Oral evidence: Smaller airports, HC 713Monday 2 February 2015

Oral evidence, 2 February 2015.

Witnesses

Paul Carter, Leader, Kent County Council, David Smith, Director of Economic Development, Kent County Council, Councillor Iris Johnston, Leader, Thanet District Council, Madeline Homer, Acting Chief Executive, Thanet District Council, Paul Cook, Interim Director of Corporate Resources, Thanet District Council, and Sir Roger Gale MP, gave evidence.

Chair

Good afternoon and welcome to the Transport Select Committee. Could you give us your name and organisation, please?

Paul Cook

I am Paul Cook, director of corporate resources, Thanet district council.

Madeline Homer

I am Madeline Homer, acting chief executive, Thanet district council.

Councillor Johnston

I am Iris Johnston, leader of Thanet district council.

Sir Roger Gale

I am Roger Gale, Member of Parliament for North Thanet, which includes the Manston site.

Paul Carter

I am Paul Carter, leader of Kent county council.

David Smith

I am David Smith, director for economic development at Kent county council.

Chair

I would like to ask all of you whether you were aware that Manston Skyport and Ann Gloag had maintained an interest in Manston. You heard the previous session and the information that came from that. I would like to ask each of you if you knew about that. Mr Cook, were you aware of that?

Paul Cook

I was aware that a majority interest had been acquired by the new owners and, therefore, that some interest had been retained.

Chair

And you knew who had retained it.

Paul Cook

Yes.

Chair

When you were listening to the previous session in relation to retention of interest in Manston, specifically in relation to Ann Gloag and Manston Skyport, was any of that new to you?

Paul Cook

I knew that only a majority interest had been disposed of. I did not know all the exact details but I understood the overall situation.

Chair

Ms Homer, what was your information?

Madeline Homer

My understanding was that the majority interest had been sold to Chris Musgrave and Trevor Cartner but that Ann Gloag had retained a 20% interest in the joint venture company. That was my understanding.

Chair

Councillor Johnston, what was your information?

Councillor Johnston

On 23 September Mrs Bradley phoned me at eight o’clock in the morning to tell me that the person I was seeing that morning would be the people who were the new owners of Manston; I actually had an appointment in my diary for 8.15 with Chris Musgrave. This would appear to have been the exciting news that Mrs Gloag had told me in the summer was coming. I then fairly quickly realised that 80% was with Mr Musgrave and Mr Cartner, and 20% was held by others that Mrs Gloag and Mrs Bradley would have been connected with.

Chair

Did you have any further information about that?

Councillor Johnston

Not particularly. I had a good meeting with Mr Musgrave and the arrangements became clearer to me at that meeting. It was a very brief meeting. I think he was discussing the breakdown with the MPs and others as well, but for me it was the exciting news that there were going to be some new owners some time in the autumn, and that was it.

Chair

After listening to the exchanges in the part of the session that has just concluded, did you feel that you had been misled in any way?

Councillor Johnston

I don’t know if I was misled, but I had not quite grasped the extent of Mrs Gloag’s interest until some time ago when I was alerted to the fact that Mrs Gloag’s interest was more than just the 20%.

Chair

Sir Roger, what was your understanding of this in relation to Mrs Gloag’s continued involvement?

Sir Roger Gale

When I was told that Cartner and Musgrave had acquired an interest in the site, I made it my business to find out the structure of the companies behind it. It became apparent to me that in no meaningful sense did Cartner and Musgrave own 80% of anything at all connected with Manston, other than possibly a promise. I said that publicly on BBC Radio Kent. I received a complaint from Cartner and Musgrave indicating that I had misrepresented their position and asking me to withdraw. I wrote back to them and said that I would be grateful if they could confirm that they did in fact own the unencumbered freehold of 80% of Manston, including the Northern Grass site. I have yet to receive a reply.

Chair

Councillor Carter, what was your understanding of the position?

Paul Carter

From the moment the sale was announced I have always been aware that Ann Gloag retained a 20% interest in the new joint venture company. I have little information on the details of how the new joint venture company was funded. Obviously from the discussions earlier, Ann Gloag still has quite a lot of money involved, through her charge in this company, hopefully to make interesting things happen at Manston airport.

Chair

Does what you have heard today disturb you in any way?

Paul Carter

No.

Chair

Mr Smith, could you tell us if you have heard anything new today in relation to knowledge about Ann Gloag’s continued involvement?

