Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. 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.
Many thanks will give it a read through.
Following on from my chat with them yesterday, IMO this is the heart of the matter. Worth a read and some excellent process flow schematics for those suitably interested...
https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/pl7-5bw-drakelands-restoration-limited2/supporting_documents/Application%20Bespoke%20%20Schedule%205%20Response%20%20Low%20Frequency%20Noise%20Impact%20Assessment%2015082023.pdf
Evening Croissant. Sorry no links. The ones you have posted are the correct ones. I appear to have confused myself with another site while hunting for info!
If you're talking about this one
https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/pl7-5bw-drakelands-restoration-limited2/
its the same wording as was originally post prior to the date change
https://web.archive.org/web/20240406214139/https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/pl7-5bw-drakelands-restoration-limited2/
Can you supply a link?
Does anyone know how significant the apparent change of wording on the Gov web site is? the Original Doc refers to "restarting mineral processing facility" where as the community forum page. where the new date of 30 may 2024 is makes reference to "a new bespoke application for an environmental permit". This seems a little odd.
You're welcome Gingy, no offence taken, no offence caused. Good job we're not in Scotland, seven years behind bars for that.
Yeah,crossed wires gingy,i couldnt see what u did wrong.
other than a bit off cheekiness.lol.
Sorry croissant, I never meant to offend you, crossed wires I think. Please accept my apologies.
Thank you for sticking up for me VIS (xx) but Croissant is a resilient little pastry, I'll bounce back. Paddington Bear stare at Gingy (lol).
Anyway, I've also had further comms with IanGordon (IGDH) {I'd recommend clicking on his name 5/6 pages back now, to see all of his comments - he's been quite consistent in his commentary.} He was coy as to whether he'd supplied noise data but he has supplied information on an improved circuit design with fewer screens. It's the fine screens that create the infrasound and as his design has fewer screens, ergo less noise. I doubt that's quantified enough for the EA to work with. Besides there's more than one workable circuit to process the ore and the EA are not concerned about profitability but rather whether the process will injure people or cause harm to the environment. So I doubt the documents mentioned previously that have caused the delay are from IGDH. If I was a betting man, I'd wager it was the EA who have dropped a clanger. So, as inconvenient as the delay is I suspect it's not an indication of a impending rejection by the EA and will likely have no bearing on the outcome, which if memory serves is that they are "minded" to grant the permit.
I think we're all good. ATB
Sorry valuation-it-is, have I missed something or is it me being stupid??
Gingy, I think you owe Croissant an apology.
Croissant, thank you for informing us. It's a bit disappointing we never had an RNS.
I've spoken to the EA this morning. There is indeed an extension. It relates to the late submission of a couple of reports regarding infrasound studies. The decision to extend was taken six days ago. It is unclear whether these documents are from an external submission as part of the public consultation, a late submission to the EA by TWL , or an omission from the EA itself not circulating the documents in its possession in a timely manner for review by its departments. Irrespective, the new date is the 30th. ATB
Someone has been telling porky pies.....
If the date was changed on Friday this would have to have been during normal business hours. This would have given TUN time to have released an RNS. The fact that this did not happen and that there is no reference to an extension on any gov web site makes me wonder (Someone with more knowledge of these matters than myself has also looked) if this is a mistake.
@VIS - you could be right, that did occur to me, but the submission link is still present and active. If you click on that link the revised date is there right along with all the data forms to allow public participation. 11.59pm tomorrow that lot should be closed to confirm your speculation. If not it's been extended.
Perhaps the date change reflects the closing of the period for public consultation and the start of the period for considering those submissions from the public, rather than an unexpected delay or an elongation of the period for public submissions.
Well the working assumption is that the IGDH submission is the cause of the delay. That's an educated guess based on a paucity of data to explain the date extension. The fact that the date has changed is not at issue. Why it has changed still is. Perhaps it's something else, but given that the D&C EA will likely only be persuaded by thorough reasoned quantified analysis, which the IGDH work is, then the logical step is to view its submission into the public consultation as the single source, or perhaps one of many sources, responsible for date change. If it's not the source of the date change which you suggest then great, but the Public Consultation page (excerpted below) [looking specifically at bullet point 3] states the following:
++++++++++++
We can take account of
*Relevant environmental regulatory requirements and technical standards.
*Information on local population and sensitive sites.
*Comments on whether the right process is being used for the activity, for example whether the technology is the right one.
*The shape and use of the land around the site in terms of its potential impact, whether that impact is acceptable and what pollution control or abatement may be required.
*The impact of noise and odour from traffic on site.
*Permit conditions by providing information that we have not been made aware of in the application, or by correcting incorrect information in the application (e.g. monitoring and techniques to control pollution).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
If the SLT has done its job properly it should be able to rebuff the points made quickly, as they commissioned the report back in 2019, paid for it, and awarded IGDH shares for his efforts. Then according to IGDH "opted to ignore the results". Anyway I guess in the next 24hrs we'll know for sure. If its been extended surely at least one of the interested parties will make a public announcement about it. ATB
Sorry for my ignorance. Bit confused. Are we saying the EA report has been delayed to the 30th?
Yes I have followed all the links.
MY understanding of the IGDH submission is that it could possibly have a bearing on the proposed updated feasibility study Q3 2024 but would have no effect on the MPF permit consultation.
I agree. I think this was changed Fri evening. Have you followed the links I supplied for prior mentions of the 7th as the closing date?? One from the RNS, one from thewaybackmacine and one from an industry commentator. The current d&c ea landing page now states the 30th. That changed happen Friday pm I believe, just prior to the bank holiday. Perhaps notifications will follow tomorrow. Perhaps a call to the D&C EAU might clarify why the change. My best guess is its as a result of the IGDH submission. I've had comms with him, he confirmed he had provided info to the portal. I've seen his report. He appears quite legit and on the level. It might be something else but I don't think so.
In the final analysis provided the D&C green light the permit it doesn't matter. Integration of these ideas may be a positive , but if due diligence was followed anything of value will have been gleaned and adopted already. The issue comes if his ideas have merit but they were passed over for reasons as yet undisclosed.
Evening Croissant. I have checked as far as possible and although I can find links that lead to a page with the closing date of 30/5/2024 I have been unable to find anywhere that it states there has been an extension to the consultation period, or any reason for one. I have checked local press etc as well as Gov sites.
@VIS - in which case they should be able to rapidly rebuff the proposal in total based on sound logic grounded on a prior review of his analysis. Thats my expectation.
My understanding is that TUN BoD have considered IRDH's ideas but have decided against.