Roger Gale MP's submission re the draft Thanet Local Plan

My MP, Sir Roger Gale's (Thanet North) response to the draft Thanet Local Plan. The deadline for comments was on Friday 6th.

A very good response from Sir Roger. All in all this is a piece of work where I think Roger has done a very good job as an elected member of parliament. Roger quite rightly points out the numbers don't add up.  12,000 new homes and only 5,000 jobs, anyone? As for Westwood Cross being rebranded Westwood and being the prime town centre, Roger quite rightly points out it isn't a town. 

Take it away, Sir Roger:

5 March, 2015.

The Strategic Planning Manager

Thanet District Council

PO Box 9

MARGATE

CT9 1XZ

Sir,

Thanet District Council – Draft Local Plan

I have studied with care Thanet District Council`s Draft Local Plan, I have attended public meetings and I have received many communication by e-mail and by post from a large number of constituents and representative bodies.  Most particularly I have received input from Manston Parish Council, St. Nicholas at Wade  Parish Council, The Westgate on Sea Residents` Association, Birchington Parish Council, Acol Parish Council, Minster Parish Council, Garlinge, Cliffsend , Broadstairs  and the Margate Civic Society.  From that informed position I now submit my observations as follows:

National Planning Policy Framework

First, and as indicated in Thanet`s initial consultation document, the NPPF places “The emphasis upon local authorities to produce a local plan that objectively identifies and then meets the housing, business and other development needs of an area”.   The NPPF is not inhibitive in its guidelines and very specifically allows local authorities to determine their own needs with regard to both development and the environment.  The South East Local Plan, which set targets for growth including required housing targets was rescinded on 26^th March 2013. Responsibility for the proposals contained within the Draft District Plan therefore lies directly with Thanet District Council. It is in this context that the proposals should be appraised.

General reaction

Overwhelmingly public reaction has opposed aspects of the Draft Plan and most specifically has objected to the Council`s proposals to accommodate “12,000 additional homes over the 20 year period to 2031” as outlined in (North Thanet) Policies SP13, SP14 and SP15,  with considerable disquiet  also expressed about proposals for new housing in the Thanet villages. These proposals appear to conflict with Policy SP26  and  “the Protection of Open Space”.

Concern has also been expressed in relation to the Council`s intention to widen the designation of Manston Airport to describe the site as an “opportunity area”, facilitating the possibility of the alternative use of a site that the majority of people of Thanet see as a national and local asset that should and must be preserved for aviation and related purposes only.

1

Public response

I have received no representations at all in support of the Draft Local Plan as a whole or in part.  While there is clearly a recognition of the need for “local homes for local people”, for the creation of employment opportunities within the wider East Kent and for additional provision of infrastructure to meet existing needs, all of the observations that I have received, and those which have been made in considerable numbers to Thanet District Council, have been negative and reflect very real misgivings.

Assessment

In describing Thanet the Draft Plan notes that

“The villages retain their separate physical identity, historic character and have vibrant communities and services” and adds that “The open countryside between the towns and villages remains essentially undeveloped, with a varied landscape, tranquility and distinctive views”.

while Strategic Priority 4 lays emphasis on the need to

“safeguard local distinctiveness and promote awareness, responsible enjoyment, protection and enhancement of Thanet`s environment…….”

This appears to be little more than lip-service in the light of what is actually being put forward for consideration.

The proposals contained within the Draft Plan threaten to destroy not only the “separate physical identity” of Westbrook, Garlinge, Westgate on Sea and Birchington  which residents correctly regard as villages in their own right, but to overwhelm the “tranquility and distinctive views” of the smaller Thanet Villages that I represent while not meeting even the current requirements for enhanced local education, medical and other services.

The Draft Plan asserts that:

“It is recognised that any growth in Thanet must be supported by the necessary infrastructure, such as roads, schools and health facilities. The Plan aims to take a co-ordinated approach to delivering such facilities alongside new development and the Council has and will continue to work with other agencies, organisations and service providers to ensure that this is achieved”.

