Representation by Five10Twelve Limited (Five10Twelve Limited )
- Date submitted
- 8 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am a co-director of Five10Twelve Ltd - a company based in Ramsgate.
For the reasons set out below an Examining Authority comprising a panel of 5 Examining Inspectors should be allocated to this Examination. The panel should include inspectors with specialist knowledge of (but not limited to): the air-cargo freight industry, market and competition; surface access connectivity to and from the airport (such as roads and rail); as well as air-cargo freight aircraft noise and other emissions including air pollution.
The panel should determine whether RiverOak Strategic Partners’ (RSP) application does in fact qualify as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). The minimum thresholds for a NSIP Airport are at least 10m passengers per year or 10,000 air cargo movements per year (or increase by that number). This does not appear to be the case based on RSP’s own information (Azimuth report Volume 3, The Forecast Table 1 dated July 2018). It is not until at least Year 6 that RSP forecasts that it will reach the 10,000 air cargo movements per year to qualify as an NSIP (Year 6 Forecasts 10,144 freight moves).
Some consideration should also be given as to whether the proposed development has any realistic prospects of ever reaching minimum thresholds to be classified as an NSIP, given the optimistic targets set to achieve these forecasts, lack of experience of RSP, lack of evidence of available finance to fund delivery of the project, long track record of failure for previous attempts to operate Manston as a commercially viable airport, the Manchester Airport Group’s strong market dominance and geographical coverage ([Redacted]) and the well reported impact of BREXIT on freight transport and borders.
RSP’s Forecasts do not take into account BREXIT let alone the impact of a no-deal BREXIT on freight transport and borders. ([Redacted]).
It is imperative that the Examination of this first DCO of an airport is rigorous, robust, transparent, sufficiently scrutinized and investigated by experts.
This is of particular importance because Manston has failed so many times before and there are a number of other Ramsgate projects that have been very public failures (for example Pleasurama and Port of Ramsgate). These failures have all taken an economic, environmental, mental/psychological and physical toll on the town and its people.
It is also particularly required as the re-opening of Manston has split the communities, Local Council, Thanet District Council, and created a deep divide and much mistrust. RSP ([Redacted] and [Redacted] publicly in press and media) have stated that there will be no night flights. This assertion has also been repeated and reiterated numerous times by [Redacted], and [Redacted], based on their private conversations with RSP. This directly contradicts the documents RSP has submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, which clearly state that not only are frequent night flights a strong feature of the proposal, but they are integral to the business plan, staffing projections and financial performance forecasts. As such, there are only two possibilities - either RSP and the MPs who have supported them have deliberately misled the public during the consultation process, or they are seeking to mislead the Planning Inspectorate and falsely exaggerate the business potential and financial forecasts of their proposed development in order for it to be classified as a NSIP
I very strongly object to the Applicant’s Proposal for the following reasons, with the grounds for these objections are further detailed below: -flawed methodology for collecting existing and forecast future noise data; -an inadequate Noise Mitigation Plan; -an incorrectly quantified Noise Mitigation Plan; -an inadequate and incomplete Funding Statement; -inadequate economic benefits to offset the negative externalities imposed resulting in negative net economic benefit to the community. These include: negative impacts on Community, Quality of Life, Economy, Noise, Biodiversity, Soil, Water, Air Quality, Carbon (Climatic Factors), Resources and Waste (Material Assets), Tranquility, Landscape and Historic Environment (Cultural Heritage). -incompatibility with Thanet’s draft Local Plan, Objective 2 of DEFRA single developmental plan; -insufficient and flawed business plan, -lack of suitability, good standing and/or credibility of RiverOak Strategic Partners and its directors
It is imperative that the Examination of this first Development Consent Order (“DCO”) of an airport is rigorous, robust, transparent and sufficiently scrutinised. Previous experience has repeatedly demonstrated that the use of the Manston site for commercial airport operations is not viable, incurring some £100m of cumulative losses. Prior failed ventures include: -Closure of Inter-European Airways in 1992-93; -Collapse of Cypriana Holidays in the early 1990's; -Collapse of EUJet and Planestation in 2005; -Withdrawal of commercial services prior to commencement by Cosmos/Monarch in 2006 due to lack of bookings; -Collapse of Futura Airlines and Segura Travel in 2008; -Withdrawal of FlyBe in 2011/12; -Disposal of the loss-making airport by Infratil in 2012/13; -And latest closure of the airport in 2014.