David Smith

No, I have not. I would be interested to see the additional evidence that Ms Bradley has promised about the structure of the current ownership. It is my understanding, supported by a letter from Mr Cartner’s and Mr Musgrave’s solicitors, that in economic terms they have 80% ownership of the company that owns the airport and its assets.

Chair

Councillor Johnston, could you explain to us why Thanet district council did not proceed with the compulsory purchase order in relation to Manston?

Councillor Johnston

We received a petition on 10 July asking the council to CPO Manston; we have had some difficult experiences of CPOs and the feeling was that we needed an indemnity partner that covered all our costs. I called two urgent meetings, one on 17 July and then one that was in our diary for 31 July, to see how we could move forward. We went out for soft-market testing, and some companies came forward, including RiverOak. Of course, I have known Mr Freudmann for many years. I have been a councillor for 20 years, so I know Mr Freudmann’s background. We eventually got to a stage by the middle of October when we were not satisfied with the information that was coming forward. It is very difficult for a company, particularly an American company, to meet the criteria of the district council. We need to see three years’ accounts. Our due diligence is very strong. We must not risk everything that our council does unless we are sure who our partner is. Although I have respect for all of the people involved, it was very difficult for us. Although we could have made a decision in July, we extended the time to 11 December when we said that at the present time we were not going forward with the CPO because we had not found an indemnity partner.

Chair

RiverOak have told us that they did everything that was asked of them. Are you disputing that and saying that it was not good enough?

Councillor Johnston

Based on officer advice and on my own observations, it was difficult to get the information that we required. In the original responses, the answers were not fully completed. They were unable to give three years’ accounts because the company had been set up in Delaware, I believe on 3 July, so they would not have had three years’ accounts for the company that we were going to have to deal with. We had to be very cautious. If we had a difficulty, and perhaps there was a repeat of the situation that Mrs Gloag landed us in, we might find that we had the same situation with RiverOak months or a couple of years down the line and the council might have to underwrite. We also had legal advice talking about a leap of faith. To me that was what it was going to be—a leap of faith.

Chair

Was the fact that the subsidiary was registered in Delaware a significant factor in your deciding that you could not go along with it?

Councillor Johnston

I think it probably is. I like people to pay tax in this country, thank you.

Chair

Where did you get your advice for dealing with all of this? Did you have access to the right kind of expertise?

Councillor Johnston

Absolutely. I was obviously dependent on our officers who are sitting beside me, but we also sought outside legal advice. We had considerable evidence from telephone conversations, e-mails and then written advice, which I have in front of me, from Landmark. Elected members—all of us—have to be mindful of the advice we are given. Whatever our personal views are, we have to listen and have regard to it. I have that advice in front of me and it is very clear. We had to think of the rights of the owners. I am now finding out more about the owners today. We also had to meet certain tests for a CPO. With regret and at the present time, we were not totally satisfied with RiverOak. After many months of asking for full information, we saw that there was $1.6 million in an account somewhere in America. I did not see the bank statement. We were looking for an escrow account in this country, with the council and the indemnity partner having joint rights over it, but we were not at that stage several months later, by 11 December.

Karen Lumley

How much would you estimate that it has cost the taxpayers of Thanet so far in the extra advice you have received?

Councillor Johnston

We commissioned a report from Falcon, who are a reputable company. I think it was £26,000.

Madeline Homer

The total cost that Thanet district council has spent on seeking advice on this matter is £26,000.

Chair

Councillor Johnston, do you think that Mr Cartner and Mr Musgrave are good news in relation to Manston airport?

Councillor Johnston

I live in hope.

Chair

Councillor Carter, could you explain your position to us? The county council has a resolution supporting the continuation of an airport at Manston, but you seem to have made statements welcoming what is called mixed development on the site. Could you clarify what your view is, and the view of the council?

