Recording Council Meetings

The government has announced that it will be creating a new law that will allow residents, bloggers and journalists to report, blog, tweet and film council meetings in England. 

This follows previous attempts by the Department for Communities and Local Government to force councils to be more transparent, after a string of councils have continued to prevent individuals from recording council meetings on health and safety and legal grounds. 

We have history locally here; within the last month the ruling Conservative Group refused a member of the public to record the proceedings of an Overview & Scrutiny meeting on Thursday 3rd October (See Point 436) on the £4.4m spend of taxpayers money on the Rochester Airport. This type of casual disregard for the public is all to common place.

Public access to meetings is a key part of holding local councils and public bodies to account and it’s wholly wrong for people not being able to record or film in public meetings for spurious legal reasons. 

Whether through Freedom of Information law, filming council meetings or publishing data, transparency is a critical check on those in power and an essential part of defending our liberties.

If Tory Councillors in our area wont move on an issue of common sense we need laws to protect the public interest.

Scrutiny and Savings

Saving Council taxpayers money given the extravagant waste under this Medway Conservative administration must be a priority for any incoming Medway Labour administration.

Every resident is now aware of the ‘botched’ bus station, ‘dodgy deal’ Medway Tunnel, Strood Civic Centre ‘blackhole’, the Stoke ‘bridge to nowhere’ and the infamous Chatham ‘one-way no way’ madness which saw the demolition of the Sir John Hawkins Flyover. This is not including the copious overspends on school projects.

Cllr Vince Maple is aware of the challenge; he has rightly highlighted and pushed on why our hardworking residents should be sanctioning a spend of £4.4m on Rochester Airport fliers when our roads are mired in pot-holes and our Sure Starts suffering cuts.

I have also raised as a backbench opposition Councillor my concern about how the Council try to conceal original budget estimates. 

Every time a capital spend report comes into our review committee process the officers have notably not included the original budgeted cost for any scheme. Instead they include any agreed increased figure after ‘Council’ review and award themselves a smiley face as a result. A smiley face rewarded for when they have hit the budget for the inflated figure. I have noted schemes way over original budget estimates that suddenly achieve a smiley. It is however not all smiles for taxpayers 

The widespread use of the internet and access to reports makes this transparent; go back prior to widespread use of e-government and I suspect anyone without a photographic memory would have fallen for it. 

Now there may be lots of reasons why budgets have to increase from the original budget but that is an unwelcome debate the Council appears happy to conceal. That is not scrutiny.

Saving money on waste must be a priority which is why I believe we should explore best practice elsewhere; included is one that Croydon Council has just implemented to vastly reduce the cost of staff transport. This has resulted in a substantial saving for taxpayers where the Council previously spent £1.3 million a year on transport costs has seen this reduce.

Croydon Council formerly relied on a combination of lease vehicles provided to staff and employee-owned vehicles. This combination not only meant that the Council was adding significantly to local congestion, it was also blighted by the fact that the Council had no real understanding of what state all these vehicles were in. Croydon Council began a pilot scheme with Zipcar, the UK’s largest pay-as-you-go car network.

Croydon Council saw the annual travel reduced by 42 per cent from £1.3m to £756,000. Employee business miles fell from 1.1 million to 642,000 miles. I certainly know the partisan-appointed Mayor of Medway has access to an exclusive vehicle in addition to a budget for food and drink.

“The idea is simple”, said Cllr Bashford, “rather than owning a car outright or leasing a fleet, we have exclusive access to 23 vehicles during standard working hours”. By using local transport and having access to the cars when they actually need them, rather than frittering money away on an expensive fleet, the council has reported considerable savings:

I have just submitted an FoI on the Council car fleet because I believe Medway could be working to reduce the burden on hardworking families

A-Level Results Day!

I can remember my A-level results day very well; it was like today a sunny but cloudy day and it was one of the most nerve-racking of my life as it will be for those today opening up the envelopes.

The actual preparation for results was as daunting as the result days itself. I needed an AABB to get into my chosen University of Durham and I was skirting pretty close to the wire with ABBB on my predicted results based on previous module outcomes; I could not therefore be sure and needed to pull a rabbit out of a hat!

