continue to apply the contour predictions which formed the basis for the previous Local Plan”. To rely on the previous noise report, suggests that at present, even TDC do not have confirmed or updated evidence of the potential noise levels that could be applied should ‘night time period’ flights be granted.

I feel that RSP is deliberately avoiding proper consultation, most particularly on the areas of their plans that would have the most damaging impact on the health and well-being of me and other residents.

How can any significant development that would have an effect on health and well-being (evidence already exists to verify that such an operation would), get approval when one of the most important parts of the consultation (which I wasn’t aware of anyway), does not even exist.
Until an application has been received and accepted for examination, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has no views on the merits or acceptability of any Proposed Development.

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) and adequacy of consultation
The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations 2017) refers to PEI as information that:
(a) Has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) Is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).

If you are of the view that this information has not been provided, you should notify your local authority in relation to the adequacy of consultation. If an application is submitted, relevant local authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) to the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to any AoCRs received when taking its decision about whether to accept an application for examination. For more information please read our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 4]

Health impact assessment
We note your comments regarding health impact assessment (HIA). There is no requirement under the EIA Regulations 2017 to prepare a stand-alone HIA. Schedule 4 Section 4 of the Regulations requires “4. A description of the factors specified in regulation 5(2) likely to be significantly affected by the development: population, human health….”. It is for the Applicant to decide how to provide this information, which may be in the form of a separate HIA or integrated into the Applicant’s Environmental Statement (eg as part of noise and vibration and air quality assessments amongst other topics). This information would need to be provided with any application for development consent made to the Inspectorate and would be considered at examination, if an application was accepted for examination.

Night flights
At present the Inspectorate has not received an application for a Development Consent Order for the Proposed Development at Manston Airport. In absence of an application, we are unable to comment on any proposed night flights requirements that the Applicant may apply for as part of an application for development consent. Any application including night flights must include an assessment of likely significant effects associated with night flights and that such an assessment should be based on appropriate parameters taking into account relevant uncertainty including any applicable worst case scenario. This advice has been duplicated in response to a several enquiries and is available to read in a number of locations under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the project webpage eg: [attachment 5]

21 March 2018
MJ Feekings
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 March 2018
Peter Bateson
Enquiry received via email
In view of the confusion between your two statements and in view of the guidance repeatedly issued by the Government and the courts on the scope of the general principle in s6 of the 1998 Act, I am asking you to clarify the view of the Planning Inspectorate. It is clear from advice received by No Night Flights that the Planning Inspectorate, along with all other Government and public authorities, is bound by and must comply with s6 of the 1998 Act. Acceptance by you of this application (should it be made) for a DCO is not a neutral act. It will have serious implications for local landowners and residents. Our advice is that your obligation is to act compatibly with the Convention rights as set out in s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) in taking that decision. Perhaps you would be good enough to set out very clearly for us why you think that this is not the case.
The Planning Inspectorate is not disputing that in carrying out its functions in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) it is bound to act compatibly with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA1998).

Sections 37 and 55 of the PA2008 set out what the Secretary of State (SoS) can take into account in deciding whether or not to accept an application, and this a matter of fact. Whilst these sections do not specifically refer to the HRA1998 the Planning Inspectorate considers that the process of preparing an application (incumbent on applicants) and considering the application both at the Acceptance and Examination stages (incumbent on the SoS), in accordance with the PA2008, is compliant with the HRA1998.

Before an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the PA2008 requires applicants to notify members of the public (including those whose interests may be affected) about a proposed application and to carry out consultation. These duties placed on applicants provide consultees with the opportunity to make their views about a proposed development known to an applicant. At the Acceptance stage the Planning Inspectorate tests whether an application is of a satisfactory standard, and whether the applicant has carried out consultation in accordance with the PA2008, including how it has had regard to relevant consultation responses and whether statutory guidance has been followed. The Planning Inspectorate can only accept an application if these statutory requirements are met, which ensures compatibility with the HRA1998 (including Article 6).

If an application is accepted for examination, anybody can register to become an Interested Party and participate in the process, making their views about a proposed development known. These views will be taken into account by the appointed Examining Authority and ultimately the relevant SoS. This inclusive principle, underpinned by the provisions in the PA2008, also ensures compliance with the HRA1998.

15 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I suspect this is just another example of misinformation but I would be grateful if you could confirm my suspicions. According to this person the planning inspectorate has ruled that the site of the former, failed airport at Manston must remain as an airport, irrespective of the fact that the local plan has long expired. It is said that it must remain as an airport until the Secretary of State rules otherwise.

This is an interesting position because the legal owners of the site say that they are due to submit a planning application for a mixed development of the site later this month. If the planning inspectorate has ruled that it must remain as an airport, the legal owners would be wasting their time submitting their application. The outcome would already have been determined.
As you will be aware Thanet DC’s extant development plan comprises, in part, saved policies from the Thanet Local Plan 2006. Chapter 2 of the extant plan in part deals with the airport site. Until such time as a new local plan is published, examined and adopted, the extant plan is the development plan for Thanet. For further clarification about planning policy in Thanet and the Local Development Scheme, please check the council’s website or contact the council directly.

My presumption is that the ‘ruling’ to which you refer is the independent Inspector’s decision in respect of the four ‘Lothian Shelf’ appeals at the airport site. The Inspector’s decision in this case is available to view on the Appeals Casework Portal, here: [attachment 1]

13 March 2018
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via phone
response has attachments
Query regarding the submission of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation.
Re. our conversation earlier today - Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) looks like a good place to start to get an idea about how the views of different authorities have been expressed in AoC Reps ie the breadth of positive/ negative/ neutral responses in respect of compliance with ss42, 47 and 48 at a glance all appear to be covered.

The s55 checklist for TTT should adequately signpost you to the AoC Reps covering the areas of specific interest to TDC (section 3.2 onward): [attachment 1]

All of the AoC Reps are searchable and available to read in the ‘Documents’ tab in the usual way.

12 March 2018
Thanet District Council - Iain Livingstone
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can the preapplication stage continue in perpetuity?

Are there circumstances where pins can cause the applicant to withdraw the application?

In terms of the deprivation issues relating to some parts of Ramsgate that are on the direct flight path (within 1 to 4 km of the end of the runway) and are also some of the most deprived wards in the uk, is there anywhere the local community could look for expert support during the preapplication and application stages?

Have there been any other DCO applications that have significant similarities to the Manston one, that I could look at in terms of comparative guidance?
“Can the preapplication stage continue in perpetuity?”
Please see my response to you dated 5 January 2018 within which I have already provided an answer to this question: [attachment 1]

“Are there circumstances where pins can cause the applicant to withdraw the application?”
The Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to withdraw an application. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted for examination, it can only be:
• withdrawn by the Applicant; or
• decided, following due process, by the relevant Secretary of State.

“In terms of the deprivation issues relating to some parts of Ramsgate that are on the direct flight path (within 1 to 4 km of the end of the runway) and are also some of the most deprived wards in the uk, is there anywhere the local community could look for expert support during the preapplication and application stages?”

Any expert/ legal advice sought in respect of an application for development consent would need to be procured by an individual/ interest group or organisation by conventional means. Alternatively you could contact Planning Aid which offers free independent, professional advice and support to individuals and local communities wishing to engage in the planning process: [attachment 2]

“Have there been any other DCO applications that have significant similarities to the Manston one, that I could look at in terms of comparative guidance?”

There have been no previous applications for development consent made under s23 of the Planning Act 2008. However, most applications for development consent will share similarities, to a greater or lesser extent, in respect of the most common issues examined across the breadth of NSIP development.

For decided applications a good place to start in identifying the main issues that influenced an Examining Authority’s (ExA) consideration of the case for development consent is, in each case, the respective ExA’s report to the Secretary of State (SoS) and the subsequent decision and statement of reasons issued by the SoS. ExA reports may assist in demonstrating to you, and other members of the local community, how individuals and interest groups can most helpfully and effectively make representations to an examination. Examples of reports and decisions associated with all decided NSIP applications are available to read on our website.

08 March 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I was relieved to receive your confirmation that there are no provisions in the Planning Act which would prevent you from acting compatibly with the Convention Rights.

I would also, respectfully, agree that the Examining Authority will be bound to consider the various human rights issues, should this application get to that stage.

My point is that the decision to accept the application for examination is also an act to which section 6 of the Human Rights Act applies.

It follows that you are bound to consider whether your decision to accept this application may infringe upon the Convention rights and, if so, whether that infringement is justified.

The law does not appear to give you the option of simply deferring consideration of these issues until the Examination stage. Acting compatibly with the Convention rights means not infringing on people's rights if that can be avoided – and it means striving to find ways to avoid harming the rights of others if at all possible.

In this instance you can avoid harming the rights of others, and indeed the rights of the owners of the airfield, by not accepting this application for Examination.

We are asking you to look at the facts regarding the impact of your decision upon the property rights of the airfield's owners and upon people in the affected area in the light of the justification that will need to be made in terms of the national interest.

Whilst one might ordinarily expect such issues to be deferred to the Examination stage, there are special considerations surrounding this application which require substantive attention now if you are not to act incompatibly with the Convention rights. The key point here is that it ought already be plain to you that this application could not reasonably be regarded as likely to justify incursion on people’s rights because the project is in the national interest.

For example, it is plain now from the weight and quality of evidence from multiple sources, that the applicant will not be able to supply the Secretary of State with plausible evidence of national economic benefit. We say that it cannot be lawful under s6 of the 1998 Act to harm people’s rights by accepting the application without at least a plausible prospect that the applicants will be able to meet the basic test in terms of Article 8.

You have also been made aware of the incorrigibly flawed basis for the applicant's economic case. This case has now been dismissed as mistaken by the authors of the source on which the applicants purport primarily to rely. The applicant’s economic case has been exposed by multiple credible sources as demonstrably very seriously defective in methodology and as regards its evidential base. You are already aware that this hopeless material is at the heart of the application. How could it be right to harm people’s basic rights by proceeding to the next stage on the basis material which it is already clear is so lacking in merit?

We say that it is relevant, at the stage where you decide whether or not to intrude upon people’s rights, to consider what evidence you have that this proposal meets any identified national need. The fact is that neither the Government nor any of its advisers appointed to review aviation needs has identified Manston as required as part of any national strategy. The significance here is that you as the public authority begin with no indication whatsoever of a national interest against which you could reasonably contemplate sacrificing the rights of others. What you have are the opinions offered by an offshore investment company, of uncertain identity and motivation.

The serious problems we identify constitute real and immediate reasons why it is not reasonable in human rights terms to accept the application for examination. These should be viewed in the context of recent rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the plight of victims of aviation development and regarding the Courts’ interpretation of human rights and European law so as to provide effective protection and remedies.

You will also be aware of the criticisms made by the local authority (and by this organisation as well as by many others) of the inadequacy of the statutory consultation carried out by the applicant. This matter is also relevant to your immediate obligations regarding human rights because you would, by accepting the application, allow the applicant to escape some of his preliminary responsibilities regarding the environmental impact information rights bestowed upon us by the European Union.

Finally, we are confused by your comment about the effectiveness of the remedies available under the 2008 Act in respect of harm ensuing from a decision to accept this application for examination. What compensation would be available to individual residents of Thanet for a fall in the property values following such a decision? Who would be liable to pay it?
Sections 37 and 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) set out what can be taken into account at the Acceptance stage. Neither section makes reference to the consideration of human rights. The consideration of human rights is part of the decision-making process at the Examination stage (and later when the relevant Secretary of State makes his or her final decision). In order for the decision-making process to comply with human rights law, an appointed Examining Authority (ExA) needs to be fully appraised of the details of the Proposed Development and to seek the views of all Interested Parties, including the Applicant. There is no mechanism in the PA2008 by which this can be achieved at or before the Acceptance stage, which is prior to the appointment of the ExA and the start of the Examination.

On that basis the Planning Inspectorate does not consider that it is bound by the PA2008 to consider the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 at the Acceptance stage.

You imply that there are ‘special considerations’ surrounding the emerging application by RSP. The Planning Inspectorate does not agree with this statement as all applications received by the Planning Inspectorate involve development which has impacts, to a greater or lesser degree, which need to be taken into account before a decision is made. The proposed application by RSP is, and will in future, be treated in the same way as all other applications for development consent.

The ‘national economic benefit’ and ‘viability’ of the Proposed Development (and any other matters which relate to the merits of the application) will also be considered by the appointed ExA during the Examination stage. Part of the decision-making process at Examination is to assess the effects a proposed development might have on individuals who make representations and to weigh these against the wider public interest. The balancing of the rights of these individuals and the wider public interest cannot be carried out without a full consideration of the facts and circumstances, taking into account the views of all parties. That is why the PA2008 provides for the Examination stage which affords everybody the opportunity to make representations to an ExA about the merits of a proposed development.

In consideration of your comments about ‘national need’ I can only reiterate my previous advice that development which constitutes an NSIP is a matter of fact, as set out in Part 3 of the PA2008. It is not prerequisite for an ‘national strategy’ (or indeed a National Policy Statement) to be in place in order for an application for development consent to be made, examined and decided.
In respect of the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, as you will be aware host and boundary authorities will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) if/ when the application is submitted. The Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must have regard to any AoCRs received in taking its decision about whether an application can be accepted for examination.

I apologise that my statement in respect of the compensation provisions in the PA2008 was confusing. You stated in your email of 24 February 2018 that:
“We understand the points that you make about the statutory provisions for dealing with some aspects of property blight. However, and as you yourself concede [my emphasis], these provisions are of limited scope and certainly do not constitute an effective remedy for the infringements that would be bound to take place if you proceed to the acceptance stage with this application.”
The intention of the statement in my response dated 1 March 2018 “We do not consider that the compensation provisions in the PA2008 provide an ineffective remedy where applications are made under the PA2008 for NSIPs” was to establish that nowhere have I conceded that the blight provisions in the PA2008 are an ineffective remedy.

In respect of the impact of any proposed development on property values, I refer you to the guidance on planning in general: Planning Practice Guidance ‘Determining a planning application’; in particular paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 21b-008-20140306: [attachment 1]

08 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Could pins get their own itc department to look at the way the documents were published, particularly in terms of the deliberately making the documents difficult to use?

I think this constitutes a deprivation accessibility issue, which should be addressed properly now and I wish to complain that this hasn’t happened, I feel that pins and all government departments should be proactively addressing depravation and should like your view on this issue.

In view of the size and scope of the project and its effects could you kindly set out how the issue of compensation for time spent on responding repeatedly and property blight will be addressed, both in terms of time scale and how to apply for it.
As you are aware, if an application is submitted, this and your previous correspondences can be considered by the Secretary of State in addition to the statutory acceptance tests.

“Could pins get their own itc department to look at the way the documents were published, particularly in terms of the deliberately making the documents difficult to use?”

The Planning Inspectorate cannot test the adequacy of an applicant’s consultation until an application is submitted to it. The means by which the adequacy of consultation can be tested are set out in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008).

“I think this constitutes a deprivation accessibility issue, which should be addressed properly now and I wish to complain that this hasn’t happened, I feel that pins and all government departments should be proactively addressing depravation and should like your view on this issue.”

See above answer. Note in addition that at the Acceptance stage the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which the Applicants has had regard to government’s ‘Planning Act 2008: guidance on the pre-application process’: [attachment 1]. Evidence in this regard should be provided by the Applicant in its Consultation Report.

“In view of the size and scope of the project and its effects could you kindly set out how the issue of compensation for time spent on responding repeatedly and property blight will be addressed, both in terms of time scale and how to apply for it.”

The PA2008 regime recognises that a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) may create blight reducing land values. Section 175 of the PA2008 amends Schedule 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable owner occupiers to serve a blight notice on the Secretary of State (SoS) requiring the SoS to purchase their property in certain circumstances. These are where a National Policy Statement (NPS) identifies a particular location as a potentially suitable location for an NSIP (there is no NPS in this case) or if land is blighted by an application being made for a Development Consent Order authorising the Compulsory Acquisition of the owner occupier’s land or from such authorisation being given.

Separately, any interference with private interests may give rise to a right to make a relevant claim. For further information see FAQ14 in our Community Consultation FAQs and government guidance relating to Compulsory Acquisition procedures:

• [attachment 2]
• [attachment 3]

In respect of “compensation for time spent responding”, there is no mechanism through which this can be claimed at the Pre-application stage of the process. For details of the applicable costs regime after an application has been accepted for examination, I refer you to government’s ‘Awards of costs: examinations of applications for development consent orders’: [attachment 4]

06 March 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly clarify if it is the Planning Inspectorate's considered view that the provisions you mention in the Planning Act 2008 oust the duty placed on you as a public authority by s6 of the Human Right Act 1998?

Government guidance emphasises that all public authorities are at all times bound by s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, unless some specific provision of primary legislation requires otherwise, or cannot be re-interpreted compatibly with the Convention rights.

It would be a very serious matter if your governing legislation prevented you from acting compatibly with basic human rights.

Our argument in outline is that the act by PINS of accepting RSP's application for examination would impinge upon our property rights under article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, read with Article 8.

We point out that there is no statement of Government policy that identifies Manston as nationally significant in infrastructure terms. We also draw your attention to multiple and authoritative evidence that demonstrates conclusively that an economic case for the DCO cannot be made out. We say that, in these circumstances, there can be no justification for PINS interfering with our property rights by accepting RSP’s application for consideration. We point out that to do so would be to act incompatibly with the Convention rights and thus to act unlawfully under s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

We understand the points that you make about the statutory provisions for dealing with some aspects of property blight. However, and as you yourself concede, these provisions are of limited scope and certainly do not constitute an effective remedy for the infringements that would be bound to take place if you proceed to the acceptance stage with this application.

Of course it is open to you to reject our argument, but it would seem totally wrong, and unsafe for you, to refuse to consider it.

So far as we can see, you would be acting in breach of the Human Rights Act if you refused to consider whether you are acting compatibly with the Convention rights before accepting RSP’s application for consideration.
The provisions in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) do not oust the provisions in Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA1998), and the Planning Inspectorate does not consider that it is in breach of the HRA1998 when taking decisions about whether or not to accept an application for examination. As explained in my previous email, human rights issues will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

Regarding government policy, there does not need to be a statement of government policy for a Proposed Development to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). The PA2008 sets out which projects are NSIPs. In respect of the economic case for the Proposed Development, viability is also an issue that can only be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

We do not consider that the compensation provisions in the PA2008 provide an ineffective remedy where applications are made under the PA2008 for NSIPs.

06 March 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The attached letter from No Night Flights makes representations concerning the lawfulness of accepting the proposed DCO application given what is known about the business case supporting the application.

It is addressed direct to you because the arguments it contains concern the protection of fundamental human rights, which is a matter for the State and not the developer.

I look forward to hearing your response. Please do contact me if you require any further information.
The matters the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) can consider at the Acceptance stage are set out in s37 and s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008).

For details about how, when and to whom you can object to the Proposed Development, see FAQ 9 in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

Matters relating to environmental information, environmental assessment and the Human Rights Act will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority at the Examination stage; if the application is accepted.

In respect of your comments relating to the housing market, the PA2008 regime recognises that an Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) may create blight reducing land values. Section 175 of the PA2008 amends Schedule 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable owner occupiers to serve a blight notice on the Secretary of State (SoS) requiring the SoS to purchase their property in certain circumstances. These are where a National Policy Statement (NPS) identifies a particular location as a potentially suitable location for an NSIP (there is no NPS in this case) or if land is blighted by an application being made for a Development Consent Order authorising the Compulsory Acquisition of the owner occupier’s land or from such authorisation being given.

Separately, any interference with private interests may give rise to a right to make a relevant claim. For further information see FAQ14 at the above link, and government guidance relating to Compulsory Acquisition procedures: [attachment 2]

23 February 2018
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Post-consultation and project update teleconference
Please see attached meeting note

23 February 2018
RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

21 February 2018
Appolonius Claudius
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

21 February 2018
PJ Brown
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The application, if submitted, will be tested against the provisions set out in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

Helpfully your correspondence, which includes comments about the Applicant’s consultation, is copied to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations about the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, if it is accepted for examination, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Chris Welsh
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Rebekah Smith
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Thank you for your email.

The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected]w.co.uk [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Conor Kelly
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Liz Green
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Fiona Simmons
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Teresa Askew
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if it is found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined, you will be able to make representations about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. See our Advice Note 8 series for detailed advice about how and when to have your say: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Malcolm Kirkaldie
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Canterbury City Council would like to make representations on the current consultation undertaken by RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd.

The City Council has not been consulted by RiverOak SP Ltd as part of this process, which fails to meet the Planning Act 2008 requirements. However we have become aware of the consultation and have therefore been able to respond.

The City Council has concerns regarding the adequacy of the consultation process, in particular whether consultation is in line with the scheme promoter's SoCC. The City Council must be consulted as a neighbouring authority and residents of Herne Bay must be consulted in a full and meaningful way at all stages of the Development Consent Order process.

In relation to the Preliminary Environmental Impact report the City Council requires the full impact of noise and disturbance to residents in Herne Bay, particularly in relation to night flights and proposed type of aircraft, to be comprehensively assessed and fully mitigated, with a robust monitoring regime and sanctions imposed for any breach in night flight or agreed noise parameters.
As a local authority which shares a boundary with Thanet District Council (the lower-tier host authority), Canterbury City Council (CCC) should have been consulted under s42 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008). On that basis the Applicant, RSP, will be required to demonstrate to the Planning Inspectorate in the Consultation Report submitted with its application that CCC was consulted in accordance with the PA2008. If you have not done so already, I would strongly recommend that you correspond directly with RSP to establish the address at CCC to which its s42 notification was sent.

CCC will be invited by the Planning Inspectorate to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoCR) if an application is submitted to it. See our Advice Note Two for more advice about AoCRs: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Canterbury City Council - Cherry Jones
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type.

Please contact the Applicant to seek clarification about any comments made.

19 February 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
I have just received this response from you and am concerned that my email isn't being included as it says ' The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time'. Did my email not arrive on time or am I misinterpreting your email? I sent the original at 1156pm on Friday.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development until the Pre-examination stage, when the period for making ‘Relevant Representations’ to the Inspectorate must be advertised by the Applicant. The Pre-examination stage does not commence until an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted for examination.

At the Pre-application stage of the process, your comments about the merits of the proposal are for the Applicant to consider in preparing its application for submission.

19 February 2018
Rebekah Smith
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please can you explain/reassure me that I have not wasted 20 hours+ on this and that my email will be submitted as a negative response to the recent public consultation process carried out by RSP.
Last Friday’s deadline was imposed by the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP). RSP was carrying out statutory consultation seeking feedback on the substance of its proposed application ie the Proposed Development and its impacts.

Whilst RSP will not have been actively seeking feedback on the consultation ‘process’ in this period, it is correct that you have sent your comments in this respect to RSP for consideration in the first instance.

You also copied your comments about the consultation process to Thanet District Council, which importantly will be able to consider them in making a representation about the adequacy of RSP’s consultation to the Secretary of State if/ when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Amongst other things, the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received from local authorities in taking its decision about whether or not an application can be accepted for examination.

On that basis your commentary about the consultation process is not wasted, and you have taken all of the appropriate steps advised in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Rebekah Smith
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Josephine Canty
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Clare Dove
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate, Thanet District Council and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Mike Collins
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to both the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Chris Lowe
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself. You may also wish to send them to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Pierre and Patricia Jeanrenaud
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Rebecca Wing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Matthew Cumber
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Nikki Hildesley
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Jeni Butler
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Conor Masterson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments directly to the Applicant. You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
John Hanna
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Debra Cluff
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Anna Blasiak
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
Sylvie Bolioli
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 February 2018
Cathy Rogers
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

19 February 2018
C & P Arnold
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Matthew Griffiths
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot accept representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Anthony Howard
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Brian Bushell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

If you have not done so already please also send your comments to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]).

