Manston DCO Secretary of State’s Decision 9th July 2020
An emailed response was sent to Ramsgate Society members just two days after the Examining Authority Report and contrary Secretary of States decision were known. A slightly more detailed version of this email follows:
As we anticipated the Planning Inspectors recommended that the Application be Refused.
Having listened to the evidence over a six months period the Examining Authority concluded that the application failed to meet the required standards on the following key issues:
- Following Regulation 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Examining Authority (ExA) concludes that it is required to recommend refusal to the Secretary of State as the competent authority for the decision as to whether to grant development consent.
- The ExA concludes that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient need for the Proposed Development , additional to (or different from) the need which is met by the provision of existing airports, and this weighs against making the proposed Order.
- The ExA concludes that there are impacts of the Proposed Development in terms of climate change which weigh against making the proposed Order.
- The ExA concludes that there are impacts of the Proposed Development in terms of heritage and archaeological assets which weigh against making the proposed Order.
- The ExA concludes that there are impacts of the Proposed Development in terms of noise impacts which weigh against making the proposed Order.
- The ExA concludes that there are impacts of the Proposed Development in terms of operational issues which weigh against making the proposed Order.
- The ExA concludes that there are impacts of the Proposed Development in terms of transport which weigh against making the proposed Order.
- The ExA concludes, therefore, that on balance the benefits of this proposal would not outweigh its impacts.
The Inspectors formal Recommendation to the Secretary of State was as follows:
“For all of the above reasons and in the light of its findings and conclusions on important and relevant matters set out in this report, the ExA, under the procedures set down in the PA2008, recommend that the Secretary of State should NOT grant development consent.”
In his decision letter granting the DCO the Secretary of State overturned the Examining Authority’s conclusions and recommendations and has relied on the socio economic benefits that the applicants claimed would accrue to Thanet if the project was a commercial success and this in turn depended on whether there was a need for the proposal. In doing so he departed from his own experts’ advice on this point which was as follows:
“Overall, the ExA considers that the socio-economic benefits of the Proposed Development have been overstated, and that the Proposed Development would have an adverse effect on tourism in Ramsgate. The education, training and skills commitments would benefit Thanet and East Kent. When taken together the ExA considers that the Proposed Development would still generate a socio-economic benefit to Thanet and East Kent, but such benefits are substantially lower than that forecast by the Applicant. Such benefits are also dependent on the need for the Proposed Development; without the need and the forecasts based on this need, socio-economic benefits (aside from the education, training and skills commitments) would reduce further”
It is on the question of ‘need’ that we strongly disagree with the decision of the Secretary of State. Our own research findings support the Inspectors’ view which we believe to be evidence based, fair and balanced. This is a key paragraph:
“19. Overall, the ExA considers that the levels of freight that the Development can be expected to handle are modest and could be catered for at existing airports (Heathrow, Stansted and EMA, and others if demand existed). The ExA considers that the Development appears to offer no obvious advantages to outweigh the strong competition that such airports offer. The ExA has therefore concluded that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient need for the Development, additional to (or different from) the need which is met by the provision of existing airports [ER 5.7.28]. “
The Ramsgate Society is very disappointed in the Secretary of State’s decision which flies in the face of his own experts’ advice and recommendations and we will over the next few weeks be considering, with others, what action might be taken to contest this decision.
While we all take time to digest the implications of the SOS decision your comments are welcomed – contact details below.
|
