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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
ITS A FACT most shares were pumped up by market makerfs last week very crafty
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!
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.
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.
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.