Member Info for mjallen

Yes Andi, that's a fair assessment of the paragraph.
However the council has Nat England looking over its shoulder and interfering with the following.
Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
Natural England notes that the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has not been produced by your authority, but by the applicant. As competent authority, it is your responsibility to produce the HRA and be accountable for its conclusions. We provide the advice enclosed on the assumption that your authority intends to adopt this HRA to fulfil your duty as competent authority.
We have reviewed the HRA by Ramboll and note the appropriate assessment concludes that your authority is able to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of any of the sites in question.
Having considered your assessment, and the measures proposed to mitigate for any adverse effects, Natural England’s advice is that the assessment is not sufficiently rigorous or robust to justify this conclusion and therefore it is not possible to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the sites in question. We advise that your authority should not grant planning permission at this stage.
We advise that the following additional work on the assessment is required to enable it to be sufficiently rigorous and robust. (I leave out the mass of regulations for clarity)
Natural England should be re-consulted once this additional work has been undertaken and the appropriate assessment has been revised.
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.
Basically they appear to be threatening the council if they do not comply with their requirements.
MJA

Its possible PT. However it has to be born in mind that Peels Protos Plastic park is in effect a FOAK park. This set of question and answers should be useful for the other nine or ten sites that Peel are proposing to set up. Obviously there will be some other site specific questions such as fire service requirements and the like. But as Peel has a tendency to use these types of near wild environments. The protection of wildlife questions should have already been modelled with standard answers. I do have one question myself. Peel I believe has outline planning for the park including the plots 1 and the canal barge off loading port etc north of the current plots 9, 10,11,12 . Any suggestions why they couldn't apply for those instead. Is it more difficult to cover the environment questions for those areas? Is this the area for proposed expansion. Could another DMG plant be needed?

Start part 2
2. If during site preparation, demolition or development works contamination is encountered or is suspected in areas where it had not been anticipated:
- being from an existing risk assessed source and
- containing comparable risk assessed substances and
- affecting an already risk assessed pathway or receptor
that could be addressed by simple extension of the approved measures to a larger area, then the LPA shall be notified promptly in writing confirming: - the areas affected, the approved investigation, remediation and validation measures to be applied and the anticipated completion timescale.
However, if the contamination is: -
- from a different source or
- contains a new contaminative substance or
- affects a new pathway or receptor
then revised proposals for detailed investigation, risk assessment, remediation and verification shall be submitted for the written approval of the LPA prior to all but urgent remediation works necessary to secure the area and control pollution risks.
3. No part of the development site approved by this permission shall be occupied until:
a) all components of the pre-approved or revised remediation measures to deal with the risks associated with actual or potential contamination of the site, relevant to that part, have been completed and
b) written evidence of satisfactory remediation completion and of the suitability of that part of the site for occupation has been submitted to and accepted by the LPA.
REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks.
So as you can see something is happening.
There are also some outstanding requests from the local Helsby council about cherry picking of sites and rail links. They want a time line for intended works. Which could be good for us investers.
MJA.

Another submission from the council re planning application. So those that don't believe Peel are putting the effort into the site the following is a copy of the latest request for answers.
On Behalf Of: Environmental Protection Team
Comments
Further to comments made on 10 May 2022 with respect to land contamination, Environmental Protection also add the following:
It is noted that the application red line boundary is larger than the site boundary presented in the submitted report (Smith Grant LLP, Stage 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment. Proposed Protos Plastic Park: Sites 9B, 10A, 11 and 12 located off Grinsome Road / Marsh Lane, Ince, Cheshire. Dated September 2021. Reference. R2997-R01-v3 Final).
Specifically, there is a strip of land to the west of Site 9B, associated with what is understood to be a hydrogen pipeline route.
Whilst this area is likely low risk with respect to contamination, this part of the site must be included in the site assessment and conceptual site model to fully assess potential risks.
Therefore, a revised preliminary risk assessment, taking into account the full site boundary, is required. All other future report submissions should also take this area into account.
Environmental Protection recommend the following revised conditions are attached to any decision notice if planning approval is granted.
Contaminated Land
1. No development shall take place until the following components (a to d) of a structured scheme to deal with the risks associated with actual or potential contamination of the site have each been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA):
a. A preliminary risk assessment which identifies:
- all previous uses on or within influencing distance of the site
- potential contaminants associated with those uses
- a conceptual model indicating the sources, pathways and receptors of contamination
- actual or potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination.
- initial remediation options.
b. A detailed scheme of site investigation based on component (a) from which a detailed assessment of risk to all current and future receptors that may be affected, including those off site, will be derived.
c. A remediation options appraisal and implementation strategy, based on the detailed results of (b), giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
d. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the remediation works set out in (c) are complete and effective and identifying any requirements for longer-term: - monitoring of pollutant linkages; maintenance, contingency actions and reporting.
The pre-development structured scheme shall be implemented as approved unless revision is agreed with the LPA in writing.
End of part 1

