Dear Inspector Chester,
I refer you to your letter of the 26th Oct 2009, which was in response to my request to have charges of fraud brought against Gloucestershire Airport’s directors under the Fraud Act 2006.
As you are no doubt aware, the charge of fraud is serious, but the evidence of fraud, as defined by Fraud Act 2006, against the airport is overwhelming. It is clear that this development will result in severe environmental damage due to increased greenhouse gas emissions despite the airport claiming this will not happen. The alternative is that the airport sticks to its greenhouse gas commitments and there will be no return on investment. This will result in the taxpayers of Gloucestershire being forced to pay the £2.3 million pounds loan. Either way the taxpayers are being defrauded.
This absurd position comes about because the council’s of Gloucester and Cheltenham being owners of the airport have a conflict of interest. This forces them to maximise the profits of the airport rather than represent the views and long term interests of their constituents.
Further to the initial dossier I submitted to PC Dill in September, I have also prepared a report at the request of the Gloucestershire Echo to quantify the CO2 emissions. This has been circulated around all of Cheltenham’s councillors.
A copy of the report is attached to this email. It adds further evidence to the case that the airport’s directors and their supporters within Gloucester and Cheltenham falsely represented the case for the airport and did so knowingly.
The report categorically demonstrates the Green Management plan cannot be complied with whilst simultaneously meeting the flight programme necessary to make an appropriate return on investment. The Green Management plan stated that the current CO2 emissions from the airport are 3,700 tonnes per annum and will be capped at 4,000 tonnes, thus allowing for a maximum increase in CO2 emissions of 300 tonnes per year.
The simple analysis in the report shows 8,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions are likely to be produced to meet the flight programme necessary for the predicted return on investment. This far exceeds the permissible 300 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions that are allowed under the green management plan.
It is also important to note that Councillor Les Godwin omitted to include the CO2 targets in the business plan that he submitted to Cheltenham and Gloucester councils, yet he included the other less onerous commitments in the Green Management plan. This selective quoting of the Green Management Plan points to a deliberate attempt to mislead the councillors into supporting the proposals for the airport. It is in violation of section 3.a of the Fraud Act, which states “A person is in breach of this section if he — dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose.” As the planning application was granted on agreement that the Green Management plan would be implemented, then there was a legal duty to fully disclose the full implications of the CO2 targets.
Following this latest manoeuvring of the airport and its supporters, the case for a fraud investigation is mounting. If this mounting evidence of fraud is still not adequate for you to start proceeding, then you need to justify to us why you are not prepared to instigate proceedings.
We look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Lister
Showing posts with label Gloucestershire Airport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gloucestershire Airport. Show all posts
Monday, December 21, 2009
Saturday, December 01, 2007
No chance to debate - in fact we were never even invited (email to Stavertons management)
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Mark/Darren
We were extremely disappointed that todays planned presentation on misconceptions at the airport was cancelled at such short notice.
I had arrived with several colleagues and councillors who had not recieved the late notice of cancellation. My colleagues and I were looking forward to challenging your latest justifications for ignoring all the warning signs on global warming and the accumulating evidence.
We were told that the meeting would be rescheduled in the spring. We look forward to this meeting and appreciate the benefit that this extra time will allow for our planning.
For you information, I enclose a copy of the flier that we intended to circulate at the meeting
Regards,
Kevin
Dear Mark/Darren
We were extremely disappointed that todays planned presentation on misconceptions at the airport was cancelled at such short notice.
I had arrived with several colleagues and councillors who had not recieved the late notice of cancellation. My colleagues and I were looking forward to challenging your latest justifications for ignoring all the warning signs on global warming and the accumulating evidence.
We were told that the meeting would be rescheduled in the spring. We look forward to this meeting and appreciate the benefit that this extra time will allow for our planning.
