The post you are reporting:
Mr Honey: I view both posts as requiring more information before one can take a view of their excellence.
Captain Haddock links an undetailed 'necessity and indeed urgency of the T2 development' to London's Garden Bridge, which I assume was an additional river crossing that was neither necessary nor urgent.
Mr Miller (who states - not opines - that the CEO ignored advice and counsel of multiple Board members) states - not opines - that choosing to source infill from an alternative marine site that is more distant than the Goodwins, would, had it been done some time ago, minimised the financial impact; however, he neither explains how, nor does he comment on the environmental cost/difference of that alternative.
Let's be clear and dispassionate here; there are financial and other differences between the Goodwins and non-Goodwins options. There is an independent regulator, the MMO, that rules on the better option from the perspective of the State/society/environment, whatever you want to call it; that ruling is awaited. Multiple previous rulings have identified the Goodwins option as the better/least bad option from that perspective.
In my view this is not about DHB (after all, the Goodwins have been used by at least 1 other developer); rather, it is about in what circumstances (if any) the Goodwins can be used as a source of infill. I further suggest that it will be interesting to see, if the regulator rules in favour of the non-Goodwins option, what it identifies as having changed.