19 February 2018
Michelle Meyer-Masterson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

19 February 2018
Alan Ashby
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

You may wish to send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

17 February 2018
Danika Jarrett
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Greg Shapland
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

16 February 2018
Andrew Taylor
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Peter Borrough
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Steve and Jacqui Ansell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Gillian and Sean Farrell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Ann Scott
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
You enclosed your response to the Applicant’s latest consultation exercise. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

I enclose for your convenience Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination. If having read the Advice Note 8 series you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

16 February 2018
AB Doughty
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

16 February 2018
Mr and Mrs James
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Alan Welcome
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Jonathan Bradley
Enquiry received via email
I and various members of the community of Thanet have been trying to get assurances and evidence to back up claims made by RiverOak Strategic Partners "RSP", Sir Roger Gale MP, Craig Mackinlay MP, various local Cllrs including Robert Bayford, Sam Bambridge, Stuart Piper and Trevor Shonk that night flights will not be required should Manston airport reopen other than in the case of emergency instances.

Despite asking the question absolutely clearly and directly it has still not been possible to get comfort on this issue as the statements made by the above party's, some did not respond at all, were either unclear or deliberately vague when the correct and required response is either yes or no. In addition RSP in their latest limited consultation are now requesting up to 8 flights each night 7 nights a week and in addition a night time quota count of 4000 for cargo operations and 2000 for passenger operations, a greater count than at London Heathrow where I understand, should further expansion be granted, night flights would not be required. How this correlates to statements that night flights are not required or how the QC count level interfaces with a maximum of 8 I am yet to understand and will be seeking clarity from RSP in due course.

As you will have seen from responses to the first consultation some public respondents were told by RSP representatives that there would not be any night flights, some were told they were not in their "current" plans leaving it open for plans in the future to include them. I was told that night flights would be required if customers requested them. At the more recent consultations which, despite the new inclusion of a very large night time quota count and significant new and incredibly important information regarding impacts on health, were only held in two locations with only a few hundred people attending presumably because most thought not much had changed, again answers on this point have been variously reported as unclear or inconsistent between RSP representatives.

I am sure you can understand the confusion and the unwillingness of those concerned about night flights, who are on both sides of the airport/no airport divide, nobody wants them, to rely on statements made by pro airport supporters and Sir Roger Gale that night flights are not required. Even Sir Roger Gales recent statement, which you will have seen, is ambiguous as it says that RSP "neither needs nor wants scheduled night flights that do not fit in with its business plan" quite cleverly worded to ensure that any night flights that do fit in with its business plan would be required, so again not categoric. Again this is inconsistent with RSP current DCO documentation and their request to the Civil Aviation Authority for night flights without limit.

At consultations RSP have advised that they have included night flights because you "PINS" require then to show the worst possible situation. Others including Sir Roger Gale, Craig Mackinlay, various local Cllrs and airport supporters have also made this assertion. You have I think been asked this question before but your reply was not as categoric as it could have been. My interpretation of your reply was that you had not specified that night flights should be included but merely required the applicant to allow in it's application for the worst case scenario within its own specified airport operation framework, so if it wants night flights it should include them but if it doesn't it can exclude them. What would be helpful to all involved in this process and particularly the large number of people who are concerned about the possibility of night flights, would be if you could confirm the following.

The inclusion of night flights is purely at the discretion of the applicant and it is not a requirement that PINS insists is included in the documentation to support a Development Consent Order "DCO". It is for the applicant alone to decide whether or not it's operation of the airport requires the inclusion of night flights or not. If an applicant included in the documentation supporting a DCO application a categoric statement that "Other than in the case of unplanned emergency situations outside of its control there would be no night flights required at Manston Airport" this would be acceptable within the DCO process, would be acceptable to PINS, would not prejudice the acceptance of the application for examination, would not prevent the project being considered to be one of Nationally Strategic Importance and would not predjudice any decision to be made by the Secretary of State.

I think this statement is clear and categoric and is a reflection of what is required within the legal framework surrounding the DCO process and I hope therefore as a statement of fact you are able to make it as publically as possible.
Beyond the acceptance tests applied to a submitted application for airport-related development (as set out in s23 of the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate does not dictate the operational characteristics of airport-related applications made to it. It is for an applicant alone to decide whether or not its airport-related development needs to allow for night flights to be operated.

If an airport applicant intends to operate night flights, its Environmental Impact Assessment will need to include an assessment to identify the likely significant effects arising from those night flights, along with a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset them. If an airport applicant does not intend to operate night flights, or have the option to operate night flights, there will be no need to assess the impact of night flights as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment.

An applicant must submit a draft Development Consent Order (DCO) with its application and the draft DCO must set out the authorised development that the Applicant is seeking consent for. If an applicant chose to do so it could include within a draft DCO for airport-related development provisions which set out, for example, the parameters associated with any night flights that an applicant wishes to operate (eg their frequency, the circumstances under which they may operate etc).

The draft provisions provided in the draft DCO submitted with the application will be subject to examination by the appointed Examining Authority (ExA). Anybody who registers to become an Interested Party at the appropriate time in the Pre-examination period (as advertised by the Applicant) will be able to make representations to the ExA about any of the provisions in the draft DCO. The ExA will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about whether development consent should be granted, and if so, what provisions are to be included in the DCO, including any provisions relating to night flights if the applicant requested these in its application. The Secretary of State will make the final decision on these matters. The authorised development will be prescribed in a Schedule to the DCO, if development consent is granted.

16 February 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Martin Northrop
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Kim Edgington
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Grant Duncan
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

16 February 2018
Susan Duncan
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The qualifying thresholds for an airport-related Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project are set out in section 23 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant will be required to justify in the documentation its position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test in the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, cannot take a view on the Applicant’s approach in this regard until such time as an application is formally submitted and s55 of the PA2008 is engaged.

Regarding the remaining content of your letter, the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

16 February 2018
Christopher Burrows
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

15 February 2018
Jacqui Porter
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
Andrea Slaughter
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mark Heverin
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

More information about how to engage at the Pre-application stage of the process is provided in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Russell F White
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

15 February 2018
Ian Williams
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Please send any comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mr Robbins and Family
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
Fiona Gilhooly
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
MJ Feekings
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Ms Holmans and Mr Thompson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

More information about how to engage at the Pre-application stage of the process is provided in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
J Wales
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
Please contact the Applicant ([email protected] [email protected]) for details about how its three stages of consultation were advertised.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
John Horn
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Steve Gambrell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

15 February 2018
Lindsey Harris
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Ramsgate Society - Wendy and George Arnheim
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Susan Hudson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant ([email protected] [email protected]). Further advice about Community Consultation can be found in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Graham Jackson and Jean White
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Hugh Langston
Enquiry received via email
Could you kindly arrange for the deadline for submission to be delayed as I am having problems opening the Manston Masterplan on the RSP website. I have contacted rsp copied to you but haven’t had a response. I had intended to work on my response this evening and am away tomorrow.
The Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to extend the consultation period.

Please await a response from the Applicant (copied) which, given the difficulty you have encountered, may be able to agree a short bespoke extension for receipt of your representation.

15 February 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have sent your comments about the Applicant’s consultation directly to the Applicant. You may also wish to copy your comments to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Rachel Furlong
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Mr and Mrs Bowley
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

15 February 2018
Liz Langston
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Phil Neale
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a resident o Ramsgate I wish to object to any redevelopment of Manston Airport for airport use and feel their has been a distinct lack of public consultation at every stage of the proposed redevelopment.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Gerard Bane
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Alan Maxted
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
T McElligott
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Ruth Baird
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Andrew Kelly
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Dennis Booth
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Linda Charlesworth
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development and the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Jean Robinson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Patricia Moore
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council (TDC), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

TDC can consider your comments as part of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation. In reaching its decision about whether to accept an application for examination the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), amongst other things, must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by local authority consultees.

14 February 2018
James Chappell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Debbie Blagden
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
Caroline Allum
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Ann Scott
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
Paula Myers
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] manst[email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Denis Smith
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Mrs J Best
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

14 February 2018
Sarah Illingworth
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Steve Lockwood
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Jenny Rath
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Mr M Smith
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you have not done so already please send your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself ([email protected] [email protected]) and to Thanet District Council ([email protected]), as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Susan Robinson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Daniel Woollett
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If having read Advice Note 8 you have any further questions about the process, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Please contact Thanet District Council ([email protected]) with your comments about the Applicant’s consultation, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Mike Lockwood
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

14 February 2018
Davena Green
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

14 February 2018
Tim Spencer
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please see our Community Consultation FAQ for information and advice about commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Marc Danton
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory Consultation and addressed their concerns on the consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself, and to Thanet District Council. For the avoidance of doubt, the Community Consultation FAQ described in my previous advice to you is now published: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Anne Peers
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I wish to add my name to opposing the reopening of Manston Airport as a former resident in Ramsgate. This has dragged on for so many years knowing that an airport is not viable for the area and the job numbers will be insignificant for the Thanet community. It's time/money wasting.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Sarah Brick
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
With reference to the recent consultation by River Oak, on Tuesday 23rd January at The Comfort Inn.

I was deeply disappointed to find out that I and many of the local residents were not informed of this consultation by post or leaflet, and therefore they were unable to voice their opinion on such an important issue that will affect all our lives.

We live on the Nethercourt Estate, which will be greatly affected.
If you have not already done so, please send your comments about the consultation to the Applicant itself: [email protected] [email protected]

For further information and advice about commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation please see our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Tom Norton
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Davena Green
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer queried potential compensation and submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please contact the Applicant directly for advice about any compensation package proposed to be included as part of its application for development consent: [email protected] [email protected]

12 February 2018
Nathan Coldwell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer queried potential compensation and submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
Please see the National Infrastructure Planning website for information about the Planning Inspectorate’s role in the Planning Act 2008 process: [attachment 1]

You will need to contact the Applicant directly for advice about any compensation package proposed to be included as part of its application for development consent: [email protected] [email protected]

12 February 2018
Rob Wimbush
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Sam Smith
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

12 February 2018
Andrew Davis
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, with their consultation response, to the Planning Inspectorate, the Applicant and Thanet District Council.
Helpfully you have copied your comments about the Applicant’s consultation to the Applicant itself and to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations about the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Nigel West
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Helpfully you have sent your comments about the consultation directly to the Applicant. If you have not done so already, you may also wish to send them to Thanet District Council, as per the advice in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

For information about how and when you can make representations about the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate, please see our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Jenny Dawes
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please see our Community Consultation FAQ for information and advice about commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation: [attachment 2]

12 February 2018
Eileen Richford
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

I note you have forwarded your concerns regarding the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to the correct channels: The Applicant and Thanet District Council. For more information on this, please see our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 2]

09 February 2018
James Curran
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

I note you have included comments regarding the Applicant’s 2018 consultation. Please see our published FAQ for information and advice on the correct channels to forward your concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application community consultation: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Gabriel Holland
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation, which included representations regarding the merits of the proposed development, to the Planning Inspectorate.
I note that since your previous correspondence in July 2017, we have published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in the above FAQ. However, as you have included the Applicant and Thanet District Council in your email, they will have already seen your comments.

I also note that your email contains representations regarding the merits of the proposed development. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations at this time; for information about how and when you will be able to do this, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Jane Etherington
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Terry Prue
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time. I do note however, that you have copied in the Applicant and Thanet District Council to your email.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

08 February 2018
Dr Jeremy Gledhill
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand you are interested in the adequacy of the consultation.

So I should like to make it clear that I had thought all this consultation was over and re-inventing the airport was no longer an issue. I was surprised and horrified when friends told me there was yet another consultation by Riveroak - because they still want to have an airport with night flights over our home.

I have seen absolutely NO information about how many night flights they plan. Nor have I seen anything that gives me information about exactly how any of their plans will impact on my health. I also do not know how their plans will affect the tourism industry in Ramsgate, nor the educational achievements of the children of Ramsgate.

During a previous consultation I attended, I received a glossy brochure that didn't appear to have any substantive information. I saw models and photographs and lots of staff. But there was no definitive information about the number of flights, whether day time or at night, etc. I had no way to tell staff that I was opposed to the plan - or, indeed, that I supported it. It seemed to be a show ... and one without audience participation.
The FAQ document below sets out that the correct, tiered process for commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation, if an application is yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, is to first contact the Applicant directly with your concerns regarding the consultation. If you do not receive a satisfactory response, you may wish to forward your concerns to the relevant local authority, to take into consideration as part of their 'Adequacy of Consultation Representation' that the Inspectorate will request once an application has been submitted.

I note that you copied in both the Applicant and relevant local authority - Thanet Borough Council (TBC) - when you emailed your concerns to the Planning Inspectorate. Therefore, you may wish to confirm your concerns with TBC if you do not receive a satisfactory response from the Applicant.

Only once have you forwarded your concerns to both the above parties, and still remain unsatisfied, may you contact the Secretary of State, through the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate can consider your concerns regarding Pre-application consultation in addition to the statutory Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

[attachment 1]

07 February 2018
Mariette Castellino
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We are writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate.
The event itself was not well advertised and many residents and businesses were completely unaware that it was taking place. This is most inadequate given the enormity of the impact it will have on both individuals and the town as a whole. RSP documentation (12.9.68) –“ Considering that the impact is permanent and that a large number of dwellings within communities are subject to moderate or major adverse impacts, significant adverse effects have been identified at the communities of Ramsgate..... The effects would be characterised by a perceived change in the quality of life for the occupants of buildings”.

Given that section 12.9.58 lists Chatham and Clarendon Grammar School as being one of several non-residential receptors identified as being significantly adversely affected by the potential airport, it is totally unacceptable and unimaginable that the school was not contacted by RSP in advance and invited to attend the consultation event. Chatham and Clarendon Grammar School have, however, received no notification or information what-so-ever which is utterly inexcusable and unprofessional.

Christ Church School, which RSP have also identified as being affected by their proposed airport, has not received any information or been contacted by the company either.

We also noticed that RSP appear to have omitted to mention Ramsgate Library as another non-residential building that will suffer from the noise created from the airport and which is all the more incredible since it is being used as the venue for their documents to be made available to the public! The library itself has also not been contacted by RPS and invited to comment on their proposals as an institution in its own right. One has to question how many other public / commercial buildings and spaces have also not been contacted.

In referring to the public buildings that RSP have included, Section 12.9.59 states, “The significant effect will be characterised by potential disruption, disturbance or interference with tasks by the users of the buildings”. These are places of valuable learning, leisure and spiritual activities; they are places in which we learn, read, engage with others, take part in sporting activities, act, sing, pray, talk, think, listen, concentrate and play.

The event itself was inconveniently mid-week (on a Tuesday) which again made it difficult for many to attend. Surely the people of Ramsgate deserve to be given ample opportunity to see for themselves what RSP is intending to inflict upon them and RSP should therefore have made their event run for several days including evenings and weekends. The chosen location was a fairly small room which quickly felt over crowded.

When we asked a direct question to a RSP representative at the Ramsgate event about proposed night flights, she kept replying over and over again “...as I say, we are not ‘planning’ for night flights.” The RSP documentation, however, would suggest that this is not the case as 12.9.69 “During the night time – minor to major adverse impacts are predicted in Ramsgate.” 12.9.70 continues....” The effect would be characterised as a perceived change in the quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities or a perceived change in the acoustic character of shared open spaced within these communities during the night time.” The information given at the consultation therefore felt deliberately misleading, contradictory and the tone was insulting.
We would like to again draw your attention to the fact that in Ramsgate, the combination of the topography of the land, densely packed and often tall, terraced housing means that noise is funnelled down and intensifies. Having lived in this house for 15 years, we know that the noise is extreme and affects us terribly. It is impossible even to continue a conversation with someone in the same room or speak on the telephone when the planes cross. We have also noted that the noise seems less intrusive in the car park of the Manston Tesco, for example, where, despite being nearer to the airport and the planes being even lower, the noise dissipates and is less intense as there is more open space. One really has to question the intentions and integrity of a company who appear to have deliberately avoided drawing attention to their plans from the thousands of inhabitants who might well be some of the most adversely affected.

We also pointed out that every time a plane has crossed our house during night time hours, every member of our family has fully wakened and the children frightened as the noise on the top floor where they sleep is unbearable and terrifying. This contravenes our Human Right to sleep and fails to meet the guidelines set by the world Health Organisation. RSP are now saying that there would be a need a considerable number of night flights between 11pm and 7am. This would have a catastrophic effect on ours and our children’s health, education and well-being.

The alternative proposal for Stone Hill Park would be hugely preferable, providing much needed housing, green space and leisure facilities. We do put it to all concerned, however, that the former Manston Airport Site is a valuable piece of land in the centre of the Isle of Thanet with its stunning beaches and seaside towns, each with its unique character. Surely we can work with imagination and vision to find a use that is inspiring and beneficial to the area as a whole; one that is positive and forward looking, providing varied and high quality work, entertainment and education opportunities and is something to be proud of for locals and visitors alike. Whoever would have thought that a couple of giant greenhouses in a disused quarry in Cornwall would be such a huge success and draw people from all over the world to learn, wonder and celebrate what the Eden Project has to offer? Surely, Thanet deserves better!
Firstly, if you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

I also note that your email contains representations regarding the merits of the proposed development. The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations at this time; for information about how and when you will be able to do this, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

07 February 2018
Mr and Mrs Laven
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation and queried the Planning Inspectorate's advice on the provision for night flights in the proposed development.
Firstly, if you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

The FAQ document above sets out that the correct, tiered process for commenting on an applicant's Pre-application consultation, if an application is yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, is to first contact the Applicant directly with your concerns regarding the consultation. If you do not receive a satisfactory response, you may wish to forward your concerns to the relevant local authority, to take into consideration as part of their 'Adequacy of Consultation Representation' that the Inspectorate will request once an application has been submitted.

I note that you copied in both the Applicant and relevant local authority - Thanet Borough Council (TBC) - when you emailed your concerns to the Planning Inspectorate. Therefore, you may wish to confirm your concerns with TBC if you do not receive a satisfactory response from the Applicant.

Only once have you forwarded your concerns to both the above parties, and still remain unsatisfied, may you contact the Secretary of State, through the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate can consider your concerns regarding Pre-application consultation in addition to the statutory Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

In response to your query regarding the Planning Inspectorate’s advice on provision for night flights, by way of clarification: beyond the acceptance tests applied to a submitted application for airport-related development (as set out in s23 of the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate does not dictate the operational characteristics of airport-related applications made to it.

If an airport applicant intends to operate night flights, its Environmental Impact Assessment will need to include an assessment to identify the likely significant effects arising from those night flights, along with a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset them.

If an airport applicant does not intend to operate night flights, or have the option to operate night flights, there will be no need to assess the impact of night flights as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment.

07 February 2018
James Chappell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer forwarded representations they had sent to their local MP with regard to the proposed development.
Although I note your email was sent to a group, the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

Please note we have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

06 February 2018
Derek Smith
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

05 February 2018
Elaine Stevens
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and queried the suitability of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) consenting process for the Proposed Development.
It is not for the Planning Inspectorate to consider the content of your response to the Applicant’s consultation. For details about how and when you will be able to make representations about the merits of the proposal to the Planning Inspectorate, please see Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 1]

In respect of your comment about the suitability of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, airport development that requires development consent is defined in section 23 of the PA2008. Any application by RiverOak Strategic Partners for a Development Consent Order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in section 55 of the PA2008. Amongst those tests, the application must demonstrate how the thresholds in section 23 of the PA2008 would be met by the authorised development.

05 February 2018
Martin Weller
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

We have also published an FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 2]

05 February 2018
Jean Tedder
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation.
If you have not done so already please provide your comments directly to the Applicant and Thanet District Council.

Since I last advised you we have published a Community Consultation FAQ. In the context of your enquiry please read in particular the advice at FAQ1: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Lesley and Paul Chater
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer forwarded an from Transport for London in response to their request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI-2993-1718).
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Nicolette McKenzie
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer addressed their concerns on the Applicant's 2018 Statutory Consultation.
If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ (see in particular the advice at FAQ1): [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Dr Philip Shotton
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer submitted representations regarding the merits of the proposed development to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of the proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Keith Nicholls
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see below a statement made yesterday by Sir Roger Gale MP regarding Manston airport. I will be grateful if you can confirm the claim within the statement of conclusions drawn by one of your inspectors during the recent change of use application procedure.

"Given the Inspector's comments in July last year when rejecting change of use on four current buildings on Manston and his recognition in his summary of the importance of Manston of a potential force for economic and employment development as an airport in the current local plan (which is why, of course, the Leader of Thanet Council and the minority opposed to the airport wanted to change the plan from Airport to mixed use) it is hard to see that the RiverOak application will not be accepted for examination..."
The Inspector’s decision is available to read on the Appeals Casework Portal, here: [attachment 1]

01 February 2018
Adem Mehmet
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a Ramsgate resident, I am appalled that the creation of a 24/7 cargo hub is even being considered on the old Manston site.

I am not a NIMBY, afraid of the effect on the price of my house. I care deeply about the town and its beautiful natural situation.

A cargo hub would cause noise pollution, the damaging effects of which are widely known, as well as air and sea pollution.

The prospective owners say that water will run off the runway into the sea - a coastline that has a nature reserve, seal sanctuary and many rare sea birds. It CANNOT be allowed to happen.

How cynical of RSP to use images of heritage planes in their posters. There is nothing nostalgic or romantic about cargo planes flying at night, disrupting wildlife, sleep, buildings and a peaceful coastal way of life.

Their claims of creating 30,000 jobs are misleading, to put it politely. Their bristling defence of any concerns over the environment (the word wasn’t mentioned once on any of their shoddy presentation boards at the recent Ramsgate consultation at the Comfort Inn) and dismissal of genuine health concerns as ‘rubbish’ told me everything I needed to know about the lack of care over the issues that greatly concern the majority of residents in Ramsgate and Herne Bay.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

30 January 2018
Christabel Bradley
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I want to offer my voice to the protests regarding the re-opening of Manston Airport.

There has been a massive distortion by the River Oak Strategic Partnership in the interpretation that the attendees at the consultation meetings were in support of their plans to re-open the airport. The people I met were certainly not in support and were in fact very strongly against. Everyone was asked to sign into the meeting and then we are told that the signatures were to show our support of River Oaks plans. Surely this is illegal?

There has also been distortions in the number of jobs that the re-opening will create. It has been quoted by River Oak that this will generate 30,000 local jobs. This would mean Manston was employing more people that Gatwick and Heathrow combined.

There also hasn’t been any data provided regarding the pollution that the airport will create with the flights and the haulage of cargo from the airport.

Please build the houses that we need on this site. It would be a fantastic initiative to help solve the housing crisis in Southern England.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

If you wish to make comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, please do so following the process set out in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 2]

30 January 2018
Jeremy Green
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I, in common with many local residents, am extremely strongly opposed to RSP's plans as hugely detrimental to the commercial and amenity value of Thanet in general and specifically Ramsgate and Herne Bay, popular tourist destinations, which will be particularly blighted should the DCO application be successful. I would be grateful if you could incorporate my views in your assessment of the suitability of RSP's plans.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

29 January 2018
Phil Shotton
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I've explained to you that key details of the proposal are missing from the consultation documentations, rendering any consultation meaningless. You previously told me that all of the information I had talked about would be available in the pre-consultation documentation. What is the point of your meetings with the applicants if you aren't ensuring that they consult properly?