Paul Carter

Yes. Over the last 15 or 16 years, when the airport has been under private ownership, we have done all we could at Kent county council to support the development of a thriving airport at Manston. As has already been referred to this afternoon, the amount of private sector losses in those 16 years has been exceedingly high, from Wiggins going into liquidation, to EUjet going spectacularly bust as part of that, and Infratil accruing losses of about £55 million during their ownership. We at Kent county council have done all we can to support Infratil, under my leadership for nearly 10 years. Every time the main board came over from New Zealand we had discussions about how we could help and support them still further. Road and rail connectivity has been dramatically improved, so that accessibility to the airport is good. A new Manston parkway station is proposed; and it is part of our LGF round one success in getting that station, where High Speed 1 trains will bring Thanet and Manston closer to London. We have made enormous endeavours to help and support more broadly the east Kent economy. You asked me whether I had heard anything this afternoon that concerned me. My answer was no, because Messrs Musgrave and Cartner have a very successful track record in developing commercial parks. They are the owners of Discovery Park just down the road, where Pfizer withdrew almost exactly four years ago. They took on massive financial risk and have turned it into the most phenomenal success. They are now employing 2,200 in jobs when Pfizer, when they made the phone call to David Willetts, and David Willetts to myself asking me to lead the task force, were threatening their total withdrawal from Sandwich, and the demolition ball going into that site within 12 months had we not had a good rescue plan. We are enormously grateful for the support and aid we got from national Government to turn that into a phenomenal success. It is the same in the north-east of England at an old Samsung site that closed down in 2005 and which again now supports over 2,000 jobs. In partnership with an ex-coalfield site in Sheffield, they turned that into a dramatic success. They were very challenging commercial sites which have been turned round by the expertise of those two partners.

Chair

Have you seen the detailed proposals from Mr Cartner and Mr Musgrave?

Paul Carter

I did have a meeting with them in my office a week or 10 days ago when they discussed the evolution of their master plan, which will—I do not think there is any secret—try to maximise advanced manufacturing on that site. Indeed they have one or two prospective tenants that would like to be on the airport site.

Chair

What about housing? How much of it is for housing?

Paul Carter

There is talk of some housing, but predominantly it will be a commercial development. That is what they tell me. I can only repeat what came out of that conversation with both those partners. It will be led by advanced manufacturing, exactly the sort of jobs we want to create in east Kent.

Chair

What exactly did you see? I would like to be clear what you saw. You had a discussion with them and what did they show you?

Paul Carter

They showed me nothing. We talked about their plan. We had a discussion with David Smith, the director of economic development, about their evolving ideas for the master plan which will eventually be submitted to Thanet district council. That is in its evolution. What I was told was that it will be predominantly commercially led. Advanced manufacturing will be high on the list. They have already potentially secured some very interesting occupiers in advanced manufacturing, where they believe 550 jobs could be secured there, subject to planning, very quickly. That is enormously exciting when the airport has only previously succeeded in employing 144, many of those part-time jobs. Am I excited about the future? Yes, I am, based on the track record of Mr Cartner and Mr Musgrave in their business ventures elsewhere in this country.

Mr Harris

First of all, Councillor Carter, welcome back to the Transport Committee. You seem to have a better attendance record here than I do. In July last year, you voted with your colleagues for a motion which expresses disappointment at the closure of the airport, and a commitment to work with Thanet district council to support proposals to retain Manston as an airport. Two months later you were being very enthusiastic about the new regime, as you have been today, and that is perfectly acceptable; but did something change in those two months? It is a very short period of time, when you went from voting unanimously to support the airport to suddenly banging on about the fantastic track record of the new owners in creating non-airport jobs.

Paul Carter

Yes. The motion that was supported unanimously by the county council said we would be prepared to support Thanet district council in a CPO process at Manston, provided a viable and thriving airport could be delivered at Manston. It was caveated by that. The principle of supporting the retention of aviation at Manston airport was there and unanimously agreed by the council, but in my speech—there are records of it—it was caveated by the fact that there was a viable business proposition to retain aviation growth at Manston airport that really did stack up. We asked Thanet district council to submit any propositions that came their way within the time lines that were set, and nothing arrived at Kent county council at all. We have never seen a developed business plan from RiverOak to develop Manston airport as a viable going concern majoring on aviation.

Mr Harris

The problem may be that I do not know if I have the full resolution of the council here. If you say it was caveated, I certainly do not have any caveats. I have the motion and if you don’t mind I will read the whole thing: “Kent County Council supports the actions taken so far by Thanet District Council to maintain Manston as a regional airport. We recognise the value that a regional airport brings to East Kent and are disappointed at its closure. Kent County Council will explore with Thanet District Council ways in which it can support proposals to retain Manston as an airport.” Was there more to the motion than that? Do I only have an edited version?

Paul Carter

That was the substantive motion.

Mr Harris

That was the motion.

Paul Carter

As I said, when I asked the Conservative group on the county council to support it, it was provided we had a viable business plan for aviation retention at Manston and it was positive for growth in the east Kent economy. I have no evidence that any proposition has come forward, which is worthy of a CPO process, that does that. We have worked very closely with Thanet district council. We asked for the submissions that were made by interested parties that may want to get support for a CPO process at Manston airport, and we have received the square root of very little.