The lack of viability of the airport has previously also been confirmed in the 1993 Department of Trade and Industry Report. This report confirmed that the airport was not suitable for development as a major airport due to close proximity to the town. As recently as 2016 in Avia's independent report commissioned by Thanet District Council (TDC) (Commercial Viability of Manston Airport Avia Solutions (a GECAS Company) Final Report for Thanet District Council) found "that airport operations at Manston are very unlikely to be financially viable in the longer term, and almost certainly not possible in the period to 2031" ([Redacted]).
Funding Statement (Evidence of Adequate Funds):
1. The only evidence of even the most basic levels of finance available to RSP to complete the £15 million DCO process is by way of £15 million from Helix Fiduciary and signed by Helix Directors Rico Seitz and Nicholas Rothwell, both also directors of RiverOak Strategic Partners. The fact that both Helix Fiduciary and RSP’s apparent sole sources of funding are from the same individuals (it is unclear as to the source of these funds as Helix Fiduciary appear to hold these as trustees rather than as individuals) represents a conflict of interest. It is my contention that this should be of great concern to TDC, PINs and to any investor or prospective investor working with Helix Fiduciary and/or RSP.
2. It is unclear who are the signatories to any bank accounts (including Helix Fiduciary) providing funding.
3. Helix Fiduciary - the only funder for which RSP has provided any evidence of support (conditional) - has no track record of investing in airports or any other NSIP or of raising the levels of finance required to do so.
4. Helix Fiduciary’s letter of support is heavily caveated and conditional on the “DCO application [being] accepted and ultimately approved by the Government”.
5. Helix Fiduciary’s letter of support is also conditional on “any legitimate blight claims” there is not definition as to what is “legitimate” and who determines this standard. It is not clear how “blight” is defined.
6. Helix Fiduciary letter of support is heavily caveated and conditional on “any legitimate blight claims”. There is no definition as to what constitutes a “legitimate” claim and who determines this standard.
7. RSP claims to have already drawn down £500,000 and expended £9m - before the recently-reported purchase of the Jentex fuel site. Evidence of these sums - or of their source - has not been presented. Further, it is unclear whether the £9m+ already committed is included in Helix Fiduciary’s commitment of up to £15m and - if so - whether there will be enough funds remaining to complete the compulsory acquisition, valued optimistically/ unrealistically by RSP at £7.5m, or the Noise Mitigation and Blight claims, also optimistically/inaccurately valued at £5.6m.
8. The Blight budget in the Funding Statement, at least, appears to have been calculated based on what RSP can potentially afford as opposed to what might realistically be required.
9. It is unclear as to whether RSP has a bank account with working capital. Monies owed by RSP have been paid for by a third-party known as Freudman Tipple Limited rather than RSP (see File Reference: TR020002-002154)
10. RSP has provided no evidence whatsoever that it has access to the significant finance required to fund any construction costs or implementation or necessary road and rail infrastructure.
11. Given the inadequacies of the Business Case and Azimuth Report, significant rival developments at East Midlands Airport (East Midlands Gateway), Stansted and Southend and lack of experience of RSP and its principal directors, it is naive in the extreme to suggest that RSP will be able to merely “select one or more funders from amongst those who have already expressed interest and others that are likely to come forward” to finance the project capital costs, estimated by RSP on the low side at £300m. Yet again, RSP has presented no evidence whatsoever to support this unrealistic claim.
Robustness of Noise Mitigation Plan and Availability of Funding:
1. There are a large number of inaccuracies, omissions and statements without supporting evidence or rationale within chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement (Noise).
2. This has led to inaccurate assumptions as to how many residential properties and noise-sensitive buildings will qualify for the Noise Insulation Scheme and/or Relocation as it stands without revision.
3. Therefore the amount set out in the Funding Statement is too small and needs to be revisited once an independent examination of current baseline and potential air-cargo freight aircraft noise is undertaken.
4. A third party Noise assessment is required. Particularly as RSP has determined despite a flawed, unsubstantiated and inaccurate Chapter 12 that many residential houses and schools will fail to qualify for noise mitigation compensation under RSP’s own, unverified and arbitrary assessment.
5. The Funding Statement does not make any provision for monies allocated to the Community Trust Fund (please see Noise Mitigation Plan (‘NMP”) at Chapter 4). This is currently proposed as £50,000 per annum.