Firstly, I would like to ask if you did tell them to include provision for night flights in their application and, if so, how many night flights did you tell them to include?

Secondly, if you have given them advice on this, how is it that this conversation doesn't feature in any of the minutes of the meetings between the applicants and the Planning Inspectorate? Are conversations taking place which are not minuted or recorded on your web-site?
I have previously explained that the Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to include particular information in its Preliminary Environmental Information, which is defined in Regulation 2 of the 2009 EIA Regulations (and Regulation 12 of the 2017 EIA Regulations). The Inspectorate’s Pre-application service for applicants, which summarises the purpose of applicant meetings, is set out in detail here: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has not advised the Applicant to include provision for night flights in its application. All of the advice issued to the Applicant has been recorded and published to the Inspectorate’s website in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008.

29 January 2018
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What would the complaints procedure be if I considered that the DCO process was being misused?
You will already be aware of the complaints procedure at the Pre-application stage of the process in respect of consultation, as set out in our Community Consultation FAQ: [attachment 1]

You will also be aware that the Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at the Pre-application stage of the process. For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 2]

In respect of making a ‘complaint’ relating to the matter implied, this could be approached in the following ways:

• You could make representations to an appointed Examining Authority, at the appropriate time, about the Applicant’s case for Compulsory Acquisition (CA). Strict statutory tests must be satisfied by an applicant in order for powers relating to the CA of and rights to be included in a Development Consent Order. For more information see government guidance related to procedures for the CA of land: [attachment 3]; and
• Following the issue of the final decision by the Secretary of State, you could challenge the decision in the High Court through the process of Judicial Review (JR). You would need to take your own legal advice about the grounds upon which an application for JR could be made.

Separately, the Planning Inspectorate accepts that it is inevitable that there will sometimes be concerns about the Examination process or the Examining Authority’s report to the Secretary of State. In this respect, we will carefully consider and respond to any matters that you wish to raise. Information about our complaints procedure is available here: [attachment 4]

29 January 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have sent back my views to RSP in their recent emailed form regarding the above matter.

As a resident and also a business person I have the strongest views against this proposal - and I am somewhat bemused that after the previous request by RSP and the subsequent rejection they are back yet again. This time actually acknowledging that they will have night flights carrying cargo across and over the top of a residential and built up town.

This is so WRONG on so many levels:

The pollution effect is distressing alone - the noise, which will only harm peoples health but lack of sleep, the devaluation of the area and businesses- lack of jobs ( honestly how many people would it employ) possibly a handful.

The viability of the cargo hub lets remember its already been used as an airport and it was a dismal failure then - this proposed use will effect, schools, businesses and tourists and impact greatly on the towns of Ramsgate and Herne Bay and all the villages and its residents.

RSP are not people we can trust - they had no idea at the last consultation I attended and when asked various questions, they were literally stabbing in the dark for answers on flight paths etc.

No NO No we do not want a cargo hub here - despite everything Ramsgate is trying to keep its head up and become a pleasant holiday and recreational and viable town -

I have already sent my form to RSP but because I do not trust them I am ccing you all on my strong feelings regarding the proposed scheme.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Christine Isteed
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Susan Hammock
Enquiry received via email
A question, please, about the scope of the environmental impact assessment described in the consultation documents recently issued by RSP.

I note that a scoping opinion was sought from PINS/the Secretary of State prior to the first statutory consultation. But that concerned an environmental assessment which was to be conducted in accordance with legal rules which have now changed. I appreciate that there is considerable overlap between the two sets of regulations. On the other hand, -and as the European Commission explained when the parent law was made - the new law requires a deeper approach to environmental impact.

Reading through the PEIR I have come across a number of important instances where there is a question whether the new Regulations require further or different work by the developer. Air quality, heritage assets, and noise are examples of three areas where such points have arisen. In these instances the question appears quite often to have been resolved in the negative by the developer. They includes cases where the Secretary of State/PINS gave written notice of disagreement with the developer's decisions on "scoping out" under the old regulations.

I think I understand that the developer's judgement is not final and that matters he has ruled out of scope actually remain in scope until and unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise. But the developer's current decisions plainly potentially affect the depth and quality of the consultation. Indeed they risk contradicting the purpose of the new Union law which is to ensure that the public and others are consulted on the basis of a full picture of the significant environmental effects of the developer's plans.

Given that these are new and to some extent untested Regulations, the public interested in the developer consulting you and the local authority about what should be scoped in and scoped out would seem especially strong. Perhaps the developer did so informally?

Could you kindly clarify the position regarding scope and explain how best ordinary members of the public can enjoy the rights intended for them by the new Regulations?
The current consultation being undertaken by the Applicant concerns Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). PEI is described in the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the EIA Regulations 2009) as:

“information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 which—
(a) has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development
(and of any associated development);”

In the revised regulations the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (the EIA Regulations 2017), PEI is described as:
“information referred to in regulation 14(2) which—
(a) has been compiled by the applicant; and
(b) is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development).”

In undertaking consultation on PEI, the Applicant is fulfilling part of their consultation requirements under the EIA Regulations and the Planning Act 2008. This provides the public and consultation bodies the opportunity to comment on the assessment undertaken.

A Scoping Opinion was sought under the EIA Regulations 2009. Scoping is a voluntary process that an Applicant may choose to undertake but is not a legal requirement. The EIA Regulations 2017 included transitional provisions that allow an applicant to continue to progress a project under the EIA Regulations 2009 subject to certain circumstances defined in the regulations. It is for an Applicant to justify which set of regulations they consider they fall under.

With respect to a Scoping Opinion, under the EIA Regulations 2009 an Applicant could request an Opinion as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement. The Applicant should provide this information unless it is able to justify not providing it (e.g. the design of the project has changed therefore the original Scoping Opinion is not fully applicable). The Applicant has not sought a Scoping Opinion under the EIA Regulations 2017.

On submission of an Environmental Statement with a submission for development consent, the Inspectorate will consider whether the Environmental Statement complies with the regulations and is sufficient to be examined.

26 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
How is it that the Planning Inspectorate is giving the possible applicants advice, but the possible applicants keep producing incomplete, opaque and confusing information?
Under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 the Planning Inspectorate may give advice to potential applicants about applying for an order granting development, and to any other person about making representations about a proposed application for development consent. Save for EIA screening/ scoping functions, that is the extent of the Planning Inspectorate’s powers at the Pre-application stage of the process.

Please refer to our Community Consultation FAQ for details about how, and to whom, you should make comments about an applicant’s Pre-application consultation: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent their response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations about the merits of a proposed development at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

26 January 2018
Susan Holton
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As part of the consultation process can you let me know what powers the TDC has to enforce control on night flights? Also, what plans will TDC have in place to monitor health of us residents to assess the impact of night flights on blood pressure and sleeplessness? Has World Health Organisation data been consulted to assess risk on local population health by runway and aircraft activity?
Local authorities have a special the Planning Act 2008 process. For more details please see:

• The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note One and Advice Note Two; and
• Our Community Consultation FAQ.

Both are available to view at the following address: [attachment 1]

The development proposed by the Applicant is EIA development and an Environmental Statement must therefore be produced to support the application. For specific information about the Applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment, please contact the Applicant directly at: [email protected]

26 January 2018
Denis Booth
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just read a very troubling article regarding RSP’s latest application for night flights from Manston.

The suggestion that Ramsgate should even consider accepting a proposal to include any night freight traffic overhead is worrying enough and now this application shows that it will in fact require more noisy, polluting freight planes than even Heathrow allows. I struggle to resolve this request when considering the small number of benefits the airport offers. History shows that very few employees are required to man a freight airport and beyond them, who else benefits? The benefits to our area do not balance with the destructive effect these planes will have.

I implore the planning inspectorate to use good judgement and to consider the failures of the very recent past when making this decision. There is a well known saying; if we carry out the same action every time we will get the same result every time...and so far the airport has only ever failed!
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

23 January 2018
Tiffany Wilmans
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I really do not understand why Manston airport might open again. It is a failing Airport and will ruin Tourism in Ramsgate. I have an estate agent coming around today to look at selling my business because it will go bankrupt if the flights start again.

I am sure all the people who wanted it open were thinking of a nice airport, not like is being applied for with 24/7 cargo.

Why are RiverOak still trying for this when all the evidence is stacked against it actually working?
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider representations of this type at this time.

For information about how and when you will be able to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate, please read our Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

23 January 2018
Stephanie Flower
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Will local business get compensated for having to relocate?
Please see the government's guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land: [attachment 1]

The Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners, will be able to advise you about any compensation package proposed to be included as part of its application for development consent.

23 January 2018
Stephanie Flower
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We have copied you into this email we have sent to RSP because of concerns we have over notification of & access to documentation regarding their latest public consultation. We wanted you to be aware that we have contacted them and so far have had no resolution in spite of contacting RSP twice regarding these problems. We are now over a week into the consultation with the one presentation in Ramsgate on Tuesday. The centre of our estate is less than 1.5km from the boundary of Manston and yet it seems no one here has had notification from RSP informing them. This is meant to be a public consultation.
If you have not already done so, please provide your comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation to your local authority which will be able to consider them in conjunction with making its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted. Our Community Consultation FAQ provides more advice in this regard: [attachment 1]

22 January 2018
Ian Scott
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing as someone whose home is on the flightpath for Manston Airport.

I have just been told by a friend that there will be a consultation on this on January 23 (tomorrow). However, I had no notification of this in advance by the proposed developers – either by email or, as would have been more correct, by post. The consultation is therefore invalid and should be re-run.

On points of detail I would like to know what account will be taken of the following points in the environmental impact assessment:

What affect will the cargo hub airport have on the rejuvenation of Ramsgate by new people moving to the area?

What affect will the cargo hub airport have on tourism?

What will be done to mitigate the impact of night flights on the health of the Ramsgate population due to loss of sleep from the night flights?

There is a well advertised shortage of accommodation in South-East England, and recent owners have not succeeded in making a success of Manston as an airport. The environmental consequences for Ramsgate will be disastrous. A mixed-use development for the Ramsgate site is by far the best solution.
If you have not already done so, please contact the Applicant in respect your concerns about its Pre-application consultation.

If you are not satisfied with the Applicant’s response, you can provide your comments to your local authority which will be able to consider them in conjunction with making its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted. Our Community Consultation FAQ provides more advice in this regard: [attachment 1]

In respect of the Environmental Impact Assessment, at this stage of the process these are questions for the Applicant. RiverOak Strategic Partners can be contacted at [email protected] and [email protected]

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently judged to be of an satisfactory standard to be examined, you will be able to register your interest and make representations about the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. Please see our Advice Note 8 series for more details about when and how to have your say: [attachment 2]

22 January 2018
Clive Aslet
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I write to oppose RSPs proposed DCO of Manston Airport Land
After deceiving myself, residents and yourself, for many months, and at previous unsatisfactory "consultations", RSP Have now come clean and have included in their Environmental Impact Statement a proposal for 4000 Q4 aircraft movements during the night time period, together with a further 2000 Q4 movements during a shoulder period defined as between 6:00 and 7:00 am.
That they wait until now, one week before what they hope will be a final acceptable consultation, to admit the necessity of extensive night flights to their plans, makes one question either their honesty or their understanding of what a nationally significant freight hub entails.
The residents of Ramsgate in particular, living between 200 yards and 2 miles of the end of the runway and directly on the most frequently used (70%) flight path, have been here before. Previous owners of the airport, that has now been closed for 3 years, have proposed night flights as a possible mitigation for the airport's repeated economic failure. Those proposals, similar to the current proposal, were met with a huge protest from Ramsgate residents, business owners, educationists etc. This was despite the offer then being passenger flights and state of the art aircraft rather than what is on offer now, which would have little direct benefit to residents. Residents were quite aware that the noise, sleep disturbance and environmental pollution would severely impact on their health and quality of life. The many tourist related businesses also saw a polluting airport as serious impediment to their viability, with predictable detrimental effects on employment.
In considering whether to support the application, I assume that it is necessary to consider the alternative proposal by the legitimate owners. I understand they have submitted a master plan that includes a heritage aviation facility that would honour the local history and enhance the visitor offer; an extensive business park building upon the owners extensive track record, and housing estate promising to be large enough to be sustainable, and avoiding the need to use green field land to meet the councils housing targets.
Taking land off of legitimate owners should not be done lightly. I see nothing in the Government's aviation plans that would justify doing this in this case.
Please refer to our FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

Our Advice Note 8 series explains how and when to register as an Interested Party and make representations about a proposed development if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
David Green
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am wondering if a past potential investor should make a submission to you when and if River Oak actually make the application to try to acquire Manston.
Anybody can choose to register as an Interested Party and make representations to an appointed Examining Authority in the manner set out in our Advice Note 8 series:
[attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Richard Card
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer sent his response to the Applicant's 2018 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate.
Helpfully your email is also addressed to Thanet District Council, which will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in due course.

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Gary Ottewill
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I understand that, according to the DCO process, RSP should have prepared a Consultation Report to PINS outlining how it took into account the feedback responses from its public consultations held in June and July 2017. Am I correct in my understanding that no such report was prepared?
I have been told by RSP that, following the current January and February 2018 statutory consultations, it now intends to prepare a Consultation Report describing how it has responded to feedback from both the 2017 and 2018 consultations.
Would you not agree that that is less than satisfactory? Surely PINS should have received, and the public would rightly expect, the report from the 2017 consultations before a further consultation would take place?
The Applicant will be required to submit a Consultation Report with its application for development consent. The Consultation Report is not an iterative document and applicants are not required to produce a separate Report for each round of consultation that they undertake. The Planning Inspectorate cannot test the adequacy of an applicant’s Pre-application consultation until an application (including the Consultation Report) is formally submitted to it.

Notwithstanding the explicit statutory duties places on applicants in respect of their Pre-application consultation (under the Planning Act 2008), the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 14 summarises the purpose and gives advice about the expected format and content of the Consultation Report: [attachment 1]

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Simon Crow
Enquiry received via email
I’m writing as a resident of Ramsgate who’s recently received an email from a company currently calling itself ‘RSP’ informing me that they are planning yet another inadequate round of consultations pertaining to their attempted land grab of some 800 acres of brownfield land formerly known as Manston Airport. My question for you is thus: seeing as every independent report into the viability of an airport at Manston has come to the same conclusion, that it simply isn’t viable, it seems ridiculous that RSP can continue to blight an entire district indefinitely. So can RSP continue indefinitely in their pre-application? It would substantial flaw in the planning process to allow a company with no evidence of any funds whatsoever to create such uncertainty to an entire district based upon a totally unviable business plan with no recourse for their actions or time limit. Please can you let me know if this is case.
The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to prepare their applications fully before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of Pre-application consultation exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise.

In respect of funding, an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) that would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of land/ rights must be accompanied by a Funding Statement which should demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the CA within the statutory period following the DCO being made. Funding Statements are published to the Planning Inspectorate’s website alongside the rest of the application documentation, and their content is routinely examined by appointed Examining Authorities.

19 January 2018
Aaron Oldale
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I'm writing to complain about the most recent consultation by RiverOak Strategic Partners.

Firstly, as a resident directly under the Manston flight path I have received no notification from them about the consultation and how I might participate. Given my keen interest in the subject, I have made myself aware but I am dismayed that yet again, so many residents directly affected by their proposals have been kept in the dark.

Secondly, as per the previous consultations the documentation available (allegedly) via RSP's website is actually not user friendly, in fact it can prove totally inaccessible. The files are so large that accessing them is extremely difficult as is downloading, let alone printing. It was only after several attempts and some help from others that I managed to access most at all. And with only 5 weeks to comment. There is no cross-referencing provided by RSP which means that I, and all residents, are presumably expected to wade through last year's documents together with this year's in order to identify any amendments or additions. This is completely unsatisfactory.

Finally, yet again those most affected by RSP's proposals have only a limited opportunity to attend. At least two opportunities, with one at the weekend, should have been provided.

Consultations, if meaningful, need to be properly announced, ensure accessible documentation, be of sufficient length and allow full participation by as many as possible Yet again, a failure on all counts.
Helpfully your email is also addressed to Thanet District Council, which will be invited to make an Adequacy of Consultation Representation if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in due course.

For more information and advice about the community consultation process, please see our FAQ: [attachment 1]

19 January 2018
Susan Kennedy
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It has come to my attention via a friend that RSP are doing another consultation with regards to Manston Airport.

I have not had notification to my address. If you look on a map you will see that I am two miles away, if not less, to the runway and in direct line of the flight path.

I would like to know why my house, and neighbours, as I have been along my street asking, have not had written notification about this. I thought all of Ramsgate had to be notified?

Please can you advise what the guidelines are?
The statutory guidance in respect of an Applicant’s Pre-application consultation duties is available here: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced an FAQ document which provides advice about Pre-application community consultation: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Anne-Marie Nixey
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to voice my utter disgust at the Riveroak proposition. PLEASE DO NOT LET IT GO AHEAD!!!!!!

I am concerned that overall the proposal would have a seriously detrimental to the town and its residents.

It will ruin lots of hard work and investment into regenerating this area, deterring people from moving here, ruining tourism and most importantly damaging the health of mine and other's children and inhibiting their ability to learn and prosper and social mobility.

I am concerned about the proposed leading to both noise and air pollution, sleepless nights, damage to the infrastructure and the prospect of thousands of lorries bringing fuel, clogging up the commuter roads in addition to the danger and extra carbon monoxide this will bring.

I am concerned for proposed detrimental effect on the nature reserves and the wildlife, some of which are rare and endangered.

I also want houses built on the Manston site because we need more housing in this area and I would prefer them to be built on brownfield rather than greenfield farm land. Again, for the sake of our environment and the children.

Also, I cannot see how the project is necessary or viable. There is not a shortage of capacity for cargo in the existing airports nearby.

Also, due to our positioning, the is only one entrance and exit and a lot of sea. If you put circles concentrically around the Manston site to achieve an economically viable capacity they would be needing to bypass existing airports, with capacity, to get to Manston. That cannot make sense. Surely, the Midlands and further up the country are in greater need than this location right in the corner of England.

I would also like to complain about the proposal process. The lack of information and consultation and time given. It is a shambles.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS PROPOSAL GO THROUGH!!!!!!
Please refer to our FAQ for information and advice about how to engage with the process at the Pre-application stage: [attachment 1]

Our Advice Note 8 series explains how and when to register as an Interested Party and make representations about a proposed development if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined: [attachment 2]

19 January 2018
Ceri Diffley
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have just revisited this application to check for any progress. Please excuse this email being a bit muddled and fragmentary but I am short of time at the moment and fitting writing it in between customers at work. I would respectfully remind you that while you get paid for responding to it I don’t get paid for writing it. As I am directly affected by having long delayed and unclear plans for a potentially significant national infrastructure project hanging over the town I live and trade in I am obliged to respond to it.
As far as I can see the majority of people living here have been subjected to ongoing cries of wolf mixed with confused objectives so that there is very little public awareness of the situation.
I think if asked most local people would like to save the local airport with a view to being able to fly locally to holiday destination and having historic air displays, which is roughly what has happened in the past.
The actuality of the result of any DCO would appear to be a highly polluting freight facility with very little likelihood of either leisure flights or airshows.
The actual DCO remit as stated on the pins website is. “The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport, with some passenger services, with a capacity of at least 12,000 air cargo movements per year.” Without any more precise commitment at this level then I assume that would be applicant’s obligation. This has however been presented from inception as “saving Manston Airport” which is something very different, holidays in the sun, a boost to the local economy and additional leisure events.
My main concern from inception has been addressing pollution issues with respect to the amount freight movements that would be necessary to comply with DCO legislation.
At the moment there seems to be conflicting information as to whether it would be only necessary to build an airfreight hub at Manston with the capacity for 10,000 movements per annum, or whether it would be necessary to increase the airfreight capacity of Manston by 10,000 freight movements per annum to qualify for a DCO.
Further to this there seems to be some confusion as to whether the existing airfreight capacity of Manston would be taken as the capacity prior to its recent closure or whether some other figure is taken as the existing capacity.
Could you kindly clarify this?
My main concern from inception has been addressing air pollution issues with respect to the amount freight movements that would be necessary to comply with DCO legislation.
As per your recommendations [attachment 1] “we would advise you to liaise directly with the Applicant, as the application for the proposed development is still in the process of being developed, and as such your views still have the opportunity to shape the application.”
I have copied my emails to the aplicant to you so I assume you will know that liaising seems to have presented difficulties for the applicant and so far they haven’t made any meaningful response to me and to honest I have now given up trying.
As the scientific journals relating to particulate air pollution enter the public domain I had been passing the information on, but without any connected response it is difficult to tell if the applicant was taking this information onboard.
The main November publications being related to abnormal sperm [attachment 2] and pulmonary function of children [attachment 3]
In December another aspect that I hadn’t considered came up which is the affect of behaviour in adolescents, see [attachment 4]
Once again I should stress that it is the combination of burning at least 10,000 tones of jet fuel p.a. in a relatively small area, with a densely populated area immediately along the prevailing air flow direction and the onshore breezes action of reducing the air flow at the perimeter of the densely populated area, that looks particularly concerning.
With Ramsgate the other significant issue would be aircraft noise exacerbated by the difficulties associated with sound insulation in the conservation area with many listed buildings including several schools.
Do you know if there has been any progress in addressing this problem?
I am assuming that there would have to be a property compensation scheme in place prior to acceptance of the DCO, as dealing with the noise compensation property blight issue in Ramsgate is likely to be one of the more costly aspects of the project. Obviously as the applicant has to prove to pins that they have adequate legitimately sourced funding to qualify for a DCO then I assume the approximate costs have to be known to do this, can you confirm this is the case?

As a result of revisiting this issue I note that there will be further consultation events [attachment 5] “Following the recent announcement that RiverOak Strategic Partners will be offering the public an opportunity to comment on its now fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport, prior to submitting the Development Consent Order application, RSP can now confirm the dates and venues for consultation events will be as follows:
23 January: Comfort Inn, Ramsgate 14:00-20:00
24 January: The Kings Hall, Herne Bay 14:00-20:00
Further details about the consultation period and how to respond will be provided in due course.”
In the first instance, I can’t find any notification relating to this consultation elsewhere, nothing on the pins website [attachment 6] nothing posted up in the Ramsgate information centre, I registered my interest at both the previous consultations and haven’t had any notification from rsp. I run a retail business in Ramsgate and have asked some of my customers if the are aware of this consultation. I haven’t been able to find anyone who is aware of it.
I have been unable to find the “fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport” mentioned, do you know if the can be found online?
I also can’t fine any statement of community consultation relating to these events, either on the rsp website or the TDC one, as I now have accessibility issues, the time I have before the events to make arrangements to overcome them is important to me. Can you please tell me the last date the statement of community consultation has to appear before the consultation event?
In view of the large number of people, particularly under the unavoidable flight path in Ramsgate and the issue of having both to revisit extensive documentation and presumably read further new documentation I would think time is running out.
Can you please confirm that this is actually a third consultation and that there will be some point in interested parties like me attending it? To expand on this, will comments be collated in some way and count towards the decision to accept the DCO?
Personally I have developed tinnitus since this project started and I foresee that I would have considerable accessibility issues if the Ramsgate session is reasonably well attended. To expand on this, a lot of people in a confined space all talking at once would be very difficult if not impossible for me to attend.
The underlying issue here is that from a common sense point of view a freight hub at Manston progressively appears increasingly unlikely to be viable. The figures just don’t appear to add up, the site already has an experienced and enthusiastic ownership with plans to exploit its brownfield status, which would suggest site acquisition compensation around that of brownfield land value for southeast England making the site worth around £1bn.
Any compensation package for Ramsgate along the lines of the one proposed for London airport expansion would be very costly, unless of course it is envisaged that the freight hub would go ahead without reasonable compensation.
Conversely the applicant appears to have no other airfreight hubs in fact no airports whatsoever, no tangible existing business where one could see evidence of substantial and available funds, that would in some way be logically directed into a substantial freight business.
At the moment the only impact the DCO application appears to be having is a variable amount of localised economic blight dependent on the publicity related to the DCO and so perhaps this could be used for investment purposes.
So I think my main question relates to how I should proceed with this one, I have a limited amount of resources to put into responding to something that looks like an ongoing series of cry wolf in the hope that either there will eventually be no opposition, or the objective is not an aviation one.
Do pins consider that this application can remain open in perpetuity?
Have pins considered ways in which DCO application could be used to adjust an economic background for investment purposes?
As an interested party is there some way I can be notified about further consultations, or indeed anything I should read or respond to relating to this DCO?
At the moment there seems to be conflicting information as to whether it would be only necessary to build an airfreight hub at Manston with the capacity for 10,000 movements per annum, or whether it would be necessary to increase the airfreight capacity of Manston by 10,000 freight movements per annum to qualify for a DCO. Further to this there seems to be some confusion as to whether the existing airfreight capacity of Manston would be taken as the capacity prior to its recent closure or whether some other figure is taken as the existing capacity. Could you kindly clarify this?