I had been pretty shrewd in advance of perhaps not securing the needed result. I used my sport background; I fenced for the South East region under 18’s to get a sports sponsored place at University which I thought gave me leverage given the University was amongst the best in the country for training. I at that stage in my life had every intention of continuing my sport at University level; this subsequently changed when I discovered other aspects of myself including an interest in politics and partners (as I call it!). I had also done an S-level in Geography which was a traditional essay-based format exam used to test the super-bright; I had already secured a high A in Geography so I thought I could use this as leverage if my grades dipped.  

Anyway the two days before involved me making copious notes on clearing options and contact numbers in preparation for any outcome. At school I admit I was a bit of a teachers-pet; and I was a perennial ‘preparer’ carefully planning eventualities and options – this hasn’t changed that much. I went into school with more bits of paper then I was due to collect. My school in Rochester and its teachers were second to none; I shed a tear or two when I left in 2001 and I still have immensely strong and fond memories of my time there.  

Incidentally despite some comments I am very proud of my background; my single mum worked very hard to build a small business (as a dentist) and she fought hard to get me, and my brothers, onto a choral scholarship and then onto a full academic scholarship. I at 9 did not make a choice about which school I went too; I did however have a choice about which University clubs I joined at 18… [a big difference I make with the current crop in charge of the Conservative party

After packing my bags the night before for Magaluf; I had agreed to go on a ‘boys’ trip to celebrate the results whatever the outcome (which turned out to be a disastrous holiday but anyway). I walked into school having had next to no sleep. This in hindsight was a stupid thing to have done because had my results gone pear-shaped i'd have been scuppered; I of course did not think about that when I confirmed I could do it. I was lucky. I am lucky sometimes. 

The school had clearly an awareness of my results as they had put all of the result slips into brown envelopes; standing at the door was the headmaster. I arrived a bit late and my nerves were further aroused in seeing people coaxed next to phones…

I can remember clearly how I responded when I opened the envelope; to say its mixed emotions probably under exaggerates the moment. It was nerves (plus some more nerves) followed by relief, followed by elation. I had done it; just! Two years of hard graft and re-sits (I didn’t do that well to begin with) had paid off. I was off to do Natural Sciences!   

I immediately called the Durham ‘hotline’ that was engaged and further engaged whenever I tried to call. In those days you needed to do that to confirm acceptance. One of my close friends was also due to get to the same college had the same problem, so a bit of mutual re-assurance on getting in contact was well received as he also was struggling to get through. I had three numbers; we called the third and both got someone. I look back now but I was secretly worried about going to University; change and moving away; so was always good to have a friend going to the same place.

Next came the phone calls to relatives; my family is a nosey bunch and it was clear they all more perfectly aware of the outcome more than me. I look back in hindsight to say there was an increasing level of apprehension on my results because mine were tight. My younger brother was Head Boy, school SWOT and rowing captain; he was and is blessed with a few faculties I have never had. My elder brother had already effectively got the grades before walking into school for his course at Brighton; though it turned into a ‘clearing’ nightmare when he chose to change from Architecture to Chartered Surveying! I turned out to be OK; but it could all have ended differently.

Lastly I checked up on my friends; all schools foster some form of peer-to-peer comparison and like most teenage boys I was competitive. To some extent I have never lost that but I wanted to know what had happened to them. Many of them were off to Southampton, Nottingham, Birmingham and other places; a few I could not spot.

I then got a tap on the shoulder. I needed to be in a car to Gatwick Airport 

Oh yes; I was off on holiday. I almost forgot.

  

Airport threat isn't trivial; it is deadly.

The news announced by Boris Johnson over the weekend that he has dropped the £80bn Island Airport proposal does not come as a surprise to me and nor I suspect to key but apparently ‘trivial’ opposition campaigners.

The Mayoral plan has been pretty clear since the original proposal was mooted in 2008 and more importantly not rubbished by David Cameron. This early history is important because as time has progressed plans have become more developed; the tempo for Cameron obfuscation on this from day one has been a long and protracted process; pre-general election he was always able to dither and laugh off Boris Johnson, but now it all looks hollow. It is no surprise we are in an official government consultation on aviation. No one is laughing and not one Medway MP has threatened to resign.

