Member Info for Skwizz

The travellers were mentioned because their housing site is right on the doorstep of the excavation site and they should have been notified and had the plans explained to them.
Responsibility for doing this is supposed to lie with SCC (I believe - not sure on that).

However I was surprised UKOG hadn't sent letters to each dwelling themselves, in the first instance.
Even more so, after it was revealed this had not been done in the first meeting, in the five months interim to ensure there was no reason available for further delay.
This was the only genuine reasons I could see for refusal (delay, anyway).
The rest was all just Nimby.
Then as now.

Sting, From memory I think he has three businesses.
Although this one's in Loxley it comes under one of the others.
I think that one was registered in (or around) Manchester.
It's also listed as something else (a farm?) which was the "main" business, rather than a wedding venue.

I found it extremely amusing the councillor offered up all these supposed new mid-week bookings; in the middle of a lockdown; and against the previous planning approval given for that venture.
The Planning Officer picked up on it immediately in a response and suggested they will need to review the guy's whole planning approval based on this new information about use outside that granted in the original application.
Hopefully she's tucked him right up and they won't get ANY weddings now.
Which would also solve his unsullied view issue as well.
:D

Although I have a vested interest and should be biased, I try and view these things impartially and from both sides.
I totally agree with your post.
Every single thing the Nimby's have put forward (okay, possible exception of the travellers), has been explained, dealt with, justified, and dismissed.
How obvious do they need to make it that they're deliberately not listening to that information?
This will go to appeal this time, but that's more delay and cost (to UKOG) while it's underway .

Although I have a vested interest in UKOG gaining approval, I try and view things impartially and from both sides of the argument.
I have to say that there are some ridiculous arguments being put forward by the Nimby's.
They just keep repeating their objections based on arguments which have already been dismissed by other councillors, planning officers, and legal advisors.
It's explained again for them and they immediately bring the same thing back up AGAIN!

I think it's going to be refused but UKOG will be left with grounds to take the council planning committee to court and appeal the decision.
I'd rather they didn't have to (as, I imagine, will all of SCC's council tax-payers).

Aaaaaaaaand we're back.

Same as last time.

Lunch-Break until 13:45.

('Brain-Break' for some)

Re-starting again now.

Hearing some of the straws being grabbed at again.

#1 Nimby was shot down immediately bby legal, reminding her that none of her points fall within the remit of the Planning Application.
She then moves off to witter on about how the wedding venue has miraculously acquired many more mid-week bookings.
Never mind how these came about under lockdown.
The Planning Officer had to (again) point out that the venue's own planning application included HGV transportation they are trying to prevent UKOG using AND was only for weekend events which would now have to be subject to closer scrutiny if they were intending to use for midweek purposes.

Honestly!
I don't believe these people are idiots, as many here have suggested.
But the arguments they are putting forward are idiotic and just embarrassing to witness!

Another break until 12:50 (5 mins??? Hardly seems worth it.).

#1 NIMBY last time around.

Re-Starting now.

There was NO reason to reject last time.*
Yet it did.

*The Planning Officer had already dealt with and dismissed the concerns used to call for a vote to reject.

Noticing the same "malcontents" from the last meeting are shaking their heads at every supporter, without even hearing them.
I still feel their was some confusion around the terms of the vote in the first meeting though.
If they simply call on the members of the committee to vote to approve or reject the application, it should go through.

If they start faffing about asking them to approve a vote to reject the application, or reject a vote to approve it, it may go the same way again.

Meeting adjourned.

It's a permanent camp so they have the same rights as other residents.

It's far from ridiculous.
I have said many times after the last refusal it may be the only justifiable reason the Nimbies can find to reject.
In fact I ceased repeating it because I didn't want them to pick up on it here.
I had assumed that this would've been corrected after that meeting as it was highlighted.
Cannot believe that Trousers is so bad he hasn't even written them a letter about it.

Yep.
Planning Officer's just repeating his previous report, recommending approval.

"So the judge has said there is not a case to answer for"

....whut?

Lol
No way, Mick.