Mr Harris

I get that local and national politicians have a genuine interest in generating the local economy and creating jobs. That is entirely worthy and is exactly what you want to do. I recognise and accept that. In an ideal world, given all of the complications that this situation involves, if somehow out of the ether a new proposal were to emerge to reinstitute a working, viable airport at Manston, would you prefer that option over what is now planned?

Paul Carter

It depends on the scale of what was offered. I have always suggested that if there were interesting and viable propositions that were good for the east Kent economy and good for aviation growth at Manston, I would look at them, and I am sure the new owners would so do. I remind the Committee that PricewaterhouseCoopers, acting on behalf of Infratil, were marketing this airport fairly aggressively. It was not too aggressive to begin with. I kept phoning them up wanting to make sure that they did aggressively market Manston airport globally to try to get interested parties to continue aviation at Manston. That was peddled around the global aviation market. I did all that I could to encourage various parties to come forward, when Infratil were getting very frustrated that no offers were coming their way. There were various events that took place within the main board in New Zealand which precipitated a very rapid sale at the time Ann Gloag acquired the airport. The chairman of the company died unexpectedly; over a very short period of time, the rest of the directors then passed a resolution to offload the airport very rapidly and get it off their balance sheet. They had had enough.

Karen Lumley

Councillor Johnston and Sir Roger, what would the people of Thanet prefer—an airport or a business park?

Councillor Johnston

The majority that contact me would prefer to have an airport. We are busily working on our draft local plan at the moment. We have found sites for the 12,000 homes we need by 2031, without needing Manston airport. I have been committed since my last election to support the development of the airport. It is something that I promised at election time and I keep that promise. The majority of people are concerned that the airport was lost in the way it was lost. They want us to support its reopening, but there are concerns in the Ramsgate area about flights—night flights and so on. I know from being in Ramsgate how low those planes go over the town. If the airport was reinstated, we would definitely have to revisit the flight paths.

Chair

Sir Roger, what is your view of what should happen?

Sir Roger Gale

There is undoubtedly a small body of opinion that is opposed to the airport. It is a curious fact of life that people buy houses under a flight path and then are surprised to find that there are aircraft there. That aside, and it is a small body of opinion, the overwhelming sense of opinion in east Kent—my colleague Laura Sandys and I are fully aware of this—is in favour of the airport; is opposed to other development; and recognises the fact that there is already a significant amount of underdeveloped and undeveloped brownfield industrial land available in Thanet. There is also housing land already available. They want the jobs back in the short term that have been sacrificed. There is also recognition that it is a national asset. That was one of the points that I made. It is a major diversion field; it has been and should be. It is a resource unreplicated anywhere else, certainly in the south-east. It also has the capacity to house the search and rescue helicopters that used to be there, and that Bristows want to bring back to cover the straits of Dover. It is not just a local interest. It is a county and a national interest as well and there is huge support for it. [Applause.]

Chair

Order. Sir Roger, the airport has had varied success in the past. That is perhaps putting it in a very mild way. What makes you think it could be successful in the future?

Sir Roger Gale

I have been a supporter of the airport from the very beginning. I was party to the deal with the MOD which was led by Jonathan Aitken, who was the Member of Parliament at the time and in whose constituency Manston at that time was, to transfer a lease on the ownership—not the whole of the ownership but a lease—to Seabourne Aviation, which was actually a cargo company. Clive Bourne wanted an aviation base to add to his cargo business. That was the foundation—the origin. I think the business was then sidetracked down some extremely unfortunate—glamorous but unfortunate—ventures into passenger traffic, which should have been the icing on the cake but not the cake itself. The thing that has impressed me about the RiverOak proposal is their determination to recognise the value of a transport hub to serve northern Europe, not just the United Kingdom but also the Low Countries. There is a demand and they believe that they can meet that demand. You have heard that they also believe that they can add not a Steptoe’s backyard aircraft-breaking business of the kind that has been tried at Manston in the past, but a properly organised and much needed breaking business, which will go somewhere if it does not go to Manston. I think that that is the fundamental difference; they want to base their operation upon cargo and airport-related businesses rather than solely looking for sunshine passenger holidays.

Chair

Are you confident that that would be their intention if they became involved, and that they would not see this as another type of development opportunity?