A teleconference between the Planning Inspectorate and RiverOak Strategic Partners was held on 22 November 2017, a note of which has been published: [attachment 7];ipcadvice=05e3f8e2c6

In the teleconference the Applicant confirmed that the consultation documents informing its January 2018 consultation would set out the Applicant’s position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test set out in the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008).

The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, cannot take a view on the Applicant’s approach in this regard until such time as an application is formally submitted and s55 of the PA2008 is engaged.

With Ramsgate the other significant issue would be aircraft noise exacerbated by the difficulties associated with sound insulation in the conservation area with many listed buildings including several schools. Do you know if there has been any progress in addressing this problem?

The Planning Inspectorate is unsighted on the detail of any updates in respect of the Applicant’s Environment Impact Assessment. The Applicant’s original Preliminary Environment Information Report is the only extant information about the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in the public domain. The Applicant did confirm in the aforementioned 22 November 2017 teleconference that its draft Development Consent Order would include provisions to secure a Noise Mitigation Plan and Noise Quota Count; but any special provisions in respect of heritage assets have not at this stage been specified.

I am assuming that there would have to be a property compensation scheme in place prior to acceptance of the DCO, as dealing with the noise compensation property blight issue in Ramsgate is likely to be one of the more costly aspects of the project. Obviously as the applicant has to prove to pins that they have adequate legitimately sourced funding to qualify for a DCO then I assume the approximate costs have to be known to do this, can you confirm this is the case?

In respect of claims for compensation, the provisions under the PA2008 are set out in s44 and s55.

In its Environmental Statement, the Applicant will be required to provide a description of the expected significant adverse effects of the Proposed Development and include measures to prevent or mitigate them. Those measures must in turn be secured in the Development Consent Order. If a compensation package forms part of an applicant’s mitigation strategy then logically the associated cost would need to be factored-in to an applicant’s demonstration that adequate funding is likely to be available.

In respect of funding, paragraph 18 of the DCLG’s guidance related to procedures for the Compulsory Acquisition of land states that applicants should be able to demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.

I have been unable to find the “fully-developed proposals for Manston Airport” mentioned, do you know if the can be found online?

In the 22 November 2017 teleconference, the Applicant stated that its consultation materials would include an updated full Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR). The Planning Inspectorate would expect for the updated PEIR to be made available in conjunction with the Applicant’s formal notifications for its January 2018 consultation exercise.

Can you please tell me the last date the statement of community consultation has to appear before the consultation event?

The Applicant’s duties in respect of the preparation and publication of a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) are set out in s47 of the PA2008. The SoCC must be made available for inspection in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land, and published in a local newspaper.

Can you please confirm that this is actually a third consultation and that there will be some point in interested parties like me attending it? To expand on this, will comments be collated in some way and count towards the decision to accept the DCO?

The Planning Inspectorate understands that the January 2018 consultation will be a second consultation carried out by the Applicant on a statutory basis. The first consultation undertaken by the Applicant was on a non-statutory basis. Anybody can make comments about the application to the Applicant in the same way as its previous statutory consultation exercise. As the consultation will be undertaken on a statutory basis, the Applicant will be required to have regard to the responses received as per the provisions in s49 of the PA2008.

Do pins consider that this application can remain open in perpetuity?

The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of Pre-application consultation exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise.

Have pins considered ways in which DCO application could be used to adjust an economic background for investment purposes?

Speculation of this type does not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate’s consideration of land-use development consent applications.

As an interested party is there some way I can be notified about further consultations, or indeed anything I should read or respond to relating to this DCO?

Applicants must publish a SoCC in the prescribed manner, as set out in s47 of the PA2008. Please contact the Applicant directly about any non-statutory means by which the local community can be kept up to date about its proposals.

05 January 2018
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I should be grateful for any advice you may be able to offer regarding what impact HMG would expect last year's EIA regulations to have upon the developer's forthcoming public consultation. What does he have to address that was not previously the case?

I have looked at the text of the new regulations and various on-line commentaries, including the guidance issued by the DCLG. I have tried to identify the changes which are directly relevant to the RSP proposal (see attached table).

Whilst I would not of course expect PINS to have time to mark my homework (as it were), it would be helpful to know if this analysis has got something badly wrong. What I am trying to work out is what additional information could reasonably be expected from RSP.

I appreciate that the new regulations are a transposition of EU law and that, as the law currently stands, their meaning is ultimately a matter for the Court of Justice. I am not expecting an authoritative reply, just your view on whether broadly I have identified the principal substantive points.
The attached document summarises some of the new requirements, but as you pre-empt I cannot authoritatively comment on whether or not its content is exhaustive in respect of what is directly relevant to the RSP proposal. The Secretary of State’s exclusive point of reference in testing whether an applicant’s EIA has complied with the 2017 Regulations are the 2017 Regulations themselves.

02 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I should be grateful for any advice you may be able to offer regarding what impact HMG would expect last year's EIA regulations to have upon the developer's forthcoming public consultation. What does he have to address that was not previously the case?

I have looked at the text of the new regulations and various on-line commentaries, including the guidance issued by the DCLG. I have tried to identify the changes which are directly relevant to the RSP proposal (see attached table).

Whilst I would not of course expect PINS to have time to mark my homework (as it were), it would be helpful to know if this analysis has got something badly wrong. What I am trying to work out is what additional information could reasonably be expected from RSP.

I appreciate that the new regulations are a transposition of EU law and that, as the law currently stands, their meaning is ultimately a matter for the Court of Justice. I am not expecting an authoritative reply, just your view on whether broadly I have identified the principal substantive points.

Naturally I appreciate that you cannot "approve" the list for any legal or official purpose and that any comments you may make can only be regarded as informal and not necessarily exhaustive.
The attached document summarises some of the new requirements, but as you pre-empt I cannot authoritatively comment on whether or not its content is exhaustive in respect of what is directly relevant to the RSP proposal. The Secretary of State’s exclusive point of reference in testing whether an applicant’s EIA has complied with the 2017 Regulations are the 2017 Regulations themselves.

Broadly however, the requirements identified in the left hand column of the table within your document reflect the new requirements which align with the stage of the EIA process that RSP currently considers itself be at. Other new requirements relate explicitly to the screening, scoping or decision stages.

02 January 2018
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
You say that the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted. How are they supposed to do this if the feedback they need is not given until later? For example, the local council will not be asked to provide their opinion on the adequacy of consultation until after the application has been submitted. Until the council is asked to comment you cannot know the full horror of what was done (or not done) and just how many people knew nothing about the proposal. Surely, the applicants need to know that their consultation has not been good enough if they are to design a better one? The points I have made in previous correspondence stand. RSP have not provided people who would be badly affected by noise from their proposed development, with adequate information about the likely impacts.

This proposed development is somewhat different from others, in that the applicants are seeking to use the DCO process to reopen something which previously existed. Quite how there can be a national need for a new freight airport, when the old one went bust because it wasn't viable, is something which needs to be explained. Three separate aviation consultants' reports have now concluded that an airport at Manston is not viable. These include York Aviation, whose claim that RSP have cherry-picked and misrepresented their findings. We know that it will generate unacceptable levels of noise because that's what it did when it was open previously. It is not acceptable for the applicants to make a unilateral decision not to advertise their consultation to large numbers of people who were previously affected by severe noise.

It would make a great deal of sense to separate the decision on whether a project is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project from the rest of the application process. In many cases it will be obvious that a proposal is of national significance but, in this case, the rationale for needing a new freight depot really should have been established before the applicants were allowed to embark on this ridiculous exercise. When the vast bulk of freight is carried in the belly-hold compartments of passenger aircraft, it makes no sense whatsoever to be trying to create a facility which is dedicated to freight planes so far from the major passenger hubs. I have been in touch with the Infrastructure Planning Commission and they have confirmed that this project is not something which they have either considered or backed.

I would like to see this application put on hold pending a decision on whether it is or is not a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The ongoing uncertainty is causing a great deal of damage in Thanet, and the repeated delays just prolong the misery. I don't believe the DCO process was ever intended to be used in this way and it is incumbent on those in positions of authority not to allow it to be drawn out indefinitely.
I am only able to reiterate that the Secretary of State cannot test the project against the provisions in section 23 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) until an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. The Applicant has however stated that the consultation documents for its 2018 exercise will set out its position on the baseline assumed in terms of flight numbers for the purposes of the capability test set out in the PA2008: [attachment 1]

21 December 2017
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Thank you for your prompt response to my queries about RSP's forthcoming consultation exercise. Needless to say, your response is very unsatisfactory.

It may well be true that you are ticking all of the correct boxes to show that you did things by the book. But even you must be able to see how ridiculous your position is. You are suggesting that this company can go ahead and organise as many pre-application consultations as they like, and that none of them needs to include essential details like how many night flights they are planning to have or the mitigation measures they are planning. What on Earth is the point of the consultation? Meanwhile RSP are popping into your office on a regular basis for cosy chats over tea and biscuits. During those cosy chats you are under no obligation whatsoever, to steer them on what should or should not be included in a consultation. What on Earth is the point of your cosy chats? Is it not about time you had a meeting with the Minister to explain how this application is exposing some major shortcomings in the procedure which you are following in order to tick the boxes? Is it not about time the Planning Inspectorate told this company to do it properly or not at all?
Our Pre-application meetings with applicants are undertaken within the procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). In accordance with section 51 of the PA2008 we record all advice that is issued in the meeting dialogue, along with a summary of the key issues discussed. Pre-application meetings form an important part of the Pre-application service for applicants for the reasons set out in our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 1]

The PA2008 process is frontloaded, meaning the onus is on applicants to get their applications right before they are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. On that basis, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the PA2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of statutory Pre-application exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake, and it is not unprecedented or unusual for an applicant to carry more than one statutory consultation exercise. Whether an application is sufficiently progressed and ready for submission is a judgment for applicants to take, at their own risk.

As you are aware, the Applicant has publicly summarised justification for its 2018 statutory consultation exercise and states that further details will follow in due course: [attachment 2]

14 December 2017
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I see that RSP did not submit their application for a DCO before the end of December 2017, as had been advertised on the Planning Inspectorate's website. I see that they now plan to engage in another round of consultation.

It has not been made clear how the new consultations will differ from the previous ones, or why new consultations are needed. One of the key issues with the previous consultations was the lack of clarity over what RSP is intending to do and how this was likely to affect local communities. The people staffing the consultations, who included senor directors of RSP, did not seem to be able to answer basic questions, such as whether there would be night-flights. Despite receiving many complaints about the previous consultations, the Planning Inspectorate has made no note of any criticism. If the Planning Inspectorate agreed that the previous consultations were inadequate, surely the organisation should have made some comment to RSP in advance of them repeating the consultation exercise?

Since meeting with the planning inspectorate, RSP has stated that they intend to introduce environmental controls on the levels of noise using a quota count system. None of this has been set out in black and white so that local people can read what they are planning to do.

It is very unclear what rationale there is for RSP's proposed controls. They have not produced any data to show how many flights there would be, what types of aircraft would be involved, the times of the day when these flights would be taking place and how much noise this would generate. This data, which would be an essential component of a statutory Environmental Impact Assessment, is needed before it is possible to decide which environmental controls are appropriate or required. In the absence of any companies who have said they would use Manston, I appreciate that the prediction of what will take place is difficult to achieve, but there are professional companies out there who specialise in making these kinds of projections. It would only require RSP to spend a small slice of the hundreds of millions to which they claim to have access to have a report prepared which would inform people about the likely environmental impact.

This brings me to my final. and most important point. The quota count system was devised at Heathrow to deal with the environmental impact of night-flights on local residents. It does not prevent night-flights from taking place, but restricts movements of the noisiest categories of aircraft and levies financial penalties on operators who breach the rules. It is the government which has imposed this system on the airport. However, it is not a perfect system and people living in the vicinity of the airport will confirm that it is nowhere near as effective as a total ban on night-flights such as they have at Frankfurt airport.

Who has decided that a quota count system is appropriate for Manston and will address the environmental issues which will arise from having freight aircraft overflying a historic seaside town at low altitude? Why is a quota count system being proposed when the local MP has been telling local people that RSP do not need or intend to have night-flights? The contradictions is glaring and ought to be resolved before any further consultation takes place.

In summary, the previous consultations were inadequate because the prospective applicants did not have an Environmental Impact Assessment including noise contour maps and projected noise levels over the residential areas adjacent to the site of the former airport. Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce this information in any new consultations? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to confirm in writing whether or not their new freight depot will require night flights and, if so, the likely levels and patterns of this activity, before they engage in further consultation? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce written details of their proposed quota count system before engaging in any further consultation? Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to discuss and agree their proposed quota count system with the local planning authority before presenting it to the public? (As far as I'm aware, RSP has not approached Thanet District Council to discuss their proposed quota count system).
If the Planning Inspectorate agreed that the previous consultations were inadequate, surely the organisation should have made some comment to RSP in advance of them repeating the consultation exercise?

The Planning Inspectorate cannot take a view on the adequacy of an applicant’s Pre-application consultation until an application is formally submitted to it. The Planning Inspectorate has therefore to date not tested the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation, has not ‘agreed’ that it was inadequate, or provided any advice to that effect. The Applicant’s rationale for carrying out a further round of consultation is explained on its website ([attachment 1]) and the Planning Inspectorate is not sighted on any further justification beyond that which is already in the public domain.

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce this information [noise contour maps and projected noise levels] in any new consultations?

The Applicant summarised in its teleconference with the Planning Inspectorate on 22 November 2017 the materials which would inform its 2018 consultation exercise: [attachment 2]. The Planning Inspectorate cannot compel an applicant to include particular information in its Preliminary Environmental Information, which is defined in Regulation 2 of the 2009 EIA Regulations (and Regulation 12 of the 2017 EIA Regulations).
Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to confirm in writing whether or not their new freight depot will require night flights and, if so, the likely levels and patterns of this activity, before they engage in further consultation?

The position in respect of night flights remains the same as that outlined in previous advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate: [attachment 3]. The Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement. The content of the Environmental Statement cannot be examined by an appointed Examining Authority until the Examination stage of the process.

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to produce written details of their proposed quota count system before engaging in any further consultation?

Details of the Applicant’s proposed Noise Quota Count will be included in the application when it is formally submitted. This was confirmed by the Applicant in its meeting with the Planning Inspectorate on 2 November 2017. The strategy will be open to examination by an appointed Examining Authority, and members of the local community will be able to register to become an Interested Party and make representations to the Examining Authority about any mitigation strategies proposed by the Applicant. For more information about how (and when) to have your say please see the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 4]

Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that RSP will be required to discuss and agree their proposed quota count system with the local planning authority before presenting it to the public?

The Applicant confirmed in the 22 November 2017 teleconference (link above) that its draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) would include provisions to secure its proposed Noise Mitigation Plan and Noise Quota Count. Applicants are encouraged to share draft iterations of their dDCOs with key stakeholders (including local authorities) at the Pre-application stage. See the Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 5]. Local authorities are otherwise able to make representations to an appointed Examining Authority about the content of a submitted dDCO in the same way as the local community. They also have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 process as outlined in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 1 and Advice Note 2 ([attachment 6].

12 December 2017
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have written to you before with the argument that since Kent Health Protection Agency in 2009 said epidemiology inquiry is needed to investigate long term health impact of chemical contamination of Thanet water supply. This is preliminary scientific examination that triggers the compulsory application of precautionary principle. The situation is, as I understand it, when and if the application is made I can submit argument?
As you correctly anticipate, the matters covered in your email cannot be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage. If an application is submitted and accepted for examination, the Applicant will advertise a period within which you and anybody else can register and make a Relevant Representation about RiverOak Strategic Partner’s proposals.

For information about how to engage with the process please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8 series: [attachment 1]

11 December 2017
Richard Card
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note that the notes of the meeting held on 2nd November 2017 have been published by the Planning Inspectorate. However, when considering the comments made in the Annex to the meeting note, it is difficult to understand these notes because they specifically reference the applicant's documentation but these documents are not available. I am sure that you will appreciate that this is not helpful with regards to transparency.

Please could you either make copies of the documentation available, or update the meeting notes to include a copy or quote of the specific elements of the documents which are being referred to.
The draft application documents review offer is a bespoke service for applicants. For more information please refer to our Pre-application Prospectus, available here: [attachment 1]

The advice that we issue in this respect is recorded and published in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008, as per the meeting note that you have viewed.

It is not our policy to publish draft iterations of application documents that we do not own, however the Applicant in this case may be prepared to do so. Please therefore contact RSP with your request.

08 December 2017
Jonathan Fowler
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The Ramsgate Society of which I am a member of the Executive Committee understands you have recently published an interim report on the RSP DCO application.

I have been unable to trace such a document on your website and would be grateful if you could advise me as to whether you have issued anything of this nature.
The Planning Inspectorate has not issued a report on the emerging RSP application, but we have recently reviewed and provided advice about a suite of draft applications documents. The record of that exercise has been published and is available to view here:
[attachment 1]

08 December 2017
Nigel Phethean
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The note [of the telecom between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant on 22 November 2017] suggests that the primary reason for the third consultation is to conform to the 2017 Environmental Regulations (implementing the latest EU Directive on the topic).

I note that this topic is recorded as having come up several times in the past few months but that RSP have been insistent that they need not comply with the new Regulations.

Perhaps they have now taken Counsel's advice.

Be that as it may, the present position feels like an abuse of process: how many bites at the cherry are these guys allowed? If they make a mess of this third consultation will they be able to undertake a fourth? A fifth? These things are divisive in the local community and waste a great deal of time and energy for all concerned.
Please refer to the DCLG’s statutory guidance on the Pre-application process which, amongst other things, sets out the principles in respect of the Pre-application consultation duties placed on applicants (in particular pages 5 through 22): [attachment 1]

Practically, provided that the statutory procedures set out in the Planning Act 2008 are satisfied there is no limit placed on the number of statutory Pre-application exercises a particular applicant may choose to undertake.

07 December 2017
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via email
We are instructed by the Kent County Council (the “KCC”). KCC has been approached by developers in connection with the proposed redevelopment of Manston Airport (formerly RAF Manston) situated near Ramsgate. The developers have sought information from the KCC in connection with land they believe to be owned or leased or otherwise connected with KCC which surrounds Manston Airport.

Manston Airport itself is a very large site with a perimeter measured in miles and the developers’ request is, as you might expect, demanding given the vast space Manston Airport comprises. The developers have provided KCC with a very extensive list comprising 11 pages for which they have requested details of all the property they believe KCC has an interest in. Having examined the list and the map schedules attached to the developer’s letter, we had to conduct an exercise which necessitated further examination of the maps supplied by the developer, which did not necessarily accord with the data available from HM Land Registry, that we would have ordinarily expected a sophisticated developer to have supplied our client with.

On the basis that the information supplied by the developer has not been as accurate as it would have wished, our client is concerned at the level of costs it would need to incur at this stage in order to comply with the request. As such we have asked the developer to meet our client’s costs in order to provide all the information and correct any inaccuracies but the developer’s land agent is very reluctant to accept responsibility for costs. This seems inequitable.

The results of our initial searches revealed a mixture of registered land as well as public highways. In order to be thorough and conduct the exercise in accordance with the spirit of the law, and further to other recent development in the area, this exercise would require significant input from Kent Highways too. Having reverted to our client, KCC is concerned that it is being asked, in effect, to provide a free service to the developer, entirely at KCC’s not inconsiderable cost, which, if the developer is proposing to redevelop an airport, surely has resources of its own to identify individual parcels of land and highways with absolute granularity in the same we can from HM Land Registry rather than taking a rather more general approach.

Our client is in no way seeking to shirk its responsibility but does not feel that it represents good value to the public purse to be conducting searches and research, which constitutes significant work, for and on behalf of commercial entities who stand to reap vast reward, at the expense of the council taxpayers.

Having looked at the Guidelines, we see that there is no apparent mention as to how costs are addressed.

Please can you provide us with your thoughts and guidance as to how the matter of costs for local authorities have been addressed in the past with regards to significant projects such as this. As we have stated, our client is not trying to absolve itself of responsibility but does not feel it is appropriate to have to conduct research on behalf of a sophisticated developer who has the resources and acumen to ensure that its requests are presented in sufficient but not adequate detail.
A person (‘the Applicant’) who proposes to make or who has made a Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) application under the Planning Act 2008, as amended (the
‘PA2008’) may apply for authorisation to serve a written notice (‘a land interests notice’) which requires the recipient to provide information to the Applicant about interests in land under s52 of the PA2008. This process is administered by the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) on behalf of the Secretary of State in line with our Advice Note 4: Section 52: Obtaining information about interests in land (Planning Act 2008).

No application for authorisation under s52 has been received by the Inspectorate at this time, although any DCO Applicant is entitled to make such a request.

The Inspectorate cannot comment on any private financial arrangements made between organisations.

28 November 2017
Invicta Law for Kent County Council - anon.
Enquiry received via email
In the notes of the meeting held on the 26th September between RiverOak Strategic Partners and the Planning Inspectorate it states that :

"It was agreed that draft versions of certain documents would be submitted to the Inspectorate on Friday 29 September 2017, including the Development Consent Order (DCO), Explanatory Memorandum, Statement of Reasons, Book of Reference, Consultation Report and Funding Statement. Draft versions of the Land Plans and Works Plans would be submitted the following week, and chapters of the Environmental Statement and Habitats Regulations Assessment Report submitted the week after that. The Inspectorate advised that their review at this stage would involve examining the structure of the documents as well as their content, and requested at least one hard copy version of the draft documents."

Can the Planning Inspectorate please provide confirm the following:

1. Whether any of the above documents were submitted by RSP, and if so, what date these submissions were made, specifying which documents were submitted on which date.

2. What feedback, if any, the Planning Inspectorate have provided to RSP as a result of these submissions. Please provide copies of any written feedback, or, if the feedback was verbal, an indication of the general content of the feedback provided.

3. If RSP did not submit any of the documents listed above, please could you provide copies of any communication between the Planning Inspectorate and RSP in relation to their failure to submit those documents to the Planning Inspectorate, or, if the feedback was verbal, an indication of the general content of the feedback provided.
A meeting at which the Planning Inspectorate fed back to the Applicant on its suite of draft documents took place on 2 November 2017.

A note of that meeting is being finalised and will be published imminently, and I will provide a link to you directly as soon as I am able.

