We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Could this be a ray of hope for LTHks. The Refusal by SCC may be overruled by the Council - this from https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00905/
The laws in each of the UK countries are very similar to each other. They all allow councils to revoke or modify a planning consent “to such extent as they consider expedient” with regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations. The powers can only be used before the development, or the change of use given permission for, is complete. In each country there is a liability for the local authority to pay compensation for abortive expenditure and for any other loss or damage directly attributable to the revocation. If the revocation orders are opposed then they must be confirmed by either the Secretary of State in England and Wales, Scottish Ministers in Scotland or the Department of Environment in Northern Ireland.
Hi Mirasol. Have you got the maths right? Is low case 29577 or 295770? If the latter, makes quite a difference.
Part 3...... Because of all this, there was a significant likelihood that a Court would declare the resolution as invalid and unlawful, not least in light of the clear consequences of the Regulations set out above.
In addition, Counsel was of the view there are other issues raised by complainants that, whilst not necessarily fatal on their own, would not help the impression that would be received if the matter went to Court: For example, the lack of a summary of the salient points of the debate prior to the resolution. Furthermore, in addition to (and perhaps as a result of) the various technical glitches, there were occasions where other members of the household appeared on screen with Councillors, giving rise to a potential suspicion of inappropriate influence from persons not attending the meeting. Whilst it may well be the case that family members were simply assisting with the technology, there is the risk of a perception of unfairness. Allied to this are the concerns expressed about use of the private ‘chat’ function allowing Councillors and others to pass messages between each other during the meeting. This was notwithstanding that any such concerns could, if necessary, be allayed by examining the ‘chat’ log which clearly shows the anodyne nature of the messages that were sent.
In addition to the above points considered by Counsel, a number of complaints were raised in relation to specific Councillors with the suggestion that they had breached the Council’s Code of Conduct and/or the Council’s Planning Protocols. I have reviewed whether the alleged breached should be considered as breaches of the codes/protocols. I do not consider this to be the case. All issues raised were due to the meeting being undertaken remotely with members being at home in the proximity to other household members to assist in the use of IT equipment or due to technical errors with equipment. This was a new experience for members and it is appropriate that if members found themselves in a position where it could appear there were alleged breaches of the code/protocol, that these be addressed with further training in how remote meetings must be conducted rather than any formal investigation. Further training for the committee members and the use of equipment for remote meetings is being arranged.
In the circumstances the Council will in due course resubmit the Application to the Planning and Regulatory Committee to be redetermined afresh with full entitlement given to members of the public and the applicant to make or remake their statements orally and with full provision for debate by members.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Evans
Monitoring Officer
Part 2......Counsel’s view was that the most significant issues at the meeting were in relation to the question of whether councillors were “in attendance” given the committee meeting was held remotely. This was the first planning committee meeting the Council had held under the provisions of the Local Authorities and Police Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, (the “Regulations”) which set out the conditions when a councillor is “in attendance” at a meeting.
The issues included:
- the live stream dropping out from time to time. In most cases this was rectified immediately by the relevant speaker being asked to repeat his or her statement in full. However, a portion of a speech by one Councillor who was speaking in favour of the application, may be missing from the recording and so may have not been heard by the participants;
- at one point when a Councillor was speaking in favour of the application, there was a message on screen stating that a Councillor was ‘waiting in the lobby’. This may have indicated that at that point she could not hear what was being said.
- another councillor was not able to be heard at all at the meeting and had to use hand gestures and the private ‘chat’ function in order to register his votes. He also appeared to be away from his desk and screen at one point during the meeting;
In Counsel’s opinion, these were issues of greater concern, particularly given the close vote by which the resolution was passed. Under the Surrey Code of Best Practice in Planning Procedures, a member should decline to vote unless he or she has been present throughout the consideration of the item. Under the relevant remote meeting regulations, a member will not be deemed to be present by virtue of a remote connection to a meeting unless he or she can both hear the other council members in attendance and be heard by the other council members in attendance. The effect of this is that there were times during the consideration of the Application at the meeting when members would not be considered to be in attendance as a matter of law. There was a further problem (at least as a matter of perception) that one Councillor may have been deterred from seeking the opportunity to speak (and possibly from asking questions that may have allayed his concerns) due to the problems with his technology. All three of these Councillors voted on the Application (although arguably one Councillor’s vote should not be counted given that, strictly speaking, he was not in attendance at the time), and, given the tight vote, it clearly could not be said that their votes made no difference to the outcome.
