Representation by Matthew Griffiths
- Date submitted
- 8 October 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I would like to make the following representations and would welcome the opportunity to both expand on these matters and provide supporting evidence.
I would assert that any decision made without recourse to the history of this application would be flawed.
That history starts in Lahr, Germany. [Redacted] was the ‘Managing Director' of a UK limited liability company. This company, Integeral Ltd bought the majority shareholding in the entity operating the defunct Black Forest Airport at Lahr. As in the case of Manston, this is a former military airbase that has had several owners attempting to turn around it’s fortunes, including [Redacted] himself, as Vice President of Wiggins / Planestation.
The business plan for Lahr was a scaled down ‘cargo centric’ version of that presented with the current application. The emphasis would be on cargo. Promises were made of lots of jobs, a Nigerian carrier moving base to Lahr etc. The public announcement being made on the 20th June 2012.
Workers go unpaid and no planes take off.
The two directors of Integeral Ltd had been [Redacted] and [Redacted].[Redacted] was made [Redacted]on the 24th January 2012.
Whilst [Redacted] was representing Integeral on the ground at Lahr, a winding up petition in respect of the company had been presented to the High Court on the 25th July 2012. One of the findings of [Redacted] QC in handing down the final judgement in that case, was that Integeral had been insolvent and unable to pay it’s (UK) employees from 1st December 2011. It would appear that Integeral had been trading whilst insolvent.
The judgement winding up Integeral was passed down on the 5th February 2013. It would seem that the tribunal was unaware of Integeral purchasing shares in Lahr. The only mention in the judgement of the Lahr project relates to loans made at Integeral’s behest by one [Redacted] to a company involved in a project there.
From a local news report, it would seem that the Corporation of Lahr were unaware that Integeral Ltd no longer existed as a trading company. The airport operating company had at this time, itself gone into administration.,
When the local authority launched a bidding process for a new airport operator a bid is submitted by Annax Aviation Ltd. This company had just one director, [Redacted] but was registered at the same address as all of the corporate entities of which [Redacted] is an officer.
Annax’s bid was unsuccessful. [Redacted] then turned his attention to Manston. It is believed that he was involved in persuading [Redacted] to purchase the airport in the autumn of 2013. Feasibility studies are then commissioned by [Redacted] with regard to the building of houses on the area of the airport land known as the Northern Grass.
In early 2014, after it became clear the [Redacted] had taken the decision to close the airport and it would seem that [Redacted] then went in search of financial backers to purchase the airport.
A businessman, resident in the Columbian city of Bogota expressed an interest in investing in the airport to [Redacted] who immediately referred him to [Redacted]. Doubts grow as to whether the ING bearer bonds that he presented as evidence of capital were in fact genuine.
RiverOak Investment Corps of Connecticut are then named as the new investors.
BBC journalist [Redacted] interviewed [Redacted] with regard to the involvement in his project of [Redacted] and [Redacted]. [Redacted] had been made aware of the judgement of [Redacted] QC in the Integeral winding up proceedings and in particular that [Redacted] QC had found that [Redacted] had misled the court (in fact the judgments suggests that not only had [Redacted] lied to the court but had fabricated evidence). [Redacted] stated in this interview, that they, ([Redacted]) were “just the introducers” and that “I am not aware of either of these people’s personal circumstances”. [Redacted] had of course been unaware of [Redacted] own involvement with [Redacted] or that he had fronted Integeral at Lahr. Interestingly, within minutes of this interview [Redacted] received a phone call from a very irate[Redacted].
What happened next with regard to River Oak Investment Corps’ attempts to obtain the airport lands up until this application is well documented. I would however comment that at the first ‘official’ public consultation related to this application, it was confirmed to me that [Redacted] and [Redacted] still had involvement in the project at the time that BDB solicitors took over the instructions.