I believe that the content of the meeting note should answer each element of your enquiry, however, if having read the note you have any further questions or require clarification about its content, please do not hesitate to contact me again directly.

28 November 2017
Jonathan Fowler
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In the name of honesty and of transparency, can PINS please shed some light on the facts behind the applicant’s news release, which appeared in my in box earlier today?

[attachment 1]

RSP’s position had been that they have done everything lawfully required of them in relation to the statutory consultation.

My question is a simple one: had they done everything required of them, according to PINS?

I don’t expect to be given commercially sensitive information, but I do not believe it is right to allow the wool to be pulled over the public’s eyes. That’s what has been so objectionable about the earlier consultations by RSP. If PINS, a public, accountable body, has advised the applicant to do another public consultation then I think we should be told plainly that this is the case.

I am sure you will understand the annoyance that three public consultations on the same basic subject will create. Fine, if a third is necessary for statutory reasons. Not fine, if it is – as RSP suggest – an optional matter.

Can we please have some transparency and truth here?

The 2008 planning regime does not appear to envisage three consultation exercises. What is going on?

If we must have a third consultation let’s start things off truthfully and not in a miasma of elision and half-truth.

Could you please include with your reply some information on any public bodies to whom you are accountable for the quality and impartiality of your advice?
By way of update, a meeting at which the Planning Inspectorate fed-back to the Applicant on its suite of draft application documents took place on 2 November 2017. A note of that meeting is being finalised and will be published to the project webpage imminently. I will provide a link to you directly as soon as I am able.

Arising from some elements of the advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 2 November 2017, a follow-up meeting was requested by the Applicant. This took place on 22 November 2017 by teleconference. A note of that meeting is also being finalised and will be published imminently. I will provide a link to you directly, as above.

I believe that the content of these meeting notes will provide the clarifications sought in your email, however, if having read the notes you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me again directly.

In respect of accountability, the Planning Inspectorate is an executive agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Our fundamental values are our commitment to openness, transparency and impartiality in the conduct of our business. We are committed to proactively publishing information which we hold unless to do so would be likely to damage the effective conduct of our statutory functions or the conduct of our business. Under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 we have powers to issue advice about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application (or proposed application). A record of all of the advice we provide is published on our website. Importantly, none of the advice that we issue under s51 of the PA2008 constitutes legal advice upon which applicants (or others) should rely.

28 November 2017
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting (teleconference).
See attached meeting note.

22 November 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Enquiry received via email
I would like to know whether the decision to go ahead with a Development Consent Order is based on what is theoretically possible or what is actually being proposed. I am asking this question because one prominent campaigner in favour of the airport, XXX, is claiming that she attended a meeting organised by RSP to keep their faithful supporters updated. At this meeting, XXX says that they drew a distinction between the plans which had been presented to the Planning Inspectorate and what they were actually intending to do. The essence of the comments is that RSP are only putting forward plans for a very large cargo hub to justify the DCO. They don't actually intend to deliver anything of that scale.

I don't know what was said at this meeting. I wasn't there because I'm not one of RSP's faithful supporters. However, in light of XXX's comments, I have serious concerns that the Planning Inspectorate may be being misled. I don't know whether this would be a criminal offence, but I am concerned that the DCO process should only be used where and when it is needed. It should not be used as a technique for one developer to wrest control of a plot of land from another developer.

I have pasted a screenshot of XXX's comments below. There are others I could supply but please can you explain whether the application for a DCO has to specify what will be done, rather than portraying a hypothetical scenario which the company involved has not intention of delivering?
Development consent can be granted where the project is for the alteration of an airport where the alteration is expected to have the effect of increasing the number of cargo aircraft movements by at least 10,000 per year (s23(4) and (5) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008)). The Applicant should be able to demonstrate in its application that the alteration it is proposing would be expected to increase the number of aircraft movements by the legislated amount. The extent of the alterations which will lead to the increase should be clear from the description of the works in the draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) and the accompanying plans.

If there is doubt as to whether an Applicant will build out a full Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under s23(4) and (5) of the PA2008 and if the application is accepted the appointed Examining Authority, if it considered it necessary or appropriate, would be able to explore with/ suggest to the Applicant the possibility of including wording in the dDCO to specify a minimum number of works that when provided could have the effect of increasing aircraft movements. Alternatively, it would be possible for the Examining Authority to ask the Applicant to include a Requirement in the dDCO to specify that particular parts of the development must not be commenced until other enabling infrastructure is provided (eg a sufficient number of aircraft stands must be provided which would be expected to have the effect of increasing the number of aircraft movements to at least 10,000).

Both of these approaches may enable enforcement action to be taken against the Undertaker if there were to be a breach of the terms of the made DCO or a failure to comply with the terms of the DCO (offences under s161 of the PA2008).

09 November 2017
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Draft application documents feedback meeting.
See attached meeting note.

02 November 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Note of meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Stone Hill Park Ltd (the Manston Airport landowner) to request advice in accordance with section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 about matters relating to applying for an order granting development consent and making representations about a proposed application
See attached meeting note.

27 September 2017
Pinsent Masons for Stone Hill Park Ltd - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

26 September 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Enquiry received via email
Save Manston Airport association (SMAa) note :
“The Inspectorate confirmed that it had received a large volume of correspondence which raised concerns relating to the statutory consultation events ….”
We also note that we have been encouraged by yourselves to collate communications from our members to yourselves, rather than having them all writing individually.
Thus we would like to enquire of the Planning Inspectorate as to why at no stage has the 286 signatory letter dated 2017-07-21, from SMAa, been acknowledged ? I attach all three parts for your convenience.
This letter, with its two attachments, from 286 of our members, confirmed a broad satisfaction with the RSP Consultation process, across a range of considerations.
Surely such a communication from so many must justify a mention in comparison with the much smaller number of writers who do have concerns regarding the RSP statutory consultation ?
The above documents refer to the list of 286 members who engaged in this response over 10 days, and who should be regarded as signers of that letter.

On behalf of these members. The Save Manston Airport association committee :

• Dr. Beau Webber (Chairman)
• David Stevens (Vice-Chairman)
• R. John Pritchard (Treasurer)
• Clive Cripps (Secretary)
• Liam Coyle
• Bryan Girdler
• Ela Lodge-Pritchard
• Linda Wright
• Gary Dumigan
• Gregory Nocentini
Thank you for your email.
Our meeting notes provide a record of the key topics discussed and any advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate under s51 of the Planning Act 2008.
In the note of the 23 August meeting, reference to the concerns raised in respect of the Applicant’s statutory consultation placed in context our production of the community consultation Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document. The correspondence from SMAa was not referred to at the meeting, either by the Inspectorate or the Applicant, hence a record of it was not made in the meeting note. The Applicant was provided with an opportunity to comment on a draft of the meeting note before it was published and in response did not raise any concerns in respect of the accuracy of the record.
We encourage and advise all of stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications to us because this assists the process. Thank you therefore to SMAa for positively contributing in this way. However we cannot compel dispersed interest groups to engage in the same way.
As per the advice in our FAQ document, in the same way as the correspondence expressing concerns, your positive commentary about the Applicant’s consultation can be considered by the Secretary of State in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests if an application for development consent is submitted.

15 September 2017
Save Manston Airport Association - J B W Webber
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Many thanks for the update, I fully understand that a large volume of enquiries would be an issue as the airfreight hub would have a considerable impact on several thousand people.
A problem is, that because the applicant failed to notify the people who would be directly and negatively affected by the DCO, that the applicant had applied for a DCO and how people would be negatively effected by its implementation, then there will be an ongoing drift of information into local communities and ongoing repetition of the same information, by pins and everyone else involved.
The applicants own PEIR clearly states:-
1 That there will be a noise impact particularly on Residents of Ramsgate who are under the immediate low flying and unchangeable runway approach and on the takeoff route which is yet to be determined so could have noise impact on any of the towns and villages to the west of the runway up to about 20km away and covering the north south East Kent landmass.
2 That there may be night flights.
3 That there will be reductions in life expectancy related to air pollution particularly PM2.5 particulates. These wouldn’t have dispersed significantly before reaching the coastline when travelling in the prevailing wind direction and would probably be concentrated in the coastal towns when the airflow meets the onshore sea breeze.
It is important that affected people should be aware of the DCO and be able to make and informed choice, balancing the economic benefits against negative health impacts affecting them personally.
The most important aspect of this is the air pollution issue, assuming the “reduced life expectancy” stated in applicant’s PEIR document translates as “kill people” and while the DCO process is a slow, research into air pollution issue is moving rapidly at the moment.
The most recent related news item being The Ford Motor Company’s announcement of a scrappage scheme.
The PEIR document’s information on particulate air pollution was already out of date when it was published as it failed to include the recently published results of studies involving 312,944 people in nine European countries, these results concluded the situation was much worse than previously thought and stated also in the PEIR.
Many NHS websites detail these studies here is a link to one of the clearest articles [attachment 1]
I am interested in the rapidly changing situation regarding air pollution related to airport facilities e.g. this important and related report has only just been published [attachment 2]
I did try to enter into a dialogue with the applicant’s environmental team after the previous non statutory consultation and was encouraged to do this by pins, however communication was unsatisfactory inasmuch as they failed to reply after asking for my contact details and saying that they would.
My understanding is that at the moment the DCO process is still front loaded and that environmental mitigation measures are still being formulated, so should I be communicating recent related information to either pins or the applicant or still be engaged in any dialogue related to the DCO with pins, the applicant, any other body?
At this point in the planning process (the Pre-Application stage) we would advise you to liaise directly with the Applicant, as the application for the proposed development is still in the process of being developed, and as such your views still have the opportunity to shape the application.

If the application is accepted for Examination you will be able to submit your views to the Planning Inspectorate during the Relevant Representation stage. By submitting a representation during this stage you will be registered as an Interested Party to the project, whereby you will be kept informed of the progress of the project, and your views may be taken into consideration by the Examining Authority assigned to the Examination of the project. I have attached for your information our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination, which explains in detail the Relevant Representation stage process.

06 September 2017
Michael Child
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

23 August 2017
anon.
Enquiry received via email
I would be most grateful if you could please add Kent Wildlife Trust to your list of consultees for Manston Airport. I attach our recent letter to RiverOak for your information.

I would also like to know if it is possible for Kent Wildlife Trust to be added to the Planning Inspectorate’s list for early engagement at the Scoping stage of projects? Whilst I understand that we are not statutory consultees as listed in your guidance, it is very difficult if we are not made aware of major projects until after the Scoping Opinion has been issued. This has happened more than once recently, with this project and also Vattenfall Thanet Extension. Is there anything at all that can be done about this despite being non-statutory? I would be most grateful for a response on this request, although I appreciate that you may need to refer my request to another colleague
As you correctly state the Kent Wildlife Trust is not a prescribed consultation body for the purposes of EIA scoping under the Planning Act 2008. Applicants can carry out wider scoping consultation (ie with non-prescribed bodies) but their approach in this regard is discretionary.

The Planning Inspectorate does not compile a list of non-statutory consultees to send updates to during the Pre-application stage of the process; for example to notify of the publication of a scoping report. There is functionality on the project-specific webpage for each project for anybody to sign-up for email updates, but those updates are not activated until an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate at the Acceptance stage.

The onus is on applicants to keep their stakeholders informed about a project at the Pre-application stage of the process. To that end we can only also advise for you to engage proactively with relevant applicants and monitor their, and our, websites for any updates.

22 August 2017
Kent Wildlife Trust - Vanessa Evans
Enquiry received via email
It is hoped that considerable thought is given to the development of a cargo hub airport on the current brown field site, previously the war time airport for Manston. If allowed, such a development would fracture the fragile nature of Thanet. This area is one of deprivation which has occurred over many years but, now with the development of the high speed railway and low cost housing, is becoming a desirable destination for those who wish to escape city life but still enjoy employment in the capital.
You will have received, by other concerned residents of Thanet, many arguments both technical and emotional. There is no need for me to reiterate same but I would ask you and your team to allow their comments to be put forward and given very, very serious consideration.
The decision of the Inspectorate could give prosperity to this area or destroy all that has been achieved over the past twenty years.
I sincerely hope that the application to site a cargo hub airport at Manston is denied.
Currently this proposed development is in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), and there is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence a developer’s consultation during this stage.

During the Pre-Application stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us, as well as consulting with the local community on their proposals. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project or any of the developer’s consultation activities to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to us for consideration.

You have also copied in Thanet Borough Council to your email. Once an application has been submitted, 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.

We are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

If you have any queries regarding the PA2008 process in relation to this project please do not hesitate to contact us.

20 July 2017
Anne Peers
Enquiry received via email
• "Your proposals will ruin this area and I object to your proposal”
• “I strongly object to the noise pollution, air pollution and road congestion that your project will bring to this area”
• “No night flights. Absolutely none”
• “All the research says that living near an airport is bad for residents’ health and that it holds back children at school. I object to your proposals”,
• I didn't hear about RSP's consultation from RSP but a neighbour told me!
Thank you for your email which outlined your opposition to the proposed Manston Airport project.

The proposed Manston Airport project us currently in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at this stage.

We advise that you submit your concerns directly to the developer for this project at [email protected] At this stage the application documents for the proposed project will still be in development, and by providing your views directly to the developer they may inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

If you are not satisfied that the developer has or will take your comments into account, we advise that you submit your concerns regarding the developer’s consultation to the relevant local authority, Thanet District Council. The Planning Inspectorate when considering whether or not to accept an application, 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. 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 subsequently submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Please note we are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

If you have any queries regarding the PA2008 process in relation to this project please do not hesitate to contact us.

20 July 2017
Phil Hutt
Enquiry received via email
I am emailing you, because to my horror, I have just found out that Riveroak stategic partners has and have constructed a consultation document on the reopening of Manston Airport. I have heard it is to be developed as a cargo hub, with many flights, including night time flying very low above our houses. My neighbours and I have experienced this in the past when the noise has been deafening and frightening and there were no night flights then. I know that I and many of my neighbours would like the opportunity to raise objections to the reopening of the airport and because of the noise and pollution over the densely populated area of Herne Bay. So, therefore am requesting that the consultation period be extended.

None of my neighbours or I have been informed by letter, nor leaflets about this, and none of the leaflets during the general election that was put through our letter box's stated anything about reopening Manston. Obviously, if we heard sooner, there would have been a lot more objections from the residents under the flight path in Swalecliffe, Herne Bay, Beltinge, St Nicholas at Wade and Ramsgate. I do feel that more time should be made avilable for Riveroak and the local authority to authorise a postal survey, which is limited to near or under the flight path.

People living in unaffected areas, should not be included. The survey should be accompanied by information from Riveroak which reveals their intensions and need to have 12 or more night flights 7 days a week.
The proposed Manston Airport project is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. During this stage, the Planning Inspectorate does not have any influence over the non-statutory consultation activities undertaken by the developer.

I note that you copied the developer for the proposed development in to your email. During the Pre-Application stage the developer will be preparing their application documents to be submitted to us. At this stage the application has not been finalised, and as such we advise for any concerns related to the project or any of the developer’s consultation activities to be submitted directly to the developer, in order for your views to inform the application before it is finalised and submitted to us for consideration.

If you are not satisfied that the developer has or will take account of your comments, we would advise you to submit your concerns regarding the developer’s consultation activities to the relevant local planning authority, which in this case is Thanet Borough Council. Once an application has been submitted, 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. As such, by 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.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

Please note we are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

20 July 2017
Gillian Archer
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Having just completed a thorough reading of all plans put forward by RiverOak for the development of Manston Airport I have the following observations to make:

1) Unless some massive seismic meteorological change has taken place in East Kent's topography in the last three years, the suggested flight paths are wrong. The last time Manston was operating as a commercial airport I regularly could not maintain a conversation in my own home due to low-flying commercial aircraft passing over my house. This occurred several times a day when the wind was blowing in the "wrong" direction, which happened at least twice a week and on many occasions much more often. I live in Herne Bay. Goodness only knows what aircraft noise will be like for those even closer to the airport, who will be subject to this noice each and every day.

2)On those occasions that the wind was blowing in the "wrong" direction I was woken several times a night by low-flying aircraft passing over my house. This proposal suggests "no more than" 14 aircraft movements per night. If one sleeps from 11 to 7 this number is the average equivalent of being awoken every 34 minutes. That will be the case for people much closer to the airport each and every night.This is clearly unacceptable and absurd.

3)And finally, and in my opinion, most seriously - despite their proclamations RoverOak made no attempt whatsoever to properly communicate with people in my area about their proposals AND their consultation period - obviously that had the effect that they probably received very few complaints during the correct time frame.

I am an active and engaged member of my community. I knew absolutely nothing about this until a group to which I subscribe (No Night Flights) sent me an email at the beginning of July. I live under this proposed flight path - contrary to their very inaccurate map. I received no leaflet. Neither did others I know living here in Herne Bay who are concerned about this matter. As soon as I had read that notification, I went and registered my displeasure at the RoverOak website.

This must be seen as a classic case of a greedy and dishonest company using any possible loophole to get their own way. It is not acceptable. Thanet Council must not cave in to an alluring commercial temptation which bribes them into ignoring this blatant lack of regard for fair process.

If this company is producing erroneous information in their so-calle4d "information pack" and deliberately attempting to avoid informing all who may be affected of their right to be consulted, then it is quite plain that many of their "proposals" are also liable to be dishonest or misrepresented isn't it?

This is unacceptable. Please ensure due process is applied, at the very least.
Thank you for your email.

The proposed Manston Airport project us currently in the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at this stage.

In accordance with the PA2008 process, you have correctly sent your comments about the statutory consultation to the local authority Thanet District Council, as well as the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners. Section 55(4) states that in making its decision about whether an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined 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 and considered in a statutory 28 day ‘Acceptance’ period. 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.

I have attached the following Advice Notes which I hope you will find helpful:

Advice Note 8.0 Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public
Advice Note 8.1 Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation
Advice Note 8.2 How to register to participate in an Examination
Advice Note 8.3 Influencing how an application is Examined
Advice Note 2 The role of local authorities in the development consent process

Our full suite of Advice Notes and legislation/guidance related to NSIPs can be found at the following link:
[attachment 1]

If the application is submitted and subsequently accepted for examination, you will also have the opportunity to register to participate in that examination and make submissions on whether or not the form of the proposal that is described in the application is acceptable, and whether development consent should be granted. You can register for automatic email updates on the progress of this project on our webpage.

Please note that we are in the process of preparing a Frequently Asked Questions document to assist local communities in respect of Pre-application community consultation. It will be published to our website shortly.

If you have any queries regarding the PA2008 process in relation to this project please do not hesitate to contact us.

20 July 2017
Jan Shepherd
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to you in relation to your proposed DCO of the land presently owned by Stone Hill Park (previously Manston Airport), which aims to establish a Cargo Hub and smaller passenger service with night flights included.
I live on the Nethercourt Estate in Ramsgate, which lies under the direct flight path of the former Manston Airport.
I attended the RSP consultation meeting recently.
My concerns are the amount of flights that are being proposed, both day and night, would have a devastating effect on both Ramsgate and the local area.
The consultation was very poorly executed, when we asked about night flights we were given contradictory answers.
We had a letter from RSP about the consultation, only to find that this was not distributed to the whole area that would be affected by the re-opening of the Manston airport and the noise and pollution that would be generated.
The time given to the meeting in Ramsgate was 4 hours, but in the surrounding villages and towns it was 6 hours. Seems that they didn’t want many people to attend the Ramsgate meeting.
The estimation on the jobs that will be created seems to be greatly exaggerated.
The area has greatly improved since the closure of the former airport. Tourism has improved and many businesses have invested money in the area.
Our quality of life has improved since the airport closed. We are once again able to enjoy the outside world without being deafened by the noise of aeroplanes. My health has improved with the improvement of air quality.
If passed, this would be a disaster for the area with the noise and pollution.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. 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]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

If you have not done so already, please provide your comments to the Applicant and 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.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement

Please send any future email correspondence about the Proposed Development to [email protected]

17 July 2017
Thomas Norton
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
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]

17 July 2017
Dennis Franklin
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am contacting you to express our complete disapproval of the plans to reopen Manston Airport.

We, like most of Ramsgate, live on the flight path of aircraft landing at Manston airport from the east.

The planes will pass over us at about 1,000 feet and with the quantity of proposed flights the noise and disruption to us will be totally unacceptable.

Night flights can never be accepted.

As residents of Ramsgate we are totally opposed to these plans.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. 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]

17 July 2017
Mr and Mrs Williamson
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have not been informed of any official consultation into running the site at Manston as an airport. And yet I have found out that there is such a consultation.
I live in the village of Herne and would be under the flight path of any flights day or night into Manston. I am totally object to any such use of the Manston sight.
Your proposals will ruin this area. The roads into and out of the county of Kent and Thanet cannot cope as it is with the volume of traffic, this idea will only make this situation far worse.
I strongly object to the noise pollution, road congestion and air pollution that your project will bring to this area.
All the research is such that living near an airport is bad for residents health and that it holds back children at school.
I have a young family and I object totally to your proposals.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. 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]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

In accordance with the PA2008 process, you have correctly sent your comments about the statutory consultation to the Applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners, and 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.

Please send any future email correspondence about the Proposed Development to [email protected]

17 July 2017
Fred Skinner
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing to let you know that I am most unhappy regarding the resent Consultations regarding the re-opening of the former Manston Airport - I strongly object on the grounds of noise and /or air pollution.

I have lived in my present home for over 30 years and I am under the flight path - when the airport was previously used there were very few flights and night flights were very few and far between but they did wake me up. I am extremely concerned that were the airport to re-open my health and well being will be compromised. Not to mention the value of my property would fall which would mean I would be unable to move should I wish to do so - which I do not.

I also feel that the manner in which some of the consultations have been conducted have been less than professional.

At these Consultations it would appear that:

1. No-one could tell what the procedure for compensation to residents for loss of value to homes would be.

2. My understanding is that additional presentations were added to the timetable of RSP events, yet when RSP were requested to have an additional event in Ramsgate they refused. Ramsgate was one of the areas where the Consultation was 2 hours shorter then many other areas.

3. Contradictory advice given during the consultations regarding the need for night flights.

4. RSP's failure to describe the proposal accurately.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. 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]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

If you have not done so already, please provide your comments to the Applicant and 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.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

In respect of compensation claims, please refer to extant advice available here:
[attachment 2]

The Planning Inspectorate's Scoping Opinion at paragraphs 2.34 through 2.51 provided advice to the Applicant in respect of the description of the proposed development: [attachment 3]

12 July 2017
Rita Burns
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer expressed concern about the Applicant's Pre-application community consultation. The Applicant had provided contradictory information about the potential for night flights.
There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

I note that you have copied your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. These are the correct channels for making comments about an application at the Pre-application stage of the process.

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.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

12 July 2017
Jane Hetherington
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Do PINS hold a breakdown of approximate required compensation amounts and is this in the public domain?

At what point in the DCO application does the applicant have to show pins evidence of funding adequacy?

What form would this evidence need to take?

Would this evidence be presented to the public in a transparent way?
As explained in my previous response to you, claims and any associated amount of compensation would be something for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to consider. It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to comment in this regard.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published guidance on the procedures for Compulsory Acquisition (CA): [attachment 1]

In respect of the resource implications for a Proposed Development, the requirements placed on Applicants are explained in paragraphs 17 and 18 of that guidance. In short an Application for a DCO that would authorise CA must be accompanied by a Funding Statement which should demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the CA within the statutory period following the DCO being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of. The Funding Statement would be published to the Planning Inspectorate’s website alongside the rest of the application documentation.

