RSP slam inaccurate SHP submission

A report on Kent Online, which reads as a sponsored editorial, claims that Stone Hill Park’s lawyers have made a submission to the Planning Inspectorate alleging that RSP’s development consent order application is illegal.  RSP state otherwise, and have slammed the submission as inaccurate.

The allegation rests on claims that RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) has made errors in its calculation of cargo movements, contending that the application fails to meet the required criteria because “it is not able to show an increase in the cargo flight capacity of the site as an airport”.

RSP hope to deliver 17,000 cargo movements per year by its 20th year of operation.  This is in excess of the DCO criteria for 10,000 movements.

Stone Hill Park allege that the airport was closed with a capacity of 21,000 movements, and that as this exceeds the proposal by RSP, “they have got their numbers wrong” by claiming its present capacity is zero.

What Stone Hill Park (and their lawyers) don’t appear to understand is that when site owner Ann Gloag closed the airport in 2014, she rescinded the CAA licences.  Following this, major site assets were sold at auction by Peaker Pattinson, rendering the site useless for cargo-related aviation.  In addition, Trevor Cartner and Chris Musgrave wantonly permitted the destruction of the runway surface when it contracted Balfour Beatty and Mott MacDonald to paint markings on the runway to highlight parking spaces for lorries during Operation Stack.

Therefore, the only reasonable cargo movement capacity at Manston at this time is exactly that – ZERO!

RSP stand by the legality of their application, stating “RiverOak Strategic Partners disagrees with the basis on which Pinsent Mason has arrived at these conclusions.”

“We are confident that all of the detailed work we and our professional advisors have undertaken for the development consent order application will clearly and robustly make the case that our proposals for Manston to meet the threshold for a nationally significant infrastructure project.”

SHP want to build at least 2,500 houses on the site, but at a public inquiry into proposed change of use on the site, the Planning Inspector agreed the site must be protected for aviation use only.

Share