Beach hut owners to start paying market rent

Canterbury City Council is seeking views on future charging arrangements for beach huts. Ongoing tenancy negotiations with Beach Hut Owners’ Associations prompted the council to seek external legal advice on its position. As a result, a number of changes are being made to beach hut tenancies and the associated fees.

The council’s barrister provided very clear legal advice that it is obliged to run its beach huts on a commercial basis and charge a market rent at the earliest opportunity – which is when the new tenancy agreement comes in to effect on 1 April 2014. Otherwise the council would not be acting in the best interest of general tax payers living in the district.

Operating commercially means that the council can no longer offer a reduced rate to residents of Canterbury district compared to non-residents, or offer the long term discount to owners who have had a hut for more than 15 years.

The council must also stop charging hut owners a ‘supplementary rental fee’ of five times annual rent should they sell their hut. This had been applied to try and keep annual rents down. However, instead of applying this charge (of anywhere between £1,380 and £1,840), the council will now only charge an administration fee of £463 to hut vendors to cover staff costs.

To ensure that the market rent is set fairly and independently, the council appointed an external valuation office to make that assessment. This work was carried out for the council by DVS, who operate on behalf of HM Customs and Revenue and who used rent levels at over 50 other comparative sites, amongst other information, to calculate the market value.

The current 2013/14 fees are £276 in Herne Bay and £368 in Tankerton per year. Subletting is not currently allowed and the cost of selling a hut is between £1380 and £1840.

DVS have advised that for 2013/14, the annual market rent for Herne Bay should be £475 and Tankerton should be £650 – payable by all hut owners. If subletting is allowed, the market rent increases by 20%. However, the cost of selling a hut would be reduced to £463.

The council is aware that the annual increases will be difficult for some beach hut owners. To help make this easier, the council is considering applying the move to market rents over the maximum acceptable period of two years – views on this are being sought as part of the consultation.

The consultation is also asking for views on the market rent set by DVS and whether sub-letting should be allowed or not. The matter will be considered by the Overview and Executive committees in December.

Chief Executive Colin Carmichael said:

“Having received the barrister’s clear advice, the council has a statutory duty to comply.”

Executive member for foreshore services, Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones, said:

“I am genuinely unhappy that we are having to put these proposals forward. We are mindful of how difficult this will be for some beach hut owners and we have done our level best to lessen the impact as much as possible.

However, we are obliged to take note of the advice given and I hope that owners will understand our position. I am keenly interested to hear responses to the consultation and these will be seriously considered in our debate.”

More information and details about how to respond to the consultation can be found HERE.

CCC website

Westgate trial a success. Earth is flat. Unicorns fart glitter.

Cllr Vickery-Jones is a reliable stock of laughter – it’s a bit like having a town jester. Long after the Westgate trial has been shut down by KCC and a collective sigh of relief has echoed around Canterbury, our local flat-earther insists it was a success. Nearly. If only we had all given it just a little more time. And damn anyone who dares to differ.

In fact, I think this outburst is better explained by the Conservative’s instinctive and visceral hatred of anything that damages the impression of party unity. Independent thinkers, users of logic and fans of self-evident facts are tolerated only for as long as they keep their horrid little thoughts to themselves. 

Those who dare to peep over the parapet and whisper obvious home truths like “the emperor has no clothes” or “the traffic trial is a cock-up” are rounded on and publicly insulted by their colleagues. In some cases, the party whip is removed, stripping them of influence, and presumably income. This is what the Conservatives then pass off as ‘party unity’.

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

The Westgate Towers
saga took an extraordinary twist this week when the city council’s transport
supremo launched a vitriolic attack on a former party colleague.

Cllr Peter
Vickery-Jones, who maintains the year-long traffic trial was a success, branded
trial opponent David Hirst a “dinosaur” and accused him of
“talking obvious rubbish” after Cllr Hirst said buses were to blame
for much of the congestion in St Dunstan’s Street.

