Skip to content

Did Mark Shorrock Mislead Select Committee?

May 17, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

 

There is an interesting side story developing, with regards to Mark Shorrock’s testimony at the BEIS Select Committee last week.

I watched this at the time, and although I was not aware of the substance of the allegations, I was struck by Shorrock’s somewhat theatrical look of shock, as he was challenged.

Just to recap, Shorrock, CEO of Tidal Lagoon Power who want to build the Swansea Tidal Lagoon, was being asked about Dean Quarry, which he owns in Cornwall.

It is worth watching the whole two minutes, but the relevant bit is at 1.30. I have also printed the transcript below.

 

 

 

image

Transcript of evidence 2018-05-09

 

 

There are a number of environmental concerns about Shorrock’s plan to reopen the quarry, in order to supply the rock needed to build the Swansea Bay sea wall.

The local campaign group, CADS, who have been fighting the quarry proposals for some time, issued this Press Release two days ago:

image

image

CADS – PRESS STATEMENT 15.5.2018

 

 

Today, The Times is also running with the story:

image

 

The BBC also cover it here.

And Private Eye also have the story, unfortunately not available on line.

Below is a copy of the draft agreement, emailed by Shire Oak to the Parish Council on 15th June 2015, “coincidentally” just three days after CADS issued Cornwall Council with the Pre-action letter dated 12.06.2015 stating their intention to challenge the granting of planning permission to Shire Oak in the High Court (Judicial Review):

image

Shire Oak-St Keverne Parish Council

 

 

The Draft Agreement offered to pay the Parish Council amounts annually based on the amount of rock quarried.

image

 

This, of course, is perfectly common and in order. For instance, wind farms often make similar payments.

However, the controversial clause is Clause 10, which I am told was not in the first version of the draft, already sent previously:

image

image

The handwritten comments make it clear what the PC thought about this offer, and the minutes from the PC’s next meeting on 15th July make clear that they had no intention of signing it. I gather that Shire Oak quickly withdrew this clause soon afterwards.

To repeat, the offer to pay the local community compensation is not the issue. This is perfectly above board and reasonable. The problem lies with Clause 10, because it clearly ties in that financial compensation with the PC’s agreement to support Shire Oak’s planning application.

Put another way, if the PC oppose the application, but planning is approved anyway, the Agreement is dead, and the local community will not receive a penny promised.

Remember again the question posed by David Davies, Chair:

Some campaigners in Cornwall have suggested that, in order to get planning permission through, you  encouraged a parish council to accept a financial inducement in order to support the planning application right the way through.  Is there any truth in that legation?

 

As Private Eye notes:

image

 

To deliberately mislead a Select Committee is a serious offence. Shorrock clearly has questions to answer.

Advertisements
20 Comments leave one →
  1. HotScot permalink
    May 17, 2018 1:54 pm

    I have a real problem with things like select committees. They interview and investigate some shady characters but do so with their hands tied behind their backs. In other words, whilst committees follow the rules, the shady characters rarely do so and if you’re not a shady character yourself, it’s almost impossible to pin these people down.

    This will undoubtedly prove another event the perpetrator is able to wriggle out from.

    • David Richardson permalink
      May 17, 2018 2:26 pm

      Yes it’s even worse though when the select committee is stocked with shady characters as well.

      • Nigel S permalink
        May 17, 2018 2:41 pm

        Margaret Hodge being the nonpareil.

  2. May 17, 2018 3:07 pm

    They could all save themselves a mountain of bother and disruption by just building a reliable power-on-demand gas-fired power station – or two.

  3. May 17, 2018 3:10 pm

    In order to save the environment we must first destroy it..preferably in the most profitable way.

  4. May 17, 2018 3:23 pm

    Interesting to note that Shorrock’s left hand man is Charles (I have no vested interest in renewable energy although I was energy minister in favour of subsidising renewable energy schemes) Hendry, no doubt with his snout waiting just above the trough.