Sir Roger Gale

I understand that is a concern. Apart from Mr Freudmann, whom I had met before, I knew none of the RiverOak team until they came forward and expressed an interest—prior, incidentally, to the closure of Manston. The £7 million offer was made before the airport closed, and that was the asking price. That was what Mrs Gloag had asked for. I met them on a number of occasions, and have met them on many occasions since. I have been impressed by their determination. I actually thought they would walk away. When the airport was shut I thought they would say, “To hell with it, there are other places we can go. We don’t need the hassle.” They have stuck with this because I believe they want to do it. The reason they want to do it is that they believe they can make money out of it. You heard Mr Yerrall say that. This is a hard-nosed business approach. It is not anything particularly romantic, but it happens to suit a romantic purpose for those of us who want to keep Manston open. I think they can do it. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be sitting here now.

Martin Vickers

Sir Roger, we heard from Councillor Johnston that Thanet council had spent £26,000 on legal advice. You don’t get a lot of legal advice for £26,000. It is a big resource for a district council. I acknowledge that, and I can understand that the council would be mindful of wanting to minimise expenditure, but do you think the advice they received, both externally and internally, was up to standard?

Sir Roger Gale

Brutally, no. I think it is understandable that a local council of the size and shape of Thanet, with the resources that it has, does not have, and cannot be expected to have, officers who are expert in this kind of quite complicated deal. I know that RiverOak have spent large sums of money on lawyers, and have bought very good legal advice. I sound as if I am an agent for RiverOak. Please understand that I am not. I will support anybody that wants to open Manston as an airport as a viable and going concern, and RiverOak is the show in town, so if I appear to be representing them it is only in that context. They have offered to pay a sizeable sum of money into an English bank account to meet the costs that have already been incurred by Thanet council—the £26,000—plus any other costs that are incurred up to and through the compulsory purchase order process. At that point, and only at that point, does any other liability cut in legally. At that point they will meet the purchase costs on a back-to-back deal. I honestly do not believe that any company—British, American, Australian, New Zealand or anyone else—could be asked to do more than that.

Martin Vickers

Sir Roger, as a local MP like me, you have probably seen this document about a proposed joint venture. Would that be correct?

Sir Roger Gale

Yes, I have a copy.

Martin Vickers

It includes some rather surprising comments; one says, “Given the adverse local reaction to the closure of the airport, the perception that the site is under the control of a non-controversial joint venture partner would be commercially advantageous from a planning perspective.” Could you comment on that, or anything else in the document?

Sir Roger Gale

May I expand the answer a little to take in a tiny bit of background? I was telephoned on 30 November 2013 by Mrs Gloag personally. She told me in terms that she had acquired Manston airport; that she intended to invest heavily in it; that she was going to give it two years to see if she could make it work and that she might need some assistance on night flying, not in terms of scheduled flights but only in terms of unscheduled emergency flights that might become necessary through delay or whatever. I understood that Mrs Gloag had a track record in transport, although not in aviation. Obviously I welcomed the fact, not knowing any of the financial background at that time, that the airport had been acquired by somebody who appeared to want to make it work. On 29 January 2014, heads of agreement were signed by Mrs Bradley with a third party offering the airport for sale for the sum of £8 million. That is two months into the ownership of the airport, and, as you know, the announcement about the closure of the airport was made on Budget day. Mrs Sandys and I heard about it while we were sitting in the Chamber on Budget day. That was actually less than four months into the promised two years. I believe now that I was completely misled, that I was lied to and that Mrs Gloag had no intention whatsoever of running this as an airport, and every intention of seeking to turn it into an asset-stripping property development. I was shown the document and I was completely taken aback by it—source unknown; authorship believed to be Mrs Bradley, as a briefing note prepared for Mrs Gloag some time in August 2014. It says in totally cynical terms the words that Mr Vickers has read. It spells out under another chapter precisely the terms that, effectively, were agreed between Messrs Cartner, Musgrave, Bradley and Gloag. I am deeply cynical about the way that the whole of this has been handled, and therefore about the people who have been party to the decision.

Chair

What would you like the Department for Transport to do? Do you see a role for them?