6. The Community Trust Fund (please see NMP at Chapter 4) does not marry up with any of the Figures at 12.1-12.3.
7. The Community Trust Fund (please see NMP at Chapter 4) amount is derisory and is not proportional to the environmental harm, economic, opportunity and health loss to Ramsgate and Herne Bay - towns with a combined population of circa 80,000 people - or any of the other neighbouring towns of villages that may be affected.
8. NMP should include:
– clear and legally binding noise performance targets in the form of a noise envelope,
– periods of predictable respite,
– a ban on all scheduled flights during the 6 ½ hour core night period (23:00-06:00),
– ban on QC4s,
– to provide full acoustic insulation for residential property within the full single mode easterly and westerly 60 dB LAeq (16 hr) noise contour following a third party assessment,
– to provide a contribution up to £3000 for acoustic insulation for residential property within the full single mode eaterly and westerly 57 dB LAeq (16 hr) or the full 55 dB Lden (16 hr) noise contours whichever is the bigger following a third party assessment,
– to deliver a programme of noise insulation and ventilation for schools within the 60 dB LAeq (16h) following a third party assessment
– an extension of the relocation scheme to an additional purchase/acquisition zone,
– proper monitoring in residential and school areas
– and a Community Trust Fund appropriate to the environmental harm, economic and opportunity loss caused by the re-opening of the Airport.
9. This mirrors other airports and is only fair and reasonable.
10. NMP is inadequate. Since is not yet know, what aircraft type will be operational or what flight paths or at what altitudes it is unclear how RSP has provided a NMP or on what basis they have arrived at the “contours” referred to at paragraphs 2.4; 2.5; 3 and 4 of NMP.
11. This is important as the cut-off for Noise Mitigation is also determined by RSP. I understand that not one school will benefit from the NMP despite there being a number of them directly under a flight path with very low flying planes and close proximity to the runway.
12. Note there are many inaccuracies/omissions and errors within Chapter 12. For example Ramsgate itself is less than 1 mile (1.6km) from the airport runway (not 2.5 miles or 4 km) and there are Ramsgate residential houses and schools located less than 1 mile (1.6km) from the airport runway. A third party independent study is required.
13. Further, there are about 50+ homes about 100metres from the airport runway. These can easily be seen from Google Earth desktop studies. RSP Funding Statement has only budgeted for the relocation of 8 houses. A third party independent study is required.
14. The monitoring of noise under the Noise Mitigation Plan as specified in paragraph 11.1 of the NMP will be located at a distance of 4 miles (6.5km) from the start of the take off-roll.
15. This will mean that RSP’s noise monitoring will take place in the sea not in residential or school or community areas. A third party independent study is required.
16. RSP has made it clear in its proposal for use of the Manston site as a 24/7 cargo freight hub that "significant adverse effects have been identified as being likely as a result of an increase in noise" in Ramsgate, Manston, Wade, West Stourmouth and Pegwell Bay. RSP proposal goes on to say “aircraft noise would increase to a point where there would be a perceived change in the quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities”.
17. However, these areas have not been catered for in the NMP or Noise Mitigation Blight budget despite saying at paragraph 2.1 that the noise insulation scheme for residential properties will be offered by RSP to help avoid “significant adverse effects on health and quality of life”.
18. The amount offered of £4000 towards household acoustic insulation is insufficient and not line with other UK airports. This is of particular concern as RSP intend to use QC4s which are banned at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted due to their loud noise. Nor is it proportionate to the environmental harm associated with older, noisier and heavier cargo planes.
19. RSP has not defined what is “reasonable levels of noise insulation and ventilation” within paragraph 3 of the NMP.
20. At paragraph 4.1 of the NMP RSP has not defined “highest levels of airport related noise”.
21. At paragraph 4.2 of the NMP RSP has assumed that properties “exposed to the highest levels of airport related noise” will actually be sellable, given the significant noise impact at their location. Even if these properties are sold RSP has allowed compensation of only 1.5% (maximum of £12,500) which almost certainly would not begin to cover the loss in previous market value of the property prior to the significant blight of the proposed 24/7/365 cargo-hub.
22. Many homeowners have purchased their properties and moved to the area without prior knowledge of the airport. Homebuyer surveys, estate agent literature and advice from solicitors, google map searches etc did not alert these new buyers and new residents to the area of the airport as the airport was closed. Further, many did not receive postcard consultation notification from the Applicant.
