Member Info for stokey12

micksnags1 - In relation to your 10.10 post no there is not the lowest price a placing can legally be done for is 0.5 which is the nominal share price.

The share rpice is down about 15% in two days I can find no logical reason for it. Hopefully it is an indication that some news is due.

With the General Election tomorrow everyone should remember to vote. I am not saying who to vote for just vote.

Yesterday's 9% drop in the share price raises the question for me was this done so that somebody can purchase a bulk of shares cheaply hoping for a year end announcement? I can see no reason for the slide in the share price.

Shatner = I agree we need some news to give the shares a boost. As DR has some of his fees paid in shares he is looking at large losses as well so it would not surprise me if we hear some news by years end. The Toyota talks have been going on for a year now so I wonder if we can expect something soon there. DR has always said to me when I have broached the subject that he will not come to the market until he has something to say. That said there is a case for him departing from that rule.

Superbarnet - In relation to your 19.46 post of yesterday I think you will find you are wrong on both points. Once the decision to reconsult on the revisions to the application was made on 6 November the chance to go before the December planning meeting was lost. It had nothing to do with the general election. The next planning committee meeting is on 23 January I see no reason for it not to go before that meeting. My only concern is that the planning officer handling this application is not down as one of the attendees. That however can change.

Last year there were three placings. It has now beeen 12 months since the last placing. That would seem to imply that PHE might be turning the corner financially. All we need now is for the orders to be completed and a steady revenue stream.

ChazC - I am discounting the possibility of the PROTOS site being operational next year due to likely planning conditions meaning that work would not be able to start before April. I am questioning the logic of the site having been chosen for the first site. That said I do believe that there will be at least one operational DMG site in 2020.

tatty99 - In reference to your 14.06 post of yesterday I agree that Protos may not be operatinal next year. However I am not discounting the possibility of a DMG unit being operational somewhere next year.

Piltick - In relation to your 13.36 post from yesterday. My reading of the Environmental Protection Team comment is no. They are saying that the assessments have not been done so the following conditions should be placed unless they are done beforehand.

The Environmental Protection team have responded see tab 3 under consultee comments. They are asking for three conditions to be added that is the good news. The ad news is that complying with those conditions will delay the start to the work as they will require matters to be done before work can start. Also it will mena at least two applications to the planning authority.

The last placing that I can find a RNS for was in December last year when £650,000 was raised. At the end of the year PHE had £840,692 in the bank. Administrative expenses last year came to £2,495,256. Even allowing for costs being cut by 50% that would still mean that absent revenues coming in we should have had a placing by now. I know we had that contract with W2T for £400,000 but that would not have been all profit . This would seem to imply that the year end accounts should show some revenues.

BumbleB - we are not quite iagreement as my view is that they can use information from other sources than the two you mention. You will have to bear in mind is that the assessment is being done by the Local Planning Authority who can rely on information that they have other than those in the Air Quality and Ecological reports.

BumbleB - Thanks for your 07.38 post. In my 05.54 post I was referring to the information on which the Habitats Regulation Assessment is based. I see no reason why that information cannot be in any number of documents so long as the Asessment identifies the source of the information it relies on for coming to its assessment.

BumbleB - I would with respect disagree with your 03.26 post and agree with Tatty in his 22.46 post of yesterday. As far as I am aware the regulations state the information that is required but do not say tht they have to be in the same document. Accordingly in principle I can see no reason why the LPA cannot have regard to information in other documents if they believe they are relevant.

The Environment Agency has responded to the revised documents and their position has not changed.

Sharesport - With reference to your 05.15 post the delay is not down to Natural England. The reason for the delay is the need to reconsult following a material amendment to the application. One of the amendments to the application was the addition of underground cabling to connect to the electricity substation. This has nothing to do with Natural England.

BumbleB - In relation to your 10.38 post I am not sure which plot number the EfW plant is or was. The application that went on appeal to the Secretary of State was for the whole Protos site.

I have made the following comment on the planning application.
'In deciding what weight to give to the advice from Natural England I would suggest that the planning committee notes the contents of the Environmental Impact Assessment from 2016 in relation to the EfW planning application. In particular Chapter 9 of Volume 2 which gives a cumulative assessment of the Environmental Impact of both the EfW proposal and other known developments on Protos.

The planning committee may also wish to have regard to the Resource Recovery Park Outline Planning Permission granted on appeal by the Secretary of State in 2009 which was amended in 2010 by permission 10/01488/FULL. The outline planning permisssion I would argue deals with the concerns of Natural England by way of the conditions it imposed.'

Audible - In respect to your 08.19 post while I disagree with BumbleB as to how significant the Natural England response is I would observe that PHE are not the applicant for the planning permission. It follows that the propoer course with any issues is to do what I will be doing and make a comment on the application. Before you ask it will be supporting the application and suggesting that reg.64 of the Habitats Regulation may apply.