Member Info for CynderLad

Ernest was excellent last time. And he was also there for the HH 25 years production committee review too if I recall correctly.

It doesn't matter though. The NIMBY councillors dont agree with his reasons or his views. Ernest tells it as it is.

It'll still be voted down.

Ernest just delivered the KO blow. Tim must be feeling like a 5 year old school child right now.
Tim's argument about the application and finding out what's there without drilling a hole.
Its a 3 stage process, exploration is the first phase and necessary to establish what is there.

He is the level-headed one. Listen and learn apprentice councillors.

Did they have unicorn drawn carriage?

And that is with an already high volume of HGV's. a further 3 or 4 per day is not going to change the dynamics of the use or accident profile.

Andrew the traffic authority has made a very very compelling and conclusive statement.

He is making it very clear what is acceptable, and it is most apparent that the arguments made by the councillors carry no material weight to the findings of the planning officer. From a transport perspective, this should be approved.

Ibug, his profile suggested something very different to what I have observed in this committee meeting.
I think we have heard enough debate, just get to the motion and the vote. Its going to be refused, potentially by 8-2 without the chair needing to give his position.

How can he turn up to a committee without having the knowledge required to make an informed decision. His comments show his lack of understanding and knowledge of the application. Its really very poor practice for a county councillor to attend a session like this without having put in an appropriate amount of pre-work. That's a disgrace.

Next lady speaking:
Photos with a rig in the background. £54k on a wedding for her daughter. Wouldn't chose a venue if it had a rig in the background. Well, I've yet to meet a professional photographer who doesn't know how to make use of a 360 degree aspect of a location. Its a terrible point she made.

At least 6/5 against.

Who's this chap? 37m tower. Oohhh Matron, that's just too big.

Its a temporary structure.

and says we need to think about the children.
Good point penny, we need to think about the children, those in worse off countries with rubbish regulations, high pollution and slave labour.

You don't need to drill a hole to find out how much is in the ground, there are other ways of doing it!

Well, Tim, you can educate the global Oil and Gas industry on the other methods. Given you're a global authority on the matter. Maybe you can do a survey using an old pocket watch and water divining method.

I knew councillors could be good for a laugh, but this guy trumps Kenneth Williams for comedy.

It cannot be "because we dont like what the planning officer has concluded"
It cannot be "because there may be mid-week weddings"
It cannot be "because Covid has changed society"
etc
The motion must be solid and stand up to legal appeal. I've not heard anything to this point that would stand up to appeal.

But this is gonna be voted down. It'll be a weak argument. And SCC will probably not bother to turn up to the appeal.

Using a poor argument there.
The NPPF is defines the need for development and trumps the subservient framework that he mentioned.

What are the thoughts on the motion that will be brought for vote?
- Same motion as last time
- Something new to support refusal
- Motion to support
- Motion to defer because of X

Bang on. Latest councillor making reference to the NPPF, "great weight has to be given to the benefit of mineral extraction"

Why make a pre-determination on something when you do not know the results?
Ask any scientist if what they do is worth it? Medical research as an example?

For anyone to make a pre-determination on an exploration matter is a poor starting position. To pose the question is fine, but to dismiss potential outcomes is questionable.

Hit a nerve did I?

The gypsies had every opportunity to make representations, to support or to object, to file their positions with SCC as per standard planning process permits. It is rather lame to say that they were not consulted.

It is not for UKOG to consult residents. That is a county council matter really.