[Redacted] has played a central part in the various attempts to obtain the airport lands. In 1993, he was [Redacted] from the roll of [Redacted] following a successful appeal by the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. He was found not to be a fit and proper person to hold a practicing certificate or to be entrusted with client funds. At this time he had achieved a great deal, not only holding the status of managing partner of the firm but was also leader of Shropshire County Council and held part-time judicial office. The High Court decision followed his admission to the mis-appropriation of client funds over a 5 year period.
Re-inventing himself as a businessman, [Redacted] joined Wiggins later renamed ‘Planestation’.
His RiverOak bio emphasises his role in the acquisition of interests in a number of European airports, (all former military basis). These together with acquisitions and attempted acquisitions in the middle east and the Americas were in fact cited by [Redacted] as a substantial cause of Planestation’s problems when he was brought in to try and rescue the company. In the interests of brevity I will not detail the fate of each of the 12 airports here. Suffice to say that most layed dormant and none were successful. It is not only [Redacted]who cites this airport acquisition programme in positive terms on his CV. Former [Redacted] colleague [Redacted], the author of the ‘independent’ Azimuth report, on which this application is premised, also presents this part of her career in a positive light.
Also vaunted in his bio is his experience in the travel industry. The reality of [Redacted] experience would seem to be that, having taken over the directorship of a number of travel companies, within a two-year period all had gone into receivership. These companies including Majestic Travel, founded by his father in the 60’s and Travel Club of Upmister that had been incorporated in 1936. The failure of these companies left travelers stranded around the globe.
It is not known whether [Redacted] is currently involved in this ‘project’. He was made [Redacted] in 2016 and has been associated with considerable controversy in his business career. Most notable perhaps, is his having being found by the High Court to have [Redacted]out of [Redacted]. Wharf Land of which he was director, was also involved in controversial projects to redevelop Sandown Airport and the former Wisley airfield.
I do not know why RiverOak Investment Corps determined to disassociate themselves from this application. It is however clear that [Redacted] is still based at RiverOak Investment Corps offices in Connecticut.
Those who dared to question RiverOaks plans at their various consultations only to be met with offensive language and the rants of [Redacted], would not be surprised that he has a criminal conviction for assault. The incident in a New York restaurant involved a group attack on one man.
I would submit that there are many who either are or have been associated with the project who would have difficulty meeting any test of ‘good standing’.
The business plan
As previously stated, the business plan for a cargo hub differs only in scale to that presented by [Redacted] to the administration at Lahr. It has been upscaled to try and meet the requirements of a NSIP but in essence is the same tired plan. The independence of the Azimuth report has to be questioned given the authors former involvement with [Redacted] at Planestation and of course her report flies in the face of those reports commissioned by others. Many others will have addressed the obvious contradictions in the business plan and the duplicity of the actual application documents as compared the verbal and written statements emanating from the applicants and their political supporters.
Finances
It would seem that the calculations prepared for their application are premised on the site being worth less than £10 million. One would have thought that the applicant would have determined whether there were any recent decisions of the Upper Lands Tribunal to see if there were any precedents that might assist in this calculation. Had they done so they would have found decision ACQ 91 2011. Were the site to be assessed on a wood or scrub basis it would have been worth £15 million and on an industrial basis, £118 million. I suspect that land values have not declined in the last 7 years.
The applicants have consistently failed to demonstrate either the existence of the necessary funds or indeed the source of their funding. If the history of this application has no other impact, it should perhaps ensure that those considering it are satisfied that the finances are in place and that those finances are from a transparent source. When I asked the representative of BDB Solicitors whether a Russian businessman associated with the Switzerland based directors of RSP, was one of the investors, I was advised that “even he didn’t know who the financiers were but that he could have a good guess”.
I am aware that these representations have far exceeded the recommended limit and will bring them to a conclusion. In summary it is my belief that many who are, possibly are or have been associated with this application would be disqualified from holding directorship of a PLC and for the state to use their powers to remove land from it lawful owners to the benefit of the applicants would not only be morally questionable but very likely a gateway to future embarrassment.