The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Watch the film.
I didn't say anyone spoe untruthfully.
There were individuals who gave their reasons for rejection as something their own experts had gone to great lengths to explain and mitigate as having any substance.
Before the vote, the Chair explained that he couldn't understand why they were even being mooted as potential reasons and that they would almost certainly guarantee that SCC would face, and lose, a legal challenge costing voters at least £250k in court costs.
Nevertheless, those exact reasons were eventually given as sufficient to reject.
The guy who seconded them, revealed at the start of the meeting that he had a conflict of interest within his role.
His responsibility was, however, dismissed early on as being outside the remit of the committee and irrelevant to the application.
Another voter then asked for clarification on what he was being asked to vote on, whether it was to approve or reject.
He was told the vote was to reject the approval of the application.
I do not believe he was given a clear answer and he voted for the rejection.
The vote should have been to approve the application or reject it.
Who votes to reject an approval or approve a rejection, when it hasn't been approved or rejected in the first place?
Skwizz, clearly you do not know the process.
There are two routes of appeal. Planning inquiry or getting the decision called in.
Costs including business losses are awarded as appropriate.
Individuals who speak at a planning inquiry can also be financially liable in person if they are untruthful.
I have been there , got threatened by the developers barristers.
Agree your review of the dopey voting at meet1, CynderLad.
But not your assumptions for meet2.
The same people will still have their own hidden agendas and still be voting.
They have had extra time to find new avenues to exploit.
There is still one GLARING reason which would still be legal if given.
It was mentioned in the original meet but not given as anyone's reason (excuse me for not mentioning here and providing them with a free opportunity to use it now).
I am not aware that the situation has changed in any way so we are still at risk from that, and any similar opportunities they've since come up with.
They could still vote for the same reasons.
The vote itself may have been illegal (not sure about that being entirely correct, having sat through the whole thing), but the exact same reasoning could still be given.
Nothing to stop that, even if their own consultants do more work to satisfy their "concerns".
If they want to reject it regardless, they'll simply do that and we'll have to go to court.
Also if people pay £1,000 per year for the gas they are using, that is £200,000,000 for 200,000 houses.
Oh, and for those that say, well it will only power 200,000 homes. Go get a life. That's 200,000 homes, which is a considerable number. Those talking it down as only a small % of the overall gas needs to the UK, again, go get a life. Gas is essential and there is nothing better than that produced in the UK (onshore or offshore), that is regulated by the best of the best in the form of the O&GA, the EA and the H&SE.
Following the comedy of the 6/5 vote, SCC have taken external advice on the Loxley planning application. I can only assume that the external advice will be a legal one. The councillors who voted against the application did so without forming their reasons for doing so. In some cases, it was evident within 15 minutes of the meeting starting, that certain councillors were going to vote against the application. The planning officer recommendation remains unchanged, PERMIT. The legal position is that they cannot refuse on the grounds that were given in relation to transport or that associated with no proof of a new for the development. SCC cannot overrule national planning policies and frameworks.
So will it be passed at the next meeting, that depends. Will the same 11 councillors be voting? If so, then I do expect the same result.
But will that stop UKOG getting it approved of appeal, not a chance in hell. UKOG will get the Loxely development approved on appeal. You can take that to the bank in my opinion.
Despite my pessimistic nature, I still think there's a chance but figure 70/30 against now (because of the first meet).
:(
Still love to be proven wrong on the day though.
:)
Why do they issue licence to explore if they don't allow the completion to extract,it doesn't make any sense, like pay I g for a meal then told you can't eat it madness.
We now know that we have it and its onwards to the resit of the Planning Committee meeting on Loxley / Dunsfold. There should be substantial value added this time around.
https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=68181