Member Info for stokey12

Piltick - In relation to your 16.33 post see my 04.57 post from this morning.

Sharesport - In relation to your 01.33 post I would disagree iht you that t will go to the December planning Committee meeting. The earliest meeting it can go to is the one on the 7 January. The reason for ths is the date for consultation responses falls to late for it to be included in the December meeting the papers for which would have gone out three days before.

chriszzr - Probably someone doing a bit of stake building. I doubt it was to avoid the PTM levy as that would only have been £1.

chriszzr - I think you will find that the reason why the share price did not move on those trades was because they were inline with the current spread. Had they been outside the current spread then I would have expected a movement in the share price.

This clip https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-50376439/philippines-the-boy-diving-for-plastic shows one of the possible problems if you pay people for recycled plastic as W2T proposes in some South Asia countries. The need to support families may lead to risks being taken. This might lead to a reputational risk for PHE if it leads to deaths.

Thanks for this kenny100. I note that PHE only gets a brief mention thankfully it is to say that it is PHE's technology.

BumbleB I thin we are unable to agree because we are approaching this from two different directions. While you appear to be looking at the Habitats Directive and the Ecological Report only I am looking at all the information including planning policies. In doing this there are two material points. Firstly, the Protos site is a safeguared site under the local development so that only energy from waste developments will be allowed on the site. Presumably a Habitats Assessment would have needed to be done for the site at that time. Secondly, the Protos application went on appeal so it would be reasonable for the LPA to consider what if anything was said about Habitat protection on the appeal. I will be checking on that in the course of the week.

BumbleB - You are missing the point I am trying to make which is that it is for the LPA to make the decision on whether to grant planning permission. It will in reaching that decision consider all the information including the advice from Natural England. Having done so it may come to the conclusion that the overriding public interest is to grant permission. In reaching the decision it may take into consideration the conditions imposed on the whole Protos site.

BumbleB - In reference to your 19.17 post of yesterday the requirement for 21 days notice is a statutory requirement see s.28I(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That requirement was put in because they would not normally be given notice of the decision on a planning application. The purpose of the 21 days notice is probably as I stated in my 18.49 post. As a matter of adminisrative law a LPA cannot fetter its discretion on how it discharges its functions. In this case it cannot say we can only grant planning permission if Natural England agrees.

BumbleB in your 12,41 post you state ' There is a clear warning at the end of the letter to the LPA not to grant planning permission, so unless the LPA decide to ignore this, and risk a Public Inquiry.' With the greatest of respect Natural England does not have the power to nor in the letter did they tell a LPA how to determine a planning application. S.28I(6) requires notice to be given to Natural England if the LPA decides to grant planning permission contary to any advice from Natural England or not to impose a condition that Natural England suggested. In those circumstances Natural England has 21 days to consider the contents of the notice.

The question will be was the decision to grant planning permission reasonable by the legal standard considering all the information including any conditions that were imposed on the plannng permission, the Local Development Plan, other Planning Policies and what other objections if any were recieved. Bearing all that in mind I would be very surprised if a decision to grant planning permission with conditions in this case against any advice from Natural England would not meet the legal test of reasonableness.

sheepynerd - Thanks I have seen that one. It has been overtaken by events. Additional information has been submited including a new ecologcal report so they have been reconsulted.

BumbleB - On the 3 November at 12.15 in a post you commented ' I don’t think that would happen near an international designation without a response from Natural England.' If I recall this prompted a discussion on how long the council would have to wait.

BumbleB In relation to your 19.52 post I think that you are in danger of over complicating the situation rather than me over simplifying it. S.281(4) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states
'The authority shall wait until the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice under subsection (2) before deciding whether to give its permission, unless [F2Natural England] have notified the authority that it need not wait until then.'

Therefore contrary to what you have said in previous posts it is not a question of the local planning authority having to wait for Natural England's advice indefinitely Natural England has 28 days to respond.

The notice under s.281(6) of the Act is notice of the decision of the planning committee to grant planning permission there is nothing in that provision that would indicate any kind of consultation. Once the planning committee has made its decision there can be no further discussion unless or until the decision is quashed or overturned on appeal.

BumbleB - In relation to your 17,42 you have misinterpreted the letter what it says is if the council grants permission without the conditions requested by Natural England then under s.28I(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 If [Natural England] advise against permitting the operations, or advise that certain conditions should be attached, but the section 28G authority does not follow that advice, the authority—

(a)shall give notice of the permission, and of its terms, to [F2Natural England], the notice to include a statement of how (if at all) the authority has taken account of the Council’s advice, and

(b)shall not grant a permission which would allow the operations to start before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date of that notice.

There is nothing in that provision about a public inquiry so where did you get the idea that Natural England had the power to call in an application for a public inquiry? There is provision under planning law for the Secretary of State to call in applications.

BumbleB - In relation t your 17.33 post I think you forgot the bullet point after the last one you quoted. This is where I got the information I referred to in my 17.13 post.

LedZep - Thanks again for the heads up. I am not sure how much of the further information they are asking for is in the new information. I note that they agree with PHE's expert report on the NOx level.

LedZep - Thanks for that when I checked last time I only looked at the number of documents I did not look at the comments. It would be interesting to see what the Tree Team says.

LedZep - I am nit disagreeing with you but what is the source for that. Also if they are given the same 28 days then it will push it back to the January planning committee.

Yellowf1 - Further to my 09.35 post and your 09.18 I would draw your attention to the accounts. You quite rightly point out that the retained earnings figure is circa -£60m. However if you look at the share capital you will see that the negative retained earnings are covered by the share capital and the share premium account leaving a positive figure in the capital account. The effect of this is that any profit made would increase the amount of capital in PHE rather than reducing the negative retained earnings which is available to be applied against any corporation tax liability.

Yellowf1 - Things must be looking up if you are back posting. In relation to your 09.18 post the answer is that the reference to profit is to profit in the year. 2 - 3 units in a year is the break even point see pg 1 of the Edison Research Note. Thereafter any additional units would be in profit.