It was also clear that National Planning at Bristol were going to use this period to fine tune the system when the application for the 3rd runway was submitted, what they failed to grasp was that a privately run organisation wasn't going to be honest and open.
When asked the ExA (examining authority) state that
" The Planning Act 2008 process is inquisitorial – the Examining Authority (ExA) asks questions in order to gather the evidence it needs to make its report and recommendations to the Secretary of State. It does not unilaterally answer questions included in the evidence it receives.
If any
evidence provided by an Interested Party includes matters that the ExA feels
needs to be clarified by another Interested Party, it will direct a question or
questions to them."
What they don't do is respond to people when they are frustrated by RiverOak's insistence on not telling the entire truth when asked questions. Stone Hill Park (the legal owners of the land in question) have identified this as a tactic which applies layers of deception to the process of getting to the truth.
So where are we today, the 6 months are nearly up and there are several areas that RSP have to provide evidence to support their application. These are:
Funding
At each stage RSP have failed to answer the questions on both ownership and funding. At stage 3 they stated they understood they weren't being honest and open and that was causing problems so they promised to put this right as soon as.
So referring back to SHP's comments above you begin to see what they mean when you realise the change in company structure changes the beneficial ownership from Belize to HLX Nominees Ltd based on the island of Tortola in the British Virgin Islands (another tax haven where ownership can be hidden)
So coupled with this dubious behaviour it is also clear there is no way the source of funding could ever be identified and as a reminder it is up to RSP to provide evidence they have funding at all.
It is also clear that the ExA will not accept redacted letters proving the finance so how RSP will prove they have funding will be interesting to say the least.
Night flights
From the start of this process RSP has tried to pull the wool over Night Flights even telling people at the consultations there will be none. However their application still states they want a Quota Count of 3028. They say this is for unavoidable delays and emergencies.
None of these excuses are credible because a delayed flight may be delayed or not it is the management that decides its landing slot.
Emergency flights come under the HEMA (Humanitarian, Emergency, Military) and not one count towards the night quota count.
Is this application an NSIP
Again not proven as yet RSP's Dr. Sally Dixon was only asked to provide figures to ensure 10000 ATMs a year was possible however she was never asked to provide evidence that these ATM's were even possible as no viability study was done therefore this is purely an exercise in forecasting not an exercise in reality. This figure was produced from thin air such is the evidence produced even the average load on each plane was manipulated to achieve the 10000 figure.
Alternatives to compulsory purchase
To ensure the CPO (Compulsory Purchase Order) is necessary Riveroak have to show in evidence they have negotiated with the legal owners to achieve ownership without such powers.. It now transpires that Stone Hill Park made an offer to RSP which would have allowed RSP to create their Cargo Hub over 12 months ago
Riveroak refused this offer and failed to tell the ExA, I wonder why?
Noise
From allowing passive noise monitoring in supporters gardens to using a noise measuring tool (averaging) RSP has attempted to apply further levels of deception to a very emotive subject. Those that lived under the flightpath came in two groups. There are those that get used to the infrequent noisy aircraft (some measured in excess of 90 Db) and there are those it became so bad they moved. What none of these groups have ever suffered is the noise and the higher frequency as proposed by RSP. The issue with RSP are they are fully aware of the effect
Yet they offer derisory compensation and in the case of schools they offer nothing at all.
There are some that will accept anything to achieve their aim of aviation at Manston to the extent they don't care where the money comes from and in one case they make it clear that anyone who offers aviation they will support unquestionably.
It is clear from the number of questions that the ExA have asked they frequently do not get the answers they have expected. Question F2.20 is a prime example
The current series of questions are 122 pages long and it is doubtful if the questions will be answered in their entirety as RSP have a poor track record of disclosure.
No comments:
Post a Comment