Advanced Oncotherapy Share Discussion Threads

[daijavu] 23/8/2016 14:34

Hmm. This is getting to look personal, iggie. Why is that? AVO is just one company among many. What is your special interest that makes it such a personal thing for you?

[vatnabrekk] 23/8/2016 14:16

It would be wrong for AVO to engage directly with the public and/or with those raising the complaints. There is a procedure for dealing with that, and the responsibility for handling it lies with the local authority.

[igbertsponk] 23/8/2016 12:26

So, who has objected ? Can we get it down to the near zero that daijavu extrapolates ?
Well, the owners (including 2 doctors) of the following are paying consultants to voice their objections:
2 Devonshire Mews West
7 Devonshire Mews West
9 Devonshire Mews West
10 Devonshire Mews West
12 Devonshire Mews West
15 Devonshire Mews West
30 Devonshire Mews West
32 Devonshire Mews West
33 Devonshire Mews West
37 Devonshire Mews West
129 Harley St
1A Devonshire Place

The rest of the objectors who are not identified in their objection comments on the website will no doubt include some of the TWELVE above.

Oh, and as for residents who haven't objected, they are of course welcome to write in and support the application. None have.

[daijavu] 23/8/2016 11:51

LIGHT does not use anything like the shielding that cyclotrons use.

It is clear that the actual volume of objections is nowhere near 25. How many other residents are there who have not objected?

i am not in the least dismissive of any objections. It is not my job to judge whether they are valid or not, although I question some of them. I am merely trying to answer some of your points. It is the job of Westminster Council to take the objections into account in coming to its decision.

You puzzle me. For someone who claims to be an objective outside observer, you seem to be quite anti AVO.

[igbertsponk] 23/8/2016 10:56

Then why the need for all that shielding ?
My point (as you know) is that AVO/HDW need to engage and placate the residents - no sign of this happening judging by the volume of objections.

[daijavu] 23/8/2016 10:44

If AVO and other research establishments are to be believed, the technology LIGHT uses is made possible because the beam is generated by a laser, hence the beam travels on a straight path from the source to the target with little or no external emanation of radiation in any direction outside the path of the beam. Hence the minimal need for shielding

Cyclotrons, that all other proton therapy systems use, are far more dangerous because radiation is scattered all around the source, hence the need for heavy shielding around the cyclotron. Even then, little shielding appears to be provided once the beam leaves the cyclotron and is travelling on its path to the patient.

Radioactive X rays with very wide spreads of radiation that are at least as dangerous as proton beams are routinely used by dentists based in terraced houses with families living in the adjoining houses throughout the UK. I have heard few complaints about that.

[vatnabrekk] 23/8/2016 10:28

Would I be right to assume that you don't hold any shares in AVO?

[igbertsponk] 23/8/2016 10:04

LOL! Very dismissive of the very valid objections of the local residents.
Who have banded together and got professional advice to help them defeat the application.
Tell me this daijavu - if you lived a few feet from where they were sticking a radioactive facility would you be happy ? Hardly nimbyism !

[daijavu] 23/8/2016 09:59

Some of the 25 objections are follow up comments by the same people so are being double counted. At least one is a general objection on behalf of some of those who had already submitted individual applications. Some of the objections listed are not objections at all but comments and advice by professional officers of the authority who have been consulted by the Planning Department as part of the process of considering the application. At least one of those is a 'holding objection' to allow time for AVO to produce a report about the level of vibration that might be produced by LIGHT.

Many of the objections from residents in the locality are based on incorrect assumptions about what LIGHT is and does. The claims of the objectors include that it is highly dangerous, untested, gives off substantial radiation, that there is little difference between LIGHT and first generation pt systems in terms of radiation risks, shielding requirements, the amount of construction work, the length of time it will take and the disruption they will suffer during and after the construction work. At least one of the objectors claims that the facility is unnecessary because there is a proton therapy facility being constructed at UCLH nearby.