The anger locally isn’t just how we ended up here. A slow, protracted but clear process of Tory movement and a community that has responded to the Tory threats; not trivial but brave. A community angered by how a debate about an Island slipped onto an on-site solution post the General Election; at which it was explicitly stated that proposals on Grain would not be considered to campaigners and at Cameron Direct events. The Conservative Party then appointed Justine Greening - a ‘convenient’ Heathrow opponent - and undertook a u-turn to consider options. The ratchet change on an airport in North Kent is visible to those who have watched this from Boris first mooting in 2007/08. I have always feared the Island solution was only ever to get a debate on aviation in North Kent by pushing a high-cost but unfeasible proposal; when the Grain options first appeared in the ‘Tory’ Sunday paper of choice (Sunday Times) it was shocking insomuch obvious they would do this. The Tories needed a proxy to start an aviation debate; the right wing media aided and abetted.

The 2012 blow-back from Kent (which had local Council elections in May 2013), Liberal Democrat Parliamentary opposition, poor performance of Greening and the political realities of coalition required government to kick this into the long grass; but the threat always remained despite pundits watching Boris Johnson for every whimper and nuance. We know that several core members of the Tory government are in favour; the former guru Hilton and Osborne are key names in support it is alleged. Boris has been a distraction from government moves; a useful distraction.

Tories locally are being disingenuous about how we have ended up here. London Tories think we are trivial perhaps because those in Medway were in abject denial for several years; many thought it wasn’t a serious proposal; and that delay I believe has let down our residents. They could have done more but didn’t.  There is a long history on this blog going back almost five years of how Tories ignored the threat until Labour started a major leaflet drive on the Peninsula. Within a month the tempo of the Tory campaign had changed.

The changing goal-posts were seen by Labour as the threat it was which is why you can go back to 2009/2010 to see questions and motions tabled for action; all ignored or voted against. Labour in 2012 called for an immediate cross-party borough referendum but was rubbished; the idea however remains a strong and reasonable one. The Tories claimed it would lead to a ‘Yes’ outcome despite all polling suggesting a massive majority against a mega-airport. It is now sadly true that the longer the Tories have opposed the tighter the outcome; which is why I am angry for Isle of Grain residents that it was not pursued with haste. The cost argument was never justifiable if the ballot were held on same day as other elections.

From opposing a borough referendum at a time when a clear majority opposed any Estuary Airport, to being outflanked by Conservative-controlled authorities in West London who then took up the idea themselves, and sought and now secured a clear democratic mandate to oppose Heathrow expansion.  Such a terrible idea that we see its widespread use across other local authorities.

The key point for those on Grain is that if the government was to withdraw from Heathrow in 2015 no one can claim it was not at the express wishes of the people who were balloted; meanwhile and crucially Medway sits in a sea of uncertainty. If the government does go ahead with Heathrow the impact is conversely more damaging; a loss of one high-profile MP and angry residents who specifically opposed expansion in a ballot.  The inaction on a verifiable referendum is significantly more damaging then people are aware; the lack of any direct say by people in Medway either way means something in Westminster to those who pull the real decision strings. The ballot on the Peninsula is unverifiable because it was not held in a democratic way.

My real fear is that residents are being let down because Conservatives whose primal fear is to lose in 2015 rather than to protect our towns. The simple truth is that one backbench MP is largely an irrelevance; campaign efforts, though high profile, can be dismissed by government because the vote is not verifiable. Poster campaigns are visible and welcome but only if the outcome is measurable in terms of influence in Westminster. I salute the efforts of Councillors – many Labour colleagues - to work the community on this issue but my overarching fear is that the current engagement strategy from Tories is piecemeal without a mandate from the people we serve across the entire area. This mandate has to be above-and-beyond simply electing a Tory administration in 2011 where the main local issues on the ballot paper were not airport related.

This blog is written for today but in two years time the day of reckoning will come. Should the Estuary Airport be the accepted solution and the people have elected a Conservative majority government then posterity will judge whether more could have been done. Folly to those that vote for the government.

The community on the Grain Peninsula should consider selecting candidates expressly opposed to the Estuary Airport in 2015 and run them against the current Conservative ticket for the Council. Cameron needs to be sent a message that his de-facto Party representatives on the ground will not be rewarded; imagine the message it would send if Conservatives were to win in 2015 in wards where his party has spent years threatening. It would send a message to Number 10.

The stakes could not be higher; the prospect of an airport will change Medway for decades should it happen; the time to act on a ballot is slowly slipping. Medway residents are not a ‘trivial’ concern; it is a time they were given a say.

Rochester Airport a visitor centre?

