Er, well, it doesn’t tell us that RiverOak is a suitable indemnity partner. No siree!
- It tells us that (had they had infinite resources) TDC could have done a more structured, transparent job and spent more money on much more external advice. But it doesn’t say that they reached the wrong conclusions. (Nor does it mention where the money for all this would have come from.)
- It says that RiverOak failed to share cashflow information and thus failed to convince TDC that they could pony up the levels of funding necessary.
- It says that it would be hard for TDC to decide if RiverOak had enough dosh for this whole escapade because TDC had no idea what the site would be worth if a CPO were ever approved (now, we said this months and months ago, but various TDC Councillors chose to ignore us).
- It says that RiverOak did not produce a 20 year plan and that TDC’s consultants, Falcon, had suggested that this was what would be needed.
- It says that PwC – even now – has seen no evidence that RiverOak has done anything about setting up an escrow account to pop its dosh into so that TDC could see that the money was available.
- It says that RiverOak has produced nothing of any substance since TDC took its decision on 11th December. We’re six months on, people. RiverOak and RogerOak have bleated and whinged that RiverOak are up to the job, but no more evidence has been produced to help TDC to see that that’s the case. Interesting, no?
Perhaps most tellingly for us, it says on p29 that in a call with RiverOak’s lawyers on 5th November,
“… the Council appear to have sought clarification on funding levels available to RiverOak on this date. This encompasses sufficient resources available “to prepare for a CPO; to pay the compensation determined; [and] to carry out a scheme of development in accordance with a business plan.”
“The Council […] believe that “the aim of the whole exercise from TDC’s perspective was to see a viable airport in operation and this required evidence of the funds able to be delivered.”
Indeed. As we have always said, if you can’t demonstrate that you can meet all the costs of buying the site, paying for the CPO process, and providing the investment needed to develop a viable airport on that site, then you’re not a suitable indemnity partner.
Now, please can we all turn some attention to the team that actually owns the site; doesn’t have to pay for a CPO; and already has more jobs in the pipeline than exist in the RiverOak business plan? It’s time to stop strutting about playing politics and get down to what the Council should be doing – building a better, more sustainable future for Thanet.
Courtesy of Manston Pickle