Member Info for CynderLad

It is immaterial in the long term. Short term, the SP impact was there for all to see last Friday. It may have jumped to the high 0.2's if approved at committee.

However, UKOG do not have the cash for the Loxley drill which they tabled for late 2021. So it is not something that they were going to commence with post planning approval.

Net result. UKOG take the matter to the planning inspectorate. I doubt that SCC will provide a legal team to fend off their very poor decision by councillors with pre-determined mindsets and the worst argument for planning refusal I've seen. The planning decision will be over-turned on appeal. Doesn't matter if that take 12 months, as UKOG would still have the same timetable as they did for the site pre-refusal.

The only impact I see is on the impact of placings on share volumes. If the SP had stayed around to 0.25p mark, then the volume of shares in the next placing will be higher. UKOG need extra cash for Turkey, placing prior to Xmas IMHO.

One can only hope that the councillors are read the riot act by the planning inspectorate. They have knowingly voted against approval on an application that meets all planning requirements. They voted against the advise from their chairman, the advice from their legal counsel, and against the SCC planning officer recommendations. That really is very poor practice. Politics and XR views have no say when making a legal decision on a planning application. They will find this out the hard way. I wonder if the planning inspectorate will make recommendations back to the council to ensure that these same offenders are not invited to future committee sessions? I've not been privy to any planning inspectorate reports or actions stemming from those, so be interesting to see how this one goes.

Anyone have reports in relation to the UJO Wressle matter as a reference study case?

There is nothing further to say on the matter.
Now, they should go home and switch off the central heating.

Already 6 voted to refuse. So that is it.

What happens next if the proposals go through and the motion to refuse is passed. i.e. UKOG are refused the application

And she is entrusted to vote on matters like this?

Then SCC need to issue the Wedding venue with a notice that their business must cease.

They are being told right now, the reasons for it being invalid.
Lets see what happens next.

Yes, he did say that.

I suspect that they are running a second private meeting where the Legal Counsel and the Chairman are laying down the law. I bet there is plenty of argument going on that we are not privy to.

Yet again, SCC not holding a committee session that is not in full view of the public, yet again, they break the basic rules laid down.

They dont care about the financial impact to SCC, they dont care about the delays to UKOG, they dont care one bit.

What they will achieve is a delay of at least 12 months and pain for UKOG. It'll take a long time to go to appeal, UKOG will have to stump up costs to pay legal costs, and only if they win will they get those costs behind.

A refusal, even if only a delay is seen as a win for these NIMBY councillors.

Sums up everything that is wrong in the UK.

On twitter. BKP back for 2nd load today.

*wouldn't

I would let county councillors vote on planning applications for anything other than small basic extensions to existing public services properties.

Will be 8/2 to refuse. Will there be an audible sigh from the Chairman?
Democracy in motion; a motion calling for rejection on grounds of adverse impact when they can not prove that there will be any.
Luckily our law courts take a different stance, and you have to prove someone to be guilty rather than making half-baked guesses with no scientific evidence to back it up.
It will be 12 months delay on Loxley, but frankly, that is not a problem for SCC as they would not be able to raise the cash until late 2021, possibly mid-2022 anyway.
So, all the dancing about and handbags today will make no difference in the long term. Just a short term loss for the short term traders who will probably bail as the SP dips to sub 0.12p.

p.s. to those XR folk who love to camp out, don't use wood on your fires, that's a major CO2 pollutant.

Very naughty. They should not break for this. The motion is laid out and quite simple.
This is yet another disgrace. the Legal Counsel knows it is flawed.
They are voting this down.
Same joke as in June.

That motion is shocking. Refusal on grounds that it will create adverse impacts. She said that she sees no arguments made that it will not create adverse impacts. Well, I'm afraid Penny, but they have shown that they have full regulatory support with no adverse impacts noted from any of them, including the EA.

So that motion should not be put to the vote.

Chap speaking now just made that point in relation to Brockham, Lidsey, HH, etc. No adverse impacts at any of them.

Will it get put forward for the vote?

In my opinion. Be very interesting to see what happens with the motion, including its wording. The legal counsel will surely be making a statement before any vote is taken.

I dont think he knows which was he voted in June. His microphone wasn't working then, not sure if his brain is working now.

"locally sourced HGV's" hehehehehehehe

Poovey also has a very inefficient light fitting. How much CO2 is that creating?

Poovey is highly strung and emotionally on the edge. I think he is crying now.

I don't think he will.
Does he not have a point of view.
Can he not articulate his points of view
Does he know what his duty is?

Lets see.