It is the latest
clash in an increasingly acrimonious war
between the scheme’s supporters and its detractors. Cllr Hirst lost the
Conservative party whip on Canterbury City Council in February after he backed calls for Kent County Council to
scrap it and restore the original road layout.

The trial began in
March last year and saw vehicles banned from passing through the gate way of
the 14th century towers. Traffic lights governed movement around the towers and
only buses were allowed to enter St Peter’s Place from St Dunstan’s Street.

Cllr Vickery-Jones, the council’s
executive member for transport, was one of its most ardent supporters. Writing in response
to a letter from Cllr Hirst in last week’s Gazette, Cllr Vickery-Jones said:

“There are many
like Cllr Hirst who have access to the facts but choose to ignore them. I recognise that because we did not challenge
misconceptions and explain what and why we were running the trial, we lost the
debate over the efficacy of the trial because we were unwilling to publicly
counter the aggressive and insulting adverse propaganda.”

Cllr Vickery-Jones
says pollution in lower St Dunstan’s Street, North Lane, St Peter’s Place and
Pound Lane dropped by 50% “with no corresponding increase elsewhere”,
while the number of cars fell by 12%. He added:

“The Westgate
Traffic trial was not a failure. It was starting to bed down and beginning to
work. Other routes were being found, other means of travel were being tried,
hence the growth in bus usage. It never
was an attack on car drivers, only an attempt to encourage those 35% of drivers
who could reasonably do so to leave their cars and opt for sustainable travel.”

KCC, which looks
after the county’s roads network, reopened the towers to traffic when it
restored the original road system in April.

Pet scheme was a
disaster and farce

Lib Dem group leader
Alex Perkins believes Peter Vickery-Jones should resign over the Westgate
Towers traffic scheme. He describes the
scheme as a disaster and a farce. He said:

“It’s a shame
to see two councillors tearing into each other in public – and while it’s
tempting just to leave them to it, on this occasion it is only fair to point out that Cllr Hirst is in fact
obviously right.

It must be hard for
Cllr Vickery-Jones to accept that statistical analysis of his pet scheme has
shown it to have been a total disaster, but sadly that is what has happened.

The trial was a
farce. It was badly managed by Peter Vickery-Jones and just made a bad situation far worse and upset a great many
people.

A better man would
resign. But we know from bitter experience that it doesn’t matter how badly
this current administration muck things up, oblivious to their many
shortcomings, they just accuse everyone who holds differing opinions of ‘being
political’ and sail on regardless.”

HB Gazette 27th Jun 2013

Local Plan: Parish pledges to halt Strode in its stride

Parish councillors have vowed
to stop a massive housing development they fear would link Herne to Herne Bay.

Members of Herne and
Broomfield Parish Council are working with charity CPRE Protect Kent to find
reasons to stop 1,000 homes being built at Strode Farm owned by Hollamby
Estates, of which parish councillor Andrew Brealy is a director.

Mr Brealy left the room when
the issue was discussed at a meeting on Thursday, but chairman Tony Day said
the charity’s advice was to focus on highways issues.

The development, included in
Canterbury City Council’s draft Local Plan, would involve upgrades to
Bullockstone Road to turn it into a “relief road”. But Councillor Day
said they did not go far enough. He said:

“The road will end up
more or less as it is. It is totally inadequate. It is less adequate than the
current route through the village. People from all the new developments will
all want to go to Canterbury and will be going through our village or a relief
road. All these developments should hinge on the proper infrastructure being in
place.”

The parish council plans to
hire an independent expert – part funded by CPRE Protect Kent – to examine the
highways issues but members said it was crucial residents also got involved. Councillor Ann Blatherwick
said:

“We need to find out why
we are not being considered separately to Herne Bay and why we are not mentioned
as a village. We are a separate community. But we are just lumped in together
and that explains why they are trying to join us up.”

Members also discussed the
loss of agricultural land, and the lack of school places. County councillor
Alan Marsh said:

“We would need new
schools, two primary and two secondary, to deal with the numbers of children.
There isn’t money for one school, let alone four.”