For you information, I enclose a copy of the flier that we intended to circulate at the meeting
Regards,
Kevin
Friday, September 21, 2007
Letter to Prince Charles
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Prince Charles,
As you may be aware a runway extension is proposed at Staverton Airport. This is causing considerable controversy due to its global warming implications, especially at a time when it is becoming so apparent that we stand on the brink of runaway global warming.
You have been bought into the debate by the supporters of the airport and through your visit to the airport during the flooding. A copy of the letter in today’s Gloucestershire Echo referencing your visit is attached. Other letters have been submitted to the Echo from the airport’s management referencing the importance of being able to support your visit during the crisis.
Given your concerns about global warming, I would imagine that you would be horrified to have your name being used in support of the airports expansion plans.
You should be aware that in order for the airport to justify their proposals, they issued a report that attempted to discredit the entire science of global warming and also stated that only a small and vociferous minority opposed the expansion. This is absolutely reprehensible behaviour and a total abuse of privilege.
Those of us that are concerned about global warming would welcome a clear statement from you on the environmental implications of the airports expansion proposals.
Furthermore, those of us who are concerned will be holding a mini-climate camp on the weekend of the 20/21st October. We extend an invite to yourself and we would be privileged to have you attendance at the debates and discussions we are planning on the Saturday. Your support to a well-versed audience that recognises action on global warming rather than talk is what is needed will send one of the most important messages in the campaign to save our planet, and may be a turning point in the minds of many.
I enclose a copy of the flier for the camp.
Dear Prince Charles,
As you may be aware a runway extension is proposed at Staverton Airport. This is causing considerable controversy due to its global warming implications, especially at a time when it is becoming so apparent that we stand on the brink of runaway global warming.
You have been bought into the debate by the supporters of the airport and through your visit to the airport during the flooding. A copy of the letter in today’s Gloucestershire Echo referencing your visit is attached. Other letters have been submitted to the Echo from the airport’s management referencing the importance of being able to support your visit during the crisis.
Given your concerns about global warming, I would imagine that you would be horrified to have your name being used in support of the airports expansion plans.
You should be aware that in order for the airport to justify their proposals, they issued a report that attempted to discredit the entire science of global warming and also stated that only a small and vociferous minority opposed the expansion. This is absolutely reprehensible behaviour and a total abuse of privilege.
Those of us that are concerned about global warming would welcome a clear statement from you on the environmental implications of the airports expansion proposals.
Furthermore, those of us who are concerned will be holding a mini-climate camp on the weekend of the 20/21st October. We extend an invite to yourself and we would be privileged to have you attendance at the debates and discussions we are planning on the Saturday. Your support to a well-versed audience that recognises action on global warming rather than talk is what is needed will send one of the most important messages in the campaign to save our planet, and may be a turning point in the minds of many.
I enclose a copy of the flier for the camp.
This letter will be copied on my blog, see http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Text of letter in Gloucestershire Echo
Madam - You criticised Gloucestershire Airport (Echo, September 11) for saying that claims that climate change was down to human intervention had been proven wrong.
I must point out more positive points. During the floods the airport staff did a fantastic job of keeping the airport open to allow the rescue helicopters round-the-clock cover.
They looked after the people who were rescued, until more permanent solutions were found.The airport also provided about 25 acres of runway and grass ground for Severn Trent Water to store the huge amount of equipment that was needed to service the rest of us with water.
Prince Charles has recognised and thanked the airport staff for their contribution.When the floods receded and it was apparent that farmers close to the Severn had lost large amounts of hay and silage, the airport suggested that the grass should be preserved for the flood victims.
They donated this grass and farmers have some hope of surviving the winter for which they are grateful. Thanks must be given to Derek Pither Agriculture, a local contracting business, which did the silaging work at cost.
Ben Pullen,FD Pullen & Sons.
Text of letter in Gloucestershire Echo
Madam - You criticised Gloucestershire Airport (Echo, September 11) for saying that claims that climate change was down to human intervention had been proven wrong.
