Friday, 3 June 2016

Manston RiverOak Consultation Update.

I have been attempting to engage with RiverOak with respect to the DCO consultation process, and so according to the planning inspectorate have other people, however RiverOak don’t appear to be engaging in the process, either because they don’t want to or because their email server is broken, there really is no way of knowing.

Here is the correspondence so far:-


From: michaelchild@aol.com [mailto:michaelchild@aol.com]
Sent: 01 June 2016 12:15
To: info@riveroakic.com
Cc: NI Enquiries
Subject: The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport

To whom it may concern.
I am writing to you as I have heard that you intend to hold a consultation this month (pre statutory consultation) relating to building an airfreight cargo hub at the former Manson Airport site.

My primary concern at this point is to ensure that there will be consultations, drop in sessions and meetings held in the towns most affected.

Ramsgate – most affected by noise pollution, particularly with respect to the number of listed buildings and the conservation area, which I assume, would make sound insulation of many of the buildings difficult and expensive.

Herne Bay – on the takeoff flight path.

Margate and Broadstairs – particularly with respect to particulate air pollution and the associated reduction in life expectancy (which is already high due to the prevailing wind direction and the air flow across southern England) as both towns would be upwind of cargo plane movements.
Could you kindly confirm that you have received this email as my previous attempt to communicate with you via your website, which was over a month ago now, hasn’t yet elicited any response from you. 

Best regards Michael Child

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-----Original Message-----
From: michaelchild
To: info
CC: NIEnquiries
Sent: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 21:21
Subject: Re: The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport
Hi at all at RiveOak I sent the email below more than 24 hours ago asking that you confirm that you have received it. I haven't had this confirmation so I am sending this follow up as a reminder.


Please can you confirm you have received my email.
Best regards Michael


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-----Original Message-----
From: Susannah Guest
To: michaelchild <michaelchild@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 9:10
Subject: RE: The upgrade and reopening of Manston Airport primarily as a cargo airport
Dear Mr Child
Thank you for your email correspondence of 1 June 2016.  In your email you raise some questions in respect of the proposals by RiverOak for Manston Airport. From my reading of your email, I think it is a copy of an email that you had, in the first instance, directed to RiverOak. 
You are right to have directed your correspondence to RiverOak at an early stage.  As you note, the activity that RiverOak are proposing to undertake over the summer period will be a non-statutory consultation.  This activity will not therefore have to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 – the legislation that governs this type of airport-related development.  RiverOak will however need to undertake a stage of statutory consultation before an application can be formally submitted.  In preparation for that, RiverOak will have to produce a draft Statement of Community Consultation that sets out how they will undertake the consultation activity.  They are required to consult with Thanet District Council and Kent County Council on the content of that document.  If you feel that RiverOak are not sufficiently considering your views on this specific matter, you may wish to inform the relevant authorities of your comments in respect of the way in which consultation is planned to be carried out.
The Planning Inspectorate met with RiverOak earlier this week on Wednesday 1 June 2016.  As part of that meeting The Planning Inspectorate reported receiving correspondence in which it was noted that RiverOak had not responded to submissions made via their website.  There is no statutory requirement for a developer to respond directly to individual correspondence, but RiverOak are aware of the frustrations this has created. 
Once any statutory consultation has been completed, the Planning Act 2008 requires that RiverOak will need to demonstrate that they have had regard to any representations received during that stage of consultation activity.  Upon submission of an application, RiverOak would need to produce a Consultation Report to explain how they had regard to the relevant representations received, whether any changes were made to the proposals and, if no changes were made, provide an explanation as to why.
There is more information about the process on our website:
Information in respect of this specific scheme (Manston Airport) can be found through the search function.  Information in respect of the process in general, and requirements on developers, can be found through navigating to the “Application Process” or “Legislation and Advice” tabs at the top of the webpage. 
The most accessible document would be The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8 which can be found at the following link:
Kind regards
Susannah
Susannah Guest MRTPI
Infrastructure Planning Lead
Major Applications and Plans
The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN
Helpline: 0303 444 5000
Email:
Web: infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk (National Infrastructure Planning)
Twitter: @PINSgov
This communication does not constitute legal advice.
Please view our 
Information Charter before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.



+++++++++++++++++++++

Sent just now

Dear Ms Guest
Thank you for you prompt and informative reply. 
As you correctly surmised my correspondence was directed at RiverOak and the cc to the planning inspectorate intended primarily as an added reference.
My difficulty at the moment is as RiverOak still haven’t confirmed that they have received my emails, so I have no way of being certain that I am directing my correspondence to them, inasmuch as either they aren’t replying to me or there is a fault with their email system so they aren’t receiving them.
I did try to contact RiverOak via their website 27th Feb 2016 mainly asking them whether the comment forms on their news items formed part of their consultation, but received no response, nor was the comment I left published.
In this instance I tried contacting them via email using the email address they ask you to use on their website http://www.riveroakinvestments.co.uk/contact-us/which is based on their American real estate brokerage website http://riveroakic.com/ which earlier this week when I sent the email hadn’t been updated in terms of press releases for about two years. Now all of the press releases there have been deleted and a new page has appeared this week http://riveroakic.com/riveroak-nyc-I-llc.html which seems to show some recent commercial activity, none of which seems to be confirmed elsewhere on the internet. If I were trying communicate with this company in an ordinary business sense I would assume it was inactive.

Best regards Michael


Update 12.55 03.06.2016


Dear Mr Child

Thank you for your email – its contents are read and noted.  We will be producing a minute of the meeting that we had with RiverOak earlier this week.  That Meeting Note will make reference to the correspondence we have received that have highlighted the concerns you reiterate below.  That note will be published on our website in due course.

Kind regards
Susannah


Update 17.10 03.06.2016

From: George Yerrall 
To: michaelchild <michaelchild@aol.com>
CC: Niall Lawlor; Tony Freudmann

Sent: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:33
Subject: Your email has been received.

Thank you for your patience.
George Yerrall
RiverOak Investment Corp., LLC
1 Atlantic Street – Suite 703
Stamford, CT 06901-2402
office – 203.325.8009
fax – 203.325.8588
cell – 203.912.7006

Hi George, Many thanks for your confirmation of the receipt of my emails, I look forward to your timely reply. 

Update 17.09 03.06.2016


03.06.2016

Mr Child

Thank you for the up-date on your correspondence from RiverOak in respect of emails submitted to their website.

Kind regards
Susannah

Best Michael

Ed. Sorry about the lack blog posts over the last few days as you can see I’ve been busy http://michaelsbookshop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/aliens-and-woodwork-in-bookshop.html



3 comments:

  1. Michael just emailed the CEO asking if he is aware of the non reply to emails if I get a reply I will let you know.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Don I am pretty short on time at the moment as tied up with family and bookshop, otherwise I would have chased them up more

    ReplyDelete
  3. wonder if you would have got a reply without the PI being involved

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.