The Tory group has heavily lent on the historic significance of spending £5m of hard-earned tax-payers money on a primarily 'recreational' Rochester Airport. 

One of the key lines is the successful heritage and site as a potential tourist centre for visitors so requiring significant improvements.

One quick google however reveals that the Council has barely advertised the airport as an apparent centre for tourism or heritage visits previously and nor is it on established tourist routes. Nor has the Council made an major effort to advertise the airport open days in previous years when compared with other major tourist attractions.

The airport does not feature on the Blessed bus tour route which links in with the core tourist centres; [perhaps because residents would see the number of 'To Let' signs undermining the economic demand argument positioned in the Tory draft strategy document]

If you are going to justify tax-payers pounds on the benefit to heritage it surely would be sensible to have undertaken analysis on potential footfall to any new heritage centre. Surely some scenario testing future revenues to be generated from improvement or visit to the site. No scenario testing on revenue projection or tourist/visitor footfall has been undertaken.

The point is that with the Council suffering an unprecedented level of cuts from government the level of spend here is simply not justifiable on this poorly written draft document whose main claims don't stand up.

Residents have seen time and again Tory projects which have ended up overpriced or overspun; if good intention could deliver on regeneration we would have Rochester Riverside developed by now. Chatham would be the hub of Medway and would be booming; instead the hot air has resulted in huge spends of public money. 

If you are going to justify spend on historic heritage and public interest it would be useful to see what the reality of current interest is. 

Putting that aside; the improvements to the heritage part of the site do not actually cost that much; the primary subsidy remains that of spending on modern facilities for recreational fliers. 

Rochester Airport Park; Units to Let

A very warm weekend undertaking a community petition in Lordswood but have taken a break to watch the Murray match.

On the way back from Lordswood I drove past the Rochester Airport Business Estate that is, according to reports, seeing a 'great amount' of interest to locate Aviation aligned business. 

In addition; I took a glance across the fences into what is the current Rochester Airport. 

A few things stood out: 

Not one notice or welcome paying reference to any history of the site at all which is so heavily lent upon as the reason for investment on the airport site and in the Tory press release. For an organisation so emphatic about the heritage of the site and investment to modernise you could be forgiven for thinking they didnt want lots of visitors.

The other noticeable point were the numbers of 'To Let' signs highlighting what the glib Tory spin cant. The Business Estate clearly isnt performing with the existing number of units; the spend of £5m of taxpayers money of additional units next to a non-commercial airport next door will change what? 

For Let Signs on main road situated next to the main entrance

Former Comet site. Empty.

 Commercial premises sign; inside the estate proper.

Another factory empty

The Tories can pay taxpayers pounds to commission expensive outfits to write favourable papers all they want on this (and they did the same on the Bus Station and Brook too); but anyone with a drivers licence and an iota of common sense can take a look around the site and note the number of unit empty signs. 

Even if there was an argument for £5m investment; and there is no doubt the site does need infrastructure improvements; it is clear this should be spent solely on the business park not used to subsidise a primarily recreational persuit. 

Would you spend £5m of taxpayer money?

Looks like someone has been reading my blog on the Rochester Airport, but not unsurprisingly dealt with the substantive points so let me make them clearer.

Rochester Airport Masterplan by Tristan Osborne

A five page draft proposal which still does not add up; unless we can get clarity on some key issues.

Can I point out to my right wing readers that this is a 'draft' report which means people are supposed to scrutinise and assess the validity or otherwise of consultation responses. 

Putting that aside; as the report currently stands; my former post stands but I now position my concerns into bullet points:

• The report (Appendix 1) clearly indicates the airport will retain a primarily recreational usage. This is not therefore by definition an investment which has a ROI on the airport itself; merely using the business revenues generated from the planned business park to fund the recreational airport improvements. Why should the business park investment (some £5m investment) also fund improvements to a non-commercial airport? Why should the money from this go to support what is a recreational pursuit?
• The report cites a ‘great interest’ in this proposal from business; Whom? A reader cant see in the report any named major business expressing a guaranteed interest in the expanded business park? 
• Does the spend on the airport improvements primarily benefit existing but 'non-historical' recreational flyers? Should public money be spent on supporting historical preservation at this scale of millions when rate payers are suffering cuts to essiential frontline services (e.g. Sure Start / Roads)?
• The long term financial viability of the airport as a commercial hub given the new runway does not make it more commercial. Do aviation businesses (again unnamed) wish to relocate to a centre with a non-commercial runway for cargo? What is the statistical and real evidence base for this?
• What is the current occupancy rate on the current Rochester business park adjacent to the airport? What are the current business rental rates and how will expansion impact local business already operating close to this site? Again no content in the report
• A statistic of 1,000 jobs has been cited; presumably based on office space vacancy rather than actual business interest? Can this be clarified?
• Is it really honest to call the fund the 'South Medway Development Fund' when it is actually fully Medway Council taxpayer funded from reserves and given it will only benefit South Rochester?

