We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
19/02566/FUL Land Adjacent Area 12 Ince Resource Recovery Park
Grinsome Road Ellesmere Port - Erection of a
132KV/33KV/11KV primary substation with associated
underground cables and mess ā Closing date for commenting
13 September 2019 ā No Comment
https://www.eltonparishcouncil.co.uk/doc/D425813.pdf
LedZep .......... Nice find m8 well spotted........ :+)
Erection of a 132KV/33KV/11KV primary substation with associated underground cables and mess buildings
Ref. No: 19/02566/FUL | Status: Application permitted
https://pa.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do?activeTab=relatedCases&keyVal=L5GCP0TE00300
Great work and many thanks for the update LedZep - another brick in the wall.
Well spotted Led.
On my walk through the Protos site today, I spotted a Planning notice, which I hadn't seen before, for an electricity sub-station to be sited on Plot 12, which is across Grinsome Road from our Plot.
Planning No. 19/02566/ful
This is the sub-station that our excess electricity will be used to feed back into the Protos micro-grid.
On checking the application this has been approved on 21st Nov '19, so one more piece in the jig-saw.
Just before xmas i think a lot of private investors are losing a bit of faith but what i take more notice of is the big buys that have been made recently.
This will take time before the share price takes off but iām holding for the long term.
Our day will come!
BTB
Not much of a Santa run going on here that's for sure.. real news drought at the moment. We due any other updates?
Disappointing but not totally surprising. Coming into the Christmas holiday season may make it difficult to get on the January agenda if they don't pull their fingers out. Will drift further if no positive news.
Agenda issued for Decembers Planning meeting and the Protos application is not listed. Could account for the slight "sell off" that we have had today.
Could well be that they will return prior to the January Meeting.
The response from Natural England suggests they are expecting the applicant to supply this information. And from the perspective of local people why should they have to pay for their Council to search for this information when it is the responsibility of the developer to submit properly thought through application reports in the first place?
BumbleB - we are not quite iagreement as my view is that they can use information from other sources than the two you mention. You will have to bear in mind is that the assessment is being done by the Local Planning Authority who can rely on information that they have other than those in the Air Quality and Ecological reports.
Stokey12, I am not sure we disagree here. The information should be in the air quality assessment and the ecological reports. The Habitats Regulations Assessment then draws on those.
BumbleB - Thanks for your 07.38 post. In my 05.54 post I was referring to the information on which the Habitats Regulation Assessment is based. I see no reason why that information cannot be in any number of documents so long as the Asessment identifies the source of the information it relies on for coming to its assessment.
I told you that was a hasty response. Should have started The Habitats Regs Assessment ....
Stokey12, they Hans Regs Assessment does not need to be in same document and I was not suggesting that. The information required should have been in the other documents. Thus the ecology reports should have set out the numbers of qualifying bird species using the SPA area, certainly near the development, and had information on the grassland habitats in the SPA. Without having the NE letter in front of me there was additional information required on emissions, possibly from vehicles. This information then all gets wrapped up in the Habitats Regulations Assessment. Sorry for quick response.
BumbleB - I would with respect disagree with your 03.26 post and agree with Tatty in his 22.46 post of yesterday. As far as I am aware the regulations state the information that is required but do not say tht they have to be in the same document. Accordingly in principle I can see no reason why the LPA cannot have regard to information in other documents if they believe they are relevant.
No it is different Tatty. The issue is not just the emissions to the atmosphere, it is the legally required paperwork trail that sets out what is internationally important on the South Mersey Estuary Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. The ecological assessments have to clearly state why the site is important and document the impacts of the planning application individually and in combination with other developments.
Peel/W2T have not satisfied Natural England a Defra funded watchdog, that this has been done properly and we are waiting for the air quality and ecological assessments to be revised, supplying the correct information.
Each development is different, with different emissions to the atmosphere.
All this stuff about NE and the HRA - was this not the case for the Bio- Substitute Natural Gas from waste wood plant application on the same Protos site and therefore same criteria and mitigations apply? Put it another way has all this been dealt with already by proxy?
Thanks for that Sharesport. I am certain NE are supportive on plastic, but they also have to comment on the standards of HRAs. From experience you find in that organisation that you upset everyone. Developers who think they get a rough deal, nimbies who expect you to object to anything no matter how inconsequential., etc.
Hi Stokey & BB, Thanks for your posts earlier, didn't have much time today. My post was obviously easily misread so apologies for that. I was just being a little sarcastic and looking at the bigger / worldwide picture which is clearly not the fault of Natural England but I am sure you see where I was coming from now. Anyway lets hope that an updated report / response is being formulated which meets all of the requirements.