Sir Roger Gale

The Department for Transport, at the request of Downing street, now have in their hands all of the RiverOak papers. I hope they have all of them; I believe they have. I hope that they now also have all the Thanet district council papers. They are being reviewed. I would like the Department for Transport to say either that Thanet council was right in its caution and that RiverOak need to provide more information on their bid, which is still current—we are not talking in the past tense; they still want to buy the airport and if they have to provide more information then they must do so—or the Department for Transport must say that Thanet council, though understandably, was nevertheless over-cautious and can safely proceed with the compulsory purchase on a back-to-back deal with RiverOak. There is another thing I would ask of this Committee because I do not want to see this happen again. I feel very strongly, as I said in my submission, that national infrastructure is a national asset; once it has gone you don’t get it back. I recommended a quasi-listing, rather like listed buildings but not in the historical or architectural sense, so that a site such as this could be protected up until the point when an inspector had looked at it and a Secretary of State had ruled, “Yes, this can properly be sold,” or, “No, in the national interest it should be protected.” This is a site of national value. The Virgin aircraft that ran into trouble six or nine months ago and shut Gatwick for half a day could have been diverted so easily to Manston had the airport still been open. The planes that are potentially carrying terrorists and currently destined to Stansted—which would bring that airport to a grinding halt—could be diverted safely to not an airport like Manston, because there isn’t one, but to Manston with its long and wide runway. I think assets like this have to be protected. The reason I am so grateful to the Select Committee for taking this on board is that these are assets that in the national interest and on a cross-party basis we really have to try to protect.

Chair

Councillor Carter, did you indicate then?

Paul Carter

I am not privy to the paper to which Sir Roger is referring, but I think—David Smith can correct me if I am in any way wrong—that the offer of a JV two months into Ann Gloag’s ownership when the £8 million was mentioned was connected to Mr Freudmann, who originally had potentially introduced the opportunity of buying both Manston and Prestwick airport, which were both owned by Infratil. Mr Freudmann has been very keen on getting some form of ownership or shareholding or interest in the airport over a long period of time. Indeed he was connected in Wiggins’ ownership many years ago. One needs clarity on the position of Mrs Gloag potentially going into a joint venture with somebody who, as I understand it, was connected to Mr Freudmann.

Chair

Thank you. Thank you all very much.

Madeline Homer

Can I say something?

Chair

No, we are concluding the session now. If you wish to write to us, you can do so. Thank you. Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses

Ms Rosalyn McIntyre, No Night Flights, Dr Beau Webber, Chair, Save Manston Airport Group, and Angie Sutton, Why Not Manston?, gave evidence.

Chair

Good afternoon and welcome to the Select Committee. Could you give your name and organisation, please?

Ms McIntyre

I am Rosalyn McIntyre, No Night Flights.

Dr Webber

I am Dr Beau Webber, Save Manston Airport Group.

Angie Sutton

I am Angie Sutton, Why Not Manston?

Chair

You have all heard the evidence this afternoon. Are there any specific points you would like to raise with us that either challenge what you have heard or reinforce what you have heard? Could you make brief statements, please?

Angie Sutton

I organised the air show at Manston in 2013. It was extremely successful. I put a lot of pressure on Manston Skyport to tell me whether I could have an air show in 2014 because it takes quite a long time to organise. They did buy it on 29 November, as we said, but I actually got a phone call on 11 January 2014 telling me I was definitely not going to have an air show. In my mind, that definitely said that they were closing it.

Dr Webber

Something I would like to raise is the consultative process over Manston airport closing. SMA believe that the Government-prescribed closure consultation appears to be mainly implemented as an exercise in informing, primarily to the media. Sir Roger Gale has made the point that there should be a listing of regional airports as national assets. They should not then be susceptible to the whims of property developers to asset-strip for personal or corporate gain. SMA would also like very strongly to second RiverOak’s call in their submission to the commission for at least a one-year consultation period as and when there is a proposal to close an airport. The Manston closure consultation was announced on the very day that Government support was announced for the establishment of new air routes. Southend has already benefited. This could have been Manston. I would like to raise the matter of the diversionary history of Manston.

Chair

Please do it very briefly, because I want to move on to other questions. I just want the very key points you want to make.

Dr Webber

Manston is frequently fog-free when other airports are closed. It is not subject to the strong winds that Gatwick frequently suffers from. It has a long history as a diversionary airport, being the last of three deliberately extended world war two airports.

Chair

Are you agreeing with that? You want to reinforce that.

Dr Webber

I want to reinforce that it has an important diversionary history and that it should be put back as a diversionary airport.

Chair

Thank you. Ms McIntyre, what are the key points you would like to make?

Ms McIntyre

The key point is that Manston is a 15-year experiment in turning a world war one airfield into a 21st-century commercial airport, and it has failed. In those 15 years it has never made a profit, if you look at any of the company reports. We can send you data on that. It has never accounted for as much as 0.5% of the diversions. It has never accounted for as much as 0.5% of the UK’s passenger or air traffic movements. Its strong suit was freight. Typically, it is about 1% to 1.5% of the UK’s freight operation. It is a tiny airport that has never succeeded commercially.

Chair

Do you welcome the involvement of Mr Musgrave and Mr Cartner?

Ms McIntyre

As a member of the public, it is very hard to tell anybody’s credibility in terms of what they promise. What is clear is that promises have been made by successive airport owners and by local politicians about the number of jobs that would be created at Manston. If we listened to Mr Freudmann’s estimates, we would now have 6,000 jobs at Manston and 450,000 tonnes of freight. It would be great to have somebody else try a different formula for producing jobs in Thanet, which are desperately needed.

Mr Harris

Ms McIntyre, if I am right, your primary concern is to campaign against the noise created by night flights at Manston. Is that correct?

Ms McIntyre

Yes.

Mr Harris

You are raising economic arguments that support your view that it would be better if the airport was not there, but what is your priority? Is it the removal of the nuisance noise of night flights, which is perfectly understandable, or is it about the economy? For example, if the figures stacked up, contrary to what you are suggesting, and if there was a strong economic case for the airport, would you still oppose the airport because of the night flights, or does the economics trump the noise of the night flights?

Ms McIntyre

Economics carries considerable weight, but there is not a viable proposition on the table. It is the same strategy that Wiggins pursued—freight first—and it is why Infratil bought the airport. It is freight first. I think Sir Roger was suggesting that people disappeared down a passenger route, but that came very late indeed. The challenge for us is that this is an airport that has never had planning permission to be an airport. No environmental impact assessment has ever been done for it to be an airport. It has a very unrestricted night flying programme, in that you can land a 747 unscheduled at any time of day or night.

Mr Harris

Has that happened very often?

Ms McIntyre

It does happen, and noise levels in excess of 1,000 decibels are recorded on Ramsgate premises.

Mr Harris

You will have guessed by my accent that I am not from Thanet. Are your views representative of the general population or would you say it is 50:50? I genuinely do not know what the argument comes down to—the pro and anti-airport. Is your view widely held, or are you admitting that you are in a minority view?

Ms McIntyre

The most honest answer anybody can give you is that nobody knows. The last time this was tested in a public consultation people came out two to one in favour of saying no to night flights. That is the closest we have had. Some of the numbers that have been suggested, such as 98% of Kent in favour of reopening Manston via a CPO, when tested, come down to tiny samples of 50 interviews, so I do not think anyone knows.

Mr Harris

But presumably being against night flights does not necessarily mean you are against the airport.

Ms McIntyre

No, and No Night Flights has consistently taken a pro-airport but anti-night flight stance. What worries us now is seeing the same business plan being suggested by RiverOak, which is cargo reliant. We have always been consistently told by airport owners that cargo must have night flights.

Chair

Dr Webber, what do you think could happen to make Manston successful in the future?

Dr Webber

The crucial point is that we strongly support RiverOak, because we feel they have been very open with us. We like their business plan. We like what they are proposing for flights. The crucial point is the cargo. No, they do not want night flights; they are not a part of their schedule. We know that cargo flights and others are keen to return. The other part of the aspect is the teardown, and the maintenance, repair and overhaul facilities. We believe that RiverOak want to put in high-quality ISO standard hangars to do this work, as opposed to the present owners who are tearing down derelict planes that are on the site and damaging a recently installed £8 million concrete apron in the process. That is not the way it should be done. We believe RiverOak have described the process the way it should be done. It will bring in money. It will cover the basic costs of the airport so that cargo flights can come in by about 2016, and passenger flights will then become highly viable by 2017.

Chloe Smith

Dr Webber, could you explain to us why you think Manston is a nationally important asset rather than merely a question for Kent or the south-east?

Dr Webber

Because it can do a substantial amount—we don’t say all—of the job of another runway, certainly in the short term for Gatwick and Heathrow. I have been at a number of Gatwick meetings, and they talk about many decades to get a new runway up and running. Manston can be up and running within the year. It is crucial as both a diversionary airport and a base for Bristow Helicopters. The busiest waters in the world are the English channel, which is within a mile of Manston airfield.

