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.
Mole, thanks for the first hand insight. I agree with the NoX issue, however do not overlook the effluent discharge factor in your review. This is key as VLS has not provided data to support their application. Discharge to waterways is a sensitive topic and has been highlighted by NE. This, and other areas, need additional colour adding to the justification - these will not be overlooks by the decision makers.
Thug; please don’t ride the back of other people’s posts and try and make out that you’re aligned. You’re embarrassing yourself.
I’ve read Moles post and I agree with the narrative. You’ll also note that he/she too suggests there’s a lack of detail and their partners should step up and help (I don’t think this will happen btw). You may have forgotten that I’ve been stating this lack of detail in the submission for some time, well before EA wrote their letter of objection. As Mole says, more work is needed to appease NE.
I take take comfort in knowing that you agree with my views, albeit via another poster.
EPB: Suggest you read Moleinahole on how NE actually conducts itself at planning applications. Just where you got your "ignorance to the truth and lack of experience" comment from is beyond me. As to your claim of fact based observation, you provide your facts and then put your spin on them. A litle more objectivity might gain you more credence. Meanwhile have a nice R&R.
Expat - I've held this share for very many years and treat the investment as a conscience investment as I invest in oil and gas. I invest in several fledgling alternative companies and also follow them as much for interest in the underlying technologies. As it happens I have also in my time for my sins been involved in Planning including 2 full public enquiries involving a Ramsar and SPA site in Northern England - I have lived first hand how these things play out between the applicant, NE, the EA, the planning authority and government (if it gets called in for a decision which this looks a candidate). The NE response caught my attention and has enticed me to make a rare post on LSE.
So I have had a read of the applicant and the NE responses. I have not read alot of the detailed background documents so this is my initial impression. My view it is a holding objection as they highlight at this stage.
The Planning authority (and if called in the Govt) here will be making the appropriate assessment based on the weighted balance of evidence. Having seen planning in action the normal course of events sees mitigation and conditions turn a NE objection into acquiesence or the decision maker (particularly on significant called in Applications) use the planning balance to weigh up the competing and often conflicting economic and ecological interests. Often these documents are used to flush out what issues NE or EA have and then give them the additional information they want.
I was expecting when reading the documents to see a bit more than the main objection to be the BAT details and Nox emission level. The NOX is not so much because of this site but because of existing background levels (and other non VLS changes) meaning even a small marginal increase here is deemed to have a significant effect. Even NE recognise this number is as a result of applying extreme and probably unrealistic permutations. Their main issue is really matters outside VLS control - so in the planning balance how should a decision maker weight this? Now the great NOX and air quality debate with the drive to move everyone off diesil and fossil fuel cars is obviously a very topical subject. Now the Impact assessment also references BAT - Best Available Technologies. My read of the objection is that they want to see a bit more detail on that. Given the partners involved I would find it incongruous that the site would not use BAT in its operation and really BA and Shell should be stepping up to the plate to technically support the application.
What should be happening now is the planning consultants addressing the comments but then ultimately the competent person will weigh up the evidence. The pre-existing high NOX is the issue - but if I was a decision maker I must admit I would weight very low the 24 hr NOx in extreme conditions compared to normal annual limits!
ITS A FACT most shares were pumped up by market makerfs last week very crafty
I was on a VLS sabbatical, but your ignorance to the truth and lack of experience on matters that others on here are much closer to, warranted a temporary delay to my R and R.
I take offence to being quoted as posting rubbish. This is not rubbish - its fact based observation that you simply chose to gloss over. You need to go read some of the detailed technical documents; clearly the ones that NE hs read and the LPA has not.
Speaking of rubbish, maybe VLS should get hold of some and make some fuel!
As for the SP dropping on no negative news....I think a planning objection by an influential government advisory body is pretty negative imho. Its a whisker away from being a full planning objection. The clever investor knows that should a full objection materialise (which it could do at this rate), the F4C wont happen, match funding will disappear, and VLS will be on the breadline within a month.
