Member Info for oilboil

He has spoken earlier in the meeting, happy for him to stay quiet though, he isn't a pro-UKOG voter (voted against last time) so the less he says the better

If I'd have known a grand each would have done it I've have given them the money myself last time round

He said exactly the same last time, and it was refused, so don't count chickens yet. He is right, but the others are plain stupid!

There is more chance of Trump conceeding the election ....

What has caused the uptick today, anyone know?

The SCC legal team have effectively put the committe on a warning, and set them up for a bruiding loss if UKOG refer any subsequent refusal to the Government Minister.

The legal team have set out clearly that there is no legal reason to refuse, so if this went to an appeal after a second refusal UKOG's first witness would be the Council's head of Legal Compliance.

This is basically approved now as even if they reject again they can't win an appeal with their own legal team appearing for the applicant

@noalcohol - if really believe this share is good for nothing; why not take your drivel elsewhere and inflict your pointless posts on a share you believe is worth something. Why waste your time on soemthing you beleive is pointless. You are either derampting to get in cheaper, a swampy who doesn't want Oil being recovered or just denying the your village their idiot (as only an idiot would waste their precious time on soemthing they believe is pointless)

The highways agency (a public body) is very unlikely to sue Surrey Council (a public body)

9 to 1 for a refusal of planning (1 person not available)

This is why planning committees should be salaried posts made up of pencil pushing bureacrats who have no need to pander to voters. Make them abide by rules by all means but making decisions against the advice of experts is stupid, and then not knowing or being able to say why is even worse

There must be (even at council rates) £200k a year of planning officer expertise and £350k of legal and procedural expertise there, and yet some old guy who was asking his even older wife how he should vote (which isn't allowed) is who they take notice of

Why not save the money if you aren't going to listen to your advisors

They are doing it for votes, but they won't refuse, they just want to be able to say "we tried, we did our best"

Basically they've gone offline for the lawyer to tell them the cost impact of their decision because Surrey will get anhiliated in court/appeal if they go against officer recommendation on such a flimsy reason

It hasn't been voted on yet, it has just been one councillor saying they would like to be able to put forward an option for refusal

They are adjourning for 35 minutes to determine if the proposer can actually get their planning reasons - as at present the chair does not think the reason given to propose a rejection is solid

Nancy (legal advisor) says that the reason given is not valid in planning reasons to go against officer recomendations

The guy is totally on UKOG's side here, he isn't a public speaker, he's a surveyor.

He has given short-shrift to every issue and complaint made by some negative councillors; I vote for him to keep talking he's doing UKOG's job for them

Still running

Still running

Back UP and running

They have a democratic continuance issue here if they do that though, as both parties have now heard each others arguments. It's like having a trial where the jury are getting outside information they shouldn't have.

Whilst I think it will be rescheduled - it won't be without complications

Agree - if he gets the chance to speak it will be fine; but it's been adjourned for 10 minutes now. I can't see them waiting much longer before they CAN it and reschedule