There are many examples of Funding Statements associated with other submitted applications available to view on the Planning Inspectorate’s website: [attachment 2]

12 July 2017
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Owen expressed a number of concerns in respect of the Applicant's Pre-application community consultation and stated his objection to the Proposed Development.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. 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]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

I note that you have copied your comments to the Applicant and your local authority. These are the correct channels for making comments about an application at the Pre-application stage of the process.

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.

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

12 July 2017
Keith Owen
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate

I was dismayed that people in Ramsgate were not contacted by RSP informing them of the consultation taking despite living directly under the flightpath. Whereas for example people in Chislet and Birchington (neither nowhere as close to the flightpath as central Ramsgate) received personal letters inviting them to attend a presentation/consultation. Was this a ploy to limit the number of objectors I wonder? Instead, Ramsgate residents were left to find out by either the local paper or social media.

During the consultation taking place in Ramsgate I was given conflicting answers as to whether night flights were happening. One consultant said they were not, and had only been included in the report because PINS demanded it. However another consultant said that they might be necessary and a third one said that the flightpath would be altered so that most planes coming in at night would come in from the west (not possible as this would fly in the face of the conventional practice of flying into prevailing winds). The lack of noise contours for Ramsgate worried me a great deal. It appears no consideration has been given to the impact of noise on Ramsgate residents.

No-one could tell what the procedure for compensation to residents for loss of value to homes would be.

Job claims of 30000 jobs in the East Kent economy are laughable and when I challenged a consultant, they admitted the figure was untrue.

What I am trying to convey to you is that the proposal appears to be vague, or else downright untrue and lacking precise information what the impact of a cargo hub would mean for myself and local residents.
Please refer to extant advice about how the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation will be tested if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate: [attachment 1]

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its Environmental Impact Assessment and presented in the Environmental Statement.

In respect of claims for compensation, this is a matter dealt with outside of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Matters of financial compensation do not fall to be considered during the scope of the Examination which is limited to the consideration of whether the proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers meet the tests set out in the PA2008. Broadly such claims can be made by persons or organisations whose land or whose rights in land could be affected by a Proposed Development. Their land or rights may not be subject to Compulsory Acquisition powers sought in an application or indeed be within the land to which an application relates, but they may have a right to compensation under either Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, s10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or s152 of the PA2008, if their land or interest is affected by the development.

The issue of compensation could arise in the event that development consent is granted, and the Applicant implements the Development Consent Order (DCO). As these matters are governed by the relevant compulsory purchase legislation (see above), the claim and any associated amount of compensation may be something for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to consider. However, the adequacy of funding to meet any likely future compensation liabilities arising from the implementation of a DCO, and any mechanisms proposed by the applicant to secure the funding, are issues which would be considered by the Examining Authority as part of an Examination.

11 July 2017
H Frencken
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have several specific concerns about the hopelessly inadequate consultation process conducted by the RSP company in relation to their attempt to submit a DCO for the site of the former airport at Manston in East Kent. I have noted that the Planning Inspectorate has directed others with serious concerns to address those concerns to the local Council. This seems somewhat bizarre as the purpose of the DCO is to bypass the local Council. They have not been involved in the process at all and the pro-airport campaign groups have been keen to tell everyone that the Council has no role.

I have tried to contact the Leader of the Council to ask him whether the Council will be collating and reporting complaints about the consultation process but he has not responded to me. Can the Planning Inspectorate confirm that the Council is under a statutory duty to collate people's complaints and to report them back to the Planning Inspectorate?
The purpose of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process is not to ‘bypass local authorities’. Local authorities have a special role which is summarised in a video at the bottom of the following page on our website: [attachment 1]

Our ‘Advice note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process’ provides more detail in this regard: [attachment 2]

The Planning Inspectorate has advised you previously about how it will test whether an Applicant has satisfied its Pre-application duties. That advice introduced the role of Adequacy of Consultation Representations from local authorities: [attachment 3]

There is no statutory duty under the PA2008 for relevant local authorities to ‘collate and report complaints’ to the Planning Inspectorate; but where an Adequacy of Consultation Representation is received the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to it (or them) in making its decision about whether an application is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined.

11 July 2017
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I recently attended the RSP’S consultation in Ramsgate, and am now asking you, if it could be re-held. And this time in a more professional manner.

I was expecting a presentation, and then an opportunity for the audience to ask questions and get real answers.

Instead we were confronted with a farce:

A room full of RSP representatives, who had clearly not all been briefed on what the answers to key questions should be, prior to the meeting. Therefore on the question of Night Flights, the answers were conflicting.

No information on the noise levels over Ramsgate, was available, as apparently It is not ready yet. Surely this should be a key content of the presentation.

The main wall had a large map of Manston, and its surrounding area, but did not include most of Ramsgate. Yet the maps showing the planned flight paths over Ramsgate and Herne Bay, (attached) were A3 sheets tucked way in a corner. These should have been at the centre of the consultation.

Apparently all the documents available for inspecting, on one side of the room, were still only drafts. So still 'work in progress', and therefore changeable.

By the time I heard from one visitor, that the runway on the architectural model at the centre of the room, could be facing the wrong way – I was not surprised.

I and many others, live directly under the proposed flight path, and our life's and the value of our properties, will be seriously blighted if this proposed airport happens. Which raises the issue of compensation.

Therefore the fact that I (and many others) received no invitation, and only found out about the meeting, from the local paper, might be due to incompetence, but could also be seen as corrupt.

RSP need to treat the residents of Ramsgate with respect, and re visit the consultation process in a truly transparent and professional manner.
There is no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate therefore cannot compel an Applicant to re-hold a consultation event.

If you have not done so already, please provide your comments to the Applicant and 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.

I suspect that the documents made available for inspection by the Applicant at the consultation event comprised its Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). For Environmental Impact Assessment development (EIA), Applicants are required to consult with the local community about their PEI. Advice about the content of an Applicant’s PEI is provided in our ‘Advice note seven: Preliminary Environmental Information, Screening and Scoping’, available here: [attachment 1]

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its EIA and presented in the Environmental Statement.

In respect of compensation claims, please refer to extant advice available here: [attachment 2]

11 July 2017
Judith Castle
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am a resident of Broadstairs, within the area of Thanet District Council (TDC). I have today learnt that TDC have restricted the consultation with RiverOak to a closed meeting with the Cabinet. The Monitoring Officer has justified this as follows:

"RSP has been undertaking public consultation at various meetings throughout the district as part of the pre-application steps in support of its DCO process. As part of that process, RSP is obliged to consult with Thanet District Council who are the ‘host’ authority for this DCO application. The council welcomes this engagement by RSP as it is something that we initially requested in October 2016. DCO matters (under parts 4 to 8 of the Planning Act 2008) are what is known as ‘executive functions’ which means that the legal authority to deal with these matters rests with the executive and not with Full Council. That is why RSP are being asked to undertake their consultation with the Leader and his Cabinet together with senior council officers and not at a Full Council meeting. Indeed, it would be unlawful for Full Council to deal with this matter, since under the Local Government Act 2000, any function which is the responsibility of an executive of a local authority, may not be discharged by the Full Council, In dealing with this DCO, Thanet District Council is acting in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate guidance. The Planning Inspectorate expect us to ensure delegations are in place and explains that it won’t be possible for the DCO process to be structured around the council’s committee cycles. At Dover District Council for example they delegated all their functions in relation to DCOs to a senior officer in order to enable the council’s functions in relation to Development Consent for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to be discharged quickly, effectively and efficiently. Similar arrangements are in place for those local authorities dealing with DCOs in relation to nuclear power generation. Other authorities may be dealing with the matter slightly differently because they are not the ‘host authority’. As ‘host authority’ Thanet District Council are (if the DCO is successful) likely to become responsible for discharging many of the requirements (akin to planning conditions) associated with the project. The council are also likely to have a role in monitoring and enforcing many of the DCO provisions and requirements."

I would be grateful for your guidance in this matter since it does seem to be somewhat at odds with the whole ethos of the consultation process.
It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to comment on operational aspects of a local authority’s functions.

In respect of the Planning Act 2008 process, local authorities have a special role which is summarised in a video at the bottom of the following page on our website: [attachment 1]

Our ‘Advice note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process’ provides more detail in this regard: [attachment 2]

The PA2008 sets out the statutory consultation duties place on Applicants, and I refer you to Chapter 2 of the PA2008 in this regard: [attachment 3]

The Department for Communities and Local Government has also published guidance on the Pre-application process: [attachment 4]

For the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) to find that an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined, it must be satisfied that an Applicant has carried out its Pre-application consultation duties in accordance with the statutory requirements in the PA2008. The tests in this regard are applied in a statutory 28 day ‘Acceptance’ period. More information about the process is available via the first link provided in this response.

11 July 2017
Andrew McCulloch
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
It is being reported on social media that RiverOak Strategic Partners' DCO for the site of the former airport at Manston is guaranteed to succeed because it is being backed by a local MP. Can you confirm this?
If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if it is subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined, an independent and impartial Examining Authority will be appointed to gather evidence and test information during the six month Examination of the application. A recommendation will then be made to the Secretary of State for Transport who must make his/ her decision in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). More information about the process is available on our website here: [attachment 1]

Anybody can register their interest in an Examination and become an Interested Party (at the appropriate time in the process), and all Interested Parties have the same status in accordance with s102 of the PA2008.

The PA2008 establishes that no individual or organisation (ie Interested Party), politically affiliated or otherwise, is afforded the potential to have more influence over the Examination of an application than another.

11 July 2017
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
Would an individual homeowner or business proprietor have to claim compensation within specific time scales related to the progress of the DCO application?

Are there other instances of busy airports with a significant airfreight component where the runway approach makes overlying an architectural conservation area unavoidable and if so how was the issue resolved?
In respect of claims for compensation, this is a matter dealt with outside of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Matters of financial compensation do not fall to be considered during the scope of the Examination which is limited to the consideration of whether the proposed Compulsory Acquisition powers meet the tests set out in the PA2008. Broadly such claims can be made by persons or organisations whose land or whose rights in land could be affected by a Proposed Development. Their land or rights may not be subject to Compulsory Acquisition powers sought in an application or indeed be within the land to which an application relates, but they may have a right to compensation under either Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, s10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or s152 of the PA2008, if their land or interest is affected by the development.

The issue of compensation could arise in the event that development consent is granted, and the Applicant implements the Development Consent Order (DCO). As these matters are governed by the relevant compulsory purchase legislation (see above), the claim and any associated amount of compensation may be something for the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to consider. However, the adequacy of funding to meet any likely future compensation liabilities arising from the implementation of a DCO, and any mechanisms proposed by the applicant to secure the funding, are issues which would be considered by the Examining Authority as part of an Examination.

There are no precedents for development under s23 of the PA2008, and it is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to comment on the operations of existing airports.

11 July 2017
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
RSP who wish to reopen Manston airport have published a glossy 48 page brochure laying out all their plans for the future development of the site. I believe that RSP have deliberately ignored Ramsgate, the town most affected by their plans. Ramsgate is mentioned only 5 times in the RSP brochure without once addressing the concerns of the population most affected by the flight path.

It appears that RSP have decided that as they cannot explain away the problems that will befall Ramsgate once their airport is running, it is simpler to ignore the people of Ramsgate.

We have not been informed by door to door leafleting, we have not been consulted by holding a public meeting, as held by RSP in Westgate on Sea (a suburb of Margate, not under any flight path). I have no doubt that for these reasons the RSP consultation is greatly flawed and should be rejected as unprofessional.
Please provide your comments to the Applicant and to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, which I explain in the content of this letter.

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.

11 July 2017
Col Longmore
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have several concerns re the recent presentations / consultations mainly that when approached about particulates none of your so called experts appeared to know what they were nor how dangerous and what levels fuel is burnt at when air craft are landing and taking off. Nor could the tell anyone the amount of lorries etc burning diesel so the whole air pollution issue both aircraft and ground based is left unanswered and I understand from different locations different answers were given on the issue.
Compensation about air pollution because it will be an ongoing issue I myself suffer from respiratory problems am in Margate but people directly under the airpath will suffer far more. Noise pollution levels still not covered and as these jets will be far from new they will be more prone to noise pollution. The fleet mentioned in one article I read about were all in excess of twenty year old planes so not only will the be noisier they will bun more aviation fuel levels of which are around one ton per landing and take off. Particulate levels for diesel are strictly measured and these planes if they are that age will be banned from some airports because of air pollution levels, why are they being allowed to land at Manston surely we in Thanet deserve to be on the best level of pollutants not the worst? are we second class citizens?

Other issues are:

- Additional presentations were added to the timetable of RSP events, yet when RSP were requested to have an additional event in Ramsgate they refused.
- Most residents apart from those within the contour map around the airport did not know that a consultation was going to take place. As a result, most residents in Ramsgate who live directly under the flight path and will suffer the most were ignorant of the consultation taking place.
* Residents of Birchington received personal letters from RSP yet people in Ramsgate and Herne Bay did not.
- Contradictory advice given during the consultations regarding the need for night flights.
In copying your comments to the Applicant and local authority, you have pre-empted my advice.

Local authorities have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, which I explain in the content of this email.

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.

In respect of compensation claims, please refer to extant advice available here: [attachment 1]

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees ie the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its EIA and presented in the Environmental Statement.

11 July 2017
Don Wood
Enquiry received via email
River Oak Strategic Partnership recently held a consultation in Ramsgate regarding the re-opening of Manston as an airport. The online consultation finishes on 23rd July.

I wish to register a complaint about both the offline and online consultation. The process is flawed.

1. Failure to Notify Affected Residents of the Consultation in Ramsgate - When the airport was operational, planes used to line up at 300 metres over the clock tower in the harbour and descend across the town to runway 28. Those of us living under this flight path should have received written notification from River Oak Strategic Partnership that a consultation was taking place in Ramsgate. We received no notification whatsoever from River Oak of this consultation or the online version. I understand though cannot confirm, that River Oak were advised by Thanet District Council that they needed to notify us of the consultation.

2. Failure to Supply Relevant Information for the Online Consultation - The Master Plan from River Oak does not include any information about Public Safety Zones despite the predicted levels of air traffic showing that they would be necessary. Infratil, the previous owners of the airport, acknowledged that they should have been done in 2006. A PSZ covers the 1 in 100,000 risk area. It is estimated that there are 4,500 homes in Ramsgate that are within this risk contour and three schools - Clarendon Grammar, Christ Church Primary School and Ellington Infant School. They would all suffer planning blight as there is 'a general presumption against new or replacement development or changes of use of existing buildings within a Public Safety Zone' (DfT Circular 1/2010). Some properties will fall within the 1 in 10,000 contour. 'The Secretary of State wishes to see the emptying of all occupied residential properties, and of all commercial and industrial properties occupied as normal all-day workplaces, within the 1 in 10,000 individual risk contour' (DfT Circular 1/2010) This contour would include the residential streets - Kirkstone, Whinfell, Drybeck, Kentmere and part of Windemere Avenue. These residents would need to be moved out of their homes.
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.

Please provide your comments to the Applicant and 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.

10 July 2017
Janet Davies
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer expressed a number of concerns in respect of RSP's Pre-application community consultation.
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.

To that end it is appropriate that you to have sent your comments to the Applicant and to the host 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.

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard, the merits of the Proposed Development will be tested by an appointed Examining Authority in accordance with s104 or s105 of the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Eight explains the Examination process and how to have your say: [attachment 1]

10 July 2017
Diane Cleak
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As a long time resident of the town of Ramsgate and having lived under the flight path of the previous commercial airport at Manston I would like to register my objection to any plan to reopen the airport as I believe it will affect both my health and my wealth. Health through lack of sleep and air pollution. My wealth through the damage it will do to the value of my home.

RSP who wish to reopen the airport have published a glossy 48 page brochure laying out all their plans for the future development. This brochure, which was made available only to those who knew of or could attend one of their consultation meeting, makes very interesting reading not for what it says but for what it does not say.

• The population of Ramsgate is 40,000.
• The flight path is directly over Ramsgate.
• The end of the runway is half a mile from the edge of Ramsgate.
• The RSP brochure mentions Ramsgate 5 times in 48 pages.

Now you may think there is nothing strange there but let me assure you that under any other planning application of this significance the town and population of Ramsgate by the simple fact of their location would be the only matter under discussion. It appears that RSP have decided that as they cannot explain away the problems that will befall Ramsgate once their airport is running, they are simply pretending that Ramsgate does not exist!

We have not been informed by door to door leafleting, we have not been consulted by holding a public meeting, as held by RSP in Westgate on Sea (a suburb of Margate, not under any flight path). There is in my mind a high degree of deceitfulness by RSP here and it should not be tolerated for a moment.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. 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]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

Please provide your comments to the Applicant and 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.

10 July 2017
Col Longmore
Enquiry received via email
1. RSP have not followed the legislation laid down in the Planning Act 2008 and that because the document fails to identify the flight path and as a consequence which areas will be affected directly by in-coming and out going aircraft, it has attempted to mislead and avoid informing those residents that would have their lives seriously blighted and property drastically devalued. I am one of those residents and have received no information, other than by word of mouth.

2.The Consultation Overview Report relies on a 'desk study' which has restricted the impact of an airport and associated activities, primary to the site and does not seriously explore the impact of aircraft along any flight path including the land below and airspace. The report in my opinion is seriously flawed and as you can see I have requested additional information in relation to details within the report which do not seem to have been appropriately evidence based or referenced. In short, there is too much opinion and not enough fact.

As a result, I do not feel they have appropriately applied the Planning Act 2008 or the Land Compensation Act 1973 and would therefor request that the planning inspectorate takes a 'long hard look' at the RSP DCO application.
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.

To that end it is appropriate that you to have sent your comments to the Applicant and to the host local authorities. 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.

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently found to be of a satisfactory standard, the merits of the Proposed Development will be tested by an appointed Examining Authority in accordance with s104 or s105 of the PA2008. Advice Note Eight, and link to which was provided previously, explains the Examination process and how to have your say.

10 July 2017
Becky Wing
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The enquirer expressed concern about the lack of consultation events offered in Ramsgate about the proposed reopening of Manston Airport.

1. Failure to notify affected residents:

During the time that the airport was operational, cargo planes would line up over Ramsgate Harbour and descend over the town towards the runway. We who live under this flight path should have received written notification that River Oak Strategic Partnership were planning to hold a consultation event in Ramsgate. A very few people in this area, mainly those who live within a short distance of the perimeter of the airport, were sent leaflets about this consultation. The residents of Birchington also received personal letters from RSP, yet the populations of Herne Bay and Ramsgate, who will live directly under the flight path, were not. We only found out from the local paper (which has a low circulation) or from Facebook.

2. Failure to supply relevant information:

The RSP plan does not include any information regarding Public Safety Zones. I understand there are some 4-5,000 homes in Ramsgate and 3 schools situated within the risk area, as well as Pegwell Bay and Sandwich Bay National Nature Reserves. Different consultants at the Ramsgate consultation offered different advice as to flight paths, number of flights, etc. One said the flight paths were not decided - however, unless RSP plan to turn the runway around, I cannot see how the flight path would not pass directly over Ramsgate, at an admitted height of around 600 feet. Another consultant claimed night flights "were only included in the documentation because the CAA require it" and that they had no intention of having night flights. I have no idea how a freight-based airport could possibly be successful unless it offered night flights, particularly one stuck in the south-easternmost corner of England. The last time the airport was operational and Thanet District Council conducted a survey about potential night flights, 73% of Ramsgate residents were opposed to them. The claims as to the number of jobs created are also farcical.

Please be aware that I am strongly opposed to this proposed scheme.
The Planning Inspectorate cannot consider objections to a proposal at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process. 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]

There is also no mechanism through which the Planning Inspectorate can influence an Applicant’s consultation at the Pre-application stage of the PA2008 process.

Please provide your comments to the Applicant if you have not done so already. I note you have copied-in Thanet District Council. 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.

10 July 2017
Jane Roberts
Enquiry received via email
I would like to express my concern regarding the lack of information provided to Ramsgate residents regarding the consultations. It was only by chance that my husband and I became aware of the consultation event at The Comfort Inn. Surely this cannot be following guidelines?

At the event itself, although there were several River Oak staff present, responses to questions were poor and the attitude of one member of staff that I spoke to could only be described as aggressive and very over-bearing. At a consultation event surely residents are expected to ask questions and query information provided – sadly, rather than getting clear answers, my questions were often deflected by further statements or I was simply referred to various documents.

I also wonder about the lack of information in the consultation about Public Safety Zones (PSZ)? As you will be aware, a PSZ covers the 1 in 100,000 risk area; I believe it is estimated that there are 4,500 homes in Ramsgate that are within this risk area and three schools. As the Secretary of State wishes to see the emptying of all occupied residential properties, and of all commercial and industrial properties occupied as normal all-day workplaces, within the 1 in 10,000 individual risk contour, this has significant implications including for the occupants of the residential streets - Kirkstone, Whinfell, Drybeck, Kentmere and part of Windemere Avenue; these residents could be required to vacate their homes. Given the requirements relating to PSZs, it is particularly alarming that Ramsgate residents were not alerted by mail regarding the consultation and that more information is not available to the general public regarding the implications of the re-opening of the airport at Manston. If people are not fully informed how can they take part appropriately in the consultation process? How and what arrangements can be put in place to ensure the community is in receipt of all the information required?

I shall also be raising my concerns with the Council so that these can be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation.

The redevelopment of an airport at Manston will not only have a detrimental impact for local residents but it is also contrary to the economic regeneration of a tourist area with significant architectural, historic and cultural significance. Alarmingly, there also seems to be little evidence that there is a proper business case establishing the need or the financial viability of such a scheme.
You have pre-empted my advice as you intend to send your written comments to the local authority. If you have not done so already, you should also send them directly to the Applicant.

The Planning Act 2008 places a number of duties on Applicants in respect of Pre-application consultation.

All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the 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 Planning Act 2008. 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 Planning Act 2008, whether or not an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. In reaching this 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.

07 July 2017
Lesley Chater
Enquiry received via post
The enquirer raised concerns about the Applicant's Pre-application community consultation.
In the first instance, I advise for you to provide your comments to the Applicant and to your local authority. Local authorities have a special role in the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process, which I explain in the content of this letter.

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.

07 July 2017
Rupert Allason
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing in response to RSP’s recent Consultation event held in Ramsgate.

Firstly, I’m disappointed in the lack of opportunity presented to the 40000 people in Ramsgate to participate in the Consultation. Although RSP saw fit to directly mail and or leaflet people living within a few hundred yards of the site, such an outreach was not offered to Ramsgate’s population. They were expected to find out by reading a local paper (very poor circulation) or by word of mouth via social media. When I contacted RSP to find out why some dwellings near the site had been contacted directly, I was told:

“With regards to your second point, in order to prepare for our application for a Development Consent Order to rebuild and reopen Manston Airport we are legally required to make a ‘diligent inquiry’ to establish who owns and occupies the land that will be affected by the project.”

The implication is that people who live in Ramsgate, under the flight path, won’t be (in RSP’s) view, affected by the Development.

So the likely impact on Ramsgate and its residents was uppermost on my mind when I visited the Ramsgate Consultation. Which brings me to my second point: I managed to talk to one of the Consultants about the anticipated noise levels over Ramsgate. First, he said that it was not possible to give an answer, because the flight paths were not decided. I pointed out that the map he was standing in front of clearly showed several flight paths, both approaching and departing Ramsgate. I pointed out that there were no noise contours on the map. He explained that because the DCO was in respect of the infrastructure alone, then noise didn’t matter.

Is this in fact the case? That the Consultation is only about the bricks, mortar and concrete, and nothing about the environmental impacts of the operation?

