Representation by Susan Murray
- Date submitted
- 3 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I oppose granting a DCO for a Freight Hub at Manston for the following reasons:
Claims that any operation of this type located in the extreme south east of the country could be of national significance are unrealistic. Manston has never been more than a minor regional airport, and has now been closed for four years with no appreciable loss, nationally, regionally or locally. The government’s study of future airport capacity in the south of England dismissed Manston.
Within the current application, RSP have provided little evidence of a demand for a freight-hub of the nature proposed from existing logistics companies, nor is there a convincing body of evidence of how RSP plan to compete with existing freight hubs at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted or East Midlands. The Manston sight does not have a central UK location with adequate access to either the main arterial route across the UK or those to Europe.
RSP have shown little concern regarding the overall impact of the heavy goods and vehicles along the Thanet Way, which is a road access to the site and the local towns surrounding the site. Most of the Thanet Way is dual carriageway, which is already heavily used. In addition to this, RSP show no plans for a fuel pipeline servicing the freight hub. It can only be assumed therefore that aviation fuel will need to be transported down the Thanet way and stored somewhere.
RSP have no experience of running a freight hub of the scale proposed in the submission. The history of the individuals involved in the bid suggests that their motivation is to acquire the site rather than create a freight hub.
RSP have repeated failed to declare the source of their finances. This was one reason for the collapse of the two CPO bids and there are no indications that this is now any different.
I would ask that the examining authority seriously weight up the limited evidence of this proposal’s claim that a freight hub at Manston is of ‘national significance’ against the real likelihood of failure yet again and the significant adverse documented impact that this development would have on the health of local population, the growing local tourist economy and the natural environment (large sections of which are actually recognised to be of national significance)