Most, if not all, of the objections are covered and answered in the planning application.

I am not surprised that there are no comments in favour. In my personal experience it is often only those residents who object to a planning application who ever bother to comment.

How many residents will have actually been found to have objected once the duplicate and purely procedural objections have been removed from the list? How many of the objections are valid. How many are by people who will not be affected and how many are pure nimbyism?

I imagine that Westminster Council will look at all those facts as well as the information provided by H. de Walden. We will just have to trust that they know what they are doing.

[someuwin] 23/8/2016 08:55

From that official westminster.gov.uk planning site...

Comments Received: 25

Objections: 25

Supporting: 0

[pyglet] 23/8/2016 08:47

AltomDid she say when a result was expected?

[daijavu] 23/8/2016 08:10

There are objections that appear to be from residents of Devonshire Mews that backs onto Harley Street. The application and objections can be read on the City of Westminster Planning Department web page relating to the planning application. They voice various concerns including that the technology is new and untested, that there will be levels of radiation similar to first generation PRT systems and insufficient shielding.

As far as I can see, all of their concerns are covered in the planning application.

Follow this link to the planning application page:

[altom] 22/8/2016 23:26

Does anyone know for certain that there objections from neighbours to Harley St. proposal? Anna Dunphy of Walbrook says there are no objections.

[twirl] 22/8/2016 18:43

Thanks for update seans66>> I cannot access the article but we have already been advised that testing has been underway fro around 3 months and that they expect to have it tested by the end of Dec.
So not sure what the point of the article was and doubt experienced investors pay any attention to TW.
Much ado about nothing.

[seans66] 22/8/2016 15:01

Swarm

Apologies if I misquoted the article but I think that's what it said. It was only a small piece on page 2 of the business section and I posted from memory.
Though I dont have much time for TW, he probably is right that there is not really much new info in this piece as its similar to this story last year though does not mention the competitor.

hxxp://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Companies/article1617873.ece

[daijavu] 22/8/2016 11:52

Just another unresearched TW rant about AVO. Nothing to take any notice of.

[smarm] 21/8/2016 22:54

What are they testing this week?

[seans66] 21/8/2016 22:02

AVO is in the Sunday Times today. They will become the 1st company to use proton therapy in Britain when they begin testing this week.

[pyglet] 19/8/2016 20:31

Altom 29 July 16

[daijavu] 19/8/2016 18:07

In what way can HdW reach out to the residents? All the relevant information is available on the HdW, City of Westminster and AVO websites. Judging by the objections raised some do not want LIGHT in Harley Street at any price, anyway. Many of the objections, including the nature of LIGHT and some assessments of the length of time it will take to complete the modifications to Harley Street are based more on what is happening at UCLH than on what is planned for LIGHT.

This will not be the first time that HdW has had to deal with objections to its planning applications and possibly be not the first time they have had objections from some of the current objectors. They may have learned that the best way to deal with objections is through the official channels of the planning process. That allows both sides to make their points and lets the Planning Authority come to an informed decision based on the arguments of both sides. After all, that is what the Planning Authority are there for. To do anything else would probably be counter productive.

[altom] 19/8/2016 18:00

pyglet and other posters.
I am emailing Anna Dunphy asking for an RNS and suggest that do the same.

[altom] 19/8/2016 17:47

Pyglet. What was date of response to you ? Mine was today. Many years ago I was chairman of a very small AIM company. Our PR firm could not state anything without approval from one of three directors.
I have now asked estimate of first patient treatment and have very prompt reply. First patient treatment is on track for Q4 2017.

[pyglet] 19/8/2016 17:17

In my post 2208the worst word in that paragraph is 'hope'. They must have a feeling in their water on how it is going and maybe put out a clarification RNS. Now what harm would that do?

[igbertsponk] 19/8/2016 16:46

If I was a shareholder I'd be asking them quite vociferously why they (or HdeW)don't appear to be engaging with the local residents and putting them at ease over their concerns.
But I'm not.