In fact, it emerges from the Draft Plan that little or no realistic provision has been made for the required services and that there is a bland assumption that “ the developer” will provide the  “two form entry primary schools” that it is believed will meet the needs of the families occupying new homes and will presumably also create, for example, the “new link road to serve the development (in Birchington) and extending from Minnis Road and the A28”  while offering no solution to any increased secondary school need.  There is no indication that “other agencies,

2

 organisations and service providers” will be either able or willing to step up to the mark and small faith can be placed, on the basis of current performance, in the claims contained within Policy SP32- Community Infrastructure and SP 33 – The expansion of Primary Schools. It is not enough to suggest that “Thanet will work with Kent County Council in identifying, allocating and safeguarding land as appropriate.” Adequate provision must be identified, resourced and made in advance, not as an afterthought.

In fact, the lack of thought given to or provision for supporting road, education, primary and secondary healthcare  and other ( social and emergency) services forms the justified basis for very many of the critical observations that have been submitted by individual residents and, in great detail, by the genuinely representative bodies that have made submissions.

Housing

Turning specifically to housing,  Policy SP 11 Housing Provision indicates that :

“Provision is made for a total of 12,000 additional homes in the period to 2031 with notional delivery across the period…..”   “attributed evenly over four five-year periods.”

This figure, which represents a dramatic increase over the number of homes predicted as needed in the previous (2006)  local plan, seems to be predicated upon “The Council`s aspirations for economic and employment growth” which in turn is based subliminally not upon the needs of local people but upon inward migration from the rest of the United kingdom.

Brutally, East Kent in general and Thanet in particular has suffered for too long from the “dumping”, by London Boroughs of problem children and problem families and there is a very real fear that much of the proposed additional housing may be used to accommodate not local people at all but those which the London Boroughs seek to re-locate out-of-area.  Thanet has neither the facilities nor the finances to meet these demands and the provision of housing that is not supported by fully adequate infrastructure and employment is neither acceptable nor sustainable.

Under the heading “Protecting the Countryside” the Draft Plan indicates that:

(4.1) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that local plans should take account of the roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside”.

The Draft Plan accepts that:

(4.1)“Thanet`s open countryside is particularly vulnerable to development because of its limited extent, the openness and flatness of the rural landscape and the proximity of the towns. Thanet`s countryside provides important landscapes that contribute to its sense of place, as well as making Thanet an attractive place that people want to come to. Much of the countryside is classified as `best and most versatile agricultural land`. The countryside also supports a variety of habitats and species, particularly a number of important species of farmland birds which have declined in numbers over the last few years”.

3

The authors of the report might have added the Thanet Brown Hare to their list of species but the assertion (4.3) that “there is a presumption against the development in the countryside as the sites allocated in this plan meet the development needs of the District” is disingenuous.  It is very precisely the rural hinterland of Garlinge, Westgate on Sea and Birchington, that is being proposed as part of the solution to “the development needs of the District” while the impact of the proposals upon the smaller rural villages is also designed to intrude upon countryside and habitat.

Specifically, and in relation to Quex Park, we are told that:

(4.24)”The Park is unique within the Thanet context, comprising a formal and extensive wooded parkland and amenity landscape within an otherwise open intensively farmed landscape”

How can (SP 22/5)

“New development proposals respect the historic character of the (Quex Park) parkland and gardens”

succeed if a housing estate, complete (presumably) with all of the necessary supporting roads , street lighting, drainage, convenience stores and other infrastructure is to be permitted to be built upon the doorstep of this “unique” park on the hitherto  “open and intensively-farmed landscape”?

Instead of asserting, as the Draft Plan does, that:

“A significant amount of greenfield housing land is required to meet the housing target”

the Council must first review its methodology and justify the amount of additional housing that will actually be required in the foreseeable future.

In tandem with this approach there must be a thorough appraisal of unoccupied and under-occupied property and an acceptance of the need, given the age profile of the population, to seek to create suitable accommodation (not merely the proposed `flats for single-person occupancy` - Table 4/Market Homes) designed to meet the requirements of those who wish to downsize and release larger homes for family occupation.

Next, there needs to be a thorough and imaginative examination of all of the available brownfield sites, irrespective of their current designation and excepting Manston Airport, in order to meet the current and foreseeable need.

Then and only then should consideration be given to greenfield sites to meet any genuine local shortfall.

Thanet is blessed with a very significant amount of Grade 1 agricultural land that, in the national interest, is and will be needed to maintain the sustainability of the United Kingdom as a food producer.