Thurgarton, I respect your knowledge and views
However, VLSs team need to play a full part in this. Planning will not be making rash decisions and need thorough detail. They'll be going back to VLS
EPB: I thought that you were leaving this board for a sabbatical! Please stop posting rubbish. Of course ENYGO are not impartial - they work for Velocys! NE has its own agenda as an NGO which centres on it remaining one! Nevertheless the ENYGO comment that I quoted is relevant. The LPA is required to do its own assessment on the issues raised as NE have pointed out.
Enygo are not impartial.
NE is impartial and its NE who have assessed the submission and found it lacking.
The LPA will consider the opinion of NE. The LPA will not go against NE for reasons well explained by other posters on this board.
The ONLY solution is for the applicant to revisit their submission, work out and supply the detail that is lacking, and appease the concerns from NE.
IF this goes to appeal now it will be rejected, as the only reason why said detail is not available is because VLS have not done the work.
Do the work, get the detail, supply the detail, submit, discuss and get your PP. Stop cutting corners and thinking this will be pushed through just because its green. NE are are green as they come and they don't like submission.
Its not rocket science.
XPB: Additional to my last post, you may find this quote interesting:
It is our understanding that in accordance with standing guidance from the Planning Inspectorate (Inspectorate, 2013)the Local Planning Authority are to undertake the actual HRA/AAassessment and make a determination using the supplied information and following consultation with Natural England/Environment Agency as necessary. Additionally, that any relevant recent case law, such as “People over Wind” will be taken into consideration.
It comes from the supporting document supplied by ENZYGO on behalf of Altalto on 20 Jan, and clearly shows that they believe that there is a need for the Council to make its own assessment, which would seem to explain why NE are at issue with the Council.
XPB: No I'm not directly comparing HS2 with this project. I was merely pointing out that NE objections are by no means the final decider if HMG decides it wants a project to progress. I have read the NE objection letter, and indeed quoted from it. It is not clear what more NE actually wants VLS to provide but what is clear is that NE and the Council are at odds over the issue. BTW you may have heard the CEO of Heathrow expounding the necessity of Heathrow expansion as a pre-requisite for a successful UK economy post Brexit and also the need for zero carbon fuel to keep our aviation industry competitive (there is apparently a danger that France could supersede us as the primary European hub if Heathrow does not expand its capacity!
In addition, before I go, please read the objection letter. Its clear from the letter that this is way more than just wildlife and damaging the site. This is about a lack of , or incomplete technical data being provided by VLS - data needed for NE and Lincs to properly assess the impact both on air quality and estuary discharge. The submission, despite being comprehensive in some areas, is lacking on real engineering and this project will NOT proceed unless they look hard at this and start again.
Are you honestly comparing a national infrastructure project such as HS2, with a small project, developed by a company with no development experience in Immingham? As for F4C, the HMG has pumped in a few 100k, whilst HS2 has cost 7 billion this far nd will be north of 100 billion once complete.
I did say id leave this group for a while, but that post made me fire up my Dell
Muscorum: If you read what I have written, you will find that I have not stated whether planning permission will be granted nor have I questioned NE's right to object. I have merely pointed out the issues and options available and some relevant facts and left others to judge their merit. Internet reports suggest that HS2 will be damaging to habitats and ancient woodland and that NE produced a lengthy report for HMG (which I have not seen). Only time will tell on the outcome of the VLS application. It is now a question of do you hold your nerve or do you take the profits and get out now. No sign that the IIs are jumping ship and the sponsors have said nothing so it is just the 27% holdings of PIs that are responsible for the current volatility.
Whilst I can understand why Natural England would object to the VLS application, it has to be remembered that NE and other wildlife trusts also objected to HS2, yet HMG has given that flawed project the green light. We are no longer in the EU so it is therefore highly unlikely that the issue would end up in the European Court. Moreover NGOs are subservient to the Government, and it is the latter that has the final say. There can be no doubt that the VLS end product would prove beneficial to the UK economy, given the size of our airline infrastructure. Moreover it is seen as "environmentally beneficial" and as such worthy of government investment (F4C). It is perfectly possible, whatever the Council decides, that the application is "called in" by HMG. What is not predictable is how HMG will view the application having already invested in it! Interesting times, but I still think that the VLS PR is somewhat lacking which does not help positive sentiment. BTW does anyone actually now what the current state of progess is for the Nachez project?