    Is there any ruinable energy company that does not engage in corrupt practices?

    Note that Shorrock’s wife is Juliet Davenport, CEO of Good Energy, another well known ruinable energy trougher.

  5. May 17, 2018 5:11 pm

    I noticed that Dale Vince was wetting himself on Facebook, ignoring the fact that he is full political/neo-commie climate crap to fill his wallet from the gullible.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      May 18, 2018 3:49 pm

      Dale Vince is hoping to win a large trough of subsidy for his own tidal lagoon projects in the Solway Firth.

  6. May 17, 2018 5:53 pm

    Reblogged this on Wolsten.

  7. Athelstan permalink
    May 17, 2018 5:54 pm

    Mark Shorrock, everything a quack doctor purveying green nostrums, and slick salesman motor mouth should be, an excellent smoke and mirrors magician, a conjuror with words and black arts thrown in.

  8. John F. Hultquist permalink
    May 18, 2018 12:27 am

    I know the Brits did not invent sleaze, but they are very good at it.

  9. dave permalink
    May 18, 2018 10:52 am

    And still snowing in (Eastern) Greenland:

  10. It doesn't add up... permalink
    May 18, 2018 3:47 pm

    As I have hinted before, as far as I can see the Swansea lagoon has “cash for ash” potential, with the project being paid a full subsidised price for electricity it produces, while buying market price electricity to pump additional water at high and low tide to maximise total gross generation (and hence subsidy). This is no different to being paid more than the cost of fuel to burn it under “cash for ash” in Northern Ireland.

    Interested readers might want to look at these evaluations of optimising the Swansea lagoon:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sean_Petley/publication/285549359_Swansea_Bay_tidal_lagoon_annual_energy_estimation/links/59f7777d458515547c24c7ca/Swansea-Bay-tidal-lagoon-annual-energy-estimation.pdf?origin=publication_detail

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Athanasios_Angeloudis/publication/321777097_Optimising_tidal_range_power_plant_operation/links/5a3d26e2aca272d29442fce1/Optimising-tidal-range-power-plant-operation.pdf?origin=publication_detail

  11. It doesn't add up... permalink
    May 18, 2018 3:54 pm

    As I have pointed out before, there is potential for a “cash for ash” scandal over the tidal lagoon, with power bought at market prices being used to pump additional water over at high and low tide to maximise gross subsidised generation – way beyond what would be economic in a pure market context.

    Those interested may like to look at these estimates of Swansea Bay under different operating modes:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sean_Petley/publication/285549359_Swansea_Bay_tidal_lagoon_annual_energy_estimation/links/59f7777d458515547c24c7ca/Swansea-Bay-tidal-lagoon-annual-energy-estimation.pdf?origin=publication_detail

  12. May 19, 2018 12:33 am

    Tip : Paul the Skoll Foundation BBC woman is back with a new campaign
    (BTW May 16th She tweeted she’d won the award for the old campaign)

    This new campaign so far has 6 pages on the BBC website and 3 in Spanish
    those BBC pages are marker

    Taking the Temperature, which focuses on the battle against climate change and the people and ideas making a difference.
    This BBC series was produced with funding from the Skoll Foundation

    + They also just ran another BBC Campaign Crossing the divides

    Does anyone think it’s OK for BBC to carry this kind of paid for POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING ?

  13. May 20, 2018 10:42 am

    Yes seems, Primary purpose of BBC progs is SJW PR
    The BBC Appearance Inequality
    ‘ If you don’t help to contribute the SJW narrative you don’t get to appear on the BBC’
    ..So Special Victimhood group people get a free pass.
    White males too can get on unaccompanied if they toe the SJW line
    ..but non-libs are only brought on as a foil accompanied by a bunch of SJWs
    Name a time when Left or Remain showed up for a FAIR debate, (ie one where the panel wasn’t loaded in their favour first) ?

    And any old lefty/lib can present a BBC documentary,
    (Portillo is a possible non-lib, but he’s stillestablishment)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: