Thanet Local Plan to Drop Housing Proposal at RAF Manston

Kent Live

The cabinet at Thanet District Council has recommended not to build 2,500 homes on the Manston Airport site – but its future as a functioning airport is not guaranteed.

An extraordinary cabinet meeting was held on Monday evening (June 2) to decide which version of the district’s draft Local Plan to vote through.

The cabinet was joined by council leader Bob Bayford as they made their recommendation.

The council needs to continue to progress the Local Plan process to avoid further intervention from central government – they failed to meet the government’s deadline when the previous draft of the Local Plan was voted down in January 2018.

There were two options to choose from. Firstly, to proceed with publishing or submitting the draft Local Plan as previously submitted on January 18, which included the allocation of Manston Airport for mixed use development.

This was the recommendation of officers.

The other option was to proceed with a plan that did not earmark the airport for mixed use development, with the housing requirement met by other sites.

The cabinet voted to go ahead with option two, which means 2,500 homes originally earmarked for the airport site will now be built across other sites on the Isle:

  • 600 homes in Birchington
  • 1,000 homes in Westgate-on-Sea
  • 500 homes in Westwood
  • 300 homes in Hartsdown, Margate
  • 100 homes in Tothill Street, Minster

Will Manston return to aviation use?

RiverOak Strategic Partners is seeking to re-open Manston Airport after it closed in 2014.

However, the decision to move these 2,500 homes elsewhere has not set Manston Airport’s future in stone.

Two policies written into the original version of the Local Plan to protect aviation use – referred to as SP05 and EC4 – have been removed from the second option which cabinet voted to proceed with.

Monday’s meeting agenda explains: “Draft Policy SP05 (protecting aviation-only use) would be deleted, and replaced with text that recognises the existing use of the airport and acknowledges the current Development Consent Order (DCO) process for the site.

“This also provides the opportunity for any other interested parties to pursue the operational use of the airport through agreement with the landowners or through becoming an indemnity partner as part of a potential CPO process with the council.

“The statement regarding existing use is not a policy statement; it is simply a recognition of the current planning status of the site.

“This also means that current Policy EC4 (and other airport-related policies) would not be continued or replaced with equivalent policies in the new Local Plan.”

A DCO is currently being pursued by Riveroak Strategic Partners. The company withdrew the order in May as part of the planning process and at the time of writing it has yet to be resubmitted.

When will the final Local Plan decision be made?

However, Monday evening’s meeting was not the final decision – the outcome was a recommendation for full council to take into account.

A spokesman for the district council said: “At the meeting, cabinet considered two options, the first of which was the original draft Local Plan that was rejected in January.
“Cabinet recommended that council adopt the second option, which does not seek to change the existing use of Manston as an airport.
“The recommendations from Cabinet will now go the executive, policy and community safety scrutiny panel on Wednesday, July 11 for further consideration, and will then go to council on Thursday, July 19 for a final decision.”

Why the Nationalised OAN doesn’t matter when you consider Employment Policy+

The new national standard OAN is ‘policy off’ when it comes to employment projections.

Imagine a are like Greater Manchester that is above the national average in terms of affordability.  The ‘fudge factor’ formula assumes people will be net migrating out of such areas towards places that are above the national average.  The employment policy aims to prevent this with employment growth.

So what do you add the +employment factor to, to the demographic baseline or to the adjusted OAN in the national formula.  If you add it to the national formula it will assume affordability gets worse not better because you will be building less than demographic baseline +employment induced baseline supply

Consider a county are next to London where its employment EDNA report would normally add +12% to OAN, but with nationalised OAN would be +16%, so where do those additional 4% come from?  The formula assumed they would be moving net from  ‘net giving’ areas such as Manchester. It is also double counting arguably, so it makes sense to adjust the employment uplift to around +8%, the SHMA + employment figure.

This is not how migration works, people are are more likely to move from even less affordable areas closer by such as London.

So in all cases when you consider employment based assumptions that make sense it cancels out the nationalised OAN fudge factor.

Im all for a standard OAN method but it has to include employment and migration assumptions that make sense to avoid silly conclusions.

The Diseconomies of Fail – No Large Garden Communities do Not Cost More Than Smaller Development

One of the oddest and most disingenuous arguments I have heard recently.  And in Planning too from CAUSE

Size matters, but has not been debated, yet larger proposals bring complexity, risk and an increasing requirement for infrastructure. Delivery of larger projects is slow (think Ebbsfleet and Northstowe).

