Member Info for stokey12

Investmaster - Have you actually read the judgement?

LedZep - Do you have level 2 access as I cannot see the trade you emntioned in your 15.06 post. Probably will be a late posted trade. If you do have level 2 what is it showing?

For those of you who are interested, so not Investmaster, the whole Court of Appeal judgement can be downloaded from this link https://jmp.sh/8QQqoJ5. There is a discussion on the Habitats Regulation Assessment from around page 25

I was not planning on posting on here until after the planning application had been decided but I thought I would flag this article up https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693 I have not read it in full. The short version is that the Court of Appeal has quashed the Heathrow Terminal Three decision.

I note the after hours RNS on the exercise of warrants. Does anyone know how many warrants are still out there? If I may take a contrary view. As we are coming to the end of the tax year is it possible that the exericse of the warrants was to use up some remaining EIS relief? If that is the case then we would have somebody who is looking to hold onto the shares for three years plus.

Piltick in relation to your 10.55 post you are right it was my misreading of your post.

Piltick - In relation to your 08.42 post the level of return on the hydrogen would depend on the selling price. If for arguments sake the hydrogen is sold at £5 a kilo and the DMG unit produces 2 tonnes that would give you 2000x5x350 = £3,500,000. It means that the additinal cost can be recouped inside two years. I do not think the plan is to use the hydrogen to make electricity I have always understood it to be thecase that it would be used to power vehicles of some type.

What is everyone hoping for in the budget. I would like a 5p cut in the duty on wine. Also some fiscal assistance to the hydrogen sector.

I have just checked VLS.CWR.EQT And AFC all are also down or unchanged. It looks like a sector wide sell off.

Audible - You gave Muscorum a lot of grief over his concerns about Natural England if you want to see how bad it could have been have a look at this applcation http://planninganddevelopment.nelincs.gov.uk/online-applications/centralDistribution.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=PUW79ZLJH1F00. Under the documents tab read the Natural England response. Posters on the VLS board do not think it is a problem. I am not sure I would agree.

Investmaster - In relation t your 12.54 I take great exception to beng accused of being somebodies crony. The fact that I have come to the same conclusion as somebody does not make me their crony. Have you considered the possibility that I am right. You may wish to take advice from someone who knows planning law about the effect of an objection from Natural England. I will look back in June to see if planning permission has been granted.

On reading the planning officers report I noticed something interesting para.6.57 stated that it is not necessary to impose the s.106 agreements to tie in this permission to the extant permission. I think that this is the first application on the wider Protos development not to have this done. Also s.106 agreements are normal to get payments from developers for improvements.

thurgarton - In repect of your 12.14 post from yesterday if you were to read my 10.29 post of yesterday you will see that a grant of planning permission by the Council contrary to the advice of Natural England could lead to a planning inquiry which would cause a delay of possibly a year. If the Council was to refuse permission then VLS would have the right to appeal which would have the sane effect so as things stand from the decision of the Council on the appication we may still have a delay of around a year assuming there are no challenges to the result of the planning inquiry.

I have checked if the application is not heard at the April 1 Planning Committee meeting it will not be heard until June at the earliest.

For those who wish to read the planning officer's report it can be found at this link https://jmp.sh/1sXEm39. I have not read it yet.

Piltick I am fine internet issues.

mrcarrick - In relation to your 10.34 post that assumes that they read the planning documents and also understood the effect of the Natural England objection. I am not confident on either.

I think some people may be misunderstanding the significance of the objection from Natural England. The effect is to increase the likelihood of this application ending up with a planning inquiry and/or legal challenges which would put off any grant of planning permission for at least a year from the initial decision. If there are legal challenges we could see delays amounting to years. I am not being alarmist just pragmatic.

If the council was to grant planning permission in the face of an objection from Natural England then natural England could either seek a judicial review of that decision or ask the Secretary of State to call in the application.

With the supplementary agreement meaning that there is no immediate urgency in completing the acquisition of W2T as Peel will be developing the first five DMG units I was wondering if PHE and/or W2T were to apply to the Bezos Earth Fund should the acquisition be delayed until he result of that application. The reason I suggest that is some on this board cannot see what W2T will be doing going forward to facilitate the growth of PHE. If we wait for any application tothe Earth Fund to be considered and looking at the involvement in the application of W2T would allow us to consider if the expertise of W2T in obtaining grant income justifies the acquisition.

LedZep thanks for doing that analysis. It is as I would expect.

Sheffy the PHE group is the NEX exchange listing