Or something.
There's been some activity at the Commission - the applicants got their revised application in with updated data from their testing (this was requested by the Commissioners in January when they submitted their response to objectors).
Originally the Commission said that because it wasn't significantly different, they weren't going to open it up to objectors again, just give the applicant a right of reply (yes, to their own submission). We objected, so they changed their minds and now people who mentioned contamination in their submission have been invited to make a submission.
WE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE INVITED TO SUBMIT TO DO SO.
To help you with that, I got ChatGPT to compare the submission on contamination risk that Mr Oddy prepared in January to the one he submitted in April. You can download it here:
His essential argument is that if every step is taken properly, it should be compliant. He doesn't mention scouring by propellors or boats, nor does he account for the risks involved in trying to move 150 cubic metres of contaminated mud from the estuary. Nor does he address the all important question: what someone somewhere makes a mistake? Or if he's got it wrong?
The wonderful Jenny Easton was "conferencing" with the applicants today to see what areas of agreement exist. We'll keep you posted as the process loooks like finally winding up.
From here, it's my understanding that once the Commissioners present their recommendation, the Council decides whether to grant the consent. Should they grant consent, the next stage is a process under Section 138 regarding the consent for use of public land.
And that's a whole different kettle of fish...
