We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
yes ,It is within the law they can take their wives with them as long as they say nothing they can record or take notes she might be his carer , we will just have to wait and see where we go from here G L A
Thank you Loz, so the trolls/deramp crew members were just talking nonsense when they stated over a year until appeal, obviously today was such an egregiously incompetent miscarriage of justice that it makes you feel that it should be overturned tomorrow really but we have to accept that we could be waiting up to maybe a couple of months possibly.
Jonesrichard - Looking at Ujo, it did take some time.
https://www.share-talk.com/union-jack-oil-plc-lonujo-wressle-planning-appeal/#gs.90sdwi
However, as Rudey mentioned SS can get a quicker turnaround by going direct.
Let's see on the next update.
It was a joke councillors who probably cant walk and talk at the same time the vote was a shambles big pow wow at SCC over todays events
Also I have read some trolls/deramp crew members state today that it will take 6 months-year until the appeal is heard? is that in fact accurate? anyone who actually knows about this sort of thing? I would have thought it would only take a couple of months if that?
Thanks
Surely there are grounds for a re vote taking everything that went on into account? is there an option for this in this context? does anyone here who has experience of this type of thing know the answer? Thanks
I am sure that the young feller who managed the vote taking process told the group that they could not accept the Asian members vote by Chat as it was not part of the public record. They then proceeded to take his vote by Chat after someone has said 'ring him'. If he should not have voted as he was unable to partake in the meeting then that would have made the vote 5/5. The chair would then I assume have had the casting vote - 5/6 - passed. I would question why the Asian chaps vote was allowed to be cast, how do we know he cast his vote never mind which way he voted.
I found it ridiculous that a member was given time to come up with a legal reason to vote against when he had already made his mind up to vote against without a legal reason.
Yes agree. How can his wife sit with him in an official meeting of the council? Legal opinion?
Idespair.
You may well be correct, however it was not clear to all and if it was to do with the legal situation, what was the question, then for legality how can a vote be passed if the application and all of us who witnessed the consent do not know what the vote is for.
Brings back to mind the word "omnishambles", haven't used that in a while.
CCC, the 9 to 1 vote was something to do with the legal situation not the actual planning vote.
Dont forget the councillor who's wife was with him and chatting to him when asked for his vote! Outside influence!
If it had been fair an square I'd accept it, but not after this, I'm not going to let this go, as a legal decision has not been made at all.
We all need to complain and insist that this is investigated, regardless of your views of SS...we all just want fairness.
Has anyone from Surrey who watched and listened written to their MP ?
Agree. I’m happy to be wrong about a share and say yep-called it wrong. But there is not a bull or bear out there that isn’t embarrassed about what they saw. I was shaking my head half the time. Even if this vote went for ukog it wouldn’t make what I saw any better. The First 2 councilors were warned that the reasons for rejection were not valid. They then adjourned for 15 minutes. Then we had the positive speech from one who questioned all the others in many ways and he seemed perplexed by the negativity. He was applying the rules stating that you cannot not give it based on maybes. Maybe there are more lorries. Maybe there will be reduction in local business. Maybe someone at a wedding may see a flare.
One councilor wasn’t sure what she was voting for. T
Then the worst- the last vote the guy didn’t have his mic turned on so someone rang him and voted on his behalf. Then they all went off again.
Complete freak show.
It’s rather worrying that these people make decisions day to day that affect the lives and well being of everyone. And I’m sure everyone - bull or bear that watched that is agreeable
The second vote was on official reason for refusal (can't remember but think it was section 14 or 15) This was the united committee reason for refusal that will be given to the planning officer and to Ukog. Had that vote been 1-9 and not 9-1 then they may of called for another vote on the full application.
Sparkey: what would happen if your councillors ignored what they can or cannot object to and then ignored the legal advice ?
All valid issues raised.
But you missed a very important one.
When adjourned and then re-voted for clarity, the result was even more mysterious and confusing. new vote became 9-1 with one absentee and one other who for the 2nd time was unable to use the technology and cast a vote for all to hear instead it was delivered by the speaker.
How can a vote of this importance change without further deliverance from 6-5 to 9-1 in 20 minutes?
Councillors dont have to give a reason for yes or no voting. They just have to consider the facts presented. We have a district council here, and so highways matters are the responsibility of the County Council. That means our councillors cannot object for traffic reasons, if the highways authority have no objection.
Meetings are being conducted online in peoples homes due to Covid 19, and the fact that someone was there is not an issue in itself, It is an issue if they were discussing it.
Normal procedure for my council is to brief Councillors on what they can, or cannot object to, and often if there is a controversal decision, the officers brief the members on the legal position before the meeting.
UKOG lawyers will have a field day, it was a complete shambles, I’ve never seen such a unprofessional approach to decide on a major commercial project, it will cost SCC a lot of money
Maybe the UK government should stop paying Surrey county council Local authority grants to support county as the county council members are not prepared to support the UK economy or the county council only bring costs of appeals from breaches of planning regulations.
Also emailed. tim.hall@surreycc.gov.uk chairman of the planning committee. Never seen anything like that meeting
Im writing to complain about the planning meeting today that can only be described as a total shambles for a number of reasons:
The vote took place before the refusal reasons were defined by SCC legal representative
This vote resulted in a 6-5 refusal - How could this happen when reasons not defined?
Councillors were unable to use the technology, and clearly were extremely unsure on how to use such systems, and clearly did not understand the content
Some members could not give valid reasons why they were opposing the applicant and the meeting was adjourned.
Councillor attending this meeting clearly had someone sitting next to them, how is that possible, and how can you be sure that this person did not influence or make a decision that the Councillor was unaware of, I think given the limited technical understanding it can not be ruled out, and this alone needs further investigation.
Lack of technical awareness of the video platform.
Appeared to suggest the Dunsford Road was not suitable for HGVs yet one of the counter arguments was by a local business that actually acknowledged that HGVs for his business actually use this road.
The Chairperson and planning officer both recommended that approved should be provided, and that there was no legal grounds to refuse.
The Environmental commission had approved this on the 26th June.
The planning officer had recommended approval
The chairperson - Provided guidance to approve.
The highways agency had recommended this, and noted no additional concerns.
Id like to know how a council representative can go directly against legal advise, and yet display utter incompetence for their role as a local Councillor, nothing less then disgraceful today.