I must point out more positive points. During the floods the airport staff did a fantastic job of keeping the airport open to allow the rescue helicopters round-the-clock cover.
They looked after the people who were rescued, until more permanent solutions were found.The airport also provided about 25 acres of runway and grass ground for Severn Trent Water to store the huge amount of equipment that was needed to service the rest of us with water.
Prince Charles has recognised and thanked the airport staff for their contribution.When the floods receded and it was apparent that farmers close to the Severn had lost large amounts of hay and silage, the airport suggested that the grass should be preserved for the flood victims.
They donated this grass and farmers have some hope of surviving the winter for which they are grateful. Thanks must be given to Derek Pither Agriculture, a local contracting business, which did the silaging work at cost.
Ben Pullen,FD Pullen & Sons.
Friday, September 14, 2007
email from Deputy Leader of the Cheltenham Lib Dems
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
John,
Thank you for replying to my previous emails and clarifying your position.
I am glad that you recognise that the airport is simply wrong to deny global warming. I would also trust that you recognise by making light of such an important issue that their behaviour was scurrilous and reprehensible.
I am however still concerned that you are unquestioningly accepting the safety argument from the airport, especially when their credibility is now so low after their misconceptions document.
In the recent article in the Gloucester Echo at the start of the new Manx services, it was absolutely clear that new services were the objective of the works. The article specifically quotes Mr Norman as saying, "I think there are all sorts of routes you could have. I can see potential in double daily routes to Scottish destinations, like Edinburgh, mainland Europe and Dublin and Belfast." Following statements like these, to continue to believing the proposed work is purely safety related in absolute nonsense.
It is clear the runway length will be too small for Boeing and Airbus jets even after the extension; however it will comfortably accommodate the new generation of short take off turbo props. These planes have ranges of up to 800 miles and thus are comfortably within the range of many northern European cities.
The runaway will also be capable of supporting many “business jets” which will be used for recreational flights to places such as Cannes, Nice and Monte Carlo.
To believe that Staverton airport will somehow not expand its service offering to cover continental flights after the runway extension is clearly nonsense.
It is further clear that there is a demand for an airport in this area, which again was recognised in the Gloucester Echo with the quote from Manx’s Mr Filleul who said, “The service will compete with Bristol and Birmingham airports and attract its customer base from within a 60 to 90-minute drive radius of Staverton.” Again, this demonstrates that it is absolutely naïve to think that the airport does not propose to tap into current demand for flying.
Finally, amongst the airport proposals is the idea of traffic lighting Bramfurlong Lane, with the idea of stopping traffic near the end of the runway from interfering with the approach path for the new aircraft landing under Instrument Landing Systems. It is hard to believe that anyone can seriously argue that this will improve safety. It will take only one reasonably high sided vehicle to jump the lights to cause a fatal disaster.
On the issue of housing being built on the Airport site, this is a different debate altogether and it needs to be considered on its own merits. It is unacceptable to determine the outcome of this equally important debate by expanding an airport.
As regards your initial point on global warming, you clearly believe in it. It is now vitally important that you follow through to the next question and ask how severe this will become. As I have pointed out many times now, the science is brutally stark, and we are currently facing the very real possibility of a runaway global warming. The situation is so dire that we must not allow any developments that cause any unnecessary CO2 emissions.
I trust that you will finally recognise that the proposed works are about service increases and airport expansion and nothing to do with safety. I would further urge you to stand by the policies of your party by unequivocally opposing this airport expansion.
Regards,Kevin Lister
John Websterwrote:
Kevin;
Following your request a couple of weeks ago I discussed this with the Leader, Steve Jordon and we have agreed the following.
I would have replied sooner, but have been away.
'We disagree with the Airport Board that Global Warming is not happening. They are simply wrong.
We will oppose any further growth at the airport.
However, the current plans are necessary in order to conform with safety and operational requirements.