The parish council won the
backing of city councillor Peter Vickery-Jones, who stressed he had not been part
of the Local Plan steering group that put the proposals together. He said:

“It is about time
Canterbury picked up where it should. There has been huge resistance to South
Canterbury but it is right it should be developed there.”

But he cited the need for an
alternative option, and suggested Thanington near Canterbury.

Village Hall plans on display

Plans for a new village hall
for Herne will go on display next month. Herne and Broomfield Parish Council
members have asked flve developers to provide drawings and costs for a new
building in St Martin’s View, next to the School Lane car park.

Villagers will be asked to
choose their favourite and fill in a questionnaire before councillors decide
how to proceed.

At a meeting of the parish
council on Thursday, clerk Monica Blyth said developers would be at a public
exhibition on Friday, July 12th from 1 to 7pm to answer any questions and
results of the consultation would be considered by the hall committee.

Cllr Tracey Jones said it was
important the consultation was as wide as possible, with an exhibition at the
weekend as well as during the week. Councillors agreed to investigate other
dates the material could be on display and to print extra leaflets and posters
to distribute via schools and shops.

HB Times 20th Jun 2013

Local Plan: Tories and opposition split over proposals

Canterbury City Council’s
blueprint for the district has already created a split between the Tory
majority and opposition members. Each Conservative on the
ruling executive insists he or she will listen to public opinion and allow it
to shape Canterbury’s future.

The council will use its
forthcoming issue of its District Life magazine to outline the Local Plan and
tell people how they can comment on it. Cllr Peter Lee, the council’s
finance supremo, says much of the proposed house-building is geared towards
retaining talented and employable people. He said:

“We are not going to be
able to do that  unless we build
affordable homes for them to live in.”

Cllr Terry Westgate, who
represents St Stephen’s ward, said:

“I’ve lived in
Canterbury for 38 years and I’m passionate about the city. I want people to
support what is good in this plan and tell us what they think is wrong with
it.”

Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones, the
council’s member for transport, warned objectors to the draft plan to be
measured in their criticism:

“It’s no good screaming
and shouting and being abusive to councillors – that will not help. I am
heartened to hear what people have to say. It’s clear they are passionate about
the district.”

Northgate Labour councillor
Alan Baldock urged the executive to act on the views put forward in the coming
consultation. He said:

“It [the draft plan]
lacks one vital ingredient – the wisdom of local people whose feet are firmly
on the ground with a stake in their district, every day of every year. But the
truth is that this executive no longer has the trust of the people of this
district. They no longer believe that their comments will be listened to or
answered.”

Lib Dem Nick Eden-Green
described the plan as “fatally flawed” adding:

“Suffice it to say that
there is much in it that is excellent, but I disagree with its conclusions on
housing numbers and their locations.”

HB Gazette 6th Jun 2013

Barriers to progress

Years of waiting, thousands
of pounds, and one snafu after another.

Following relentless pressure from Andy Lawrence, our councillors raided the Herne Bay
Opportunity Fund for £3,000 to pay for the barrier across Mortimer Street
(instead of getting KCC Highways to pay for it), and CCC put the job out to tender.

They awarded the job to a
fencing company (!), who turned out not to have the right paperwork to allow
them to work on Highways projects. Oops. Further delay while they find another
contractor.

The next contractor installs
the two gates that swing closed to form the barrier. A Council official comes
along with the padlock that will lock the gates shut. Oops.
It doesn’t fit. More delays while they search for a padlock that’s the right size. Ta-dah! A padlock is found
that will fit the gates… everything is ready.

 

Self-promotion

Oops! There’s still something
missing, a magical ingredient without which the expensive new barrier cannot
possibly be used – a photo opportunity for local councillors. There is an
election coming, after all.

Our lovely new barrier will be unveiled today (23rd March), by councillors Andrew Cook, Joe Howes, Jean Law, and Peter Vickery-Jones, with the paparazzi in attendance.

Murray might make a mint

Our beloved Council will be giving away land to a developer. Not just
any old land, but money-making car park land. And not just any old car
park, but valuable car parking land near the sea front. And not just any
developer, but one that’s been on telly.

