Member Info for Stockraiser

Well that's you off my Xmas card list Mr. Love Pump.

Filtered

Well I've read it a few times now, and still come to the conclusion that it states there were two reasons for grounds for refusal.

1. "the need for the scheme had NOT been demonstrated"

AND

2. "that the adverse impacts of the scheme on highways, noise, lighting and air quality would NOT be significant, contrary to local planning policy."

Considering the article was wrote by Ruth Hayhurst, I can only assume it was a Freudian slip as she knows very well it should not have been refused - every utterance by a witness is admissible.

From Drill or Drop ......

"The committee then agreed by 9-1 on the grounds for refusal: that the need for the scheme had not been demonstrated and that the adverse impacts of the scheme on highways, noise, lighting and air quality would not be significant, contrary to local planning policy."

Am I a thicko this morning - am I reading that correctly? - "that the adverse impacts of the scheme" - "WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANT"

Surely if they are not significant, then they are not grounds for refusal.

https://drillordrop.com/2020/06/29/villagers-applaud-surprise-council-rejection-of-ukogs-dunsfold-drilling-plans/

At a corporate level, the Company has also instigated a number of wide-ranging cost savings, many of which were underway before the pandemic struck. These include a significant cut of 20-50% to Directors’ remuneration together with a reduction in non-core and non-essential asset-related activities.

Wizard - I did not realise she had such authority. I'm rushing off to Newcastle for a few hours now but as I feel so strongly re: the inadequacy of SCC Planning Committee yesterday, I shall be emailing Katie Stewart as soon as I return. I would suggest that anyone else who also thought yesterday's 'meeting' to be a total farce should do the same.

UKOG may have to go through official channels for an appeal, but as seriously concerned members of the public we should be making Katie Stewart aware of the situation ASAP.

Her email is below.

Katie.Stewart@surreycc.gov.uk

Mr. I - The general debate tonight is not only in response to the planning committee decision, it is in response to the way the meeting was conducted and the inability of some members of committee to use the technology (when it worked). It was an absolute total farce, to the extent that I would not even class it legal in many respects. It will be interesting to see SCC's response to the many complaints raised. I can't wait for the archived footage of the meeting to be made public so I can view it again - I'm sure I will view it with even more disbelief the second time. No other meeting could ever compare to the nonsensical gathering of incompetent members of SCC yesterday - there you go I won't even call it a meeting.

Stroller - excellent email.

Please advise us if you get a reply.

GL SR

If I had not witnessed the whole meeting myself, I would believe some here were exaggerating, but believe me they are not. I cannot believe SCC planning committee are so inept as to allow this to happen. This requires an investigation before any appeal - I'm not throwing accusations at anyone, but I personally would like to know if any of the members of the committee recently traded or held a short in UKOG shares.

THERE MUST BE SOME LOGICAL REASON AS TO WHY THEY IGNORED THEIR OWN LEGAL ADVISORS (AND PLANNING OFFICERS), ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY WERE WARNING THE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

I certainly would not be surprised if the press got hold of this ridiculous fiasco and some well known investigative journalist decided to take it up.

GLA SR

Mr. Investment - did you watch the full meeting? If not then I suggest you do, and perhaps you will see what a shambles it was - I would consider that UKOG could get a decent legal representative who would take the case on a NO WIN NO FEE basis. There is just no way the appeal will not be overturned.

What more is there to say - I would think some individuals heads are going to be on the block. I just watched in disbelief. At least this time it's not SS's fault. The appeal will go ahead and this ridiculous decision overturned.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1277612920218750980

for indicating that I thought it would be passed - IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

Anyhow took advantage of the drop - there's more to UKOG than todays meeting ;-)

GLA SR

So let's focus on HH now :-)

So is it rejected, deferred, or what?

I reckon he was buying in at the time

Keep talking mate - you're doing a fantastic job

I bet the nimbys had never mentioned the events company ...lol - really backfired on them - get ready for lift off in the next 30mins.

I like this guy - he's good - this is just like last Sept, just this time UKOG don't have the CLN's hanging round their neck

there you go - come on then get it approved Tim

Legal advisor has just said the reasons for refusal would not stand up in court - yes