4

It is clear that insufficient value has been placed upon this land that, once built over, would not only be lost forever but would have significant additional implications in the form of  damage to the already fragile water sources and demand for sewage treatment and disposal.

Economic development and employment

It is astonishing that, given that “Thanet`s business parks have been slow to develop and there is a considerable amount of land available” (Par. 1.9) consideration should be given at all to the prospect of still more land being designated (at Manston Airport) for industrial use. 

Manston Park, Eurokent Business Park, Thanet Reach Business Park and the Hedgend Industrial Estate are already available and under-occupied and the former Pfizer site, not in but immediately adjacent to Thanet, has potential that is still very largely unrealised.

To quote the Draft Plan again:

(1.30) “Forecasts show that Thanet will need in the region of 15 hectares of employment land over the plan period…….”

While

(1.31) “The 15 hectares is significantly below the amount of land that was allocated in the 2006 Thanet local plan……..”

And

(1.32) “This brings into question the need to maintain an oversupply in Thanet`s employment land portfolio”.

Or, put another way, there is, surely, land earmarked already for industrial use that could and should be considered for release for housing.

Thanet most certainly needs not only housing but local jobs for, particularly young, local people. If we are to reverse the exodus of brains and skills from the Island then we should be concentrating our efforts not on moving existing jobs from elsewhere to the Discovery Park on the back of the attractions offered by an Enterprise Zone and claiming “job creation” but maximising our efforts to create genuinely new growth and fresh entrepreneurial endeavour on the sites that we already have available to us in abundance.

Westwood “Town Centre”

Westwood is described by the Council as a “town centre” when it is not, yet, a town at all.  It is certainly true that the retail offer has helped to stem to flow of out-of-area shopping and may even have drawn in some customers from the wider East Kent but this has been achieved at a cost to the traditional Town centres of, particularly, Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate and with woefully inadequate advance thought given to, or planning for, transport infrastructure.

5

The Draft Plan states that

(2.21) “The area currently suffers from poor connectivity between sites, both vehicular and pedestrian”

That is an understatement. The ”connectivity” is approaching gridlock and if it is the intention to create a “Westwood New Town” with all of the housing, medical and community centres and schools that will be required to support what will, effectively, be a sizeable  new village then serious investment will have to be made to resolve the current and future road network and public (road and rail) transport services.

Even now little thought seems to have been given to how and by whom that provision of infrastructure will be funded.

While much has already been achieved (SP08, SP09, SP10) with the regeneration of the Old Town Centres Westwood remains the `elephant in the room`. Everyone can see it but nobody appears to be prepared to take a strategic and comprehensive, rather than a piecemeal, responsibility for it.

Manston Airport

Manston Airport is (local Plan 2006) designated as exactly that. An airport.

The Draft Local Plan states:

(Strategic Priority 1) Objectives:

“Support the sustainable development and regeneration of Manston Airport to enable it to function as a local regional airport, providing for significant employment opportunities, other supporting development and improved surface access subject to environmental safeguards”.

Unfortunately, after that promising start the Draft Plan now adds:

“….or as an opportunity site promoting mixed-use development that will deliver high quality employment and a quality environment”

which dilutes the airport designation and paves the way for a housing and industrial estate.

As highlighted earlier, Thanet has acres of under-occupied industrial land and there is no shortage of land to meet actual, rather than theoretical local housing demand either.  By contrast, the United Kingdom is short of runway capacity in the South East, short of a major aircraft diversion facility, needs a Search and Rescue base from which to cover the Straits of Dover and needs to relieve airfreight capacity to release slots at larger passenger airports.  Manston Airport can have a viable future dedicated to aviation and supporting industries . Such a project has a willing buyer and operator and huge and immediate skilled and semi-skilled local employment potential and the designation of Manston as an airport, exclusively, should be reflected in the Local Plan and maintained.

6

Conclusions

Much hard work has, indubitably, gone into the Draft Local Plan and the authors should be thanked for providing a base from which to now commence a serious and in-depth revision of the entire document.

I have deliberately eschewed the fine detail that is included in other submissions in order to avoid repetition but I would hope and expect, in the interests of those that I am elected to represent, that careful attention and scrutiny will be given to each and every one of the individual and collective submissions that have been made and that, under the guidance of a newly appointed  fully-qualified Chief Executive and Officers, the plan will be re-written in its entirety and submitted to the newly-elected administration that will arise from the May District Council elections  for approval and onward transmission to the Inspector for further scrutiny.