Angie Sutton

I spent 33 years as an air traffic controller and for a large part of that I was in charge of all emergencies in the air, at the London air traffic control centre. The diversionary part was my speciality. I retired to Margate, and when I was asked to come to talk to you today I thought, “Well, there couldn’t be anybody more perfectly placed to talk about diversions.” We have used Manston many times. Logically, I have military coming out of my ears, but we did check; there are many civilian aircraft that have used Manston as diversion. If Heathrow gets fogged in or if there is a problem on any of the runways—of course Gatwick only has one—Manston is the instant diversion. It has the capability to cope with anything. Many years ago they even had 70 aircraft divert there in a week. That will happen again, and it would be utilised. The other thing is that, although we do not use it very often, Stansted is the one if you have a problem with a hijacked aircraft. It just destroys Stansted; it brings it totally to a halt. With Manston, we have enough space to get it out of the way, to get it into corners—to surround it almost—and to be able to deal with it properly. It is that sort of thing that is missed. It is the fact that it has one of the best equestrian facilities to put horses through. It has cold storage. It has so much to offer, both nationally and internationally, because we are so close to Dover and Folkestone, for Eurotunnel and everything. It is absolutely essential that we have that airfield.

Chloe Smith

Going on from that very full list—I am very pleased you put it on the record—why has it not been possible to operate Manston commercially? If it is so important to operate Manston for all those reasons, how in your view should that be done?

Angie Sutton

When they took it over from the MOD, I was one of the controllers who used to control all the light aircraft out of Manston going north up to Edinburgh. They were trying to cut corners but using huge aircraft. Those aircraft were 120 passengers, when really they needed smaller ones to do jumps. When we actually brought in the KLM flights, it was starting to take off. To get on an aircraft to fly to America, it takes me over two hours to get to Heathrow, and that’s if the M25 is being very nice to me. I then have to check in three hours ahead and walk for miles with my kids to get on an aircraft. I could get to Manston within 10 minutes—don’t get me wrong; I do live quite close to Manston, but this applies to a lot of people. We had an hour’s check-in at the absolute maximum. We then flew to Schiphol in 55 minutes. I would be in Schiphol before I had even arrived at Heathrow. That is the bit that is missed. But, as they said, that is the icing on the cake; it is not the cake. The cake is the cargoes that can be fully utilised. People are supporting the idea. You cannot get a 747 turned round at Heathrow in 90 minutes; it is just impossible, yet Manston used to do it day in, day out.

Chloe Smith

Would either Ms McIntyre or Dr Webber like to add anything?

Ms McIntyre

I would. Unfortunately, the numbers that are being quoted do not seem to match what is in the CAA statistics. We can send you this. The CAA statistics say 0.5%—seven or 10 diversions a year—and in many years no diversions whatsoever. The KLM flights peaked a few months in, and then were starting to slowly tail off, and at no point did they reach more than 44.4% capacity. Those are statistics on the Government’s own website, at the CAA. At that point, of course, that is not a profit-making flight. I accept that it is very tempting to say we could take all these airlines from other airports and put them through Manston, but airlines have had 15 years to choose to do that and they haven’t, because that is not where they want to be.

Dr Webber

Can I dispute some of these figures? For a start, the CEO at Manston apparently says on his website that Manston had reached number five in the UK for cargo transport while he was running the show. Secondly, the CAA site says that in the year it was operating, before it was told to leave, KLM carried 50,000 passengers. Thirdly, we note that from 1999 to 2005 Pauline Bradley was joint ventures at Bank of Scotland and was loaning money to Manston and to airlines using it. We note that shortly after receiving this money they went bust. We note that Pauline Bradley is at present a director of Manston airport. SMA believe that since at least 2005 there has been a continuous process to trash Manston and run it down, to prove that it could only be viable for housing.

Chloe Smith

Thank you, Dr Webber.

Chair

What could Manston offer that other small airports in the south-east—for example, Lydd—could not

Angie Sutton

The length of that runway is phenomenal. Lydd, even with its £25 million extension, cannot take those sorts of aircraft. Even though it is not the longest in the country by any stretch of the imagination—it is about 11th; even though it has been second, third and fourth, it is going down—Lydd cannot cope with that. Southend cannot cope with that. You could use it for light aircraft, which it has done brilliantly. General aviation puts millions and millions of pounds into the economy, both locally and nationally. That is very well recognised. When you have a 61 metre-wide runway it allows for mistakes by people who cannot fly very well, even though that sounds a little bit dangerous, but it means that it is extremely beneficial for general aviation in all forms.

Dr Webber

The 61 metre-wide runway is only the central section. Either side of that there are large areas which are presently mainly used for taxiways. If you are landing a plane where the control surfaces are giving problems, or the undercarriage is shot to pieces, that width is wonderful.

Chair

Thank you very much for coming and answering our questions so fully. Oral evidence: Smaller airports, HC 713 20