The truth is out. For months, airport supporters have been whipping up local feeling in support of a new airport at Manston by telling local people that, if we don’t get an airport on that site, we’ll get housing. Lots of housing. And, housing for people at the very bottom of the socio-economic ladder – people who have no other housing option. A “sink” estate, as the pro-airport lot charmingly put it. The only way to avoid this, they tell their supporters, is to push Thanet District Council into using its compulsory purchase powers to take the land at Manston away from its owners and to give it to an American company, RiverOak, so that they can develop it as an airport. RiverOak has never run an airport. RiverOak has never owned an airport. What RiverOak does is to buy up buildings like student accommodation and medical facilities to let them out to others. RiverOak’s airport experience comes from Tony Freudmann, a man that RiverOak took on a matter of weeks ago. Mr Freudmann was MD at Manston airport in the Wiggins and Planestation era and presided over years of airport failure. Mr Freudmann is on record as saying that the primary goal of owning an airport is to develop the land. In January 2014, before there was a whisper that the airport might close, he went to the Council to explore the possibility of putting 1,000 homes on the airport site. Many local residents have long been of the view that RiverOak plans to grab the site as cheaply as it can and then develop it for housing. In spite of the evidence pointing to this, various airport campaign groups such as Save Manston and Support Manston have been adamant that RiverOak has no plans to put housing on the airport site. Indeed, the group Think Support Manston has based its entire existence on its argument to supporters that we need an airport to avoid a “massive overspill housing estate” being built on the site. Well, we can reveal that RiverOak does intend to put houses on the site. Lots of houses. We can also reveal that the Council knows about this. We have been sent the minutes of a meeting held by KIACC, the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee, on 30th September 2014. Here’s what those minutes say in black and white: “Part of the River Oak submission would include the building of 2000 residential units and Members expressed concerns over the impact of such development on the local infrastructure including the road network, schools and medical support services.” Now, this gives rise to a number of interesting possibilities. A number of Councillors have said repeatedly that RiverOak do not plan to put housing on the airport site. Yet the KIACC minutes demonstrate that the Council knows about RiverOak’s housing plans. Either the Council has not told its close friends in the Save Manston and Support Manston campaigns about them, or the Council has told Save Manston and Support Manston about the housing plans, and the leaders of those groups have decided not to tell their followers. Either way, those people who think that they can prevent housing by pushing for an airport are being seriously misled. Similarly, Support Manston and Save Manston make much of their cosy relationship with RiverOak. RiverOak clearly know that they are planning thousands of homes. Perhaps they’re not telling the leaders of these groups everything and are just, dare we say it, using airport lovers to push the Council to carry out a CPO so that RiverOak can get the site on the cheap? Or maybe they have told the various group leaders the unpalatable truth about their housing plans and the leaders are not telling their followers for fear of losing them in droves? Either way, RiverOak plans THOUSANDS of houses on the airport site. And 2,000 homes mean around 6,000 to 8,000 people. So, what does 2,000 houses mean in the context of the airport? The draft Local Plan talks about building housing at Manston Green at a maximum density of 35 houses per hectare. Apply that density to Manston airport and you immediately lose 20% of the airport site. Add to that the need for a school, some local shops, maybe a medical facility, and suddenly you’re taking up a lot of space. In addition, these 2,000 homes will be cheek by jowl with a cargo airport. This is not likely to be a leafy estate attractive to the affluent. It’s much more likely to provide homes for those people who have less money and fewer options. Just to be clear, we’re not saying that the only acceptable housing is housing for the wealthy – we’ve never said that. However, many, many supporters of the pro-airport campaign have said time and again that they want an airport precisely because they don’t want a big housing estate populated by people who are less fortunate. Still, it looks as if that’s what their campaign is helping to make happen. Be careful what you campaign for, pro-airport supporters – your pals at RiverOak plan at least 2,000 homes on “your” airport. And, we think, they will want to build many more when they discover in a couple of years’ time that, surprise, surprise, they can’t run a profitable cargo airport at Manston and so they want to turn it to other uses. And the Council, having handed the land over to them 100%, will be powerless to stop them.
Posted on: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:37:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015