23. It is clear that despite RSP’s claim that they have taken the worst case scenario it is anything but. RSP have not even taken the worst case realistic scenario.
24. In fact it seems that RSP have worked backwards from the small amount of funding they may have available from Helix Fiduciary of £5.6m for noise mitigation measures budget and allocated spend according to what they can potentially afford as opposed to what is more realistically required.
RiverOak Strategic Partners due diligence:
1. It is our belief that RSP lacks the necessary experience or credibility to operate an airport or any other NSIP.
2. Neither RSP nor its parent companies have any track record in owning or operating an airport or any other NSIP
3. RSP does not appear to have any physical presence in the UK. No office, no staff, community relation emails have been handled by RSP lawyers rather than themselves. Emails to RSP have gone unanswered and, despite assurances of a wide social media campaign during the consultation, social media engagement has been virtually non-existent.
4. RSP is 90% owned by a Belize entity. It is unclear why a Belize entity is required at all. This suggests an aggressive tax avoidance structure and a lack of transparency.
5. This lack of real UK presence is of additional concern given the potential for significant/severe accidental environmental harm (to groundwater, fire, or in decommissioning) and a resulting lack of accountability or funds.
6. The split from RiverOak Corporation - the original applicants - means RSP is essentially a start-up business with no track record, no physical presence, no major corporate backers, limited assets and finance, no registered Persons with Significant Control and a corporate structure that lacks transparency.
7. The channeling of funds via a Belize registered SPV parent company is a cause for concern due to lack of transparency with regards to unknown source of funds, unknown investors and persons with significant control. Needless to say, this also provides no comfort with regards to as-yet-unknown entities owning and operating freight shipments in and out of the UK.
8. Nor any comfort to the community, Kent or UK in relation to National security and border policing with regard to smuggling and/or trafficking.
9. Principal RSP Directors have no track record in this sector, with the exception of [Redacted] and no experience in a NSIP
10. [Redacted] own track record is one of failure, serial insolvency and being [Redacted] for 27 counts of [Redacted].
11. [Redacted] is connected to the Applicant and has no significant experience in either air-cargo or passenger aviation research, the economics of airport operations or formal training or experience in economics, having achieved her PhD in 2014, shortly before the start of this process. The only evidence of any research experience in this field is her PhD thesis on the master planning process for airport managers. This is a completely different field of research, requiring a different understanding and skill-set, than is needed to develop a business case for a NSIP
12. [Redacted] report is significantly out of date. For example it does not make reference to the East Midlands Gateway located next to the M1 and East Midland Airport has planning consent for up to six million sq ft of logistics space and 50-acre strategic rail freight interchange which will be operational in 2019. Or that Amazon has taken 8 football fields of space there.
13. [Redacted] report places dependency on Lower Thames Crossing and Thanet Parkway Railway to demonstrate surface access connectivity neither of these are or will be open and significant private finance necessary to support these developments is not yet in place.
