Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
Valid point.
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.
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.
Well someone was confident enough to buy 20k worth just now.
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.
Buy the rumour, sell the fact...
Doesn't look like the market cares too much..
Just means more delays for PP. Non of the objections are unsurmountable.
Yyyyaaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
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.
On planning portal