My third point concerns the issue of Night Flights. I managed to talk with [a member of the RSP team]. She assured me that Night Flights were only included in the documentation because the CAA required it. There was no intention to have night flights per se, she said.

This appears to be at odds with Q6 of RSP Consultation Feedback form, which says:

“As part of the development of the project, RiverOak have been exploring the potential impacts and benefits of limited night flights at Manston Airport. Night flights will make Manston Airport even more attractive for air freight and will allow us to explore more opportunities for benefits in the region but come with additional impacts. We have assessed for up to eight flights a night but we have not made a decision about whether to include night flights (or how many) in our application” [[attachment 1]]

So, no night flights or an indeterminate number depending on business opportunities?

I understand that the Consultation is being held under the auspices of the Rochdale Envelope. I looked up a Guidance Note and two things struck me.

“.. taken with those defined parameters of the project, the level of detail of the proposals must be such as to enable a proper assessment of the likely environmental effects, and necessary mitigation - if necessary considering a range of possibilities”

and

“This does not give developers an excuse to provide inadequate descriptions of their projects. It will be for the authority responsible for issuing the development consent to decide whether it is satisfied, given the nature of the project in question, that it has ‘full knowledge’ of its likely significant effects on the environment. If it considers that an unnecessary degree of flexibility, and hence uncertainty as to the likely significant environmental effects, has been incorporated into the description of the development, then it can require more detail, or refuse consent’ (para.95 of the Judgment[sic])” [[attachment 2]]

This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It seems that RSP has written off Ramsgate. They - it can be concluded from their own words - do not consider the town to be affected by the project.
The Consultation was a farce. One consultant was most unsure as to what he was talking about, and, indeed, seemed to be making it up as he went along. [Another consultant's] assertions were at odds with RSP’s own documentation. And Rochdale Envelope or not, how is it possible to make a meaningful response to a consultation when crucially important information on noise impact and night flights is either missing or contradictory?
I respond to your points under three headings.

Land referencing and diligent inquiry (heading)

In respect of land referencing, please refer to previous advice issued in April 2017: [attachment 3]

The process of due diligence also applies to an Applicant’s identification of persons who it thinks, if a DCO was made, would or might be entitled to make a relevant claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973; or s152(3) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Such persons are referred to as ‘category 3’ interests.

Where a person is not identified by an Applicant to be a category 3 interest who could make a relevant claim, that person is not precluded from making a relevant claim, or from applying to an appointed Examining Authority to become an Interested Party for the purposes of the examination of an application (under s102(A) of the PA2008).

Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) methodology (heading)

The Proposed Development is EIA development, and Chapter 11 of the Applicant’s Scoping Report identifies the potential for significant noise effects to arise during construction and operation of the proposed airport. It is available to view here: [attachment 4] In its Scoping Opinion, the Planning Inspectorate stated that noise and vibration effects are a potential main issue and should be included in the Environmental Statement (ES) for the Proposed Development. The Scoping Opinion is available to view here: [attachment 5]

The ES will be a material consideration in the Examination of any application that is made.

In respect of the Applicant’s proposed assessment methodology, the Rochdale Envelope principle is an accepted way of dealing with uncertainty in preparing applications for development consent. The Applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and explain clearly in the ES which elements of the Proposed Development have yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. Where some flexibility is sought and the precise details are not known (eg specific flight paths), the Applicant should assess a worst case scenario based on the maximum likely envelope of potential adverse impacts that the Proposed Development could have. This is to ensure that the full effects of a development as it may be constructed have been properly assessed.

In respect of the Proposed Development, we understand that the Applicant intends to represent the maximum potential adverse impacts through assessing route swathes (see next section).

In respect of night flights, the Planning Inspectorate has access to the same information as the local community and statutory consultees. Together with the excerpt from the feedback form which you provide, the Applicant’s Scoping Report states at paragraph 11.6.10 that “The airport will be operational during the day and may be operational to some extent at night. The noise generated due to this activity may give rise to potentially significant effects”. If night flights are proposed for the airport, the likely significant effects will need to be assessed by the Applicant as part of its EIA and presented in the ES.

We note that Chapter 12 of the Applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information Report sets out its current understanding of noise effects arising from the Proposed Development and also considers matters such as mitigation and compensation for noise impacts.

The Airspace Change Process (heading)

The Planning Inspectorate attended a process evaluation workshop with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Applicant on 12 June 2017. The note of the meeting is in the process of being finalised and will published to our website shortly. Appended to it are the slides from a presentation delivered by the Applicant.

The Applicant would be required to redesign the airspace around the airfield in order to make an operational cargo airport viable. Airspace redesign is subject to a separate ‘Airspace Change Process’ (ACP) which is owned by the CAA. From the Applicant’s presentation we understand that the ACP is subject to its own technical environmental assessment requirements (including specific requirements in respect of noise) and consultation processes. We understand that the ACP will require for precise flight paths to be provided to the CAA. These flight paths would be required to fall within the route swathes assessed by the Applicant as part of the EIA associated with the preparation of the application for development consent.

For advice about the ACP and how to make comments on an airspace change proposal, please contact the CAA directly using the appropriate channels.

06 July 2017
James Chappell
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer, a local councillor, set out a number of concerns in respect of RiverOak Strategic Partner's community consultation.
Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) sets out an applicant’s duties in respect of consulting the local community. Section 47(2) states that before preparing the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), the Applicant must consult each host authority about what is to be in the SoCC. Section 47(5) states that in preparing the SoCC, the Applicant must have regard to any responses to consultation under s47(2).

Subsequently, 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. Comments received in response are “Adequacy of Consultation Representations”, as defined in s55 of the PA2008. The Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any Adequacy of Consultation Representations in making its decision about whether an application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined.

If you have not already, I would advise for you to share your concerns with the appropriate technical department within Thanet District Council in order that they may be considered in the Council’s preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

06 July 2017
Susan Kennedy
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As I understand all statutory consultees must be informed by the project leaders about the plans.
In the event the statutory consultees refuses to engage, where does this leave the DCO prospects?
The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Eleven explains the framework which governs the involvement of relevant consultees and consenting bodies at each stage in the process and sets out the key principles which the Planning Inspectorate hopes will underpin working arrangements. It is available to view here: [attachment 1]

Different statutory consultees are bound by different obligations in respect of how and when they may respond to the Planning Inspectorate on specific issues. The Planning Inspectorate also has certain powers to compel statutory bodies to provide advice or evidence to it at specific stages of the process.

06 July 2017
Kirrien Wilson
Enquiry received via email
I am writing with regards to the recent consultations about a potential cargo hub at the former Manston airport, Kent, and my concerns over the consultation process.

I bought my house two years ago and live at XXXXXXX, which is directly in line with the runway. As the airport was closed, at the time I bought my house, it was not an issue that I live less than 2 miles as the crow flies from the end of the runway, but I was surprised to find out, through a friend, that there were consultations in Thanet about a DCO to create a cargo hub, yet I, as a resident that will be effected greatly, was not notified of this.

I work 6 days a week and could not get to the Ramsgate meeting, instead I went to the Herne Bay one. There I asked several questions. Firstly, why my house / street / ward were not notified that there were consultations about this proposal? I was told, 'I found out anyway, and no one else had complained, it had been on the RSP website'. I didn't find that to be a satisfactory reply to my concerns.

I then asked why the Ramsgate meeting was shorter than the others, and why not the evening? I was informed that they thought that at the weekend most people could make it during the day and that they couldn't book the venue for longer. again, I find that answer wholly unsatisfactory. I have later found out that various areas in Thanet have been added onto the list of venues, and residents written to that do not live under the flight path, how is this deemed as fair?

I then asked about night flights, as cargo generally needs night flights. Two different people answered this question, both with different answers. A gentleman introduced as the business expert explained to me that they had assessed for night flights, but were not sure of they would be needed. When I questioned him further, he explained, that they might be needed as in his research companies wanted to bring in freight at night and that most of the companies that he knew used night flights. Again, pressed on this point, he said that RSP had no cargo companied lined up yet, so this was all in the future and they couldn't comment on it now. Yet, there was no information as to the potential impact on night time flying, the noise it would cause, health problems or so on. I was left with the knowledge that when the companies come and they want night flights, that is the problem that would be sorted out then. At another time, I causally asked another RSP employee about night flights, and was told 'Oh yes, we need them, but only want them to be for passengers', completely at odds with what I was originally told.

I asked about the information being in different languages for other people to access if need be and was told this wasn't necessary.

To not make this proposal accessible, to not notify people in the direct flight path, especially when night flights are a possibility and to give insufficient information at a presentation doesn't seem to me to be adequate as a robust consultation. At one point I was asked if I had been to their earlier consultation, to which I pointed out that I had indeed been to Riveroak's preliminary meeting, but as the company was now RSP, and no longer affiliated with that company I did not see how those two meetings could be linked.

I will be writing this to RSP directly, and I would like to send it to my council too, although I am unsure as to where to email it to. But firstly, as the potential to be the first DCO of an airport in the country I wanted to ask you about this as I feel that RSP have been wholly unprofessional with their format and making the game up as they go along. At the end of the day, this effects people at both ends of the runway and has great implications for schools, residents and so on, so think that a far more thorough process be put in place.
If/ when an application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant local authorities (see s43 of the Planning Act 2008) about whether an Applicant has complied with its statutory Pre-application consultation duties (see s42, s47 and s48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’.
All applications for development consent must also be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the 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 Planning Act 2008. 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 Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this 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.

On the basis of the above, I would advise for you to provide your comments to your local authority, copying-in the Applicant. This will enable your local authority to consider your comments in the preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if/ when an application for development consent is submitted.

06 July 2017
Ann-Marie Nixey
Enquiry received via email
I'm writing with regard to my grave concerns about the consultation process being conducted by River Oak Strategic Partners, or RSP as part of their plans to develop the former Manston airport.

I am a local Ramsgate resident and live directly under what is most likely to be the flightpath. I am absolutely opposed to RSPs plans to re-open Manston airport as a cargo hub, which they have said themselves in their proposal documents may involve night flights - up to eight every night. The noise from these flights would radically disrupt the peace and quiet, and more importantly the sleep of our entire town.

Like most of our 40,000 residents I was not directly consulted about this plan. I received no letter, or indeed any information by post, not even a leaflet containing the most basic information. The first I heard about it was around a week ago when I came across a flyer in a local restaurant by a group opposed to the plans.

By the time I looked into the issue I realised it was too late to attend any of the Ramsgate consultations. I am extremely disappointed at not being given any decent warning about this issue.

Extra meeting dates at other locations were added to the calendar, but when RSP were asked to host another one for Ramsgate they refused.

Residents in Birchington - not directly under the flight path - got personal letters, but Ramsgate resident received nothing. This seems blatantly unfair, and tactical on RSP's part. Clearly Ramsgate residents are being deliberately ignored.

I am a relatively young resident, mobile and connected in terms of media and the web so I hate to think of how in the dark more hard to reach residents - especially older folks, or those with mobility issues - are. I imagine thousands of Ramsgate residents will be poorly informed about RSPs plans and unable to engage with the consultation process. This is totally unacceptable.

I hope this matter will be looked into more. RSP clearly have a very blunt corporate agenda and is deliberately not involving the entire town of Ramsgate in this process because they know that Ramsgate is the largest town within close range of the operations and pose a threat to their plans.

This consultation process should be transparent, open to all and conducted over a reasonable period of time,. So far it has been none of these things. Our town is being ignored in a rush to get the consultation process over and done with, with as little resistance as possible.
If/ when an application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant local authorities (see s43 of the Planning Act 2008) about whether an Applicant has complied with its statutory Pre-application consultation duties (see s42, s47 and s48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’.

All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of:

a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the 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 Planning Act 2008. 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 Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this 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.

On the basis of the above, I would advise for you to provide your comments to your local authority, copying-in the Applicant. This will enable your local authority to consider your comments in the preparation of its Adequacy of Consultation Representation; if/ when an application for development consent is submitted.

In respect of the duration of the consultation period, section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 prescribes that an Applicant’s statutory Pre-application consultation must run for a minimum of 28 days. RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd opened its statutory consultation period on 12 June 2017. The consultation period will close on 23 July 2017, having run for 42 days.

06 July 2017
Whetham Allpress
Enquiry received via email
Do you advise that I endeavour to complete the consultation trying to use the existing website or to wait and see if I get some reply from the Applicant or Thanet District Council that results in a website that is navigable, shows whole images and text in the browser and is generally fit for purpose?
I was copied in to this afternoon’s response from Thanet District Council. I hope this provides you with some reassurance about the local authority’s role in considering and making representations about the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation.

Without deflecting from the website problems that you report, the Statement of Community Consultation does include details of other means by which the consultation documentation may be accessed. I understand that these means may not be convenient to you (or other members of the community), but they do provide a channel for you to access the full suite of documents and make a fully informed response to them. Alternatively it may be worth contacting the Applicant to ask for a copy of the consultation documents on CD or USB drive.

05 July 2017
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Child expressed a number of concerns about the accessibility of consultation documents on RiverOak Strategic Partner's website.
In respect of your concerns about the Applicant’s website, I would refer you to the principles in the latter half of the advice that I issued to you on 2 March 2017: [attachment 1]

For convenience, my advice states that if/ when an application is submitted, 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 Planning Act 2008. The Planning Inspectorate must then have regard to any ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’ received in taking its decision about whether an application should be accepted for examination.

With that in mind, if you have concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation I would advise for you to provide your comments to the local authority(ies) (copying in the Applicant).

04 July 2017
Michael Child
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I am writing after reading the minutes of a meeting which took place between the Planning Inspectorate and RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) on the 12th May 2017. The meeting related to a potential DCO application to reopen the airport at Manston and the minutes have been published on the planning inspectorate web-site.

According to the minutes, the planning inspectorate has agreed to a tripartite meeting between themselves, RSP and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to discuss the licencing of the airfield. The planning inspectorate agreed to this meeting once the consultation process had taken place.

You may, or may not, be aware that the CAA will not accept an application for a licence unless the applicant owns the land or has specific permission from the owners of the land. This being the case I have to ask what purpose is served by holding this meeting?

I have two concerns. Firstly, RSP intend to use this meeting to persuade the CAA that they have a realistic prospect of acquiring the land and, by so doing, would be able to press the CAA to commence the process of licensing before they have acquired the land. Secondly, the Planning Inspectorate would be then be portrayed as having given some kind of assurance to the CAA that the DCO would be accepted and would be successful. In other words, the Planning Inspectorate would be guilty of pre-determination.

I would like to suggest that the Planning Inspectorate should resist any attempt to meet with the CAA in relation to Manston. No DCO application has been submitted and, even if such an application is made, it would not be sensible for the Planning Inspectorate to meet with the CAA in advance of the application being determined.

Unfortunately, there is an aggressive campaign group (SMA) which is hell-bent on seeing Manston reopened. This group is highly active on social media with a mailing list running into thousands. This doesn't mean that thousands of people support the campaign. It just means that they have been able to add people to the mailing list. Over the course of the last year, this group has repeatedly bombarded people with misinformation about the DCO application. People have been told that this is a National Infrastructure Project whereas, in truth, this decision has not been made. People have been led to believe that the DCO is bound to succeed and that the Planning Inspectorate is helping to ensure that the application succeeds. The Planning Inspectorate has held regular meetings with the potential applicant but has not met with the local council or with any of the many thousands of people who would be badly affected by this ridiculous proposal. I trust that nothing is further from the truth and that the Planning Inspectorate has confined itself to assisting RSP with the mechanics of the application. Nevertheless, an impression has been created that the Planning Inspectorate is not acting impartially. If the Planning Inspectorate goes ahead and meets with the CAA, this will do nothing to allay fears that this DCO application is a done deal and that the Planning Inspectorate has not acted as an independent arbiter.
I respond to your substantive points under the following three headings.

Process evaluation workshop (heading)

Where the need arises, the Planning Inspectorate can offer a facilitation role by participating in round table meetings for example, between an Applicant, local authority and statutory consultees. The purpose of such meetings is explained in our Pre-application Prospectus: [attachment 1]

A process evaluation workshop was held on 12 June 2017. It was attended by the Planning Inspectorate, the Civil Aviation Authority (a statutory consultee) and RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP, the Applicant). The note of the meeting is being prepared and will be published to the Planning Inspectorate’s website in due course.

By way of summary, the meeting included:

• A presentation by RSP on its Pre-application programme;
• Consideration of how the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and Airspace Change Process (ACP) interact;
• Consideration of RSP’s preferred timescale in respect of initiation of the ACP; and
• Consideration of complexities associated with assessing noise impacts between Environmental Impact Assessment and the requirements of the ACP.

No project-specific advice was issued by the Planning Inspectorate in the course of the meeting.

The PA2008 process and the ACP (heading)

Inevitably the PA2008 process and the ACP will be concerned with similar issues, but procedurally the processes are entirely distinct. The Planning Inspectorate will administer and examine any forthcoming land-use application which includes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), and the CAA will administer and consider any forthcoming application to redesign airspace. In respect of the latter, it is not for the Planning Inspectorate to decide when the CAA will be prepared to accept and consider an application for airspace change, or to consider any perquisites for any such application. This is a matter for the CAA to provide advice about. Therefore if you have any further queries about the ACP you should contact the CAA directly using the appropriate channels.

The fundamental values of the Planning Inspectorate are its commitment to openness, transparency and impartiality in the conduct of its business. Absolutely no assurances have been provided to the CAA or RSP in respect of the outcome of any application for development consent. Indeed, you are correct that a decision will not be made about whether the proposed development includes an NSIP until such time as an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and the suite of statutory Acceptance tests are applied.

Pre-application meetings with RSP (heading)

In respect of the Planning Inspectorate’s meetings with RSP, the advice issued at each of them has been recorded and published to our website in line with the requirements of the PA2008.

There are various benefits to the Planning Inspectorate to be kept up to date with an applicant’s Pre-application programme, not least in respect of our own resourcing, and regular meetings are helpful to this end. Notwithstanding this, the Planning Inspectorate is responsive to meetings requested by any of the PA2008’s stakeholders; including outreach events in local communities. The holding of any such meetings or events would be considered by the Planning Inspectorate wherever it thought there would be value in the meeting or event taking place, and where the meeting or event was proposed to be held at an appropriate time in the PA2008 process. As you are aware, there are also other channels through which anybody can request and receive procedural advice from the Planning Inspectorate, including by phone; email; or letter.

04 July 2017
Peter Binding
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr Kirkaldie expressed concerns in respect of the Planning Inspectorate's handling of three planning appeals at the site of the former Manston Airport in conjunction with RiverOak Strategic Partner's emerging application for development consent.
The planning appeal process under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) is different to the decision-making process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects under the separate Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The handling of these processes is distinct.

The Public Inquiry into the four planning appeals at the site of the former Manston Airport sat in March 2017, the Inquiry has concluded and the Inspector is writing the decision on these appeals. Having consulted with colleagues, I understand that the decision in respect of these appeals is expected to be issued soon.

The PA2008 process places specific duties on prospective NSIP applicants in respect of how they must consult with statutory consultees (s42 PA2008) and local communities (s47 PA2008) at the Pre-application stage, that is, before an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In the Pre-application stage, it is entirely for the applicant to decide when they carry out their statutory consultation exercises. We understand that RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd (RSP) opened its statutory consultation period for its development proposals on 12 June 2017. The consultation period will close on 23 July 2017, having run for 42 days.

I can assure you that the Planning Inspectorate has no influence as to the timing of RSP’s consultation. I can also assure you that there is no question of the Inspectorate having any regard to the prospective applicant’s statutory consultation in respect of the timing of the determination of the four planning appeals. Decisions will be issued when the Inspector is ready to issue them.

If an application for development consent is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by RSP it will be subject to rigorous testing in the 28-day Acceptance period before a decision is made about whether it is of a satisfactory standard to be examined. These tests include detailed scrutiny as to whether the applicant has satisfied its consultation duties under s42 and s47 of the PA2008, referred to above.

All of the legislation and statutory guidance that governs the PA2008 process is accessible on the Planning Inspectorate’s website, together with our own suite of non-statutory advice notes: [attachment 1]

30 June 2017
Malcolm Kirkaldie
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
What steps will the Planning Inspectorate take to ensure there is a proper and unencumbered consultation?
Following a suite of non-statutory consultation events held in 2016, the Planning Inspectorate issued the following advice to the Applicant:
[attachment 1]

This advice was issued by the Inspectorate proactively, and was in part driven by communicated concerns analogous to those set out in your email.

All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (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 a proposed application that has become the 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 to accept an application for examination. In reaching this 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.

21 June 2017
Andrew Hollins
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
In respect of his experience at a recent consultation event, Mr de Pulford expressed concern that the Applicant "could not answer basic questions about the impact of their development on local residents".
The Applicant’s Preliminary Environment Impact Report (PEIR) has been published to its website: [attachment 1] The PEIR presents the preliminary findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment being undertaken for the proposed development. In the context of your enquiry, Chapter 3 of the PEIR describes the proposed development and makes reference to night flights. Chapter 11 deals with landscape and visual impacts.

Applicants can assess the likely significant impacts of a proposed development using the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ (RE) approach; this is used to assess a likely or reasonable ‘worst case scenario’. This approach is consistent with the objective of the EIA Directive, and the Planning Inspectorate acknowledges the Rochdale approach is a way of dealing with an application comprising EIA development where details of a project have not been resolved at the time when an application is submitted. The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note 9 explains how Applicants can use the Rochdale approach where a degree of flexibility is stated to be required within the consent sought: [attachment 2]

In the context of your concerns therefore, the Planning Inspectorate would anticipate that during statutory consultation at the Pre-application stage of the process an Applicant may be cautious about giving, or unable to give, detailed and precise advice in respect of the likely impacts on a specific receptor(s).

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if that application is found to be of a satisfactory standard to be examined, you will have the opportunity to register your interest in the Examination and make representations to the appointed Examining Authority about the merits of the proposed development. Details about how to engage with an Examination and have your say, at the appropriate time, are set out in the suite of Advice notes forming the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note 8: [attachment 3]

In the meantime if you wish to make any comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation exercise please do so to the relevant local authority, in this case Thanet District Council; and to the Applicant itself.

21 June 2017
Mark de Pulford
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Process evaluation presentation by RiverOak Strategic Partners.
See attached meeting note.

12 June 2017
anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
SMAa have compared the final version of the RiverOak SoCC (May 2017) with the earlier draft version (Feb 2017), and noted where some changes have occurred, with particular reference to the responses by Thanet District Council and the No Night Flights group. Please see attached.
It is not within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate to consider submissions of this type at the Pre-application stage the process.

Please make any comments about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation duties to the relevant local authority.

01 June 2017
Save Manston Airport Association - Dr Beau Webber
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Can you please explain how RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd will ensure that, during the formal consultation period, the public's expressed views will be properly recognised, recorded and taken into account? We need assurance that the public interest is safeguarded.
All applications for development consent must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (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 a proposed application that has become the 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 to accept an application for examination. In reaching this 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.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published guidance about the Pre-application process. Pages 5 through 20 of this document deal with the Pre-application consultation process and should help to contextualise the tests described above: [attachment 1]

This Guidance is statutory and the Planning Inspectorate must therefore in making its Acceptance decision have regard to the extent to which an applicant has followed its content.

The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 14, which sets out the expected format and content of Consultation Reports, may also be of interest to you: [attachment 2]

23 May 2017
Simon Crow
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.
See attached meeting note.

12 May 2017
RiverOak Strategic Partners - anon.
Enquiry received via email
Can I ask you to ensure that [RiverOak Strategic Partners] RSP make a public statement clarifying that compensation is not dependent on completion of the land referencing survey, as the Save Manston Airport Association [SMAa] campaign group is making this case to anyone and everyone, and I am aware that many people are providing information in fear of losing their right to compensation.

Can you ask RSP to clarify the relationship between the two parties, as Beau Webber, SMAa chair, has the appearance of acting as a RiverOak spokesman. Without clarification, this further adds to the ambiguity surrounding RSP's communications and plans for Manston.

It would also be beneficial if RSP could confirm whether they have provided funding to SMAa, either directly from RSP, or via one of the Company's directors or other employee.
The Planning Inspectorate has recently issued clear advice to a number of individuals in relation to the land referencing exercise being undertaken by RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP). This advice has been published on our website and is available for the public to inspect.

If you have not already, please make your views about the Save Manston Airport Association's (SMAa) recent statements known to RSP. It will be for RSP to decide whether making a clarificatory public statement would be an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns raised.

I would reiterate that the Planning Inspectorate has not been informed about any relationship between the applicant, RSP, and the SMAa.

28 April 2017
Robert Bird
Enquiry received via email
Is “Land referencing [...] a key part of the DCO process and [...] strictly governed by statute and regulation”?
Where a Development Consent Order (DCO) would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession, sections 44, 57 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establish that in seeking to identify all land interests and persons who may be entitled to make a relevant claim an applicant must make diligent inquiry. Paragraph 50 of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process explains:

“It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate at submission of the application that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying all land interests and applicants should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the Book of Reference (which records and categorises those land interests) is up to date at the time of submission.”

Issuing land referencing questionnaires in the format provided by RiverOak Strategic Partners is one of a number of approaches routinely applied by DCO applicants in seeking to identify all land interests and therefore satisfy the due diligence test set out in the PA2008. In consideration of this test, the land referencing process, from an applicant’s perspective, has an important role in the preparation of an application for a DCO which would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession. From the perspective of a person with an interest in the land, volunteering details about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant will help to ensure that their interest(s) are reflected accurately in any application, and ensure that their ability to engage in the examination of that application is not compromised.

Notwithstanding this, questionnaire recipients are not mandated to volunteer information about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant, if they do not wish to do so. Importantly choosing not to volunteer land interest information to a DCO applicant would have no implications for a person’s status and ability to take part in the examination of an application for a DCO, or for any future claims by a person for compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; the Land Compensation Act 1973; and/ or s152 of the PA2008.

26 April 2017
Save Manston Airport Association - Beau Webber
Enquiry received via email
Further to our previous correspondence regarding the proposed Manston Airport DCO, I'd like to bring to your attention a letter published in this week's Kent on Sunday.

The letter is written by Dr Beau Webber, chair of the Save Manston Airport Association, and he appears to be speaking on behalf of the DCO applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners. He refers to current activity, apparently being carried out by Mouchel on behalf of RSP, where I understand that Mouchel are asking for detailed information on property ownership without explaining clearly why they are requesting the information. I also understand that they are inappropriately assertive in these requests.

The inappropriateness of Mouchel's actions aside, can you please clarify two things :

1. Is Dr Webber correct in his assertion that if people refuse to provide information to Mouchel's doorstep requests that they will not qualify for compensation should the DCO proceed?
2. Can you confirm whether the Save Manston Airport Association have been formally engaged by RiverOak Strategic Partners to act on their behalf?

Further information which is pertinent to item 2 is the distribution by SMAa of roughly 40,000 leaflets in the locality, with these leaflets heavily promoting RiverOak's DCO attempt. Should these communications be captured in RSP's Statement of Community Consultation, as they are directly associated with their DCO?
1. Is Dr Webber correct in his assertion that if people refuse to provide information to Mouchel's doorstep requests that they will not qualify for compensation should the DCO proceed?

By way of background, where a Development Consent Order (DCO) would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession, sections 44, 57 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establish that in seeking to identify all land interests and persons who may be entitled to make a relevant claim an applicant must make diligent inquiry. Paragraph 50 of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process explains:

“It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate at submission of the application that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying all land interests and applicants should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the Book of Reference (which records and categorises those land interests) is up to date at the time of submission.”

Issuing land referencing questionnaires in the format provided by RiverOak Strategic Partners is one of a number of approaches routinely applied by DCO applicants in seeking to identify all land interests and therefore satisfy the due diligence test set out in the PA2008. In consideration of this test, the land referencing process, from an applicant’s perspective, has an important role in the preparation of an application for a DCO which would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession. From the perspective of a person with an interest in the land, volunteering details about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant will help to ensure that their interest(s) are reflected accurately in any application, and ensure that their ability to engage in the examination of that application is not compromised.

Notwithstanding this, questionnaire recipients are not mandated to volunteer information about their interest(s) in land to a DCO applicant, if they do not wish to do so. Importantly choosing not to volunteer land interest information to a DCO applicant would have no implications for a person’s status and ability to take part in the examination of an application for a DCO, or for any future claims by a person for compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; the Land Compensation Act 1973; and/ or s152 of the PA2008.

2. Can you confirm whether the Save Manston Airport Association (SMA) have been formally engaged by RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) to act on their behalf?

The Planning Inspectorate has not been informed about any relationship between the DCO applicant, RSP, and the SMA.

3. Should [circa 40,000 leaflets dropped by the SMA in the locality] be captured in RSP's Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), as they are directly associated with their DCO?

If RSP submits an application for development consent to the Planning Inspectorate, it will be required to demonstrate in the application that its Pre-application consultation with the local community (under s47 of the PA2008) has been carried out in accordance with the SoCC. If any actions by any person or group are relied upon by an applicant to demonstrate compliance with the tests in s47 of the PA2008, the Planning Inspectorate would expect for those actions to have been scheduled in the SoCC or, where they had not been, explained and justified in an appropriate location within the submitted application(ie the Consultation Report). In this context however I would reemphasise that the Planning Inspectorate has not been informed about any relationship between RSP and the SMA.

26 April 2017
Robert Bird
Enquiry received via email
Can you tell me if the attached questionnaire is pertinent to the DCO process as RiverOak Strategic Partners are claiming they are acting on your behalf?
By way of background, where a Development Consent Order (DCO) would seek powers of Compulsory Acquisition and/ or Temporary Possession, sections 44, 57 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) establish that in seeking to identify all land interests and persons who may be entitled to make a relevant claim an applicant must make diligent inquiry. Paragraph 50 of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process explains:

“It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate at submission of the application that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying all land interests and applicants should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the Book of Reference (which records and categorises those land interests) is up to date at the time of submission.”

Issuing land referencing questionnaires in the format provided by RiverOak Strategic Partners is one of a number of approaches routinely applied by DCO applicants in seeking to identify all land interests and therefore satisfy the due diligence test set out in the PA2008.

In issuing the attached questionnaire RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) is not acting on behalf of the Planning Inspectorate. RSP is seeking to identify persons with an interest in the lands which would be affected by the DCO in order that it may provide the requisite information, and satisfy the due diligence tests, in any forthcoming application made to the Planning Inspectorate.

26 April 2017
Save Manston Airport Group - Keith Churcher
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please find attached a copy of a letter from No Night Flights to Thanet District Council. The letter is No Night Flights’ comment on a document issued by RSP (RiverOak Strategic Partners). The RSP document is apparently RSP’s draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC). We came across it by chance.

The dSoCC is inadequate in a number of ways. The main issue is that it sets out a programme of consultation activities that avoids making sure that residents under the flight path of the proposed new cargo airport would be told that the consultation exercise is happening.

The attached letter demonstrates the significant difference between the area that RSP claims might be affected by a new cargo hub and the area that residents know from past experience is affected by cargo flights going into and out of the old airport.

As PINS has regular meetings with RSP, we would be grateful if you would bring our grave concerns about RSP’s dSoCC to RSP’s attention.
By way of clarification, applicants are required by s47 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) to consult each host local authority about the content of a draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC) and must, in preparing the final statement, have regard to any responses provided.

For information, in conjunction with this consultation the Planning Inspectorate was also asked to provide comments on the content of the dSoCC. Our response is published on our website, here: [attachment 1]. To clarify, the request for the Planning Inspectorate to provide comments on the dSoCC was wholly discretionary. There are no provisions within the PA2008 which require the Planning Inspectorate to provide feedback on a dSoCC in this way, or for an applicant to have regard to the feedback that the Planning Inspectorate provides.

In publishing your request for advice, and the Planning Inspectorate’s response to it, the concerns set out in your letter Thanet District Council will be brought to the attention of RSP.

21 April 2017
No Night Flights - Ros McIntyre
Enquiry received via email
I fully appreciate that, under under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA2008), the Planning Inspectorate will be assessing any application against whether "... (a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land." That I am not questioning.

Surely the Planning Inspectorate must also be considering the suitability and the credibility of the applicant, as well as whether it can meet the 'project of real substance' test? I would suggest that the Planning Inspectorate should be carefully assessing the suitability and credibility of any applicant, both for an S53 access application and, in this case, any possible later application for a Development Consent Order.

Given the evidence in my email of 13th April, I am suggesting that the Planning Inspectorate must scrutinize and carefully question the suitability and credibility of RiverOak Strategic Partners should you receive from it any applications for S53 access or for a Development Consent Order.
All applications for authorisation to enter land under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) will be considered and decided against the statutory tests.

Any subsequent application for a Development Consent Order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in s55 of the PA2008. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulation 2009 require applicants to submit a Funding Statement, if the proposed Development Consent Order would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition of land, indicating how the Compulsory Acquisition is proposed to be funded. Concurrently, the Department for Communities and Local Governments’ ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ states that the Funding Statement should “demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.”

If an application for a Development Consent Order is accepted for examination matters of funding may be examined by the appointed Examining Authority.

21 April 2017
James Baldry
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. Please can PINS confirm that RiverOak Strategic Partner’s new application [for s53 authorisation] will be treated as an application by an entirely new and separate commercial entity?

2. Please can PINS clarify at what stage in proceedings the credibility or otherwise of the applicant will be assessed, and how PINS assesses whether or not it has an applicant that is in a credible and sound position to consider: “a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land”?
1. The Planning Inspectorate can confirm that the new application for authorisation under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) will be decided on the basis of the information provided by the applicant, RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd, and in the consideration of any comments made to the Planning Inspectorate by the relevant landowner.

2. The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note 5: Rights of entry explains how decisions are made in respect of applications for authorisation to enter land under s53 of the PA2008. All of the Planning Inspectorate’s advice notes are available to view on its website, here: [attachment 1]

Section 53(1) of the PA2008 permits the Secretary of State to authorise entry for the purpose of surveying and taking levels or to facilitate compliance with the provisions in subsection 53(1A) in connection with an application for an order granting development consent, a proposed application for an order granting development consent, or an order granting development consent that includes provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land or of an interest in it or right over it.

If authorisation is sought in relation to a proposed application for an order granting development consent (subsection 1(b)) section 53(2) of the PA2008 states that:

(2) Authorisation may be given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(b) in relation to any land only if it appears to the Secretary of State that—
(a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land

Any application(s) for authorisation to enter land at the former Manston Airport under s53 of the PA2008 will be considered and decided against the statutory tests set out in the legislation in consideration of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s ‘Planning Act 2008: The Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010 - Guidance’ (March 2017) and in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate’s advice notes.

Any subsequent application for a Development Consent Order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in s55 of the PA2008. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulation 2009 require applicants to submit a Funding Statement, if the proposed Development Consent Order would authorise the Compulsory Acquisition of land, indicating how the Compulsory Acquisition is proposed to be funded. Concurrently, the Department for Communities and Local Governments’ ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ states that the Funding Statement should “demonstrate that adequate funding is likely to be available to enable the Compulsory Acquisition within the statutory period following the order being made, and that the resource implications of a possible acquisition resulting from a blight notice have been taken account of.”

If an application for a Development Consent Order is accepted for examination matters of funding may be examined by the appointed Examining Authority.

21 April 2017
No Night Flights - Phil Rose
Enquiry received via email
We understand that you have received, or are about to receive, a Section 53 application from a company called RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) for access to a privately owned site in the UK belonging to Stone Hill Park. It appears RSP is a newly registered company with absolutely no previous experience in airport operations, yet it is proposing to apply for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to build a huge air cargo hub in the South East of England at the former Manston airfield. Further, by its own admission, RSP is not affiliated to a similarly named company, RiverOak Investment Corporation of Stamford, USA, which company previously had discussions with yourselves for such a project. Furthermore, it now appears that 90% of RSP ownership is held by another recently formed company, M.I.O. Investments, registered in Belize. I’m sure I do not need to remind you that:

• Belize is a tax-free, secret and secure Tax Haven –
“Privacy barriers have progressively weakened in traditional tax havens such as Switzerland and Luxembourg, opening the door for countries like Belize to establish their status as the next generation of tax havens.” (1)
“To extend confidentiality for account holders, Belize places no restrictions on currency movements in and out of the country.” ….. “Belize also has no tax treaties with other governments, which have been used to weaken financial privacy protections, particularly in Europe.” (1)

• Belize is a centre for money laundering –
“There are strong indications that laundered proceeds are increasingly related to organized criminal groups involved in the trafficking of illegal narcotics, psychotropic substances, and chemical precursors. The government of Belize continues to encourage offshore financial activities that are vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing, including offshore banks, insurance companies, trust service providers, mutual fund companies, and international business companies,” (2)

• Belize attracts drug trafficking –
“But Belize remains a pushover for the powerful drug barons. The country does not have a radar system that can track unauthorized flights. Its military lacks helicopters, let alone other basic hardware. Belizean police don’t even have the ability to intercept cell phone communications.” (3)

• “Belize is vulnerable to money laundering due to the lack of enforcement of its laws and regulations, strong bank secrecy protections, geographic location, and weak investigatory and prosecutorial capacity. The sources of money laundering in Belize are drug trafficking, tax evasion, securities fraud, and conventional structuring schemes.” (4)
Whilst not suggesting that RSP might be involved in money laundering or drug trafficking, nonetheless the Belize connection must raise significant questions about the propriety of these arrangements.

Sources:
(1) Investopedia
(2) 2016 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) published by the US State Department
(3) The Washington Post
(4) United States Department of State Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs ‘International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: Volume II’

My question is:
Can the Planning Inspectorate consider this a sensible, serious and credible application for an s53 access to privately owned land in the UK, let alone, maybe later, to be considered for a Development Consent Order?
Through functions delegated by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Planning Inspectorate is the decision-maker in respect of applications for authorisation to access private land under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA2008).

Section 53(1) of the PA2008 permits the Secretary of State to authorise entry for the purpose of surveying and taking levels or to facilitate compliance with the provisions in subsection 53(1A) in connection with an application for an order granting development consent, a proposed application for an order granting development consent, or an order granting development consent that includes provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land or of an interest in it or right over it.

If authorisation is sought in relation to a proposed application for an order granting development consent (subsection 1(b)) section 53(2) of the PA2008 states that:

(2) Authorisation may be given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(b) in relation to any land only if it appears to the Secretary of State that—
(a) the proposed applicant is considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land

In granting authorisation under s53 of the PA2008 on 16 December 2016 for entry onto land in connection with a proposed application for an order granting development consent for Manston Airport, the Secretary of State found that the proposed applicant was considering a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land for the purposes of the s53 authorisation.

Any subsequent application(s) for authorisation to enter land at the former Manston Airport will be considered and decided against the same statutory tests as the 2016 application.

Any subsequent application for a development consent order will be considered for acceptance against the statutory tests in s55 of the PA2008.

19 April 2017
James Baldry
Enquiry received via email
Para 5.4 of page 15 of your April 2015 Guidance Note states that the Planning Inspectorate is not responsible for compliance with any Section 53 Authorisations granted by the Secretary of State. As the party that manages the process under which parties apply for S53 Authorisation, please confirm the following:

Who is responsible for compliance?

If there is a breach of any conditions set by the Secretary of State (B4 of your guidance note) what happens to the authorisation if there is a provision in the condition that states the authorisation ceases immediately?

If where should any breaches of the conditions, which party requires to be notified to ensure that the correct action is taken?
If an authorisation is given under s53 of the Planning Act 2008 it may be exercised by the person or persons to whom it gives authority to enter land, for the purposes specified within it, subject to such person or persons complying with any conditions subject to which it is given.

If an owner or occupier of that land considered there to be a failure to comply with any such conditions or that the person or persons purporting to exercise the authority is or are not authorised to do so, then the owner or occupier would need to seek his or her own legal advice as to what action he or she may be able to take in relation to such matters. We are not able to provide you with legal advice in relation to such matters.

30 March 2017
Laurence Maccali
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Would the Planning Inspectorate have recommended to the Secretary of State that s53 Authorisation be granted to RiverOak Investment Corporation LLP (ROIC), if it had been aware that ROIC had no continuing interest in the DCO process?

Would it have been ultra vires for the Secretary of State to have granted the s53 Authorisation if aware that the Applicant had no continuing interest in the scheme?
See attached letter.

27 March 2017
Herbert Smith Freehills - anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I have recently become aware that an amendment, allowing houses to be included in a DCO application, has been made to the Planning Act 2008 via a section contained in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. (See below)

[attachment 1]

Can you please confirm whether it is still possible to include housing as part of the Manston Airport DCO application, using this amendment to the PA2008, as there has not yet been a formal application for this scheme?

If this is possible, can you please advise whether there will be any requirements for how the housing element fits into the overall project phasing, especially with regards as to whether it can be implemented in advance of the NSIP elements of the overall scheme?
A developer can amend a proposed development at any point during the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. The evolution/ refinement of a proposed development is a dynamic process, and the process allows for the design of a proposed development to be responsive through the stages of consultation up to the point of the formal submission of an application. However, where any change(s) would give rise to a materially different proposed development, there are certain statutory provisions which require for the description of a proposed development to be reflected accurately and consistently.

If a developer decided to include in a proposed application any related housing development as defined in s115(4B) of the PA2008, it would be required to reflect that element in its description of the proposed development. The developer would need to demonstrate that it had fulfilled its statutory Pre-application consultation requirements regarding the related housing development.

The Environmental Statement submitted with an application for development consent will report on the likely significant environmental effects arising from a proposed development, and will be informed by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken. The scope of a developer's EIA must therefore be sufficient to encompass the breadth of development proposed. In the context of your enquiry, the Planning Inspectorate advises in its Scoping Opinions that they can only reflect the proposals as described by the developer at the point the Scoping Request is made. If the description of a proposed development changes substantially during the EIA process, prior to the submission of an application developers may wish to consider the need to request a new Scoping Opinion.

In respect of phasing, this can only be proposed by a developer within an application for development consent. The sequence for delivery of a proposed development is subject to the examination of an appointed Examining Authority. It is not a matter about which the Planning Inspectorate can provide procedural advice. It is noted that there are no specific provisions regarding the phasing of development either within the PA2008 or in associated guidance.

20 March 2017
Robert Bird
Enquiry received via email
With regards to the s.53 access request, as the applicant was the US RiverOak entity, and 'authorised persons' are defined as the applicant and other person's authorised by the applicant, can you advise whether the permission remains extant now that the US entity no longer appear to have a connection with the DCO application.

If the permission does remain in force, presumably any person wishing to access the site under the permission will need to be formally authorised by the US RiverOak entity rather than the UK RSP Ltd?
The s53 authorisation remains extant subject to the definition of "authorised persons" in Annex 1 of the authorisation.

Any person wishing to access the site under the terms of the authorisation will need to be authorised to do so by RiverOak Investment Corporation.

10 March 2017
Robert Bird
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I note from recent correspondence on your website, and documents published by RiverOak, that the US part of RiverOak is apparently no longer connected to the application for a DCO for the former Manston airport.

However, RiverOak's online presence directs people to the website of their US operation, including a US phone number (See [attachment 1]).

In addition, the PINS webpage for the project also indicates that the applicant is River Investment Corporation LLC although the address links to BDB-Law. The developer website (shown as [attachment 1]) clearly indicates that the developer is the US operation.

There is no longer any reference to either aviation projects, or any of the RiverOak personnel involved in the Manston project, on the US website (though historically there has been content regarding aviation, and bio material on Tony Freudmann, Niall Lawlor and George Yerrall), indicating that the US entity has washed it's hands of the project.

As the US entity is apparently no longer involved in the application I have concerns that as RiverOak approach their formal consultations their online presence is misleading, as it presents a formal business link to an established investment firm, when this appears not to be the case.

I would appreciate it if you could contact the developer and ask them to resolve this issue. I would contact them directly, however they do not respond to email correspondence, and it is no longer clear who should be contacted.

Could you also clarify whether the apparent change in legal entity has any impact on the work carried out on the DCO application so far, or whether the limited progress made to date remain a valid in the overall project.
The Planning Inspectorate has not been notified about any change to the Applicant's name.

In the period before an Applicant formally notifies the Secretary of State of a proposed application (s46 of the Planning Act 2008), any change to an Applicant's name or the legal entity associated with it would not have implications for any Pre-application work predating that change.

In the case of the proposed Manston Airport, the Applicant has undertaken non-statutory consultation under the name RiverOak Investment Corp LLC. An Applicant may choose to report on elements of any non-statutory consultation that it undertook in the Consultation Report submitted with its application, although the PA2008 is not binding in this respect. If the Applicant for Manston Airport chooses to report on its non-statutory consultation in the CR submitted with an application, it would be reasonable to expect any change in name to be explained and for the steps the Applicant took to clarify the change to consultees to be summarised.

08 March 2017
Robert Bird
Enquiry received via email
Bircham Dyson Bell, on behalf of the Applicant, invited comments from the Planning Inspectorate about the draft Statement of Community Consultation (dSoCC).
• Re. the document cover and para 3.1 (etc), I note that the name of the Applicant is different to the name on the Planning Inspectorate’s website. Should the details on our website be updated to reflect the dSoCC? Is RiverOak Strategic Partners the same legal entity as RiverOak Investment Corp. LLC? The Applicant will have noted from our website that this point has generated requests for advice from members of the local community. In the interests of transparency, it may be useful to provide a short explanation in the dSoCC explaining the change to the Applicant’s name.
• In para 1.2, and again in para 11.5, it may assist the reader to distinguish the roles of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SoSCLG) and the Secretary of State for Transport (SoST) ie the application will be made to the Planning Inspectorate and decided through functions delegated from the SoSCLG, and SoST is the decision maker. This could help to establish the separate functions within government.
• Re. para 2.5 and para 4.4, the statements separating the Development Consent Order consultation from the Civil Aviation Authority licence application/ draft Airports National Policy Statement consultation (and consultation on the airspace change process?) could usefully appear under a separate subheading explaining what the SoCC ‘isn’t’.
• In para 4.1 the Applicant may wish to reiterate that s47 consultation constitutes consultation with the local community.
• In para 4.5, the Applicant may wish to state explicitly that the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project is ‘EIA development’.
• In the final bullet at para 6.1, the Applicant may wish to reiterate that the ‘first stage’ of consultation was non-statutory.
• Re. para 7.2, in the interest of consistency with the notice under s48 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), it would be advisable for the Applicant to make clear whether or not a charge will apply to hard copies of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report, and the amount of any charge.
• Re. the text after the table in para 8.1, how would residents know that these ‘individual presentations’ were taking place?
• Re. para 9.2, what is the exceptional circumstances test? The Applicant may wish to give examples, or consider deleting this caveat.
• In para 11.1, the Applicant may wish to insert ‘legal’ before ‘interest’. The Planning Inspectorate is regularly tasked with explaining to members of the public the distinction between persons with an interest in the proposed development and those with a legal interest in the Order lands.
• Re. para 11.3, what are the consultation principles set out in the dSoCC? Which specific principles would apply to any further consultation?
• Re. Appendix 1, is the Applicant confident that non