Economic Case (lack of): 1. The economic case for RSP's proposals has not been made and is not supported by any independent third party reports. 2. Further, it is notable that general employment in Thanet has risen by 13.8% since the closure of Manston Airport in 2014, (source: Nomis) and tourism-related employment in the region has risen by 23% since the closure of Manston (source: VisitKent Destination Research) as direct result of the positive measures 3. TDC has taken to support and develop Thanet's heritage, arts/culture and active lifestyle related tourism industry. It is our strong belief that continuing to develop such initiatives - a proven success - will continue to yield positive results. The risk of sacrificing this - or indeed reversing it - by prolonging the uncertainty surrounding the Manston site - or, worse still by approving the airport development - is a risk not worth taking, given the proven failure rate of previous airport operations and question marks surrounding RSP, their proposal and their questionable ability to deliver a project of this scale. 4. Tourism in Thanet has seen a significant increase in both numbers of visitors and in tourism-related employment, with a 15.6% increase in trips, 19.4% increase in value and 23.3% increase in jobs from 2013 – 2015. Tourism is estimated to be worth £293m to the Thanet economy. 5. There appears to be a number of key factors that have been the importance of the HS1 rail link (stopping at Ashford) to the visitor economy ([Redacted] ) and the role of the developing arts and cultural offer to cultural tourism in Kent, ([Redacted]) 6. The resurgence of “café culture” in Ramsgate, Margate and other Thanet seaside towns has also played a huge part in this growth and development of tourism, notably with the opening of JD Wetherspoon’s largest site in the UK at Ramsgate’s Royal Victoria Pavillion after a £4.5m investment. 7. Such developments and this resurgence in Thanet’s visitor economy is surely under grave threat by the proposed development and DCO of Manston Airport as a 24/7 air freight cargo hub, which the developers, RSP, acknowledge will result in “aircraft noise would increase to a point where there would be a perceived change in the quality of life for occupants of buildings in these communities” and “significant adverse effects have been identified as being likely as a result of an increase in noise”. 8. The proposed Manston air cargo hub development similarly threatens the resurgence and opportunities of heritage-related tourism in Ramsgate, with its 900+ listed buildings, the only Royal Harbour in the UK and significant sites such as Ramsgate Montefiore Synagogue & Mausoleum, (designated by Jewish Heritage UK as one of the Top Ten Synagogues of Britain); The Grange, the first so-called 'modern' house, and the Shrine of St Augustine, designed by architect Augustus Pugin, who designed the interiors of the Houses of Parliament. 9. The proposed Manston air cargo hub development similarly threatens the resurgence and opportunities of health and activity-related tourism promoted through Active Ramsgate, ([Redacted]). Ramsgate has hosted British Kitesurfing championships 2018, is part of the 28-mile circular Viking Coastal Trail (one of the most attractive leisure cycle routes in Kent) which links up with Regional Route 15 of the National Cycle Network, has 2 canoe trails, diving, seal and bird watching walks and our walk from the Ramsgate Royal Harbour to Margate Walk was voted in the list of the Top 100 Walks in Britain in 2018. 10. Health and activity related tourism offers significant opportunities for further development both for domestic “staycation” tourists and international visitors. 11.The likely negative impacts of the proposed air cargo hub in Manston, the DCO, on the current resurgence of tourism and tourism-related employment and regeneration since the closure of the former failed Manston Airport in 2014 should be taken into account by the UK Planning Inspectorate during the current DCO consultation process.
DCO not consistent with the following Policies: 1. DCO is not in line with Objective 2 of the Department for Environment: Food and Rural Affairs single developmental plan updated 23 May 2018. 2. the National Planning Policy Framework updated July 2018; and 3. Thanet’s Local Plan policies including but not limited to SP02, SP09, SP12, SP21, SP23, SP34, SP36, E10, E05
Pro-Manston Campaigning: 1. A [Redacted] written statement proclaiming to be by [Redacted] had been circulated on social media. The original written statement made by [Redacted] (MDP - Update:Written statement - HCWS883) had been heavily doctored to claim his and the MOD’s strong support for Manston as part of the MDP. 2. A pro-Manston group used the No Night Flights distinctive logo and published false information as a written statement in No Night Flight’s name which was also circulated on social media. This written statement falsely stated that No Night Flights had now realised that they were incorrect about night flights and now wished to support Manston. 3. Complaints will be made to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that [Redacted] and [Redacted] have systematically breached the Members of[Redacted] before, during and after the RSP Consultation period. 4. [Redacted] has stated that the “threat of night flights has been widely used as part of the campaign against the airport. I have seen no evidence or desire by RSP for night flights to be a feature of their plans beyond the need to assess the impact of night flights as part of the Development Consent Order (DCO)”. This is clearly false and at best a misrepresentation of the truth. 5. As you will be aware [Redacted](our MP) is a person with significant control of an active company MAMA Airlines Limited a scheduled passenger air transport, non-scheduled air transport and freight air transport business. He did not disclose his interest in the company on two occasions during parliamentary proceedings when the rules of the House required him to do so. As such the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has upheld an allegation that South Thanet MP[Redacted] breached the Members [Redacted] in June 2018. 6. This was after the consultation period in which [Redacted] actively campaigned for RSP whilst not declaring his interest in MAMA Airlines Limited.
Climate Change: 1. RSP’s proposal must take into account the findings of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released on 8 October 2018. RSP must mitigate its environmental impact on climate change and the Environmental Statement must be extended beyond the boundary of the airport to capture the impact of aircargo freight movements, passenger movements, HGVs and cars travelling to and from the airport carrying air-cargo, fuel, passengers and workers