Wednesday 25 January 2012

Planning Loopholes.


Ramsgate is in the invidious position of being sandwiched between two planning loopholes and both affect commercial operations surrounding the town. The difference in the local population’s attitude to these is remarkable.

Port Ramsgate is constructed on reclaimed land and a great percentage of UK foreshore below High Water Mark is owned by Crown Estates, it is therefore exempt planning permission. One just rings up HM and says “Can I build here Maam” and she replies “One will consult the flunkies” and that’s it you construct a wind farm or two. Not quite that simple but you get the picture.  Ramsgate town seems quite unfazed about this and the London Array building sprang up with hardly a murmur in the local media or blogsphere. Everyone is happy.

The other planning loophole is Manston Airport which has been surviving on a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) since its conversion to civil use from a military base in the late 1990’s. A 106 agreement was negotiated at the time but with one of the parties to the agreement having the backing of the Ministryof Defence (MoD) the cards were somewhat stacked in favour of “driving a tank” through inconvenient regulations. I think TDC officers were probably held to ransom until they said “yes”, metaphorically speaking of course.

And so to the present day, night flights are proposed and we find out that no approval is required for them to commence. The pro-airport camp say “If you didn’t want aircraft noise day and night, you should have done your homework and not moved to Ramsgate, as the airport was here first,  we put up with it in the war when US jets flew day and night”.  Well, I have news for them. The war is over and times have moved on. Not only that but Ramsgate town predates aviation and has unique tourist features which would be ruined by jumbo jets overhead every 10 minutes. The Royal Harbour is unique in the UK, disused war time airfields are two a penny in SE England.

The people of Thanet really do have to decide what sort of environment they want for the future, overstated job opportunities from an unpopular under-used airport or numerous options to attract fresh tourism, with job opportunities, to this beautiful corner of Kent. I have always kept an open mind about the pros and cons of having a local international airport, but the more I learn about the facts of the situation and the misinformation being spouted, the more I think it would make a great site for Center Parcs.
Posted by at

10 comments:

  1. Tim Clark26 January 2012 at 11:07

    Ken
    Given the sloppy wording of the 106 presumably in reality there is nothing to stop Infratil doing just what they like once their night flights proposal has been submitted. They don't even have to stick to the proposal!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Readit26 January 2012 at 12:00

    That would be one interpretation Tim. I do not know what powers Local Authorities have to enforce 106 agreements, even if they could prove there was something to enforce.

    An even more worrying aspect of this situation is that there is considerable scope for "permitted development" within the confines of an airport, so prevention of expansion by planning refusal may only have limited options.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don Wood26 January 2012 at 16:16

    I think the airport should be developed intead of the stupid Boris Island

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tim Clark26 January 2012 at 16:29

    Oh well. Bye bye Ramsgate as a place worth living in.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don Wood26 January 2012 at 16:50

    I lived there when the airforce was there and didnt disturb me my wife or the kids. I noticed it when I first moved here but then got tuned into life. I used to live opposite a very very bust transport yard working 24/7 and that was noisier than planes .The only way Manston will ever survive is with night flights and the sooner the better stop all this pussy footing around and get a proper airport here. Years ago I worked around Gatwick and the Unemployment was virtually zero, 1oads of knock on small firms PROPER EMPLOYMENT.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tim Clark26 January 2012 at 16:52

    Interesting discussion over on NoNightFlights about whether the Section 52 agreement, tested at judicial review, overrules the S106. At the judicial review, which Wiggins entered into as a co-respondant with TDC the judges summing up included an undertaking by TDC (which included Wiggins as the operators) that should permission be sought for night flights this in itself would constitute an intensification of useage as set out in the certificates of lawfulness. Unless the 106 specifically cancels the S52 I would suggest that it is still in force.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tim Clark26 January 2012 at 16:53

    Don
    Years ago there was zero unemployment everywhere

    ReplyDelete
  8. Readit26 January 2012 at 19:36

    Tim, unfortunately an "intensification of use" in itself is not evidence of the need to apply for planning permission unless a material change of use can be proved.

    Example given was a dog owner kept 20+ dogs in her home, it was found that a material change of use had taken place, it was then part home and part kennels. It is difficult to see how more planes makes a material change to an airport

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous26 January 2012 at 22:37

    If Manston could be a fantastic hub for freight traffic, why hasn't DHL, UPS, FedEx or TNT moved in?

    Manston is classified as a second world war airfield defending southern England, so why not go along with that theme. Why not a base for drones to cover the southern north sea, Thames estuary and eastern channel. After all Kent police have bought a nice new boat because of the activity in the estuary, and Thanet wind farm is the largest offshore operational unit in the world so might need protecting. Just an idea.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Michael Child27 January 2012 at 19:26

    Just added you to http://thanetpress.blogspot.com/ blogroll, reciprocal link appreciated but not essential.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)