Sir Roger Gale, MP

North Thanet                                                                                                                         4^th March 2015.

7

Sir Roger Gale MP's April Galemail

From my MP, Sir Roger Gale. Against same sex marriage. Against the European Charter of Human Rights. Against shooting badgers. Against hunting with dogs. Good morning! I do find it odd it is sent out by his wife Suzy who then strongly states not to reply to her on her galemail.com address but to reply to Roger on his parliament address. Why don't they send it out on Roger's email in the first place?

IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE – PLEASE ONLY SEND THEM DIRECT TO ROGER AT galerj@parliament.uk – THANK YOU

Gale`s View – 9^th April 2014. 

I cannot pretend to have endorsed every dot and comma of the Coalition Government`s policy. I remain opposed, for example, to the concept of same-sex `marriage` and had the Conservatives not failed to win the last general election we would most certainly have by now culled some 60 or more Parliamentary seats that, in this day and age of modern communications, are still funded by the taxpayer but surplus to requirements.  Without the Liberal Democrat albatross around our necks we would also have fulfilled our electoral promise to have scrapped our adherence to the European Charter of Human Rights in favour of a British Bill of Rights that recognises our sovereign desire to preserve our own identity and does not, for example, subscribe to the liberal view that it is in some way the “right” of convicted prisoners, otherwise deprived of their liberties in recognition of their crimes, to vote in elections. At the end of the day democratic politics is about numbers in the voting lobby and those numbers do not always stack up. 

Nevertheless, in more general and less geo-politically trivial terms, I believe that the Coalition, while not in the partisan interests of my own party or that of the Liberal Democrats, has certainly served the national interest and, in particularly, the repair of the broken economy bequeathed to us by thirteen years of Blair-Brownite misrule, rather well. I doubt whether we would be where we are today had it not been for the willingness of two otherwise frequently opposed parties to bury differences and work together to put the country`s finances back on the road to recovery.

All that said,  policy insofar as it relates to animal welfare issues, a cause that has been politically close to my heart for all of my years in parliament, has been what, in tolerably polite terms, can best be described as “a badger`s muddle”.  

Nobody sensible could fail to recognise that bovine TB is a terrible disease that affects cattle and wildlife with equally awful consequences for animal health.  That something has to be done to seek to eradicate TB in the interests of farming and also for the benefit of many species of wild animals that carry and transmit it is beyond question but it is not enough to do “something”.  We have to do the right thing.   Scientists have been arguing for at least twenty five years about what that right thing is, with little agreement, but it has become painfully obvious that trying to cull the badger population by shooting it is not the answer.   “Blue Badger” and Conservative Animal Welfare have worked together to see the current programme of destruction that does not discriminate between healthy and sick animals  consigned to the dustbin and will now continue to work together to press for a co-ordinated programme of management and vaccination that stands at least a chance of working. 

Nodding in the direction of “Vote OK” and the countryside alliance the Government also flirted with the idea of trying to introduce by the back door (a statutory instrument that is debated in committee but not seriously considered on the floor of the House) an amendment to the Hunting Act that would have allowed farmers to increase the number of dogs allowed to be used to flush out “vermin” – a pack of hounds by another name.  Happily, a combination of those who still bear the scars of hours of debate about the Hunting Act before it was finally passed into law and a 2010 intake of young Members of Parliament who are not wedded to the idea of controlling wild animals by chasing them with dogs and then watching with apparent pleasure as those animals are torn apart, has at least for the moment seen off that proposal. The Government has had to bow to the fact that there is no parliamentary stomach or majority to re-visit the legislation.

 Curious, though, how a House of Commons that has, under successive Governments (and  the Conservatives both  care about animals and have legislated accordingly) brought about significant improvements in the laws governing wildlife, domestic and farm animals, remains unwilling to address the thorny issue of the manner in which Kosher and Halal meat is slaughtered.  There is a squeamishness, on both sides of the House, about  debating with what are clearly significant minorities (and those minorities do not by any means include all Jews and Muslims) in order to bring an end to an inhumanity that under any other guise but that of faith would simply not be permitted. Just because a practice has been followed for a millennium does not mean that it is right or that it ought to be allowed, in a civilised society, to continue. 