Let’s not forget, the Council is simply holding things on our behalf. So when the press reports that:

“A formal planning application is due to be submitted shortly and a
land swap deal is close to being agreed, where Canterbury City Council
would gift part of their land, used as a car park, for the scheme.”

the phrase “their land” should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Free Money

I’m intrigued by the “land swap deal” and what the other half of it might be. What, if anything, is being gained for this land? Our Council appears to be about to give away some or all of the two car parks either side of the Beach Street cul-de-sac. Between them, they have the capacity for some 65 cars – about two-thirds of the capacity of Morrison’s roof-top car park.

What would the value of this land be on the open market? What would the Council be taking in parking revenue, week after week, for years? These two numbers are an indication of the value of the “gift” that our Council wants to make.

The press report indicates that the “land swap deal” is nearly a done deal. Presumably this has taken a while to organise and negotiate, so we’re looking at the end of a process that’s been a while in the making. I don’t think CCC will be putting any obstacles in Mr Murray’s way at this late stage, and as you can see from the pictures below – from the Herne Bay Showcase on 6th March – Mr Murray gets on famously with our smiling star-struck councillors (Jean Law, Peter Lee, Peter Vickery-Jones).

I don’t know much about the planning process, but I have a feeling that this application will have a smooth ride.

Once there was a plan. A bad plan.

The driving force behind our
Council’s exceptional generosity (are Coplan and Denne getting the
William Street car park for free?) is the conspicuous failure of the
CDA, or Central Development Area plan. Back in 2009, CCC decided that the Area Action Plan gave them a free hand to dispose of the William Street car park to the highest bidder. This would of course mean a windfall for the Council.

The
developers (Coplan and Denne in this case) would then be able to use the large town
centre site to generate a windfall for themselves. Obviously, they would
be looking for maximum benefits for themselves, rather than delivering
maximum benefits for the town. As a result, they developed what appeared
at the time to be a safe (i.e. stunningly unimaginative) clone town proposal for a
development, centred on a new supermarket that would be built literally next door to the existing supermarket.

Pinning their hopes on a new supermarket was the fatal flaw in an already pretty rubbishy plan – as explained here. Which supermarket would want to invest millions to set up shop next door to a competitor? Clearly not Tesco or Sainsbury, which is why they’re pursuing options on the edge of town. Would Morrison’s be coaxed out of their current store into the new one? Clearly not. They’ve withdrawn from negotiations, having calculated that it would take decades to recover the millions the move would cost them, quite apart from the problems of selling their old (current) store.

The lynchpin, the cornerstone, the catalyst for the whole CDA project has failed to materialise, and as a result we have nothing to show after three years apart from planning blight on all the properties bordering the William Street car park, the Bus Depot, and the Beach Street area – the three blocks ear-marked for development.

Murray’s mint

And this is where Mr Murray comes in. His interest in developing the Beach Street area must have been very welcome news. Our Council will present this as contributing to the town’s regeneration; Mr Murray’s architect says it will revitalise the bottom end of Mortimer Street and Central Parade. Quite an achievement for three dozen dwellings and a handful of shops.

One shop would be demolished – 73 Central Parade, the left-hand side of Tivoli Amusements. The new development would include 4 shops, 8 three-bedroom town houses, 2 three-bedroom apartments, 16 two-bedroom apartments, 9 one-bedroom apartments, 27 private parking spaces and 11 additional parking spaces. Clearly Mr Murray stands to make a pretty penny if all this turns out well.

I’m not sure that our Council realise that there’s a difference between making it easier for people to make money out of Herne Bay, and regenerating Herne Bay.

Beach Street development

Finally, here’s a document that’s celebrating its third birthday. First issued in March 2010, it’s Canterbury City Council’s vision for the future of Beach Street. None of this has happened yet, of course.

Beach Street Development Principles by HerneBayMatters

http://www.scribd.com/embeds/130884197/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-1qjkxs8lcf3036a602jg

Oh dear. He just doesn’t get it, does he?

