Member Info for stokey12

Z-Cars - I believe that there have been some pre application discussions. DR at the AGM said a 90 day turnaround whihc why I said November/December as it might take less. The process is described at this link. https://www.planninghelp.cpre.org.uk/improve-where-you-live/how-to-comment-on-a-planning-application/the-planning-application-process?gclid=Cj0KCQjwn_LrBRD4ARIsAFEQFKuX4LtB8WVxi_LnejfuUv1RP5ubQUBsY9ySzP0Jo7Nv8Xq8y0gfxk8aAh_gEALw_wcB. I suspect that CHAIN wil probably object to the application on principle which would probably mean the applcation going to the Committee for decision which will delay matters.

Z-Cars - In relation to your 09.52 post from yesterday that opportunity has gone we are looking at November/December for planning permission assuming that the application goes in this month.

Boffin - Thanks for this

Neboy58 - In relation to your 06.31 post you need to go back to the 12 August RNS onthe collaboration contract. Although no sums are mentioned in it the following day there was an announcement from Peel which gave the £130m figure. It would seem thereefore that teh £130m is coming from Peel.

AudibleEnergy - I have now seen the document I had to go in from the council website. The decision notice on this application can be found from this link https://jmp.sh/bndh0dD. It would seem that permission has been granted for 5 HGV movements a day from the proposed facility so I presume that the application for the full planning permission must be coming soon.

AudubleEnergy - I just clicked on the link and I got document unavailable message.

sharesport - In relation to your 07.52 post I take your point but every time I ask W2T what is happening I am given a reason for the delay and told they will be filing the planning application. At the AGM DR said that the application would be going in soon. He must have been given that information from W2T/Peel. We are now told that it will be sometime this month I am not holding my breath.

Newboy58 In relation to your 20.46 post of yesterday W2T certainly do not seem good at delivering. I am expecting DR to take action so that we are not waiting that long for something to happen.

I have been to other Westminster Forum Events in the past. I generally use them to make points to the civil servants in the room. I might go to this one.

The following is a tweet from waste2tricity make of it what you like. https://twitter.com/Waste2T/status/1169529113356525569

There is nothing wrong with that it may even have been covered in the collaboration agreement.

backbencher - That was only the vote on the econd reading it is now in a committee of the whole house then it has to have two more stages before it goes to the Lords.

98889 - Waste2Tricity have a long lease on the land that will be used for the DMG site but the entire Protos site is owned by Peel Environmental.

PHE is not leading on the application my understanding is that Peel is now leading on it and it should be going in soon. I think DR is getting tired of being pestere by shareholders about it and will start pushing hard on it.

This is not new information.

An interesting tweet https://twitter.com/ZilchUK/status/1167745888669839362

LongTerm74 - As I understand it W2T Protosltd is the SPV that will be used for the first commercial site. It was previously dormant.

I have noticed that over the last week or so we have had some quite large trades but no TR1s. One explanation is that all these trades are being done through nominee accounts so if they would normally have to be reported they are not. Of course the other possibility is that the trades do not cros a level that has to be reported.

Piltick - Unusually you have missed my point. The point I was making in my 06.09 post was that W2T in order to get pre-IPO funding issued a document, see this link https://jmp.sh/NnP3dpS. From the financial modelling on page 16 the majority of the income generated goes to W2T. If you check it may be that all the revenue apart from the license fee for PHE goes to W2T so if that is correct only B or C would be possible and even then C might have problems. In any of the other cases W2T would need to explain to the investors how they are going to recieve the promised returns.

Wolveshaveeyes - In relation to your 00.07 post in view of the way matters were presented by W2T in thier Pre-IPO document it would have to be B or C. Although C may have issues with it due to how much of the net profit W2T said in the IPO document it would get.