The priority of this Government has to be the economy, from which all else that matters flows, and Animal Welfare is not at the top of the political agenda.  It does, though, concern people  and I hope that we shall see a better  stall set out very clearly in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos for a General Election that is now only just over a year away.

Sir Roger Gale MP
01843 848588 (a.m.)
07623 978479 (24hr pager)
07774 841557 (Suzy - mobile)
galerj@parliament.uk
suzy@galemail.com
www.rogergale.co.uk
www.animalsworldwide.org

Email from Sir Roger Gale MP - URGENT PRESS RELEASE

Quite uncanny to find myself having written something very similar to Roger by way of example the other day.  Ah, well, it's the issue that counts. Just wish that Roger would agree with me and many of his constituents regarding the issue that up for debate; that of Equal Marriage.

Here's Roger's Press Release of today:

Same Sex Marriage – Local Press "Report"

North Thanet`s MP, Sir Roger Gale, has this (Friday) morning issued the following statement:

"I do not read or, with good reason, write for, The Isle of Thanet Gazette.

My attention has, however been drawn, by a local newsagent, to articles purporting to offer my view, and comment upon, same-sex marriage.

At the risk of spoiling "a good story" but in the interest of fact the basis of the report, which I was not invited to comment upon, suggesting that "Sir Roger Gale suggested that same-sex marriage would pave the way for incest" is what is known in journalism as "a lie".

During the Commons debate, which I have to assume the author of the Gazette report has clearly not studied, I made the proposal that Civil marriages and the Civil Partnership should both be abolished to be replaced with a "Civil Union" open to all who did not want to enter into a faith marriage in church.  This Union would, in addition to heterosexual and gay couples, certainly also include siblings (brothers and sisters for the benefit of the IOTG Editor) who are at present not afforded the protection in law and in property rights from Civil Partnership because the last Labour Government specifically excluded this small group of people from the provisions of the Act.  This is called "equality". It means that people who have lived together as, for example, spinster sisters for very many years would no longer face the fear of having to sell the roof from over their heads in order to pay inheritance tax when one "partner" dies.  I appreciate that certain sections of the Press find this disappointing but it has nothing whatsoever to do with sex, or incest, at all.

My proposal for the separation of State and Church in the matter of civil union and what is generally understood as marriage as between one man and one woman would, I believe, remove government from an arena in which it ought not to seek to interfere while at the same time creating genuine equality as between all of those whose partnerships need to be properly registered and recorded in law.

A former Labour Minister, a member of the Civil Partnerships Bill Committee that I chaired, has sought to misrepresent my constructive proposals as "comparing gay marriage to incest".  The irony is that it was that Member of Parliament and his colleagues who denied the very equality to siblings that I am seeking, fairly to achieve – a fact that is slowly dawning upon those who have chosen to leap to incorrect conclusions while finding much favour with those whose lives have been blighted by exclusion from the Civil Partnershps Act and who got the message immediately."

Equal Marriage - The Ayes Have It - But what was Sir Roger Gale MP really saying?

I was interested to see what my MP, Sir Roger Gale  had actually said on Monday in the debate on equal marriage. Twitter was full of him having said something about incest. On checking Hansard I see he didn't say that. Actually, he mentioned a type of legal union that I was advocating a few days ago.
Roger is against this. 

I think that in the future, a legal union, a dividing of the legal affairs of individuals who aren't necessarily lovers; perhaps life long companions would be a good thing. Many people now choose to live together, to share friendship who become life long partners.

There was the case in 2008 of two elderly sisters who had lived together their whole lives and who were fighting to be seen as a unit for inheritance tax reasons. Siblings cannot marry or form a Civil Partnership. Initimacy has nothing to do with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/30/inheritancetax.tax

Prior to civil partnerships being offered to same sex couples, the fate of a surviving partner of same sex couples was a major problem. This is no less a problem for people who are life long companions who for reasons of family relationship cannot marry or join in a civil partnership. 

I strongly disagree with Roger's stance. But the brother sister union he defined in his speech in the Commons on Monday it didn't seem to be incest he was referring to?

"It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), with whose speech I concur.