• Step 1 – put your fingers in your ears, to block out the voice of reason.
• Step 2 – shut your eyes tightly, to avoid seeing the evidence.
• Step 3 – close your mind to the facts.
• Step 4 – keep shouting “The Westgate trial is a success”, in the hope you’ll be believed.
• Congratulations – you’re councillor material.

---

Canterbury’s Westgate Towers traffic ban ‘should continue’

A scheme to ban traffic
passing through Canterbury’s Westgate Towers should be kept in place
while evaluations are carried out, the city’s council says.

Peter Vickery-Jones, responsible for transport on Canterbury
City Council, said traffic pollution had been reduced during the
year-long trial.

The ban on vehicles passing under the gateway came into effect in March 2012. About 4,000 people signed a petition calling for the scheme to be scrapped. Opponents said the changes to traffic flows caused congestion and were a danger to pedestrians.

Mr Vickery-Jones said:

“We have displaced traffic, there’s no question of that. We have reduced the amount of traffic in the St Dunstan’s area by 15%. That’s had the effect of reducing the air quality management
systems in St Peter’s Place, Pound Lane, North Lane and Lower St
Dunstan’s [Street] to an acceptable level.”

He said the scheme had evened out pollution levels across the city.

“For us to revisit the pollution back on those people who
live in those areas would be a bad mistake until we’ve had an
opportunity to look at the figures.”

In a statement, Kent County Council said:

“Finding a solution to Canterbury’s traffic problems is a significant challenge. The Westgate Towers scheme will be removed at the end of the
trial period next month, and there will then be a thorough review.”

BBC 25th Feb 2013

Work to start on Herne Bay sea defences

Canterbury City Council has received approval and funding from the Environment Agency to start improvements to the sea defences at the central part of Herne Bay.

The £900,000 project includes a £80,000 council contribution, and work is due to start on site at the end of January. Breheny Civil Engineering has been awarded the contract, and all improvements should be completed by the end of June this year.

Work on the sea defences will involve raising the rear wall by 300mm and renewal of all the coping stones. All gaps will be closed by the use of floodgates, and a new rear wall will be built across the back of Neptune car park. The car park will also benefit from a barrier which will be installed at its entrance and can be closed at night, making the area secure.

Three new groynes will be constructed at the western end of central Herne Bay, where beach erosion has become a regular problem. The project will upgrade the standard of the sea defences to meet a one in 200-year storm event, such as the storm surge that occurred in the winter of 1953.

Originally scheduled for 2015, the council was able to bring the sea defence work forward due to a swift design and tender process that made the funding available. The project was designed and will be managed on site by the East Kent Engineering Partnership (EKEP). This is a partnership of Canterbury, Dover, Thanet, Shepway and Swale councils’ engineering teams.

The council’s Executive member for engineering, Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones, said:

“The council is absolutely committed to investing in the future of Herne Bay, and to have secured this funding for a significant project is wonderful news. The country has seen recent unprecedented inland flooding and this has led to extra demand to combat the problem. Therefore we’re pleased to have been able to convince the Environment Agency of the importance of the need for our scheme. Thanks to our involvement with EKEP, the Canterbury engineering team has worked on an array on different projects, including work for other local authorities. This expertise ensures we can turn projects round quickly, efficiently and to exceptionally high standards.”

Breheny Civil Engineering is currently working on the Margate sea defence scheme near the town’s Turner Contemporary. This is another EKEP project involving engineers from the city council.

CCC 8 January 2013

Westgate Jam Fudged

Views on Canterbury’s controversial Westgate traffic trial ditched

Thousands of signatures and hundreds of letters about a
controversial traffic trial are being swept under the carpet by council
bosses. The official public consultation into the scheme to ban traffic
from the Westgate Towers in Canterbury started on Friday and all
previous comments will not count.

It means the 4,000 people who signed a petition calling for the
scheme to be scrapped, and the hundreds who wrote both in favour and
against the trial, will have to put pen to paper – or fingers to
keyboard – again.

