Issue - meetings

Manston Airport

Meeting: 14/07/2015 - Cabinet (Item 273)

273 Manston Airport CPO pdf icon PDF 200 KB

Minutes:

On the 21st May 2015, at an Extraordinary Council meeting, it was agreed that ‘Council recommends to Cabinet that it reviews its position in relation to the Manston Airport site, taking account of all the surrounding circumstances relating to an indemnity partner for a possible Compulsory Purchase Order.’

 

Three major law firms had been approached to provide Council with estimates on the costs and work required to provide advice if commissioned to undertake the identification of an indemnity partner for a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of Manston Airport. Cabinet would need to be satisfied that RiverOak met the requirements of a suitable indemnity partner before the commencement of a CPO process.

 

This process would be undertaken by the legal teams representing Thanet District Council and RiverOak, respectively. Before the CPO process commences Cabinet would need to formally agree on the indemnity partner for the CPO of Manston Airport.

 

Councillor Bayford and Councillor K. Gregory spoke under Council Procedure Rule 24.1.

 

Councillor Wells proposed, Councillor Smith seconded and Members agreed the following:

 

1.  The recommendation from Council on the 21st May 2015 to review its position in relation to the Manston Airport site, taking account of all the surrounding circumstances relating to an indemnity partner for a possible Compulsory Purchase Order;

 

2.  To authorise that specialist legal and finance advice be obtained to determine whether RiverOak are a suitable indemnity partner in relation to a CPO for Manston Airport and to provide advice on the indemnity agreement and CPO process generally.


Meeting: 21/05/2015 - Council (Item 3)

3 Manston Airport pdf icon PDF 130 KB

Minutes:

It was proposed by the Leader and seconded by Councillor Bayford that:

 

“Council recommends to Cabinet that it reviews its position in relation to the Manston Airport site, taking account of all the surrounding circumstances relating to an indemnity partner for a possible Compulsory Purchase Order.”

 

After some debate, the motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.