Featured post

10,000,000 Miles in a Nissan Leaf?

Friday 26 October 2012

What Does "Without Further Delay" Mean?

After all the toxic EA behaviour that characterised the first water licence determination at Avoncliff we hoped that the organisation would abide by the terms of the High Court Consent Order that all parties agreed to on the 9th February 2012 and that a professional approach to discharging their statutory obligations would be adopted by the EA.

Unfortunately professional approach and statutory obligation appear to be alien concepts to certain individuals at the EA.

The Consent Order  contains an undertaking from the Environment Agency "to consider the two competing applications on their merits in accordance with the approach outlined above, in order to determine what is in the public interest and to do so without further delay" (underline mine)

We weren't aware at the time of the Judicial Review that our licence had been approved by determining officials but blocked and hidden by certain other officials... but anyway -  we agreed to a competitive determination on the merits of the schemes.

So... to the present process....

The Environment Agency must have a pretty elastic interpretation of what constitutes "without further delay" -

It is now 261 days since the EA signed the Consent Order (the Consent Order was enacted / given force of law by a Judges' signature 198 days ago)

The statutory window is 120 days beyond which non-determination appeals to The Planning Inspectorate apply (Extensions only by agreement with applicant - in this case there have been no such agreements this time around)

It is likely that the provisions of The Penfold Review imposes a 13 week (91 days) guillotine on statutory determination undertaken by the EA also apples in this case.

The High Court mandated re-determination of water licences at Avoncliff is clearly being messed with by the EA as two applications have been submitted and NOT DETERMINED and now, the EA are asking the parties at Avioncliff to re-apply again.

Bear in mind here that North Mill and Weavers's Mill have already been subjected to two rounds of licence applications each and the EA have accepted those applications and not determined them  - and they have now asked Weaver's Mill to submit yet another application for full process (Adverttising, Public Consultation and subsequent determination = 6 months ++)  North Mill's full licences have already been advertised, been though public scrutiny, have been determined and peer checked and are ready to go.

We have to say it again - what is going on ?

What are officials at the EA playing at ? In our opinion they are not working in the public interest, or adhering to their statutory duty and wasting piles of public money.

Are they repeatedly going around a loop in the hope that one time they'll get the answer that they have been trying to illegally impose from the start?

We've asked about what's going on - but the answer has a  £37,500  price ticket dangling from it - and from previous experience it'll take 18 months and considerable effort to winch the truth (or a version of same) out of the officials who are busy perverting this whole process - although our agent will be happy to bill the EA again......

What's actually pretty exasperating is that the EA have claimed and asserted that they aren't bound by the provisions of the High Court Consent Order -  All we can say is blimey!

In all quite a mess... and not, it has to be said - improving with the passage of time.

Why don't they want to give us our full licence? 

12 comments:

  1. Get them back in front of the JUDGE contempt of court, preferably the same JUDGE. Why is the tax payer paying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi i have been directed from another site what a read,hope it gets resolved soon what a mess. Most government bodies do FOI well i will get this registered on my files re this agency. Please keep this updated be assured i will pass this around my colleges

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi seems quite clear the EA have got no intention of giving you that licence,you have shown them to be incompitant fools and even though this licence should be yours as it clearly is the better scheme and location they will do anything in their power not to give you it.Stinks of Biased and irrational behaviour its about time someone took them to task.Keep up the good work on the mill it looks fantastic from the canal. Mark B-ON-A

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's difficult to believe that all your troubles solely result from incompetence - there seems to a deliberate and sustained effort by the Environment Agency to deny you a licence.

    Why?

    Is it pure bureaucratic hubris

    or

    Is there a darker secret driving the Environment Agency to behave like this?

    ReplyDelete
  5. YES they are trying to cover their ar**s so they dont look so stupid BUT its to late. North mill is clearly on the deep side of the river and has the main flow of the river plus it already has a huge water wheel with good access WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING???? Peter [Winsley]

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is wrong this is level 3 English can they not read ? WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY Sack the illiterate fools.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just read article in narrow boat world they clearly have something to hide £37k for FOI nasty seems a good discription, keep up the good fight the EA are power crazy fools who think the law is us poor folk BUT NOT FOR THEM Cornwall DAVE

    ReplyDelete
  8. What is wrong with the idiots get it sorted out. Have they not seen the the water power being wasted BL--DY MORONS SACK THE FOOLS

    ReplyDelete
  9. WELL MILL OWNERS GET THE AUDIT COMMISSION ON IT THE BBC DO NOT LIKE IT NOR WILL THE EA THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE REGARDS SUE

    ReplyDelete
  10. What a joke read the order weavers mill is a risky D I Y scheme how is that in the public interest UPDATE THE WEBSITE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SURE WE ARE ON ALL THE NITTY GRITTY=== WATCH THE WEBSITE AND SEE WHY IT HAS TAKEN OVER 3 YEARS AND COST WELL OVER HALF A MILLION POUNDS TO THE PUBLIC PURSE

      Delete
  11. THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY HAVE A DUTY TO GET HYDRO SCHEMES UP AND RUNNING, THE WASTED MONEY COULD HAVE BEEN SPENT ON FLOOD VICTIMS, WHAT A BLOODY DISGRACE.

    ReplyDelete

Get it off yer chest - please keep it civil