If so, that would be quite a screw up. This country really needs to learn the meaning of passive provision. I suspect the next opportunity to rectify things would be when and if North Pole depot becomes life expired, as they could build another pair of platforms and shuffle things down.
But there has to be a limit on ‘passive provision’ based on opportunity cost vs likelihood of future benefit. You could passively* provide for all sorts of things, but if the cost of doing so is significant now, and the benefit is relatively small, in the future, and uncertain, then a decision needs to be made.
*passive provision is often a misnomer. In its truest sense passive provision means not doing anything that might in future hinder future development, so long as it doesn’t cost anything extra. In this case, it would almost certainly have to be ‘active’ provision, ie something would have to be done to allow for it in future.