Doc, I know and thank you for the link to the Telegram messenger site.
However, I have removed it from all my devices and suggest that all other investors do the same. This is without prejudice to anyone. Its just as, part of my career has, involved me in internet security to a higher level than normally available to the public. The following is whats available in the public domain. So, you all have to make your own choices.
Pavel Durov
Pavel Durov, 37, is the founder and owner of messaging app Telegram. The billionaire has been called the "Mark Zuckerberg of Russia." of $15.1 billion, per Forbes. The tech entrepreneur cofounded encrypted-messaging service Telegram with his brother Nikolai in 2013.28 Mar 2022

However, just because Telegram has a more trustworthy reputation than WhatsApp, that doesn't mean your messages are automatically protected. End-to-end encryption is crucial to keeping your messages private and this is a level of protection that Telegram only offers in specific areas of its app.26 Jan 2022
While all Telegram messages are encrypted, they're only encrypted while in transit from your device to Telegram's servers. Once your data arrives on Telegram servers, it's decrypted and could be seen by Telegram. This is why end-to-end encryption is so important.18 Mar 2022

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2022/03/07/telegrams-billionaire-founder-says-hes-never-provided-ukrainians-data-to-russia/

That doesn't mean that Russian hackers under the orders from Putrid would leave UK users alone.
As I said all totally your choices.

Fair point PT
My apologies the previous post you referred to from King Kong was on the next page on my window.
That's the trouble with sound bites as apposed to context.

Your post was dated yesterday at 18.41
The latest correspondence of the 9th May has not yet been replied to by the planning dept. or NAT England. The ball is firmly in those two places and not Peels. How much more progression can they carry out. So I'm not sorry to point this out.
I do agree on your last paragraph though. That the two are intrinsically linked. It is still possible that they may scrap the DMG plant if the rest of the site fails to pass planning. It was only for the parasitic use of energy by the other plots and transport fuel of waste materials.
If that fails then why build the plant. Just use energy from Plots 4 Bio-fuel plus plots 8 and 9A.
Your post said
"But no excuse why Peel aren't progressing this.."

Except that thy still haven't got planning permission for the plastic waste sorting and recycling facilities at Protos which will provide the feedstock for the DMG, nor for the hydrogen fuelling station at Protos.

Piltick
Try the following links to the planning application for Protos before making the statement that peel haven’t been progressing their application.
Last set of documents submitted on the 9th may 2022 with over a hundred pages including pictures, both aerial and ground level. That showed all manner of information including water vole latrines etc.
https://www.protos.co.uk/destination/planning-and-consents/
https://www.protos.co.uk/plastic-park/
https://pa.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=R0LO1ITE02A00

Hi I rarely post on this board but hasn't it occurred to those questioning the small volume of share purchases. Its dividend time again plus nobody likes to lock in a loss with the share being so low. So its obvious to me volumes will be low. My holding from long term is showing a paper loss of 10.2K GBP. It would make me an idiot to sell up now. Plus as old time pensioner shareholder I want dividends now. Not some time in the future. Bird in the hand beats the two in the bush every time.

Very amusing A. But you missed out she/he in your final line. We mustn't leave out the lady boys in this woke world.

Your welcome testpack.

First, I will start with a saying that express my own personal view of this joint endeavour of HUIs Ireland project as a joint venture with half the finance coming from PHE.
“a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”
Our bird in the hand currently has a lease on a piece of land complete planning permission, a paved access road to its plant site. Plot 13 a pet recycling plant (yet to start construction) next door that also has planning permission, an agreement as I understand it to take Plot 13’s unrecyclable plastic as feed stock and the opportunity to provide Plot 13, with electricity and heat.
With the addition of the supply cable from and too the new recently built substation. The route is already laid out and was identified in the application of the plant planning permission. So We have the necessary supply utility.
So, if its just a case of PHE stumping up half the cash to get the Ireland project. Why not stump up half the cash to get Peel to commence the Protos plant ASAP in exchange for half the profits on this first of a kind venture. We are already owed the loan to the SPV due to be repaid at the end of August.
Its only a thought but possibly worth a quick word with the BOD of PHE. How about it? Doc. As you appear to have their ear.

Testpack,
I believe I can answer two of your questions.
The request to survey has come from two directors of HUI and not the BOD of PHE.
The following answer is from the Acquisition of W2T which if I remember a number of posters voted to accept.
Switch to asset-light business model
Until the end of 2018 Powerhouse had intended to monetise its DMG IP by operating sites deploying DMG plants. This required raising substantial amounts of finance for individual projects and was potentially highly dilutive for shareholders. In November 2018 Powerhouse moved to an asset-light business model in which W2T and other third parties would develop the DMG plants. Under this model Powerhouse generates revenues from providing technical engineering and maintenance services for each project together with more substantial licence fees once construction and commissioning is complete.