Our policy is to keep Staverton as it is. We see no prospects for dramatic expansion in the future, and certainly not for increasing charter flights beyond the United Kingdom.'
As you know, there are elements that wish to sell Staverton off and cover the area with houses which we are opposed to because of the urban sprawl that will result.You are right in not wanting to see Staverton grow into something we do not support.
Best wishes,
Cllr John Webster
Deputy Leader, Lib Dem Group.
Cheltenham Borough Council.
John,
Thank you for replying to my previous emails and clarifying your position.
I am glad that you recognise that the airport is simply wrong to deny global warming. I would also trust that you recognise by making light of such an important issue that their behaviour was scurrilous and reprehensible.
I am however still concerned that you are unquestioningly accepting the safety argument from the airport, especially when their credibility is now so low after their misconceptions document.
In the recent article in the Gloucester Echo at the start of the new Manx services, it was absolutely clear that new services were the objective of the works. The article specifically quotes Mr Norman as saying, "I think there are all sorts of routes you could have. I can see potential in double daily routes to Scottish destinations, like Edinburgh, mainland Europe and Dublin and Belfast." Following statements like these, to continue to believing the proposed work is purely safety related in absolute nonsense.
It is clear the runway length will be too small for Boeing and Airbus jets even after the extension; however it will comfortably accommodate the new generation of short take off turbo props. These planes have ranges of up to 800 miles and thus are comfortably within the range of many northern European cities.
The runaway will also be capable of supporting many “business jets” which will be used for recreational flights to places such as Cannes, Nice and Monte Carlo.
To believe that Staverton airport will somehow not expand its service offering to cover continental flights after the runway extension is clearly nonsense.
It is further clear that there is a demand for an airport in this area, which again was recognised in the Gloucester Echo with the quote from Manx’s Mr Filleul who said, “The service will compete with Bristol and Birmingham airports and attract its customer base from within a 60 to 90-minute drive radius of Staverton.” Again, this demonstrates that it is absolutely naïve to think that the airport does not propose to tap into current demand for flying.
Finally, amongst the airport proposals is the idea of traffic lighting Bramfurlong Lane, with the idea of stopping traffic near the end of the runway from interfering with the approach path for the new aircraft landing under Instrument Landing Systems. It is hard to believe that anyone can seriously argue that this will improve safety. It will take only one reasonably high sided vehicle to jump the lights to cause a fatal disaster.
On the issue of housing being built on the Airport site, this is a different debate altogether and it needs to be considered on its own merits. It is unacceptable to determine the outcome of this equally important debate by expanding an airport.
As regards your initial point on global warming, you clearly believe in it. It is now vitally important that you follow through to the next question and ask how severe this will become. As I have pointed out many times now, the science is brutally stark, and we are currently facing the very real possibility of a runaway global warming. The situation is so dire that we must not allow any developments that cause any unnecessary CO2 emissions.
I trust that you will finally recognise that the proposed works are about service increases and airport expansion and nothing to do with safety. I would further urge you to stand by the policies of your party by unequivocally opposing this airport expansion.
Regards,Kevin Lister
John Webster
Kevin;
Following your request a couple of weeks ago I discussed this with the Leader, Steve Jordon and we have agreed the following.
I would have replied sooner, but have been away.
'We disagree with the Airport Board that Global Warming is not happening. They are simply wrong.
We will oppose any further growth at the airport.
However, the current plans are necessary in order to conform with safety and operational requirements.
Our policy is to keep Staverton as it is. We see no prospects for dramatic expansion in the future, and certainly not for increasing charter flights beyond the United Kingdom.'
As you know, there are elements that wish to sell Staverton off and cover the area with houses which we are opposed to because of the urban sprawl that will result.You are right in not wanting to see Staverton grow into something we do not support.
Best wishes,
Cllr John Webster
Deputy Leader, Lib Dem Group.
Cheltenham Borough Council.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)