Twitter | Search | |
Matthew
Tech, occasional energy sector investor. Engineer. World traveller.
68
Tweets
11
Following
6
Followers
Tweets
Matthew Aug 5
Replying to @YeahWha54688201
Buy buy buy
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Aug 5
Replying to @YeahWha54688201
Hero’s that don’t socially distance
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Aug 5
Replying to @YeahWha54688201
Actually the SP went up today
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Aug 5
Replying to @YeahWha54688201
I think you mean the councillors will be pi55ed... SCC is quite the opposite, they’ve overruled the councillors decision. Ultimately if they do reject the application again, against the planning officers advise, they must do so on legal basis
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Aug 3
Well this is awkward given Surrey County Council today found the planning meeting to be unlawful - To quote counsel ‘The motion approved by the Committee to refuse the Application was not made on any valid planning grounds‘... Still support this?
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Aug 3
Hopefully with the full planning committee this will pass... No stand-in councillors for Septembers vote.
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Aug 3
Replying to @Adrianwfire
You were right , I said August, it’s going to be September Instead. need to sort out HH pronto. Placings for Loxley/Turkey will not suffice... HH needs to start performing.
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Aug 3
SCC to hear Loxley application again, Cllr’s need to provide legal basis for refusal if they intent to go against planning officers recommendation.
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Aug 3
Replying to @PaulDFollows
SCC decision to hear the Loxley application again due to counsel view the first planning meeting was unlawful. U.K.
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Aug 2
Their*
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Jul 22
Yes it needs to be published on SCC Planning portal, the other applications at the meeting have been approved, Loxley is showing in consultation. This application will be held again IMO... SCC probably have concerns over the legality of the decision - Not on public record etc...
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Jul 20
Can’t see this reported anywhere, the other planning applications heard on the 29 June have had their planning status approved on the SCC planning portal. Loxley is still showing in consultation, given it has been 3 weeks, I reckon this application will be heard again, imo.
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Jul 2
Replying to @InPissing
When did you send yours? I sent mine at lunchtime but had nothing yet.
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Jul 2
Replying to @Adrianwfire
SSC investigating and deciding to re-run the application will take a couple of weeks... Next planning meeting is August. The 3 outstanding planning apps for HH were submitted in last 6 months. Expect news in a month or two, COVID has slowed it down I’m wide awake thanks 😘
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Jul 2
Replying to @Adrianwfire
The Chairman wanted it to pass - His summary ‘I don’t think the recommendation for refusal is solid enough, I don’t think it has enough evidence and all the technical advise suggest it would fall over under pressure‘. Use the full planning committee NOT reserves, this will pass
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Jul 2
Replying to @Adrianwfire
Sorry maybe I wasn’t clear, I don’t think the planning meeting held on Monday will be allowed to stand for a number of reasons, the most pressing being one of the votes wasn’t on the public record (IT issue). Therefore I believe the application will be heard again.
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Jul 2
Replying to @Adrianwfire
Good old 😂 My guess is SCC will hear the application again in the coming months.
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Jul 1
Chris I respect your view point. What I would say is the basis of the motion to reject by Cllr. has handed an unassailable appeal position. BTW the application was rejected mainly on highway considerations, climate change didn’t form part of the rejection
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Jun 30
Replying to @Adrianwfire
Makes sense
Reply Retweet Like
Matthew Jun 30
Appeal to will happen. I doubt SCC will even contest given that SCC planning/legal said there is no basis to reject. Shame its Surrey residents who will foot the bill.
Reply Retweet Like