Advice to Save Manston Airport Association
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Save Manston Airport Association
- Date advice given
- 15 September 2017
- Enquiry type
Save Manston Airport association (SMAa) note : “The Inspectorate confirmed that it had received a large volume of correspondence which raised concerns relating to the statutory consultation events ….” We also note that we have been encouraged by yourselves to collate communications from our members to yourselves, rather than having them all writing individually. Thus we would like to enquire of the Planning Inspectorate as to why at no stage has the 286 signatory letter dated 2017-07-21, from SMAa, been acknowledged ? I attach all three parts for your convenience. This letter, with its two attachments, from 286 of our members, confirmed a broad satisfaction with the RSP Consultation process, across a range of considerations. Surely such a communication from so many must justify a mention in comparison with the much smaller number of writers who do have concerns regarding the RSP statutory consultation ? The above documents refer to the list of 286 members who engaged in this response over 10 days, and who should be regarded as signers of that letter.
On behalf of these members. The Save Manston Airport association committee :
• Dr. Beau Webber (Chairman) • David Stevens (Vice-Chairman) • R. John Pritchard (Treasurer) • Clive Cripps (Secretary) • Liam Coyle • Bryan Girdler • Ela Lodge-Pritchard • Linda Wright • Gary Dumigan • Gregory Nocentini
Advice given
Thank you for your email. Our meeting notes provide a record of the key topics discussed and any advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate under s51 of the Planning Act 2008. In the note of the 23 August meeting, reference to the concerns raised in respect of the Applicant’s statutory consultation placed in context our production of the community consultation Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document. The correspondence from SMAa was not referred to at the meeting, either by the Inspectorate or the Applicant, hence a record of it was not made in the meeting note. The Applicant was provided with an opportunity to comment on a draft of the meeting note before it was published and in response did not raise any concerns in respect of the accuracy of the record. We encourage and advise all of stakeholders who share similar views to collate communications to us because this assists the process. Thank you therefore to SMAa for positively contributing in this way. However we cannot compel dispersed interest groups to engage in the same way. As per the advice in our FAQ document, in the same way as the correspondence expressing concerns, your positive commentary about the Applicant’s consultation can be considered by the Secretary of State in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests if an application for development consent is submitted.