Adam Davidson, CEO of Trident Royalties, discusses offtake milestones and catalysts to boost FY24. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Of the EA's 3 objections, the significant one is the Hydrogeological Risk Assessment of risk to groundwater.
It would be useful to know the length of the delay this might entail for the Council's decision.
Also, confirmation bias.
The consultation period being closed does not prevent the companies getting a report and submitting a solution that may require a new 3 week consultation period to start.
It is a significant delay to this application and aquifers we the downfall of markwells wood planning application.
They could withdraw the application , rectify the issue and submit a new one?
You would not go to committee on that response and get a refusal, you would pull the application.
The trouble is the consultation period is now closed.
I would be surprised if they don't pull it as the chances of the planning officer recommending it, let alone the committee passing it would be slim with this letter on file..........Just the ammo they would be hoping for with all those objection letters !!
"The astounding thing is that Angus (yet again) don't seem to have been in communication sufficiently with the EA and understood their needs, even after having one year to get this sorted."
Think you've hit the nail on the head GKB - any normal outfit, never mind one with a long history of issues with the planners, the OGA and the EA, would look around and say "what questions did they ask HHDL. What questions did they ask UKOG & Egdon & Europa?" And maybe pick up the phone or drive by and ask.....................
This has all the marks of the slap-dash approach which has been Angus's hallmark from day 1 and shows that our favourite ex-Director still pulls the strings.
The items in themselves can be addressed - but more time, more money and more delay............................
Seems the EA expect Angus to pull this and re-submit reading the letter.
https://westsussex.planning-register.co.uk/Planning/Display/WSCC/071/19
Seems Angus dealt with this the first time but strangely neglected to think it was necessary to repeat. Hopefully just an update of the old one will suffice (copy and paste job).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/735423/Application_Variation_Decision_Document.pdf
1) "The EA said Angus Energy had not given any details of a flare to be used during the test. The company may need to apply to vary or add to its environmental permits to do the tests, the EA said.
2) "The regulator was also concerned that Angus Energy had not provided details of a proposed permanent drainage liner that could be installed during the extended well test. The liner would need to be robust enough for three years of heavy vehicle movements, the EA said."
3) "The EA said the new application was for a longer and bigger operation than previous proposals. A new or updated HRA was needed."
So, in their attempt at dotting the I's and crossing the T's on their application for Balcombe, Lucan, Tidswell & chums have FAILED not ONCE... but THREE times!
And we are expected to believe that the application (these same "amateurs" have prepared) for Saltfleetby is going to sail through without a hitch!?!?!?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Ocelot The Optimist,
I doubt the refusal & further delay is going to help the SP tomorrow... whoever predicted 0.50 might see that day come quicker than they imagined!
So...
I guess this means we can now add Lucan's assurance about planning submission delay - being that they were taking time to make sure "everything was done correctly" - to the long list of seemingly endless FAILURES?
This company is managed by amateurs with ZERO CREDIBILITY! :-(
Thank you for the information, Alexios.
The EA's requirements will need to be met - let's hope it can be done quite quickly.