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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Does anyone know why people are buying £20,£5 etc. Does not make sense??
At least two months away , UKOG need to address any valid issues Including a new highway speed study. A letter from the applicant has been added to the files approving that delay to the statutory planning time.
Would somebody be able to tell me when the Isle of White vote is?
At least Argus post's are factual, instead of the rubbish that you spout!
Qwerty - retaining £200 worth of shares in order to (in your words) give you the right to continue to express your negative views about this share...
Think you're pretty high up in the "needing to get out more often" stakes!
Have a lovely day and stay safe!
Get a life Argus - watching the POO by the minute- you need to get out more often !!!!
The new “housing” is a travellers camp... and whilst they deserve some decency, thier sound insulation , or lack of , is not my problem.
The site is still 300-500m away through heavily wooded area.
I have to put up with a building site, pile driving, builders radios, tipper lorries, road sweepers..... so why not travellers and Gypsies ....
Or are Surrey travellers and Gypsies posher than the rest of the world ??
Brent Crude moved UP 3%+ to over $46.
The new housing was covered in the meeting and its' "proximity" was offered, at one point, as another potential reason for rejection.
Again the expert officials, who had already reviewed and reported on this before the meeting, found themselves having to re-explain why they did not see reasonable justification for it.
There is no valid reason for refusal. That said, there could just be a unique person out there that is allergic to oil and gas, which would be absolutely scandalous. ;)
I have just noticed that Burgas in the Wikipedia link. 1600 houses were to be built on Dunsfold airfield and would also have required planning permission.
Given that most households have 2 cars then when complete that would mean the potential of 3200 cars driving out the new housing estate plus any visitors and onto nearby roads and UKOG have had to devise a sophisticated Traffic management plan limiting vehicle movement and working around key times of the day. But to the satisfaction of local Planning officers who have recommended the planning application.
Given everything else in the immediate vicinity and crucially with the Planning officers recommendation for approval I am happy that my holding will return a very good percentage profit. We might also see those who sold at 23p and 24p buying back before they have to pay the same price to repurchase their shares back.
What about the new housing estate planned for the airfield?
My point exactly ian12
Isn't Dunsfold Airfield not that far away either? In fact just around the corner from High Loxley Road, Dunsfold.
Presumably in the past it has had several planning permissions granted for what is swathes of land far in excess of what UKOG are seeking consent for, and for what is now a disused airfield with decaying Jumbo on and which is used as a Test track for the Stig, Flintoff and McGuiness roaring round the airfield in Supercars and the all latest new models polluting the skys for Top Gear. All for entertainment value.
The Airfield itself, the TV studios and in fact the seperate Test Track experiences I hope contribute the same 6% of income that UKOG has pledged to contribute to the local economy.
10 mins ago
The committee was advised by counsel that there were no LEGAL grounds to refuse.
Betty from the hairdressers being worried about noisy lorries passing by her shop front does NOT constitute a legal ground to refuse.
Anyone who opposes the application next time round is an idiot. Admittedly, there were six qualifiers last time. :-)
It was the same chairman as the Horsehill application, which was awarded.
I recognised many other committee members from that as well, but did not see all.
The chair did advise the committee against rejection, as soon as those noises began and especially for the reasons being intimated.
He stated that a rejection would be appealed in court, more than likely granted at that time anyway, and with court costs of £250k minimum awarded against the SCC.
Just following on I believe that the Chairman of the previous Planning committee meeting has had his wings clipped.
"Whilst Counsel accepted that some technical glitches were understandable given
that this was the first meeting that the Council had held remotely, she noted that
some of the debate may be missing from the recording and so may not have been
heard by the participants; that it wasn’t clear that all members of the committee were
in attendance [as a matter of law] for the whole of the debate; and that one member
was unable to be heard for the duration of the meeting and had to use the private
chat function to register his votes . Members must be in attendance for the whole of
the item in order to vote pursuant to the Surrey Code of Best Practice in Planning
"Meeting held between Caroline Smith, Paul Evans and Tim Hall on 24 July 2020.
Tim Hall as Chairman of the Committee endorsed the recommended approach."
It is written organisationally in favour of the organisation but you can make a fair judgement what was said. Legal Counsel in the form of a Barristers chambers and staff to sift all appropriate documents, the planning officers report, to watch the Planning Committee meeting and to peruse all technical log on and log off data would be several tens of thousands of pounds. Probably £50,000 as a barrister alone must cost £2000 per hour. Councils simply don't have these amounts of money to spend repairing things that have not been done correctly first time around.
I now have it as 6-5 for me in favour of passing the planning application at the moment.
UKOG have only just received County Council notification. They similarly could make further representations for either some new faces or could ask for the full matter to be reheard by a completely new Committee.
Dunsfold is "Live" again and with every chance of success and I'll be holding for that favourable outcome.
Planning meeting is not until September and it will take over 3 months to prepare the groundworks at Loxley. Q1 2021 earliest spud for Loxley imo.
Only needs one to change there vote to yes, then it's passed!
There may be no technical reason to reject, but councillors are the political wing (so to speak) of the council. If all a planning committee was there for was to rubber stamp the planners recommendations then there would be no need for the extra layer of review which brings a different point of view to any decision
Whilst they may have had a warning shot about the last meeting this may ensure that the objectors are better prepared and have a reason for rejection that they agree on rather than objecting on the hoof. It may be that the advice they have been given (talking to) has presented a reason that can be justified at some level, even if the planners don't agree and is certain to be overturned on appeal.
Whilst I wouldn't bet against it being passed I don't think it's nailed on - which I did before the last meeting. They may feel their independence is a point of principle and not be 'browbeaten' into changing the decision.
I don't know what your definition of good asset is - perhaps you could explain why Loxley is one rather than concentrating only on a planning committee outcome as a reason for investing?
Just because you are not interested doesn't mean others aren't. There has been a healthy turnover of shares this morning and quite a lot of buying.
Yesterdays posts seemed littered with I've solds and 16p when in factually they don't seem to have comprehended that to redetermine the application afresh completely resurrects a good asset and Counsels advice imvho gives Dunsfold a very good chance of passing this next time around. The previous margin was only 6 to 5 against and I take it the Chairman has the casting vote in the event of a tie.
I just want to say if peeps not interested in investing now with the current sp and where we r then don't bothered about investing at all... dyor...
Stockraiser, I agree with you pointing out the comments about being unbiased and viewing afresh.
But, had they done that in the first meeting, it would have passed easily.
There are moles involved with their own agendas and they will still exist at the next meeting.
Their desire to see the application fail will prevail.
Wjhat's important now is whether they carry the rest of the council along with them again.
I am am still convinced that some voters did not understand which way they were voting last time and my hope ios that THEY have an opportunity to understand what they're actually voting for this time.
Everything else was perfectly laid out and clear for all.
Some of the 'NAYs' chose to pretend their concerns had not been met, in order to reject.