Initially long-term partner W2T was positioned as the lead developer for sites in the UK. In August 2019, Peel, W2T and Powerhouse signed a collaboration agreement to develop a minimum of 10 other UK sites in addition to the Protos site, with W2T acting as project developer and Peel providing the landbank, industrial real estate and infrastructure support and help in securing engagement with potential financial backers. Subsequently discussions with potential financial backers for individual projects have shown that they want to work with Peel as sole developer, supported by Powerhouse as technology provider. In March 2020 Powerhouse signed an exclusivity option agreement with Peel. If this option is exercised, Peel will pay Powerhouse £0.5m as a one-off fee for the exclusive rights to develop DMG in the UK, with an additional £0.5m annually per site payable when each plant that Peel develops becomes operational.
So the simple answer is nobody was prepared to finance a concept with out assets.
With regard to this tedious attack regarding PHDs. In Dr,A's case its just a identity moniker.
Yours is Testpack 3. Should I assume you failed the 2 other test packs
Regards
M J Allen B.W.c.

As a retired electrical engineer I would believe that because Hydrogen gas is such an explosive product it would require further HES regulations to make the plant intrinsically safe. So no it will probably be a separate building and subject to additional planning regulation. Just hope that the EU version of Nat England doesn't get asked for their input. Or there is not an Irish crested newt in residence. Although I do remember an Irish labour saying "Bejesus there is nothing that a size eleven rigger boot couldn't put that problem to rest"

Personally Doc, I do not support this idea for the time being and would prefer to see what happens in August re start of Peels proposed construction. I also wonder what effect this would have on Howards relationship agreement to not influence the company on an operating level

Quote from Edison Research of PHEs Acquisition of W2T
The members of the White family have also signed a relationship agreement requiring them to use their voting rights (26.1% of the enlarged share capital) for the benefit of shareholders as a whole and preventing them from attempting to influence the company at an operating level.

Doc, I think he's referring to the Whitby park area of Ellesmere port as his residence.

Hi it’s me again,
Without giving away any sensitive commercial information.
Are you still on board for Plot 13 at Protos as the DMG plant in Plot 10B is expected to start construction in July August time?
I also understand that Peel has a planning application for Plots 9B 10A, 11 and 12 that I believe are all complementary to your process.
Many thanks
PH energy investor
The reply was somewhat strange as an answer
Hi,
We have been advised for you to check with the PHE website.
Regards

Pat, I have only ever been an investor for the last 40 years and confined myself to the FTSE and managed funds that deal across the UK and emerging markets. Personally I have only ever considered the AIM market more akin to playing the horses. You study the form of the horse and if it looks like it has a chance the odds or share price reflect that chance. By some chance I had a special dividend come through that wasn't expected. So went I looking for renewable energy companies and came across PHE. It wasn't in the FTSE only the AIM markets but what the hell it was only one third of a penny share so I bought 1/2 million at £1750. In the words of Gerald Ronson the millionaire. I liked the product so I bought the company. That was his sales pitch for the Ronson Electric shaver. I liked what I saw in PHE, and was astounded when it reached 10p that 30th December. I later bought more at 9p 6p 7p and 8p. So has the product changed no. Was it worth those additional 9p 6p 7p and 8p a share prices. I thought so at the time. And still do. Its price has been fluctuating just to cover the uncertainty of the future in relation to inflation and interest rate changes. But just remember this. The product hasn't changed only your ability to currently sell and make a profit out of some other investor who is scared out of the market.

Sorry to nit-pick Tatty, but the following states it all.
Power House Energy Group plc (“PHE”), a UK technology company pioneering clean energy production from waste plastic and end-of-life tyres, together with the University of Chester, has announced a milestone development. Its demonstration clean energy generation plant has been used to provide electricity for the Energy Centre at the University’s Thornton Science Park microgrid for the first time.
This is the FIRST practical application of this leading-edge and highly environmentally friendly technology of taking waste plastic and converting it to clean electrical energy through PHE’s proprietary Distributed Modular Gasification (DMG©) process. Using its demonstration energy generation plant, Thornton Science Park’s microgrid was connected and supplied with electricity in a successful test run.
Connection to the Science Park’s microgrid is a meaningful step towards getting Power House Energy’s technology into mainstream commercial production to produce clean hydrogen for use in vehicles, initially likely to be buses, taxis and logistics vehicle fleets, and to produce electricity to be used in either the national or private grids.
Now as I see it Power-house should be selling the system using the university demonstrator as an example of its energy production methods. Peel on the other hand, have, when they complete their side of the agreement only signed up for Municipal waste recycling i.e. house hold waste. That leaves Power house able to sell the plant for energy production from waste plastics via other trade sources. Or even the energy supply plant to vertical farming that I have previously mentioned. HUI are in fact going to use the plants as an alternative employer to Poland's coal industry.

Are you referring to the actual FOAK plant Tatty? It may be small but it is a FOAK working model. All we need now is the 2nd of a kind big brother with commercial aspirations.