Is a verbal promise worth anything

Right back at the beginning of the DCO process the museums on the Manston site were promised by RSP to be "fully respected" and although they may need to be moved because of the realignment of the road junction they would be "looked after"
Was this an empty promise?

Those oral promises by Tony Freudmann were made within the backdrop of Stone Hill Park removing the museum lease and giving them unfettered access to the land when they granted them the freehold of the site. However the museums wrote in support of RSP initially but it seems now to have been a poor decision in light of RSP's failure to communicate with the trustees.
To read this letter in situ go to the Pins site here

Further it seems that Riveroak and Tony Freudmann are paying lip service to the idea of protecting the historical assets on the Manston site
From a submission by the supporters of Manston is the following extract:

"This submission is based on the concerns over the retention and development of the historic features of Manston Airport. There are concerns about historic features that could be lost, or where close proximity of development may be detrimental to them. This is not intended to be a critique or opinion in regards to the current application outside of the heritage aspects of the current application which would apply to any future use of Manston airport.
We are concerned that the recent hearing held 3rd June 2019 on Landscape, Design, Archaeology and Heritage spent only around 15 minutes discussing non-designated assets when there appears to be disagreement or lack of agreement between the applicant and interested parties. We were also concerned although they were in attendance in the public area, it appeared that representatives from the museums were not included in the Interested Parties invited to attend and participate in the discussions for both their own futures and those of heritage features on the site. We are aware of further discussions on 7th June 2019 and there appears to be some way to go before agreement between the applicant and interested parties.
We have concerns that the applicant appears dismissive of the potential of at least some historic buildings/structures on Manston as stated by Historic England in response to Question HE.3.2 as part of the Deadline 7a Submission. It would also seem that further surveying and analysis must take place in order to document them.  We agree that the loss of the buildings and features cannot be largely mitigated by recording only, but it seems that protection of all of them does not form part of the development plans, contrary to The Airports National Policy Statement (2018) (ANPS)."
……..
"We would urge the inspectors to ensure sufficient measures are in place to make sure that surveying of all archaeological and historic features, known and unknown, is carried out in full consultation with interested parties. Further we would request that all existing features from the military history of Manston are protected. We would hope these sites are preserved and form part of a wider scheme of historic protection and education for the public as suggested by the KCC submission. At this point in time, it would appear that the applicant’s plans do not include the protection of all the potential heritage on the site."

Editor's note: Bold editors emphasis
You can read the entire submission here Submission regarding heritage aspects on the Manston Airport site by ‘Supporters of Manston Airport’,

Picture from Luftwaffe reconnaissance 1939

RSP needs, even at this late hour, to provide reassurance that the history in the Manston site is preserved for future generations to understand the role this frontline airfield had in the "Battle of Britain" and WW2

It is completely wrong that RSP seem to have made promises to preserve the heritage of the site and with just 3 weeks to go to the end of the examination it now seems that the heritage has been demoted to just a footnote in the DCO.