Member Info for stokey12

I have had a meting whihc I was due to have tomorrow converted from a face to face to a conference call. Also there are plans for another batch of meetings to be done by video calls. Therefore if needs be a planning committee could be done by other means which do not require physical attendance so long as all the parties have a chance to put their points across.

The APPG on Hydrogen have a meeting planned for the 23 March 2020 from 4 - 5 in Committee Room 11 at the House of Lords. I am hoping to be able to go. If I do I will feedback what is said. If the Minister is there and I get a chance to ask a question I will raise the question of funding for gassification as current HMG policy seems to favour electrolysis.

Mea Culpa I had previously said that the next planning committee meeting is on the 1 April then after that the next one was not until June. On rechecking the calendar there is a planning committee meeting on the 29 April. It is possible for the application to go that meeting depends on how quickly the planning officer can write his report. The report will be available seven days before the committee hearing. So if it does go to the 29 April committee then the report will be available from the 22 April.

I had a meeting to go to tonight. It has been turned to a virtual meeting with everything being done by email due to the coronavirus. As most of the attendees are over 50 there were concerns about the health risk of asking them to come out in public transport. If this panic gets any worse the EGM may have to be postponed until it is over. Does anyone know is there any provision that allows a virtual EGM to be called.

Piltick - You have to remember that there is a legal limit on the amount of hydrogen that can be added to the gas grid. Therefore, it may be the case that even if PHE wanted to add hydrogen to the grid they may not be able to as another supplier is already adding the legal maximum to the grid.

Having read the RNS I am now willing to support the proposed takeover of W2T subject to seeing the full terms. It is clear that the proposed takeover is part of a clear strategy. It would also give PHE a more suitable development partner who has the ability to raise finance.

Piltick - In relation to your 12.25 post to allow for notice of the EGM then to keep t the end of Q1 deadline we would need notice by a week on Monday at the absolute latest. That assumes that the shareholders in W2T have voted b then as well if the W2T shareholders have to vote after the pHE shareholders then I think we may already be out of time for an end of Q1 completion.

In the last three and a half hours all efw company shares that I know of have gone negative. Has somebody said something?

Something to pick up with DR at the AGM but what do people think should be PHE's medium term strategy that is in the five to ten year period. With the end of the transition period at the end of the year I would suggest looking at acquiring EQT in that timeframe might make sense. This would give PHE a route into the EU if it survives that long. Also they have related technologies.

LedZep - Thanks

LedZep - Can I ask would it be possible when you are out walking the dog if you see any sign of construction work starting could you let us know. I suspect that a lot of work has been going on behind the scenes to clear some of the conditions.

Is anyone going to this https://www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/conference/priorities-UK-energy-2020. David Ryan is down to speak so the planning decision was well timed. I was originally panning to go but I am no longer able to.

Rooky In relation to your 10.41 post I recall a similar observation in the planning statement for the planninhg application.

An interesting letter to the Chancellor from the Chair of the APPG on Hydrogen https://twitter.com/HydrogenAPPG/status/1234795686383714304

I think this was explained last week but I cannot recall what the answer was. In relation to the site clearance I note this was not one of the 30 conditions but was an informative tacked on at the end. Does anyone know is it obligatory to follow an informative or can you igore them if you can prove it is not necessary in a particular case>

badders1 - It was no trouble

Badders1 - Inrelation to your 10.57 post I think most people on this board are aware of this is was discussed last week Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning when I poted this link https://jmp.sh/1sXEm39 which is to the planning officers report to save going through the whole agenda pack.

SprogBarnes - In relation to your 14.35 post of yesterday due to the timing of the planning meeting I would not expect any market reaction to the planning decision until Wednesday. In any event as most people have known the likely decision for a week now I would not anticipate much of a response. Having said that my predictions tend to be wrong.

How many of the people on here who have been posting about the Heathrow Judgement have actually read the judgement? Judging by the comments not many. Friends of the Earth one on a single issue and that was the failure of HMG to adequately take the Climate Change commitments into account when arriving at the decision. It would be perfectly possible to review the ANPS and come back with the same decision. The decision was all to do with the process not the merits. I would recommend reading the five page summary of the Court of Appeal decision before commenting.

thanks LedZep