Representation by Timothy Bentley
- Date submitted
- 7 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Before retiring in 2001, I was a director of Pfizer Ltd., based at Sandwich. Apart from responsibility for finance and a range of internal services, I had the responsibility for liaising with district and county councils and to link that effort regionally and nationally to improved infrastructure in East Kent, particularly in relation to road access to the Sandwich site. These discussions led to the dualling of the A256 and its junction with the A299 near Manston. Many of the excellent staff who worked for me lived on the Isle of Thanet and provided me with insights into life there, supplementing my own family’s history from Margate. It was always the intention that the A256 road upgrade would help to stimulate other industrial activity in Thanet and thus help to do something to reduce deprivation there. In retirement, I have maintained my interest in the local economy. When Manston ceased to function as an airport, I took part in discussions about its viability, concluding quite quickly that the airport there could not be sustainable.360-degree access and good contact with large conurbations is needed for an airport to be sustainable in the United Kingdom. Having now reviewed the RiverOak Strategic Partners proposal, I am even more convinced that future airport use for this site is economically unsound. In summary: 1. The high level of deprivation in Thanet is unlikely to be resolved by the approval of this project
2 The board of RSP has limited successful aviation experience, but is instead experienced in financial projects usually in a residential or commercial building context
3 The financial structure of the proposal is confused, with a range of UK based RiverOak companies whose purpose and potential profitability are unclear.
4 The market for the services that Manston could provide is not clearly defined, nor is its profit generation capability clear. I doubt RSP’s ability to generate sufficient income to achieve an adequate return on capital for its investors.
5 The funding statement is unclear with no linkage between the market forecasts and the positive cash flow RSP’s operations must expect to generate. Hence it is not possible to assess the financial viability of the proposal.
6 The market size predicted appears grossly overstated. After years of trading previously and using the Azimuth Associates numbers in 2013 Manston had 2,073 freight movements and processed 29,306 tonnes of cargo. In the first year of its forecast (Yr2), RSP predicts 5,252 freight movements and 96,553 tonnes of freight. The forecasts need checking for realism.
7 The jobs created by the project are uncertain. Apart from the RSP jobs actually based at Manston, there is no certainty that the indirect/induced or catalytic jobs described would actually be based there or anywhere in Kent. Further it is not clear how the costs of employment are financed until RSP becomes profitable.
8 The support statements from Helix Investments and PwC Zurich are inadequate.
Project failure is highly likely. Hopes of alleviating deprivation will be replaced by local disillusionment.