None of these questions have been answered sufficiently in the report or by the subsequent press statement

£5m could be spent investing in Chatham town centre; or Rochester Riverside or modernising existing infrastructure in Strood at the Medway City Estate. It could be used to cut taxes on thousands of existing small businesses struggling in the current climate. Is this really the most cost-effective proposition? What makes this business case compelling?

This is a significant sum of public money and its clear the phyiscal infrastructure beneficiaries are not the majority of residents, but those with an active and valid recreational interest. 

No one would deny investing £5m in securing jobs is right; the point is whether this scheme is the best Return on Investment for our taxpayers £5m; it self-evidently isn’t on this report.

Rochester Airport Masterplan - Appendices 1 and 2 by Tristan Osborne

The report itself is in-substantive and poorly written; the appendix summary  vague. It really is a weak business argument being used to justify quite extensive and expensive groundworks (which are ironically detailed and mapped). 

The Tory press statement clearly ignores the fact that people have simply lost confidence in the ability of the Authority to run major programmes; which means we need more facts before we blindly agree to spending this sum of money. 

How many white elephants with blue rosettes have been blown up by the Tory administration in glib PR and glossy leaflets to be blown away by the headwinds of reality and scrutiny? 

I have every support for those of the Medway Aircraft Preservation Society and those that use the site but the clue is in the statement on whether this is a business case

Taxpayers want to know that with very limited finances; services creaking; suggestions of taxes rising; and potholed roads encroaching; this type of financial spend is reviewed. The spend in the report is not ostensibly used to fund historical preservation anyway; its going into mainly hangers and runways for current modern planes.

  

If the airport were a valid commercial enterprise I could see the argument for using the investment return from the land being sold off to invest in the airport. 

I waited to read the report before jumping to this conclusion but it is too poorly written for me to come to any other conclusion that in its current state I could not on good faith see it pass. When Sure Starts are being slashed; roads in my ward are potholed and we are justifying cuts to services and staff in the Council I cant look people in the face and say this is the best investment for the taxpayer. 

Rochester Airport is a recreational airport and that means quite simply that lots and lots of public money is being used to subsidise its improvement. In these times of austerity when government is cutting local Council budgets we need to prioritise spending to the best business case; and this isn’t it.

,

£5m Tory bet on recreational Rochester Airport

Many of my regular readers will be numb by now at the staggering level of fiscal incompetence that we witness almost weekly from the Conservatives in Gun Wharf

Last week we had the latest fiasco; the £27m botched Planning Strategy which will cost £100 for every man, woman and child in Medway. Add this into the KM stories on the Chatham Bus Station fiasco and the flawed one-way system flow in Chatham and a theme comes through in just 10 working days of news. We have a cabinet that simply does not challenge officers to the appropriate level in Gun Wharf; it is an incapable and incompetent administration led by a weak and increasingly feeble leadership. Tories incapable of managing a crisp packet opening without a fiasco, let alone a major multi-million pound project.

The Tory Cabinet will be discussing the airport next Tuesday and a number of major questions are arising about whether £5m of public money is being spent well. The report is worryingly vague. 

I blogged on this before when the Council rushed out the announcement on improvements to this airport without any notice to anyone (around Christmas holidays last year). Quickly put out after was an overtly partisan Rochester Airport update leaflet refusing to acknowledge it was effectively a u-turn on the cast-iron pledge they made to the electorate pre-2003 that none of the current Rochester Airport site would be touched or developed.  That was the same election incidentally they claimed the Conservative Party would never build an airport on the Hoo Peninsula.

