Link to post on the decision earlier this week.UK Oil & Gas application in Dunsfold – Refused…for now?
And by 6 votes to 5, the REFUSAL motion but forward by Lib Dem Opposition Cllr Penny Rivers is carried. Huge result for Waverley, @WaverleyBC and the campaign to stop this. A very close call though. Thankfully this committee had good opposition councillors. pic.twitter.com/hNcunQnT8D
— Cllr. Paul David Follows 🔸🇪🇺🇬🇧 (@PaulDFollows) June 29, 2020
Deputy Leader of Waverley Borough Council Paul Follows obviously doesn’t have a vain bone in his body – certainly not ignoring the rules on getting a haircut – only a days to go eh! Paul?
To even contemplate allowing this to go ahead is unbelievable, those who voted for it should be ashamed of themselves, than goodness sanity prevailed.
Now maybe we can start to get a grip of air quality improvements in Farnham & Godalming.
Don’t be fooled into thinking this has gone away.
UKOG are likely to appeal against this decision and perhaps even the way this Committee conducted it’s proceedings. It was an utter shambolic performance by all. (except for Cllr Penny Rivers) So objectors…..start sharpening your pencils for the Inspector.
Sadly, we have to agree with your sentiments JW-S. There was only one word for the Surrey County Council Meeting – yes, shambolic.
For a Chairman of a major public authority to ask us – “please be kind as it is our first attempt at a virtual meeting,” was a disgrace.
Why hadn’t they done a dummy run before going on air. Why weren’t the names of speakers up? Why weren’t councillors introduced? As for the voting procedure – and the buffering – and the complete breaks – for discussions off-line…! Waverley Borough Council and even Waverley’s parish councils could show them how to conduct a virtual meeting on-line.
We doubt very much if this will have gone away – so start getting all your ducks in a row for an appeal – and a Public Inquiry – which should not be held until it can be held in person.
Certainly at both Waverley BC and at Godalming TC we won’t jump up and say we are running perfect online meetings that cannot be improved (because they can). But I think we would also agree that even the first WBC online meetings were infinitely superior to that session.
Back on the subject matter – certainly I think we are all expecting an appeal. Not sure SCC are up for that and so the WBC exec have already given the go ahead for prep from our perspective for any appeal.
It would not at all surprise me if the quality of that session was part of the appeal.
Gird your loins for a battle for our planet that we cannot afford to lose , we are with you.
Waverley could certainly give SCC a helping hand on how to run a meeting on-line – and yes, we suspect that the developer will use the session as part of its appeal.
However, there are strong reasons for refusing the application and it is good to hear that Waverley is preparing for the appeal – when/if it comes?
WW wonders – will a public inquiry be held, or would an appeal be based on written representations?
The public are currently very angry that wannabe developers are lodging applications and taking advantage of COVID-19 in the knowledge they don’t have to hold public consultations and consents/refusals could be given by different planning committees, other than the JPC on-line?