Officials launched the consultation by delivering thousands of
leaflets to homes and businesses in the city centre and north
Canterbury, but say they want to hear from as many people as possible –
wherever they live. Canterbury City Council’s transport manager Richard
Moore said:

“We are expecting more than 2,000 responses but I am hoping for
4,000. That is how many people signed one of the petitions. But it is
easier to sign a name on a petition than to fill in a form. The letters
written in the past have all gone by the by. They related to
scrapping the scheme early. A decision has been made on that and the
scheme is to continue. A line has been drawn somewhere. We are now
starting afresh.”

Councillor Peter Vickery-Jones who is responsible for highways said it was impossible to predict what the responses would be.

“There was a lot of criticism at the start but now the debate is
being thrashed out it is becoming more balanced. North Lane, lower St
Dunstan’s Street and St Peter’s Place were very heavily polluted.
Something would have had to be done, even if this trial had been
abandoned.”

The consultation will run until October 15 with questionnaires
available online and on paper. The results are expected to be reported
to the council’s ruling executive committee in December, three months
before the trial is due to end. Councillors will also look at traffic
data, air quality and economic impact. Mr Moore said:

“The results of the consultation won’t determine the results of the
trial. They are part of the evidence. When the High Street was
pedestrianised, 80 per cent of people were against it in the
consultation. There are hard decisions to be made. The High Street
would never have been done if it was just based on the results of the
consultation.”

Officials are also calling for a high police presence to fine
motorists ignoring the bus and taxi lane around the towers. Last
Wednesday, a council enforcement officer counted 19 people using the
lane in just one hour, plus another six who turned around after seeing
him. Cllr Vickery-Jones said number-plate recognition cameras were
another option, adding:

“We are trying to persuade the county council to give us powers to
have the cameras installed but it has not agreed yet. There are lots of
drivers not following the Highway Code. We don’t want to be Big
Brother but if more people paid attention there would not be so many
problems.”

He said the city council was working on solutions to reported
problems with short-term parking bays already in place in Station Road
West. Zebra crossings will be introduced in North Lane, Station Road
West and St Peter’s Place. Consultants are also considering ways to
improve traffic in London Road and hope to have solutions in place by
October, although Cllr Vickery-Jones is pushing for it to be sooner.
The crossings should be finished by the end of August.

thisiskent 9th Aug 2012

Herne Bay people power

Congratulations to Herne Bay for a clear-cut response to the night flight proposals – “No thank you!”.

If you have never heard of Peter Vickery-Jones, he is a Herne Bay councillor and holder of the Transport Portfolio for Canterbury City Council. In this article he complains that “Local activists have criticised this council for failing to respond to Manston’s proposals”. Unthinkable!

Anyone familiar with the process would know that CCC (themselves only a consultee) had committed themselves to assessing the responses from within the District before presenting their own response to TDC. Mind you, it would have been nice if the councillor had gone along to the KIACC meeting after the night flights proposal was published – as it was, Canterbury District wasn’t represented.

Another opportunity we missed out on was Manston’s consultation on flight paths and holding patterns – Canterbury Council were an official consultee, and got a nudging reminder email just before the end of the 14 week process. Unfortunately, it seems nobody cared enough about what happens in Canterbury’s airspace to send in a response.

---

Plans for night flights from Manston have been shot down by residents in Herne Bay who have rejected the proposal in a consultation organised by the city council. Around 230 people responded to the survey, the vast majority complaining about the potential for noise and disturbance and overstated economic benefits.

Now the city council has sent a formal objection to Thanet District Council after members of the executive agreed last week that the proposals by the airport operator Infratil were unacceptable. Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones told members:

“Local activists have criticised this council for failing to respond to Manston’s proposals but this is the first opportunity we have had. It’s not our fault because we have had to await the results of our consultation. If night flights are not good for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, then why Manston?”

The executive agreed to support the continued role of Manston in the “economic well being” of east Kent but believed the adverse impact on residents of night flying was not justified.

HB Gazette 5th April 2012