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.
On planning portal
SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE
OBJECTION
Natural England objects to this proposal. As submitted we consider it will:
? have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Humber Estuary Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area, Site of Special Scientific Interest and Ramsar. https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/
? damage or destroy the interest features for which the Humber Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest has been notified.
Natural England’s further advice on designated sites and advice on other natural environment issues is set out below.
Yyyyaaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Just means more delays for PP. Non of the objections are unsurmountable.
Doesn't look like the market cares too much..
Buy the rumour, sell the fact...
I think some people may be misunderstanding the significance of the objection from Natural England. The effect is to increase the likelihood of this application ending up with a planning inquiry and/or legal challenges which would put off any grant of planning permission for at least a year from the initial decision. If there are legal challenges we could see delays amounting to years. I am not being alarmist just pragmatic.
If the council was to grant planning permission in the face of an objection from Natural England then natural England could either seek a judicial review of that decision or ask the Secretary of State to call in the application.
Well someone was confident enough to buy 20k worth just now.
Agreed with this commentary. NE is an advisory body to the UKGov and should not be ignored. As stated earlier, the topics raised by NE relate mainly to the effluent, which due to a lack of data provided by VLS, is not well defined. This further illustrates the lack of technical detail in this application and is a point that was raised many moons ago and brushed off by many on this board.
This will also delay the F4C grant.
mrcarrick - In relation to your 10.34 post that assumes that they read the planning documents and also understood the effect of the Natural England objection. I am not confident on either.
Valid point.
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.
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: 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.
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: QED not!
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
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.
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.
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.
IM: What is it that you feel the need to defend so aggressively your opinion by bullying other people? Uncertainty?
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?
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.
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
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.