The story that local Conservatives have spun a yarn on Rochester airport is not surprising; some Tory Councillors still feel the bus station was a model of good governance (no joke they really do)... and the line is that times have changed. And to that end they certainly have; developing and selling a site at the trough of the commercial market now compared a site with real development potential in the late 1990s / early 2000s. Managing the taxpayer £ coming second again.

Airport Strategy Document (Appendix)

The content though on this Rochester Airport report should worry any sane and rational individual looking to invest £5m of public money. Rochester Airport is  according to the report ostensibly a recreational airport; it has limited to negligible major commercial or cargo use and it is a hobby-horse for a small number of enthusiasts. 

Now I have no problem with enthusiasts lobbying for the best for them and I salute them for the efforts; my job however as an opposition Councillor to scrutinise £5m of Medway taxpayers spend and highlight whether I believe it is on an economically flawed proposal; and where the limited potential upside is not going to residents but on those with a hobby.

Many of our residents are driving on potholed roads; having to stomach cuts to Sure Start budgets or a rising local business tax burden to operate a business. We have terrible health inequalities and our Care Homes are being hived off to the Private sector because we have, apparently, no money left.

Except we now do. 

When it comes to finding £5m for an airport and its surroundings however; money can be found almost without question. To say it smells rotten would be remiss; the money is going into a cleverly devised fund called the South Medway Development Fund. It sounds impressive until you note they money only goes into the airport and surrounding site... more South Rochester perhaps.

Taxpayers money will be used to fund these improvements for the primarily recreational airport (Airport Strategy Document; Appendix)

And what do residents get out of the investment; well less visibility over an Airport which is likely to be off-limits to anyone without the money for a plane or a licence to fly one. The users however of this recreational airport will be getting new facilities...

Perhaps though some jobs? Taking out the Return on Investment on this £5m on an airport with limited commercial scope; I cant see how any major commercial or avionics company would want to be sited near it. Why would you if you couldnt fly key materials?

And is there a demand for commercial premises surrounding the site at present? No there is not; I can merely point to anyone who has driven up the Maidstone Road and you can immediately tell there are a significant number of empty premises (including last timed I checked the former Comet).

The last major commercial operator for Rochester airport pulled out a decade ago (Marconi) and BAE Systems as I understand does not even use the airport for commercial use. There is limited demand as I understand for any expansion of commercial premises from existing operators despite the clever spin in the consultation document about 'spin off' companies from BAE. The claims made were so utterly vague about 'potential' interest they were meaningless.

I'm always suspicious when someone claims a 'great deal' of interest before even a plan has been submitted. I would be very interested to see if the Council has actual tangible names of major business who would be willing to commit to investment. Enquiries are not the same as active interest. This statement is far too vague to be acceptable; I believe it deliberately so. 

Let us suppose however there is an active business interest in moving onto the site; the money from the resultant sale of Council land should then go into improving residential roads and cutting taxes on existing small business in the towns. People rightly will want to choose the best course for this.

The only business that will certainly benefit though is that of the Coffee Shop which has been planned into the proposal. Nice to see someone has the priorities... 

I believe this is another dodgy programme by a Conservative party which is not acting in the public interest. It is almost as if the lessons over the Medway Tunnel, Chatham Bus Staton, Aveling & Porter (yes its still a car park) and the Brook would have been learnt. Instead we have small business already struggling in Medway and Tories spending millions on hair-brained schemes which I believe of limited value to the taxpayer.

You can read the full Cabinet report here; it is a scary read for what will be £5m spend of public money.

Chatham Docks legacy

The news that the £650m Chatham Waters project is to go ahead is a welcome sign to the towns that investment and regeneration in core areas is hopefully around the corner 

The fact that Peel are seeking to invest at this point - when the construction industry is struggling and prior to any change in government Planning policy - highlights how viable this project is as a generator for social, economic and educational success. 

The scheme will provide an employment-led mixed-use redevelopment of the site of approximately 1.9 million sq. ft. including a commercial heart incorporating office space, education facilities, an ‘EventCity’, and a hotel alongside apartments and townhouses, plus landscaped public areas and a foodstore. 

The development has the potential to create approximately 3,500 jobs once completed but in construction will hopefully utilize local contractors; it is hoped that Peel could partner with Mid Kent College and others to provide apprenticeships.

