Member Info for Skwizz

Wait for it, I bet when they explain their reasons they realise they actually passed the vote.
Lolololol.
:)

I don't get it.
They all heard the same responses I heard.
Those responses all answered the reasons they're quoting (except not notifying the travellers).
And they've already been advised those reasons do not fall within the remit of the planning committee.
It will be passed, but they're going to have to fork out £25k to defend an indefensible appeal.
:?

10 lorries to UKOG = 20 lorry movements to the Council.
:)

Ernest needs to be negotiating our Brexit trade deal.
Love him ta bits!
:D

Love that he is (correctly) using one of the objectors' objections as evidence to approve.
:D

He was given a very clear response from the Traffic Officer and Planning Officer.

Someone give him some batteries for his hearing aid.
Save him some embarrassment.
;)

:)

The planning committee couldn't reject on traffic reasons when the traffic dept. had no concerns of their own.
;)

If the traffic dept. were to raise concerns first, then the planning committee could reject on their say-so.
:)

Think they want to approve based on parliamentary pressure.
The opposition is based upon local opposition over traffic concerns.
Which does not fall within the legal remit of the planning committee.
:)

Huh?
Lololol.
:)

The chair would have to overrule their votes,if their reasons were still not legal, or within scope.
Happened in September (although they wouldn't have had enough votes to need him to anyway).
:)

Two voters rejecting the proposal advised that their reasons are not legitimate within legal parameters of the planning committee.
Chair giving some time for proposer and seconder to come up with a legal reason to reject.
:D

Lol.
Or listen to what's already been said.
;)

There are max ten HGV movements per day planned.
The Planning Officers did clarify that they had referred in their reports to both in and out movements; totalling twenty movements, not trucks.
:)

I thought two had relevant concerns and raised them well (including former council leader, Povey).
The other two obviously hadn't paid attention to the rest of the meeting, which dealt with the questions they raised already.
One of those said he'd supported previous claims; But I saw him 'against' on the daftest concerns he raised for HH, last year.
:D

Yep.
But I understand the two sites would not be comparable as Loxley has a secondary oil recovery requirement and (at least so far) would not be serviced by a gas pipeline.
That may come after testing though (?).
:)

Safetrader.
Meeting has been running again for some time.
You might need to refresh your browser.
:)

Agreed.
Have to say, trying to view them all impartially, I've been impressed by the planning officers and representatives of the council planning committee submissions, casting aside the earlier IT interruptions.
:)