Tuesday, 8 May 2018

Temporary withdrawal of Manston DCO application

RiverOak Strategic Partners has temporarily withdrawn its DCO application in respect of Manston Airport. This is not uncommon with DCOs and RSP is in dialogue with the Planning Inspectorate in order that the application can be resubmitted as soon as possible.
Click here to read the letter submitted to PINS on Friday 4 May.


http://rsp.co.uk/news/temporary-withdrawal-of-application/


Ms Susannah Guest
 The Planning Inspectorate
Temply Quay House Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
Your Ref Our Ref ADW/166055.0003 Date 4 May 2018
Dear Madam Manston Airport project reference TR020002 This letter is to notify you that our clients, RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd, are withdrawing the application submitted on 10 April 2018 and are engaging with the Planning Inspectorate with a view to resubmission as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully

Bircham Dyson Bell LLP

This is a picture of a plane at Nash Road.
My understanding is that were RiverOak, RSP to apply for a DCO again they would have to start again. Of course where the intended result to be scuppering the local plan, which is a sort of developers charter, and changing the TDC administration to a Conservative one then the DCO application was very successful indeed.
This begs the question, was the application rejected? I guess the answer here is in the, did RiverOak suddenly decide that 11,000 pages wasn't enough or that they had made a mistake somewhere along the line and need to get busy with the tipex.


Posted by at
Labels: , ,

2 comments:

  1. Phil RoseMay 08, 2018 1:23 pm

    My best guess is that RSP's application was rejected by PINS because of RSP's consistently poor "consultation" methods. Bear in mind that PINS, and others, are treating the Manston DCO as a dry run for other, larger DCOs (Heathrow, Luton). If the residents of the Conservative wards near Heathrow were only allowed the quality of "consultation" that we have had in East Kent, they would (quite rightly) be very unhappy... which could well rebound on their (Conservative) MPs. Heaven forbid!

    ReplyDelete
  2. God help usMay 08, 2018 2:32 pm

    This is completely underwhelming. 1st we have the Americans pulling out and Freudmann keeps the name for himself just to confuse the public. then we have a "consultation" paid for by Freudmann but managed by pro supporters collecting feedback reports where those against the airport refuse to fill them in because they didn't want pro-supporters to misuse their data. Then we get the official consultations based on 5500 pages of documents but unfortunately RO "forgot" to invite Ramsgate and HerneBay. Then we have the "further consultation" for Ramsgate and Hernebay people were yet again people weren't invited. Then it transpired that Canterbury Council's pack failed to reach the planning department. Then we get a DCO submission with 11500 pages (now which bits did they add on AFTER the public consultations?) Now we have the DCO withdrawn the same day SHP submit their revised applications. Seriously does anyone actually think these cowboys know what they are doing?

    ReplyDelete

Comments, since I started writing this blog in 2007 the way the internet works has changed a lot, comments and dialogue here were once viable in an open and anonymous sense. Now if you comment here I will only allow the comment if it seems to make sense and be related to what the post is about. I link the majority of my posts to the main local Facebook groups and to my Facebook account, “Michael Child” I guess the main Ramsgate Facebook group is We Love Ramsgate. For the most part the comments and dialogue related to the posts here goes on there. As for the rest of it, well this blog handles images better than Facebook, which is why I don’t post directly to my Facebook account, although if I take a lot of photos I am so lazy that I paste them directly from my camera card to my bookshop website and put a link on this blog.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)