It will also see up to £1bn invested in the Medway towns once completed. £1bn in one scheme is larger then the entire annual Council budget and represents a vast sum of money into an area which has a mixed demographic of incomes 

Incidentally; to those who say that only a mega-airport can generate 'much needed' jobs it can be pointed out clearly that two such schemes in Medway could cut our unemployment, provide opportunities and not destroy our quality of life. Of course such projects are sustainable and in keeping with the area and the other is not.

The Council can not however rest on its laurels; there are a number of other sites including Rochester Riverside and Strood Waterside that have been stymied because of financial viability; the Council is right not to cut corners on infrastructure capability but with the changes in Planning coming down the pipe, there remains a real risk that regeneration could become illsuited and without the support structures in place. 

The regeneration in the Chatham Docks area has been an ongoing programme since the closure of the Docks - which was a major employer in the area - by the Conservative government. 

The issue that is conveniently overlooked is it took 10 years for the then  Tory government to recognise the problem - under John Major - after they closed the docks under Thatcher. 

It took a Labour government to start the construction work and it was the Labour MPs who fought hard for the modernised Mid-Kent College and the mixed Medway Universities we see today which in part drove the Peel application on Chatham Waterside. The area is still recovering in employment terms from the decision to close the Docks today - as it in one decision decimated blue collar working and the employment route of thousands - for many that delay on a legacy for the docks in the 1980s and 1990s by the then government left many with no jobs and nowhere to go.

It is true Eric Pickles did give the green light for this scheme, after a planning review, but it is worth remembering that before anyone clamour to take the credit (as CCHQ was doing yesterday) this regeneration has been a long-term strategic project and one which was caused by a rushed closure of an historic dockyard, and a total lack of planning for its immediate legacy on our area

Mere speculation...

Boris Johnson may be trying to work a clever political narrative of win-win with Medway and London residents if you look at the potential outcomes of the Aviation consultation. 

Like the mythical Janus out of Greek mythology Medway residents could be being played as mugs by Tories who are preparing the ground-work; slowly but surely for an Estuary solution over the next three years.

Imagine you were the advisor to the Mayor of London and you need to have a coherent position which not only benefits his position, but also makes the prospects of a Tory government in 2015 more likely; and his ascendency to the top job more secure.

I speculate:

Tories win the next election

• Estuary Airport proposed - Boris has left his legacy as Mayor of London and has cemented himself as the pre-emptive leadership favourite to challenge Cameron in his second-term as the lead voice in a multi-million pound infrastructure project
• Heathrow extension proposed  -  Boris having been the main figurehead against the campaign against Heathrow - along with Zac who is making as about as much noise as you can -  could stand as a stalking horse mid-way through the Cameron second term of office having been the largest opponent. He will win significant support in West London after backing a Goldsmith by-election in 2014 on the prospectus of opposing Heathrow and will position the Conservative Party as both being the lead proponents AND opponents on the issue. 
• Both proposed - Should that outcome occur Boris can go into the leadership ballot on a platform of opposing all future development and running down Heathrow over a manageable period; so gaining both of the above. Boris has won the debate and left his legacy whilst winding down Heathrow over a manageable period

Labour win next election

• Proposed alternative solution within existing infrastructure - Cameron lost because he dithered and delayed on Aviation which highlighted his weakness as leader. He would stand as a stalking horse candidate in the leadership and command a significant profile in the Tory membership for being bold. 

The Tories can not be trusted on the airport; that much throughout this process is absolutely certain. 

I believe the Conservative Party is moving quite overtly towards an Estuary solution; a simple time line shows that at every stage the Conservative Party has allowed the goal posts on the Estuary solution to slip. Time and time and time again.

Over the next 12 months expect Boris to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money on a campaign to discredit our area and our local position

Cllr Chambers is not a strong enough a leader to challenge this position and needs to understand how he is being utterly out foxed.

Boris has put himself in a win-win situation irrespective of the outcome which is only shrewd if it isnt relentlessly exposed over the next three years.

We need to up the ante and soon; locally we should fund a proper campaign and start engaging local people in a real debate

Time to ramp up campaign

Labour PPC for Chatham & Aylesford has called on the Medway Council Conservative administration to step up its campaign efforts or be subsumed in the national debate over aviation capacity which is due to be completed in the summer of 2015

 Should Medway Council lose this argument our area will be threatend with a mega-airport which will undermine the quality of life for thousands of residents and the bulldozing of historic communities on the Hoo Peninsula. 