Our Small is Beautiful paper suggests that viability decreases at more than 2,000 homes.

Looking at this paper:

There are significant scale diseconomies in building big new towns. The bigger the town, the longer it takes to build, and the higher the cost per dwelling.  The dramatic cost increase arises because of the finance costs on land. The increase in total
land costs as the holding period increases is astounding. Land bought now for £100,000 per acre escalates to £179,000 after 10 years and £1.8m after 50years.

In theory big settlements might benefit from scale economies. It might be possible to build a sewage works or power supply at a lower cost per dwelling for a 24000 settlement than for a 2000 one. But we have seen no evidence that this is the case and we therefore ignore it.

The only claim to scale economies made during the recent Examination of the North Essex. Garden Communities plan related to education. The NEAs variously suggested that settlement sizes of 5000 and 15,000 are needed to support an optimum number of secondary schools. No detail was provided, and CAUSE would argue that secondary schools can be provided every bit as efficiently in smaller well connected urban extensions as in large standalone new towns.

There are four prblems with this argument:

1.Economies of Urban  Agglomeration

Why do cities exist in the first place?  Why isnt economic activity scattered across an even plane? This question has been the driving force of urban economics in recent years.  it has even led to a noble prize.

As Wikipedia states:

As more firms in related fields of business cluster together, their costs of production may decline significantly (firms have competing multiple suppliers; greater specialization and division of labor result). Even when competing firms in the same sector cluster, there may be advantages because the cluster attracts more suppliers and customers than a single firm could achieve alone. Cities form and grow to exploit economies of agglomeration.

Indeed the optimum city size is when the economies of aggomeration matches the diseconomies of congestion.  the more you invest in transit infrastructure the higher this size can be,

CAUSE suggests an optimum size of 2,000.  However a CBA need to look at both costs and benefits in both the public and private sector.  Otherwise you get in the reducio ab absurdio that London is too big as it most economically should have stuck at the size of a roman town of 2,000 dwellings.

2. Fallacies of Composition

You arn’t comparing (say) once scheme of 20,000 dwellings with one scheme of 2,000 dwellings.  To hit the same targets you have to build 10 of these and look at the cumulative costs.  Not all of these could be built in year one.  The absorption rate in the local housing market would be the same.  You also have to phase the schools and other infrastructure.  You therefore cant assume in any way that the costs of holding land would be different.  They would be exactly the same.

3. Economies of Scale

The most disingenuous part of CAUSEs argument is it own name as they are the Campaign for Urban Sprawl in Essex and they propose more dispersed development over many smaller sites.  Their own proposals for Colchester and Tendring has been assessed as only supporting round 6,000 dwellings forcing the rest to go to scattered villages.   Which is not to state that this plan could not be accomodated alongside one or more large Garden Communities.

There are very clear economies of scale from developing at large scale as any civil engineer will tell you.  You might need for example one new sewerage main rather than 20.

This is particularly clear in the education sphere. Imagine an area where all secondary and primary schools are full.

This means that at at average household size you need around 2,400 homes to build a two form entry new primary school.  a small two primary feeder secondary would have 4,800 homes, more economically twice this.  The last this you would build is half a primary school.  This leads to what I call ‘development quanta’ with optimum site sizes and densities going up in discreet quanta.  You vary the design size at design year of the development to fall outside the plan period if you have an odd residual.

There is a mass of research evidence on the high infrastructure costs of servicing scattered sprawl as opposed to concentrated urban development.

For example from Siemens

Studies undertaken by the cities of Calgary, Canada and Los Cabos, Mexico identified significant savings on infrastructure costs could be achieved through more compact growth. Savings of 33% and 38% were identified for the capital cost of roads, transit, water and other infrastructure for Calgary and Los Cabos. Savings on operational costs were 14% for Calgary and 60% Los Cabos.

Also more scattered development means that infrastructure networks of greater length need to be developed.

Todd Littman

Is the acknowledged expert on this working with LSE cities.

our analysis indicates that by increasing the distances between homes, businesses,  services and jobs, sprawl raises the cost of providing infrastructure and public services by 10-40 percent.


