Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. 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.
BumbleB - In relation to your 10.38 post I am not sure which plot number the EfW plant is or was. The application that went on appeal to the Secretary of State was for the whole Protos site.
Is that the development at plot 4 stokey12?
I have made the following comment on the planning application.
'In deciding what weight to give to the advice from Natural England I would suggest that the planning committee notes the contents of the Environmental Impact Assessment from 2016 in relation to the EfW planning application. In particular Chapter 9 of Volume 2 which gives a cumulative assessment of the Environmental Impact of both the EfW proposal and other known developments on Protos.
The planning committee may also wish to have regard to the Resource Recovery Park Outline Planning Permission granted on appeal by the Secretary of State in 2009 which was amended in 2010 by permission 10/01488/FULL. The outline planning permisssion I would argue deals with the concerns of Natural England by way of the conditions it imposed.'
Reg 64. Autocorrect!
But with regard to area 64 we are not there yet. It may not be necessary if the Habitats Regulations Assessment is completed properly as advised by Natural England.
Audible - In respect to your 08.19 post while I disagree with BumbleB as to how significant the Natural England response is I would observe that PHE are not the applicant for the planning permission. It follows that the propoer course with any issues is to do what I will be doing and make a comment on the application. Before you ask it will be supporting the application and suggesting that reg.64 of the Habitats Regulation may apply.
Typical idioticremark
Ok, Bumble, you haven’t contacted the company. Obviously no real concern.
All happen when finance is announced I’m sure.
Audible, the information I have used is set out in the air quality report, the biodiversity and ecology reports and the response from Natural England. DYOR.
BB, have you contacted the company? Surely Peel will know this and does DMG produce Nox? I’m unaware of that emission.
Yes Bumble, I gathered this from reading previous posts on here. I just hope they get it sorted properly and quickly so that there is no undue delay to granting the application. I'm not overly concerned about it being refused, just concerned about possible delay.
Piltick,
I don’t want to cast unnecessary alarm. Natural England are not saying the technology is a problem anywhere in the U.K. the issues are:
The location next to a strictly protected internationally designated wildlife site that is vulnerable to Nitrogen oxide emissions. The closer a gasifier is, potentially the greater the threat.
The developer has to set out a clear audit trail in a Habitats Regulations Assessment. This has to specify which designated birds and habitats lie close to the development (they have not done this yet!). How the development will impact on the Conservation Objectives for the site, alone and in combination with other local developments. This information is not adequately provided yet.
It is hopefully going to be a matter of completing the audit properly. If it is not done properly there will be problems because granting planning permission would be a breach of international law.
My gut feel is that this is down to inexperience in dealing with this sort of legislation, and that once the data is provided all will be well, but until that data is provided we cannot be certain of this.
OK, thanks both, stokey and Bumble.
It is up to the Planning Department to decide but at present in the view of Natural England the application does not meet the Habitats Regulations Assessment guidelines from Defra., and granting planning permission could result in the U.K. Gov ending up in the European Court.
They will hopefully supply that information quickly so the information can be reassessed by Natural England. If they don’t, and the LPA decide to grant permission there is a real risk of it being called in for a public inquiry.
Piltick - In relation to your 16.33 post see my 04.57 post from this morning.
Alrighty I topped up to my original holdings. Hoping this will roll up over the next 10 months. I would love to hold larger sums over a longer term but we are still waiting for plant no 1.
So does that mean that the planning application is unlikely to go before the planning committee at the beginning of December?
No, it is not a happy response. They are saying the amended document has the same issues as the earlier one. That was not sufficient to pass the Habitats Regulations Assessment. They want the council to decide whether future revisions provide the information required before consulting Natural England again. In other words don’t bother us again until the document is adequate.
Hi BB, I wasn't sure whether it was saying more info required or that unless there are any significant impacts from future updates then they should not be contacted.
I hope not Sharesport because the response indicates there is still not enough information to conclude the Habs Regs Assessment.
Consultee Comments Tab 3 dated 14 Nov
I think it was on Tab 3 of the comments BB
I cannot find that New Natural England comment Sharesport. Where is it?
Sharesport - In relation to your 01.33 post I would disagree iht you that t will go to the December planning Committee meeting. The earliest meeting it can go to is the one on the 7 January. The reason for ths is the date for consultation responses falls to late for it to be included in the December meeting the papers for which would have gone out three days before.
A number of site notices have been added showing notice with request for any commentary by 29 Nov.
Natural England comment added including the enclosed comment stating that impacts on the environment are not significantly different to the original and that they should only be consulted again if the impacts change significantly.
The proposed amendments to the original application are unlikely to have significantly different impacts on the natural environment than the original proposal.
Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again.
Looks as though this could now be heading into the early December review meeting so a couple of weeks for any more comments followed by decision shortly afterwards.
Do other LTH's read this in the same way.