IM: What is it that you feel the need to defend so aggressively your opinion by bullying other people? Uncertainty?
Investmaster - In relation t your 12.54 I take great exception to beng accused of being somebodies crony. The fact that I have come to the same conclusion as somebody does not make me their crony. Have you considered the possibility that I am right. You may wish to take advice from someone who knows planning law about the effect of an objection from Natural England. I will look back in June to see if planning permission has been granted.
I see EXPATBRAT hasn't left the board or one of his cronies is carrying on the rubbish in another name.. total garbage...
THURGARTON is a very knowledgeable poster. I think most on here can see these scammers for what they are.
thurgarton - In repect of your 12.14 post from yesterday if you were to read my 10.29 post of yesterday you will see that a grant of planning permission by the Council contrary to the advice of Natural England could lead to a planning inquiry which would cause a delay of possibly a year. If the Council was to refuse permission then VLS would have the right to appeal which would have the sane effect so as things stand from the decision of the Council on the appication we may still have a delay of around a year assuming there are no challenges to the result of the planning inquiry.
I have checked if the application is not heard at the April 1 Planning Committee meeting it will not be heard until June at the earliest.
Expecting deeper analysis and offered solutions coming from VLS
May take time because they've not been able to get it right yet.
Other bodies don't mind dragging their heels.
SP seems expectant they will eventually, despite today's Coronavirus maekwt
I'd like to see them make the next communication stick else this will drifr
XPB: QED not!
You're poorly substantiated responses are doing you no favours. The fact that Ive been saying this for so long - wearying others in the process yet consistently being on the money, says it all. I'll say again, this project will come undone at some point and the cracks are already starting to show.
There are so many flaws with this project, purely based on the contents of the submission . Id be happy to list them, but i doubt there's any point as such facts would probably have a rose tint for many on this board.
XPB: Oh really!! Please try reading my comments before sounding off on your own well worn agenda. I am not disagreeing that further delays are a distinct possibility, especially as Highways England have already said that they will not respond before 4 Mar, but all the rest of it is unsupported speculation Moreover, consistently trying to foist your own agenda on those of us that have long been wearied by it strikes me as a nugatory exercise.
The EA deferred to NE in a previous correspondence and this is NE response. In addition it clearly states that there is potential damage to the environment and the humber from the discharge and this needs to be addressed. This will not be passed as a condition with approval as this is fundamental to the industrial process - VLS's process.
It appears to me that council have not been vigilant enough, whereas NE have been on point.
In summary then; it doesnt matter how you cut this Thurgarton, the data supplied by VLS is either incomplete therefore not possible to determine the impacts or, the data provided pushes the discharge over the acceptable limits, therefore is being objected to due to the damage to the environment it will cause. Either way, as I keep saying over and over again, more work is needed and further delays are to be expected.
XPB: Contrary to your comments, it would appear that Natural England is at odds with the Council, not the applicant. NE asked for information in their 18 Dec 19 document, which would appear to have been provided by the applicant on 20 Jan. It has take NE a month to digest this and enter it's objection with the following interesting paragraph buried deep within their objection:
"Please note that if your authority is minded to grant planning permission contrary to the advice in this letter, you are required under Section 28I (6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to notify Natural England of the permission, the terms on which it is proposed to grant it and how, if at all, your authority has taken account of Natural England’s advice. You must also allow a further period of 21 days before the operation can commence."
the inference here being that NE and the Council are at odds over the issue. You, of course, blame VLS but I wonder if you are right to do so. I would have thought that it might be an appropriate time for VLS's PR machine to make some comment that might shed some light on things.