Because of all this, there was a significant likelihood that a Court would declare the resolution as invalid and unlawful, not least in light of the clear consequences of the Regulations set out above.
This just received from the Monitoring Officer SCC!
Dear Sir/Madam
I write further to the complaint you submitted regarding the decision and circumstances surrounding the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on the 29th June 2020 and consideration of the planning application on Land south of Dunsfold Road and east of High Loxley Road, Dunsfold (ref: WA/2019/0796).
I apologise that it has taken some time to respond, this was due to me seeking Counsel’s opinion on the issues raised in many complaints received by the Council.
In summary, on the basis of advice received from Counsel, there is a significant likelihood that the irregularities arising from the technical difficulties at the meeting on 29 June 2020 render the resolution to refuse invalid and would render any notice of refusal unlawful. The most appropriate and fairest course of action is to take the application back to committee. This is what the Council has decided to do.
In more detail, the complaints related to a number of issues including:
- A councillor made a presentation to the Committee in her role as member for the electoral ward but in addition made further contributions later during the Committee’s deliberations.
- A number of the members of the Committee who participated in the debate in respect of the Application did so with assistance from individuals who were not members of the Committee.
- The live feed of the meeting dropped out on a number of occasions. Web-cast viewers witnessed a Councillor attempting to verbalise his vote on the refusal motion but not being able to do so because of technical issues.
- On the basis of the numerous technical difficulties in the Committee meeting, it cannot be concluded that members and the wider general public were able to hear and understand all relevant arguments being made.
- some members of the Committee were engaging in electronic communications with non-Committee members during the debate on the Application.
- The procedure at Committee did not allow for a proper assessment of the material considerations. As a result, the planning balance performed by members was inaccurate and incomplete.
- The Council’s Code of Best Practice in Planning Procedures states that when a resolution is proposed which is contrary to an officer recommendation, “The Chairman will summarise, or cause to be summarised, the salient points of the debate, and ensure the text of the proposition is clearly understood before putting the matter to the vote”.
- The motion approved by the Committee to refuse the Application was not made on any valid planning grounds.
Counsel’s view was that the most significant issues at the meeting were in relation to the question of whether councillors were “in attendance” given the committee meeting was held remotely. This was the first planning committee meeting the Council had held under the provisions of the Local Authorities and Police Crime Panels (C
Adrian reports crane just arrived on site!
The ‘Eyes’Team are doing a brilliant job - they do not just report tankers leaving the site, but are also first to report new equipment arriving ...with photos so all our Oil Experts on this board can give their opinion on what is really happening on site. This constant sniping of SS, the FOTH and his colleagues is doing nothing to inform any investor in this Company of the progress being made, and it is their input that is them that are the real value and not the Uninvested Derampers that hang around this site like Hookers on a street corner.
Now August! Well spotted. Unbelievable - 8 months after original submission. Could it be that the Council do not want to actually do their job for fear that a positive decision would make them unpopular with the locals, Swampies etc? Are they desperate for SS to go straight to the Government Inspectorate and bypass their Planning Committee? Let UKOG play hard ball .... every extra delay means 10% less in oil monies given to the area?
With 3m more shares bought today than sold why does the price not go up? I’m an Aim virgin but think there is a 3rd party involvement manipulating the SP. Found this on a website: https://dawgtrading.com/dt-blog/653-market-maker-signals
- market makers came up with small trades on small and microcap companies that provide a message to others implying their intentions without breaking the law.
100 - shares needed
200 - shares needed badly, without taking the stock price lower
300 - take the stock down at least 30% so shares can be bought up from capitulators
400 - trade the stock sidways channel
500 - gap the stock, up or down depending on the 540 signal
600 - start providing resistance around this price level
700 - move the stock up in price
800 - get ready for trading action
900 - let the stock float and trade freely
911 - press release/news is pending
1000 - stop the stock price from running up
2100 - let the stock price run up
Intrestingly we had at least 4 small buys on Ukog today.
11.40 600 buy. 11.45 500 buy. 11.47 400 buy. 11.48 400 buy. Make of this what you like but feel free to rubbish/verify if you know for certain???