I had the privilege of chairing Committee proceedings on the Civil Partnership Bill. As has been said, very clear undertakings were given by the then Government and Opposition that that Bill was not the thin end of the wedge nor a paving Bill for same-sex marriage, but an end in itself to right considerable wrongs in the law. That it did, as the European Court of Human Rights has determined. In those respects, civil partnerships are indistinguishable from what we know as marriage.

When I put that point to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, she said that no Government could bind another. Of course, she is correct. That kicks the bottom out of every undertaking that she has given. It is abundantly plain to most Conservative Members that the product of this Bill will end up before the courts and before the European Court of Human Rights, and that people of faith will find that faith trampled upon. That, to us, is intolerable.

I understand—I will give way to my right hon. Friend if she wishes to correct me—that the Cabinet paper on this matter was entitled “Redefining Marriage”. It is not possible to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It has been that historically and it remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory—Orwellian almost—for any Government of any political persuasion to try to rewrite the lexicon. It will not do.

A way forward has been suggested, but it has been ignored. I do not subscribe to it myself, but I recognise the merit in the argument. The argument is that if the Government are serious about this measure, they should withdraw the Bill, abolish the Civil Partnership Act 2004, abolish civil marriage and create a civil union Bill that applies to all people, irrespective of their sexuality or relationship. That means that brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters would be included as well. That would be a way forward. This is not...

The argument is not mine, but that of an eminent lawyer in this House. Its merit is that it would create what I think the hon. Gentleman wants, which is equality. It would create a level playing field and it would leave marriage and faith to those who understand that marriage means faith and that marriage means the union between a man and a woman and nothing else."

Edited to add I see over at Thanet Life they've added a clarification from Sir Roger himself:

"Sir, 

At the risk of spoiling a good story, your reporter, Michael Deacon's idiotic report that I have put forward a suggestion that "would apply not only to gay people but incestuous relationships" demonstrates, yet again, the infinite capacity of the press to misconstrue a fact. 

Anyone who is conversant with the provisions of the Civil Partnerships Act - and Mr Deacon clearly is not - is aware that that law specifically excludes heterosexuals and siblings ( i.e. and the important distinction of an unmarried or widowed brother and sister, - or two brothers or two sisters - , caring for each other) from the protections in law and property rights afforded to same-sex couples. 

It is in that context that I have proposed the abolition of civil marriage (registry office weddings) and civil partnerships and their replacement with a Civil Union that would be all-embracing, that has nothing to do with incest or sex but would most certainly include siblings and other heterosexual partnerships. This would leave marriage, in its' understood form as between one man and one woman, to faith organisations and would separate state involvement from religious marriage and afford to all the "equality" that I understood to be the order of the day. 

The response that I have received from those disadvantaged by the current exclusion from civil partnerships indicates that this is a proposal that is worthy of serious consideration. 

SIR ROGER GALE MP"

I'm certainly not defending or agreeing with Sir Roger's view on equal marriage. However, I think the seizing on the incest claim is unhelpful. Civil rights for people who live together I think is a worthy cause. Sex doesn't come into it.

Gale questions Secretary of State on the South Eastern rail Service

 Press Release from :

North Thanet`s MP, Sir Roger Gale, has this (Thursday 17^th January) morning raised performance of the East Kent Rail service on the floor of the House of Commons with the Secretary of State for Transport (Rt.Hon.Patrick McLaughlin MP).

Speaking at Transport questions Sir Roger indicated that as a result of the franchise agreement imposed by the last Labour government East Kent`s commuters had faced year-on-year above average rail increases. Referring to the “appalling service” offered the MP asked “if the Secretary of State will seek to ensure that Network Rail and Southeastern deliver the service and value for money to which the travelling public that I represent is entitled”.

Responding, The Secretary of State noted the discussions that he had held with Sir Roger on the subject and made it clear that the matter was under consideration.

“The Minister of State, Simon Burns, recently visited Thanet by rail” says Sir Roger “and I know that he has both experienced and recognised the shortcomings in a service that has to be improved. From my conversations with the Secretary of State I believe that he, also, understands the need for enhancements in the interests of commuters and also to help to realise  the potential for the development of Manston Airport.  While any improvements are welcome I do not think that  investment, by Network Rail, in an improved signalling system that was promised in 2005 for delivery by 2010 represents on its own an adequate response to the present shortcomings. We need a proper development of and investment in an enhanced rail service to reflect the fares that customers are now being required to pay”