Proposed Directors of Tirupati Graphite explain why they have requisitioned an GM. Watch the video 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.
Like others , I have emailed SCC with references to lack of professionalism, illegality and embarrassment to the planning process....
Response from SCC.
..Thank you for your email to Mrs Katie Stewart.
The Monitoring Officer is responsible for investigating issues such as these and I would like to assure you that we are currently investigating the issues arising from the committee that took place on 29th June. A response will be sent to you as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
Zeilie White
On behalf of the Monitoring Officer
Email: Monitoringofficer@surreycc.gov.uk
Time will tell....
I enjoy doing a bit of "digging" to find facts and I was a bit dubious about what the fellow who has a barn for wedding venues was stating during the farcical planning meeting. For example: he stated his business is licensed to hold up to 50 events per year with up to 8,000 guests. He stated that the venue is fully booked for 2021 yet the calendar on his website shows ALL dates still available. Unless it's not been updated he currently has no bookings whatsoever for 2021. He also stated many of his wedding events are held on Fridays, yet calendar for 2019 shows only 25 bookings all year with only 8 held on Fridays. tut tut!!! I could dig further but I think I've proven something.
hully145
You should send this information to Surrey County Council as a complaint for misrepresentation!
With a copy to UKOG FAO S Sanderson and whoever else is involved.
Planning officer pointed out that Wedding Guy was given planning permission for HGV's for his business.
The objections some gave was because of UKOG's intended use of HGV's.
Rejecting UKOG's application for that, when it had already been approved in the earlier traffic office approval, was thus not valid, or legal.
:)
Also one potential voter left before vote,
Hully's point (while good and relevant) was given during the meeting.
Not that any of the objectors seemed to 'hear' it.
:)
Bullshirt.
He left before the second vote, which was only a process technicality, to verify the reasons to reject given during the first vote.
The first vote is the one that should be overturned (and there are a zillion reasons for it).
;)
IT's all cash so he most likely only declared 40% no flies on him is his brother an accountant All the declarations are made after the event (i bet }
rafafan
Copied & emailed to UKOG. Hopefully it will be helpful.
Ok Skwizz, thank you.
Also I could see 2 councillors with either partner/family/work colleague close and commenting to the councillors
Plus the road is signposted not suitable for HGV usage and he has marquees delivered!!
Bud, there were so many things wrong with it I still am in a daze.
I think I'm actually in a form of shock about what I saw and heard.
Other than the traffic and planning officers, who I thought were very good and extremely well prepared.
There was one councillor I think we can all agree was excellent too and understood the law and process better than all the others put together (sorry, I don't recall his name..., 'Ernest' I think?), including the chair.
Only one though.
:)
Ian, Good point, made by Povey.
Again, the Traffic Officer was quite clear in his explanation of that.
Also pointing out that the signs were placed there to stop anyone entering the road at that point.
However the section of road they referred to was AFTER the point at which access would be required by UKOG.
Up to that point the road was not only suitable for UKOG access, but UKOG were also improving and widening the road themselves to ensure there was no chance of their vehicles damaging the edges.
This would also be redone every six months, at UKOG cost.
This was in direct response to Povey's question, yet he STILL gave it as a reason to reject.
Deaf, deliberately deaf, or just stupid.
Take yer pick.
:)
Has anyone got a good email address for SS?
Some do.
But they don't get any response.
Save your time.
;)
To the Chairman and members of SCC planning Committee
I wish to submit a complaint of mis-representation what has become apparent following your recent planning meeting which rejected UKOG's application to drill at Loxley.
During the meeting a member of the public - Mr Tom Gordon made several statements regarding his wedding venue business at High Billinghurst Farm.
This venue is licenced for up to 50 events a year with a high number of guests.
Mr Gordon stated that the venue is fully booked for 2021 yet on his website, the event calendar is showing no bookings at all for 2021.
He also stated that most of the weddings are booked for Fridays, yet the calendar for 2019, despite showing 25 bookings, only 8 of those were held on a Friday.
Unless this is an oversight and his website calendar has not been updated regularly, then should Mr Gordon want to re-submit his objection, he should provide verified proof of his submission.
I will send a copy of this email to Steve Sanderson, CEO of UKOG.
Yep, decision obviously to be revisited if not directly approved.
Could be announced Monday.....would want to be out for the weekend :-)
Have a good one all....next week we march on.
skwizz
Have you put this as a complaint to the monitoring officer as he probably had his points made before the meeting & as such had predetermined his vote.
hully145
Only the UKOG email address: info@ukogplc.com
Wiz'
Yep.
While presenting he actually said they'd already been submitted in his report before the meeting but that he would go over them again for clarrity.
Then he was asked another question about it (Povey's second attempt) and repeated the information.
I don't recall now but I think the Traffic guy may also have covered the same points, so there was no reason for Povey's insistence that the issue had not been resolved or was unclear.
Patently following his personal private agenda despite clear explanation and clarrity.
I am sure that is why the Planning Officer sounded surprised when he repeated this exactly the same as before as his reason for rejecting.
:B
As mentioned earlier there was only one reason given which was not properly cleared up and that was the possible failure to notify the traveller site.
It was raised but nobody seemed able to confirm or deny it.
Taking it as correct, I wouldn't have an issue with a delay to ensure they had fair chance to raise their own objections but, Swampyism aside, I don't believe they could've added anything the others hadn't already raised anyway.
Obviously, if it could be proved false then that would have to be swept aside as well.
:)
skwizz
This is very true & shows the difficulties involved & shows why I am so shocked that UKOG has not led this application from the front trumpeting the '0' carbon & carbon capture points which are the way forward according to the UK government as a transitional way forward towards 2050.
That would help portray UKOG as a leader in the field & be great PR.