There are also disecnomies of servicing scattered smaller development by transit. Rapid transit is only economic above a certain critical mass of housing within a single route at densities that secure residents within walking distance.  You wont get transit systems for scattered development around 20+ villages.

This also means the costs of mitigating traffic from highr car use from scattered development

4. The  False Assumption of Buying all the land at once at existing use value

Neither would a rational house builder pay up front for land in year 1 when the housing would be phased in 5 year phase three.  Thie option agreement would trigger payment in that phase.  It is therefore a ridiculous and non real world assumption to assume vast interest payments on buying all land up front.  It simply would never happen.  Even if bought at CPO the ‘non scheme world’ utilising the ‘point guarde principle’ would be the non garden community world what its infrastructure. in the light of caselaw, and reforms made in the  Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, the cpo has to ignore completely the infrastructure and project and any special suitability of the site for the project.  These collectively mean that sites for Garden Communities have a much lower EUV than many scattered developments that would come forward anyway in the ‘no scheme world’ local plan.  So the conclusion on valuation is the precise opposite of that put forward by CAUSE.

All of these economic factors can and should be built into the revised SEA, then with the expert evidence based on international consensus on the costs of sprawl, the outcome will be different.

Housing is more important than space for Gliders


A defence minister has been accused of going back on a commitment to keep 15 military airfields that are earmarked for closure in use for civil aviation.

The airfields are due to be sold off, mostly for housing, over the next six years as part of MoD cost-cutting.

MPs and peers on the all-party general aviation group say they are an important national asset.

They say that Defence Minister Tobias Ellwood had agreed to “look again” at the aerodrome sell-offs.

But all-party group chairman, Conservative MP Grant Shapps, said there were “significant disparities” between what Mr Ellwood had said and his subsequent follow-up letter to the group.

“Our meeting with the defence minister was very worthwhile and extracted some helpful commitments, including supporting continued aviation use at the 15 military aerodromes being disposed of, where possible,” said Mr Shapps.

He said the group’s members were “very concerned to see no mention of these commitments in the minister’s follow-up letter”.

“As we celebrate 100 years of the Royal Air Force, which has inspired generations of young people into pursuing high-tech jobs in aviation, we have written back to the minister to ask specifically what the Ministry of Defence is doing to support general aviation.

“We look forward to the minister’s reply.”

The MPs and peers argue that the 15 airfields should be kept in use for private planes, gliders and flight training – known as general aviation – and to be kept in reserve for military use, in the event of a national emergency.

In his written response, Mr Ellwood appeared to rule out the future use of the threatened airfields by other aircraft.

He said he “recognised the strength of feeling” among the 157 members of the all-party aviation group.

But he said private planes could still access 20 other military airfields in the UK and the closure of aerodromes used for pilot training was part of a plan to increase training capacity by concentrating it at fewer sites.

He also rejected arguments that closing the airfields posed a security risk.

“I must assure you that the MoD does undertake the necessary investigative work to ensure that the safety and security of service personnel and UK citizens is not compromised,” said the minister.

The MoD said the sites were “surplus to military requirements” and as no bids have been received to turn them into civilian airfields they would be used to meet the “needs of the local community”.

A spokesperson said: “Some of the airfields have not been active for decades, years if not decades, and are not fit for aircraft to land.

“All proceeds from the sale of the sites will be reinvested back into defence.”

The airfields earmarked for closure are:

  • Abingdon, Oxfordshire

  • Alconbury, Cambridgeshire

  • Arbroath, Angus

  • Brawdy, Pembrokeshire

  • Chivenor, Devon

  • Colerne, Wiltshire

  • Dishforth, North Yorkshire

  • Halton, Buckinghamshire

  • Henlow, Bedfordshire

  • Mildenhall, Suffolk

  • Molesworth, Cambridgeshire

  • North Luffenham, Rutland

  • Wethersfield, Essex

  • Woodbridge, Suffolk

  • Wyton, Cambridgeshire

Given that Defence Estates been promoting many of these sites for years through local plans its a good job their promoted about land availability. Some of these sites are remote and unsuitable for major development, but some are accessible and make excellent Brownfield development sites, for example Abingdon, Alconbury and RAF Henlow.  Surely the potential to provide site in major growth areas should be a priority.

Why should the state make provision for a hobby, do we allocate vast tracts of land for building model railways or collecting stamps.  Why should it be any different for flying gliders and light aircraft.