Manston report: airport hopes dealt another grim blow

Is it the final blow for Manston as an airport?
An independent report has concluded there is no national need for the Thanet site to reopen as a freight hub.
Its long and convoluted saga since closure in 2014 included the granting in July 2020 of a Development Consent Order to RiverOak Strategic Partners to reopen the airport.
The decision was made by Andrew Stephenson, Minister of State for Transport, who effectively dismissed the conclusions of the four-man Planning Inspectorate’s Examining Authority, which had been clear the DCO should not be granted.
Mr Stephenson’s move was slated by Dr Hilary Newport, director of CPRE Kent, who said: “It is shocking that four inspectors spent some nine months preparing a report and concluded very strongly that the DCO should be refused.
“The developer was not able to demonstrate need, there were adverse impacts on traffic and transport and there were concerns over noise pollution.
“Most importantly, though, the Examining Authority recommended the Secretary of State refuse the DCO due to conservation of habitats and species regulations.
“In short, the inspectors’ conclusions were ignored.
“This decision flies in the face of the Heathrow third-runway judgement where the Court of Appeal ruled that proposals had failed to consider this country’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions.”
The developer’s delight, however, did not last long as in February this year the granting of the DCO was quashed, the Department for Transport accepting that the approval letter from Mr Stephenson had not contained enough detail on why the conclusions of the Planning Inspectorate’s Examining Authority were pushed aside.
After that turn of events, Grant Shapps, Secretary of State for Transport, demanded further evidence from interested parties while also commissioning the independent report before the DCO decision could be redetermined.
And that report, by Ove Arup & Partners and released on Thursday, October 21, concluded that any potential increase in demand for air freight could be met by other airports such as Heathrow.
It stated: “The Examination Authority recommended there was no need case for the proposed development.
“Overall, the independent assessor concludes that there have not been any significant or material changes to policy or the quantitative need case for the proposed development since July 2019 that would lead to different conclusions being reached with respect to the Manston development.”

It set outs the principal reasons for its verdict:

• The changes to policy, notably the withdrawal and reinstatement of the Airports National Policy Statement and adoption of the Thanet Local Plan, do not significantly change the policy context that was in place at the time of the Examination
• The recent growth in e-commerce sales is not driving a demand for additional runway capacity for dedicated air freighters in the South East
• Although there have been short-term changes in the balance between belly hold freight and dedicated freighter activity during the Covid-19 pandemic, these changes are not expected to be permanent, notwithstanding growth in e-commerce and changes to the UK’s trading patterns post-Brexit
• There is unlikely to be a significant reduction in belly hold freight capacity (once the passenger market recovers) due to the introduction of narrow-bodied twin-engine aircraft
• Despite the uncertainty concerning the timescale for the Heathrow Airport third runway, changes since July 2019 as described do not lead the Independent Assessor to reach a different conclusion on the need case for Manston Airport. East Midlands Airport has sufficient capacity to handle additional dedicated freighter services should the market demand them, while the planning determination at Stansted confirms that significant freight capacity remains available
• There is no new evidence to suggest a different conclusion should be drawn in respect of the locational performance of Manston compared to East Midlands Airport, and to a lesser extent Stansted, to that of the Examination Authority report

Mr Shapps has written to RSP and interested parties, asking for comments on the report by Friday (November 19) before making his final decision.

For (yet) more on the tale of Manston, see here

Monday, November 15, 2021

• A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
• There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
• There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.

The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:

• There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
• A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
• Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
• Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.

Concerns about the rush to submit the plan

The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.

As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.

Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.

Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.

The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.

Further information

• Read more on the Swale Local Plan
• Read CPRE Kent’s detailed comments on the plan
• View the council’s consultation document