The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
This is exactly why the problem isn't fossil fuels but the size of the population sharing them.
When the hole in the ozone layer's recovered, there still won't be any water to drink.
The pool's the same size, the queue drinking from it has grown beyond its' limits.
Nothing changes until we address that or re-locate the populace.
But HH isn't of national significance and neither is Arreton is it? Where and who draws the line?
Boris is backing off fast from his plans to "zone" areas in the face of the electorate - who don't like it
"My first awareness of Councils upping their game was at Balcombe in 2013. Do SCC have a lot to answer for?"
I've followed the UK Onshore for over 25 years - I'd say it was a gradual deterioration with it getting harder and harder as time went on. The greens started to resort to the courts and that really slowed everything down as the councils and the EA then want to be water tight.
Balcombe was a bit of a turning point tho' - it was fueled by anti-fraccing beliefs - the papers had been full of of US fraccing showing well after well and then the greens started peddling the more dubious claims about how it was going to happen here . The change of Govt to a Tory one full of noise about doing the same didn't help.
Since then it's been downhill all the way
My first awareness of Councils upping their game was at Balcombe in 2013. Do SCC have a lot to answer for?
Mirasol,
A pig farm is not of national significance, so unlikely to be done at a central level.
A major motorway, is a central matter, and no level of local consultation would change the outcome.
Same with Heathrow and HS2, what needs to be done at a national level, will get done.
And having the right to support/object, whether at local council or at a national level would still get my voice heard.
Location, location, location; it's all a game of roulette at the end of the day.
What I am proposing would be to avoid the dumb inefficient, costly and outdated process we have that serves only to hinder rather than support.
A classic is the London Green Belt - all economists and house builders say it should be built on - does anyone here agree? Or do we hear weasel words ??
Its all great Cynders - but when "they" decide to put a pig farm next to your house or drive a motorway through a local beauty spot you'll be up in arms. The current Planning system grew in response to over development between the wars, the Motorway campaign of the late 50's and '60's and such things as localism and everyone having a say.
We have no idea of how to balance local and national demands in the UK
If you really want to go down the Singapore of Hong Kong route of Central Planning be prepared for some shocks
Cynderlad
The planning system for petroleum exploration and production today is the same now as it was 40 years ago. In the 1970/1980’s, Conoco, BG, BP and others peppered the Weald Basin, the Wessex Basin and Isle of Wight with exploration wells, discovered numerous commercial oil fields and brought them into production without the drama seen recently at Arreton and Loxley. Everything worked smoothly, permissions were granted in weeks and a typical 5000ft well took 30 days to drill and test.
What has changed since the 1980s is that the onshore petroleum industry in UK has lost the case in the ‘Court of Public Opinion’. Governments of both colours have recognised this, halted onshore licencing 7 years ago and even paused offshore licencing for the forseeable future.
With public opinion shifting so far, county councillors had a duty to listen to, and represent their constituents’ interests - not just their own. In the case of Arreton, UKOG’s assertion that their proposed well was appraising an existing ‘oil AND gas discovery’ - according the latest RNS - stretched credibility.
UKOG investors should breathe a sigh of relief that IoW County Council has saved them £6 million for a non-productive exercise.
So my view. Why continue to operate an antiquated process that creates delay and creates unnecessary costs that the county councils have to pick up?
The process for such matters is out of date, ineffective, slow and costly.
Draw a comparison with banking, in the 80's and 90's I recall long queues at at the local bank branches to pay in cheques, pay in cash, withdraw cash , etc. But with the advent of technology, we know do all those common tasks without visiting the bank. I've not been to a bank in years. It would be ineffective of a bank to operate a pure in-person service on the high-street and expect to compete with those that operate through omni-channels.
A poor example you may think, and yes that is an example of how a specific industry in the private sector has adapted. It is focused on efficiency, customer service, cost to operate, and most importantly profit.
Take our planning system for these larger applications. It's completely flawed:
- We have to retain planning officers in every county council that need to have expert level knowledge of minerals policies, etc.
- We have councillors who don't care about national frameworks or national policies, and they also rebuke the expert authoritative statements of bodies that represent matters such as highways and the environment.
- We have a councils that delay planning reviews for months on end with no reasonable explanation
- We have councillors who don't have the intelligence to understand, fully consider and make a rationale decision on such matters.
- We have councils who turn down applications that are perfectly valid on grounds that they make up in a vain effort to protect themselves from legal costs on appeal.
- We have councils that then have to pay for the costs when they lose the appeal, in some cases they don't even bother to make a representation at the appeal
- We end up having industries that wait years rather than months for their business plans and strategies to be approved.
The alternative:
- A central planning body, with experts in the field. Don't waste the local planning officers time, They can get on with approving the simpler stuff that is also being held up as they dedicate themselves to months of hard graft to a single O&G planning application.
- A process that continues to permit local residents, campaigners, councils, etc, with the right to support or object to the planning application.
- A governance framework that provides a one-time authoritative decision on an application, and if this then goes to appeal they are unlikely to lose. The applicant would have to think very strongly about whether the fight would be worth it.
- County councils don't foot the bill for any legal challenges!
- County councillors don't have to make the hard decisions that are simply too pressurised for them to handle (default human behaviour is flight rather than fight, and in the case of councillors, they'll side with green every time give the social pressures
I think SS will wait for Loxley decision before he decides what to do at Arraton.
Agree no legal reason for refusal therefore appeal will get this through.
CynderLad
You said "It's hard for a councillor to stand behind the recommendation of their planning officer nowadays, because they'll get it in the neck from the public on a regular basis". Absolutely.
Planning officers aren't up for re-election.
The planning system in this country is sclerotic. It isn't about the public having their views heard- its about the noisy minority. Think Heathrow, HS2. Forget the national strategic priorities. God help the government with getting planning permission to keep the lights on.
The vote yesterday was as I predicted, was an easy one to call.
As per my post from Monday:
"In answer to your question, they have no valid planning reasons for refusal, hence the planning officers recommendation to Permit.
However, in considering my earlier view that it will be refused, I considered the merits for refusal with those for:
Wressle
Horse Hill
Loxley * 2
West Newton
And that crappy Angus site (Balcombe) that Vonk lied about, that Angs wanted to test for too long a period.
It's easy for a councillor to reject the application and they'll brew up any old BS to do so. Just like they for Loxley on 2 occasions.
It's hard for a councillor to stand behind the recommendation of their planning officer nowadays, because they'll get it in the neck from the public on a regular basis.
Hence, my earlier posts about Loxley, and if you look back in my posts to the 2 Loxley SCC committee dates, then you'll see a flood of posts from me criticising the councillors who voted against it. They had pre-determined mindsets and some were just too plain dumb and too weak of character to stand up and support their planning officer.
IoW - I predict the same, the councillors will show a weak hand, weak character and vote it down on grounds that will not stand up to appeal. But they'll be happy that it is refused because then they can go back to their families and friends and show that they backed the green agenda and climate emergency. It's almost impossible for them to act openly and fairly on a planning decision.
For what it is worth, I think county councils should not be involved with planning applications of this nature. Should be a single central body that does it. And frankly, these things are not that difficult to assess and make judgement on, enough of the pandering to locals / NIMBY on these things. The alternate process I'm putting forward would still give them every opportunity to object and to voice their concerns/issues, but would take away the emotional and practically impossible position that councillors now find themselves."
=========================
------- TIME FOR CHANGE -------
=========================
Take these planning decisions away from the County Councillor planners, they are too biased and under too much pressure to make a decision that is not predetermined.
Enough said!
p.s. Turkey is still a dead duck, as it was from day 1.