 The announcement by the Coalition Government last week gives our Council a three year campaigning window to rally local opposition to any airport on the Peninsula, but it requires political leadership from Cllr Rodney Chambers and the Medway Conservative Group.

 London Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson has promised a 'full throated' and funded opposition to Heathrow Airport and local MPs in South West London have threatened to resign and call by-elections over the proposals. 

Conservatives in London are to run and fund their own consultation exercise which is being designed to pursue an Estuary Solution. A consultation exercise which could, in theory, ballot local communities in the areas surrounding Heathrow.

Tristan Osborne said;

"It is clear that the London Conservatives will try and pit anti-airport campaigners in South West London and North Kent against each other in a deliberate attempt to divide-and-rule over the location of an airport. 

Whilst respecting the independent commission established by the government it is very likely the Mayor will try and pursue the Estuary solution as the only feasible alternative to Heathrow; and he will use the significant financial resources at his disposal as Conservative Mayor of London to fund activities to pursue this objective"

"Local car stickers and posters are all well and good but the change in the resolve of the London Conservative administration means we now need to run a professional and highly visual campaign and which will rally the public. 

I am calling on them to start a lamp post poster campaign - as with the campaign to oppose Cliffe previously - and for further exploration of a referendum of the local electorate, as soon as possible, so that we can give people a chance to respond and send a message to local MPs and the government"

"The Conservative-led Local Enterprize Partnership has not ruled out the Estuary Airport over the long term and its clear that dithering and delay in London will lead to a further move in Parliament by Conservatives to pursue an Estuary solution; via the establishment of a Parliamentary Group which could streamline legislation should it be proposed"

"If the Medway Conservatives cant stand up for our area with a meaningful campaign the public across our towns will rightly judge them in 2015 should the idea be proposed"

No mistake; Estuary Airport still on table

The news that Justine Greening has been shunted out of the Department of Transport was met with a metaphorical cheer yesterday from anti-Estuary airport activists from across North Kent. 

As this blog remarked at the time; the appointment was foolhardy and unwise and the result was a year of dithering, snubs, delayed consultations and inept management; Justine simply was never going to be an impartial arbiter on aviation; as someone who took the proposal for Heathrow expansion to a judicial review it was hardly something she could propose.

I suspect that is why the government dithered and delayed on aviation; had she of course accepted a cross-party working group at the get-go she could have denuded the opposition. That however was not her intent; she wanted no expansion and no debate on expansion at Heathrow and as is becoming clear that position is now shifting in the Conservative Party much to the annoyance of Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith

The resulting appointments of Patrick McLouglin and Stephen Hammond into the respective Secretary of State and Under-minister should however be a warning light to anti-Estuary campaigners and a reinforcement of the fact that whilst the Tories got the strategy wrong with Justine Greening MP there is still a clear and present danger of an Estuary Solution.

 Three pieces of evidence point to this outcome:

• Patrick McLouglin as aviation minister from 1989-1992 has had responsibility for airport expansion before and was considered a safe pair of hands. Indeed; he was open to ideas of expansion both at Heathrow and in other locations; and according to Times today refused to rule out expansion in North Kent.
• Stephen Hammond has u-turned rather recently on his opposition to Heathrow expansion (see his #TwoFaced switch from here to here); he has expressed the following which should send warning signs

 "I was initially sceptical but am now convinced that the demand for capacity out to 2075 should be met by a new hub with at least five runways. Estimates are bandied around of the cost of the airport and associated infrastructure, which make a new airport look unaffordable. However, we should remember this is inflated by opponents. There are at least two feasible proposals identified and there is appetite to invest in UK infrastructure projects, certainly to the tune of the £30 billion which will be required.

A new airport would need government backing. It would also require some public financial support but with public borrowing costs at the lowest rates for a century, this would represent good value. The reality is that procrastination is now the only real impediment. And with six years of planning phase and six years of build phase, it could be open by 2025"

• Did Boris Johnson let this position out of the bag in his pre-election period for Mayor. I have always suspected the #TwoFacedTories would shift once again on this issue post that gaffe; but the LEP report (written by Conservative Party local Council leaders) also has given way to a 'long term' option.

Put the bubbly on ice; the Estuary Airport isnt gone; it could be argued that the #TwoFacedTories are just changing tactics and faces to make it look more legitimate and are about to put both options on the table